This is probably more accurate than most people like to believe.
This is probably more accurate than most people like to believe.
It is nuanced in that it will cost a ton of money, fly in the face of the whole Christian "love thy neighbour" and "brothers keeper" bits and IT WON'T WORK!
Look at the number of tunnels that Israel deals with and their border is like 1/10th the length of ours. The drug cartels already have lots of experience in tunnel building.
Or there will be the European solution, where they all just s shift to boats -- and I don't mean poking around the corners in Texas and Southern California. I mean 6,000+ miles of Atlantic and Pacific shoreline, not counting Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Ricoo or the Virgin Islands.
Most likely both, plus routing immigrants thru the 5,500+ miles of Canadian border.
"Build the wall" is a blatant appeal to the "I'm angry, just do something" crowd who is so riled up they've lost the ability to think rationally. It is a pure feel good emotional play, and it will fail. AND cost a ton of money.
If this idiot move happens, I need to figure out what companies are going to get the maintenance and enforcement contacts because it will rival the defense industry for government pork spending!
These are commonly used as incentives for any major business that is considering moving into an area. They aren't unique to solar, and aren't offered to residents as tax credits for house top panels are.
They're along the lines of "move here, not there and we'll give you tax credits". Very, very common in the U.S.
I think Biden's ego puts his hoping into the ring into questionable territory.
I'd also say that while I can't see Trump getting the nomination, I do see his draw forcing the Republican nomination going to the convention.
If I had to pick the top 3 possible Republican nominee they would be Walker, Rubio and Bush. Maybe Kasich as a dark horse.
But the further right the Republicans have to turn to get the party nomination, the further they will have to walk it back to have a chance in the general election. Kind of hard to get people to vote for you when you've spent a year or more calling them every name in the book and demonizing them as sub-human.
Didn't Microsoft demonstrate that as their "Surface", originally? I believe it is now PixelSense.
I'm uncertain of a successful feet test, though.
Exactly. Except the Hugo site doesn't *itself* define SF. It goes out of its way to say their awards are not limited to just SF.
At least the Nebula Awards specifically call out the genres of Science Fiction and Fantasy. The Hugos are open to all comers.
The WSFS brought this upon themselves by intentionally being vague and nebulous about what they're giving awards for.
The popular belief is that Hugo awards are for science fiction and possibly fantasy, but the truth is you can nominate any form of fiction.
Quote the FAQ:
The charter explicitly makes fantasy as well as SF eligible for our awards. Works of fantasy have often won Hugos, and, in fact, Hugos have been won by works that some people consider horror or even mainstream. There will never be universal agreement about the precise distinctions between genres and sub-genres, so WSFSâ(TM)s position is that eligibility is determined by the voters. To paraphrase the great SF editor and writer Damon Knight, a Hugo winner is what the Hugo voters point to when they award a Hugo.
The idea of voting for a work based on the gender, race, skin color, sexual identity, etc. of either the author or characters is stupid. How about basing it off the plot, character development and writing quality?
For example, Citizen Kane was a great movie and that isn't impacted by the fact the main characters are all heterosexual and white. It wouldn't be improved -- nor detracted from -- if the characters were of a different race or sexual orientation. The story stands alone.
Conversely, Gigli was a steaming pile of fecal matter. Replacing everyone in it with a wide variety of LGBTQ people of a random variety of races, skin colors and genders wouldn't help. It would still be shit all on the merits (or lack there of) of plot, writing and character development.
that is what Chromebooks are for. My wife has used one for over a year with no problems. That includes no interference from me other than letting it apply updates and reboot monthly.
My initial setup was to add the WiFi password and point out to the printer.
No viruses, no malware, no ads (OK, I also installed uBlock), no problems.
If I need to install Wireshark to troubleshoot a server/client issue when I'm site with a customer...
That comment right there tells me you have no experience with this issue. Network engineers are not the people they are worried about. it is the lawyers, accountants and other tech semi-literates that wreak havoc with unfettered admin rights.
for the most part you're installing tools, while those people will install a little of everything on a whim. these are the people that end up with spyware, viruses and 12-different browser toolbars.
because the end users are incapable of understanding that the consequences of their poor decisions extended to much further than the own tools and software that they installed. Security violations of their own personal phone or device, because of a BYOD policy, can impact the entire environment. There are both security and legal consequences of this type of negligence.
one self-important executive who doesn't think the rules do not apply to them, or that they are somehow smarter than security, can bring down the entire company.
the ability to make a risk decision for the entire enterprise is a difficult task to put on an individual end user who doesn't have the knowledge or visibility.
Now, hopefully the prices of decent smartphones will come down to a reasonable level. Why the hell pay $600-$700 got the latest from Samsung or LG when there are things like Ubik?
I've given up on TV news. They are all biased, pandering to the least common denominator and devoid of anything that resembles journalism.
I know what you mean about the commercials. I sometimes try to listen on Sirius/XM which just seems to be a rebroadcast of the TV channels and all I end up doing is channel surfing trying to find content and not advertisement.
I usually end up on Bloomberg or CNBC for a few minutes before going back to a music channel. Maybe BBC World if they are on a news segment.
The downside to trying to type anything of length on a cell phone using Swype is sometimes words go missing. Can't always proofread on a moving train using a 5" screen.
Considering it was Bush who took government ownership in the auto industry, and Obama who got the government out, how exactly do you equate him with being a socialist?
I'm looking for an honest answer. The standard use of the word socialist in America is as an epithet, devoid of actual definition. So I'm interested if you can make an actual case for him wanting government ownership of the means of production when there is direct evidence to the contrary.
How many Republicans can tell what socialism ? How many of the general population even know what socialism is? Most people hear socialism and think Soviet Communism.
Hell, how long does it take any political discussion to include a "Barack Obama is a socialist" comment? Barack Obama is about as much of a socialist as you are.
For the record, socialists desire the social ownership of the means of production, enforced by the State. Everything distributed according to need and zero place for capitalism. are for capitalism, but with limited State intervention when needed. For example, see George W. Bush's putting aside of his capitalist ideals to save capitalism.
"Government has a responsibility to safeguard the broader health and stability of our economy," he said. "If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy and liquidation for the automakers." That was a purely Democratic speech. And it has nothing to do whatsoever with the clowns currently making headlines in the Republican debates. Today's "Republicans" wouldn't be recognisable to Reagan or even Goldwater, much less the likes of Eisenhower.
Why is this a surprise? It is *exactly* what Fox has always done, except they normally limit it to the Democrats. When have they ever done anything else other than spin things in the worst possible way for whomever their target is? They are in it to make their audience be able to feel smugly superior, without anyone having to actually have any critical thinking skills.
They are a partisan hack network, it is just the side they chose is the side of money. They have no loyalty to Republicans. But if you want to understand this, just think how much milage they can get out of this from their normal viewers by saying "see, we are not biased and no one can claim we went easy on the Republicans".
You aren't supposed to learn anything. Look at the comment threads on Fox and almost all political websites. Almost all of them are devoid of anything resembling critical analysis or objective reasoning. They're all snark and what passes for wit. Ditto talk radio. If it can't be condensed to fit in a bumper sticker, it is too complicated. This wasn't a debate, it was aTV contest for best zinger sound bite.
My problem lies in reconciling my gross habits with my net income. -- Errol Flynn Any man who has $10,000 left when he dies is a failure. -- Errol Flynn