They should start bussing in busloads of Albertans in the next election to vote for Trump in the next election. Suddenly election security becomes uncontroversial again
The original IBM PC had either 16 or 64kb of RAM on the motherboard.
I can't wrap my head around an IBM PC machine with so little stock memory you couldn't even run PC-DOS 1.0
I can't wrap my head around an IBM PC machine with so little stock memory you couldn't even run PC-DOS 1.0
The UK doesn't have any neighbors who would be refugees. Who exactly would be migrating? The French? The Germans? The Dutch? The Norwegians?
So let me get this straight: people are crossing an entire continent and part of the ocean to land in the UK. What business do those people have in the UK? They could have stopped at literally any country along the way.
So let me get this straight: people are crossing an entire continent and part of the ocean to land in the UK. What business do those people have in the UK? They could have stopped at literally any country along the way.
Spending billions of dollars of debt to reduce inflation is like thousands of people fucking to increase virginity.
Certainly explains why the idea of a very low cost city car isn't even remotely considered an option when it's actually the best option.
Toyota is facing massive attacks from the ESG crowd for wanting to create all kinds of vehicles including internal combustion engines, hybrids, battery electric, and hydrogen.
As of 2021, Toyota is the world's largest automotive manufacturer in terms of vehicle sales. They didn't do this by chasing turning away customers. They did it by producing vehicles people want to buy.
Some people want battery electric vehicles, but not everyone does. Some people want the flexibility of a plugin hybrid electric vehicle because while a battery is perfect for day to day driving, when you're paying more for your green vehicle than a standard vehicle it better be capable of doing what's required including driving to the next city. Some people think other green technologies will be the future.
We know that historically, technologies backed by governments and industry don't always end up being the successful ones, and technologies opposed by governments and industry aren't always unsuccessful. One fantastic example of this is MP3 -- despite having the world's establishment firmly against MP3, it became the de facto standard for music. Another example is WiMax, a long distance data transmission standard developed in the 2000s which had some big infrastructure investments such as the governments of Taiwan and South Korea and companies such as US carrier Sprint. Despite that, LTE ended up as the dominant technology.
The same can also happen with movements that are supported by some governments to push their own agendas. The Soviet Union supported the Esperanto language early on, a constructed language intended to be easier to learn with the idea being you'd bring people together. Despite that, Esperanto isn't a major language, and English has become the world's lingua franca.
Segway is a great example of a company that's all-in on a certain idea, and the government is in support of the idea, but despite that they failed. Segways were supposed to become the transportation of the future, but instead they failed so catastrophically that today the company is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Chinese company.
So with all that in mind, it doesn't make any sense to get 100% behind any one technology, particularly if the reason is just that some governments and companies are backing it. For a company as big as Toyota, build all the things and let history decide what technology works for them. In that way, no matter what ultimately wins, they'll be in that business. That's unlike many companies today that are struggling to get into the latest trend late.
As of 2021, Toyota is the world's largest automotive manufacturer in terms of vehicle sales. They didn't do this by chasing turning away customers. They did it by producing vehicles people want to buy.
Some people want battery electric vehicles, but not everyone does. Some people want the flexibility of a plugin hybrid electric vehicle because while a battery is perfect for day to day driving, when you're paying more for your green vehicle than a standard vehicle it better be capable of doing what's required including driving to the next city. Some people think other green technologies will be the future.
We know that historically, technologies backed by governments and industry don't always end up being the successful ones, and technologies opposed by governments and industry aren't always unsuccessful. One fantastic example of this is MP3 -- despite having the world's establishment firmly against MP3, it became the de facto standard for music. Another example is WiMax, a long distance data transmission standard developed in the 2000s which had some big infrastructure investments such as the governments of Taiwan and South Korea and companies such as US carrier Sprint. Despite that, LTE ended up as the dominant technology.
The same can also happen with movements that are supported by some governments to push their own agendas. The Soviet Union supported the Esperanto language early on, a constructed language intended to be easier to learn with the idea being you'd bring people together. Despite that, Esperanto isn't a major language, and English has become the world's lingua franca.
Segway is a great example of a company that's all-in on a certain idea, and the government is in support of the idea, but despite that they failed. Segways were supposed to become the transportation of the future, but instead they failed so catastrophically that today the company is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Chinese company.
So with all that in mind, it doesn't make any sense to get 100% behind any one technology, particularly if the reason is just that some governments and companies are backing it. For a company as big as Toyota, build all the things and let history decide what technology works for them. In that way, no matter what ultimately wins, they'll be in that business. That's unlike many companies today that are struggling to get into the latest trend late.
I haven't contribued to the source code in a long time, but I'm still partial to FreeBASIC
In fact, for my next book I'm working on making a "how to program in FreeBASIC" book wrapped around a book about computer first principles. Lots of kids these days lack fundamentals, which is going to be a huge problem in the future.
In fact, for my next book I'm working on making a "how to program in FreeBASIC" book wrapped around a book about computer first principles. Lots of kids these days lack fundamentals, which is going to be a huge problem in the future.
On the upside, even though the banking system continued to fund ISIS, at least we made sure Dick Masterson wasn't allowed to create a patreon alternative because he has some friends leftists don't like.
Probably the wrong metaphor.
For me, I know I share the fediverse with people who disagree with me and who are also dangerous if they realize it. I don't need to put myself in front of them and yell at them that they're wrong, I can just enjoy all the other parts of the fediverse including people I disagree with who are nonetheless in fact tolerant of other viewpoints.
For me, I know I share the fediverse with people who disagree with me and who are also dangerous if they realize it. I don't need to put myself in front of them and yell at them that they're wrong, I can just enjoy all the other parts of the fediverse including people I disagree with who are nonetheless in fact tolerant of other viewpoints.
That's true too. Someone can say something to you, but you don't need to say anything back. Moreover, often you can avoid putting yourself in a situation where someone would interact with you in the first place. Sure, you don't get to thumb your nose at someone you don't like if you quietly move to another room, but it's highly effective.
The Internet will always have jerks.
Some people want to change the universe and make jerks disappear, but that's impossible.
The only world you have full control over is your internal world. Thus, the only one who can let others words hurt you is yourself.
Some people want to change the universe and make jerks disappear, but that's impossible.
The only world you have full control over is your internal world. Thus, the only one who can let others words hurt you is yourself.
If these people want non enumerated rights protected maybe they should be more concerned about enumerated rights first. If enumerated rights aren't protected, why would any others be?
Gets it totally backwards.
Parents should be raising children. We shouldn't be taxing parents so we can give them money back if and only if they let someone else raise their kids. We should be helping the middle class and helping the middle class grow.
Parents should be raising children. We shouldn't be taxing parents so we can give them money back if and only if they let someone else raise their kids. We should be helping the middle class and helping the middle class grow.
There's a problem with inheritance: It either isolates wealth or it divides wealth.
In one method, you end up where the family patriarch has overwhelming power and passes that to the first son, and the other sons are forced to live under the yoke of the first son or leave and build something from scratch. Eventually the family patriarch becomes overwhelmingly rich and powerful but that's about it.
In another method, if you're one of 6 then you end up with everyone splitting a lifetime of wealth and they get virtually nothing. Any accumulated wealth goes away through a death of a thousand cuts.
The idea of the "self-made man" probably comes from the anglo-saxons. Children are expected to move away and make their own way in the world, and if they happen to inherit something all the better but it's arbitrarily up to the parents how to mete out inheritance. It forces people to go out and expand, and to interact with others. It probably comes from the nature of an island nation that relies on trade and travel for success, and the English previously being highly meritocratic and believing that those who succeed likely deserved it meaning that there would be a focus on building oneself up.
Here's a video from one of my favorite youtubers on a related topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFFwhbVqeU
The big thing is remembering that the world is much bigger than our front lawn. There's all kinds of different ways of being right now in the world, and we can see what the results are of each.
In one method, you end up where the family patriarch has overwhelming power and passes that to the first son, and the other sons are forced to live under the yoke of the first son or leave and build something from scratch. Eventually the family patriarch becomes overwhelmingly rich and powerful but that's about it.
In another method, if you're one of 6 then you end up with everyone splitting a lifetime of wealth and they get virtually nothing. Any accumulated wealth goes away through a death of a thousand cuts.
The idea of the "self-made man" probably comes from the anglo-saxons. Children are expected to move away and make their own way in the world, and if they happen to inherit something all the better but it's arbitrarily up to the parents how to mete out inheritance. It forces people to go out and expand, and to interact with others. It probably comes from the nature of an island nation that relies on trade and travel for success, and the English previously being highly meritocratic and believing that those who succeed likely deserved it meaning that there would be a focus on building oneself up.
Here's a video from one of my favorite youtubers on a related topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RFFwhbVqeU
The big thing is remembering that the world is much bigger than our front lawn. There's all kinds of different ways of being right now in the world, and we can see what the results are of each.
The USA already spends as much taxpayer money on healthcare as most single payer nations, per Capita.
They don't need more money, they need to use the money they have correctly. If they can't, they shouldn't get anything.
They don't need more money, they need to use the money they have correctly. If they can't, they shouldn't get anything.
As I recall, prior to 230 jurisprudence was that the key to whether you were liable for content was whether you were claiming to moderate it. If you didn't moderate it (or at least didn't claim to) then the person who posted it was liable, whereas if you did moderate it and claimed to then you took all the responsibility for everything that made it through.
Also remember that the internet exists around the world and 230 only exists in one country.
Also remember that the internet exists around the world and 230 only exists in one country.