In Oregon our funds already are making it to the project. Because first of all, we vote directly on much of the major spending, and second we have civil engineers trained at in-State schools doing the project planning under a meritocratic type of system.
Projects get bid out after our State-paid engineers decide what they want built. It works.
Bend, which is east of the Cascades and in the semi-arid Central Oregon region is known as one of the best bicycle cities in the nation.
Lots of small communities all over the state that are reliant on tourism have bike paths in the recreation areas. Rural people who don't ride bicycles will benefit from many of the improvements paid for by this.
You don't know much about Oregon. About 50% of the people are urban, about 50% are rural, and we balance our spending very well around the State.
You can blah-blah all you like against State taxes, but we have direct democracy here and half the taxes pass. Which proves that they are both good and appropriate.
In Oregon we have strong, functioning direct democracy and we if we don't think we get benefit from a tax, we don't have that tax.
We vote on taxes all the time, half of them we pass.
We're unlikely to end up voting on this, because it will be popular. All laws in Oregon are voluntary.
Toll roads are not tolerated here. But half the recreation areas you might pull off the road at will have a fee. And that is why we have money for so many recreation areas. Toll roads happen because your government is held captive by the property developers. That capture happens because you don't have functioning direct democracy.
Even Ayn Rand supported public fire departments and police, though obviously she would have supported more powers for private police too.
She also says in her non-fiction books that people who just parrot whatever she said instead of thinking for themselves are dangerous idiots. Not as dangerous as those darn hippies, but still stupid and wrong.
She's like Machiavelli; people shouldn't listen to what people say about it, they should just read it for themselves and find out why it was even being talked about. If any of it was what people make it out to be, nobody would have even read it.
Here in Oregon Republicans don't buy $200+ bicycles unless they're part of the tiny minority who also bicycles in spandex. The vast majority of bicycle riders are in cities, and those people are Democrats.
The fact is this is a small tax that can be spent on bike paths during tough budget times.
Commenters here don't comprehend that Oregon has the strongest direct democracy in the Union, and if the people oppose it we will simply change it ourselves in less than a year. But republicans are happy to tax those hippy-dippie bicycles, and democrats want to build more bike paths.
When direct democracy is working, and the voters can vote on single issues, people often do support taxes. About half the taxes we vote on, we pass. The other half we reject. Taxes where the money goes to help the activity being taxed are popular; people who do the activity want the improvements, other people won't be paying for it.
If you just try to spend money out of the general fund, it is the same old partisan nonsense. If you have fee-based programs it can make more people happy. And people who never leave the house and don't have any hobbies won't have to pay for as much of society. Which is fine, "Bah, Humbug!" is a perfectly acceptable position out here.
My daily hike is on a hill that the vultures also like to visit recreationally. There is also a pair of bald eagles that live there. The eagles are not faster than the vultures during casual flight. The eagles have greater control at slow speeds, that's the main difference in their movement. The vultures mating displays are done at a much higher speed than eagles, and involve a wide variety of acrobatic feats. The vultures, when they're not involved in mating or playing, tend to choose a more relaxed style of flight with more gliding, but they reach high speeds easily whenever they want. And they actually do want to more often than the eagles. They're just more likely to spend an extra 5 seconds to ramp their speed up slowly; but not during mating season.
Most of the links on this are completely absurd. The reality of what has been discovered is that certain T. rex footprints were clearly made at a speed that would be jogging speed for humans, but the animal was using a walking-style gait. There is nothing about they couldn't have gone faster, or about their actual speed. That is the real knowledge we have; they did use a brisk walk when going through the mud in a place that left prints.
This new study isn't any sort of discovery, it is just a computer-aided-prognostication. It is not science in any way, it is just "paleo-engineering-philosophy" of some sort. One thing missing is; how fast does their computer model predict an ostrich can run? How fast does it say a polar bear can run? And they know it is weak sauce:
Burnham says the authors relied on a basic assumption about T. rex’s running style, and that, without knowing the “precise concert of the skeletomusculature system,” it could very well be that T. rex utilized a different gait similar to fast walking.
File this crap under: "We know we didn't have anything useful, but the abstract reduces to a nice headline."
If you were being sold raw sugar as "brown sugar" as a child, that just means that it was a local name that is a different product than what you would find in a modern grocery store following labeling laws.
Unless it was a local colloquial name, selling raw sugar as "brown sugar" would be false advertising; a scam.
Things you remember from your childhood are not facts. If you make a practice of looking them up now, you'll find out most of it was lies. That is true regardless of what they told you, too, because "things I heard" is almost entirely noise, not data.
Right, because the government defines brown sugar as sugar and molasses already. There are often different ways the same ingredient can be described.
If you understood that there is a thing called "raw sugar" and that it is different than brown sugar, then you might be able to comprehend that you can't get brown sugar without adding molasses to sugar. And you get molasses by refining raw sugar into white sugar; it is the stuff they took out of the raw sugar to make it refined sugar. You can't have a natural brown sugar, you just can't. The natural sugar is called "raw sugar." And it is a light blond color.
You can actually buy raw sugar and find out for yourself. Don't be a fucking illiterate asshole, I provided correct information and you're arguing without having looked it up. You didn't look it up, so you don't fucking know. I read the labels of all the food I eat, so I do know.
Fuck an A how fucking stupid do you have to be to argue with people without even looking the shit up?! Did you every consider, what happens if the other person actually read about the fucking manufacturing processes to find out how they are different? What then?! You're not quite that clever, are you?
And if you want to make it a little more exciting, you can drop 2 slices of cucumber into a pitcher of water and it gives the whole thing a nice refreshing flavor.
"brown sugar" isn't natural sugar. It is refined sugar with molasses added back in. The molasses is what they removed in previous steps, slightly burnt.
Natural sugar, which you can buy in most stores now, will be labeled "raw sugar" or "washed sugar" and it will be large crystals of a honey blond color.
The advantage of brown sugar is only that the flavor is so strong, you can modify recipes to use less. At a 1:1 ratio with no reduction, the brown sugar is more processed and more unhealthy than regular refined sugar.
I switched to linux when popular software finally stopped working on Win 3.11 with the Win32s extensions. The first couple years of Windows 95 you could still run it all from DOS.
Software brings people in, and then change drives them away. It seems so easy to solve, since change only drives upgrades and not new users, and over time software becomes more portable.
If you were using a typewriter, you'd be right to remove the key so that it can't be pressed, except that in that case tabs would already be spaces so it would be OK.
Just like, when somebody says, "modern flush toilets" you should be able to understand that they're talking about a regular flush toilet, not a wifi toilet. And there is nothing at all implied about their age. They're not claiming to be 200 years old, instead they're pointing out that not having a flush toilet would be archaic.
If you were a native English speaker you would have naturally understood that "modern editor like emacs or vi" simply means, an editor as modern as those examples. You think they're not very modern, that doesn't mean I made a mistake; it means you came very close to understanding, but failed at the last second.
My first doubt is, if his advice is targeted at people who aim artillery at their feet, why does he want more code from them? It seems like he's identified the people just to not accept pull requests from.
The problem with asking to make a small change to Make is that there are already twenty-seven thousand make alternatives and none of them just fix the problems. The only thing that is going to work consistently for everybody is make. Changing it is basically impossible at this point. The reason make is important, after all, is largely because of autotools. And that's an even bigger mess than make.
Spaces, yes. Except for Makefiles. But the good news is, sendmail was defeated!!!
Slashdot Mirror
In Oregon our funds already are making it to the project. Because first of all, we vote directly on much of the major spending, and second we have civil engineers trained at in-State schools doing the project planning under a meritocratic type of system.
Projects get bid out after our State-paid engineers decide what they want built. It works.
Bend, which is east of the Cascades and in the semi-arid Central Oregon region is known as one of the best bicycle cities in the nation.
Lots of small communities all over the state that are reliant on tourism have bike paths in the recreation areas. Rural people who don't ride bicycles will benefit from many of the improvements paid for by this.
You don't know much about Oregon. About 50% of the people are urban, about 50% are rural, and we balance our spending very well around the State.
You can blah-blah all you like against State taxes, but we have direct democracy here and half the taxes pass. Which proves that they are both good and appropriate.
Turn off the AM radio.
In Oregon we have strong, functioning direct democracy and we if we don't think we get benefit from a tax, we don't have that tax.
We vote on taxes all the time, half of them we pass.
We're unlikely to end up voting on this, because it will be popular. All laws in Oregon are voluntary.
Toll roads are not tolerated here. But half the recreation areas you might pull off the road at will have a fee. And that is why we have money for so many recreation areas. Toll roads happen because your government is held captive by the property developers. That capture happens because you don't have functioning direct democracy.
You're a liar.
Half the people we're talking about entered legally. It proves the lie.
Because moderators are asked to only vote up, not down, and so a lot of trash gets elevated.
My advice to moderators, if it is wrong it is probably also over-rated, redundant, or off-topic.
Interestingly, he didn't write it. And others who were also involved in drafting it claimed it had a different meaning.
Holding up Madison as a grand Authority isn't very persuasive when placed next to known history.
Even Ayn Rand supported public fire departments and police, though obviously she would have supported more powers for private police too.
She also says in her non-fiction books that people who just parrot whatever she said instead of thinking for themselves are dangerous idiots. Not as dangerous as those darn hippies, but still stupid and wrong.
She's like Machiavelli; people shouldn't listen to what people say about it, they should just read it for themselves and find out why it was even being talked about. If any of it was what people make it out to be, nobody would have even read it.
Here in Oregon Republicans don't buy $200+ bicycles unless they're part of the tiny minority who also bicycles in spandex. The vast majority of bicycle riders are in cities, and those people are Democrats.
The fact is this is a small tax that can be spent on bike paths during tough budget times.
Commenters here don't comprehend that Oregon has the strongest direct democracy in the Union, and if the people oppose it we will simply change it ourselves in less than a year. But republicans are happy to tax those hippy-dippie bicycles, and democrats want to build more bike paths.
When direct democracy is working, and the voters can vote on single issues, people often do support taxes. About half the taxes we vote on, we pass. The other half we reject. Taxes where the money goes to help the activity being taxed are popular; people who do the activity want the improvements, other people won't be paying for it.
If you just try to spend money out of the general fund, it is the same old partisan nonsense. If you have fee-based programs it can make more people happy. And people who never leave the house and don't have any hobbies won't have to pay for as much of society. Which is fine, "Bah, Humbug!" is a perfectly acceptable position out here.
Make Laurentia Great Again!
My daily hike is on a hill that the vultures also like to visit recreationally. There is also a pair of bald eagles that live there. The eagles are not faster than the vultures during casual flight. The eagles have greater control at slow speeds, that's the main difference in their movement. The vultures mating displays are done at a much higher speed than eagles, and involve a wide variety of acrobatic feats. The vultures, when they're not involved in mating or playing, tend to choose a more relaxed style of flight with more gliding, but they reach high speeds easily whenever they want. And they actually do want to more often than the eagles. They're just more likely to spend an extra 5 seconds to ramp their speed up slowly; but not during mating season.
Most of the links on this are completely absurd. The reality of what has been discovered is that certain T. rex footprints were clearly made at a speed that would be jogging speed for humans, but the animal was using a walking-style gait. There is nothing about they couldn't have gone faster, or about their actual speed. That is the real knowledge we have; they did use a brisk walk when going through the mud in a place that left prints.
This new study isn't any sort of discovery, it is just a computer-aided-prognostication. It is not science in any way, it is just "paleo-engineering-philosophy" of some sort. One thing missing is; how fast does their computer model predict an ostrich can run? How fast does it say a polar bear can run? And they know it is weak sauce:
File this crap under: "We know we didn't have anything useful, but the abstract reduces to a nice headline."
If you were being sold raw sugar as "brown sugar" as a child, that just means that it was a local name that is a different product than what you would find in a modern grocery store following labeling laws.
Unless it was a local colloquial name, selling raw sugar as "brown sugar" would be false advertising; a scam.
Things you remember from your childhood are not facts. If you make a practice of looking them up now, you'll find out most of it was lies. That is true regardless of what they told you, too, because "things I heard" is almost entirely noise, not data.
Right, because the government defines brown sugar as sugar and molasses already. There are often different ways the same ingredient can be described.
If you understood that there is a thing called "raw sugar" and that it is different than brown sugar, then you might be able to comprehend that you can't get brown sugar without adding molasses to sugar. And you get molasses by refining raw sugar into white sugar; it is the stuff they took out of the raw sugar to make it refined sugar. You can't have a natural brown sugar, you just can't. The natural sugar is called "raw sugar." And it is a light blond color.
You can actually buy raw sugar and find out for yourself. Don't be a fucking illiterate asshole, I provided correct information and you're arguing without having looked it up. You didn't look it up, so you don't fucking know. I read the labels of all the food I eat, so I do know.
Fuck an A how fucking stupid do you have to be to argue with people without even looking the shit up?! Did you every consider, what happens if the other person actually read about the fucking manufacturing processes to find out how they are different? What then?! You're not quite that clever, are you?
No, it is like saying milk isn't homogenized when it isn't homogenized, or saying it isn't raw when it has been pasteurized.
You're pro-processing, I get it. But that doesn't mean that processing doesn't exist, now does it?
Brown sugar isn't raw. It is a more-processed product that some people like.
And if you want to make it a little more exciting, you can drop 2 slices of cucumber into a pitcher of water and it gives the whole thing a nice refreshing flavor.
"brown sugar" isn't natural sugar. It is refined sugar with molasses added back in. The molasses is what they removed in previous steps, slightly burnt.
Natural sugar, which you can buy in most stores now, will be labeled "raw sugar" or "washed sugar" and it will be large crystals of a honey blond color.
The advantage of brown sugar is only that the flavor is so strong, you can modify recipes to use less. At a 1:1 ratio with no reduction, the brown sugar is more processed and more unhealthy than regular refined sugar.
My laptop runs Centos but it came with Windows 10 installed, so MS falsely gets credit for the market share, and Centos doesn't get any.
Are those sounds actually different?
Just use xfce and quit complaining. Change is optional. The 90s interfaces still work!
I switched to linux when popular software finally stopped working on Win 3.11 with the Win32s extensions. The first couple years of Windows 95 you could still run it all from DOS.
Software brings people in, and then change drives them away. It seems so easy to solve, since change only drives upgrades and not new users, and over time software becomes more portable.
If you were using a typewriter, you'd be right to remove the key so that it can't be pressed, except that in that case tabs would already be spaces so it would be OK.
Just like, when somebody says, "modern flush toilets" you should be able to understand that they're talking about a regular flush toilet, not a wifi toilet. And there is nothing at all implied about their age. They're not claiming to be 200 years old, instead they're pointing out that not having a flush toilet would be archaic.
If you were a native English speaker you would have naturally understood that "modern editor like emacs or vi" simply means, an editor as modern as those examples. You think they're not very modern, that doesn't mean I made a mistake; it means you came very close to understanding, but failed at the last second.
Pro-tip: Don't correct native speakers.
My first doubt is, if his advice is targeted at people who aim artillery at their feet, why does he want more code from them? It seems like he's identified the people just to not accept pull requests from.
Right, but in that case the project does not matter at all.
You can also write your diary in a made-up language.
The problem with asking to make a small change to Make is that there are already twenty-seven thousand make alternatives and none of them just fix the problems. The only thing that is going to work consistently for everybody is make. Changing it is basically impossible at this point. The reason make is important, after all, is largely because of autotools. And that's an even bigger mess than make.
Spaces, yes. Except for Makefiles. But the good news is, sendmail was defeated!!!
The 90s called, and they'd like their FUD back.