Explain to me again why this is more reassuring than someone who is an old hand at foreign policy and a known commodity?
Because while he is thin-skinned, he doesn't have Hillary Clinton's decades of history of corruptly exploiting public office to enrich her and her family while baldly lying to your face about it. She's made herself rich - not by building hotels or other constructive things, but by selling political access to people like overseas dictators who don't mind things like throwing gay guys off of rooftops to please Allah.
So we don't like his manners, but we do like her serial lying, corruption, and incompetence
In a world where we were discussing obsolete technology - you'd have a point. Since we don't live in such a world, stuff it where the sun doesn't shine.
We bomb brown people because we can get away with it. That's more opportunist than racist, but it's still racist.
As soon as "white" people start doing the same crap, it happens to them too. I'm guessing you're wishing away that pesky little Balkan conflict a few years back, where we bombed white people for, among other things, slaughtering olive people.
Pretending that it's skin color that makes ISIS a fair target for air strikes is the worst sort of craven intellectual laziness.
This was the first time we didn't have a ready answer for what people could do next when they no longer needed a typing pool, etc.
So much this. And it's not just semi-skilled work like pool typists. It's skilled work like accountants, draftsmen, and engineers. It's not just blue collar work, it's white collars as well. Our economy is in the process of going through a Second Industrial Revolution - and the first one tossed millions into grinding poverty for the better part of a century. I don't foresee the coming one as being much better.
I hope executives like Benioff don't just assume everything is going to work out.
The problem isn't just executives like Benioff. There's plenty of nit brained conservatives who quote the "80% to 2%" statistic you do, but don't follow through the logic. There's plenty of conservative nit brains who don't grasp how the earlier revolutions played out. There's plenty of conservative nit brains who claim that there will always be "plenty of manual labor required", but who can't grasp that most unskilled jobs are gone and most skilled jobs are filled - there's insufficient demand for the millions facing unemployment or underemployment, now or in the coming decades.
And the worst are the conservative nit brains who presume that everyone un- or under- employed is only in that state due to their own personal choices.
Maybe 10% of them have the aptitude to move up to the "robot repairman" level of employment, so where does the other 90% go? While growing up in the Rust Belt, I saw factory closures that dumped thousands of low-skilled workers out onto the job market all at once. Sadly, the answer to this question in that case was that the 90% ended up moving away, employed in menial minimum wage jobs like home health care aides and fast food workers, or perpetually broke.
Ayup. And that's another problem with the upcoming deluge - the job market (at a national level) is already abrim with just that kind of people.
If dvd sales are replaced with streaming rentals, who is affected adversely?
Those of use who do prefer physical media where possible.
I know this may come as a shock to you - but there are other people in the universe than you.
I'm far from alone in this.
"Far from alone" != "Majority". Hell, it doesn't even equate to "significant minority".
Why would you use combustion for cruising on the highway over just a motor?
Almost certainly you're right and this is the answer. Thanks!
Our Nobel Peace Prize President dropped 26,000 bombs (real bombs, not little hand grenades)
Probably a lot more than that. You're not understanding the usefulness of air strikes on this sort of combatant.
on various brown people
Right, right. It's because of their skin pigment! For reference, resorting to lazy race baiting doesn't really win arguments (see the most recent election results as an example)
(even though we are not at war).
Yes, I can see you're having some trouble grasping current events. Please don't do anything dangerous to other people in the future. Like, voting.
I'm all for electric vehicles, but the US has much lower population density. An electric vehicle only works as a primary vehicle if you rarely leave a major metro area. Unless they become cheap enough that it can be a second or even third household vehicle, it's simply not feasible for a lot of Americans.
I've been wondering if hybrids couldn't say, have the electric motor handle most of the bits that require torque, and use internal combustion for range. In that situation, you could have a smaller engine and have it tuned for fuel-economy rather than performance. So acceleration would be largely driven by the electric side of things, whereas motorway cruising would be largely internal combustion.
Would that work out less polluting than existing hybrids? I appreciate it would probably be much more complex to develop... and I guess if you're a car manufacturer, you don't want to over invest in internal combustion right now.
One or two places deciding to use Ruby or Eiffel isn't a sufficient enough base to make me wrong. Ruby was a flash in the pan and is basically dead.
Except that they also supported C++ via Carbon. They killed it in favor of Cocoa not because it was preferred, but because they wanted to create lockin.
"You can have my Unix system when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers." -- Cal Keegan