I know when my brother got onto the computer while running a SIM game all sorts of disasters would happen to mess things up.
Does this explain Trump?
I know when my brother got onto the computer while running a SIM game all sorts of disasters would happen to mess things up.
Does this explain Trump?
My TV's Netflix app simply wraps a customized browser loading a local web app which uses ajax to talk with netflix. Then they used some sort of browser plug in or modification to get to whatever video library the device supported.
Why wouldn't netflix use a similar approach for all it's apps from toaster to xbox??
You can make a local web app that would fool almost anybody with a properly customized browser (using local OS library means it wouldn't take much ram since it's likely loaded anyhow.)
Less development and support related issues; every device has some working browser library and video decoder if hardware support is available.
The public and the press failing to defend against lawyer politicians exploiting and creating loopholes may never be able to protect it 100%. As far as T bonds... the only more stable thing I can think of is gold... and they USED to be almost as good as gold before Nixon. What else can they do with excess funds they need to save? We have an inflation based system, they can't just dump dollars into a vault! Using it to help support the monetary system arguably makes it more secure in helping prop up a system that if it failed would make things extremely difficult for S.S.A. I can see the argument.
The fact remains that it is not liability, it is not part of the normal budget. Most the money is paid out not saved and as the Social Security Admin letters you get from time to time in the mail point out in simple terms--- the payout will go down if there are not enough funds coming in. So mismanagement results in people getting 70% or whatever lower amount in X years. A decrease in population would ALSO result in similar situations.
Social Security was designed to keep the elderly and unemployable out of poverty - that is the civilized and moral thing to do. You can fight over how much above that or how to define that all you want. Which is done--- the upper middle class and wealthy do not want to pay their fair share so we spend all our debates fighting over everything else. A lot of people think it is supposed to support their lifestyle. We also never set things pegged on inflation in the law... or cost of living... which would kill most issues off-- everything would be automatic and some minor variations could just be ignored without "fixing" but then perfection is often the enemy of good... politicians would constantly be trying to ruin a good thing under the excuse it's not perfect.
Social Security is NOT a liability it is self funded. It is separate and NOT hidden and not budgeted. You risk harm to it by misleading people to think it is a budget item. Medicare and Medicad are knock off programs which are not as well designed or protected but still are not normal budget items.
Separate taxes fund those programs and they go up or down based upon what the public puts into them. Not borrowed money. Social Security can never go bankrupt by design, it simply has less money to work with and goes down. If morons like the parent poster believe the lies they'll let crazy schemes to borrow against such programs or schemes to STEAL from them. Medicare and Medicad have suffered instead of improved to be more like social security and they should never be allowed to be morphed into anything like the failed spending process the rest of the government uses.
The whole monetary system we have as a big ponzi scheme; the debt isn't that big of a deal when the whole world system is huuuge a mess. Limiting factors on endless growth are beginning to impact our systems and fundamental changes will have to be made to any kind of system to adapt.
If you want to help medicad and medicare, you'd be addressing problems OUTSIDE of those programs because they are not the cause of the problems. Problems which impact our EXPENSIVE private health insurance too.
I'm an American, I've seen how little reason there is and how public discourse has eroded into total pointlessness beginning with the 80, maybe before that...
The psychological definitions which have been around for decades are not even remotely used in the law. The legal definitions are ignorant at best, every man is a pedophile according to US law. Since human sexuality is based upon fertility not age, as soon as a child passes puberty nature indicates adulthood has arrived; this clashes with cultural beliefs (which changed themselves over time... and we only think the last 50 years was "the way always has been.")
Science has been showing and will only get closer to proving that pedophiles are BORN. It's a natural defect just like homosexuality. Furthermore, evidence shows that pedophiles simply have a lower threshold of attraction, they are still into adults. They do not go rape adults anymore than normal - but if they are going to one would assume that they would prefer an easier target. It is not P.C. these days but that is actual reality and eventually science will beat back the SJW. We can not even have a discussion of science in this country - it changes entirely how one views the problem and even if we could get people educated, the public discourse is idiotic just dealing with easy problems. Reality has a way of messing with your ignorant beliefs and people need to toughen up more.
The inability to control one's impulses should be considered an illness (in the most extreme it is.) Rapists must be included. Not a crime; but insanity where "can do harm to themselves or others" is the reason we put them into hospitals in the civilized world (not the USA, we put them in jail with sane people.) If you can't cure a rapist (of adults or children or animals) then they can't be allowed out in society. It is that simple, no need to make distinctions between victims. Sure you lose the comfort of feeling righteous for punishing evil in god's name (which is a form of blasphemy, BTW) but you can feel safer knowing those sick people will not be released having learned better how to not get caught next time.
WikiLeaks became the news before, on purpose with the intent to DISTRACT and change the conversations to the messengers instead of the messages. On top of that to send a signal to any future leakers or publishers or press.
WikiLeaks worked with 3 serious news organizations with their big leak before that got all the news and all we heard was attacks on Wikileaks and Manning. Discussing the act of leaking and punishment etc, purposely to take away from discussing the leaks themselves. The information itself when known justifies the leaking of it; so the goal is to avoid it and focus on imagined damages etc and attribution of BLAME to the wrong groups of people.
We hardly hear about Smith these days because he had many parts to his working capitalism which are NOT allowed today ironically in the name of capitalism! Smith also had an idea for negative taxes...
You can't have government prevent monopoly power without keeping capital small enough to restrain it from corrupting and subverting government!
Today, individuals can subvert government as well as many more corporations.
Despite a history in the USA of weak corporations, a subsidized press around 3% of GDP (yes both existed before Lincoln) and a wealthy income tax of 90%. As those measures were lost the nation started it's downfall costing upon past successes. Now we are losing momentum and the idiot masses are building a wall ignoring that the majority of lost middle class jobs are due to pre-A.I. automation with 3rd world labor only delaying that automation by a short time period.
correction: "there" will still be special chipped parts
Stupid autocorrect messed up my post! At least I didn't have a trackpad click and combine sentences together this time.
The ONLY reason this happened now and not decades ago is because chipped modern farm equipment has been causing huge problems. It has to do with the fact that farmers like to be able to fix their own stuff or have a local fix it or even mix parts. It is important to their business to be able to do things like this.
The reason it took a small number of farmers to get this to happen is because of how our political system places too much emphasis upon geography vs population. All that rural representation is mighty powerful... it's also a much less diverse area so the people there are more like minded and easier to represent.... and manipulate.
YES their will still be special chipped parts at unfair prices! but that fight will come later on and be lost only if the farmers get screwed over enough.
Most published papers are so condensed with so many steps in the process brushed over it is not straight forward to actually recreate it. The devil is in the details is the apt description of the process of actually implementing something. Insignificant details which are not important in describing the concepts and results can be essential for implementation. Sometimes luck, skill and sometimes there is a bit of trial of and error which does not get described. Sure, there is an assumption of skill level but even so, it can waste plenty of time and introduce errors in the process. I'm not saying it should be like software; however, software always reproduces results (including the bugs.) To be fair, software runs on machines, not humans.
Journals are no longer printed and distributed. We shouldn't be trying to condense so much to save space (still being concise is important.)
I'm just bringing up another issue. Also, simplistic idiotic metrics applied to publishing does not promote quality work. Quantity is rewarded and how many times it is cited. This promotes vague conceptual work that is more broadly applicable.
We should have well edited larger summaries; followed by longer more detailed procedures. Since almost nobody will recreate, the summaries will likely be used most and then a quick skimming of parts of the details... it's that skimming part that is probably why the details are condensed so much. Even two experts will differ slightly on how they condense the details... look at how much variation we have in textbooks describing in detail the SAME information.
Is that official wikileaks? who runs that twitter account?
Am I the only one who can see this resulting in Parental Car Controls?
Am I the only one who thinks it is nuts that we even could come to that? Children driving cars??
We trash our democracy over a few thousand dead people but when it comes to cars killing 40k PER YEAR we do nothing. I wouldn't let anybody under 18 drive and would be so hard on 18-21 that most wouldn't be eligible. I would also do serious yearly testing on everybody on the other side of the accident bell curve (retired people.)
My WW2 war hero neighbor smashed into a big yellow school bus and claimed he didn't see it! Turns out he was more truthful than he realized-- he was classified as legally blind afterwards because the cop did something which required the test. He was bitter about it too--- he claimed he saw good enough to drive but I think he was just pissed it was an Asian cop... you see, he thought all Asians were Japs and he still hated the Japanese.
In Texas you can get away with murder if you are rich enough to claim Affluenza. If you have your teen driving a Tesla... you might be rich enough if your judge in that area is poor enough... (no, you google it and find out.)
Capitalism claims to benefit the most people overall than other systems which is a socialist argument!
Socialism is actually used to justify capitalism. The problem is that so much propagandizing has been done that people see it only in extreme examples; and unfortunately people don't explore things in depth regardless of it's importance.
Making people suffer, starve, and die because they refuse to work is foolish as well as inhumane. Those people will cause hardships and increase costs to society. While some people will be criminals anyway, everybody will become a criminal if you make life bad enough for them.
The REASON for UBI is that it is more adaptable to whatever comes in the future and it eliminates a huge about of overhead managing a that area of the welfare system. The political flaws and human societal flaws probably make implementing and managing a good welfare system for much time impossible. So, designing a system which avoids human and political weakness should be priority. UBI is such a system-- it's simplistic so even a voter can understand it and it's harder to propagandize against. The more overhead and corruption the better UBI does. It is not perfect but what is?
Most people I find against UBI should actually be for it. Instead of mindless government policies and systems to baby hopeless people; hand them an income and it's their own fault if they mess up. Every welfare system has a hard time balancing so that it does not become a TRAP which punishes those trying to get out of it.
Human flaws will always have the top protecting their ASSets feeling entitled as well and putting themselves above others. The middle class is always a hybrid of both the poor and the upper classes; afraid to rock the boat except when it may take away from their earned entitlements and often they will defend the rich because they may move upward someday. The better society does the bigger the middle class will be and in turn the more they will neglect proper management of the system if not accelerate it towards despotism (the inevitable death of all democracies.) Therefore, systems should be designed around the human flaws of a successful society.
Opposition promotes policies which create that situation in order to undermine it and give them more standing in attacking it. If you can't win, sabotage. These are complex problems with multiple facets which must be adjusted after implementation as well as dynamically adjusted with changing times. Competent leaders could probably find the balance and over time find enough of a pattern to perfect the balancing process for others to learn but there are constant roadblocks as well as incompetence. Including the public who's culture has shifted away from being able to tackle complexity and continues to do so as reality becomes just another perception to manage.
Take the USA, with their "obamacare" which people hate but most people like the ACA which is the same thing by another name. The system is so broken only half measures which skirt out real issues are possible and then don't last because any flaws in those can not be patched. Progress is minimal and temporary at best; it's all perception management - like the corporations who hire PR firms and lawyers instead of recalls... even if the recall might be cost the same (got to keep up your image!) I would argue that a 70% improvement could be managed into being negligible to the majority of the voting public. In the USA, it's so bad I bed about 30% wouldn't acknowledge a 100% perfect solution. Given how half vote... that 30% can be an electoral majority. Remember people act more out of opposition than out of support.
The means-and-ends moralists, or non-doers, always end up on their ends without any means. -- Saul Alinsky