Unless you get your hands on the MagPi or live near one of the twenty-five Micro Center locations in the USA, you can't get one Pi Zero for less than $9 even when they get them back in stock in the Swag store. CHIP is not yet preordering, they are still just taking email addresses. We don't yet know how much it will cost to get one in one's hot little hands, although my name is in to be notified when it happens. element14 wants $13.50 for one, because for some reason people who haven't discovered eBay are willing to keep sending them money even though they lie about stock on hand in the best case — which is what they did during the first Raspberry Pi launch. They weren't even fulfilling orders in-house, and they had no idea how much stock was at the fulfillment center, but they were reporting stock on hand. Ask me how I know.
While the last 7 years have shown the GOP to be substantially equivalent to the [...] Democrat party
In reality that statement is completely backwards. The GOP hasn't moved anywhere but further to the right. The Democrats have given up on the left entirely and followed the GOP to the right. Again, if we actually look at facts we will see this to be the case; The Lawnchair Administration has made administrative decisions that are more conservative than any that came from the Reagan Administration. Reagan, Bush, Nixon, Ford, etc all look liberal now not because they were in any way liberal but because the current POTUS is so extremely conservative in action.
Republicans [...] the work of restoring a capitalist, federalist, liberty-oriented system in these United States.
Capitalist? I'm pretty sure we should be able to agree on what that means. And the simple fact is that President Lawnchair has signed off on more capitalist-driven "solutions" than did any before him, most notably the Heritage-foundation influenced HIIBA 2010 "health care reform" bill.
Federalist is a strange choice of word from you, though. Wouldn't federalist be an action favoring the federal government? A few weeks ago - with the exception of your request to vastly expand the house of representatives - you were very strongly opposed to a strong federal government. Are you just following your buddy Trump in favoring sweeping new federal powers now?
Liberty-oriented is, however, just a weasel term in politics. Just because your team claims ownership of it doesn't mean they have exclusive rights to declare what it means. Your "liberty-oriented" initiatives very plainly oppress the liberties of certain other people.
yes her complaints are fact, they are not doing what she wants. Thank fuck for that, people like her always believe they can do better but instead of actually doing better they whine about others that are actually making an effort.
You do realize that Bill Gates essentially stole his fortune, right? The DoJ found that Microsoft had illegally abused its monopoly position in pretty much every way we have a name for. Then Ashcroft (under Bush) announced that even though we had already spent all the money and done all the work to figure that out, there would be no penalties. Shortly thereafter, Gates turned his ill-gotten gains into a foundation, and now we're arguing about whether he's helping or hurting more people, which is what we've been doing for basically the entire time it's been a thing. How quickly you rubes forget that Bill Gates is a career criminal.
Medical: When working in 3rd world countries, those strings are absolutely necessary or the money just goes into mansions and swiss bank accounts.
It's actually much worse. If you don't play the Big Pharma Strong IP game, you can't get help from the Gates Foundation. And if you do, and then you have an outbreak of something expensive to cure in your country, you have two choices. You can make the medication yourself, and eventually end up with the world bank owning your country. Or you can pay whatever the market demands for the medication, and you can end up with the world bank owning your country.
A favorite target of the 'inequity' crowd seems to be Walmart.
Yes, that makes sense; they don't pay a living wage, and their existence destroys [small] businesses which do, at least to a larger percentage of their workforce.
And why not, after all their average employee makes about $15K/year, while the CEO makes $26M. Until you do math, that is. There are 2.2M employees. Paying the CEO the same as everyone else, assuming you could find someone to do the job, would result in an extra $10 PER YEAR for each employee.
There's lots of other places that you could squeeze money out of Wal-Mart besides just the CEO's salary. You've actually overestimated his pay for 2015, at least according to the official filings.
C. Douglas McMillon, President and CEO: $19,070,249.00
Charles M. Holley Jr., Executive Vice President and CFO: $7,294,712.00
Neil M. Ashe, Executive Vice President: $9,434,570.00
Rosalind G. Brewer, Executive Vice President: $9,549,184.00
David Cheesewright, Executive Vice President: $10,059,475.00
Gregory S. Foran, Executive Vice President: $19,531,039.00
But that's not all! For the fiscal year ended January 31, 2015, Walmart increased net sales by 1.9% to $482.2 billion and returned $7.2 billion to shareholders through dividends and share repurchases. So yeah. On one hand, there's a lot more executive compensation than what you accounted for in your calculations. On the other hand, that's totally irrelevant, as you said. On the third hand, it's still a shit argument, because Wal-Mart actually spent billions of dollars on dividends and stock buyback. Surely they could have given one of those seven billions to their workers.
"They are acting liberal but not liberal ENOUGH! They don't subscribe to precisely my kind of politics, so I need to hate on what they do."
No, the argument is that they are acting conservatively. Conservatives will tell you all day that there's nothing liberal about charity, and arguably there's reason to agree; you can participate in charity due to enlightened self-interest. Gates has decided that he wants to live in a world with less infectious diseases, and sure I'm on his side in that. But the way he spends the money to "fix" the problem is a band-aid. The problems are caused by poverty, and if you don't fix that problem then there will just be new problems — some of them caused by the way in which the Gates foundation spends its money! If they spent the money to reduce income inequality, then they would make the world a better place persistently. But they spend the money on fighting symptoms, and resist actual change. That's why when the Gates Foundation was revealed to be making investments that kill people, the end result was nothing. The foundation put a press release up on their site claiming they would review their investments' ethical impact, then the next day they took it down and put one up saying that they would be doing no such thing because that would be hard. The simple truth is that neither Gates nor his foundation give one tenth of one fuck about people. They are just making the world a nicer place for Bill Gates, while protecting the money he made by illegal means from taxes. There's nothing liberal about that.
If the foundation is actually doing harm, rather than good,
They're doing both. The question is which they're doing more.
then people should know this and raise a fuss about it so that the directors hear it, if nothing else.
They already know.
When more people start voting for the green party, then the other parties pay more actual attention to environmental issues. There's always more mouth flapping than action, but sometimes something gets done. And sometimes it's even a good thing.
Hopefully this will lead to other operating systems being ported to these devices, which could make them useful for a variety of applications. A Lumia 520 is currently at a low of $25 used on eBay, and perhaps you can get them even cheaper if you lurk.
Well, I can't because last time I needed to do this, I just used a cheap crap hub (cheapest-on-ebay style) I had lying around. I bought it to feed power to and be a hub for my Pi, and then it turned out to be too crap to do that job. It was fine to bring keyboard, mouse, and an optical drive out to my desk from my closet, though.
Yes, but a long cable can introduce power losses.
Yes, that's why you need the hub. They could put a boost converter in there to kick up the voltage if they're worried about that.
Geothermal actually works very well, where it works. Roughly the same ring of places that have volcanos and earthquakes, minus the areas where near-surface conditions make it infeasible. In the US, geothermal is at a depth where it can be reached in California, but not really any other state. Minus the mountains and the cities. So you end up with a few places in California where it works well, and that's about it for the US.
Actually, geothermal is shit in California. The world's most geothermally active place was The Geysers, right here between Kelseyville and Calistoga. I say was because using the site for geothermal power released the steam and output started to fall, so they had to start pumping primary treated sewage into the ground to keep even 80% of production. The plant has always been over budget and under production, and they have long been mismanaging the waste produced. Radioactives and heavy metals build up on the turbine blades, and the turbines are suspended over an open concrete pit and pressure-washed to remove them. When the pit fills up, it's capped with a layer of concrete, the walls are built higher, and the process begins anew. It's a layer cake of horrendousness, and it's just sitting there like a canker. This is better than what they were doing before, though; they loaded up the waste into drums and trucked them to a field out Butts Canyon Road, which is now a superfund site surrounded by a big fence with lots of government warning signs about how you're not to go there under penalty of punishment. They dug up the drums and the soil, removed most of the drums, put down a plastic liner and then reburied everything. FIXED!
Geothermal power is a boondoggle, especially in California. It's a stupid, toxic, pointless waste of time. Putting the same money into PV solar starting in the 1970s would mean both more output and less pollution today.
And the alternatives to hydro power are even worse, but spread out over larger areas.
Solar power not only has only a small impact on the environment because we site it places where that's true, but it also reduces global warming; when sunlight falls on the panel, it doesn't fall on the land and get stored there. Since the back of the panel is white and the front is black, the majority of the heat it radiates is radiated outwards, towards space. Barring being trapped by greenhouse gases, this energy overwhelmingly escapes the atmosphere. So it doesn't matter even if a panel has high albedo, because of the way it controls reradiation.
Wind power has only a small impact on the environment, and the area it is spread out over is largely empty. The environmental impact is minuscule.
So, how are the alternatives even worse again?
There is no such thing as clean coal and there never will be, because in the best case you still have to deal with fixing the sequestered CO2. CO2 may not be a pollutant, but it is still a problem. If we could ship the oil to Mars and burn it there this would be a benefit, because it would help thicken the atmosphere and anything is better than nothing in the early stage, but here on Earth it's a PITA.
It is your destiny. - Darth Vader