I don't see any citation for the $50 billion figure - which seems to be implied to be PER state. The proposed bill spends $200 billion total for all infrastructure, spread out over 10 years - so, $20 Billion a year for all 50 states - or $400 million a year per state. The articles seems to imply %80 of $50 Billion per state.

"Where were you when Obama was running up the debt the tune of a trillion a year, hotshot"

Do you have a citation for this?

Yeah, if you want to be all hard-assed, scorched-earth libertarian about it. But, if you want to be human, you would look at health care as something we all need and something that is cruel to withhold from people. That doesn't mean abandon capitalism. But, it does mean, in my opinion, that the government has the purview to set up a system that ensures universal access to reasonable-priced and available medical care. We don't have to be savages.

I feel for the business owners, but maybe these businesses are not viable if they can't pay people a living wage.

Are you talking about TN visas under NAFTA? Those are a very different thing from H1B visas. NAFTA TN visas were designated with the term "Systems analyst", and being a programmer can get you rejected on either side of the border.

This article is a sort of saving of face because recall during the debacle there were poorly supported claims (via leading online surveys) that every Note 7 user was marching right to their nearest Apple store to buy an iPhone.

That article says he has a beef against her, but doesn't say anything about Clinton interfering with a Russian election.

However, this article discusses Clinton, as secretary of state, protesting AFTER Their elections that the elections weren't fair. Which, is a legitimate criticism of human rights:
http://www.politico.com/story/...

I would say that most liberals know damn well that America influences elections and has basically installed leaders in many countries - from Chile to Iran. We don't like that.

But we also don't want a country with a worse human rights record than ours trying to get a demagogue elected who they know they can treat like a puppet - because the guy obviously has a slavic fetish and is weak-minded. But conservatives are eatin' in up. If that right there doesn't sum up both the amazing delusion of conservatives and the cognitive dissonance they constantly live in, I don't know what does.

Slashdot has notoriously always had a comically unfunny April 1st, and at this point I have to think the complete lameness of it all is the real meta-joke.

The whole "HTTP/2 stink" thing seems to be a bit of a meme, but it's remarkable how the people who state it vaguely wave their hands around and make unsupported claims.

1. HTTP/2 is *fantastic* for higher latency connections. If you're a small site and you can't afford to have geolocated servers around the globe, HTTP/2 offers a much better experience for those high latency connections. I've been using SPDY for a couple of years to service clients in Singapore from a server in the US (which for a variety of legislative and technical reasons I can't replicate there). It is absolutely better.

2. HTTP Pipelining is when you know that someone is just doing the "I oppose" thing and searching around for objections. HTTP pipelining is not supported by default in a *single* major browser because it has critical, deadly faults that render it useless. When people bring it up to oppose HTTP/2, their position is rendered irrelevant.

3. HTTP/2 removes the need to do script and resource coalescing. It removes the need to deal with difficult to manage image sprites. All of those are bullshit that are particularly onerous and expensive to little sites.

4. HTTP/2 makes SSL much cheaper to the experience. This is very good.

HTTP/2 is a *huge* benefit especially to the little guy. Google can do every manner of optimization, they can deploy across legions and armies of servers around the globe. This can be expensive and logistically difficult for little sites, especially if you want SSL. HTTP/2 levels the playing field to some degree.

It isn't about "a chip". It's about a system that is designed for a specific thermal and electrical load. nvidia probably got flak from notebook makers who were facing dissatisfied customers.

You only have to look at a lot of the nonsense comments throughout, such as yours -- people just contriving how "easy" everything is, and how simple it is. Yeah, and I'll bet all of you design notebooks. No? Then shut up.

they are skating to where the puck IS?

Personally, I put my money in an elaborate system of pneumatic tubes. Bring on the tube technology!

It is an obvious evolution, I believe. Once mobile processors are as powerful as most desktop processors ( and how far off can that really be? ) it won't make sense to have a computer and a phone. The phone will be your computer. It will automatically pair up with your large screen monitor and keyboard when you are at home - and you can move the experience from screen to screen throughout your home or business. In the not too distant future, we will have flexible screens, so I can unfurl a 20" screen anywhere I need it. Also, Apple has been making more moves towards appliance computing than just adopting things like Launchpad. Starting with Lion, they are changing the way users think about documents - where they live, how they are saved. Apple's long term view is definitely about making computing easier and challenging existing paradigms. The danger is making something that doesn't appeal to power users. I for one think Apple can pull it off though.

Of course, you have to add in the billion and billions in decommissioning fees and nuclear waste storage and uranium mining and transportation and security and....

No no no. This isn't about spending levels, this is about the Affordable Care Act. Besides, we are already at sequester levels. This is already a compromise. But, again, they aren't debating spending levels, they are specifically talking about defunding or delaying Obamacare. Let's not be disingenuous.