Tax Refunds are less this year, must be Trumps fault

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 1:57:04 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:946db845-7b5d-4b8e-b9af-
1b7452a894ae@googlegroups.com:

I said the DEFINITION of poverty has not changed.

Oh boy! A little nit pik bitch.


So I was right and you do have no clue about how much has changed.

It was quite obvious I was not talking about the fucking word
definition.

This is what you posted:


" You are oblivious to the fact that the very definition of poverty has
changed, because of the obliteration of the middle class.
Much less whatever your precious 'poverty rate' means. Yet another
stupid stat most likely. "


And this was in regard to the war on poverty, that began in the mid 60s
and for which I provided a chart that uses the Census Bureau data.
So, one, you did claim the definition changed and that is wrong, as usual.
Two the second sentence indicates you don't even know what what the poverty
rate means!


Thanks for another precious moment!

 

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:f4a266bb-6823-43a1-ad88-
76400a95b2de@googlegroups.com:

but not MIT, I think they actually light still teach something.

That is where my boss's daughter developed the fin fet at. Now,
nearly all chips use fin fet architecture.

She is now a Professor at Purdue.

As K says, always wrong. A quick search attributes the deveolpment of
the finFET to Chenming Hu at Berkley.

http://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~hu/bio.html

Chenming Hu

TSMC Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley

Dr. Chenming Hu has been called the Father of 3D Transistor for developing the FinFET in 1999. Intel is the first company to use FinFET in 2011 production calling it the most radical shift in semiconductor technology in over 50 years. By 2015 all top servers, computers, Android and ios phones use FinFET processors. He received the National Technology and Innovation Medal from President Obama in the White House in 2016. The world's largest technology association IEEE called him "Microelectronics Visionary" when presenting him the 2009 Nishizawa Medal for "achievements critical to producing smaller yet more reliable and higher-performance integrated circuits".

Nuff said on that one.


Next!

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:1455f2a7-4d1e-4dba-8107-
7d2c6951e355@googlegroups.com:

> This is what you posted:

Nope. There is a difference between saying "The very definition of
poverty" and 'the very difinition of the word poverty". My statement
was the former. Your stupid shit was the latter.

Your problem is not mere horse blinders. You are just simply dense,
boy.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c2e18f64-75f0-4f26-bf99-3e304e9b71e6@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:f4a266bb-6823-43a1-ad88-
76400a95b2de@googlegroups.com:

but not MIT, I think they actually light still teach something.

That is where my boss's daughter developed the fin fet at.
Now,
nearly all chips use fin fet architecture.

She is now a Professor at Purdue.


As K says, always wrong.

You are a fucking retard, boy.

A quick search attributes the
deveolpment of the finFET to Chenming Hu at Berkley.

Actually, it was a group effort. So much for what little you
know, even after your precious google search.

http://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~hu/bio.html

Chenming Hu

TSMC Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of California,
Berkeley

Dr. Chenming Hu has been called the Father of 3D Transistor for
developing the FinFET in 1999. Intel is the first company to use
FinFET in 2011 production calling it the most radical shift in
semiconductor technology in over 50 years. By 2015 all top
servers, computers, Android and ios phones use FinFET processors.
He received the National Technology and Innovation Medal from
President Obama in the White House in 2016. The world's largest
technology association IEEE called him "Microelectronics
Visionary" when presenting him the 2009 Nishizawa Medal for
"achievements critical to producing smaller yet more reliable and
higher-performance integrated circuits".

Nuff said on that one.


Next!

You are wrong. Nice try though. As usual, you are guessing as
you go.

That was 1999, and it was a concept. It was also NOT the one
Intel used in 2011 and now it certainly is new, MIT technology.

There is a difference between concept and actual implementation,
and that took years. MIT develops the actual manner in which
nanometer scale elements get done. That is what Intel put to work.

She works on MEMS clock chips now with ultra low jitter figures.

They are also working with 'organic' mediums being incorporated
into chips. But that is Purdue. She left MIT a few years ago.

https://www.eecs.mit.edu/news-events/calendar/events/transistors-
next-decade-finfets-and-beyond

https://www.electronicdesign.com/analog/finfet-gan-transistors-1200-
v-and-beyond


Next indeed, punk.

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 1:22:18 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:37:35 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:09:47 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 1:09:53 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d53b9f8-dd3a-421c-b0f7-81a15248666e@googlegroups.com:

You're oblivious to the fact that the poverty rate today is the
same as it was 50+ years ago, when the war on poverty began.



You are oblivious to the fact that the very definition of poverty has
changed, because of the obliteration of the middle class.

Just like K says, always wrong. The definition of poverty used by the
Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on poverty
began.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The income level used to define the poverty line has been inflation adjusted since it was originally introduced in 1964.

No shit Sherlock. Did I say otherwise? I said the DEFINITION of poverty has not changed. Only a clueless lib would somehow take that to mean
that the number has not been adjusted for inflation for 50 years.
That would be remarkably stupid, even for a lib.

Your claim was that "The definition of poverty used by the
Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on poverty
began." Inflation adjustment is a change, though not a particularly fundamental one.

I did go on to make the point - that you have snipped without marking the snip - the Census Bureau has extended the definition of poverty.

"In 2011, the Census Bureau introduced a new supplemental poverty measure aimed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty in the United States. The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure. According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in poverty in 2011, compared with the official figure of 15.2%. The new measure also estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived within 200% of the federal poverty line."

That was stupid of you, if perfectly in keeping with all your other stupidities.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 6:12:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:


Remember the cheating at Harvard ? For some reason we never heard what happened. Them and Yale are clubs to meet other rich kids, but not MIT, I think they actually light still teach something.


Not sure which cheating at Harvard you are referring to. The one that comes to my mind is Ted Kennedy getting someone to take an exam for him. He got booted out for that but was allowed to come back after being out a year.

"And this is your response. "

They can't have the poor going to good schools and making alot of money, learning real reasoning skills of a real profession.

Nobody would vote for them.

Actually they put a lot of effort into getting the poor into Harvard. A third of my class were on scholarships. It is a higher percentage now..

The very clever poor. It's an investment in brand image. If they can claim to have educated really smart people (the kind who can educated themselves) it makes it easier to suck in the rich kids whose parents are silly enough to waste money sending their kids to Harvard.

> Did you note that Harvard and MIT were not schools that rich people paid bribes to get their children admitted.

The people doing the bribing weren't rich enough to pay the kind of bribe that works at Harvard. MIT doesn't have the kind of allure that attracts rich people - Noam Chomsky worked there for many years, though he has recently been persuaded to move to Arizona (by a bunch of people which includes a few acquaintances).

> One factor might be that Harvard tries very hard to interview every applicant. That and both of those colleges are not known as party schools.

The reputation as not-party-schools probably has more to do with it. Applicants to those sorts of colleges can get tutored on how to interview well.

And tend to indulge in the kind of extracurricular activities at secondary school that go down well with interviewers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 7:58:57 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:48:21 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:22:45 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c2e18f64-75f0-4f26-bf99-3e304e9b71e6@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:f4a266bb-6823-43a1-ad88-
76400a95b2de@googlegroups.com:

but not MIT, I think they actually might still teach something.

That is where my boss's daughter developed the fin fet at.
Now, nearly all chips use fin fet architecture.

She is now a Professor at Purdue.

As K says, always wrong.

You are a fucking retard, boy.

A quick search attributes the
deveolpment of the finFET to Chenming Hu at Berkley.

Actually, it was a group effort. So much for what little you
know, even after your precious google search.

http://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~hu/bio.html

Chenming Hu

TSMC Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of California,
Berkeley

Dr. Chenming Hu has been called the Father of 3D Transistor for
developing the FinFET in 1999. Intel is the first company to use
FinFET in 2011 production calling it the most radical shift in
semiconductor technology in over 50 years. By 2015 all top
servers, computers, Android and ios phones use FinFET processors.
He received the National Technology and Innovation Medal from
President Obama in the White House in 2016. The world's largest
technology association IEEE called him "Microelectronics
Visionary" when presenting him the 2009 Nishizawa Medal for
"achievements critical to producing smaller yet more reliable and
higher-performance integrated circuits".

Nuff said on that one.

Next!

You are wrong. Nice try though. As usual, you are guessing as
you go.


So then you can provide us with cites where the daughter of your boss got
credit. How about her name and we can all Google it?

Not a good idea, granting the nut-cases who post here.

The process of working out who is going to get some medal or other is intensely political, and the actual contribution to the innovation plays a fairly minor part in the selection process. Political clout is much more important.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I wasn't talking about a "medal or other". I'm talking about who is
recognized as the developers of a new technology. The fact that Hu is
not only credited with it, but received industry awards and medals,
only adds icing to the cake. Why is it libs have such a hard time
dealing with FACTS? I suppose you have to "feel" who should be
credited, the facts be damned. And since you chimed in to help your
buddy DL, why don't you provide the cites for someone at MIT be credited?
I did a quick search, which I'm sure is way more than you and village
idiot DL did, and all I see are Hu and Berkley. As for nut cases who
you'd be worried about here, the only one that I see making violent,
vile comments are DL, who you are supporting.

 

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 6:12:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:


Remember the cheating at Harvard ? For some reason we never heard what happened. Them and Yale are clubs to meet other rich kids, but not MIT, I think they actually light still teach something.


Not sure which cheating at Harvard you are referring to. The one that comes to my mind is Ted Kennedy getting someone to take an exam for him. He got booted out for that but was allowed to come back after being out a year.

"And this is your response. "

They can't have the poor going to good schools and making alot of money, learning real reasoning skills of a real profession.

Nobody would vote for them.

Actually they put a lot of effort into getting the poor into Harvard. A third of my class were on scholarships. It is a higher percentage now..

The very clever poor. It's an investment in brand image. If they can claim to have educated really smart people (the kind who can educated themselves) it makes it easier to suck in the rich kids whose parents are silly enough to waste money sending their kids to Harvard.

That's stupid, even for you. If there is any brand image involved, it's
affirmative action, giving preference to minorities, which appeals to libs
like you.

Did you note that Harvard and MIT were not schools that rich people paid bribes to get their children admitted.

The people doing the bribing weren't rich enough to pay the kind of bribe that works at Harvard.

So, Stanford and Yale get bribed for significantly less? And how much does
it take to bribe an athletic director or similar at any college? In most
cases, they were not buying a new building for the college, just paying
off someone inside, it went into their personal pocket.



> MIT doesn't have the kind of allure that attracts rich people - Noam Chomsky worked there for many years,

Figures that you'd be familiar with that commie loon.




though he has recently been persuaded to move to Arizona (by a bunch of people which includes a few acquaintances).

One factor might be that Harvard tries very hard to interview every applicant. That and both of those colleges are not known as party schools.

The reputation as not-party-schools probably has more to do with it.

Stanford is a party school?



Applicants to those sorts of colleges can get tutored on how to interview well.

And tend to indulge in the kind of extracurricular activities at secondary school that go down well with interviewers.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

As can the applicants for any of the other schools and I would expect
most of those arrested did that too. The parents wanted a sure thing
and were willing to pay for it.

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:48:21 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:22:45 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c2e18f64-75f0-4f26-bf99-3e304e9b71e6@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:f4a266bb-6823-43a1-ad88-
76400a95b2de@googlegroups.com:

but not MIT, I think they actually might still teach something.

That is where my boss's daughter developed the fin fet at.
Now, nearly all chips use fin fet architecture.

She is now a Professor at Purdue.

As K says, always wrong.

You are a fucking retard, boy.

A quick search attributes the
deveolpment of the finFET to Chenming Hu at Berkley.

Actually, it was a group effort. So much for what little you
know, even after your precious google search.

http://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~hu/bio.html

Chenming Hu

TSMC Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of California,
Berkeley

Dr. Chenming Hu has been called the Father of 3D Transistor for
developing the FinFET in 1999. Intel is the first company to use
FinFET in 2011 production calling it the most radical shift in
semiconductor technology in over 50 years. By 2015 all top
servers, computers, Android and ios phones use FinFET processors.
He received the National Technology and Innovation Medal from
President Obama in the White House in 2016. The world's largest
technology association IEEE called him "Microelectronics
Visionary" when presenting him the 2009 Nishizawa Medal for
"achievements critical to producing smaller yet more reliable and
higher-performance integrated circuits".

Nuff said on that one.

Next!

You are wrong. Nice try though. As usual, you are guessing as
you go.


So then you can provide us with cites where the daughter of your boss got
credit. How about her name and we can all Google it?

Not a good idea, granting the nut-cases who post here.

The process of working out who is going to get some medal or other is intensely political, and the actual contribution to the innovation plays a fairly minor part in the selection process. Political clout is much more important.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:20:34 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 1:22:18 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:37:35 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:09:47 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 1:09:53 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d53b9f8-dd3a-421c-b0f7-81a15248666e@googlegroups.com:

You're oblivious to the fact that the poverty rate today is the
same as it was 50+ years ago, when the war on poverty began.



You are oblivious to the fact that the very definition of poverty has
changed, because of the obliteration of the middle class.

Just like K says, always wrong. The definition of poverty used by the
Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on poverty
began.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The income level used to define the poverty line has been inflation adjusted since it was originally introduced in 1964.

No shit Sherlock. Did I say otherwise? I said the DEFINITION of poverty has not changed. Only a clueless lib would somehow take that to mean
that the number has not been adjusted for inflation for 50 years.
That would be remarkably stupid, even for a lib.

Your claim was that "The definition of poverty used by the
Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on poverty
began." Inflation adjustment is a change, though not a particularly fundamental one.

It's not a change to the definition and only a silly lib would think that
you would not adjust the NUMBER for inflation over 50 years.

I did go on to make the point - that you have snipped without marking the snip - the Census Bureau has extended the definition of poverty.

"In 2011, the Census Bureau introduced a new supplemental poverty measure aimed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty in the United States. The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure. According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in poverty in 2011, compared with the official figure of 15.2%. The new measure also estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived within 200% of the federal poverty line."

That was stupid of you, if perfectly in keeping with all your other stupidities.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

You're obviously the stupid one, again taking things totally out of context..
I cited the charts based on the US Census Bureau data on poverty. Then that
nitwit DL chimed in, obviously ignorant of the fact that the poverty rate
has been measured and recorded for 50+ years. He claimed that the definition
of poverty is different today. Which isn't true, the data is still being
reported the existing way, exactly as in the charts supplied. Hello?
Charts? You libs can't read charts? And then you jumped on the
nitwit bandwagon,
arguing over nits, as usual. The fact that the Census Bureau very recently
added an ADDITIONAL measure of poverty, doesn't change any of that. It's
like claiming if the govt came up with an additional measure of unemployment,
that somehow makes the existing data or definitions going back 50 years invalid.
Nor does the fact that they have adjusted the number each year for inflation.
Wow, they use the same definition and adjust for inflation. I'm shocked!
Absolutely shocked!

 

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:22:45 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c2e18f64-75f0-4f26-bf99-3e304e9b71e6@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:f4a266bb-6823-43a1-ad88-
76400a95b2de@googlegroups.com:

but not MIT, I think they actually light still teach something.

That is where my boss's daughter developed the fin fet at.
Now,
nearly all chips use fin fet architecture.

She is now a Professor at Purdue.


As K says, always wrong.

You are a fucking retard, boy.

A quick search attributes the
deveolpment of the finFET to Chenming Hu at Berkley.

Actually, it was a group effort. So much for what little you
know, even after your precious google search.


http://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~hu/bio.html

Chenming Hu

TSMC Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of California,
Berkeley

Dr. Chenming Hu has been called the Father of 3D Transistor for
developing the FinFET in 1999. Intel is the first company to use
FinFET in 2011 production calling it the most radical shift in
semiconductor technology in over 50 years. By 2015 all top
servers, computers, Android and ios phones use FinFET processors.
He received the National Technology and Innovation Medal from
President Obama in the White House in 2016. The world's largest
technology association IEEE called him "Microelectronics
Visionary" when presenting him the 2009 Nishizawa Medal for
"achievements critical to producing smaller yet more reliable and
higher-performance integrated circuits".

Nuff said on that one.


Next!


You are wrong. Nice try though. As usual, you are guessing as
you go.

So then you can provide us with cites where the daughter of your boss got
credit. How about her name and we can all Google it?


As K says, always wrong.

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

The very clever poor. It's an investment in brand image. If they can claim to have educated really smart people (the kind who can educated themselves) it makes it easier to suck in the rich kids whose parents are silly enough to waste money sending their kids to Harvard.

You really do not have a clue. What do you expect? That they admit the very stupid poor.

Did you note that Harvard and MIT were not schools that rich people paid bribes to get their children admitted.

The people doing the bribing weren't rich enough to pay the kind of bribe that works at Harvard.

How stupid can you be? The bribes were not paid to the colleges.

MIT doesn't have the kind of allure that attracts rich people - Noam Chomsky worked there for many years, though he has recently been persuaded to move to Arizona (by a bunch of people which includes a few acquaintances).

One factor might be that Harvard tries very hard to interview every applicant. That and both of those colleges are not known as party schools.

The reputation as not-party-schools probably has more to do with it. Applicants to those sorts of colleges can get tutored on how to interview well.

And tend to indulge in the kind of extracurricular activities at secondary school that go down well with interviewers.

And what exactly do you think goes well with interviewers?

Dan, Hockessin

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:13ea291c-a5d8-4367-b1c0-f414cfd64f5d@googlegroups.com:

I wasn't talking about a "medal or other". I'm talking about who
is recognized as the developers of a new technology. The fact
that Hu is not only credited with it, but received industry awards
and medals, only adds icing to the cake. Why is it libs have
such a hard time dealing with FACTS?

That was 1999. NOT 'new technology'.

You fully ignored (par for the course) my response. He concieved
it. They even grew one. they even developed it until they reached
the actual finfet 'realm'. However, the finfet we all know of being
used in chips at nanometer scale is an MIT thing.

FACT!

You dig, you stupid fuck!

You are so hung up on this 'lib' moniker thing you keep tagging
people with that you cannot see how lame you are as a result.

Damn, boy. You sure are one dumb motherfucker.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:5301a807-cd37-418d-a637-
0a4e2930dbb8@googlegroups.com:

Stanford is a party school?

Political party, you D U M B F U C K !!!

 

bill.sloman@ieee.org wrote in
news:eed57c45-85df-4cf2-a0b3-aace336e7bcd@googlegroups.com:

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:48:21 PM UTC+10,
tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 9:22:45 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:c2e18f64-75f0-4f26-bf99-3e304e9b71e6@googlegroups.com:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 2:00:12 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
jurb6006@gmail.com wrote in news:f4a266bb-6823-43a1-ad88-
76400a95b2de@googlegroups.com:

but not MIT, I think they actually might still teach
something.

That is where my boss's daughter developed the fin fet at.
Now, nearly all chips use fin fet architecture.

She is now a Professor at Purdue.

As K says, always wrong.

You are a fucking retard, boy.

A quick search attributes the
deveolpment of the finFET to Chenming Hu at Berkley.

Actually, it was a group effort. So much for what little you
know, even after your precious google search.

http://people.eecs.berkeley.edu/~hu/bio.html

Chenming Hu

TSMC Distinguished Professor Emeritus, University of
California, Berkeley

Dr. Chenming Hu has been called the Father of 3D Transistor
for developing the FinFET in 1999. Intel is the first
company to use FinFET in 2011 production calling it the most
radical shift in semiconductor technology in over 50 years.
By 2015 all top servers, computers, Android and ios phones
use FinFET processors. He received the National Technology
and Innovation Medal from President Obama in the White House
in 2016. The world's largest technology association IEEE
called him "Microelectronics Visionary" when presenting him
the 2009 Nishizawa Medal for "achievements critical to
producing smaller yet more reliable and higher-performance
integrated circuits".

Nuff said on that one.

Next!

You are wrong. Nice try though. As usual, you are guessing
as
you go.


So then you can provide us with cites where the daughter of your
boss got credit. How about her name and we can all Google it?

Not a good idea, granting the nut-cases who post here.

The process of working out who is going to get some medal or other
is intensely political, and the actual contribution to the
innovation plays a fairly minor part in the selection process.
Political clout is much more important.

Oh you can bet the idiot is going to go on believing his own
bullshit. He is the only one right... He is a full on legend...
in his own mind.

And I knew that me stating something on the achievement would
start all the Trumpanzee mentality (whether they voted for the
dumbfuck or not) idiots going on the mouth off hayride.

They can mouth off all they want. I know the truth. This chick
makes some of the tiniest features of man's fabrication prowess
ever.

Growing small quantities of molecules in very specific locations
is not easy, much less connecting layers of the same together in
very precise manners.

This TraderTard4 is a google chump at best. He knows nothing
about electronics.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:b472b051-f2d1-49ed-bad8-
5097a4bc06eb@googlegroups.com:

As K says, always wrong.

You prove again that you are always retarded.

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 9:58:30 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:20:34 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 1:22:18 AM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:37:35 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 10:09:47 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 1:09:53 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:0d53b9f8-dd3a-421c-b0f7-81a15248666e@googlegroups.com:

You're oblivious to the fact that the poverty rate today is the
same as it was 50+ years ago, when the war on poverty began.

You are oblivious to the fact that the very definition of poverty
has changed, because of the obliteration of the middle class.

Just like K says, always wrong. The definition of poverty used by the
Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on
poverty began.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

The income level used to define the poverty line has been inflation adjusted since it was originally introduced in 1964.

No shit Sherlock. Did I say otherwise? I said the DEFINITION of poverty has not changed. Only a clueless lib would somehow take that to mean that the number has not been adjusted for inflation for 50 years.

But you didn't spell out how "poverty" was defined. In fact it has been based on family income, in dollars, since 1964, but the way that dollar threshold has been calculated doesn't directly involve the inflation rate as such..

That would be remarkably stupid, even for a lib.

Your claim was that "The definition of poverty used by the
Census Bureau has not changed in the 50+ years since the war on poverty
began." Inflation adjustment is a change, though not a particularly fundamental one.

It's not a change to the definition and only a silly lib would think that
you would not adjust the NUMBER for inflation over 50 years.

But it hasn't been adjusted for inflation. It's actually been adjusted on the cost of a particular basket of basic foods, which tracks inflation to some extent, but by no means perfectly.

I did go on to make the point - that you have snipped without marking the snip - the Census Bureau has extended the definition of poverty.

"In 2011, the Census Bureau introduced a new supplemental poverty measure aimed at providing a more accurate picture of the true extent of poverty in the United States. The SPM extends the official poverty measure by taking account of many of the government programs designed to assist low-income families and individuals that are not included in the current official poverty measure. According to this new measure, 16% of Americans lived in poverty in 2011, compared with the official figure of 15.2%. The new measure also estimated that nearly half of all Americans lived within 200% of the federal poverty line."

That was stupid of you, if perfectly in keeping with all your other stupidities.

You're obviously the stupid one, again taking things totally out of context.

Dream on.

I cited the charts based on the US Census Bureau data on poverty. Then that
nitwit DL chimed in, obviously ignorant of the fact that the poverty rate
has been measured and recorded for 50+ years. He claimed that the definition
of poverty is different today. Which isn't true, the data is still being
reported the existing way, exactly as in the charts supplied. Hello?
Charts? You libs can't read charts? And then you jumped on the
nitwit bandwagon, arguing over nits, as usual. The fact that the Census
Bureau very recently added an ADDITIONAL measure of poverty, doesn't change
any of that.

You missed the point that additional measures of poverty don't seems to make much of a change to the percentage of the population counted as poor.

> It's like claiming if the govt came up with an additional measure of unemployment, that somehow makes the existing data or definitions going back 50 years invalid.

Why? Official statistics aren't magically correct - they are always merely close enough for government work.

Nor does the fact that they have adjusted the number each year for inflation.
Wow, they use the same definition and adjust for inflation. I'm shocked!
Absolutely shocked!

Except that they didn't adjust for the inflation that gets reported as the official inflation rate.

You are dumb - astonishingly dumb.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:08:31 PM UTC+10, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 6:12:28 AM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 12:02:56 PM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:


Remember the cheating at Harvard ? For some reason we never heard what happened. Them and Yale are clubs to meet other rich kids, but not MIT, I think they actually light still teach something.


Not sure which cheating at Harvard you are referring to. The one that comes to my mind is Ted Kennedy getting someone to take an exam for him. He got booted out for that but was allowed to come back after being out a year.

"And this is your response. "

They can't have the poor going to good schools and making a lot of money, learning real reasoning skills of a real profession.

Nobody would vote for them.

Actually they put a lot of effort into getting the poor into Harvard. A third of my class were on scholarships. It is a higher percentage now...

The very clever poor. It's an investment in brand image. If they can claim to have educated really smart people (the kind who can educated themselves) it makes it easier to suck in the rich kids whose parents are silly enough to waste money sending their kids to Harvard.

That's stupid, even for you. If there is any brand image involved, it's
affirmative action, giving preference to minorities, which appeals to libs
like you.

They might go in for affirmative action as well, but it doesn't look like it.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/18/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students

The court case suggests that Harvard doesn't let in as many Asian-American students as it ought to ...

Maybe the brand image doesn't involve a lot of clever oriental-looking students.

Did you note that Harvard and MIT were not schools that rich people paid bribes to get their children admitted.

The people doing the bribing weren't rich enough to pay the kind of bribe that works at Harvard.

So, Stanford and Yale get bribed for significantly less? And how much does
it take to bribe an athletic director or similar at any college? In most
cases, they were not buying a new building for the college, just paying
off someone inside, it went into their personal pocket.

That doesn't seem to have worked at Harvard - there it does seem to take a new building.

MIT doesn't have the kind of allure that attracts rich people - Noam Chomsky worked there for many years,

Figures that you'd be familiar with that commie loon.

He's not a communist, but an anarcho-syndicalist (and communists haven't like them since they got Karl Marx chucked out of the international socialist movement in 1871).

And he's not remotely lunatic. For psycholinguists he's roughly equivalent to what Newton is for physicists (if rather less nasty-natured).

though he has recently been persuaded to move to Arizona (by a bunch of people who include a few acquaintances).

One factor might be that Harvard tries very hard to interview every applicant. That and both of those colleges are not known as party schools.

The reputation as not-party-schools probably has more to do with it.

Stanford is a party school?

No idea.

Applicants to those sorts of colleges can get tutored on how to interview well.

And tend to indulge in the kind of extracurricular activities at secondary school that go down well with interviewers.

As can the applicants for any of the other schools and I would expect
most of those arrested did that too. The parents wanted a sure thing
and were willing to pay for it.

Paying for extra tutoring, and making sure that the kids have aced the extracurricular activities is perfectly legal, though it can be counter-productive in the long term.

Bribing admissions staff isn't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:49:06 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 11:35:10 PM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

The very clever poor. It's an investment in brand image. If they can claim to have educated really smart people (the kind who can educated themselves) it makes it easier to suck in the rich kids whose parents are silly enough to waste money sending their kids to Harvard.

You really do not have a clue. What do you expect? That they admit the very stupid poor.

Why would they do that? In any event there are rather too many of the stupid poor to allow any kind of rational selection. Limiting the non-paying intake to 30% involves rejecting a lot of people, and you need to have criteria that even a lawyer can understand.

And they may not have got that quite right either.

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/18/harvard-affirmative-action-trial-asian-american-students

Not quite enough very clever asian-looking students.

<snip>

And tend to indulge in the kind of extracurricular activities at secondary school that go down well with interviewers.

And what exactly do you think goes well with interviewers?

Charity work, helping the disadvantaged, volunteering in aged care homes and hospitals. That's the kind of stuff that gets written up admiringly in newspapers here ..

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

>"Not sure which cheating at Harvard you are referring to. The one that comes to my mind is Ted Kennedy getting someone to take an exam for him. He got booted out for that but was allowed to come back after being out a year. "

It was that well swept under the rug eh ? Well not that well actually;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Harvard_cheating_scandal

"The 2012 Harvard cheating scandal involved approximately 125 Harvard University students who were investigated for cheating on the take-home final examination of the spring 2012 edition of Government 1310: "Introduction to Congress". "

First of all, what kind of fair test is it if you can take it home ? At that I wouldn't send a kid there, finals are suposed to be tough, not done in your diningroom where you have friends, relatives, phones, know lawyers you can call, shit like that.

And they still had to cheat.

"The course was offered to students of Harvard College and Harvard Extension School.[11][12][13] It developed a reputation as an easy course, receiving a high proportion of "easy" or "very easy" ratings in the Q Guide, Harvard's collection of course evaluations.[10][14] According to some Spring 2012 students, Platt immediately confirmed this reputation by promising 120 A's and stating that attendance was optional.[3][15][16][17] Students who attended could share their notes.[17]"

So they got easiness ratings in their course "catalog" ? What could be the categories, Idiot, Dumb, Dumber, George W. Bush...

I would tell a kid "You ain't going to that fucking toga party on my dime, either get a job and pay for it yourself or pick a real school".

I'll tell you of a good school that is not well known - UWM. Said to be a very tough school. My friend's kid went there. Ambitious young Man actually, probably could have gone anywhere and succeeded. At first he was cocky and went for a double major but after the first year he said "Fuck that". And that kid could have gone ANYWHERE FOR FREE, ANYWHERE. He had, actually still has for life I think, a blanket scholarship to anywhere from some St. Ignatius alumni set up fund for the not so rich who actually got through their school which is also not easy. I saw his homework, damn.

Anyway, I do believe he contributed to that fund, or t least intends to once he makes his first million, which I estimate should happen a bit before his 40th birthday. Just in time for the next Presidential election, and I don't have to guess his bent }>
(that _^_ is MY attempt at ASCII art !)