This paper is an abridged version of the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[26] A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, a sample size which would result in a margin of error of 11 percentage points. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor.
Most sceptics would agree with 1) and 2), including Matt Ridley and I. The thing they don't agree with is that if we don't stop emitting CO2 now the planet will turn into Venus. But even the IPCC doesn't say that.
Now you'll say that 'I don't believe the planet will turn into Venus but I do believe $(BAD_THING)'. Well good for you.
But that's not part of the above 97% consensus and you can't use the consensus to browbeat people into agreeing with you.
Because usually when people say 'I believe $(BAD_THING) will happen' the subtext is always 'unless everyone is forced to do $(POLICY_PROPOSAL)'. Where $(POLICY_PROPOSAL) is something like 'cut our CO2 emissions to zero, now'. I.e. not something people are going to do without the government forcing them.
Could you provide a more specific cite for the climate models being wrong? The IPCC wrote a lot of stuff, and I couldn't easily find it. It also seems odd that you rely on the IPCC for one thing and disregard their findings for other things.
Ridley says "IPCC Synthesis report 2014, p 43"
Go here. Head for page 60 in the PDF, which is labelled 43 and you can find
For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (compare Box 1.1, Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations show a smaller warming trend than observed). Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. The difference between models and observations may also contain contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in som
1) Anyone they know and don't hate is a 'friend'. Their relationships are shallow and unreliable, and contact may be infrequent.
Maybe they've got an finer grained grading scale between 'close friend', 'friend', 'acquaintance' and 'enemy' than that but they don't expose the details of that grading scale to anyone else, mainly because it's subject to change for any individual.
It's like in software. You don't document internal details if you think they might change later. Same with how much you trust people, which is really what differentiates close friends from acquaintances.
. For example, they could start a co-op in Haiti which fixes roads and water distribution systems. They could take a job in a failing school and try to raise test scores among students at risk of dropping out. They could start an IT consultancy which makes hiring female programmers a top priority.
I listened to an interesting interview with Peter Tatchell today.
Tatchell is a gay rights campaigner. He's been beaten up by the NF and BNP and by Mugabe's thugs when he attempted a citizen's arrest of Mugabe over Mugabe's anti gay policies.
And he's also been called a racist, homophobe, transphobe etc by lefty Twitter cunts. As Brendan O'Neill put it modern activism consists of ranting on Twitter and 'getting an Uber into town to shout at a working class Trump supporter'. The problem with the SJW left is that their activism doesn't cost them anything, and they don't have any principles.
Tatchell was very against no platforming people and trying to censor them. He wants his ideological opponents to debate him and lose. The lefty Twitter cunts just want to signal how virtuous they are with no costs to themselves. Which is why they won't do anything which means they have to leave their bubble of privilege. So instead they shout abuse at people like Tatchell - calling them transphobes for standing up to free speech for transphobes for example.
"The most savage, bilious, self-righteous rants are from people living affluent self-pleasing lives in comfortable homes, doing lucky and rewarding jobs with like-minded friends. What they are doing (I risk losing a friend or two) is "virtue-signalling": competing to seem compassionate. Few are notably open-handed: St Matthew would need a rewrite of Chapter 19. "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. So he went on Twitter instead and called Michael Gove a 'vile reptilian evil tory scumbag', and linked to a cartoon of Iain Duncan Smith stealing a paralysed woman's wheelchair. And lo, he felt better and went for a £3.50 caramel macchiato with some mates from the BBC"
Their activism is empty. And they have no principles.
T-Mobile's Binge On is relatively non-problematic because it singles out an entire class of content (streaming video), not a single provider of content.
Binge On, though consumer friendly, is sure to be met with criticism. Prioritizing certain companies' services over others' to entice and retain customers -- a practice known as zero-rating -- may be anti-competitive in nature, leading to the stifling of smaller, less popular services that contribute to a smartphone owner's data plan.
The logic is that users of Pono's music service may flock to Spotify and the products of companies who strike deals with T-Mobile. Protecting the internet from this type of prioritization is part of the core pillar of net neutrality that asserts all internet traffic should be treated equal. Of course, it's less insidious than the implementation of fast lanes and throttling customers' data speeds. But zero-rating is a murky gray area without sound legal footing in the eyes of regulators.
It meant that T Mobile could decide who got zero rated and who didn't and could demand payment from services in order to get zero rate. Which is not Net Neutrality. And in fact the fear of having to pay to be zero rated seems to be the reason Google, Facebook and the like were pro Net Neutrality. They certainly don't seem to believe in it in other situations.
Some heretics have been tempted away from the One True Faith in C/C++ binarchy. They will find the heretical languages they have aligned themselves are false Gods or tempters like the fallen angel, Satan. Their abode will be fiery and their torment long!
Here Endeth The Sermon.
The congregation will now rise and repeat Google's Style Guide For C++, omitting the parts that are now known to be heresy and falsehood sent by malicious trickster demons.
Clint Bolick is an attorney specializing in constitutional litigation with Mountain States Legal Foundation in Denver, where he is counsel of record in a legal challenge to municipal authority to award monopoly cable franchises.
Executive Summary
The invention of print...made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which it made possible...the possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the state, but complete uniformity of opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time. --George Orwell, 1984
It is 1984. Many of the more horrific Orwellian prophecies fortunately have not come to pass.
Nonetheless, ours is an enlarged government, taking unto itself increasing functions that were once left to voluntary interaction among individuals.
In tribute to Orwell's book, consider the following scenario, which, if it occurred, could sow the seeds for the world he envisioned. In this scenario, our benevolent city fathers, concerned about the trend toward one-newspaper cities, decide that the increasingly monopolistic tendencies of newspapers in local markets necessitate governmental action to protect the public interest. Assuming that newspapers are natural monopolies, the city must act to protect consumers against such inevitable effects as price gouging, one-sided news, and lack of public access to the medium. Because newspaper boxes, trucks, and carriers use the city streets, the local government concludes that it has jurisdiction to take whatever action it deems necessary.
The city quickly realizes that if it supplants the marketplace and controls the mechanism that determines which company will enjoy the local news monopoly, it can extract enormous concessions in return from that company. It promotes an intense bidding war for the franchise, the winner of which must be not only wealthy enough to meet the costly requirements demanded by the city but possessed of sufficient political know-how to appeal to the city's decision makers as well.
The competition is fierce. Each bidder spends $1 million to curry favor with the city, staging media events, gathering support from prominent community figures, and wining and dining the decision makers. Finally a winner is chosen to serve the community.
The franchise does not come cheaply, for the winning bidder must pay millions of dollars in tribute to the city, both now at the outset and then throughout the life of the franchise. And for the first time in U. S. history, a newspaper must cede editorial control to government officials. It must publish verbatim transcripts of all city council meetings, make available and relinquish content control over access pages for specified special-interest groups, and provide training centers to teach people how to write newspaper articles. Any changes in the initial editorial format are subject to city approval, as are transfers of newspaper ownership. Free newspapers must be delivered to all city offices. The price of the newspaper -- 22 percent higher than before owing to the costly giveaways -- is controlled by the city as well. The newspaper is guaranteed a minimum rate of return. The primary quid pro quo, however, is a guarantee from the city that the newspaper will be insulated from all competition for at least 15 years.
Of course, we know that this scenario is ludicrous. It would shock our consciences to allow government control of our newspapers to this extent. Our Constitution, through the First Amendment, forbids government interference with t
Google took didn't fix it until after it was made public. Neither did Apple. And if you have an Android device you need to wait for the vendor to release it.
Still, I've got to admit MS are doing a pretty decent job on security at the moment. This hole is already patched and the KRACK vulnerability was patched before it was made public
Pretty sneaky, Microsoft. While some vendors were scrambling to release updates to fix the KRACK Attack vulnerability released today, Microsoft, quietly snuck the fix into last week's Patch Tuesday.
While Windows users were dutifully installing October 10th's Patch Tuesday security updates, little did they know they were also installing a fix for the KRACK vulnerability that was not publicly disclosed until today. This fix was installed via a cumulative update that included over 25 other updates, but didn't provide any useful info until you visited the associated knowledge basic article.
Even if you were bored enough to actually click on the More info button, you would have had to be REALLY bored to even spot a reference to a vague mention of a wireless security update in the last bullet item of the knowledge base article.
Well it was optimized for Windows in the sense that 90% of desktops ran Windows and the OEMs pre-installed it. So it made sense for OEMs to make sure Windows ran well, even if other OSs didn't.
E.g. look at Winmodems. They were cheap and worked in Windows, but didn't work under Linux. OEMs did care about Windows and reducing costs but they didn't care about other OSs. So you got Winmodems.
And in a sense Secure Boot UEFI might well be the same thing. Microsoft require it for Windows. It's at the very least inconvenient for other OSs, even on x86.
It's insane that foreigners need to go through multiple checks if they enter the US at an airport or port but if they walk across the border no one even knows who they are or what they're carrying.
The only reason this is even controversial in US politics is because the Democrats know Hispanics vote 70%:30% for them and so they know letting in more Hispanics makes it easier for them to win.
They've even let illegals vote in CA thanks to the Motor Voter law. And if anyone objects the Democrats can call them 'racist'.
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled to registration. Existing law also makes it a crime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote.
This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above, that person's registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person's registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
Plus of course illegals force down wages, and that helps the sort of companies who donate to the Democrats. I.e. they've decided that open borders is in their long term interest. And in their short term interest due to things like Motor Voter. And if anyone objects the Dems can call them 'racist'. I.e. it's in the Dems interest to have open borders. And not have a border wall.
Uh, if I lived in the third world and I had these options
1) Rely on my government to give me free stuff, paid for by generous foreign aid.
2) End up in a refugee camp where I get free stuff via the corrupt UN or some corrupt NGO, paid for by foreign aid.
3) Head for a US which has opened its borders.
I'd pick 3) in a heartbeat. If all I want is aid then I'm basically cutting out the middleman. A middleman I know to be corrupt which means they'll squirrel away that foreign money in various ways and not give it to its intended recipients. And if I want either me or my children to work, the US is a better bet.
My point is that getting rid of x86 and the Bios doesn't necessarily mean a more competitive environment and open platforms.
Indeed the PC was only open because IBM used off the counter parts, documented the Bios and lost lawsuits against cloned hardware and clean room Bioses. That allowed other vendors to build clones.
And also that the notion of cryptographically signing OS loaders hadn't been invented then, which allowed Linux to run on hardware that was more or less optimized to run Windows.
The top 20%, i.e. highest quintile, pay 86.3% of all income tax and 68.7% of all Federal taxes.
On the previous page you can see how the effective tax rate rises with income quintile, i.e. from 4% to 25%.
So how are the rich, at least the ones who remain, not paying their fair share?
And of course given that it's highly rational for people who are US taxpayers to stop being US tax payers by giving up citizenship. And for people who aren't US taxpayers to avoid become US taxpayers at all cost.
I.e. in general the US's progressive tax system is an incentive for rich people to avoid becoming US citizens or lose that citizenship if they have it.
Meanwhile the US benefits system, sloppy enforcement of immigration rules and easy availability of fake Social Security Numbers to allow illegal immigrants to claim benefits.
That's the problem with the left. Their intentions are good but they don't understand incentives. And if you get incentives wrong you won't get the result you want. See for example South American countries who ended up dirt poor despite electing politicians who had similarly good intentions to help the poor and tax the rich. And the end result was that you have countries like Venezuela and Cuba that would be pretty rich under a government that was only as bad as the US one. Actually the government is far worse and those countries are so poor people flee them for pretty much anywhere else.
If you have free stuff for poor people but no borders, all the world's poor will arrive to get their free stuff. If you raise taxes on the rich to pay for it all your rich people will leave to avoid them. If you print money to pay for it you end up like Zimbabwe or Venezuela. Or most of South America for that matter. Most of those countries are poor because they had governments that pursued economically illiterate 'free stuff for the masses, screw the rich' policies.
As Milton Friedman observed "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state".
Yeah, they seem like complete cunts. And 'Cards Against Humanity' is about as fun as cancer. It's for cunty blue stater hipsters who get a kick out saying edgy phrases like 'passable trannies' in a situation where it is socially acceptable, but would gleefully wreck your life if you said anything like that outside of that context.
I mean if you're going be edgy, at least do it with conviction. A song that those same hipsters got pulled from Youtube for 'hate speech'. I suspect Tyrant Fashister is probably less of an authoritarian than these people.
Slashdot Mirror
You're sure you're not a shill yourself?
No one pays me to post my opinions on Net Neutrality. Vint Cerf's employer, Google, does pay him to post his.
That's not what is being claimed
"father of the internet", Vint Cerf; the inventor of the world wide web, Tim Berners-Lee; and the Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak
In xml it would be
It's just a bunch people shilling for Comcast and Verizon vs another bunch of people shilling for Google and Facebook.
Comcast and Verizon see Net Neutrality as being bad for their interests, Google and Facebook as being good. Both have their shills.
He's a bona fide e celebrity and he's also very pro Net Neutrality. Which Google clearly see as being in their long term interests.
The 97% consensus is real and valid. Other studies have shown the same thing.
The 97% consensus was that
1) Global average temperatures have risen
2) Humans are significant part of the cause
E.g. in th Zimmerman paper
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
This paper is an abridged version of the Zimmerman 2008 MS thesis; the full methods are in the MS thesis.[26] A web-based poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman of the Earth and Environmental Sciences department, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. The survey was designed to take less than two minutes to complete. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures had generally risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. 76 out of the 79 respondents who "listed climate science as their area of expertise, and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change", thought that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Of those 79 scientists, 75 out of the 77 answered that human activity was a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures, a sample size which would result in a margin of error of 11 percentage points. The remaining two were not asked, because in question one they responded that temperatures had remained relatively constant. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent respectively thinking that human activity was a significant contributing factor.
Most sceptics would agree with 1) and 2), including Matt Ridley and I. The thing they don't agree with is that if we don't stop emitting CO2 now the planet will turn into Venus. But even the IPCC doesn't say that.
Now you'll say that 'I don't believe the planet will turn into Venus but I do believe $(BAD_THING)'. Well good for you.
But that's not part of the above 97% consensus and you can't use the consensus to browbeat people into agreeing with you.
Because usually when people say 'I believe $(BAD_THING) will happen' the subtext is always 'unless everyone is forced to do $(POLICY_PROPOSAL)'. Where $(POLICY_PROPOSAL) is something like 'cut our CO2 emissions to zero, now'. I.e. not something people are going to do without the government forcing them.
Could you provide a more specific cite for the climate models being wrong? The IPCC wrote a lot of stuff, and I couldn't easily find it. It also seems odd that you rely on the IPCC for one thing and disregard their findings for other things.
Ridley says "IPCC Synthesis report 2014, p 43"
Go here. Head for page 60 in the PDF, which is labelled 43 and you can find
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment...
For the period from 1998 to 2012, 111 of the 114 available climate-model simulations show a surface warming trend larger than the observations (Box 1.1, Figure 1a). There is medium confidence that this difference between models and observations is to a substantial degree caused by natural internal climate variability, which sometimes enhances and sometimes counteracts the long-term externally forced warming trend (compare Box 1.1, Figures 1a and 1b; during the period from 1984 to 1998, most model simulations show a smaller warming trend than observed). Natural internal variability thus diminishes the relevance of short trends for long-term climate change. The difference between models and observations may also contain contributions from inadequacies in the solar, volcanic and aerosol forcings used by the models and, in som
Pentalobular + fabulous = pentalobulous
Usage :
"How are we going to open the lock on our cell?"
"Don't worry I've got my penalobulous screwdriver?"
So far as I am aware, the Turing test has only been 'passed' by severely constraining the breadth of conversation.
How long have you been aware, the Turing test has only been 'passed' by severely constraining the breadth of conversation?
1) Anyone they know and don't hate is a 'friend'. Their relationships are shallow and unreliable, and contact may be infrequent.
Maybe they've got an finer grained grading scale between 'close friend', 'friend', 'acquaintance' and 'enemy' than that but they don't expose the details of that grading scale to anyone else, mainly because it's subject to change for any individual.
It's like in software. You don't document internal details if you think they might change later. Same with how much you trust people, which is really what differentiates close friends from acquaintances.
I'd be happier if nasa, and those who do real science,
I think Richard Feynman would object to that statement
http://www.ralentz.com/old/spa...
. For example, they could start a co-op in Haiti which fixes roads and water distribution systems. They could take a job in a failing school and try to raise test scores among students at risk of dropping out. They could start an IT consultancy which makes hiring female programmers a top priority.
I listened to an interesting interview with Peter Tatchell today.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programme...
Tatchell is a gay rights campaigner. He's been beaten up by the NF and BNP and by Mugabe's thugs when he attempted a citizen's arrest of Mugabe over Mugabe's anti gay policies.
And he's also been called a racist, homophobe, transphobe etc by lefty Twitter cunts. As Brendan O'Neill put it modern activism consists of ranting on Twitter and 'getting an Uber into town to shout at a working class Trump supporter'. The problem with the SJW left is that their activism doesn't cost them anything, and they don't have any principles.
Tatchell was very against no platforming people and trying to censor them. He wants his ideological opponents to debate him and lose. The lefty Twitter cunts just want to signal how virtuous they are with no costs to themselves. Which is why they won't do anything which means they have to leave their bubble of privilege. So instead they shout abuse at people like Tatchell - calling them transphobes for standing up to free speech for transphobes for example.
As Libby Purves observed
http://theafterword.co.uk/virt...
"The most savage, bilious, self-righteous rants are from people living affluent self-pleasing lives in comfortable homes, doing lucky and rewarding jobs with like-minded friends. What they are doing (I risk losing a friend or two) is "virtue-signalling": competing to seem compassionate. Few are notably open-handed: St Matthew would need a rewrite of Chapter 19. "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast and give to the poor. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. So he went on Twitter instead and called Michael Gove a 'vile reptilian evil tory scumbag', and linked to a cartoon of Iain Duncan Smith stealing a paralysed woman's wheelchair. And lo, he felt better and went for a £3.50 caramel macchiato with some mates from the BBC"
Their activism is empty. And they have no principles.
T-Mobile's Binge On is relatively non-problematic because it singles out an entire class of content (streaming video), not a single provider of content.
Not true
https://www.theverge.com/2015/...
Binge On, though consumer friendly, is sure to be met with criticism. Prioritizing certain companies' services over others' to entice and retain customers -- a practice known as zero-rating -- may be anti-competitive in nature, leading to the stifling of smaller, less popular services that contribute to a smartphone owner's data plan.
The logic is that users of Pono's music service may flock to Spotify and the products of companies who strike deals with T-Mobile. Protecting the internet from this type of prioritization is part of the core pillar of net neutrality that asserts all internet traffic should be treated equal. Of course, it's less insidious than the implementation of fast lanes and throttling customers' data speeds. But zero-rating is a murky gray area without sound legal footing in the eyes of regulators.
It meant that T Mobile could decide who got zero rated and who didn't and could demand payment from services in order to get zero rate. Which is not Net Neutrality. And in fact the fear of having to pay to be zero rated seems to be the reason Google, Facebook and the like were pro Net Neutrality. They certainly don't seem to believe in it in other situations.
Some heretics have been tempted away from the One True Faith in C/C++ binarchy. They will find the heretical languages they have aligned themselves are false Gods or tempters like the fallen angel, Satan. Their abode will be fiery and their torment long!
Here Endeth The Sermon.
The congregation will now rise and repeat Google's Style Guide For C++, omitting the parts that are now known to be heresy and falsehood sent by malicious trickster demons.
Ask yourself why Comcast is the only cable provider in your area? Is it a natural monopoly, or a monopoly government regulation created?
https://object.cato.org/sites/...
March 13, 1984
Clint Bolick
Clint Bolick is an attorney specializing in constitutional litigation with Mountain States Legal Foundation in Denver,
where he is counsel of record in a legal challenge to municipal authority to award monopoly cable franchises.
Executive Summary
The invention of print...made it easier to manipulate public opinion, and the film and the radio carried the
process further. With the development of television, and the technical advance which it made possible...the
possibility of enforcing not only complete obedience to the will of the state, but complete uniformity of
opinion on all subjects, now existed for the first time.
--George Orwell, 1984
It is 1984. Many of the more horrific Orwellian prophecies fortunately have not come to pass.
Nonetheless, ours is an
enlarged government, taking unto itself increasing functions that were once left to voluntary interaction among
individuals.
In tribute to Orwell's book, consider the following scenario, which, if it occurred, could sow the seeds for the world he
envisioned. In this scenario, our benevolent city fathers, concerned about the trend toward one-newspaper cities,
decide that the increasingly monopolistic tendencies of newspapers in local markets necessitate governmental action to
protect the public interest. Assuming that newspapers are natural monopolies, the city must act to protect consumers
against such inevitable effects as price gouging, one-sided news, and lack of public access to the medium. Because
newspaper boxes, trucks, and carriers use the city streets, the local government concludes that it has jurisdiction to take
whatever action it deems necessary.
The city quickly realizes that if it supplants the marketplace and controls the mechanism that determines which
company will enjoy the local news monopoly, it can extract enormous concessions in return from that company. It
promotes an intense bidding war for the franchise, the winner of which must be not only wealthy enough to meet the
costly requirements demanded by the city but possessed of sufficient political know-how to appeal to the city's
decision makers as well.
The competition is fierce. Each bidder spends $1 million to curry favor with the city, staging media events, gathering
support from prominent community figures, and wining and dining the decision makers. Finally a winner is chosen to
serve the community.
The franchise does not come cheaply, for the winning bidder must pay millions of dollars in tribute to the city, both
now at the outset and then throughout the life of the franchise. And for the first time in U. S. history, a newspaper
must cede editorial control to government officials. It must publish verbatim transcripts of all city council meetings,
make available and relinquish content control over access pages for specified special-interest groups, and provide
training centers to teach people how to write newspaper articles. Any changes in the initial editorial format are subject
to city approval, as are transfers of newspaper ownership. Free newspapers must be delivered to all city offices. The
price of the newspaper -- 22 percent higher than before owing to the costly giveaways -- is controlled by the city as
well. The newspaper is guaranteed a minimum rate of return. The primary quid pro quo, however, is a guarantee from
the city that the newspaper will be insulated from all competition for at least 15 years.
Of course, we know that this scenario is ludicrous. It would shock our consciences to allow government control of our
newspapers to this extent. Our Constitution, through the First Amendment, forbids government interference with t
Google took didn't fix it until after it was made public. Neither did Apple. And if you have an Android device you need to wait for the vendor to release it.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/10...
In 2014 the top 20% paid 84% of income tax. So it hadn't changed much by then.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/t...
Still, I've got to admit MS are doing a pretty decent job on security at the moment. This hole is already patched and the KRACK vulnerability was patched before it was made public
https://www.bleepingcomputer.c...
Pretty sneaky, Microsoft. While some vendors were scrambling to release updates to fix the KRACK Attack vulnerability released today, Microsoft, quietly snuck the fix into last week's Patch Tuesday.
While Windows users were dutifully installing October 10th's Patch Tuesday security updates, little did they know they were also installing a fix for the KRACK vulnerability that was not publicly disclosed until today. This fix was installed via a cumulative update that included over 25 other updates, but didn't provide any useful info until you visited the associated knowledge basic article.
Even if you were bored enough to actually click on the More info button, you would have had to be REALLY bored to even spot a reference to a vague mention of a wireless security update in the last bullet item of the knowledge base article.
Well it was optimized for Windows in the sense that 90% of desktops ran Windows and the OEMs pre-installed it. So it made sense for OEMs to make sure Windows ran well, even if other OSs didn't.
E.g. look at Winmodems. They were cheap and worked in Windows, but didn't work under Linux. OEMs did care about Windows and reducing costs but they didn't care about other OSs. So you got Winmodems.
And in a sense Secure Boot UEFI might well be the same thing. Microsoft require it for Windows. It's at the very least inconvenient for other OSs, even on x86.
Here's a graph of the number of illegal immigrants crossing the Hungarian border. Guess what happened on the 18th of October?
http://media.breitbart.com/med...
Here's a graph of suicide attacks before and after the border fence. Suicide bombers being a particularly unwelcome form of illegal immigrant.
https://www.jewishvirtuallibra...
It's insane that foreigners need to go through multiple checks if they enter the US at an airport or port but if they walk across the border no one even knows who they are or what they're carrying.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new...
The only reason this is even controversial in US politics is because the Democrats know Hispanics vote 70%:30% for them and so they know letting in more Hispanics makes it easier for them to win.
They've even let illegals vote in CA thanks to the Motor Voter law. And if anyone objects the Democrats can call them 'racist'.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca...
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to willfully cause, procure, or allow himself or herself or any other person to be registered as a voter, knowing that he or she or that other person is not entitled to registration. Existing law also makes it a crime to fraudulently vote or attempt to vote.
This bill would provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of the California New Motor Voter Program in the absence of a violation by that person of the crime described above, that person's registration shall be presumed to have been effected with official authorization and not the fault of that person. The bill would also provide that if a person who is ineligible to vote becomes registered to vote by operation of this program, and that person votes or attempts to vote in an election held after the effective date of the person's registration, that person shall be presumed to have acted with official authorization and is not guilty of fraudulently voting or attempting to vote, unless that person willfully votes or attempts to vote knowing that he or she is not entitled to vote.
Plus of course illegals force down wages, and that helps the sort of companies who donate to the Democrats. I.e. they've decided that open borders is in their long term interest. And in their short term interest due to things like Motor Voter. And if anyone objects the Dems can call them 'racist'. I.e. it's in the Dems interest to have open borders. And not have a border wall.
Uh, if I lived in the third world and I had these options
1) Rely on my government to give me free stuff, paid for by generous foreign aid.
2) End up in a refugee camp where I get free stuff via the corrupt UN or some corrupt NGO, paid for by foreign aid.
3) Head for a US which has opened its borders.
I'd pick 3) in a heartbeat. If all I want is aid then I'm basically cutting out the middleman. A middleman I know to be corrupt which means they'll squirrel away that foreign money in various ways and not give it to its intended recipients. And if I want either me or my children to work, the US is a better bet.
My point is that getting rid of x86 and the Bios doesn't necessarily mean a more competitive environment and open platforms.
Indeed the PC was only open because IBM used off the counter parts, documented the Bios and lost lawsuits against cloned hardware and clean room Bioses. That allowed other vendors to build clones.
And also that the notion of cryptographically signing OS loaders hadn't been invented then, which allowed Linux to run on hardware that was more or less optimized to run Windows.
The top 1% pay 27% of taxes now, compared to 15% in 1979 when tax rates were higher. Meanwhile their share of income has increased from 9% to 18%
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/...
And the top 10% pay 72.7% of income taxes and 54.7% of all Federal taxrs. E.g. see page 7 here.
https://cbo.gov/sites/default/...
The top 20%, i.e. highest quintile, pay 86.3% of all income tax and 68.7% of all Federal taxes.
On the previous page you can see how the effective tax rate rises with income quintile, i.e. from 4% to 25%.
So how are the rich, at least the ones who remain, not paying their fair share?
And of course given that it's highly rational for people who are US taxpayers to stop being US tax payers by giving up citizenship. And for people who aren't US taxpayers to avoid become US taxpayers at all cost.
I.e. in general the US's progressive tax system is an incentive for rich people to avoid becoming US citizens or lose that citizenship if they have it.
Meanwhile the US benefits system, sloppy enforcement of immigration rules and easy availability of fake Social Security Numbers to allow illegal immigrants to claim benefits.
That's the problem with the left. Their intentions are good but they don't understand incentives. And if you get incentives wrong you won't get the result you want. See for example South American countries who ended up dirt poor despite electing politicians who had similarly good intentions to help the poor and tax the rich. And the end result was that you have countries like Venezuela and Cuba that would be pretty rich under a government that was only as bad as the US one. Actually the government is far worse and those countries are so poor people flee them for pretty much anywhere else.
Exactly.
If you have free stuff for poor people but no borders, all the world's poor will arrive to get their free stuff. If you raise taxes on the rich to pay for it all your rich people will leave to avoid them. If you print money to pay for it you end up like Zimbabwe or Venezuela. Or most of South America for that matter. Most of those countries are poor because they had governments that pursued economically illiterate 'free stuff for the masses, screw the rich' policies.
As Milton Friedman observed "It's just obvious you can't have free immigration and a welfare state".
Yeah, they seem like complete cunts. And 'Cards Against Humanity' is about as fun as cancer. It's for cunty blue stater hipsters who get a kick out saying edgy phrases like 'passable trannies' in a situation where it is socially acceptable, but would gleefully wreck your life if you said anything like that outside of that context.
I mean if you're going be edgy, at least do it with conviction. A song that those same hipsters got pulled from Youtube for 'hate speech'. I suspect Tyrant Fashister is probably less of an authoritarian than these people.
Net Neutrality is a buzzword for 'more government regulation'. Abusive monopolies are created by government regulation. It's not hard.