The features and interface will all be different in 6 months anyways for 90% of software. Anything that survives was simple enough to figure out already anyways.
Several points, mostly directed at developers:
1) With online documentation, the manual can (and should!) be kept 100% up to date with the software. Further, if the documentation for a feature is generated at the same time the feature is added, and modified as things that affect that feature are added, this isn't all that difficult a task. There's no excuse for poor documentation.
2) Software that changes in such a way that it doesn't do what it did before the same way, or even at all, rendering previous learning by the customer useless, is bad — extremely bad — design.
3) Software that has few features most often tends to address the needs of only a few. This person needs this, but the next person needs that. This serves both as justification for having many features, and for adding more as people make their needs known to the developer. The trick of making sure this works is twofold: try to make sure that one feature does not get in the way of another, so that only the features needed by the customer must be learned, and make sure that all features are easily discoverable both in the software and in the documentation.
4) With good software and good documentation, tech support is a matter of reading the inquiry, and either directing the questioner to the appropriate portion of the documentation, or adding what is needed to the documentation and then directing the questioner to the appropriate portion of the documentation. User questions are a gold mine for documentation improvement and validation. This process also means you can do technical support fast, and you only have to answer specific questions once if you do it well the first time. This is critical both with regard to keeping both the documentation and also the technical support itself from eating resources more than they absolutely have to.
5) If you want your users to RTFM, then you'd better make very sure you have an efficient, clean mechanism to WTFM that you're comfortable with. I guarantee you if you try it in raw HTML/CSS, you'll be bogged down in the details rather than producing good docs. I couldn't find a solution adequate to my needs, so I wrote one, which I make freely available for any other person who needs to write lots and lots of detailed online docs. It's very powerful, and turns writing docs into a smooth, easy process — after an investment of time learning it. And of course, it's well documented. Ever since I created it, my documentation writing process has become much faster and smoother, and my technical support load has decreased significantly. Developers need tools like this; without something like it, you either aren't going to have good docs, or you're going to have to invest a lot more time and money than you otherwise would have to. Or your docs will suck. That actually seems to be the most common end result. It's no wonder that RTFM isn't the first thing users tend to do.
6) Users appreciate reliable, powerful software that doesn't make them re-learn features, user interface configurations, underlying concepts, and make them wait long periods — or forever — for bug fixes, yet benefits from regular updates. It is not "many features" that aggravate most users. It is over-complex interdependence of features and the need to re-trench because someone decided to change how critical portions of the software actually work, where the feature is found, and so forth. Users invest significant time learning how to do what they want to do. Screwing with that investment is a very bad idea. You can sort of get away with it if what you're making is the only choice they have, but IMHO, it's a very, very bad idea to piss off your users, to make them do what amounts to the same work over (and over
ZDNet notes that while Chrome's billion-plus users were surprised, "Apple's Safari likewise hides the www and m but it hasn't caused as much concern, likely because of Google's outsized influence over the web and Chrome's dominance of the browser market."
All of my cellphone calls are unsolicited and unwanted.
Because anyone who actually knows me knows I don't answer phone calls. My default ringtone is silence. I have actual make-a-noise ringtones for a couple of family members in case of emergency, but (thankfully) no one's tried to call me for an emergency in the last ten years or so. And the fam+friends know better than to make that thing ring for anything else; I'll just bite their head off.:)
AFAIC, The phone system's been outright ruined by spammers. And so far, unlike email, there's no phone call spam filter worth the name.
Text me or email me, otherwise, you go your way, I'll go mine.
You should be just as angry and outraged that the word Slave is in the dictionary. It's just as relevant.
You're very confused. I'm not in the least offended or angry by use of master / slave in the engineering context, or by these words remaining in our vocabulary in general. Quite the opposite.
I am offended by our filthy excuse of a legal system, though.
What you don't get is that burying the terminology contributes to burying the problem. If we didn't have the problem, it would be no big deal to take it or leave it, honestly; I have zero sensitivity to events 150 years ago. But we do still have the problem. So these issues need to be kept on the table. It's good that the PC butterflies are making a stink about this. Let them scream; the noise is useful. But don't capitulate. Slavery isn't dead. It should be, but it isn't.
Considering we still do slavery, seems premature to me:
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
...many of whom are there for "crimes" of a personal or consensual nature, and many of whom are used as barely- or un-paid labor, while at the same time being sucked dry financially for simple things like phone calls.
...yeah, I think "master" and "slave" can definitely remain around in their original context for quite some time.
Your $250,000 figure and $14,750 was based on a middle-class income. For lower income, the figure comes closer to $9,700 per year.
I don't see that you've made a salient point against my position. You're just saying it's okay to push one out and then deprive the kid of an average upbringing. I'm saying it's not. That's certainly a position you can take, but in and of itself it does nothing to discredit mine. That would take arguments on the specifics.
Somehow transportation for a 2 year old is a full $200 more per year than no child.
I take it you've never had a kid or you would know that it's entirely normal to drive them, and you drive yourself, all kinds of places you would otherwise not need to go at pretty much all ages, though the specifics of where vary with age. The doctor. The dentist. Shopping, over and over, because the little buggers constantly outgrow their clothes (when they aren't destroying them.) (pre-)(nursery-)(high-)(sometimes trade/college-)School. Sports. Plays. etc. All the variations of this cost fuel and puts wear on the vehicle. As does the kid itself. Presuming the cost is only $200/yr, even year 2, is incredibly lowball unless you're raising your kid in a shed out back. And there's the I don't have a vehicle case (city living) where the cost moves to taxis, busses, subways, etc. The kid still needs specific material support, and it's not going to all happen at home if we're talking about raising a reasonably normal child.
You're going to have to accept that the continuance of humanity actually requires reproduction
Oh, I certainly accept that. I just don't think there's much merit in the continuance of humanity simply for the sake of doing so. I recognize that's not the popular stance, but it's definitely my stance.
you're talking about some sort of elitist eugenics.
No, WRT gene manipulation, I'm saying that letting kids be born stupid if you can prevent it, and/or WRT education then providing them with an insufficient one, is mistreating them horribly. Do you disagree?
I bow to your well thought out, detailed comeback.
I bet you are the same person that would spout "freedom of speech, right to bare arms", but when it comes to freedoms you DONT mind losing, you toss em all to the wind.
Nope.:) Although I think the bare arms of the opposite sex are generally very cute.
Your freedoms don't trump my freedoms. And vice versa.
I expect you to be lining up to adopt some of those newly orphaned children then.
No, but I don't object to paying the taxes that would be required to raise them away from the irresponsible parent. It could probably be better for them, and therefore for society. Not that we wouldn't have to step up the level of support we provide to such kids, we definitely would.
I just love people who make claims about taking away all "the poors" kids, but then don't even think how the gov is supposed to pay to care for them.
Good thing I'm not one of those, then, eh? Having fun with your straw man? Tip: use fresher straw. It smells better.
her ex has never paid the measly 200 dollars of support he was ordered to.
For the failing-to-pay ex, I'd be perfectly happy with a jail-and-work program, where the proceeds go to an account dedicated to the kids. You make 'em, you have a responsibility, and I don't think you should be allowed to squirm out of it under any circumstances. We can definitely get the value of your food, absolutely minimal housing and about $8k/year per kid out of a poorhouse type setup. Nor will you be making any more kids until the current crop hits 17 or thereabouts, so there's another problem solved. There's a lot of work that needs to be done, particularly WRT the country's infrastructure. You don't pay to support your spawn, fine, here's your shovel and your cot. You'll be up at 5am and digging at 6; better get right to bed.
We have genetic testing now; the last excuse has fallen.
In your scheme they would have been left under the governments purview.
You didn't say she had them without enough financial backing at the time; if so, yes, I'd be in favor of them being taken away. If not, then like everyone else, they get to suffer, but again, if it's the former, it's not the employer's responsibility to make up the slack created by irresponsible choices on the part of the employee. If it's the latter, then it's still not the employer's responsibility to make up for her shortfall. As an employer, they hired the person and there was an agreement about work and benefits. That (probably) didn't include them saying the employee could spawn and the employer would pay for it as your costs increased.
The kids now have a good solid middle class life, with two loving parents
Glad to hear it. Having a loving parent or parents who can afford to raise you is the minimum that should happen at the very least. Kudos to you both. Presuming it was birth-without-adequate-means-of support, it'd be perfectly fine with me - more than fine - if she could go get them back if she could then demonstrate an ability to support them. The point was, and remains, that if you can't actually support kids, you shouldn't have them. That's not at all the same as you could support them, but later disaster struck, and now you can't support them. That's probably not a failure of responsibility. Hopefully.
In your scheme they would have been left under the governments purview.
Only if they were birthed without enough financial backing at the time. Also, I particularly like the suggestion above to escrow the 1/4 million it takes to raise a kid before having one. That would cure the problem of the ex leaving and support dropping out from under perfectly.
Oh and do you really want to INCREASE the governments ability to meddle in family life?
Until we can both raise the public's IQ through gene therapy and improve their ability to reason through better schooling and etc., yes, I do.
I thought you fascists... errr righties wanted the government to butt the heck out.
Ad hom aside, no, I'm definitely a fan of government. There's no evidence at all that the masses can get along without it.
Say someone can afford to raise a child until she loses her job and becomes un- or underemployed. Though she used to be able to afford to raise a child, she no longer can.
Okay, but does that mean that someone else now has the responsibility to pay for her child? I don't think so. It was her choice, and hers alone; it's her responsibility.
Should the child still be forced into the underfunded, often abusive foster care system?
No. Now the kid, and the parent, will suffer the economic consequences. The other - having kids when you already can't afford them - is something that one should obviously not do. I don't expect anyone to be able to predict the future very well, other than what's immediately obvious (like the cost of raising a child.)
Should prospective parents instead be required to deposit a quarter of a million dollars cash up front before procreating?
That's a truly excellent idea. Kudos.
That would take a toll on health outcomes, as waiting until 40 to have a child diminishes the gene pool quality.
OTOH, people who do well having children early might improve the gene pool. Might be a wash, or even an improvement. Also, by the time you're 40, you might have figured out that the whole I-must-spawn thing is evolution pushing you to do something that isn't really to your benefit, and so you might not dirty up the shallow end of the pool at all.:)
He might make a better decision maker, but he is unelectable to higher office.
First, Sanders almost beat Clinton in the primaries, despite the fact that the Democratic party went out of its way to pooh-pooh his candidacy.
Second, Clinton won the popular vote.
And a lot of people voted for Trump because Clinton's I-am-the-establishment-yet-again across so much of her platform and personal behavior was just too much for them, even though that required intentional overlooking of Trumps many, many severe flaws... or batshit levels of ignorance.
So I think you're probably wrong about Sander's electability. He's right in there; and your vote for someone else would be cancelled out by my vote for him, so there's that. And I'm at least somewhat right-leaning, though completely disgusted with the current crop of so-called conservatives.
you were part of thr[sic] crowd that said trump was absolutely unelectable, weren't you?
In fact, I was. However, I didn't count on the Russians so successfully manipulating the public, or the EC going against a distinct majority of voters, or Comey coming out with his bullshit right before the election. Inasmuch as Clinton actually won the majority of the voters over anyway, I'm not too displeased with my original assumption; just with the other factors. Trump wasn't so much "elected" as he was inflicted upon the country.
After two years with Trump as president, observing his actual performance in office, I rather expect his term, or that of whatever Republican replaces him if Trump's term is cut short, to end rather abruptly and with a distinct pendulum swing next election. Congress is a different story. Local interests, or at least the perception of them, seem to always take priority over national interests, and that affects how people perceive their congress-critters. That's kept us from having a competent, functional congress for many years now.
I confess it's been absolutely bewildering to me to watch people complain about how the laws favor the rich at the same time they keep electing and re-electing the rich to legislative positions. People are clearly less bright than I would like to imagine.
don't underestimate your detachment from reality.
Yes, perhaps that's a flaw of mine in this regard. But I can still hope.:)
Look at both Amazon and Wal-Mart employees. You'll see single mothers with one, maybe two children who need benefits to survive.
While I am all for a living wage for a worker, that's a fair bit away for a living wage for a worker with children; raising a child today to age 17 costs approximately a quarter of a million dollars, or $14,750 a year on top of the employee's living wage. That's without college, and assuming no particular surprises in the offspawn's medical costs, mother's birthing, etc.
This means that a single person who could do okay on $20,000 now requires $34,000 to just hold on at the same level when they become single-person-with-single-spawn. Is it the employer's responsibility to see that this occurs? I can't see it. And then there are those who spawn more than once under these circumstances. Ugh.
IMHO, people who have children they can't afford are fools and ideally would have the children taken from them and pay a hefty fine and enjoy a significant raise in taxes, rather than being awarded a subsidy by either their employer or the state for failing to manage their own reproductive systems.
If you want kids, wait until you can afford them. It's better for society, it's better for the kids, and if you had a clear head, you'd realize it's better for you too. Raising offspawn well is expensive.
This is a ploy to extract donations from his base for his next reelection run. And that's all it is.
I hope it works. AFAIC, Bernie Sanders would make (and would have made) a much better president than either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. Ideally, both houses of congress would change hands as well, so he could actually get some things done. It's well past time for a pendulum swing, IMHO.
My cynical side says that people, despite recognizing that congress as a whole is dysfunctional, will still vote the same congress-critters right back in, just as they have been doing pretty much most of the time. Round and round we go.
Commercial plants have historically been much larger. One thing about this... the obvious corollary of using the ocean water for cooling means you're pumping heat into the ocean.
Ideally, as much heat as possible would be turned into electrical energy and very little would end up back in the water. It's not like we need to intentionally add heat directly to the ocean. It's bad enough that electricity end users and various other inefficiencies turn the electricity back into heat anyway.
We should really be doing better, but, costs, sigh.
The only issue is lack of competitive alternatives.
I got tired of Adobe's subscription dunning, the non-intuitive operation, the privacy invasion... so I went ahead and wrote my own image editor. As I need new functionality, I add it.
So now I have something that is 100% intuitive for me (and for others... consistent interfaces tend to make that happen), does everything I want, won't suddenly drop support for my OS, doesn't "expire", doesn't use my personal information to shove ads at me or "share" with dubious entities, and gets bugfixes the day the bugs are discovered when the bugs are actually in my code and not the underlying OS (and even then, I tend to cook up workarounds ASAP.)
Tesla wants its vehicles to signal automatically without the driver needing to go through the agony that is lifting their finger and moving it up or down by several inches.
Here's the thing. A very large number of drivers out there are too... something... to signal when they're going to be making a turn. Lazy, stupid, incompetent, rude, selfish, clueless... pick your adjective. Or all of them. So this is a very good thing, in that the rest of us will get more warning that memaw or peepaw is about to disrupt the traffic flow.
I don't think "packed" and "240" imply anywhere near the same kind of things here.
Let's say it's 1/4 rap, 1/4 country, 1/4 rock, 1/4 classical. I'm not going to subject myself to either rap or country, so already we're at 120 songs. Of those, some will inevitably suck, and we're down to even fewer. Of those, there will be ones that are played out, and I won't want to listen to them, so even fewer. 240 is a drop in the bucket if I'm actually going to spend any serious time in the game.
I have almost thirty thousand songs/tunes in my own music library across multiple genres. I don't think 240 songs, a large number of which will very likely not to be my taste or otherwise worth listening to, can be reasonably described as "packed" unless we're talking about data compression. One of first things I do with most games is turn the music off before its repetitious nature drives me buggy.
Slashdot Mirror
Several points, mostly directed at developers:
1) With online documentation, the manual can (and should!) be kept 100% up to date with the software. Further, if the documentation for a feature is generated at the same time the feature is added, and modified as things that affect that feature are added, this isn't all that difficult a task. There's no excuse for poor documentation.
2) Software that changes in such a way that it doesn't do what it did before the same way, or even at all, rendering previous learning by the customer useless, is bad — extremely bad — design.
3) Software that has few features most often tends to address the needs of only a few. This person needs this, but the next person needs that. This serves both as justification for having many features, and for adding more as people make their needs known to the developer. The trick of making sure this works is twofold: try to make sure that one feature does not get in the way of another, so that only the features needed by the customer must be learned, and make sure that all features are easily discoverable both in the software and in the documentation.
4) With good software and good documentation, tech support is a matter of reading the inquiry, and either directing the questioner to the appropriate portion of the documentation, or adding what is needed to the documentation and then directing the questioner to the appropriate portion of the documentation. User questions are a gold mine for documentation improvement and validation. This process also means you can do technical support fast, and you only have to answer specific questions once if you do it well the first time. This is critical both with regard to keeping both the documentation and also the technical support itself from eating resources more than they absolutely have to.
5) If you want your users to RTFM, then you'd better make very sure you have an efficient, clean mechanism to WTFM that you're comfortable with. I guarantee you if you try it in raw HTML/CSS, you'll be bogged down in the details rather than producing good docs. I couldn't find a solution adequate to my needs, so I wrote one, which I make freely available for any other person who needs to write lots and lots of detailed online docs. It's very powerful, and turns writing docs into a smooth, easy process — after an investment of time learning it. And of course, it's well documented. Ever since I created it, my documentation writing process has become much faster and smoother, and my technical support load has decreased significantly. Developers need tools like this; without something like it, you either aren't going to have good docs, or you're going to have to invest a lot more time and money than you otherwise would have to. Or your docs will suck. That actually seems to be the most common end result. It's no wonder that RTFM isn't the first thing users tend to do.
6) Users appreciate reliable, powerful software that doesn't make them re-learn features, user interface configurations, underlying concepts, and make them wait long periods — or forever — for bug fixes, yet benefits from regular updates. It is not "many features" that aggravate most users. It is over-complex interdependence of features and the need to re-trench because someone decided to change how critical portions of the software actually work, where the feature is found, and so forth. Users invest significant time learning how to do what they want to do. Screwing with that investment is a very bad idea. You can sort of get away with it if what you're making is the only choice they have, but IMHO, it's a very, very bad idea to piss off your users, to make them do what amounts to the same work over (and over
Actually it is pretty annoying. Safari has an option in the application preferences advanced tab to turn this malfeature off.
However, although it shows the URL from the domain name forward, including the www. portion if present, it does not show the http:// portion.
Within my remarks is a potential 0-spam, 0-coldcall, 0-dunning, 0-buttdialer, 0-random-idiot solution for those adept enough to grasp it.
It's quite possible that group may not include you.
I'm okay with that. In fact, your "who cares" is exactly how I feel you. Isn't that curious?
Cheers. :)
All of my cellphone calls are unsolicited and unwanted.
Because anyone who actually knows me knows I don't answer phone calls. My default ringtone is silence. I have actual make-a-noise ringtones for a couple of family members in case of emergency, but (thankfully) no one's tried to call me for an emergency in the last ten years or so. And the fam+friends know better than to make that thing ring for anything else; I'll just bite their head off. :)
AFAIC, The phone system's been outright ruined by spammers. And so far, unlike email, there's no phone call spam filter worth the name.
Text me or email me, otherwise, you go your way, I'll go mine.
You're very confused. I'm not in the least offended or angry by use of master / slave in the engineering context, or by these words remaining in our vocabulary in general. Quite the opposite.
I am offended by our filthy excuse of a legal system, though.
What you don't get is that burying the terminology contributes to burying the problem. If we didn't have the problem, it would be no big deal to take it or leave it, honestly; I have zero sensitivity to events 150 years ago. But we do still have the problem. So these issues need to be kept on the table. It's good that the PC butterflies are making a stink about this. Let them scream; the noise is useful. But don't capitulate. Slavery isn't dead. It should be, but it isn't.
Considering we still do slavery, seems premature to me:
Sorry mjwx, I'm far too engaged watching the madness come out of the US congress, executive, and SCOTUS. You're on your own for this one.
This
Very poorly. The man's an idiot.
I don't see that you've made a salient point against my position. You're just saying it's okay to push one out and then deprive the kid of an average upbringing. I'm saying it's not. That's certainly a position you can take, but in and of itself it does nothing to discredit mine. That would take arguments on the specifics.
I take it you've never had a kid or you would know that it's entirely normal to drive them, and you drive yourself, all kinds of places you would otherwise not need to go at pretty much all ages, though the specifics of where vary with age. The doctor. The dentist. Shopping, over and over, because the little buggers constantly outgrow their clothes (when they aren't destroying them.) (pre-)(nursery-)(high-)(sometimes trade/college-)School. Sports. Plays. etc. All the variations of this cost fuel and puts wear on the vehicle. As does the kid itself. Presuming the cost is only $200/yr, even year 2, is incredibly lowball unless you're raising your kid in a shed out back. And there's the I don't have a vehicle case (city living) where the cost moves to taxis, busses, subways, etc. The kid still needs specific material support, and it's not going to all happen at home if we're talking about raising a reasonably normal child.
Oh, I certainly accept that. I just don't think there's much merit in the continuance of humanity simply for the sake of doing so. I recognize that's not the popular stance, but it's definitely my stance.
No, WRT gene manipulation, I'm saying that letting kids be born stupid if you can prevent it, and/or WRT education then providing them with an insufficient one, is mistreating them horribly. Do you disagree?
I bow to your well thought out, detailed comeback.
Nope. :) Although I think the bare arms of the opposite sex are generally very cute.
Never said they did. Enjoying that straw man?
No, but I don't object to paying the taxes that would be required to raise them away from the irresponsible parent. It could probably be better for them, and therefore for society. Not that we wouldn't have to step up the level of support we provide to such kids, we definitely would.
Good thing I'm not one of those, then, eh? Having fun with your straw man? Tip: use fresher straw. It smells better.
For the failing-to-pay ex, I'd be perfectly happy with a jail-and-work program, where the proceeds go to an account dedicated to the kids. You make 'em, you have a responsibility, and I don't think you should be allowed to squirm out of it under any circumstances. We can definitely get the value of your food, absolutely minimal housing and about $8k/year per kid out of a poorhouse type setup. Nor will you be making any more kids until the current crop hits 17 or thereabouts, so there's another problem solved. There's a lot of work that needs to be done, particularly WRT the country's infrastructure. You don't pay to support your spawn, fine, here's your shovel and your cot. You'll be up at 5am and digging at 6; better get right to bed.
We have genetic testing now; the last excuse has fallen.
You didn't say she had them without enough financial backing at the time; if so, yes, I'd be in favor of them being taken away. If not, then like everyone else, they get to suffer, but again, if it's the former, it's not the employer's responsibility to make up the slack created by irresponsible choices on the part of the employee. If it's the latter, then it's still not the employer's responsibility to make up for her shortfall. As an employer, they hired the person and there was an agreement about work and benefits. That (probably) didn't include them saying the employee could spawn and the employer would pay for it as your costs increased.
Glad to hear it. Having a loving parent or parents who can afford to raise you is the minimum that should happen at the very least. Kudos to you both. Presuming it was birth-without-adequate-means-of support, it'd be perfectly fine with me - more than fine - if she could go get them back if she could then demonstrate an ability to support them. The point was, and remains, that if you can't actually support kids, you shouldn't have them. That's not at all the same as you could support them, but later disaster struck, and now you can't support them. That's probably not a failure of responsibility. Hopefully.
Only if they were birthed without enough financial backing at the time. Also, I particularly like the suggestion above to escrow the 1/4 million it takes to raise a kid before having one. That would cure the problem of the ex leaving and support dropping out from under perfectly.
Until we can both raise the public's IQ through gene therapy and improve their ability to reason through better schooling and etc., yes, I do.
Ad hom aside, no, I'm definitely a fan of government. There's no evidence at all that the masses can get along without it.
Okay, but does that mean that someone else now has the responsibility to pay for her child? I don't think so. It was her choice, and hers alone; it's her responsibility.
No. Now the kid, and the parent, will suffer the economic consequences. The other - having kids when you already can't afford them - is something that one should obviously not do. I don't expect anyone to be able to predict the future very well, other than what's immediately obvious (like the cost of raising a child.)
That's a truly excellent idea. Kudos.
OTOH, people who do well having children early might improve the gene pool. Might be a wash, or even an improvement. Also, by the time you're 40, you might have figured out that the whole I-must-spawn thing is evolution pushing you to do something that isn't really to your benefit, and so you might not dirty up the shallow end of the pool at all. :)
First, Sanders almost beat Clinton in the primaries, despite the fact that the Democratic party went out of its way to pooh-pooh his candidacy.
Second, Clinton won the popular vote.
And a lot of people voted for Trump because Clinton's I-am-the-establishment-yet-again across so much of her platform and personal behavior was just too much for them, even though that required intentional overlooking of Trumps many, many severe flaws... or batshit levels of ignorance.
So I think you're probably wrong about Sander's electability. He's right in there; and your vote for someone else would be cancelled out by my vote for him, so there's that. And I'm at least somewhat right-leaning, though completely disgusted with the current crop of so-called conservatives.
Then the country will continue to devolve under incompetent, toxic leadership. It's not like we aren't used to it.
In fact, I was. However, I didn't count on the Russians so successfully manipulating the public, or the EC going against a distinct majority of voters, or Comey coming out with his bullshit right before the election. Inasmuch as Clinton actually won the majority of the voters over anyway, I'm not too displeased with my original assumption; just with the other factors. Trump wasn't so much "elected" as he was inflicted upon the country.
After two years with Trump as president, observing his actual performance in office, I rather expect his term, or that of whatever Republican replaces him if Trump's term is cut short, to end rather abruptly and with a distinct pendulum swing next election. Congress is a different story. Local interests, or at least the perception of them, seem to always take priority over national interests, and that affects how people perceive their congress-critters. That's kept us from having a competent, functional congress for many years now.
I confess it's been absolutely bewildering to me to watch people complain about how the laws favor the rich at the same time they keep electing and re-electing the rich to legislative positions. People are clearly less bright than I would like to imagine.
Yes, perhaps that's a flaw of mine in this regard. But I can still hope. :)
While I am all for a living wage for a worker, that's a fair bit away for a living wage for a worker with children; raising a child today to age 17 costs approximately a quarter of a million dollars, or $14,750 a year on top of the employee's living wage. That's without college, and assuming no particular surprises in the offspawn's medical costs, mother's birthing, etc.
This means that a single person who could do okay on $20,000 now requires $34,000 to just hold on at the same level when they become single-person-with-single-spawn. Is it the employer's responsibility to see that this occurs? I can't see it. And then there are those who spawn more than once under these circumstances. Ugh.
IMHO, people who have children they can't afford are fools and ideally would have the children taken from them and pay a hefty fine and enjoy a significant raise in taxes, rather than being awarded a subsidy by either their employer or the state for failing to manage their own reproductive systems.
If you want kids, wait until you can afford them. It's better for society, it's better for the kids, and if you had a clear head, you'd realize it's better for you too. Raising offspawn well is expensive.
I hope it works. AFAIC, Bernie Sanders would make (and would have made) a much better president than either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump. Ideally, both houses of congress would change hands as well, so he could actually get some things done. It's well past time for a pendulum swing, IMHO.
My cynical side says that people, despite recognizing that congress as a whole is dysfunctional, will still vote the same congress-critters right back in, just as they have been doing pretty much most of the time. Round and round we go.
They also broke which cameras and OS's it supported. I simply quit using it.
Commercial plants have historically been much larger. One thing about this... the obvious corollary of using the ocean water for cooling means you're pumping heat into the ocean.
Ideally, as much heat as possible would be turned into electrical energy and very little would end up back in the water. It's not like we need to intentionally add heat directly to the ocean. It's bad enough that electricity end users and various other inefficiencies turn the electricity back into heat anyway.
We should really be doing better, but, costs, sigh.
No kidding? PA resident?
I got tired of Adobe's subscription dunning, the non-intuitive operation, the privacy invasion... so I went ahead and wrote my own image editor. As I need new functionality, I add it.
So now I have something that is 100% intuitive for me (and for others... consistent interfaces tend to make that happen), does everything I want, won't suddenly drop support for my OS, doesn't "expire", doesn't use my personal information to shove ads at me or "share" with dubious entities, and gets bugfixes the day the bugs are discovered when the bugs are actually in my code and not the underlying OS (and even then, I tend to cook up workarounds ASAP.)
From TFS:
Here's the thing. A very large number of drivers out there are too... something... to signal when they're going to be making a turn. Lazy, stupid, incompetent, rude, selfish, clueless... pick your adjective. Or all of them. So this is a very good thing, in that the rest of us will get more warning that memaw or peepaw is about to disrupt the traffic flow.
I don't think "packed" and "240" imply anywhere near the same kind of things here.
Let's say it's 1/4 rap, 1/4 country, 1/4 rock, 1/4 classical. I'm not going to subject myself to either rap or country, so already we're at 120 songs. Of those, some will inevitably suck, and we're down to even fewer. Of those, there will be ones that are played out, and I won't want to listen to them, so even fewer. 240 is a drop in the bucket if I'm actually going to spend any serious time in the game.
I have almost thirty thousand songs/tunes in my own music library across multiple genres. I don't think 240 songs, a large number of which will very likely not to be my taste or otherwise worth listening to, can be reasonably described as "packed" unless we're talking about data compression. One of first things I do with most games is turn the music off before its repetitious nature drives me buggy.