That editorial says news orgs should shape up and focus on accuracy over profit by focusing on Trump's deeds rather than just his entertaining antics, but acknowledges the Internet is eating their lunch. They would shrink more, leaving the antics-oriented orgs and sites to take away their market share. They are stuck between a rock and a hard-place.
You can't ask an organization to kill itself for the sake of the greater good. It may be a nice thing to do, but not a realistic expectation.
I can see them complimenting each other. Drones give you complex geometrical patterns, movement, and words; while traditional fireworks give you Kaboom and little sparkles.
There are plenty of facts to be had to indict not just Clinton, but a large number of people from the Democratic Party, numerous PACs, the DOJ, the State Department...
You don't get it. The laws are vague because they are written by politicians, who are not the brightest humans we have. For one, they want to dump details onto the courts and jurors instead of think and commit to solid positions. I've been on juries where we are stuck for several hours interpreting vague language.
Vagueness means those with expensive lawyers get out of stuff, in EITHER party, because they know how to leverage vagueness.
Whether that's fair or not, that's the way things currently operate in the USA.
I don't know anything about this one, but considering the quality of the rest of your post, and that Rush Limbaugh seems to be the only person pushing this, this probably isn't what you think.
Most of the right's accusations are based on half truths. When one digs deeper, usually one finds more nuance.
For example, often people would come up to the Clintons and state, "We gave a donation to your foundation. By the way, could you please look into doing/changing X for us?"
It would be rude to say "no". One wouldn't get anywhere in life beyond a cubicle if they blew people off like that. Thus, the Clintons gave the same response as any non-autistic person would: "Sure, we cannot make any promises, but we'll look into it."
The Right finds that in leaked messages and shout, "Look! Collusion! Evil!"
While that's certainly true, it's also misdirection. A news organization checking the subject of an article isn't the point. It's that the government agency fielding the request gave the campaign a heads up, and took direction from the campaign about the response.
I'm not following. The category of the article's target person/org should NOT typically affect whether verification is done or not. Please clarify.
How about putting more of that money into those 'shovel-ready' infrastructure projects you were talking about all those years ago.
For those of you stuck on this worn Fox-News-meme, here's the fuller story:
Soon after O began his job in the White-house, he consulted top economists for solutions to the then quickly tumbling economy.
Looking at past stimulus plans and results from multiple countries, the economists suggested a stimulus had to be quick to be effective. "Big" infrastructure projects often take too long to ramp up. Surveys, plan review & approval, environmental studies, zoning studies, etc. have to be done first. These can take more than a year.
Therefore, the concept of "shovel ready" was created to only fund public works projects that could be ramped up quickly.
It turned out those are hard to come by. Some went to fixing potholes and the like, which I witnessed happening in my area, but otherwise they had difficulty finding quick-turnaround public works projects.
Instead, much of the stimulus was used to fund State budgets so that teachers, cops, fire-fighters, etc. would be less likely to be let go. This kept money flowing in the economy. Some also went to investments in green energy companies, such as solar. Sure, some went under, but investing is like that: win some loose some. To focus only on those that went under, like Solyndra, is cherry-picking evidence. (I will agree the investment selection process was poorly managed, though.)
It turned out the Great Recession went on longer than expected such that big public works projects would have been useful. But nobody has a crystal ball. The federal estimates of recession duration and depth were consistent with those made by private company estimates, I would note.
They were reasonable actions based on what was known at the time.
Some pro-austerity people claim that deep recessions fix themselves such that stimuluses are not necessary, but I've seen no evidence of this, other than making life so dreadful that people riot and war, which certainly stimulates economies, but kills.
I thought Microsoft got rid of program manager 20 years ago.
MS doesn't get rid of anything*, they just call it something different. When people started bad-mouthing Window's DOS usage under the hood as obsolete, they started calling it something like the "powerful command shell interface manager" or "command explorer" instead of DOS. (I don't remember the exact wording, so don't quote me. I'm officially just a troll.)
I don't necessarily blame them: old doesn't necessarily mean "bad". Mainframes are just "servers"; why belittle it just because it's a time-tested server called a "mainframe"? Solve it by calling it a "server", or maybe a "cloud enabler device" or whatnot. Fight marketing BS with counter-BS. Mainframes are more reliable than 3/4 of the "new" stuff anyhow.
* Except VB-Classic, which ticked off a lot of customers who had to rewrite gajillion lines of code.
A home Windows 7 PC of ours has default update settings, and about once per month it has a giant update of some kind that takes a good while to both download and install. (Let alone a few smaller ones in between.)
Whether it's hot-fixes, cold-fixes, or gerbil-fixes, I have no idea. I just know it's a whole lotta updating of something. Unless they use hard-coded file offsets as entry point addresses (which seems dumb*), I see no reason to update the whole kit-and-caboodle every month (or at least a large portion of the caboodle). I don't get it.
It doesn't have MS-Office installed, by the way.
* If your system updates frequently, you should use symbolic links/addresses/aliases, not hard-coded file offsets. It may run slower perhaps, but is more update-friendly in exchange.Did MS exchange bloated update packages for a speed gain?
Current mouses and keyboards are subject to RSI (inflamed joints), so it's hard to do worse. Maybe air-mousing has enough variety of movements to reduce RSI.
Since Windows is a collection of bajillion files, it seems logical that security and bug fixes would only have to replace files changed, yet upgrade downloads were gigantic, approaching the size of an entire OS.
Now it appears MS is confessing that they have been doing it the blunt low-brow way: the entire OS, or something close, came down for every upgrade all this time.
Imagine the collective bandwidth wasted on all that: it alone may have increased Earth's temperature by a degree or two. Does MS own bikini stock or something? I would guestimate Windows updates have made up between 10 to 40 percent of all Internet traffic. Seems a Yuuuuge MS blunder. Am I missing something?
The 1% constantly sells the idea, directly or indirectly, that we have to become more like the 3rd world to compete with the 3rd world.
We'd have to relax our environmental, labor, and safety laws to achieve this.
If you bring this up with the 1%, they'll typically reply that our pollution rules are written by "paranoid meddlers using fake science" and that long hours should be a choice an individual can make. During recessions it becomes work-long-hours-or-get-fired, though.
I believe we should try the opposite: tell the 3rd world we'll tariff their products unless they conform to certain standards. If enough countries do this, they will change and modernize. Without pressure, they won't change; it's human nature.
And don't claim they have to be export-driven to grow. There's no Law of Economics that says that; it's merely a copy-cat habit that we help feed by giving in. Unleash consumers, not just factories, and your econ will grow.
It might be. I predict the future will be something like Google Glass that projects a bigger screen (or equiv), and we'll use hand gestures to manipulate them. The objects may even be (virtual) 3D. To bystanders, people will look like they are conducting an invisible orchestra.
Or it may be an implant that stimulates the optical nerves, and similar for input instead of fingers. There's promising research that reduces or eliminates surgery of brain "connectors".
Or maybe fold-out phones, sort of wallet-esque will give people bigger screens such that they will be more desktop-like, or at least tablet-like.
I know that's the theory, and simulations tend to bear it out; but real cows aint spherical, and the military issue is rarely factored in.
So far it looks like the benefits of open trade tend to trickle upward, and the simulation writers don't know why yet. Their models are missing something.
Japan is fairly protectionist, yet has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. You may argue they have "less stuff" because of that, but it's up to THEM whether jobs are more important than stuff or vice versa. Equations and simulations cannot tell citizens which trade-off to select, only the impact.
Slashdot Mirror
...in a good way
That editorial says news orgs should shape up and focus on accuracy over profit by focusing on Trump's deeds rather than just his entertaining antics, but acknowledges the Internet is eating their lunch. They would shrink more, leaving the antics-oriented orgs and sites to take away their market share. They are stuck between a rock and a hard-place.
You can't ask an organization to kill itself for the sake of the greater good. It may be a nice thing to do, but not a realistic expectation.
What about putting explosives on drones and have a drone demolition battle.
I can see them complimenting each other. Drones give you complex geometrical patterns, movement, and words; while traditional fireworks give you Kaboom and little sparkles.
Plunging to Earth won't sound like a boom, but smashing into the side of your head at 30mph will.
and crash in 3
Please clarify.
Show us how to go fix them.
If HP makes the ink cartridges, they will be more expensive than what they repair.
You don't get it. The laws are vague because they are written by politicians, who are not the brightest humans we have. For one, they want to dump details onto the courts and jurors instead of think and commit to solid positions. I've been on juries where we are stuck for several hours interpreting vague language.
Vagueness means those with expensive lawyers get out of stuff, in EITHER party, because they know how to leverage vagueness.
Whether that's fair or not, that's the way things currently operate in the USA.
Most of the right's accusations are based on half truths. When one digs deeper, usually one finds more nuance.
For example, often people would come up to the Clintons and state, "We gave a donation to your foundation. By the way, could you please look into doing/changing X for us?"
It would be rude to say "no". One wouldn't get anywhere in life beyond a cubicle if they blew people off like that. Thus, the Clintons gave the same response as any non-autistic person would: "Sure, we cannot make any promises, but we'll look into it."
The Right finds that in leaked messages and shout, "Look! Collusion! Evil!"
SpinJob
I'm not following. The category of the article's target person/org should NOT typically affect whether verification is done or not. Please clarify.
For those of you stuck on this worn Fox-News-meme, here's the fuller story:
Soon after O began his job in the White-house, he consulted top economists for solutions to the then quickly tumbling economy.
Looking at past stimulus plans and results from multiple countries, the economists suggested a stimulus had to be quick to be effective. "Big" infrastructure projects often take too long to ramp up. Surveys, plan review & approval, environmental studies, zoning studies, etc. have to be done first. These can take more than a year.
Therefore, the concept of "shovel ready" was created to only fund public works projects that could be ramped up quickly.
It turned out those are hard to come by. Some went to fixing potholes and the like, which I witnessed happening in my area, but otherwise they had difficulty finding quick-turnaround public works projects.
Instead, much of the stimulus was used to fund State budgets so that teachers, cops, fire-fighters, etc. would be less likely to be let go. This kept money flowing in the economy. Some also went to investments in green energy companies, such as solar. Sure, some went under, but investing is like that: win some loose some. To focus only on those that went under, like Solyndra, is cherry-picking evidence. (I will agree the investment selection process was poorly managed, though.)
It turned out the Great Recession went on longer than expected such that big public works projects would have been useful. But nobody has a crystal ball. The federal estimates of recession duration and depth were consistent with those made by private company estimates, I would note.
They were reasonable actions based on what was known at the time.
Some pro-austerity people claim that deep recessions fix themselves such that stimuluses are not necessary, but I've seen no evidence of this, other than making life so dreadful that people riot and war, which certainly stimulates economies, but kills.
Patent Logic 101:
X via human hand: not patentable
X via robot hand: patentable
X via Internet: patentable
X via phone screen: patentable
X in the cloud: patentable
Simplify: skip the first step.
Actually, every phone is fold-able. Whether it's still useful afterwards is another matter.
MS doesn't get rid of anything*, they just call it something different. When people started bad-mouthing Window's DOS usage under the hood as obsolete, they started calling it something like the "powerful command shell interface manager" or "command explorer" instead of DOS. (I don't remember the exact wording, so don't quote me. I'm officially just a troll.)
I don't necessarily blame them: old doesn't necessarily mean "bad". Mainframes are just "servers"; why belittle it just because it's a time-tested server called a "mainframe"? Solve it by calling it a "server", or maybe a "cloud enabler device" or whatnot. Fight marketing BS with counter-BS. Mainframes are more reliable than 3/4 of the "new" stuff anyhow.
* Except VB-Classic, which ticked off a lot of customers who had to rewrite gajillion lines of code.
A home Windows 7 PC of ours has default update settings, and about once per month it has a giant update of some kind that takes a good while to both download and install. (Let alone a few smaller ones in between.)
Whether it's hot-fixes, cold-fixes, or gerbil-fixes, I have no idea. I just know it's a whole lotta updating of something. Unless they use hard-coded file offsets as entry point addresses (which seems dumb*), I see no reason to update the whole kit-and-caboodle every month (or at least a large portion of the caboodle). I don't get it.
It doesn't have MS-Office installed, by the way.
* If your system updates frequently, you should use symbolic links/addresses/aliases, not hard-coded file offsets. It may run slower perhaps, but is more update-friendly in exchange.Did MS exchange bloated update packages for a speed gain?
Current mouses and keyboards are subject to RSI (inflamed joints), so it's hard to do worse. Maybe air-mousing has enough variety of movements to reduce RSI.
Since Windows is a collection of bajillion files, it seems logical that security and bug fixes would only have to replace files changed, yet upgrade downloads were gigantic, approaching the size of an entire OS.
Now it appears MS is confessing that they have been doing it the blunt low-brow way: the entire OS, or something close, came down for every upgrade all this time.
Imagine the collective bandwidth wasted on all that: it alone may have increased Earth's temperature by a degree or two. Does MS own bikini stock or something? I would guestimate Windows updates have made up between 10 to 40 percent of all Internet traffic. Seems a Yuuuuge MS blunder. Am I missing something?
The 1% constantly sells the idea, directly or indirectly, that we have to become more like the 3rd world to compete with the 3rd world.
We'd have to relax our environmental, labor, and safety laws to achieve this.
If you bring this up with the 1%, they'll typically reply that our pollution rules are written by "paranoid meddlers using fake science" and that long hours should be a choice an individual can make. During recessions it becomes work-long-hours-or-get-fired, though.
I believe we should try the opposite: tell the 3rd world we'll tariff their products unless they conform to certain standards. If enough countries do this, they will change and modernize. Without pressure, they won't change; it's human nature.
And don't claim they have to be export-driven to grow. There's no Law of Economics that says that; it's merely a copy-cat habit that we help feed by giving in. Unleash consumers, not just factories, and your econ will grow.
Indeed. The devil's in the details, and we have none yet.
Rather than choose between shit vs puke, move away from oil.
It might be. I predict the future will be something like Google Glass that projects a bigger screen (or equiv), and we'll use hand gestures to manipulate them. The objects may even be (virtual) 3D. To bystanders, people will look like they are conducting an invisible orchestra.
Or it may be an implant that stimulates the optical nerves, and similar for input instead of fingers. There's promising research that reduces or eliminates surgery of brain "connectors".
Or maybe fold-out phones, sort of wallet-esque will give people bigger screens such that they will be more desktop-like, or at least tablet-like.
I know that's the theory, and simulations tend to bear it out; but real cows aint spherical, and the military issue is rarely factored in.
So far it looks like the benefits of open trade tend to trickle upward, and the simulation writers don't know why yet. Their models are missing something.
Japan is fairly protectionist, yet has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world. You may argue they have "less stuff" because of that, but it's up to THEM whether jobs are more important than stuff or vice versa. Equations and simulations cannot tell citizens which trade-off to select, only the impact.
No wonder Lex keeps giggling.