I challenge you to find a general dictionary that clearly spells out the differences such that we can apply it to any political topic and get a definitive answer.
I am suspicious of claims that the human future is in space.
Me too, but since we cannot predict all future threats, we should hedge our bets by taking multiple preservation approaches. The more backups and spares we make, the more likely at least one will survive chaos and wars. (Remember the days when floppy disks were very unreliable? One backup was not enough.)
As far as the bot-versus-human debate, it's possible the future is both: human minds will be scanned and then digitally emulated. That way our "personality" can travel among the stars without the expensive life support of biological bodies. ("Death" scans may be easier than scanning living brains because at first it may require slicing or other harmful techniques to get a good scan.)
But scan-and-emulate may be a ways off such that a biological Noah's Ark(s) would be a first step.
Managers don't leave a documentation trail. They use "goal" pressure and implication to get low-level employees to cheat. When discovered, they blame everything on the low-level employees.
ACA is based on a paper from a right-wing think thank, so why is it "left"? Single payer would be "left" I agree, but ACA looks centrist, or even slightly right to me.
Gun control? Most of the population agree to the limits and background checks proposed by Hillary. Wouldn't that make them "centrist"?
And why is climate change "left"? The vast majority of the world doesn't believe it's a hoax. The right are very lonely on the hoax position.
He's ahead of us all! He's the first virtual reality president. Forget "the cloud", that's so 2000's.
We don't need the dusty shackles of physical reality; we can make our own reality, our own facts, or own logic, our own hair that follows our own gravity and tint. You can even grope Jupiter and sock it in that big red eye when it tries to sue you! Make Saturn's rings into your hair, Lady Gaga will drool with jealousy.
2 + 2 does not have to be 4. It can 7, or -99.2, or 666, or FLEEB, whatever the hell you want! Deficit Smefficit. Go ahead and divide by zero; he made a deal with God.
Robots can't take your job because you ARE the robot...and Lady Gaga at the same time. The sky is NOT the limit, everyone gets their own Personal Matrix, and Sharia Chinese Mexicans will pay for it!
Get with it: The Future is here, and it's Virtually Yuuuuuge!
I worked at a place where a clerk in accounting manipulated the bills to trick customers to send refunds to her own bank. The clerk got away with about $10k (in current dollars) before caught. She lost about the same in pension when fired, but was NOT turned over to law enforcement.
She seemed like a nice person, but grew quiet during the period she was cheating.
A similar crime happened about 2 years later by somebody else in the same accounting department. That's what happens when they are not jailed: you send a message that the risk is small.
It would hurt company stock and reputation to prosecute, so they don't do anything about it. The company deserved the 2nd one.
I'm pretty sure cheating-to-reach-sales-goals is quite common and inflicts lots of industries. The techniques, psychology, and practices used by Wells Fargo and Office Depot are common to corporations.
Ghost services and their fees have "accidentally" been added to our telecom bills on multiple occasions, for example.
I've even worked for companies that have paid me to lie to clients (not consumers). The body language of managers pushing to do such suggested it was common and expected. It was either really good acting to convince me it's normal and risk-free, or it is indeed common and expected to them. Either of those scenarios is evil.
It's one reason why talk of deregulation makes me nervous. It's not just trickle-down, but slime-down.
Oddly enough, it's been the left that's screamed about offshoring for years now.
I don't really disagree with Trump that offshoring/trade-deals are a problem. But they are not the biggest problem. Trump ignored the biggest problem, other than vague talk about dereg and tax cuts stimulating the economy making all boats float. Stale & failed trickle-down-theory.
Hillary at least in part addressed the biggest problem by offering extensive retraining programs.
As far as "corruption", neither had a clear advantage in that category; it wasn't a difference-maker.
Basically a company with prospects for growth will, on average, do better by their customers than a company without any prospect to grow.
Or shrink or die. Oligopolies almost always suck. They may be okay when they first become oligopolies because they still have the fire of competition in their culture. But gradually they grow too comfortable, or spend most resources on preventing new-comers rather than on being good.
It's the main reason Microsoft failed with their mobile and tablet devices despite having early entries: they don't know how to compete without the protection of bundling with their dominate products: they only know how to play bundling games out of experience and habit.
Slashdot Mirror
I challenge you to find a general dictionary that clearly spells out the differences such that we can apply it to any political topic and get a definitive answer.
Me too, but since we cannot predict all future threats, we should hedge our bets by taking multiple preservation approaches. The more backups and spares we make, the more likely at least one will survive chaos and wars. (Remember the days when floppy disks were very unreliable? One backup was not enough.)
As far as the bot-versus-human debate, it's possible the future is both: human minds will be scanned and then digitally emulated. That way our "personality" can travel among the stars without the expensive life support of biological bodies. ("Death" scans may be easier than scanning living brains because at first it may require slicing or other harmful techniques to get a good scan.)
But scan-and-emulate may be a ways off such that a biological Noah's Ark(s) would be a first step.
She found out, and that's where the dwarf status came from.
I meant in terms of commercial success. Accuracy and relevance is another matter altogether.
She sure got around
Managers don't leave a documentation trail. They use "goal" pressure and implication to get low-level employees to cheat. When discovered, they blame everything on the low-level employees.
Isn't that a Simon and Garfunkel lyric?
Fox News is also a comedy show. Most viewers just don't realize that.
Why is it The Right sucks at comedy and The Left sucks at AM radio?
What are centrist views then? What's an example?
ACA is based on a paper from a right-wing think thank, so why is it "left"? Single payer would be "left" I agree, but ACA looks centrist, or even slightly right to me.
Gun control? Most of the population agree to the limits and background checks proposed by Hillary. Wouldn't that make them "centrist"?
And why is climate change "left"? The vast majority of the world doesn't believe it's a hoax. The right are very lonely on the hoax position.
Oh! Crap! No! Redo!
Thanks!
...Hillary's cloth
Why is that modded "funny"? Would be the most rational appointment T's made
He's ahead of us all! He's the first virtual reality president. Forget "the cloud", that's so 2000's.
We don't need the dusty shackles of physical reality; we can make our own reality, our own facts, or own logic, our own hair that follows our own gravity and tint. You can even grope Jupiter and sock it in that big red eye when it tries to sue you! Make Saturn's rings into your hair, Lady Gaga will drool with jealousy.
2 + 2 does not have to be 4. It can 7, or -99.2, or 666, or FLEEB, whatever the hell you want! Deficit Smefficit. Go ahead and divide by zero; he made a deal with God.
Robots can't take your job because you ARE the robot...and Lady Gaga at the same time. The sky is NOT the limit, everyone gets their own Personal Matrix, and Sharia Chinese Mexicans will pay for it!
Get with it: The Future is here, and it's Virtually Yuuuuuge!
You must be new to politics.
Although, Trump did crank the knob from "ridiculous" to "Yuuugely Ludicrous".
I imagined something more like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Looks like you got the 'We11sFar60' virus. It'll be $200 to remove it."
I worked at a place where a clerk in accounting manipulated the bills to trick customers to send refunds to her own bank. The clerk got away with about $10k (in current dollars) before caught. She lost about the same in pension when fired, but was NOT turned over to law enforcement.
She seemed like a nice person, but grew quiet during the period she was cheating.
A similar crime happened about 2 years later by somebody else in the same accounting department. That's what happens when they are not jailed: you send a message that the risk is small.
It would hurt company stock and reputation to prosecute, so they don't do anything about it. The company deserved the 2nd one.
Thanks. By the way, can you recommend a good Firefox grammer chekker?
Possible interpretations of that sentence:
1. The report appeared on slashdot as a story ;-)
2. Slashdot serves malware
3. Slashdot makes infected PC's (Do they install duplicate software?
#1 would seem the most likely, but appearing on slashdot doesn't give an article enough extra cred to deserve the explanation point.
I'm pretty sure cheating-to-reach-sales-goals is quite common and inflicts lots of industries. The techniques, psychology, and practices used by Wells Fargo and Office Depot are common to corporations.
Ghost services and their fees have "accidentally" been added to our telecom bills on multiple occasions, for example.
I've even worked for companies that have paid me to lie to clients (not consumers). The body language of managers pushing to do such suggested it was common and expected. It was either really good acting to convince me it's normal and risk-free, or it is indeed common and expected to them. Either of those scenarios is evil.
It's one reason why talk of deregulation makes me nervous. It's not just trickle-down, but slime-down.
Rats, I forgot the word "beautiful". My Trumpology slipped
Trump: "It'll be a Yuuuuuge agency, and we'll make the Internets pay for it!"
I don't really disagree with Trump that offshoring/trade-deals are a problem. But they are not the biggest problem. Trump ignored the biggest problem, other than vague talk about dereg and tax cuts stimulating the economy making all boats float. Stale & failed trickle-down-theory.
Hillary at least in part addressed the biggest problem by offering extensive retraining programs.
As far as "corruption", neither had a clear advantage in that category; it wasn't a difference-maker.
He's a pro-interventionist. We'd have our grubby fingers in too many mid-east pies. (Some argue H is also, but not to the same extent.)
Or shrink or die. Oligopolies almost always suck. They may be okay when they first become oligopolies because they still have the fire of competition in their culture. But gradually they grow too comfortable, or spend most resources on preventing new-comers rather than on being good.
It's the main reason Microsoft failed with their mobile and tablet devices despite having early entries: they don't know how to compete without the protection of bundling with their dominate products: they only know how to play bundling games out of experience and habit.