Oh for fuck's safe, "The American Dream was supposed to be FOR Americans"?? Which Americans were those? Are the Irish and Italians and Jews allowed to prosper, or is success only for the WASPs? Anyone who's willing to follow our laws and pay their taxes should be welcome. They certainly contribute more than the tax-dodging, money-laundering elite.
Do you know what "tone deaf" means? It doesn't mean "wrong". It means that they didn't consider the cultural context around their actions. They unwittingly did something that many people would find offensive.
Here's the tone: they are trying to help.
Haha, sure they're trying to help
It is in their best interest not to offend their customers. It does not help anyone to shame people for being overweight. They would have been better off marketing it as a general fitness tool, rather than focusing on over-eating.
Can you understand that? No one is saying it shouldn't exist.
Brass tacks: We need -massive- amounts of energy, we will need even more, and there are two options - hydrocarbons and nuclear.
There's a third option for massive amounts of energy. The gigantic nuclear furnace floating 90 million miles away. It provides more than enough energy for all our needs. It's just a matter of collection. Wind farms are one way of collecting that energy.
Only to a certain point, which is what the article is getting at. Eventually the cost of the machines required to make smaller die outweighs the cost savings from having more die per wafer.
This hits the nail on the head. For decades, software developers have been able to play fast and loose, while counting on the ever-faster hardware to make up for bloated, inefficient programs. Those days are ending. Programmers will need to be a lot more disciplined, and really engineer their programs, in order to get as much performance as possible out of the hardware. In a lot of ways, it will be similar to the early days of computing.
For now they have. What happens when they get used? Don't tell me you've fallen for that MAD survivor's bias nonsense. The only reason the Cold War didn't destroy human civilization is luck. More than once it came down to the right man in the right place making the right call. We won't always be so lucky.
And remember: we need to get lucky EVERY time. If we get unlucky just once, it's all over. Forever. All the easily accessible petroleum is gone. If we get unlucky, there will be no rebuilding of civilization. Our species will die.
Purchases cease to be voluntary when they're necessary for survival and the supply is controlled by a few price-fixing capitalists.
Oh, sure, a few people can slip through the net by living off the land. But if everyone tried to do that, we'd quickly find that there's not nearly enough land to support our seven billion and rising people.
Is there any reason to think that he wanted to die sooner? I was happy to support legalizing euthanasia when it came up to vote in Seattle, but let's not go presuming all of the old and sick are just waiting to be put out of their misery. He's not some dog to be put down when the medical bills get too high.
The plan being pushed by the organization behind the suit is to put them in a "sanctuary". Just like how when we finally recognized black people as humans and ended slavery, our solution was to move all the slaves to nicer plantations.
It seems like the animals-are-people-too activists don't even fully believe their own BS.
Computers are, in many ways, smarter than a three year old child. Is it murder when you turn one off?
Some people with disabilities lack the mental capacity of a three year old child. Would it be okay to kill them for sport?
Intelligence is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for personhood.
The poor young people get subsidies (up to 400% of the poverty line), or can stay on their parents insurance (until they're 26).
It's the middle-income and wealthy young people who are paying. And they're paying so that someone pays for them when they need it. That's how insurance works.
In terms of standard passwords, I'd like to introduce you to the ordinary person who can't handle a different password for every site. I can't for sites that I don't regularly visit, like healthcare.gov.
Okay, since you're saying that, I'm guessing that you're just unaware of how user-friendly password safes are these days. Go download KeePass. Create a single, very strong password. I use a full sentence with a few misspellings and inserted special characters, so it's easy to remember. Generate a password file, and stick it in Dropbox, or whatever service you like, to sync it between all your computers and (if applicable) your phone.
It will generate random passwords like "2YWD+aV8d#MWKq5j3_Gl" for you, based on whatever criteria you tell it to use, store them securely along with your username and the website's URL. Just click the stored link, and then hit CTRL-V to have it enter your credentials into the website. It even clears the clipboard afterwards for you. It really couldn't be easier.
I've got multiple family members, including my 98 year old WWII veteran grandpa, using password safes. I don't even want to argue that the Obamacare website isn't still buggy (the period in the username thing proves that it is). But if you care about online security, you'd really be doing yourself a favor by using a password safe.
That's very different from "must contain a %, *, or ^", which is what you said in your first post. Lots of sites have similar requirements.
Why do you have a "standard secure password"? That's an oxymoron. If you're really concerned about security, you shouldn't be using the same password on multiple sites. Just get a password safe.