My Samsung has a "wormhole" that spreads open to unlock. Same thing as the slider, just in more directions. Go ahead, Apple, and try to patent this Goatse UI. The jury will not like the prior art.
Some economists suggest that a "helicopter stimulus" (direct printing of money) by the FR would have been a better option than a QE stimulus (or perhaps a combo). Without either, the inflation rate would be far too low, and is arguably still to low. QE gives the investor class more money, but investment money is not the bottleneck currently; consumption is. Giving the rich yet more money does very little to increase consumption.
Actually money is (nearly) free: we can print as much as we want. Money is an artificial construct, and we can use some inflation. Studies show the best economies are when inflation is around about 2.3%. It's now at about 1.7%.
And taking it from the rich to juice the rest of the economy may actually help to keep the rich wealthy. You can view the economy kind of like the circulatory system. Production capacity is currently under-utilized because there are insufficient consumers to trigger companies to expand.
Capital is cheap yet co's are not using it. Why? Because not enough consuming. We can juice the cycle by taking from the "full" areas of the economy, the cash of the rich, and moving it to the bottleneck: consumers. This cranks up the ENTIRE economy, including the rich's economy. Lack of consumerism is like a blood-clot.
We can control "evolution" using technology to leap-frog the old way of "evolving". Evolution is change, and there are multiple paths to change, some faster than others. I see no reason to cling to the nostalgia of the old ways and make the here-and-now population suffer for the sake of some speculation about some long term effect in a future that we cannot accurate predict the shape of.
// Trump-A-Matic forEach(t = getNextTopic()) {
forEach(p = getNextPerson()) {
i = randomInteger(1, 10);
switch(i) {
case(1){print("$p sucks at $t, I'm much better!");}
case(2){print("$p had a HUUUGE failure with $t!");}
case(3){print("$p looks like a sick horse.");}
case(4){print("$p has low energy. They'll fall asleep doing $t.");}
case(5){print("I have connections with Jesus to get $t done!");}
case(6){print("I already bought $p's experts on $t. $p now has nothin!");}
case(7){print("I've had HUUUGE successes at $t. p$ screwed it up badly.");}
case(8){print("I'll get Putin to personally fix $t himself.");}
case(9){print("$p cannot even get elected dog-catcher. It's why only dogs vote for $p.");}
case(10){print("My hair alone has more IQ points than $p's entire family!");}
}// end-case
}// end-for p }// end-for t // Patent pending. Mis-nesting is/. fault.
numerous entitlement programs have done to the USA. Our labor participation rate is the lowest it's been in my lifetime
Bull! It went down largely because factories drifted overseas, and nothing equivalent is replacing it on the same scale. Smarter machines and dirt-cheap overseas labor by desperate near-slaves are clearly biting into career options for high-school-level workers. Almost everything predictable and repetitious is drying up before our eyes.
Even wages among the educated have been stagnant of late. Education only delays the inevitable. The current economy hugely favors the 1%: it's a winner-take-all economy.
If you get in the 1% club you have the power to protect your turf. If you are outside the club, you have to grovel with the masses for the shrinking pie.
So you are proposing Social Darwinism? Should our purpose be to take care of people, or breed them?
My opinion is that society is changing too fast for traditional evolution to keep up (in a practical sense). The best skill set for the 1950's are largely obsolete, and things will be very different in a few decades I'm sure.
Perhaps people can be easily generically modified to be smarter, more motivated, and better disciplined in the future. Today's "defects" won't matter just as being metabolically efficient doesn't matter today because food is relatively cheep in industrial nations (barring an apocalypses). Maybe many people are "lazy" because it made them metabolically efficient in the past, allowing them to avoid starvation or malnutrition. Similarly, why browbeat people today for the undesirable-trait-of-the-decade when it may matter very little in the future (easily repaired or irrelevant)?
Most life usually ends up spreading itself for spreading's sake. Evolution pushes life that way. They won't come here for us specifically, but rather to spread themselves.
And if you spread by taking the lowest-hanging fruit first, then large galactic clusters would typically get priority over smaller ones.
You have to give VB credit for taking GUI's from an arcane dark art to something intuitive and approachable. For "non-enterprise" or local applications, you didn't need the fine control over every pixel that say C++ gave you.
The same thing now requires 4 different languages (HTML, CSS, JS, server-side prog.) and layers of goofy API's, and everybody does it differently.
The speculation on Pluto's dynamic surface is that as it cycles closer and further from the sun, the substances on its surface change densities relative to each other, creating a kind of pumping action.
For example, at the furthest point from the sun, substance A may be denser than substance B. But it could reverse near the closest point to the sun if A expands more than B under the increased heat (at that temperature). Thus A is pushed beneath B for part of the orbit, and then B is pushed beneath A for the other part. This push/pull action against uneven terrain creates a natural pump which smushes stuff all around, giving the melted-plastic look we find at Pluto.
Our local galactic cluster is small by universal standards. The Copernican Principle (Mediocrity Principle) would normally place us in a larger cluster. This suggests that the small-ness may have protected us from being assimilated or slaughtered. A spreading civilization would occupy larger clusters before smaller ones because the small ones are too much travel for low resource gain.
So I end up making something as general as possible "just in case" someone somewhere might want to do things that way
I've had similar situations, and often it backfires because the most general also tends to be rather abstract to users. Often one has to make the best guess based on experience, knowing that fuzzy requirements are fairly likely to bite everyone.
It's NOT obvious because it's very gradual and there are multiple potential places the energy can be transferred from, such as Saturn's spin rate, the moon's orbital momentum, the moon's (past) rotation, the rings, and/or nearby moons. Resonance based energy transfer can be quite unintuitive.
Amen! The bottleneck of coding is not getting a program to "work", but making it maintainable: easy to add or change requirements and easy to study (read) to fix.
I've inherited "amateur" programs before, and they are often just not worth it. It was often less total resources to start from scratch.
Now, I'm fine with small personal automation utilities, but it shouldn't be expected that if the author (newbie programmer) moves on to another job, that a regular programmer should be expected to maintain it.
If it has shared utility or data, then it's best to have an experienced professional code it.
(Except, maybe in the few cases that the "professional" is so big of a jerk that the amateur is the better alternative.)
The article does not have specifics on the scope. Yes, it does say some non-defense organizations use it, but is rather fuzzy beyond that. Did I miss something?
Generally the law is vague such it doesn't dictate HOW it gets stored.
If one sends to or CC's a gov't server, which would normally or often be the case for work stuff, then generally it will get backed up in a way that satisfies the requirement (at least if backups are done properly, which they often weren't in practice, but that's another issue.)
If H forgot to follow this "copy" guideline, then there may be a legitimate complaint. But so far nobody has claimed a definitive specific case of such slippage.
"D" stands for "Defense". It wasn't a defense agency. I'll give you some kudo points if you can show that her agency was subject to DISA STIGs at the time, and more kudo points if you can show that the office server in question passed a review.
Slashdot Mirror
My Samsung has a "wormhole" that spreads open to unlock. Same thing as the slider, just in more directions. Go ahead, Apple, and try to patent this Goatse UI. The jury will not like the prior art.
Some economists suggest that a "helicopter stimulus" (direct printing of money) by the FR would have been a better option than a QE stimulus (or perhaps a combo). Without either, the inflation rate would be far too low, and is arguably still to low. QE gives the investor class more money, but investment money is not the bottleneck currently; consumption is. Giving the rich yet more money does very little to increase consumption.
Actually money is (nearly) free: we can print as much as we want. Money is an artificial construct, and we can use some inflation. Studies show the best economies are when inflation is around about 2.3%. It's now at about 1.7%.
And taking it from the rich to juice the rest of the economy may actually help to keep the rich wealthy. You can view the economy kind of like the circulatory system. Production capacity is currently under-utilized because there are insufficient consumers to trigger companies to expand.
Capital is cheap yet co's are not using it. Why? Because not enough consuming. We can juice the cycle by taking from the "full" areas of the economy, the cash of the rich, and moving it to the bottleneck: consumers. This cranks up the ENTIRE economy, including the rich's economy. Lack of consumerism is like a blood-clot.
We can control "evolution" using technology to leap-frog the old way of "evolving". Evolution is change, and there are multiple paths to change, some faster than others. I see no reason to cling to the nostalgia of the old ways and make the here-and-now population suffer for the sake of some speculation about some long term effect in a future that we cannot accurate predict the shape of.
Even Trump is automatable:
Bull! It went down largely because factories drifted overseas, and nothing equivalent is replacing it on the same scale. Smarter machines and dirt-cheap overseas labor by desperate near-slaves are clearly biting into career options for high-school-level workers. Almost everything predictable and repetitious is drying up before our eyes.
Even wages among the educated have been stagnant of late. Education only delays the inevitable. The current economy hugely favors the 1%: it's a winner-take-all economy.
If you get in the 1% club you have the power to protect your turf. If you are outside the club, you have to grovel with the masses for the shrinking pie.
So you are proposing Social Darwinism? Should our purpose be to take care of people, or breed them?
My opinion is that society is changing too fast for traditional evolution to keep up (in a practical sense). The best skill set for the 1950's are largely obsolete, and things will be very different in a few decades I'm sure.
Perhaps people can be easily generically modified to be smarter, more motivated, and better disciplined in the future. Today's "defects" won't matter just as being metabolically efficient doesn't matter today because food is relatively cheep in industrial nations (barring an apocalypses). Maybe many people are "lazy" because it made them metabolically efficient in the past, allowing them to avoid starvation or malnutrition. Similarly, why browbeat people today for the undesirable-trait-of-the-decade when it may matter very little in the future (easily repaired or irrelevant)?
What do you feel the likelihood of getting elected is as a numerical percent?
Most life usually ends up spreading itself for spreading's sake. Evolution pushes life that way. They won't come here for us specifically, but rather to spread themselves.
And if you spread by taking the lowest-hanging fruit first, then large galactic clusters would typically get priority over smaller ones.
Dammit, you got me curious enough to try it.
Didn't we see this in Weird Science?
You have to give VB credit for taking GUI's from an arcane dark art to something intuitive and approachable. For "non-enterprise" or local applications, you didn't need the fine control over every pixel that say C++ gave you.
The same thing now requires 4 different languages (HTML, CSS, JS, server-side prog.) and layers of goofy API's, and everybody does it differently.
The speculation on Pluto's dynamic surface is that as it cycles closer and further from the sun, the substances on its surface change densities relative to each other, creating a kind of pumping action.
For example, at the furthest point from the sun, substance A may be denser than substance B. But it could reverse near the closest point to the sun if A expands more than B under the increased heat (at that temperature). Thus A is pushed beneath B for part of the orbit, and then B is pushed beneath A for the other part. This push/pull action against uneven terrain creates a natural pump which smushes stuff all around, giving the melted-plastic look we find at Pluto.
Because co's haven't yet figured out how to mass exploit clock makers. But, it's only a matter of time...
Oh, I'm sure there's a Darth Trump out there somewhere.
Our local galactic cluster is small by universal standards. The Copernican Principle (Mediocrity Principle) would normally place us in a larger cluster. This suggests that the small-ness may have protected us from being assimilated or slaughtered. A spreading civilization would occupy larger clusters before smaller ones because the small ones are too much travel for low resource gain.
I've had similar situations, and often it backfires because the most general also tends to be rather abstract to users. Often one has to make the best guess based on experience, knowing that fuzzy requirements are fairly likely to bite everyone.
Something new for Apple to steal
You are clicking the check-box wrong. -Steve J.
It's NOT obvious because it's very gradual and there are multiple potential places the energy can be transferred from, such as Saturn's spin rate, the moon's orbital momentum, the moon's (past) rotation, the rings, and/or nearby moons. Resonance based energy transfer can be quite unintuitive.
Once you got used to it, it was quite natural, and less keystrokes than parentheses.
Amen! The bottleneck of coding is not getting a program to "work", but making it maintainable: easy to add or change requirements and easy to study (read) to fix.
I've inherited "amateur" programs before, and they are often just not worth it. It was often less total resources to start from scratch.
Now, I'm fine with small personal automation utilities, but it shouldn't be expected that if the author (newbie programmer) moves on to another job, that a regular programmer should be expected to maintain it.
If it has shared utility or data, then it's best to have an experienced professional code it.
(Except, maybe in the few cases that the "professional" is so big of a jerk that the amateur is the better alternative.)
The article does not have specifics on the scope. Yes, it does say some non-defense organizations use it, but is rather fuzzy beyond that. Did I miss something?
Generally the law is vague such it doesn't dictate HOW it gets stored.
If one sends to or CC's a gov't server, which would normally or often be the case for work stuff, then generally it will get backed up in a way that satisfies the requirement (at least if backups are done properly, which they often weren't in practice, but that's another issue.)
If H forgot to follow this "copy" guideline, then there may be a legitimate complaint. But so far nobody has claimed a definitive specific case of such slippage.
"D" stands for "Defense". It wasn't a defense agency. I'll give you some kudo points if you can show that her agency was subject to DISA STIGs at the time, and more kudo points if you can show that the office server in question passed a review.