And who will decide what the restrictions on political ad spending will be? The current president and legislature of the federal US government? You think that's a good idea?
It's great that you are thinking in terms of money. You also need to think in terms of power. If you give "the good guys" the power to do something, you're also giving "the bad guys" the power to do the exact same thing.
As far as time and frequency dissemination goes, GPS does a vastly better job, with better coverage in almost all cases.
GPS can do a better job but it costs more. You can't use off the shelf GPS receivers for lab-grade time standards, as there is too much variable latency in the decoding phase. The receivers used for time standards output the time along with latency statistics so it can be corrected.
You can get nearly the same accuracy, with manual compensation for atmospheric conditions, with under $100 in parts off of WWV. Probably much less than when I saw the schematic in Radio Electronics 20 years ago.
Besides that, using WWV as a simple time standard is trivial, which is why it's used in self-setting clocks and watches. While the signal quality is variable throughout the continental US, you can pick it up enough to decode with the lousiest of hardware. When I run a longwire antenna for my shortwave, it's the first station I check as, even if something got screwed up, if I'm getting *any* signal it will pull in WWV.
I'd have no problem with this if it were rolled out like the old model, where:
1. You buy a specific version of an application 2. You are guaranteed bugfixes and minor feature releases for a year or two 3. To get the next version with more features, you have to pay, but you can keep your "old" unsupported version if you want
There are very narrow conditions where the government can force someone, or a company, to print something on a label. It's called compelled speech, and courts take a dim view of it, even in the more tightly regulated commercial speech arena.
You can say that you need an ingredients list on the label for food allergies. You can say nutritional information is required for health reasons. What is the exact reason for putting GMO/non-GMO labeling on food? Is there a scientifically acknowledged health concern? No? Then it's not going to hold up in court. Sure, you can parade a bunch of scientists who don't like GMOs for one reason or another, but they can't point to research that says it's inherently dangerous or unhealthy, and that's going to get the law shot down in court (most likely.)
It might make sense to build a new forge right next to a port with a dry dock. Pull a boat or freighter in, start stripping the metal off and load it right into the forge for recycling into new steel. Sell the steel to defray the cost of scrapping the boat.
I'm not sure how much forges cost, but I'd imagine it's a lot less than a billion dollars.
That isn't at all what disenfranchisement means here. Each vote would count exactly the same. If you can't get enough other people to vote for your proposal, well, that's how voting works.
If we are talking about the political power of your elected officials, it's absolutely what it means. I think people keep shuffling around the definition of disenfranchisement which causes issues.
Yes, that was supposed to be the idea. There were two problems that weren't predicted, though: ludicrous gerrymandering and the importance of the modern executive branch.
Gerrymandering is a state issue, and should be fixed by the states. As for the executive holding too much power, you'll get no argument from me, but I don't think the solution is to mess with the underlying structure legislative branch, or how the executive is elected.
If we stick to the original theory, what federal legislation could a low-population state need?
Let's say New York imposes a federal tariff on all maple syrup being shipped out of Maine to the advantage of their own maple syrup producers. With direct, proportional representation, what would be Maine's recourse?
Let's move into modern times. Lets say Texas doesn't want any other state to be allowed to draw water from the Rio Grande. Or California wants to build a pipeline to pull water out of the Great Lakes. Are those fair proposals? With proportional representation, how would aggrieved states be able to block those proposals?
A vote in a high-population state counts less (i.e. is a smaller fraction of one senator or EC delegate) than a vote in a low-population state. It isn't total disenfranchisement, but it certainly reduces the voting power of certain people relative to other people.
Sure, in the senate. It's equalized out in the house. That's the whole point. Otherwise people in low population states would be completely disenfranchised. If California had 60 reps and Maine had one, do you think ANY legislation Maine needed would ever get passed?
Democracy is not absolute power. It is power to rule within the contraints of law, which are constrained by the constitution.
You are conflating a representative democracy with a constitutionally limited republic, which is the form of government the US has. The US elects some of it's representatives in government democratically, but that does not make it a democracy.
England has no formal written constitution. Technically it's Parliament can pass nearly any type of legislation it wants, but practically they are limited by various acts, court rulings, etc... However, they are still a representative democracy.
Our entire political system (most notably the Senate and the Electoral college) is built to lesson the effects of Democracy and disenfranchise the 'wrong' type of voter.
How, precisely, do the senate and electoral college disenfranchise people? They dilute the power of larger states, but how does that correlate to disenfranchisement?
The heat from the sun is almost entirely radiant. The only particles leaving the sun are helium atoms, which are really hot but they don't transfer a lot of heat. So, basically, you cover the probe in a whole bunch of very reflective foil and that's enough to keep the thing cool enough. If you look at the pictures, there's a big heat shield on one end (probably foil-covered ceramic) and the rest is covered in foil.
The PC running Windows is very obviously a "thing". It's not humanized in anyway, or, rather, you cannot see any agency in it. It has no motivation, no goal, it doesn't "want" anything. Our compassion responds to that, we respond to seeing that someone (or something, even) "wants" something (or, in case of something hurting it, does not want something).
That's true. What I'm questioning is if people are having an emotional response, as you state, or have they been conditioned, via warnings like the Windows Update, that when a machine says not to shut it down, you shouldn't, as it's doing something important. Sure, it's using emotional language to do so, but that's how this machine interacts with people. I could see people being confused when the machine protests at being shut off. Is it acting like it doesn't want to be shut off because it has a will, or are the programmers being clever and you *really* shouldn't shut the thing off because it's doing something important?
It could be compassion, or it could be, as a poster alludes to a few posts down, that a machine is saying not to shut it off, kinda like when Windows says it's installing updates and not to shut it off. Is it "begging for it's life" or is it doing something else important and it's telling you not to shut it off? It looks like a pricey piece of gear, it could be the testers were worried about damaging it by shutting it off when they weren't supposed to.
I had a tall friend who had problems getting one behind the driver's seat of his Accord. We had problems with a newer Chevy Malibu, though the older model was fine.
When the first round of CAFE standards took effect, car makers managed to increase efficiency by improving engine efficiency.
When the second round happened, they started shrinking cars down to reduce weight. This is why a mid-size sedan from the early 2000's is about the same size, or larger, than most full size luxury cars these days.
Now car companies are skimping on seat fill, or leaving out spare tires, or using glue to hold components together instead of heavier rivets, to shave every possible ounce of weight off of a car to get the MPG up.
There isn't much left to do. Electric cars are great for short haul, but sometimes people need to drive farther. Small cars are fine for a lot of people, but try jamming a rear-facing car seat in one and you'll find the front seat is nearly unusable.
Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook?
Yes. I've never had to submit my resume through Facebook. Always through email. I don't know anyone who has had to submit their resume through Facebook.
Or seen companies offer certain deal only via Facebook, or only accept logins by Facebook (or Twitter, yeah, great alternative)?
I've never seen Facebook only deals. I've seen email offers that are duplicated on Facebook, but never the other way around.
Every website I've seen that has had the option to log in using Facebook (or Twitter, or Google) has also had the option to create a local account, which is what I do.
Democracy is literally, Majority Rule, or the idea of power vested in the people to at least directly or indirectly through a system of representation.
There is no such thing as "indirect" democracy. There is representative democracy, which is what nearly every "democratic" country has, and there is regular democracy, where the plebiscite votes on everything directly.
Democracy is great, if you have around 100 people. Getting 300,000,000 people to rationally debate nuanced and complicated issues of law - I'll take our crappy representative democracy any day.
The Founding Fathers were very careful to limit the democratic impulses of Americans and make sure that the wealthy elite, who they believed know better than everyone else, could rule without being encumbered by democracy.
That's a popular revisionist concept. If it were true, we wouldn't have the bill of rights, the press would be run by the government, no right to bear arms (allow the peasants firearms?!?) certainly no right to trial by jury, and absolutely no fourth amendment protections.
The issue is, because the system doesn't work perfectly, people assume it must be skewed towards the rich. It does allow for rich people to become rich, however, it doesn't enable them to stay rich, which is why you don't see a lot of Vanderbilts, Astors or Carnegies as senators and governors these days.
From what I've read 5G is going to be dual band - one near the current frequencies to do long distance at slightly higher bandwidth, and the really high frequency stuff on minicells all over the place to do the high bandwidth stuff.
I've also heard that the idea is to get the 5G and WiFi standards to overlap, so you can hop from one to the other without interruption, and the commodification of the hardware would make it cheap enough to put minicells *everywhere*
Slashdot Mirror
And who will decide what the restrictions on political ad spending will be? The current president and legislature of the federal US government? You think that's a good idea?
It's great that you are thinking in terms of money. You also need to think in terms of power. If you give "the good guys" the power to do something, you're also giving "the bad guys" the power to do the exact same thing.
As far as time and frequency dissemination goes, GPS does a vastly better job, with better coverage in almost all cases.
GPS can do a better job but it costs more. You can't use off the shelf GPS receivers for lab-grade time standards, as there is too much variable latency in the decoding phase. The receivers used for time standards output the time along with latency statistics so it can be corrected.
You can get nearly the same accuracy, with manual compensation for atmospheric conditions, with under $100 in parts off of WWV. Probably much less than when I saw the schematic in Radio Electronics 20 years ago.
Besides that, using WWV as a simple time standard is trivial, which is why it's used in self-setting clocks and watches. While the signal quality is variable throughout the continental US, you can pick it up enough to decode with the lousiest of hardware. When I run a longwire antenna for my shortwave, it's the first station I check as, even if something got screwed up, if I'm getting *any* signal it will pull in WWV.
I'd have no problem with this if it were rolled out like the old model, where:
1. You buy a specific version of an application
2. You are guaranteed bugfixes and minor feature releases for a year or two
3. To get the next version with more features, you have to pay, but you can keep your "old" unsupported version if you want
Of course it probably won't be like this.
There are very narrow conditions where the government can force someone, or a company, to print something on a label. It's called compelled speech, and courts take a dim view of it, even in the more tightly regulated commercial speech arena.
You can say that you need an ingredients list on the label for food allergies. You can say nutritional information is required for health reasons. What is the exact reason for putting GMO/non-GMO labeling on food? Is there a scientifically acknowledged health concern? No? Then it's not going to hold up in court. Sure, you can parade a bunch of scientists who don't like GMOs for one reason or another, but they can't point to research that says it's inherently dangerous or unhealthy, and that's going to get the law shot down in court (most likely.)
Bitcoin prices increase = it's a bubble
Bitcoin prices decrease = it's collapsing
Bitcoin prices are stable = it's a dead market
It might make sense to build a new forge right next to a port with a dry dock. Pull a boat or freighter in, start stripping the metal off and load it right into the forge for recycling into new steel. Sell the steel to defray the cost of scrapping the boat.
I'm not sure how much forges cost, but I'd imagine it's a lot less than a billion dollars.
Why does it surprise you given their Apple ties?
https://opensource.apple.com/
Here's a bunch of source code they release, including in-house stuff they release as open source.
That isn't at all what disenfranchisement means here. Each vote would count exactly the same. If you can't get enough other people to vote for your proposal, well, that's how voting works.
If we are talking about the political power of your elected officials, it's absolutely what it means. I think people keep shuffling around the definition of disenfranchisement which causes issues.
Yes, that was supposed to be the idea. There were two problems that weren't predicted, though: ludicrous gerrymandering and the importance of the modern executive branch.
Gerrymandering is a state issue, and should be fixed by the states. As for the executive holding too much power, you'll get no argument from me, but I don't think the solution is to mess with the underlying structure legislative branch, or how the executive is elected.
If we stick to the original theory, what federal legislation could a low-population state need?
Let's say New York imposes a federal tariff on all maple syrup being shipped out of Maine to the advantage of their own maple syrup producers. With direct, proportional representation, what would be Maine's recourse?
Let's move into modern times. Lets say Texas doesn't want any other state to be allowed to draw water from the Rio Grande. Or California wants to build a pipeline to pull water out of the Great Lakes. Are those fair proposals? With proportional representation, how would aggrieved states be able to block those proposals?
A vote in a high-population state counts less (i.e. is a smaller fraction of one senator or EC delegate) than a vote in a low-population state. It isn't total disenfranchisement, but it certainly reduces the voting power of certain people relative to other people.
Sure, in the senate. It's equalized out in the house. That's the whole point. Otherwise people in low population states would be completely disenfranchised. If California had 60 reps and Maine had one, do you think ANY legislation Maine needed would ever get passed?
Democracy is not absolute power. It is power to rule within the contraints of law, which are constrained by the constitution.
You are conflating a representative democracy with a constitutionally limited republic, which is the form of government the US has. The US elects some of it's representatives in government democratically, but that does not make it a democracy.
England has no formal written constitution. Technically it's Parliament can pass nearly any type of legislation it wants, but practically they are limited by various acts, court rulings, etc... However, they are still a representative democracy.
Our entire political system (most notably the Senate and the Electoral college) is built to lesson the effects of Democracy and disenfranchise the 'wrong' type of voter.
How, precisely, do the senate and electoral college disenfranchise people? They dilute the power of larger states, but how does that correlate to disenfranchisement?
The heat from the sun is almost entirely radiant. The only particles leaving the sun are helium atoms, which are really hot but they don't transfer a lot of heat. So, basically, you cover the probe in a whole bunch of very reflective foil and that's enough to keep the thing cool enough. If you look at the pictures, there's a big heat shield on one end (probably foil-covered ceramic) and the rest is covered in foil.
I notice "Reliable" is not in there. Please add that one in, too, Microsoft.
The PC running Windows is very obviously a "thing". It's not humanized in anyway, or, rather, you cannot see any agency in it. It has no motivation, no goal, it doesn't "want" anything. Our compassion responds to that, we respond to seeing that someone (or something, even) "wants" something (or, in case of something hurting it, does not want something).
That's true. What I'm questioning is if people are having an emotional response, as you state, or have they been conditioned, via warnings like the Windows Update, that when a machine says not to shut it down, you shouldn't, as it's doing something important. Sure, it's using emotional language to do so, but that's how this machine interacts with people. I could see people being confused when the machine protests at being shut off. Is it acting like it doesn't want to be shut off because it has a will, or are the programmers being clever and you *really* shouldn't shut the thing off because it's doing something important?
No. It's simple compassion.
It could be compassion, or it could be, as a poster alludes to a few posts down, that a machine is saying not to shut it off, kinda like when Windows says it's installing updates and not to shut it off. Is it "begging for it's life" or is it doing something else important and it's telling you not to shut it off? It looks like a pricey piece of gear, it could be the testers were worried about damaging it by shutting it off when they weren't supposed to.
In any case, the results aren't exactly clear.
No more loopholes to avoid paying. If the revenue was from money gained from sales in the US, then they need to pay US tax accordingly.
Agreed, they should pay US sales tax. If a company has no physical presence in the US, why should they pay US corporate tax on top of that?
Volkswagen Jetta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I had a tall friend who had problems getting one behind the driver's seat of his Accord. We had problems with a newer Chevy Malibu, though the older model was fine.
When the first round of CAFE standards took effect, car makers managed to increase efficiency by improving engine efficiency.
When the second round happened, they started shrinking cars down to reduce weight. This is why a mid-size sedan from the early 2000's is about the same size, or larger, than most full size luxury cars these days.
Now car companies are skimping on seat fill, or leaving out spare tires, or using glue to hold components together instead of heavier rivets, to shave every possible ounce of weight off of a car to get the MPG up.
There isn't much left to do. Electric cars are great for short haul, but sometimes people need to drive farther. Small cars are fine for a lot of people, but try jamming a rear-facing car seat in one and you'll find the front seat is nearly unusable.
Never had a job offer where you're supposed to send your resume through Facebook?
Yes. I've never had to submit my resume through Facebook. Always through email. I don't know anyone who has had to submit their resume through Facebook.
Or seen companies offer certain deal only via Facebook, or only accept logins by Facebook (or Twitter, yeah, great alternative)?
I've never seen Facebook only deals. I've seen email offers that are duplicated on Facebook, but never the other way around.
Every website I've seen that has had the option to log in using Facebook (or Twitter, or Google) has also had the option to create a local account, which is what I do.
Is anyone forcing you to use Facebook? Is using Facebook required to accomplish any task or job? Are there not alternatives to Facebook?
No?
Then WHO CARES.
The way the people are represented in government is via representation, hence representative democracy, which is what the US has.
The specific form of government the US has is a constitutionally limited republic. You could add federalist in there if you like.
Democracy is literally, Majority Rule, or the idea of power vested in the people to at least directly or indirectly through a system of representation.
There is no such thing as "indirect" democracy. There is representative democracy, which is what nearly every "democratic" country has, and there is regular democracy, where the plebiscite votes on everything directly.
Democracy is great, if you have around 100 people. Getting 300,000,000 people to rationally debate nuanced and complicated issues of law - I'll take our crappy representative democracy any day.
The Founding Fathers were very careful to limit the democratic impulses of Americans and make sure that the wealthy elite, who they believed know better than everyone else, could rule without being encumbered by democracy.
That's a popular revisionist concept. If it were true, we wouldn't have the bill of rights, the press would be run by the government, no right to bear arms (allow the peasants firearms?!?) certainly no right to trial by jury, and absolutely no fourth amendment protections.
The issue is, because the system doesn't work perfectly, people assume it must be skewed towards the rich. It does allow for rich people to become rich, however, it doesn't enable them to stay rich, which is why you don't see a lot of Vanderbilts, Astors or Carnegies as senators and governors these days.
From what I've read 5G is going to be dual band - one near the current frequencies to do long distance at slightly higher bandwidth, and the really high frequency stuff on minicells all over the place to do the high bandwidth stuff.
I've also heard that the idea is to get the 5G and WiFi standards to overlap, so you can hop from one to the other without interruption, and the commodification of the hardware would make it cheap enough to put minicells *everywhere*
It's why they don't use gcc anymore.
No, now they use LLVM/CLANG, which they also don't develop, though they contribute quite a bit to it's development.