The tax numbers given usually don't include the burden caused by borrowing (which at least in theory crowds voluntary-sector borrowing making interest rates higher, and in any event will be paid by somebody *) or the decrease in the value of the dollar caused by monetary inflation.
Add those two to explicit taxes and -- ta da! -- you get government spending.
Come out against that, and see what that gets you.
Looks interesting, especially if the article actually addresses either this specific instance or the general problem of: "Why do people in groups make bad group decisions".
We're never going to be done talking about the 2016 presidential election -- and the nomination process that gave voters two such lousy choices -- are we?
Interestingly enough, Scott Adams does not indicate that he accepts this explanation as being true.
But he doesn't indicate that he is skeptical about this explanation, either.
Since he didn't say something like "Twitter explained that iit was due to an error, and I believe them." and he easily could have, I'm going to go with the first interpretation.
Such as a somewhat faster drone that can intercept, match course above it, and then drop fishing weights attached to monofilament fishing line. Keep trying until it snares a rotor or the invader runs out of juice. Have a pack of them to herd it away from its target..
Just don't lose altitude suddenly once the fishing line is deployed. It's got rotors, too.
Which observation would inspire the invader to drop altitude, and zig to one side.
Other countermeasures are no doubt possible. Can you say "arms race"?
But not a very profitable one for the military-industrial complex. Not at several hundred dollars a pop, or even several thousand.
Maybe I'm missing a key point here, but if solar power isn't practical for night irrigation because of the cost of energy storage equipment, why not pump the water up into a tank (or tanks) during the day, and let it flow out at night?
Is it because the tanks would have to be too big? Too tall, and we're talking a lot of pressure in the pipes. Too wide (a covered reservoir, perhaps) and much cropland is taken out of use.
Those don't seem to be insurmountable problems. Capital-intensive though, and if electric costs may come back down, not practical, perhaps.
Have you seen the kinds of people who have gotten elected to the presidency in recent decades? And been elected and re-elected to the Congress? (One of them thinks Neil Armstrong went to Mars.)
Sure, part of that is due to political parties not being able to compete equally (except for two of them), so the list of candidates on ballots is appallingly short, compared to nearly everywhere else that has elections. It's just about always Coke versus Pepsi, with occasionally Dr. Pepper, root beer or Seven Up, and once in a blue moon, water or milk or fruit juice.
Also, while it's certainly possible backdoors were added at the request/order of the Chinese government -- especially if the Chinese government owns some or all of the company -- it's also very possible they were placed there for the same reason U.S. firms do it in their hardware/software/firmware products: convenience during testing and service. Maybe it was meant to be removed/disabled before shipping, maybe not.
Well, that's one reason U.S. firms do it. The Clipper Chip didn't happen, but I'm sure there have been other, less public efforts. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=clipp...
I posit that it's unethical and treasonous to not disclose the vulnerabilities because those exact same vulnerabilities can be used against our own citizens and government agencies by foreign agents.
I posit that it's unethical and treasonous to not disclose the vulnerabilities because those exact same vulnerabilities can be used against our own citizens by U.S. government agents.
Some "fake news" is more obvious than other "fake news". That stuff, for instance.
And some of what is called "fake news" is rather on the mark, but just inconvenient to the psyches or power of some people.
And some "fake news" is not recognized as "fake news" at all.
FB tagging using anything other that extremely objective criteria would be unfortunate. FB tagging using undisclosed criteria would be unfortunate, too.
Might as well make that tag automatic for all news posts.
It should just be under the page header. "Warning. All information presented in any linked articles is subject to extreme bias, and cannot be trusted."
Otherwise, Facebook's labeling of "disputed" will render Facebook itself legitimately biased.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner.
Except for baseball box scores and other reporting whose content and existence and terminology is predefined in advance, there is always a potential problem with bias, manifested in adjective selection, noun selection, story selection, details selection.
Who would tolerate, say, murder reporting which always followed a predefined published template? Those stories would be tedious as hell.
Per the media outlet's published standard template, the story would always/never mention certain details about the deceased, unless there was a reason to vary from this, in which case it would always mention why the exception. It would always/never mention certain details about the suspect or suspects, unless there was a reason to vary from this, in which case it would always mention why the exception. And so on, for the cause of death, location where the body was found, location where the murder was apparently committed, etc.
And it would report all murders, and per the template, whether they happen near people with surnames that match local corporation names or in housing projects or working-class neighborhoods.
Nothing to keep the news outlet from publishing/broadcasting non-template stories, which would need to be clearly labeled.
Neither the news outlet nor the news consumer would stand for it, of course.
Or rather, what the people who are willing to buy it are willing to pay for it, and what the people who are willing to sell it are willing to sell it for.
The people who aren't willing to sell it think it is worth more.
The people who aren't willing to buy it think it is worth less.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure he's not an alien being.
But I'm beginning to have some doubts about you.
And what becomes possible, with the change to "dark mode"?
Sarcasm, right? Please tell me you were being sarcastic.
The tax numbers given usually don't include the burden caused by borrowing (which at least in theory crowds voluntary-sector borrowing making interest rates higher, and in any event will be paid by somebody *) or the decrease in the value of the dollar caused by monetary inflation.
Add those two to explicit taxes and -- ta da! -- you get government spending.
Come out against that, and see what that gets you.
Looks interesting, especially if the article actually addresses either this specific instance or the general problem of: "Why do people in groups make bad group decisions".
We're never going to be done talking about the 2016 presidential election -- and the nomination process that gave voters two such lousy choices -- are we?
Disparities equals discrimination. (If it's not the law, it sure acts like it.)
The burden of proof is on you, and if it turns out you somehow manage to prove yourself innocent, your accusers pay no penalty.
And replacing those Tomahawks will result in money being spent in a state and in a congressional district, perhaps more than one.
In my more cynical moments, I think this sort of thing is deliberate.
So, staying with Windows 7 still seems the best approach -- now that I have a better understanding of why staying with Windows 7 is the best approach.
When "NO DATA COLLECTED AND REPORTED" becomes available -- and I believe it works as advertised -- I'll reconsider.
Interestingly enough, Scott Adams does not indicate that he accepts this explanation as being true.
But he doesn't indicate that he is skeptical about this explanation, either.
Since he didn't say something like "Twitter explained that iit was due to an error, and I believe them." and he easily could have, I'm going to go with the first interpretation.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153905823756/the-new-ceos-first-moves-and-trump
And how would someone contact you about that bet, AC?
Such as a somewhat faster drone that can intercept, match course above it, and then drop fishing weights attached to monofilament fishing line. Keep trying until it snares a rotor or the invader runs out of juice. Have a pack of them to herd it away from its target..
Just don't lose altitude suddenly once the fishing line is deployed. It's got rotors, too.
Which observation would inspire the invader to drop altitude, and zig to one side.
Other countermeasures are no doubt possible. Can you say "arms race"?
But not a very profitable one for the military-industrial complex. Not at several hundred dollars a pop, or even several thousand.
We need a War on Science. Better yet, a War on Good Science. Good, Reproducible Science.
If it works out as well as the "Wars" on poverty and drugs, we'll be up to our armpits in the stuff.
(H/t to the owner of the sig line that I sto... adapted.)
Maybe I'm missing a key point here, but if solar power isn't practical for night irrigation because of the cost of energy storage equipment, why not pump the water up into a tank (or tanks) during the day, and let it flow out at night?
Is it because the tanks would have to be too big? Too tall, and we're talking a lot of pressure in the pipes. Too wide (a covered reservoir, perhaps) and much cropland is taken out of use.
Those don't seem to be insurmountable problems. Capital-intensive though, and if electric costs may come back down, not practical, perhaps.
Prosecuting people in the CIA, for failing to disclose known security problems in products to the products' firms, right?
So, who's up for watching Will Smith and Gene Hackman in "Enemy of the State" this weekend?
Picky, picky, picky.
http://duckduckgo.com/?define:facetious
http://duckduckgo.com/?define:sarcasm
http://duckduckgo.com/?define:joke
Hope these help.
Not all that remarkable.
Have you seen the kinds of people who have gotten elected to the presidency in recent decades? And been elected and re-elected to the Congress? (One of them thinks Neil Armstrong went to Mars.)
Sure, part of that is due to political parties not being able to compete equally (except for two of them), so the list of candidates on ballots is appallingly short, compared to nearly everywhere else that has elections. It's just about always Coke versus Pepsi, with occasionally Dr. Pepper, root beer or Seven Up, and once in a blue moon, water or milk or fruit juice.
And of course, they never do unauthorized ones.
Because that would be wrong. And undetectable.
Oh, I see a problem.
Uh, "all"? Hyperbole much?
Also, while it's certainly possible backdoors were added at the request/order of the Chinese government -- especially if the Chinese government owns some or all of the company -- it's also very possible they were placed there for the same reason U.S. firms do it in their hardware/software/firmware products: convenience during testing and service. Maybe it was meant to be removed/disabled before shipping, maybe not.
Well, that's one reason U.S. firms do it. The Clipper Chip didn't happen, but I'm sure there have been other, less public efforts. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=clipp...
I posit that it's unethical and treasonous to not disclose the vulnerabilities because those exact same vulnerabilities can be used against our own citizens and government agencies by foreign agents.
I posit that it's unethical and treasonous to not disclose the vulnerabilities because those exact same vulnerabilities can be used against our own citizens by U.S. government agents.
Some "fake news" is more obvious than other "fake news". That stuff, for instance.
And some of what is called "fake news" is rather on the mark, but just inconvenient to the psyches or power of some people.
And some "fake news" is not recognized as "fake news" at all.
FB tagging using anything other that extremely objective criteria would be unfortunate. FB tagging using undisclosed criteria would be unfortunate, too.
Might as well make that tag automatic for all news posts.
It should just be under the page header. "Warning. All information presented in any linked articles is subject to extreme bias, and cannot be trusted."
Otherwise, Facebook's labeling of "disputed" will render Facebook itself legitimately biased.
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
We have a winner.
Except for baseball box scores and other reporting whose content and existence and terminology is predefined in advance, there is always a potential problem with bias, manifested in adjective selection, noun selection, story selection, details selection.
Who would tolerate, say, murder reporting which always followed a predefined published template? Those stories would be tedious as hell.
Per the media outlet's published standard template, the story would always/never mention certain details about the deceased, unless there was a reason to vary from this, in which case it would always mention why the exception. It would always/never mention certain details about the suspect or suspects, unless there was a reason to vary from this, in which case it would always mention why the exception. And so on, for the cause of death, location where the body was found, location where the murder was apparently committed, etc.
And it would report all murders, and per the template, whether they happen near people with surnames that match local corporation names or in housing projects or working-class neighborhoods.
Nothing to keep the news outlet from publishing/broadcasting non-template stories, which would need to be clearly labeled.
Neither the news outlet nor the news consumer would stand for it, of course.
Or "virtue signaling". Or something.
Haven't been following this person. Assuming there is such a person; I've not heard of him or her.
Or rather, what the people who are willing to buy it are willing to pay for it, and what the people who are willing to sell it are willing to sell it for.
The people who aren't willing to sell it think it is worth more.
The people who aren't willing to buy it think it is worth less.
Value is subjective. Obviously.