I don't watch a lot of movies but a friend recommended a movie. I forget the name, you probably know it. The premise, behind the scenes, is that nothing in the movie violates any known laws of physics. This guy goes off to fix something on a different planet and he's supposed to be able to time travel back and reunite with his family. That doesn't work and his daughter is pissed. There are lies and intrigue and all that sort of crap.
In the end... The guy wills himself to time travel, appears, and falls out of the sky in time to see his daughter one more time before she dies. He then flies off into the wild blue yonder. They were *proud* of this because it didn't violate any known laws of physics. They were proud of themselves because they were able to find a physicist who was willing to propose that such could be done, or at least agree that it did not violate any known laws.
This was their pinnacle, their apex, of understanding. And they were proud of themselves. They were like a child who is proud that they pooped in a potty. I've skipped some of the details but that's the gist of it. You might be familiar with it. It's not The Martian. It was out before that. I was skeptical when I agreed to watch it. I'll never take advice from that person again - on any subject.
That is absolutely fascinating. And, again, I'm not kidding. I've since bookmarked and read a bunch. I have some ideas and they'll never reach fruition or anything but they are fun to mull over. It looks like it's not actually all that difficult to set up a small pseudo cell network in a "lab." That actually does make me think of a potential product or two - and a whole bunch of ways to utilize these features.
I can see why the carriers might not like that sort of stuff. I also (think) I understand the trend by the handset vendors. They're working really hard to keep people locked in. From a business viewpoint, that is probably their wisest choice. The added complexities, risks, and overhead are surely going to make things much more expensive. Then there's the control aspect and everyone wants to control other people.:/
I sometimes go off on wild tangents in real life. I'll find something that I find interesting and just immerse myself in it - I'll spend weeks, months, and even years learning about something. It will have no real-world application, never be a product or service, but it gives me something to do and I enjoy learning new things. I'm aging and learning new things helps keep my brain from turning into mush. That's actually why I'm getting back into programming. I don't want to have my brain turn into mush. I'm retired and particularly lazy. I have to overcome that laziness and do things to keep learning or, seriously, my brain will turn into mush.
As an aside: I'm not kidding about the mush. I can actually *feel* it happening, sort of. I can tell that my memory is worse. I can tell that it's more difficult for me to remember new things. I can tell that my learning has slowed. I can tell that my method of learning has also changed. So, I've been doing things to not let that happen (and a checkup assures me that there's nothing abnormal going on in there) and it's quite enjoyable to feel it returning to the state that it was at. Just making a point to spend a little while, preferably every day, doing something new and mentally challenging has made a big difference. Immersing myself into a whole new project, something I'm unfamiliar with, will probably help that out.
I know you're trolling but I think it's important to counter this with my experiences. I've been south of the border and I've even been in Peru several times. They are not without their issues but, for the most part, they're fine people who just want to be able to survive. In my experience, they are no more or less conniving or evil than any other group of people. I dare say, they've generally got a higher percentage of people who are basically good people than many other areas that I've visited.
I like Peru and Peruvians. They have lots of culture, history, and diversity. It is one of the countries that I've really enjoyed visiting. I'll return to visit again - probably multiple times as my son will perhaps end up staying there for a while. His girlfriend is very beautiful and nice, she's truly charming. I've met her when they came up for the holidays and we've spoken on the phone and via video feed multiple times. As near as I can tell, she has no other boyfriends but that's for them to figure out between themselves if she does. He's a smart kid and generally a nice guy. I'd like to think I did a good job at raising him and that he's reasonably intelligent.
He was working on his Masters but, well... He met her and they've been together ever since. I support his choice, accept his choice, and it is his life to lead. The trust is a gift, I could not take it from him even if I wanted to. He's able to do with it as he wants. He seems genuinely happy and, to be honest, that's probably one of the biggest things to achieve in life. He's not entirely unproductive and he'll be more productive soon. He'll be purchasing the bar and hotel with a loan - and not a gift. He very specifically asked me for a loan and not a gift. He could just take a chunk out of his nest egg but that's a bit of a risk, asking for a loan was a reasonable and responsible thing to do. It's not set in stone but I'll probably be going down to assist him with closing the deal and doing an inspection of the facilities.
I dare say, he's doing okay and that the Peruvians are very good people. Yes, they have some "bad" people there. They have "bad" people everywhere you go. I'm reasonably fluent in Spanish and he's now more adept at it than I. He's enjoying the culture, the people, and the environment. He wants to raise money with his hotel/bar combination and use it to buy up property for the purpose of preservation and allowing access for recreational purposes and seems to think he can someday expand to ecology camps where he'll have guides, tours, and people can stay in traditional housing with traditional amenities. I think it's a good goal but it's not my job to decide if it's good or not. It's my job to give him guidance when asked and to help him achieve his goals where needed. I'll help. I won't give it to him automatically. A meal that is hard-earned is twice as tasty.
I'm 58. I've been shooting since I was about 7. I've been on rifle and pistol teams. I spent 8 years in the Marines (to pay for my education). I've had my conceal carry permit for at least 30 years. I've open carried even longer. I've never once drawn my weapon in threat or fired my weapon, as a civilian, at any human.
Hell, I don't even (usually) carry a "hand cannon." I carry.22 LR, almost exclusively. There's no round in the camber and, most often, no magazine even inserted. The magazine's in my pocket. I carry it should I need to use it to defend myself or a third party. If that needs more than.22 LR and must be faster than I can ready my weapon - I don't need to be there. I should be moving away from the scene and getting to a defensible position. I'm not the police, nor am I Rambo.
No, the problem is idiots. We can't just say idiots don't get firearms. I would, I am not unreasonable, consider some alterations to the current regulations with regards to sidearms. I personally would not object to mandatory training and safety classes prior to ownership. I do not think that's an undue burden. Others may believe different than I and they get to opine in that matter. The instructor should be well trained and able to refuse to qualify a student if they feel they're mentally unbalanced or would be shirking their responsibility. We can discuss funding.
As a kicker... Well... I think that I should be able to own almost* any type of weapon I want so long as I've demonstrated the ability to keep it reasonably secure and that I am safe and knowledgeable in its use. I already own two classed weapons. I've clearly demonstrated that I'm a lawful and responsible owner. I've an M14 and an AK-47. Both are capable of fully automatic fire. The latter is really an M-22 which is just an AK made in China, sometime back in (we think) about 1966. The paper trail, pre-entry to the US, is non-existent so we've got to kind of guess based on the number. It doesn't actually look like it was ever issued and nobody is quite sure how it got into the country. It's legal. Taxes paid, paperwork filed. It's also secured against theft or irresponsible usage.
* No, I shouldn't be allowed bombs or WMDs. There's a point where it's just absurd and I can not safely operate it with any level of surety. Bombs and WMDs are not firearms. Though, for the sake of argument, I'd probably include an RPG in the list of things that are lawful to own. Again, no... To own such should require that one demonstrate clear knowledge, safety, and security. I also have no qualms with the government keeping track of that sort of thing. They already, obviously, know about my two classed firearms. I already accept certain levels of greater accountability because of them. I'm okay with that.
No problem. What's amusing is you're being lied to with statistics. You know how they point to the 89% and say that it was during an economic boom? Well, that's true. But...
Nobody paid 89%. Ever. The % of GDP that went to taxes was *lower* than it is even now.
The government doesn't have an income problem, they have a spending problem. I don't even mind paying my taxes, I never cheat, and I don't even reduce my tax burden as much as I'm legally entitled to. (Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is a crime.) But, I mind that my taxes are not used to feed, house, clothe, nurture, or help. My taxes are used as a down-payment to buy another bomber. I really don't like that.
Also, I am gonna avoid the vast majority of that death tax, Thanks but no thanks. It's already structured in such a way that I'll be able to keep giving to charitable causes in perpetuity. So long as the US economy is functional, I'll be giving - long after I'm dead. I could let the "death tax" happen but that's just going to be used to put down a down-payment on a carrier. I like the Navy but they've got enough already. No, Uncle Sam isn't good at deciding where the money goes. So, the assets will remain in a private, managed, corporation and will continue to dole out donations to worthy causes and will do so much longer than Uncle Sam seems to be able to do so.
I think it's a good idea to learn a bit about taxes and incorporation. There are many different types of corporations. There are many ways to structure your taxes. I do not know everything (I hire professionals) but I've learned a bit from having gone through it, having my options explained, and asking questions. If you're at all curious about something along those lines - I might have an answer or I can get one pretty easily. I already employ an accountant and have a lawyer on retainer so I'll be happy to ask 'em - if I don't already know. I should have 'em help me build a site. Finances for Geeks or something.
I can understand that but this doesn't appear to be just software related. It does appear to include software.
I could see still allowing software to have design patents. I'm not sure that I agree but most open source software is protected by copyright. (Calling it copyleft doesn't change that.) At least patents expire.
Yeah, I'm not really worried about requirements? I do have older hardware but that's only kept around for nostalgia or out of inertia. The laptop I am sending this message with has, for example, 64 GB of RAM. I guess it's technically more a mobile workstation. It's made by Titan and was pricey but it is oh so sexy.
Lubuntu is moving to LXQt. I'll probably adjust. If I can't then I'll see about XFCE or Cinnamon. Cinnamon can be absolutely stunning. At any rate, the change to LXQt is due in 16.04 and I'm looking forward to it. I can always put LXDE back on (I do believe) and make the changes to keep it as it is. Or, I can try that. I like learning and trying new things. But, it's amazing how well LXDE runs on older hardware. I keep some around, it's mostly laziness.
Err... I buy an obscene amount of hardware and most of it gets given away. I've actually donated/gifted newer hardware than some of the hardware that I still have in use. Inertia, lethargy, entropy, laziness... That sort of thing. On the newer hardware (and I hardly ever go for cutting edge graphics and usually just pick an AMD CPU) I find that it's screaming fast.
I'll have to poke at XFCE some more and see if it's something to consider. I'll be going through and doing another round of DE testing when 16.04 comes out. I stick with Lubuntu because I like most of the defaults, the ecosystem, and LXDE so maybe I'll end up changing. Thanks for the idea.
First, you clearly state that you're not a lawyer. This indicates that you're not a lawyer and certainly not one in the patent arena. It's what you said. You then go on to make some claims and yet you already indicated that you're not actually an authoritative figure.
Now here's what I find concerning... Rather than uphold the law or wait to see what evidence is introduced in court, you seem to think it's okay to go into a courtroom with your mind made up as to how you'd cast your vote.
So you have no skills, you offer an opinion - after telling us you know nothing about it, and then you tell us that you'd circumvent the rule of law to apply your own beliefs rather than what evidence was presented in the court. And you're okay with this?
*sighs* "They did it too!" That hasn't been justification for anything since you left kindergarten. You did finish kindergarten, right? Sheesh... Is your goal to be equal or is it to be better? I hold the left to a higher standard than I hold the right, they should know better and they continually strive to position themselves as intellectually superior. If you're going to postulate that you're more intelligent then act more intelligent.
You could help do something about that... I've been throwing my vote away for years. I vote third party, almost exclusively, at the presidential level - even if that means writing in a candidate. Why? If enough of us do it, and you'll be able to find the numbers and not the increase - not very big but growing, then the number crunchers are eventually going to notice. When the number crunchers notice, they'll tell the rest of the people. Then, people will start to throw some money behind the third party candidates. They will start to field more realistic third party candidates. Eventually, we can break the duopoly.
The number is trending upwards but it's still not that high. I figure if we can get it up to the 15% we'll get notice. By the time we hit 25% we will be all set and start getting quality candidates. Oh, man... I've voted for people that weren't fit to run a school board. But, I knew they had absolutely no chance at winning. (Good thing too. They'd have been awful! Ralph Nader, anyone?)
At any rate, don't spoil the ballot but throw it away. Cast your vote for the most absurd (but running) third party candidate you can find. Eventually the number will increase enough to where the powers-that-be take notice. They'll start offering us more options. The system is designed for more than two parties. There are no rules preventing a third party. The best part is, I get to say, "Hey, don't blame me. I did not vote for them." Then, just to fuck with the people who make assumptions, you can follow up the reply that insinuates that you're a member of the other party and say, "You look really stupid wearing that clever grin! Nope. I didn't vote for the other guy - I voted third party." (I've had that conversation a hundred times.)
So, if you love your country, throw your vote away. Vote for the third party candidate of your choice. No, not a fictional character, a real person. Vote for 'em. Write 'em in. Make sure it's someone who's actually running or was running. That way the number crunchers get meaningful data and see that there's a growing number of people who are disenfranchised with the two-party system that we have in place. I want to say we were at 3.4% of the popular vote in 2012 and even higher in the mid-terms. It was something like.03% when I first voted and that was 40 years ago. I've voted for some of the most absurd candidates out there and I'd be horrified if they won. Not that they didn't have good ideals necessarily but that they were flawed in many other ways.
In fact, this may be the 2nd time I vote for a an actual D or R. I'd actually prefer to vote for Sanders if he ran under the American Socialist Party but if he's the Dem nomination then I'll almost certainly vote for him. If you're curious, I don't mind sharing, I voted for Clinton's second term. This time, I'll be willing to vote for Sanders. I think he'll do a fine job and he's an actual candidate that I can vote for as opposed to voting against. I've been alive for a while now. I've never really voted entirely for someone - it's always been against someone, even my Clinton vote. (Where I was voting, it might have made a difference.) It'd be nice to vote *for* a candidate.
No, that's how *you* interpret it. Nobody who can read interprets it like that. Read it again, this time note the punctuation. That's an example of one such reason as to why the amendment is significant. Fortunately, the evidence is all pointing to you being wrong. That's why ownership is lawful. The reason is not exclusionary and the right is ours.
That said, I'm not sure why folks get into an uproar about it. They're not taking our firearms away. I own a whole stack of 'em, an obscene number of them, and they're not taking them. It will not happen in my lifetime. It will not happen in your lifetime. Firearms are here to stay and I'm grateful for it. Cowardice is not an acceptable motivation for the creation of regulation. It's pretty simple and freedom comes with risks and liberties or rights are based on acceptable risks.
Yes, bad things might happen to good people but the odds are vanishingly small. There's no reason to get your knickers in a knot over firearms. They're not going anywhere and they won't hurt you without a human in the loop. Use commonsense and be aware of your surroundings and know how to safely operate your tools. They're inanimate, they don't just randomly run around killing folks. They need an idiotic human for that.
Payment processing done in the US. They can pound sand. France can control its borders - just like China. If I sell a service or product and someone in France pays me, payment processed here in the US (my credit union has merchant and processing accounts), then France can piss off. Just like China, just like Saudi Arabia.
And I'm going to ship or provide that service to those French customers. They came to my country (via the web) and used my property (via the web) and the payment was processed by my processor (via the web) so France can just stuff it in their ass. If I were French and the US tried to do the same thing, I'd tell the US to stuff it in their ass too.
I will not kowtow to France, China, Saudi Arabia, or Thailand. I will adhere to the regulations of the countries where I do business. So far, that's the US. Even if a French advertiser pays, I'm not going to adjust my practices. There's fuck-all they can do about it. France has no power to seize my assets. They have no power to effect a warrant. They have no power to stop me. So long as what I'm doing in my country is legal, they can piss off - unless, I'm in their country, my server is in their country, or the payment is being processed in their country.
Facebook, on the other hand, needs to shut the fuck up and do what they're told. They have property, processing, and presence in France. They have to obey France's laws. The OP was extending that to include everyone and such is not true nor will it ever be true. If I were in France and the US told me to take down something (say material that was considered classified) *and* that content was legal to host in France, then I'd be telling the US to piss off too.
'Snot really a problem until one crosses the border. No payments, no presence, no property? No deal.
The UK RAF used a nice airplane called de Havilland The Mosquito (DH-98) during WWII. There's a documentary about its steal characteristics as well as some known data from WWII about it. It's not that stealthy with today's advanced radar but was quite stealthy back in the day. It was used in a bunch of roles - I can't think of any role that it didn't fill, from bombing to ground attack to reconnaissance - when it was not laden with much in the way of armaments it was speedy, nimble, and made it easy for the pilots to just escape - even against the Me-109.
There's another documentary about the flying wing that was being worked on in WWII. They recreated it and then used it at Boeing's radar testing facility. That was a Horton 229 (Ho-229) and I believe that at least two of them are known to have flown. Of the wooden planes in use in WWII, I find this one the most curious but not my favorite. The DH-98 would be my favorite of the RAF's wooden planes.
IIRC the DH-98 had a lot less metal in it than the Ho-229 but the Ho-229 did use some sort of resin impregnated plywood and I think it even used some balsa wood in there. But, it had a bit more metal than the DH-98. The DH-98 was scoffed at, at first, but was allowed to proceed simply because it wasn't going to be using a lot of the resources that would have gone to other planes - wood was not a very scarce resource.
But, that's not the only wooden plane that Germany had during WWII.
It turns out that the DH-98 was one the better planes during the entire conflict and was what partially influenced the creation of the Focke-Wulf (Ta-154) Moskito. The Germans wanted something similar or equivalent to the DH-98 and so the Ta-154 was born and made from some sort of plywood as well as the Ho-229. I am not completely sure if any of them flew in any combat missions. I know that it was in prototype stage at the end of the war but a number of non-standard planes were used, very briefly, as Germany's resources dwindled. So, they may have had more prototypes than we found and they may well have been used - even if not against the West but to defend against the onslaught from the USSR.
Hmm... Yeah, looks like my memory's not that bad. They mention that there was a 37% reduction in radar signal or some such. I don't recall exact numbers but they were in the documentary. I do not think it was one done for NOVA but I think I recall seeing the older Military Channel logo on the pirated copy that I watched.
I should also add, I'm not looking the others up. I'm too lazy for that. I watch documentaries for fun and am not an actual historian nor am I really an airplane buff. If asked, I'd probably say my favorite plane from that era would be the B-17G. The Spitfire and Mustang were also very nice but aren't my favorites. I much prefer the Corsair to either of those two. I'm not overly fond of anything from Japan or Italy. Italy did have a number of planes with three engines so they do have a novelty aspect. From the Red Army Air Force I like the Ilyushin Il-10 and I hold a warm place in my heart for the MiG-1. It looks a bit ugly, almost ill proportioned, but I understand that it was both difficult to fly and master but, once that skill was honed, they became very capable. In typical USSR fashion, they were put together quick, cheap, and easy. They were not the greatest but they were still able to be used to do the job just fine. Quantity is a quality all its own, and all that.
I'm still convinced the 'net could use a "smack user" button. That was horrible and you should be ashamed of yourself! Why, I ought to...
I have a niece who's into that thing. She even wears war paint and goes out to festivals and whatnot. I think they call them gatherings. I've met some of them and I've been given the title of "Honorary Juggalo." That's not exactly something I was looking forward to gaining as an accomplishment but, well... It's something and I guess it's good that they have each other.
They do seem really keen on spending gobs of money for official merchandise. There's seemingly some things that are more rare than others (or they claim it is) and they do a bunch of trading among themselves. They often sport very poorly done tattoos of a hatchet man - except they appear to be carrying a cleaver in the best of cases and an 8 bit goombah in the worst of cases.
Compute power is such today that it seems *very* likely they could just have a live video feed and a touch screen. When you're close enough to the dock to see it, you touch where it is on the screen, then just using that pattern the docking can happen automatically from there on out. Obviously there will still be potential to override it and use manual control (often via lateral thrusters). It should be trivial for something like the lasso tool to grab and recognize a gangway.
And, you know what they say, "Gangway or sickbay!" Err... Maybe you don't know what they say. Anyhow, it'd be pretty easy (I should think) to write a system that holds a temporary gangway image in storage. With a clever hack or two, they could probably even share it by database among various docking ships, the same company, or things like that - they can push it out by cellular protocols or even just radio encoded data. Then anyone will be able to use the images. Storage is cheap, they can just store that image on the device and never have to worry about it again - coupled with GPS then it might actually be possible to get rid of some of the specialist pilots who come out and tell them how to get into the bay, dock, wharf, etc... (A person comes out on a small boat, climbs up the side of the big boat, and then tells them how to avoid obstacles and whatnot - or sometimes actually does the piloting themselves.)
(AC probably meant topless as opposed to tonelessness.) Also, I have no idea why Ross was in with that but I did remember her name and the Free The Nipple bit. So, my fellow Slashdotters - the boobies are yours to behold!
Meh, they're not bad boobies, especially for her age.
Are you guys new around here? That's ancient copypasta. Yesterday, we had someone asking who/what GNAA is. The little green Jedi from the film has a whole bunch of copypasta material. I have to say this carefully or the filter will not let it pass. They have a bunch of them specifically for the purpose of explaining the method(s) and value(s) to be had with the placement of the figuring into one's rectum.
One of them, my personal favorite, actually has links to get a variety of paraphernalia that is decorated with the images of said figurine. They include links to the products to buy them, links to pictures (like of a wastebasket - in which to defecate before putting the figuring into your rectum), and all sorts of things. How are you even here if you aren't familiar with them? Seriously...
They're the "green Jedi figurine" posts. They're important business! I seriously think there should be mandatory education on this sort of thing. If we're going to teach CS in schools (and not just how to use Office) then they should have a good portion of that course on the culture that is the 'net. Trolls, Yoda, GNAA, and more - they belong on that list. They're a part of history. They're a part of what is the 'net and why the 'net is what it is. Someone, for better or worse, puts some serious dedication into their work.
Part of the problem is that we've reduced the meaning of the word "troll" to be anything we don't like and so we don't actually note that the word is diluted and used to (often) indicate some really creative and clever content. Some call it vandalism, I call it art. I'm not positive but I think I've seen and read all of 'em. Somewhere around the 'net or at least back home on a hard drive is a whole "special" Linux version. I knew what it did before I downloaded it but I downloaded it and archived it anyhow. The preservation of history is important.
That's fine but doesn't actually answer my question. Has this particular site ever actually been responsible for progress? If it has been then there's meaningful data that can be used to present an argument about the value of such. I can't imagine anyone saying that access to resources doesn't impact progress. What I'm not understanding is - what's that got to do with this site?
At its root, it's copyright. There's quite a bit of overhead that goes into a good journal. There's archiving, providing, indexing, linking, provisioning, publishing, review, editing, and other overhead costs. It's going to cost someone some money. It'd be nice if it's free but it's not.
Consider, if you can, that I'm very much a fan of the authors making their work available for free. On the other hand, to be clear and open, I am not zealously against the idea of copyright laws. I'm grateful for them *BUT* I think there's serious room for improvement in those laws. I think there's room for improvement in journal publications but the root of that is copyright.
I'm still not seeing what you're saying, I guess? Where's the hypocrisy? What argument, and from whom, were you expecting hypocritical arguments? I am guessing that I'm missing something. You're not usually the type (I've seen you post before) to beat up on straw men, so I'm assuming that you're seeing something or expecting something that I'm not.
It's not like this collection of infringing material has actually helped the progress of the arts in any meaningful way, at least not demonstrably. I think maybe I'm not understanding you. Many, including the courts, hold the belief that copyright encourages publication and work because it offers protection and there's increased motives when you can profit/benefit (even just in name recognition) from your work without being deprived of the output of one's labor. Some folks think it should last longer and others think it shouldn't exist at all.
Linux, for example, is afforded its protection by means of the copyright law. Otherwise, someone could just ignore the GPL and take the work, close it up, and give nothing back to the community. So, I'm very much in favor of copyright but it's not so cut and dried. I think there is lots of room for improvement in copyright regulations and I think the current system sucks - quite specifically in regards to its duration. What, specifically, needs to change for scientific publications? The progress of science and arts is why we've got copyright. That was in your first post, so I'm guessing you wrote it for a reason.
I'm not really seeing anything hypocritical here and you usually don't go around beating up straw men, you're smarter than that. I know 'cause I see your posts. What am I missing, besides a clue, here? Are you unhappy that it costs money? The amount? That they're choosing to publish with paid journals? I'm reaching and missing. I'm just not sure what this hypocrisy is, where it is, who it is, or what... You normally, really - I watch and actually remember usernames, don't go beating up straw men. I'm assuming that this is not a case of that and I'm missing something. Are you just mad that it costs money? Do you think it should be free?
For the record, I'm also a fan of patents. I just think the current system is harmfully dysfunctional and borderline retarded. It too has room for vast improvements.
You mention students of every science... At what level is that a concern? How often does that actually happen? Do we have any data to indicate that this is an actual problem on a large scale? What progress has been stymied by lack of access? I'm still a bit baffled by the hypocrisy thing.
At any rate, I don't think you should take anyone serious if they suggest that access to resources doesn't impact progress. That's absurd for anyone to argue at either end of the spectrum. No, the better the resources the greater the potential. I'd assume that'a given? If anyone argues against that, you can probably ignore them because they'd have to be pretty dumb to argue that. Yet, in this specific case, where's the benefit? What progress has this site enabled?
I don't think you understand the rules of the game. See, you point out anything that is contrary and they'll just make an excuse as to why they're not actually Democrats but are actually Republicans. It's a team sport thing and the beautiful part is that it keeps you and your peers distracted and fighting amongst yourselves as opposed to actually working to resolve the issues that you all do agree on. It's kind of funny to watch and the US is not alone in these regards.
Note: The word YOU is a generic YOU and does not apply to YOU specifically, it's used for simplicity and is not intended to reflect anything about you personally.
This is rather pithy but it's true: You are ruled by consent.
So long as they keep you squabbling over chicken-feed and arguing with each other as it if's some sort of team sport they don't have to worry about you pawing around and looking to see who's behind the curtain and pulling the strings. I doubt they even set it up this way, it's just a way humans fall into things. Rather than concentrate on the real issues, the things you all agree on, you're busy fighting with one another and playing fucking semantics games.
Seriously, if they'd bothered to reply (and all evidence points to this if you refresh the thread, load all replies, and read the many, many other comments) then they'd just be pointing out that those people aren't Democrats, aren't the Left, and aren't Progressives. Oh, and for the dear reader, don't be smug... If it were advocating for the Republicans or concerned with dissing the Democrats then you'd be pointing out the same thing. In fact, you guys have a name for it (though, admittedly, I've not heard it in a while) and call it RINO or, more accurately, Republican In Name Only.
If y'all stopped being so hell-bent on being right and just shut the fuck up and listen to each other once in a while then you might realize that you've far more in common then you think. Then, and only then, can you actually go about working as a group to bring about meaningful changes. But no... It's much more fun to engage in idle banter, arguing semantics, and playing politics like it's a fucking team sport. It's fucking retarded.
Seriously, refresh the thread and read the posts since you made your post. You can't point out that it's a bipartisan issue - they'll just happily claim that those aren't real Democrats or that they're working at the behest of a cabal. I swear to fucking Christ this ought to be a sitcom on BBC. It'd be damned funny.
Hmm... I'm going to guess that you haven't actually traveled much. Consider, if you will, that the majority of people are in China and India. Now, count Africa, South America, etc... Do you actually have any idea what the "world scale" is that you speak of? Perhaps you meant to say, "In comparison with other Western people?" However, on a "world scale" the US Democratic party is really damned left. (No, China is not on the left.) The US Democrats are not right of center on the world scale, their right of center according to your (limited) exposure to world politics. You don't get to define that as you want it to be, it is what it is.
Don't get me wrong, I think the US could do much better with some representatives from the left, as is defined in the West. The rest of your post is mostly correct but your statement is pretty laughably wrong. No, if we go by averages for population count, surface area, or even number of politicians - the US' Democrats are pretty damned left. They're just not left to what you are used to. Get out, travel, read some news... They're center-right compared to what you're used to. What you're used to is not, in fact, what the "world" is used to.
That's kind of amusing - as I scroll through some of your older comments.
It's also important to note that there WILL be a brief period of fluctuation as the system changes but after that, the AC you replied to will actually be paying less, via taxes, for their health care than they're currently paying. I'm not altruistic - I've never claimed to be. I support single-payer health care because all evidence points to it being less expensive, almost universally, for every single country that has enacted it.
No, I don't really like you enough to care about your health in any meaningful way. Sorry to be honest but it's true. What I do care about is that it's less costly to keep you healthy than it is to deal with your catastrophic medical emergencies. What I do care about is that it is less expensive to feed you than it is to deal with the cost of imprisoning you and dealing with the mess you leave behind when you go on a rampage of theft and mayhem. What I do care about is that a strong social safety net enables you to take more risks and have more opportunities at being upwardly mobile which means you'll be making more income, paying more in taxes, and reducing my tax burden.
There's no altruism there. I could lie and say it's because I have emotions and want to do the right thing. Nope... I do things at the personal level. On a grander scale, I don't know you and I don't really care but I'd really rather you were able to take care of yourself, be productive, and not feel an urge to steal my shit. I like my shit. That's why I bought it. It's cheaper for me to enable you to get your own shit than it is for me to hire goons to stop rampaging hordes of hungry, disenfranchised, diseased, uneducated filth.
Why yes, yes I do have a bit in common with Socialists. The difference is that I used logic, math, and reasoned my way to conclusions based on data and real-world results. It's got fuck all to do with a moral imperative or feelings. It is also important to note that I am serious when I say I do things at the personal level. I am not a monster or anything but I'd prefer to help an individual or a group of individuals, on my own and without coercion. I'm a very giving and nice person because I choose to be. There's a huge difference between doing what I feel is right and what other people force me to do. I'm also aware that this would mean that I'd pay more in taxes than I do now. I probably have significantly greater assets than the AC. Thus, I should pay more in taxes. I'm okay with that.
No, no it doesn't. It's a marginal tax rate. So the tax rate will be similar to X% on the first $100,000 then for dollars $100,001 to $1,000,000 it will be Y%. From $1,000,001 to $10,000,000 it will be Z%. In other words, they pay a different percentage for the varied incomes. It's known as a marginal tax rate or sometimes called an adjustable tax rate.
There's probably an accountant in here that can articulate it better than I. I'm familiar with the concept. Just to *also* be clear, when they mention that the tax rates were at 90% at one point? Ignore them, they're being intentionally dishonest. For starters, it was the *marginal* tax rate, not the overall tax rate - which was closer to 36%. But, it's also that nobody, ever, paid that tax rate. There were loopholes for everything - and I do mean everything. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, is going to pay 90%.
I do believe that, even at the highest tax rate proposed by Bernie, the actual tax rate might work out to be as high as 52% but the probable results would be about 32%. That's still reasonable - in my opinion. That's not much higher than what I pay now. It's also unlikely that my personal taxes will not be impacted even in the slightest. I've not heard him mention capital gains tax increases and I'm structured in such a way that I do not actually have any taxable income to speak of. I do have capital gains, capital gains are not (for the purpose of taxation) really income.
Of importance: The capital gains taxes on investments shorter than one year (short-term investment) is the same tax rate as income taxes and counts as taxable income. The reason that capital gains are taxed at a cap of 15% for Federal (plus 8% in my State) is because it is motivation to leave the money in the market in this country and enables the economy to grow. Otherwise, why take the risk? It is the general belief that long-term investments are good (and I agree but nobody asked me) and that short-term investments are not as good. So, short-term is taxed as income while long-term gets the breaks. Many people do not understand this or willfully ignore it in order to make claims other than the truth.
They won't listen. In fact, they'll repeat the same damned thing in the next thread. What's awesome is when they throw in a comment about bigotry or prejudice along with those statements. I had a bit written up and someone asked me to publish it online somewhere but, alas, somehow I managed to delete *all* my topic replies and I've not yet dug through the history to find it again. Basically, it said I didn't kick the dog, lie, cheat, or steal - I just worked hard, had good people to help me, and got damned lucky. Yet, I'm told I'm evil... Even though I've got it set up so that I'll be giving in perpetuity, long after my death and as long as the US economy is still viable, I'm told I'm evil. *sighs*
My son, he's a smart bastard. He has a trust that doesn't really pay that much. He'd be able to survive and live in the US but he'd not be able to have all the toys a guy might want, he wouldn't live in luxury, and so he'd still be motivated to work and be productive. I thought it was a good idea but the kid's smart. He's been living in Peru for almost a year now. He supports himself, a girlfriend, and helps his girlfriend's family out - and he's still saving money.
It's a managed trust and I don't know exactly how much he gets from it. It's not a whole lot, I think it's about $2800 to $3200 per month. He can live fairly comfortably on 1/10 of that in Peru and could survive on it in the US but not have all the toys and goodies he might want. I've often wondered why more people, specifically in the IT sector, didn't take their salaries and sock away everything they could and just retire after putting in their 20 years. I love going south of the border and there are places in varied climates, across the globe, to pick from that aren't actually all that bad.
He went down to help collect samples of endangered species and do genome sequencing with a few of the other students who major(ed) in biology. He met a sexy native girl and I've seen him twice since. I will, however, be seeing him again soon. He's to buy a small bar/hotel and going to have a go at running a business. I do not want nonproductive children. He's not much of a drinker so a bar's not a terrible idea and he'd be contributing to the local economy. He's a pretty good kid.
Why align yourself with either party and vote for a party as opposed to the candidate that best suits your ideals? I'd think if more people did that then we'd see better candidates. I will add that I'm not so very good at that myself. I usually vote third party - which means I've voted for batshit crazy lunatics who should not hold office. I voted for them because I did not like the other candidates and because I figure if enough of us do it then we might get the number-crunchers to notice and actually consider making enough noise to field serious third party candidates. So, I'm not perfect at it either but I think it'd make a good ideal.
Slashdot Mirror
I am baffled. I really am...
I don't watch a lot of movies but a friend recommended a movie. I forget the name, you probably know it. The premise, behind the scenes, is that nothing in the movie violates any known laws of physics. This guy goes off to fix something on a different planet and he's supposed to be able to time travel back and reunite with his family. That doesn't work and his daughter is pissed. There are lies and intrigue and all that sort of crap.
In the end... The guy wills himself to time travel, appears, and falls out of the sky in time to see his daughter one more time before she dies. He then flies off into the wild blue yonder. They were *proud* of this because it didn't violate any known laws of physics. They were proud of themselves because they were able to find a physicist who was willing to propose that such could be done, or at least agree that it did not violate any known laws.
This was their pinnacle, their apex, of understanding. And they were proud of themselves. They were like a child who is proud that they pooped in a potty. I've skipped some of the details but that's the gist of it. You might be familiar with it. It's not The Martian. It was out before that. I was skeptical when I agreed to watch it. I'll never take advice from that person again - on any subject.
Lemme see... Bah. screw it...
It was on this link:
http://www.shush.se/index.php?...
That is absolutely fascinating. And, again, I'm not kidding. I've since bookmarked and read a bunch. I have some ideas and they'll never reach fruition or anything but they are fun to mull over. It looks like it's not actually all that difficult to set up a small pseudo cell network in a "lab." That actually does make me think of a potential product or two - and a whole bunch of ways to utilize these features.
I can see why the carriers might not like that sort of stuff. I also (think) I understand the trend by the handset vendors. They're working really hard to keep people locked in. From a business viewpoint, that is probably their wisest choice. The added complexities, risks, and overhead are surely going to make things much more expensive. Then there's the control aspect and everyone wants to control other people. :/
I sometimes go off on wild tangents in real life. I'll find something that I find interesting and just immerse myself in it - I'll spend weeks, months, and even years learning about something. It will have no real-world application, never be a product or service, but it gives me something to do and I enjoy learning new things. I'm aging and learning new things helps keep my brain from turning into mush. That's actually why I'm getting back into programming. I don't want to have my brain turn into mush. I'm retired and particularly lazy. I have to overcome that laziness and do things to keep learning or, seriously, my brain will turn into mush.
As an aside: I'm not kidding about the mush. I can actually *feel* it happening, sort of. I can tell that my memory is worse. I can tell that it's more difficult for me to remember new things. I can tell that my learning has slowed. I can tell that my method of learning has also changed. So, I've been doing things to not let that happen (and a checkup assures me that there's nothing abnormal going on in there) and it's quite enjoyable to feel it returning to the state that it was at. Just making a point to spend a little while, preferably every day, doing something new and mentally challenging has made a big difference. Immersing myself into a whole new project, something I'm unfamiliar with, will probably help that out.
I know you're trolling but I think it's important to counter this with my experiences. I've been south of the border and I've even been in Peru several times. They are not without their issues but, for the most part, they're fine people who just want to be able to survive. In my experience, they are no more or less conniving or evil than any other group of people. I dare say, they've generally got a higher percentage of people who are basically good people than many other areas that I've visited.
I like Peru and Peruvians. They have lots of culture, history, and diversity. It is one of the countries that I've really enjoyed visiting. I'll return to visit again - probably multiple times as my son will perhaps end up staying there for a while. His girlfriend is very beautiful and nice, she's truly charming. I've met her when they came up for the holidays and we've spoken on the phone and via video feed multiple times. As near as I can tell, she has no other boyfriends but that's for them to figure out between themselves if she does. He's a smart kid and generally a nice guy. I'd like to think I did a good job at raising him and that he's reasonably intelligent.
He was working on his Masters but, well... He met her and they've been together ever since. I support his choice, accept his choice, and it is his life to lead. The trust is a gift, I could not take it from him even if I wanted to. He's able to do with it as he wants. He seems genuinely happy and, to be honest, that's probably one of the biggest things to achieve in life. He's not entirely unproductive and he'll be more productive soon. He'll be purchasing the bar and hotel with a loan - and not a gift. He very specifically asked me for a loan and not a gift. He could just take a chunk out of his nest egg but that's a bit of a risk, asking for a loan was a reasonable and responsible thing to do. It's not set in stone but I'll probably be going down to assist him with closing the deal and doing an inspection of the facilities.
I dare say, he's doing okay and that the Peruvians are very good people. Yes, they have some "bad" people there. They have "bad" people everywhere you go. I'm reasonably fluent in Spanish and he's now more adept at it than I. He's enjoying the culture, the people, and the environment. He wants to raise money with his hotel/bar combination and use it to buy up property for the purpose of preservation and allowing access for recreational purposes and seems to think he can someday expand to ecology camps where he'll have guides, tours, and people can stay in traditional housing with traditional amenities. I think it's a good goal but it's not my job to decide if it's good or not. It's my job to give him guidance when asked and to help him achieve his goals where needed. I'll help. I won't give it to him automatically. A meal that is hard-earned is twice as tasty.
I'm 58. I've been shooting since I was about 7. I've been on rifle and pistol teams. I spent 8 years in the Marines (to pay for my education). I've had my conceal carry permit for at least 30 years. I've open carried even longer. I've never once drawn my weapon in threat or fired my weapon, as a civilian, at any human.
Hell, I don't even (usually) carry a "hand cannon." I carry .22 LR, almost exclusively. There's no round in the camber and, most often, no magazine even inserted. The magazine's in my pocket. I carry it should I need to use it to defend myself or a third party. If that needs more than .22 LR and must be faster than I can ready my weapon - I don't need to be there. I should be moving away from the scene and getting to a defensible position. I'm not the police, nor am I Rambo.
No, the problem is idiots. We can't just say idiots don't get firearms. I would, I am not unreasonable, consider some alterations to the current regulations with regards to sidearms. I personally would not object to mandatory training and safety classes prior to ownership. I do not think that's an undue burden. Others may believe different than I and they get to opine in that matter. The instructor should be well trained and able to refuse to qualify a student if they feel they're mentally unbalanced or would be shirking their responsibility. We can discuss funding.
As a kicker... Well... I think that I should be able to own almost* any type of weapon I want so long as I've demonstrated the ability to keep it reasonably secure and that I am safe and knowledgeable in its use. I already own two classed weapons. I've clearly demonstrated that I'm a lawful and responsible owner. I've an M14 and an AK-47. Both are capable of fully automatic fire. The latter is really an M-22 which is just an AK made in China, sometime back in (we think) about 1966. The paper trail, pre-entry to the US, is non-existent so we've got to kind of guess based on the number. It doesn't actually look like it was ever issued and nobody is quite sure how it got into the country. It's legal. Taxes paid, paperwork filed. It's also secured against theft or irresponsible usage.
* No, I shouldn't be allowed bombs or WMDs. There's a point where it's just absurd and I can not safely operate it with any level of surety. Bombs and WMDs are not firearms. Though, for the sake of argument, I'd probably include an RPG in the list of things that are lawful to own. Again, no... To own such should require that one demonstrate clear knowledge, safety, and security. I also have no qualms with the government keeping track of that sort of thing. They already, obviously, know about my two classed firearms. I already accept certain levels of greater accountability because of them. I'm okay with that.
No problem. What's amusing is you're being lied to with statistics. You know how they point to the 89% and say that it was during an economic boom? Well, that's true. But...
Nobody paid 89%. Ever.
The % of GDP that went to taxes was *lower* than it is even now.
The government doesn't have an income problem, they have a spending problem. I don't even mind paying my taxes, I never cheat, and I don't even reduce my tax burden as much as I'm legally entitled to. (Tax avoidance is legal, tax evasion is a crime.) But, I mind that my taxes are not used to feed, house, clothe, nurture, or help. My taxes are used as a down-payment to buy another bomber. I really don't like that.
Also, I am gonna avoid the vast majority of that death tax, Thanks but no thanks. It's already structured in such a way that I'll be able to keep giving to charitable causes in perpetuity. So long as the US economy is functional, I'll be giving - long after I'm dead. I could let the "death tax" happen but that's just going to be used to put down a down-payment on a carrier. I like the Navy but they've got enough already. No, Uncle Sam isn't good at deciding where the money goes. So, the assets will remain in a private, managed, corporation and will continue to dole out donations to worthy causes and will do so much longer than Uncle Sam seems to be able to do so.
I think it's a good idea to learn a bit about taxes and incorporation. There are many different types of corporations. There are many ways to structure your taxes. I do not know everything (I hire professionals) but I've learned a bit from having gone through it, having my options explained, and asking questions. If you're at all curious about something along those lines - I might have an answer or I can get one pretty easily. I already employ an accountant and have a lawyer on retainer so I'll be happy to ask 'em - if I don't already know. I should have 'em help me build a site. Finances for Geeks or something.
I can understand that but this doesn't appear to be just software related. It does appear to include software.
I could see still allowing software to have design patents. I'm not sure that I agree but most open source software is protected by copyright. (Calling it copyleft doesn't change that.) At least patents expire.
Yeah, I'm not really worried about requirements? I do have older hardware but that's only kept around for nostalgia or out of inertia. The laptop I am sending this message with has, for example, 64 GB of RAM. I guess it's technically more a mobile workstation. It's made by Titan and was pricey but it is oh so sexy.
Lubuntu is moving to LXQt. I'll probably adjust. If I can't then I'll see about XFCE or Cinnamon. Cinnamon can be absolutely stunning. At any rate, the change to LXQt is due in 16.04 and I'm looking forward to it. I can always put LXDE back on (I do believe) and make the changes to keep it as it is. Or, I can try that. I like learning and trying new things. But, it's amazing how well LXDE runs on older hardware. I keep some around, it's mostly laziness.
Err... I buy an obscene amount of hardware and most of it gets given away. I've actually donated/gifted newer hardware than some of the hardware that I still have in use. Inertia, lethargy, entropy, laziness... That sort of thing. On the newer hardware (and I hardly ever go for cutting edge graphics and usually just pick an AMD CPU) I find that it's screaming fast.
I'll have to poke at XFCE some more and see if it's something to consider. I'll be going through and doing another round of DE testing when 16.04 comes out. I stick with Lubuntu because I like most of the defaults, the ecosystem, and LXDE so maybe I'll end up changing. Thanks for the idea.
First, you clearly state that you're not a lawyer. This indicates that you're not a lawyer and certainly not one in the patent arena. It's what you said. You then go on to make some claims and yet you already indicated that you're not actually an authoritative figure.
Now here's what I find concerning... Rather than uphold the law or wait to see what evidence is introduced in court, you seem to think it's okay to go into a courtroom with your mind made up as to how you'd cast your vote.
So you have no skills, you offer an opinion - after telling us you know nothing about it, and then you tell us that you'd circumvent the rule of law to apply your own beliefs rather than what evidence was presented in the court. And you're okay with this?
*sighs* "They did it too!" That hasn't been justification for anything since you left kindergarten. You did finish kindergarten, right? Sheesh... Is your goal to be equal or is it to be better? I hold the left to a higher standard than I hold the right, they should know better and they continually strive to position themselves as intellectually superior. If you're going to postulate that you're more intelligent then act more intelligent.
You could help do something about that... I've been throwing my vote away for years. I vote third party, almost exclusively, at the presidential level - even if that means writing in a candidate. Why? If enough of us do it, and you'll be able to find the numbers and not the increase - not very big but growing, then the number crunchers are eventually going to notice. When the number crunchers notice, they'll tell the rest of the people. Then, people will start to throw some money behind the third party candidates. They will start to field more realistic third party candidates. Eventually, we can break the duopoly.
The number is trending upwards but it's still not that high. I figure if we can get it up to the 15% we'll get notice. By the time we hit 25% we will be all set and start getting quality candidates. Oh, man... I've voted for people that weren't fit to run a school board. But, I knew they had absolutely no chance at winning. (Good thing too. They'd have been awful! Ralph Nader, anyone?)
At any rate, don't spoil the ballot but throw it away. Cast your vote for the most absurd (but running) third party candidate you can find. Eventually the number will increase enough to where the powers-that-be take notice. They'll start offering us more options. The system is designed for more than two parties. There are no rules preventing a third party. The best part is, I get to say, "Hey, don't blame me. I did not vote for them." Then, just to fuck with the people who make assumptions, you can follow up the reply that insinuates that you're a member of the other party and say, "You look really stupid wearing that clever grin! Nope. I didn't vote for the other guy - I voted third party." (I've had that conversation a hundred times.)
So, if you love your country, throw your vote away. Vote for the third party candidate of your choice. No, not a fictional character, a real person. Vote for 'em. Write 'em in. Make sure it's someone who's actually running or was running. That way the number crunchers get meaningful data and see that there's a growing number of people who are disenfranchised with the two-party system that we have in place. I want to say we were at 3.4% of the popular vote in 2012 and even higher in the mid-terms. It was something like .03% when I first voted and that was 40 years ago. I've voted for some of the most absurd candidates out there and I'd be horrified if they won. Not that they didn't have good ideals necessarily but that they were flawed in many other ways.
In fact, this may be the 2nd time I vote for a an actual D or R. I'd actually prefer to vote for Sanders if he ran under the American Socialist Party but if he's the Dem nomination then I'll almost certainly vote for him. If you're curious, I don't mind sharing, I voted for Clinton's second term. This time, I'll be willing to vote for Sanders. I think he'll do a fine job and he's an actual candidate that I can vote for as opposed to voting against. I've been alive for a while now. I've never really voted entirely for someone - it's always been against someone, even my Clinton vote. (Where I was voting, it might have made a difference.) It'd be nice to vote *for* a candidate.
No, that's how *you* interpret it. Nobody who can read interprets it like that. Read it again, this time note the punctuation. That's an example of one such reason as to why the amendment is significant. Fortunately, the evidence is all pointing to you being wrong. That's why ownership is lawful. The reason is not exclusionary and the right is ours.
That said, I'm not sure why folks get into an uproar about it. They're not taking our firearms away. I own a whole stack of 'em, an obscene number of them, and they're not taking them. It will not happen in my lifetime. It will not happen in your lifetime. Firearms are here to stay and I'm grateful for it. Cowardice is not an acceptable motivation for the creation of regulation. It's pretty simple and freedom comes with risks and liberties or rights are based on acceptable risks.
Yes, bad things might happen to good people but the odds are vanishingly small. There's no reason to get your knickers in a knot over firearms. They're not going anywhere and they won't hurt you without a human in the loop. Use commonsense and be aware of your surroundings and know how to safely operate your tools. They're inanimate, they don't just randomly run around killing folks. They need an idiotic human for that.
Payment processing done in the US. They can pound sand. France can control its borders - just like China. If I sell a service or product and someone in France pays me, payment processed here in the US (my credit union has merchant and processing accounts), then France can piss off. Just like China, just like Saudi Arabia.
And I'm going to ship or provide that service to those French customers. They came to my country (via the web) and used my property (via the web) and the payment was processed by my processor (via the web) so France can just stuff it in their ass. If I were French and the US tried to do the same thing, I'd tell the US to stuff it in their ass too.
I will not kowtow to France, China, Saudi Arabia, or Thailand. I will adhere to the regulations of the countries where I do business. So far, that's the US. Even if a French advertiser pays, I'm not going to adjust my practices. There's fuck-all they can do about it. France has no power to seize my assets. They have no power to effect a warrant. They have no power to stop me. So long as what I'm doing in my country is legal, they can piss off - unless, I'm in their country, my server is in their country, or the payment is being processed in their country.
Facebook, on the other hand, needs to shut the fuck up and do what they're told. They have property, processing, and presence in France. They have to obey France's laws. The OP was extending that to include everyone and such is not true nor will it ever be true. If I were in France and the US told me to take down something (say material that was considered classified) *and* that content was legal to host in France, then I'd be telling the US to piss off too.
'Snot really a problem until one crosses the border. No payments, no presence, no property? No deal.
The UK RAF used a nice airplane called de Havilland The Mosquito (DH-98) during WWII. There's a documentary about its steal characteristics as well as some known data from WWII about it. It's not that stealthy with today's advanced radar but was quite stealthy back in the day. It was used in a bunch of roles - I can't think of any role that it didn't fill, from bombing to ground attack to reconnaissance - when it was not laden with much in the way of armaments it was speedy, nimble, and made it easy for the pilots to just escape - even against the Me-109.
There's another documentary about the flying wing that was being worked on in WWII. They recreated it and then used it at Boeing's radar testing facility. That was a Horton 229 (Ho-229) and I believe that at least two of them are known to have flown. Of the wooden planes in use in WWII, I find this one the most curious but not my favorite. The DH-98 would be my favorite of the RAF's wooden planes.
IIRC the DH-98 had a lot less metal in it than the Ho-229 but the Ho-229 did use some sort of resin impregnated plywood and I think it even used some balsa wood in there. But, it had a bit more metal than the DH-98. The DH-98 was scoffed at, at first, but was allowed to proceed simply because it wasn't going to be using a lot of the resources that would have gone to other planes - wood was not a very scarce resource.
But, that's not the only wooden plane that Germany had during WWII.
It turns out that the DH-98 was one the better planes during the entire conflict and was what partially influenced the creation of the Focke-Wulf (Ta-154) Moskito. The Germans wanted something similar or equivalent to the DH-98 and so the Ta-154 was born and made from some sort of plywood as well as the Ho-229. I am not completely sure if any of them flew in any combat missions. I know that it was in prototype stage at the end of the war but a number of non-standard planes were used, very briefly, as Germany's resources dwindled. So, they may have had more prototypes than we found and they may well have been used - even if not against the West but to defend against the onslaught from the USSR.
Hmm... Actually, you can find more out about it here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hmm... Yeah, looks like my memory's not that bad. They mention that there was a 37% reduction in radar signal or some such. I don't recall exact numbers but they were in the documentary. I do not think it was one done for NOVA but I think I recall seeing the older Military Channel logo on the pirated copy that I watched.
I should also add, I'm not looking the others up. I'm too lazy for that. I watch documentaries for fun and am not an actual historian nor am I really an airplane buff. If asked, I'd probably say my favorite plane from that era would be the B-17G. The Spitfire and Mustang were also very nice but aren't my favorites. I much prefer the Corsair to either of those two. I'm not overly fond of anything from Japan or Italy. Italy did have a number of planes with three engines so they do have a novelty aspect. From the Red Army Air Force I like the Ilyushin Il-10 and I hold a warm place in my heart for the MiG-1. It looks a bit ugly, almost ill proportioned, but I understand that it was both difficult to fly and master but, once that skill was honed, they became very capable. In typical USSR fashion, they were put together quick, cheap, and easy. They were not the greatest but they were still able to be used to do the job just fine. Quantity is a quality all its own, and all that.
I'm still convinced the 'net could use a "smack user" button. That was horrible and you should be ashamed of yourself! Why, I ought to...
I have a niece who's into that thing. She even wears war paint and goes out to festivals and whatnot. I think they call them gatherings. I've met some of them and I've been given the title of "Honorary Juggalo." That's not exactly something I was looking forward to gaining as an accomplishment but, well... It's something and I guess it's good that they have each other.
They do seem really keen on spending gobs of money for official merchandise. There's seemingly some things that are more rare than others (or they claim it is) and they do a bunch of trading among themselves. They often sport very poorly done tattoos of a hatchet man - except they appear to be carrying a cleaver in the best of cases and an 8 bit goombah in the worst of cases.
Compute power is such today that it seems *very* likely they could just have a live video feed and a touch screen. When you're close enough to the dock to see it, you touch where it is on the screen, then just using that pattern the docking can happen automatically from there on out. Obviously there will still be potential to override it and use manual control (often via lateral thrusters). It should be trivial for something like the lasso tool to grab and recognize a gangway.
And, you know what they say, "Gangway or sickbay!" Err... Maybe you don't know what they say. Anyhow, it'd be pretty easy (I should think) to write a system that holds a temporary gangway image in storage. With a clever hack or two, they could probably even share it by database among various docking ships, the same company, or things like that - they can push it out by cellular protocols or even just radio encoded data. Then anyone will be able to use the images. Storage is cheap, they can just store that image on the device and never have to worry about it again - coupled with GPS then it might actually be possible to get rid of some of the specialist pilots who come out and tell them how to get into the bay, dock, wharf, etc... (A person comes out on a small boat, climbs up the side of the big boat, and then tells them how to avoid obstacles and whatnot - or sometimes actually does the piloting themselves.)
This is a picture of Jessica Wardell's tits, it is obviously NSFW:
http://i2.wp.com/freekeene.com...
(AC probably meant topless as opposed to tonelessness.) Also, I have no idea why Ross was in with that but I did remember her name and the Free The Nipple bit. So, my fellow Slashdotters - the boobies are yours to behold!
Meh, they're not bad boobies, especially for her age.
Are you guys new around here? That's ancient copypasta. Yesterday, we had someone asking who/what GNAA is. The little green Jedi from the film has a whole bunch of copypasta material. I have to say this carefully or the filter will not let it pass. They have a bunch of them specifically for the purpose of explaining the method(s) and value(s) to be had with the placement of the figuring into one's rectum.
One of them, my personal favorite, actually has links to get a variety of paraphernalia that is decorated with the images of said figurine. They include links to the products to buy them, links to pictures (like of a wastebasket - in which to defecate before putting the figuring into your rectum), and all sorts of things. How are you even here if you aren't familiar with them? Seriously...
They're the "green Jedi figurine" posts. They're important business! I seriously think there should be mandatory education on this sort of thing. If we're going to teach CS in schools (and not just how to use Office) then they should have a good portion of that course on the culture that is the 'net. Trolls, Yoda, GNAA, and more - they belong on that list. They're a part of history. They're a part of what is the 'net and why the 'net is what it is. Someone, for better or worse, puts some serious dedication into their work.
Part of the problem is that we've reduced the meaning of the word "troll" to be anything we don't like and so we don't actually note that the word is diluted and used to (often) indicate some really creative and clever content. Some call it vandalism, I call it art. I'm not positive but I think I've seen and read all of 'em. Somewhere around the 'net or at least back home on a hard drive is a whole "special" Linux version. I knew what it did before I downloaded it but I downloaded it and archived it anyhow. The preservation of history is important.
That's fine but doesn't actually answer my question. Has this particular site ever actually been responsible for progress? If it has been then there's meaningful data that can be used to present an argument about the value of such. I can't imagine anyone saying that access to resources doesn't impact progress. What I'm not understanding is - what's that got to do with this site?
At its root, it's copyright. There's quite a bit of overhead that goes into a good journal. There's archiving, providing, indexing, linking, provisioning, publishing, review, editing, and other overhead costs. It's going to cost someone some money. It'd be nice if it's free but it's not.
Consider, if you can, that I'm very much a fan of the authors making their work available for free. On the other hand, to be clear and open, I am not zealously against the idea of copyright laws. I'm grateful for them *BUT* I think there's serious room for improvement in those laws. I think there's room for improvement in journal publications but the root of that is copyright.
I'm still not seeing what you're saying, I guess? Where's the hypocrisy? What argument, and from whom, were you expecting hypocritical arguments? I am guessing that I'm missing something. You're not usually the type (I've seen you post before) to beat up on straw men, so I'm assuming that you're seeing something or expecting something that I'm not.
It's not like this collection of infringing material has actually helped the progress of the arts in any meaningful way, at least not demonstrably. I think maybe I'm not understanding you. Many, including the courts, hold the belief that copyright encourages publication and work because it offers protection and there's increased motives when you can profit/benefit (even just in name recognition) from your work without being deprived of the output of one's labor. Some folks think it should last longer and others think it shouldn't exist at all.
Linux, for example, is afforded its protection by means of the copyright law. Otherwise, someone could just ignore the GPL and take the work, close it up, and give nothing back to the community. So, I'm very much in favor of copyright but it's not so cut and dried. I think there is lots of room for improvement in copyright regulations and I think the current system sucks - quite specifically in regards to its duration. What, specifically, needs to change for scientific publications? The progress of science and arts is why we've got copyright. That was in your first post, so I'm guessing you wrote it for a reason.
I'm not really seeing anything hypocritical here and you usually don't go around beating up straw men, you're smarter than that. I know 'cause I see your posts. What am I missing, besides a clue, here? Are you unhappy that it costs money? The amount? That they're choosing to publish with paid journals? I'm reaching and missing. I'm just not sure what this hypocrisy is, where it is, who it is, or what... You normally, really - I watch and actually remember usernames, don't go beating up straw men. I'm assuming that this is not a case of that and I'm missing something. Are you just mad that it costs money? Do you think it should be free?
For the record, I'm also a fan of patents. I just think the current system is harmfully dysfunctional and borderline retarded. It too has room for vast improvements.
You mention students of every science... At what level is that a concern? How often does that actually happen? Do we have any data to indicate that this is an actual problem on a large scale? What progress has been stymied by lack of access? I'm still a bit baffled by the hypocrisy thing.
At any rate, I don't think you should take anyone serious if they suggest that access to resources doesn't impact progress. That's absurd for anyone to argue at either end of the spectrum. No, the better the resources the greater the potential. I'd assume that'a given? If anyone argues against that, you can probably ignore them because they'd have to be pretty dumb to argue that. Yet, in this specific case, where's the benefit? What progress has this site enabled?
I don't think you understand the rules of the game. See, you point out anything that is contrary and they'll just make an excuse as to why they're not actually Democrats but are actually Republicans. It's a team sport thing and the beautiful part is that it keeps you and your peers distracted and fighting amongst yourselves as opposed to actually working to resolve the issues that you all do agree on. It's kind of funny to watch and the US is not alone in these regards.
Note: The word YOU is a generic YOU and does not apply to YOU specifically, it's used for simplicity and is not intended to reflect anything about you personally.
This is rather pithy but it's true: You are ruled by consent.
So long as they keep you squabbling over chicken-feed and arguing with each other as it if's some sort of team sport they don't have to worry about you pawing around and looking to see who's behind the curtain and pulling the strings. I doubt they even set it up this way, it's just a way humans fall into things. Rather than concentrate on the real issues, the things you all agree on, you're busy fighting with one another and playing fucking semantics games.
Seriously, if they'd bothered to reply (and all evidence points to this if you refresh the thread, load all replies, and read the many, many other comments) then they'd just be pointing out that those people aren't Democrats, aren't the Left, and aren't Progressives. Oh, and for the dear reader, don't be smug... If it were advocating for the Republicans or concerned with dissing the Democrats then you'd be pointing out the same thing. In fact, you guys have a name for it (though, admittedly, I've not heard it in a while) and call it RINO or, more accurately, Republican In Name Only.
If y'all stopped being so hell-bent on being right and just shut the fuck up and listen to each other once in a while then you might realize that you've far more in common then you think. Then, and only then, can you actually go about working as a group to bring about meaningful changes. But no... It's much more fun to engage in idle banter, arguing semantics, and playing politics like it's a fucking team sport. It's fucking retarded.
Seriously, refresh the thread and read the posts since you made your post. You can't point out that it's a bipartisan issue - they'll just happily claim that those aren't real Democrats or that they're working at the behest of a cabal. I swear to fucking Christ this ought to be a sitcom on BBC. It'd be damned funny.
Hmm... I'm going to guess that you haven't actually traveled much. Consider, if you will, that the majority of people are in China and India. Now, count Africa, South America, etc... Do you actually have any idea what the "world scale" is that you speak of? Perhaps you meant to say, "In comparison with other Western people?" However, on a "world scale" the US Democratic party is really damned left. (No, China is not on the left.) The US Democrats are not right of center on the world scale, their right of center according to your (limited) exposure to world politics. You don't get to define that as you want it to be, it is what it is.
Don't get me wrong, I think the US could do much better with some representatives from the left, as is defined in the West. The rest of your post is mostly correct but your statement is pretty laughably wrong. No, if we go by averages for population count, surface area, or even number of politicians - the US' Democrats are pretty damned left. They're just not left to what you are used to. Get out, travel, read some news... They're center-right compared to what you're used to. What you're used to is not, in fact, what the "world" is used to.
That's kind of amusing - as I scroll through some of your older comments.
It's also important to note that there WILL be a brief period of fluctuation as the system changes but after that, the AC you replied to will actually be paying less, via taxes, for their health care than they're currently paying. I'm not altruistic - I've never claimed to be. I support single-payer health care because all evidence points to it being less expensive, almost universally, for every single country that has enacted it.
No, I don't really like you enough to care about your health in any meaningful way. Sorry to be honest but it's true. What I do care about is that it's less costly to keep you healthy than it is to deal with your catastrophic medical emergencies. What I do care about is that it is less expensive to feed you than it is to deal with the cost of imprisoning you and dealing with the mess you leave behind when you go on a rampage of theft and mayhem. What I do care about is that a strong social safety net enables you to take more risks and have more opportunities at being upwardly mobile which means you'll be making more income, paying more in taxes, and reducing my tax burden.
There's no altruism there. I could lie and say it's because I have emotions and want to do the right thing. Nope... I do things at the personal level. On a grander scale, I don't know you and I don't really care but I'd really rather you were able to take care of yourself, be productive, and not feel an urge to steal my shit. I like my shit. That's why I bought it. It's cheaper for me to enable you to get your own shit than it is for me to hire goons to stop rampaging hordes of hungry, disenfranchised, diseased, uneducated filth.
Why yes, yes I do have a bit in common with Socialists. The difference is that I used logic, math, and reasoned my way to conclusions based on data and real-world results. It's got fuck all to do with a moral imperative or feelings. It is also important to note that I am serious when I say I do things at the personal level. I am not a monster or anything but I'd prefer to help an individual or a group of individuals, on my own and without coercion. I'm a very giving and nice person because I choose to be. There's a huge difference between doing what I feel is right and what other people force me to do. I'm also aware that this would mean that I'd pay more in taxes than I do now. I probably have significantly greater assets than the AC. Thus, I should pay more in taxes. I'm okay with that.
No, no it doesn't. It's a marginal tax rate. So the tax rate will be similar to X% on the first $100,000 then for dollars $100,001 to $1,000,000 it will be Y%. From $1,000,001 to $10,000,000 it will be Z%. In other words, they pay a different percentage for the varied incomes. It's known as a marginal tax rate or sometimes called an adjustable tax rate.
There's probably an accountant in here that can articulate it better than I. I'm familiar with the concept. Just to *also* be clear, when they mention that the tax rates were at 90% at one point? Ignore them, they're being intentionally dishonest. For starters, it was the *marginal* tax rate, not the overall tax rate - which was closer to 36%. But, it's also that nobody, ever, paid that tax rate. There were loopholes for everything - and I do mean everything. Nobody, and I do mean nobody, is going to pay 90%.
I do believe that, even at the highest tax rate proposed by Bernie, the actual tax rate might work out to be as high as 52% but the probable results would be about 32%. That's still reasonable - in my opinion. That's not much higher than what I pay now. It's also unlikely that my personal taxes will not be impacted even in the slightest. I've not heard him mention capital gains tax increases and I'm structured in such a way that I do not actually have any taxable income to speak of. I do have capital gains, capital gains are not (for the purpose of taxation) really income.
Of importance: The capital gains taxes on investments shorter than one year (short-term investment) is the same tax rate as income taxes and counts as taxable income. The reason that capital gains are taxed at a cap of 15% for Federal (plus 8% in my State) is because it is motivation to leave the money in the market in this country and enables the economy to grow. Otherwise, why take the risk? It is the general belief that long-term investments are good (and I agree but nobody asked me) and that short-term investments are not as good. So, short-term is taxed as income while long-term gets the breaks. Many people do not understand this or willfully ignore it in order to make claims other than the truth.
They won't listen. In fact, they'll repeat the same damned thing in the next thread. What's awesome is when they throw in a comment about bigotry or prejudice along with those statements. I had a bit written up and someone asked me to publish it online somewhere but, alas, somehow I managed to delete *all* my topic replies and I've not yet dug through the history to find it again. Basically, it said I didn't kick the dog, lie, cheat, or steal - I just worked hard, had good people to help me, and got damned lucky. Yet, I'm told I'm evil... Even though I've got it set up so that I'll be giving in perpetuity, long after my death and as long as the US economy is still viable, I'm told I'm evil. *sighs*
My son, he's a smart bastard. He has a trust that doesn't really pay that much. He'd be able to survive and live in the US but he'd not be able to have all the toys a guy might want, he wouldn't live in luxury, and so he'd still be motivated to work and be productive. I thought it was a good idea but the kid's smart. He's been living in Peru for almost a year now. He supports himself, a girlfriend, and helps his girlfriend's family out - and he's still saving money.
It's a managed trust and I don't know exactly how much he gets from it. It's not a whole lot, I think it's about $2800 to $3200 per month. He can live fairly comfortably on 1/10 of that in Peru and could survive on it in the US but not have all the toys and goodies he might want. I've often wondered why more people, specifically in the IT sector, didn't take their salaries and sock away everything they could and just retire after putting in their 20 years. I love going south of the border and there are places in varied climates, across the globe, to pick from that aren't actually all that bad.
He went down to help collect samples of endangered species and do genome sequencing with a few of the other students who major(ed) in biology. He met a sexy native girl and I've seen him twice since. I will, however, be seeing him again soon. He's to buy a small bar/hotel and going to have a go at running a business. I do not want nonproductive children. He's not much of a drinker so a bar's not a terrible idea and he'd be contributing to the local economy. He's a pretty good kid.
Why align yourself with either party and vote for a party as opposed to the candidate that best suits your ideals? I'd think if more people did that then we'd see better candidates. I will add that I'm not so very good at that myself. I usually vote third party - which means I've voted for batshit crazy lunatics who should not hold office. I voted for them because I did not like the other candidates and because I figure if enough of us do it then we might get the number-crunchers to notice and actually consider making enough noise to field serious third party candidates. So, I'm not perfect at it either but I think it'd make a good ideal.