notdonspaulding

The phrase "couldn't be bothered" is assuming a lot of bad faith on Microsoft's part. While I would agree that in times past MS didn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, these days they're a different company.

With no special insight into their reasoning, I think the more likely answer to the question, "Why didn't they contribute this upstream?" is probably "Give it time."

Other (industrialish) things cows don't mind: - Tractors - Feed grinders - Silage conveyors - Automatic Milkers - Being lifted to a horizontal position to have their hooves trimmed. - Having their eggs artificially inseminated.

I was unsure about the credibility of Cringely on the topic of turbine blade count right up until I read this statement. Then I was sure about his credibility.

The T460p is due out in the next few weeks and is geared toward performance with the use of discrete graphics and Intel core i5/i7 processors from the HQ line.

The T460s is geared for mobility, and can be bought today.

And also available today, the regular T460 model is a compromise between the two.

C.S. Lewis takes on the issue of subjectivism in his book "The Abolition of Man". He takes a pretty close look at the ethical repercussions of moral subjectivity. It's a fairly quick read and I think it's even available online because it's out of copyright.

It's not by any means a direct rebuttal of your comment, but right at the beginning of the book I think there's an example that's germane to this current conversation. You may find it interesting.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20060508-22/?p=...

    > Why not do it like other countries and just include one, 
    > final price, which is what comes out of my pocket?

In the US, taxes vary by where you are. Your city, county, state, and the federal government can all levy taxes on just about anything they want. The only thing that keeps those entities from constantly raising taxes is that consumers know when a price hike is caused by the business raising its prices versus the local municipality increasing taxes.

If McDonald's wants to sell a burger for $1, it can advertise that price state-wide, and if you end up paying $1.25 in one city and $1.50 in another, that's a signal to citizens where their money is going when they buy the burger.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11063019

I think that page has better content than the main site that you've linked here, personally.

Using your analogy, imagine the bus driver said "It's my job to keep the kids safe, therefore I'm going to start requiring all the kids to give me their cell phone numbers in case there's an emergency."

Could that be construed as "keeping the kids safe"? Sure, but that wouldn't necessarily make you any more comfortable with the bus driver gaining more intimate access to your children.

I know analogies are never perfect, but another nitpick with this one is that the POTUS holds a position of power and authority that you wouldn't typically have to worry about in your average bus driver, so additional scrutiny into "Just what did he mean by that?" is occasionally warranted.

(For those not from the U.S.: The way it's supposed to work is that Congress makes the law, the President executes the law, the Court upholds the law)

But maybe you saw that and were just making a joke? In which case, I'll just <whoosh> myself.

I completely concur that Dr. King was an extremely important individual in combating the race problem of his day, and would no doubt have had a much bigger impact on our country had he not been assassinated so early in his life and work.

However, this statement has me concerned:

    > This movement continues to this very day in Ferguson and 
    > Cleveland and Baltimore and Chicago and all across the 
    > country.

From the Wikipedia article on the Michael Brown shooting [1]:

    > The Department of Justice investigation into the 
    > shooting determined that witnesses who corroborated 
    > Darren Wilson's account were credible while those who 
    > incriminated him were not. The witnesses that claimed 
    > Brown was surrendering or did not move toward Wilson 
    > were not credible; the report stated that their claims 
    > were inconsistent with the physical evidence, other 
    > witness statements, and in some cases prior statements 
    > from the same witness. No witness statements that 
    > pointed to Wilson's guilt were determined to be 
    > credible. Twenty-four statements were determined to lack 
    > any credibility, while eight which were found credible 
    > corroborated Wilson's account. Nine did not completely 
    > contradict nor corroborate Wilson's account. Several 
    > witnesses reported fear of reprisals from the community 
    > for providing evidence that corroborated Wilson's 
    > account.

But with Ferguson, you have the POTUS ordering a federal investigation into what would otherwise be a local or regional investigation, solely because a white officer shot a black civilian.

Then, even after the DoJ determined that all of the evidence and the autopsies and the eyewitness accounts corroborated the officer's account of the incident, Michael Brown is still held up as a hero of a movement which continues with this letter to Slack's employees.

By all means, be an active agent for change in the world in both your personal and business activities. But either get your facts straight about what Dr. King was fighting for, or don't appeal to his authority while holding up examples of behavior he would have despised.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown

When parents talk (complain, whine) about how non-parents have it so easy, what they're really commenting on is the relative change in difficulty they experienced in their own lives when they switched camps, moreso than the difficulty of their life vs. yours.

My great-grandfather left his home at the age of 12 to work in a coal mine and send money home to his mother. I'd say he was as much an adult as any college grad today.

My wife's grandpa managed a dairy farm. He got sick once when my wife's dad was 10 years old. Her dad milked the cows so her grandpa could rest and get over his illness. He hasn't stopped milking cows twice a day for 50 years. I'd say he was an adult at 10.

My dad was taught to work like a man from an early age, but was also taught to drink to excess. I remember when he got his last DUI. I was about 11 years old. I'd say that was when he finished growing up.

The dividing line between childhood and adulthood for me is a total blur between the ages of 18 and 28.

    > It happens far too frequently that Americans are killed 
    > by police firearms when they are not posing an immediate 
    > and credible mortal threat.

If you want to really shut up the naysayers, try showing this data:

    Interactions between civilians and LEOs:  __________
    Of those, how many involved physical force? __________
    Of those, how many resulted in fatalities? __________
    Of those, how many were unjustifiable? __________
    Of those, how many went unpunished? __________

That being said, if you want to claim that we need "a civil, national conversation" about this, I think the onus should be on you to prove that the last number above has risen to a national crisis level. Maybe it has, but I don't think this article (or even your 4 examples) makes a very good case for it.

That being said, if the numbers you're looking for exist in an unbiased, non-doctored study, I'd be surprised. If they did, and they supported the thesis, you'd see them quoted in every article advocating gun control.

Second: In almost the entire US, being armed is not against the law.

Third: If it's as much of a "common occurrence" as you claim, please paste here one example from the list of shootings on the article's main page where an officer shoots a civilian without any provocation.

In all 3 clips (your two, plus the parent's) what I see is that a person holding a knife is an immediate and real danger to anyone within 15 feet of them.

Also, if I'm seeing correctly, both assailants had already been pepper-sprayed, is that right?

Elon is calling that four times as much as because he's considering the total energy required to accelerate from 0 in both numbers. I think you're just accounting for it differently by saying it takes 3 times as much as the original energy input to go from 1000km/h to 2000km/h.

I'm a complete physics novice, I'm open to being schooled on this if I'm completely missing both yours and Elon's concepts here.

    (add more details here)

I live on a farm where my water source is a well. I live next to a subdivision where all the residents are on a single shared well. That subdivision is next to a city which draws its water from a local lake. That city borders another city which has a system of wells to draw from the local aquifer. In our local region is another city which draws from a large river. About 2 hours away is the city of Chicago which draws from Lake Michigan.

Each of those water systems operates independently. Each local body is responsible for determining the quality of their source and ameliorates it as needed. You can imagine that as you progress up the chain from my house to Chicago, this same process gets more and more sophisticated, but the basic process is the same.

A city the size of Flint, even with their recent financial trouble, certainly has a water department which knows what the quality of the water it's putting out is. As for culpability, whatever else you may have heard about the US, we do hold people accountable when they knowingly put the public health at risk. In fact, the article even mentions that Flint's previous mayor was ousted over this very issue.

    > As the founder of HashiCorp, I feel qualified to answer this.

Thanks for taking the time to write down such a thoughtful reply. We are a relatively small company, but a lot of the products we make are enterprise-focused. I'll be sure to check out Atlas here in the near future.

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/12-best-yahoo-pipes-alternative...

Also, CloudScrape:

http://cloudscrape.com/

    > On the contrary, this fallacy is very important and applicable.

    > For example if US Army has a tendency to employ 
    > rapists, it's valid to criticise US Army for this fact 
    > even if they have a rule that forbids such behavior.

If someone did make that statement in sincerity, sure, send in the No True Scotsman patrol and take 'em out. But that's not how it usually happens. Typically, there's a singular incident. That's often followed by a careless article which paints with an overly broad brush: "Does the Army have a rape problem?".

And that is the point where I start looking for the misapplied No True Scotsmans to crop up. There's no way for anyone to defend the Army by pointing out that it's against the rules, or that the number of rape incidents in the army is lower than the general population, or really any other facts.

    > It's important to call out this fallacy, because the 
    > membership in a group can't be defined on the basis of a 
    > person's conduct, since there's no way to monitor that 
    > every member of the group adheres to this conduct.

No True Scotsman is intended to point out the fallacy of someone inside a group avoiding criticism by constantly shrinking or changing the group rules in order to draw a distinction from some negative person or incident. If the goalposts aren't moving, then its likely the person really isn't a True Scotsman, and you should maybe try to understand why not.