SoylentNews

Well, H came off as knowledgeable and calm and not sick, but T seemed to hit her well with her past 'baggage'.

T rambles too much and seems ADD with his sentence completi-let me tell you! (Lies, all lies).
H knows her stuff, but all those past 'problems' keep smacking her. She's experienced, just bad experienced (enjoyed that!).

If T could finish a complete sentence and hit her when the time comes (like when how H says that they need to keep inner city minorities safe or like when she says we need to work with our allies, he needs to say that Her/Obama's government SPIED on those minorities and SPIED on those allies.

Kind of a wash: she can finish sentences, but he did well hitting her with her past.

He came off as rambling, but she came off as miss smileyfacei'mhidingsomething.

50/50.
I'd like to give T more, but the rambling...

Welcome to my continuing nervous breakdown. I have some new cynicism that I feel the world would benefit from.

Q: How many C++ programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Ten. Six to explain to the world why C++ was the correct solution and the advanced techniques employed in implementing that solution and four to implement a partially-working solution in twice the time that the lone C programmer got a complete, correct solution designed, implemented, tested, documented and signed off in last time.

Q: How many C++ programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Ten. They all set to work analysing their previous partial and unreliable implementation and come up with a new design based on new language features in the latest standard that have been in LISP for over thirty years but they've never heard of before. They draw UML diagrams galore and fire up Visual Studio It Never Rains But It Pours Cloud Enterprise 365+ Edition. Six months later the project is scrapped and declared impossible.

Q: How many C++ programmers does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: We don't know, about ten maybe, but the new language standard has advanced features that will make changing lightbulbs not just a possibility, but achievable by ordinary programmers. Watch this space.

Hadn't heard this elsewhere:
DHS run by 3 Stooges!

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/09/dhs-gives-deported-illegal-aliens-special-interest-countries-u-s-citizenship/

Donny Hairboy takes the number one spot, as if anyone really thought he wouldn't.

Then again, this isn't anything new.

At the same time, there are those who would disagree with that sentiment.

But it just goes to show that, in fact, practice makes perfect.

That's not to say that others shouldn't get honorable mentions, but Donny is the undisputed king.

Long Live The King!

Underemployment could be a society-side solution to class disparity caused by systemic unemployment. Think about mechanization especially: a single factory may have had 100x as many workers before robots, but all the remaining workers are still working full hours. Perhaps instead of concentrating that wealth in the investors, we could keep more like 1/2 of the workers earning the same wages for fewer hours. That way we could maintain a wider income distribution while improving overall quality of life. But there is a fundamental problem that may be intractable: human greed. The investors want the maximum return on investment for the robots they bought, whether or not that return comes at somebody else's expense. And the individual worker, with the opportunity to work 30 hrs/week for the same wage as their former 40 hrs/week, would usually rather keep their hours and earn 33% more.

While there's a lot more written in this discussion thread, I'll stop with that.

There's this idea that work is broken. We're working too much, paid too little, and employers are fat cats leeching off our work. So we're going to force everyone to work less so that these employers have to pay us more. There's a certain sense to it. Lowering the hours worked per week constrains the supply of labor and hence, in a vacuum would raise to some degree the price of labor.

But then we start getting into the many, many problems. The most obvious is simply that work does things and makes stuff. The less we work, then the less things we do and the less stuff we make. This is a problem in a variety of ways.

It means we're doing considerably less overall - the virtues of that level of underemployment aren't enough to compensate for the drawbacks. And I doubt it's a great idea to slow down the rate of progress just for some labor policy. For example, I'd much rather we at least get the developing world up to developed world status and some major progress on human longevity done before we dial back.

That output of work also pays for our labor. The less we do, then the less output there is to pay for our labor.

We also have large fixed costs per worker in the developed world. The less labor per worker the more these costs dominate. That means yet another way employers end up employing less people.

Moving on, another key observation here is that work (not effort!) and employment are not fixed. We can always find more stuff to do, we can find ways to do that stuff better, we can start new businesses, or change existing ones. This leads to another observation. Why curb supply of labor when we can increase demand for labor? Well, that would require throwing bones to employers such as reduced minimum wage; easier employment termination; lower thresholds to business creation, growth, and shrinkage; lower taxes; and reduced mandatory benefits.

One notices a striking component of these work reduction proposals. The employer is the enemy often labeled as "human greed" (as in meustrus's comment) or as the impersonal "investor". Somehow it's not human greed to pass laws to force employers to pay you the same for less work (on top of all the other wealth extraction ploys out there) even though you're pursuing your own benefit at the expense of the employer and threatening the viability of the whole system. But it is human greed just to be an employer. So of course, throwing bones to employers is unthinkable and we are left with this dysfunctional spiral.

Who's more important? A horde of underemployed workers who can't do stuff for themselves? Or the relatively few employers who keep everything going? Sure, you need workers, but when you're in an underemployed situation, there are too many of them and not enough employers.

And of course, the idea of forcing this change on everyone, the unspoken iron fist in this discussion, is completely ignored. In a free society, we certainly should have the choice to work harder to better ourselves and circumstances.

So here's my take on the whole matter. Breaking work further will not make it better, particularly in a world which already has attractive substitute goods for your labor: developing world labor and automation. The perverse and stilted ideology behind this proposal will not consider the obvious alternative, making employing people more attractive.

The proposed benefits of labor reduction are laughable such as income equality (devaluing labor hurts the poor far more than the rich making income inequality worse), inflation prevention (making stuff that people pay money for is deflationary so forcing people to make less stuff is inflationary), better quality of life (why do I need to work less to make your life better? Perhaps, you ought to unilaterally work less? I'm not holding you back), and of course fighting the good fight against human greed (human greed has always been with us, why is it suddenly more of a problem now than the past?).

So how about we fix what actually is broken or do something positive rather than entertain proposals that aren't even pointed in the right direction to fix anything or help anyone?

A Lockheed TU-2S, the training version of the U-2 reconnaissance jet, crashed on Tuesday near Sacramento, California during a training flight from Beale Air Force Base. Both of its pilots ejected, but one was killed.

in the news:
Fox News
Los Angeles Times
Washington Post

further information:
U-2S/TU-2S fact sheet

https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=15915%ACe=&title=8+Things+to+Look+Out+For+in+Red+Dwarf+XI/

This should have been posted the moment it went up, you smeg head editors!
Smeggin' hell!

Who are these 'smeeeg haaads'?

Oh Dog (oh Cat?)... i just went into the woods for a poop and discovered i, as well, was in the Backwards world.
Don't ask how it went :(

The FBI could not review all of the Hillary Clinton emails under investigation because: The Clintons’ Apple personal server used for Hillary Clinton work email could not be located for the FBI to examine.

• An Apple MacBook laptop and thumb drive that contained Hillary Clinton email archives were lost, and the FBI couldn’t examine them.
• 2 BlackBerry devices provided to FBI didn’t have their SIM or SD data cards.
• 13 Hillary Clinton personal mobile devices were lost, discarded or destroyed. Therefore, the FBI couldn’t examine them.
• Various server backups were deleted over time, so the FBI couldn’t examine them.
• After State Dept. notified Hillary Clinton her records would be sought by House Benghazi Committee, copies of her email on the laptops of her attorneys Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson were wiped with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review them.
• After her emails were subpoenaed, Hillary Clinton’s email archive was also permanently deleted from her then-server “PRN” with BleachBit, and the FBI couldn’t review it.
• Also after the subpoena, backups of the PRN server were manually deleted.

Notice the "after the subpoena" stuff at the end of the list. That's destruction of evidence which is likely yet another felony for whoever did that. After that, the report lists all classified information that was discovered from what emails the FBI investigators were able to reconstruct; a list of Clinton players involved in the scandal; and a timeline. The timeline repeatedly lists concerns raised about the email setup, security training for Clinton and her staff, events like destruction of evidence, and hacking attempts, some which were successful, into State Department affairs and personal email accounts of State Department officials and Clinton associates.

Thus, we have strong evidence for gross negligence, which is a felony even if it is not intentional, evidence of coverup of something, and a presidential candidate with a remarkable disregard for the responsibilities of her duties.

Right now I'd like everyone to think about this and since I have this journal I'll put it to good use:
        Sometimes not doing anything is the only correct answer and thus also the only optimal answer.

Is talking about not doing anything not doing anything? If more people become aware that not doing anything is an option and can be crucial then the total of beneficial inaction has increased and one ends up in a situation with fewer and/or less bad outcomes.

Anyone remember any examples of when not doing anything saved their ass? If you do then it's probably something dramatic, we tend to ignore it otherwise despite how crucial it is in all decision-making. For one thing it's the only way not to be purely instinctive; it's the only way to assess and learn and reconsider. In short it is what made us humans what we are.

In extreme cases the opportunity cost of deciding something is the (perhaps hidden) cost of removing all possible solutions. This might happen a whole lot more frequently than anyone thinks and is likely to always be the reason why people (and problems) get stuck. The greatest fictionalizing of this might be in the movie WarGames and the line "the only winning move is not to play".

The procrastinator's alibi is also very Wally :)

And just to point out how great Wally is there's this comic strip :)

Due to the length, editing has taken longer than usual and its still getting final tune ups. It's now scheduled to go live tomorrow at 10AM EST.