The best place for solar is the same place it is for coal and gas, at a central station pushing out power over the grid. Rooftop installations don't even approach the economics of central solar. The only challenge there is storing the energy so that peak solar periods don't go to waste.
Yes, for some uses having rooftop solar can be valuable, but those cases are premium use cases. I wouldn't argue against you having some panels, if you want, but its not the right solution for providing economical solar power.
Of course, a road made of them is not merely a premium use, its also a difficult to utilize, annoying to maintain, hard to justify waste of time, and on that, we agree entirely.
You may have a point about failure avoidance, but this is pretty clearly a waste of time.
Consider that this is a relatively expensive project which might scrape by in terms of value if it was allowed to actually live through its 35 year lifespan, but it won't. Roads don't last that long, and not just due to wear and tear, but also due to re-routing or other concerns.
There is no good reason to have solar panels as a roadway. Take those solar panels, put them in a field and make an actual centralized plant with them which is economically viable and provides useful amounts of power to the grid where it is required. WTF are we going to do with a road made of this stuff that some solar panels on the side of the road couldn't do already?
Yes, the FBI director basically said, "She probably broke laws, was definitely extremely careless, but no one in their right mind is going to want to prosecute *her*.
Now, don't get me wrong, if I didn't know to what extent that they'd prosecute anyone else who wasn't someone in her lofty position, I might think they were trying to throw her in jail for jaywalking too.
I don't want to have a presidential candidate nixed for something relatively minor, but at the same time, I don't want them getting off scot free for something that would cause anyone else to be in fairly major trouble.
Unfortunately, this campaign comes down to either electing someone who represents everything wrong with the status quo, or the guy who represents everything that could go wrong with trying to change the status quo. I am thoroughly not looking forward to the next four plus years.
I wouldn't call it false confidence. I'd call it, "this is what you need to do, so you have to do it."
If you want a date, decrying the unfairness of having to ask women and face rejection all of the time is not going to get you a date. Women want to meet nice men too and have lots of sex. The difference is that they have different physical considerations as well as emotions and mental conditioning that makes them much more likely to be choosy about who they say "yes" to. Not to mention the huge social stigma of being seen as "loose".
So they're actually at something of a *disadvantage* for getting the happy life that they want. They often have to wait for the right man to ask them, instead of feeling free to select someone out of the crowd and get down to business.
If you want a job, noting the difficulty of being constantly rejected for jobs doesn't actually get you any interviews. You are just unemployed and bitter, as opposed to unemployed.
Sure, make changes and demand them when you can, but in the end, it isn't really quite the thing for a man to be unemployed, and men still need to do the asking out most of the time. So you have to get out there and deal with it. And really, the worst thing they can do is say, "No". As long as you comport yourself with professionalism and dignity, you haven't lost anything but your time.
That's not false confidence, that's just getting shit done.
Feminism has many definitions, and definitely has many varying practices, despite what the actual definition happens to be.
I see women being told they have a choice every day, but when they make a choice that does not suit some "feminists", they are derided for it. It seems that a woman only has one real choice, get a job or be considered a housewife enslaved to the Patriarchy. Having kids on top of that scores bonus points, especially if they are perfect kids in every way, but the woman has to keep her job through that, or she becomes a "barefoot and pregnant" slave worthy only of pity.
Yeah, there are people who believe feminism is simply a more equitable opportunity for women, but you cannot tell me that there is not a very strong undercurrent of bias towards how that "choice" is used.
In any case, we keep coming back to the pay gap between men and women. Clearly there is something there, but I keep seeing varying reasoning behind it. In the end, it is probably complex. Some of it is no doubt women not negotiating. And there are certainly attitudes involved that might make some men dislike working with and for women. I think some of those will go away over time, but I think that some will not. If a woman is disadvantaged in a male dominated workplace, a man will be disadvantaged in the opposite situation. And unless there are some very brutally logical and strongly enforced rules, I don't see a perfectly balanced "equality" situation ever coming about.
Some of the stuff that has been made is pretty professional, though. We're not talking about some cheap short video. These aren't full-on productions, but they spend decent amounts of money. A suit against their production would shut them down. It definitely feels like they only want short items that can't actually tell a complete story or compete with them in any meaningful way.
It's pretty shitty and all about money and control, but what did you expect from Paramount?
The prop junk doesn't bother me as much as the rest. It may be a bit of a money grab, but it could be argued that they don't want your production costumes to look like shit.
Of course, if you have a costume designer that makes *better* stuff than their commercial stuff, which is certainly possible given what I have seen out there, then that's annoying.
The summary also says that the same loophole could be used to downgrade VPN'ed traffic too. If you can't deep inspect the packet, it may simply assert that unclassifiable traffic is a traffic threat too. So, you could find that both specific BitTorrent and unrecognizable encrypted traffic could both be deprioritized in deference to other protocols.
Not sure how this would work in practice, but the loophole sounds just wide enough to make it easy for the ISPs to make use of while requiring expensive litigation to clarify.
If you work in a union shop on the clock, you take those breaks on-time and whether you like it or not. The hour lunch is fine, but I recall not knowing what the heck to do with my 15 minute break except sit at the picnic table in the break room and stare at some newspapers. Not saying that the break was not welcome, but I suppose I'd prefer a little flexibility.
Now, most of the jobs I have worked the last 20 years since the union job, you generally work more, but you're more free to take time off. As one of my long-ago co-workers said, "Exempt from overtime" sometimes means you work less than 40 hours too. You just have to ensure that you know how to manage it.
That is probably more of a personal choice than an actual job requirement.
I tend to work until 9-10pm, but then, I come in at 10-11am after all of the traffic has been dealt with. On the occasions that I do have to come in by 9, I get first hand experience of how much better my life is by not having to follow the herd.
I am pretty lucky I can get away with it though. Being in tech does sometimes have advantages.
I do own TVs, but our cable broke a couple of years ago, and I couldn't be arsed to get it fixed. Admittedly, there's just the wife and I with the dog, but no one seemed to care.
When we moved, we got internet service, but not cable. It hasn't really changed much.
You might suggest that we watch shows on Netflix or Hulu and on YouTube or something, and that's true, but only very occasionally. I don't think I've watched a single show regularly in years.
That said, I occupy my time with lots and lots of video games and a fair amount of socialization, so it's not like I'm not ingesting some sort of content to keep me occupied for hours on end, its just that I prefer my content be more or less interactive. It has given me the time to play some stupidly detailed games, so there is that.
I have nothing against TV, and when there are some really good shows on, I like watching them. I suppose I just get tired of good shows either being cancelled too soon, or lasting just a bit too long or being meddled with. I have a lot of respect for shows that tell a story, finish it up well, and don't try and milk it for all it is worth if they have a winning formula. I figure that some series I will be watching when they're done and complete and I know they weren't complete disappointments at the end.
I agree, although being a player of those games, I can't envision them being part of any sort of public school education. There are always going to be people with the needed attention span, but there will also be people who do not have that attention span. They're getting better with the tutorials, but you still need to seriously hit the wikis for them.
That said, Crusader Kings II would have been a ton of fun, especially since it really shows the soap opera aspect of how your court works. Still don't think most kids would be able to handle it. For that matter, most adults either. It's not even a matter of intelligence, those games just require a significant investment in time and interest in detail in order to even play, let alone master.
Aside from all of that... the biggest challenge that the schools have is the need to cater to the least common denominator and follow a set curriculum. They need to squeeze those dates out and get them jammed in the heads of their students or they fail the multiple choice standardized tests.
Yeah, I don't see video games as educationally valuable unless they simulate what they are trying to teach in some realistic fashion. Or alternately, use a technique to drill you on skills or rote knowledge, like a Mathblaster would have done.
History at a high level is about interactions between people relating to resource allocation and what ideas will be dominant. Ideas in particular.
The Civ game can certainly show a fight over resources, but the actual ideas and interactions part is not really done well. For one thing, it fails to show how the spread of ideas changes how things work over time, mostly because the player themselves is in full control and executes whatever government or idea not as a true believer, but as someone who knows what the bonuses are and can avoid the downfalls.
Kings who believe that they have divine right to rule, Communists who believe that the end of history is right around the corner, or capitalists fixated on the Invisible Hand, do not go through life like Civ players. They don't control the ideas, the ideas control them. The one thing that people need to learn from history is perspective, or they will act like they know better than the people before them when they're being controlled just as surely as those people have been in the past. And not controlled by some sort of Illuminati, but by the ideas that they do not view critically.
It is possible for them to ignore it, but it would be a very, very difficult thing to pull off. Even in the UK.
And as soon as they trigger Article 50, they've pressed the button, it doesn't matter if completing the process takes two years or so. And Cameron promised to do that as soon as possible. Which means June 27th or so. Unless he backs off that pledge, or they play a very, very fast game of political speed chess, this is happening.
There is only one possible way that staying in remains plausible, the EU caves on a lot of items that they have indicated that would not cave in on.
However, short of complete capitulation on a number of items, you don't tell 52% of the population to get bent when they have their goal in their sights. Not on that short of a timeframe. They'd need WWIII to distract the public on this short a notice.
I admit, I am not a regular user of Tor, but I recall the times I have played around with it, the warnings were pretty explicit everywhere I went about JS. Its odd that leaving it on is the default in the bundle, although technically you don't have to turn it off to actually use Tor, it's just a really, really good idea.
Tor can only protect you if your machine can't be made to report back information about it. It doesn't help you very much to have an anonymous end point if the server on the other end can simply ask your browser to fetch the actual IP address of your host and other information about it.
Javascript allows calls like that to make your browser turn over that information. The reliable only way to prevent those calls is to turn JS off totally in your browser that is being used for Tor.
And the way you know that is by installing Tor and running tests against a site created to test those vulnerabilities. Or you could simply heed all of the giant warnings that Tor tends to have about turning off Javascript and just trusting them on that.
I think that when you're 20-40 years down the road, you don't hold quite the same ideas you did when you're younger. Some people do, but many do not. There are probably Leavers today who were OK with "Europe" the first time around. A few decades can make a big difference.
I do think that some situations may well be inevitable, and there could be a re-federalism later down the road, but people aren't always right about *which ideas* are the ones that are actually inevitable.
While the Republicans and the Leavers did take advantage of this split, I think you're 100% wrong about why it happened.
Blaming those groups is putting the cart before the horse. The Republicans did have a Southern Strategy which won them a number of votes, and have ceaselessly catered to groups like this, but you don't bank on such a strategy without there being something there to begin with.
I think what you're really blaming those groups for is giving those people a voice where they would have been hidden previously. Unfortunately, that is perfectly democratic. There was no corrupt voting here. If enough people for Remain (or for one of the other Republican primary candidates) had come out, then Remain (and someone other than Donald Trump) would have won.
Oddly enough, I think that if the EU had been more democratic, as opposed to bureaucratic, then this would not have been an issue. But since it was not, the democratic process could be used against it in the UK.
As it stands I was surprised about Donald Trump and about the Leave vote (although less so about the latter because the margin was much thinner), but they only won because they mobilized people to vote who had real or perceived grievances. In many cases, people who did not bother previously.
The more progressive or moderate groups failed because they believe that they are right. The problem is that democracy is a shitty means of determining the truth value of a proposition if enough people don't want it to be right.
Who do you think got them into the EEC and EU when *they* were the next generation?
I think it was a bad decision to leave, but I do think that certain segments of the population probably got shafted by the EU and had to live through it. Which also explains why the Leavers came out in well organized force. If you've spent 20-40 years hoping for this day, for better or worse, you're going to show up.
There are real advantages to Federalism, but there are some steep pitfalls that I don't think the EU ever really addressed. The arguments that the EU was mostly an imperial bureaucracy over a federal democracy are not without merit.
Young people need to learn something, which they probably never will. There is no inevitability of their ideas just because they hold them, or even because they seem like a really good idea or because they are "progressive". "Progress" is always in the eye of the beholder. If they act as if these ideas are inevitable, they will make mistakes like this and not a) come up with a coherent and reasonable strategy to manage the drawbacks and b) they will not organize and come out to vote.
Aside from whether that matters or not, handguns have been military weapons since the beginning. They're carried as side-arms by every army in the world, and pistols of some form have been carried since time of the matchlock. Cavalry units, in particular, were the major users of such on the battlefield, particularly since they were easier to use on horseback and you could carry multiples of them so you had more than one shot ready if you needed it.
I'd argue that Hitler was brilliant politically, but he was a military rube most of the way through.
The German military was a top notch organization that basically did not stop planning for the next war even after they lost WWI. Pretty much all of their success was good German military training, staff work, and doctrine. They worked hard starting from 1918 on to get back on top, it wasn't a miracle from 1933 on.
Of course, without Hitler, it seems unlikely that the democratic parties of the day would have allowed them off their leash, but it was always possible for there to be a coup in Germany as the military was already a state within a state well before Hitler rose to power.
Hitler basically took credit for good planning by his generals. Yes, he did initially give them the scope to do their jobs, perhaps even encouraged them to make certain achievements, but it was Hitler that ordered the panzers to stop short of Dunkirk. Mind you, they were running well ahead of their supply train and they had left their infantry support in the dust, but it could be argued that this was a strategically bad decision on his part.
It's easy to look like a genius when you have an elite team under you and the other side doesn't have their heart in the game, even if you're a rather lackluster military leader. His mistakes caught up with him when his elite team was dismembered and he failed to give his good generals the leeway to make decisions that the Allies allowed theirs because he thought he was a genius, instead of just having a really good starting position and a fair amount of luck.
The thing is... the Dems don't want to do that, per se.
They're just too focused on their pet project that they can't see that this is the absolutely wrong battle to fight over gun regulation.
There is nothing unconstitutional about reasonable gun regulation.
There is everything unconstitutional about removing Second Amendment rights from people on lists that are generated without due process, and definitely without them being convicted of a felony in a proper judicial proceeding.
Those Dems need to get up and re-write those provisions to remove the watch lists, and then they can sit back down again and ask for something that is not unconstitutional.
Indeed, that is like the legislatures of most countries, both free and unfree. There is nothing odd about non-public sessions, although I agree that they should be used with care lest they undermine the legitimacy of the legislature.
While I agree that the NRA and company are taking it too far, there is in fact no such determination that the well-regulated militia is the National Guard.
And more importantly, there is no determination that the right to keep and bear arms is directly associated with the well-regulated militia clause.
"U.S. Supreme Court (1997): In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."
"U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias."
So bearing arms is actually nothing at all about the militia.
Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose common sense gun regulation, like background checks and safety training.
On the other hand, I am forced to agree that the current call for cancelling the rights of people on something like a watch list, is almost certainly unconstitutional. The watch lists are for surveillance and removing the right to keep and bear arms cannot be done by regular legislation, particularly if based on a list has just almost zero due process involved.
While again, I agree that the NRA is going too far, that still does not make it permissible to undermine those constitutional rights of those who are not given a proper trial.
Slashdot Mirror
The best place for solar is the same place it is for coal and gas, at a central station pushing out power over the grid. Rooftop installations don't even approach the economics of central solar. The only challenge there is storing the energy so that peak solar periods don't go to waste.
Yes, for some uses having rooftop solar can be valuable, but those cases are premium use cases. I wouldn't argue against you having some panels, if you want, but its not the right solution for providing economical solar power.
Of course, a road made of them is not merely a premium use, its also a difficult to utilize, annoying to maintain, hard to justify waste of time, and on that, we agree entirely.
You may have a point about failure avoidance, but this is pretty clearly a waste of time.
Consider that this is a relatively expensive project which might scrape by in terms of value if it was allowed to actually live through its 35 year lifespan, but it won't. Roads don't last that long, and not just due to wear and tear, but also due to re-routing or other concerns.
There is no good reason to have solar panels as a roadway. Take those solar panels, put them in a field and make an actual centralized plant with them which is economically viable and provides useful amounts of power to the grid where it is required. WTF are we going to do with a road made of this stuff that some solar panels on the side of the road couldn't do already?
Yes, the FBI director basically said, "She probably broke laws, was definitely extremely careless, but no one in their right mind is going to want to prosecute *her*.
Now, don't get me wrong, if I didn't know to what extent that they'd prosecute anyone else who wasn't someone in her lofty position, I might think they were trying to throw her in jail for jaywalking too.
I don't want to have a presidential candidate nixed for something relatively minor, but at the same time, I don't want them getting off scot free for something that would cause anyone else to be in fairly major trouble.
Unfortunately, this campaign comes down to either electing someone who represents everything wrong with the status quo, or the guy who represents everything that could go wrong with trying to change the status quo. I am thoroughly not looking forward to the next four plus years.
I wouldn't call it false confidence. I'd call it, "this is what you need to do, so you have to do it."
If you want a date, decrying the unfairness of having to ask women and face rejection all of the time is not going to get you a date. Women want to meet nice men too and have lots of sex. The difference is that they have different physical considerations as well as emotions and mental conditioning that makes them much more likely to be choosy about who they say "yes" to. Not to mention the huge social stigma of being seen as "loose".
So they're actually at something of a *disadvantage* for getting the happy life that they want. They often have to wait for the right man to ask them, instead of feeling free to select someone out of the crowd and get down to business.
If you want a job, noting the difficulty of being constantly rejected for jobs doesn't actually get you any interviews. You are just unemployed and bitter, as opposed to unemployed.
Sure, make changes and demand them when you can, but in the end, it isn't really quite the thing for a man to be unemployed, and men still need to do the asking out most of the time. So you have to get out there and deal with it. And really, the worst thing they can do is say, "No". As long as you comport yourself with professionalism and dignity, you haven't lost anything but your time.
That's not false confidence, that's just getting shit done.
Feminism has many definitions, and definitely has many varying practices, despite what the actual definition happens to be.
I see women being told they have a choice every day, but when they make a choice that does not suit some "feminists", they are derided for it. It seems that a woman only has one real choice, get a job or be considered a housewife enslaved to the Patriarchy. Having kids on top of that scores bonus points, especially if they are perfect kids in every way, but the woman has to keep her job through that, or she becomes a "barefoot and pregnant" slave worthy only of pity.
Yeah, there are people who believe feminism is simply a more equitable opportunity for women, but you cannot tell me that there is not a very strong undercurrent of bias towards how that "choice" is used.
In any case, we keep coming back to the pay gap between men and women. Clearly there is something there, but I keep seeing varying reasoning behind it. In the end, it is probably complex. Some of it is no doubt women not negotiating. And there are certainly attitudes involved that might make some men dislike working with and for women. I think some of those will go away over time, but I think that some will not. If a woman is disadvantaged in a male dominated workplace, a man will be disadvantaged in the opposite situation. And unless there are some very brutally logical and strongly enforced rules, I don't see a perfectly balanced "equality" situation ever coming about.
Ridiculous. How will I be able to afford my own aircraft carrier if you're taking 90% of my billions?
I have the right to keep and bear armed naval fighters.
Some of the stuff that has been made is pretty professional, though. We're not talking about some cheap short video. These aren't full-on productions, but they spend decent amounts of money. A suit against their production would shut them down. It definitely feels like they only want short items that can't actually tell a complete story or compete with them in any meaningful way.
It's pretty shitty and all about money and control, but what did you expect from Paramount?
The prop junk doesn't bother me as much as the rest. It may be a bit of a money grab, but it could be argued that they don't want your production costumes to look like shit.
Of course, if you have a costume designer that makes *better* stuff than their commercial stuff, which is certainly possible given what I have seen out there, then that's annoying.
The summary also says that the same loophole could be used to downgrade VPN'ed traffic too. If you can't deep inspect the packet, it may simply assert that unclassifiable traffic is a traffic threat too. So, you could find that both specific BitTorrent and unrecognizable encrypted traffic could both be deprioritized in deference to other protocols.
Not sure how this would work in practice, but the loophole sounds just wide enough to make it easy for the ISPs to make use of while requiring expensive litigation to clarify.
If you work in a union shop on the clock, you take those breaks on-time and whether you like it or not. The hour lunch is fine, but I recall not knowing what the heck to do with my 15 minute break except sit at the picnic table in the break room and stare at some newspapers. Not saying that the break was not welcome, but I suppose I'd prefer a little flexibility.
Now, most of the jobs I have worked the last 20 years since the union job, you generally work more, but you're more free to take time off. As one of my long-ago co-workers said, "Exempt from overtime" sometimes means you work less than 40 hours too. You just have to ensure that you know how to manage it.
That is probably more of a personal choice than an actual job requirement.
I tend to work until 9-10pm, but then, I come in at 10-11am after all of the traffic has been dealt with. On the occasions that I do have to come in by 9, I get first hand experience of how much better my life is by not having to follow the herd.
I am pretty lucky I can get away with it though. Being in tech does sometimes have advantages.
I do own TVs, but our cable broke a couple of years ago, and I couldn't be arsed to get it fixed. Admittedly, there's just the wife and I with the dog, but no one seemed to care.
When we moved, we got internet service, but not cable. It hasn't really changed much.
You might suggest that we watch shows on Netflix or Hulu and on YouTube or something, and that's true, but only very occasionally. I don't think I've watched a single show regularly in years.
That said, I occupy my time with lots and lots of video games and a fair amount of socialization, so it's not like I'm not ingesting some sort of content to keep me occupied for hours on end, its just that I prefer my content be more or less interactive. It has given me the time to play some stupidly detailed games, so there is that.
I have nothing against TV, and when there are some really good shows on, I like watching them. I suppose I just get tired of good shows either being cancelled too soon, or lasting just a bit too long or being meddled with. I have a lot of respect for shows that tell a story, finish it up well, and don't try and milk it for all it is worth if they have a winning formula. I figure that some series I will be watching when they're done and complete and I know they weren't complete disappointments at the end.
I agree, although being a player of those games, I can't envision them being part of any sort of public school education. There are always going to be people with the needed attention span, but there will also be people who do not have that attention span. They're getting better with the tutorials, but you still need to seriously hit the wikis for them.
That said, Crusader Kings II would have been a ton of fun, especially since it really shows the soap opera aspect of how your court works. Still don't think most kids would be able to handle it. For that matter, most adults either. It's not even a matter of intelligence, those games just require a significant investment in time and interest in detail in order to even play, let alone master.
Aside from all of that... the biggest challenge that the schools have is the need to cater to the least common denominator and follow a set curriculum. They need to squeeze those dates out and get them jammed in the heads of their students or they fail the multiple choice standardized tests.
Yeah, I don't see video games as educationally valuable unless they simulate what they are trying to teach in some realistic fashion. Or alternately, use a technique to drill you on skills or rote knowledge, like a Mathblaster would have done.
History at a high level is about interactions between people relating to resource allocation and what ideas will be dominant. Ideas in particular.
The Civ game can certainly show a fight over resources, but the actual ideas and interactions part is not really done well. For one thing, it fails to show how the spread of ideas changes how things work over time, mostly because the player themselves is in full control and executes whatever government or idea not as a true believer, but as someone who knows what the bonuses are and can avoid the downfalls.
Kings who believe that they have divine right to rule, Communists who believe that the end of history is right around the corner, or capitalists fixated on the Invisible Hand, do not go through life like Civ players. They don't control the ideas, the ideas control them. The one thing that people need to learn from history is perspective, or they will act like they know better than the people before them when they're being controlled just as surely as those people have been in the past. And not controlled by some sort of Illuminati, but by the ideas that they do not view critically.
It is possible for them to ignore it, but it would be a very, very difficult thing to pull off. Even in the UK.
And as soon as they trigger Article 50, they've pressed the button, it doesn't matter if completing the process takes two years or so. And Cameron promised to do that as soon as possible. Which means June 27th or so. Unless he backs off that pledge, or they play a very, very fast game of political speed chess, this is happening.
There is only one possible way that staying in remains plausible, the EU caves on a lot of items that they have indicated that would not cave in on.
However, short of complete capitulation on a number of items, you don't tell 52% of the population to get bent when they have their goal in their sights. Not on that short of a timeframe. They'd need WWIII to distract the public on this short a notice.
I admit, I am not a regular user of Tor, but I recall the times I have played around with it, the warnings were pretty explicit everywhere I went about JS. Its odd that leaving it on is the default in the bundle, although technically you don't have to turn it off to actually use Tor, it's just a really, really good idea.
Tor can only protect you if your machine can't be made to report back information about it. It doesn't help you very much to have an anonymous end point if the server on the other end can simply ask your browser to fetch the actual IP address of your host and other information about it.
Javascript allows calls like that to make your browser turn over that information. The reliable only way to prevent those calls is to turn JS off totally in your browser that is being used for Tor.
And the way you know that is by installing Tor and running tests against a site created to test those vulnerabilities. Or you could simply heed all of the giant warnings that Tor tends to have about turning off Javascript and just trusting them on that.
I think that when you're 20-40 years down the road, you don't hold quite the same ideas you did when you're younger. Some people do, but many do not. There are probably Leavers today who were OK with "Europe" the first time around. A few decades can make a big difference.
I do think that some situations may well be inevitable, and there could be a re-federalism later down the road, but people aren't always right about *which ideas* are the ones that are actually inevitable.
While the Republicans and the Leavers did take advantage of this split, I think you're 100% wrong about why it happened.
Blaming those groups is putting the cart before the horse. The Republicans did have a Southern Strategy which won them a number of votes, and have ceaselessly catered to groups like this, but you don't bank on such a strategy without there being something there to begin with.
I think what you're really blaming those groups for is giving those people a voice where they would have been hidden previously. Unfortunately, that is perfectly democratic. There was no corrupt voting here. If enough people for Remain (or for one of the other Republican primary candidates) had come out, then Remain (and someone other than Donald Trump) would have won.
Oddly enough, I think that if the EU had been more democratic, as opposed to bureaucratic, then this would not have been an issue. But since it was not, the democratic process could be used against it in the UK.
As it stands I was surprised about Donald Trump and about the Leave vote (although less so about the latter because the margin was much thinner), but they only won because they mobilized people to vote who had real or perceived grievances. In many cases, people who did not bother previously.
The more progressive or moderate groups failed because they believe that they are right. The problem is that democracy is a shitty means of determining the truth value of a proposition if enough people don't want it to be right.
Who do you think got them into the EEC and EU when *they* were the next generation?
I think it was a bad decision to leave, but I do think that certain segments of the population probably got shafted by the EU and had to live through it. Which also explains why the Leavers came out in well organized force. If you've spent 20-40 years hoping for this day, for better or worse, you're going to show up.
There are real advantages to Federalism, but there are some steep pitfalls that I don't think the EU ever really addressed. The arguments that the EU was mostly an imperial bureaucracy over a federal democracy are not without merit.
Young people need to learn something, which they probably never will. There is no inevitability of their ideas just because they hold them, or even because they seem like a really good idea or because they are "progressive". "Progress" is always in the eye of the beholder. If they act as if these ideas are inevitable, they will make mistakes like this and not a) come up with a coherent and reasonable strategy to manage the drawbacks and b) they will not organize and come out to vote.
Aside from whether that matters or not, handguns have been military weapons since the beginning. They're carried as side-arms by every army in the world, and pistols of some form have been carried since time of the matchlock. Cavalry units, in particular, were the major users of such on the battlefield, particularly since they were easier to use on horseback and you could carry multiples of them so you had more than one shot ready if you needed it.
I'd argue that Hitler was brilliant politically, but he was a military rube most of the way through.
The German military was a top notch organization that basically did not stop planning for the next war even after they lost WWI. Pretty much all of their success was good German military training, staff work, and doctrine. They worked hard starting from 1918 on to get back on top, it wasn't a miracle from 1933 on.
Of course, without Hitler, it seems unlikely that the democratic parties of the day would have allowed them off their leash, but it was always possible for there to be a coup in Germany as the military was already a state within a state well before Hitler rose to power.
Hitler basically took credit for good planning by his generals. Yes, he did initially give them the scope to do their jobs, perhaps even encouraged them to make certain achievements, but it was Hitler that ordered the panzers to stop short of Dunkirk. Mind you, they were running well ahead of their supply train and they had left their infantry support in the dust, but it could be argued that this was a strategically bad decision on his part.
It's easy to look like a genius when you have an elite team under you and the other side doesn't have their heart in the game, even if you're a rather lackluster military leader. His mistakes caught up with him when his elite team was dismembered and he failed to give his good generals the leeway to make decisions that the Allies allowed theirs because he thought he was a genius, instead of just having a really good starting position and a fair amount of luck.
The thing is... the Dems don't want to do that, per se.
They're just too focused on their pet project that they can't see that this is the absolutely wrong battle to fight over gun regulation.
There is nothing unconstitutional about reasonable gun regulation.
There is everything unconstitutional about removing Second Amendment rights from people on lists that are generated without due process, and definitely without them being convicted of a felony in a proper judicial proceeding.
Those Dems need to get up and re-write those provisions to remove the watch lists, and then they can sit back down again and ask for something that is not unconstitutional.
Indeed, that is like the legislatures of most countries, both free and unfree. There is nothing odd about non-public sessions, although I agree that they should be used with care lest they undermine the legitimacy of the legislature.
While I agree that the NRA and company are taking it too far, there is in fact no such determination that the well-regulated militia is the National Guard.
And more importantly, there is no determination that the right to keep and bear arms is directly associated with the well-regulated militia clause.
"U.S. Supreme Court (1997): In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment."
"U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias."
So bearing arms is actually nothing at all about the militia.
Don't get me wrong, I don't oppose common sense gun regulation, like background checks and safety training.
On the other hand, I am forced to agree that the current call for cancelling the rights of people on something like a watch list, is almost certainly unconstitutional. The watch lists are for surveillance and removing the right to keep and bear arms cannot be done by regular legislation, particularly if based on a list has just almost zero due process involved.
While again, I agree that the NRA is going too far, that still does not make it permissible to undermine those constitutional rights of those who are not given a proper trial.