Slashdot Mirror

The golf course operations are funded through user fees, not an appropriation from Congress. That's why they're open. As for Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" -- I have no idea how that is funded, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was funded privately.

The problem is the Republicans in Congress who try to extort the Democratic Congressmen and the Democratic President by doing everything they can to cause damage. Then folks like you eat up the misinformation and blame Obama.

So now Obama can agree to a later start of Obamacare without losing his face: He'll not give in to the Republicans, but just react to deficiencies in the technology.

To add insult to injury, the administration decided to take down the Amber Alerts website, blaming the shutdown, but Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" website is still up. They shut down the PX at Andrews AFB and the WW2 Memorial on the National Mall to WW2 vets, but the golf course at Andrews AFB, which Obama likes, is still open, as is the one at Camp David. Funny what this administration considers "essential".

For this administration it's about not compromising and punishing the American people for supporting their opposition. The pain they intentionally inflict they hope will convince most people to force the opposition to give in. A Park Services Ranger was quoted as saying they were told to make life as painful as possible for people.

"Tell your Senator/Representatives to cave or this kitten (or abducted child that won't show up on the shut-down Amber Alert website) gets it."

1. Nudge

2. Shove

3. Shoot

They are past "Nudge" and are now well into "Shove"...with scattered, mostly kept low-key (for now), but increasingly-numerous incidents where "Shoot" is starting to be employed.

The USA is frighteningly-close to tumbling into full totalitarianism.

Strat

Seriously? You're going to reference The Examiner for the park ranger quote? Come on.

For the rest Reuters has a good explanation of why parts of the government are hit by the shutdown and other parts continue unaffected, the explanation being that the parts that get funding from Congress stop and those and which are funded otherwise continue to function. In the case of the Andrews AFB golf course, for example, it's funded by user fees and is not reliant upon Congress for budget.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-03/troops-forage-for-food-while-golfers-play-on-in-shutdown.html

But hell...don't let details get in the way of your rant...

Saudi Arabia has some Pretty enormous subsidies on oil. According to this link, they are domestically selling oil at $5 to $15 a barrel when international buyers pay more than $100. If that doesn't distort a market, I don't know what would.

First, before anything, let me sincerely thank you for working in the military. I know you could likely get a better job that pays more in the civilian world. I am grateful to all the people who serve or have served in the armed forces.

Now, having said that: It's not the Republicans that are fucking you over. It's the Democrats. And I personally hold President Obama as the most responsible, as "The Buck Stops Here" refers to him right now.

This is the 18th government shutdown. None of the previous 17 have been as viciously handled. Never before has the World War II monument been closed... in the past, signs were put up saying "nobody is on duty here because of shutdown" but now the government erected temporary fences around an open-air area and is paying people to keep our veterans out. Never before have privately-funded historic sites on government land been commanded to close their doors. Never before has the Amber Alert federal website been shut down (while the First Lady's "Let's Move" website is still up). People have been forced out of their homes! And, oh yes, this weekend the President was able to play golf at a golf course on Federal land... that wasn't closed (I guess it is an "essential" golf course).

This administration is determined to make this shutdown as painful as possible for the common people, in hopes that common people will be so clueless that they will blame the Republicans for the pain.

The Republicans in the House are attempting to use the power of the purse, which the Constitution gives to them. The budget situation is FUBAR anyway because the Senate hasn't passed a budget in over four years, despite that being a clear Constitutional duty of the Senate. And the Republicans keep passing bills to fix the worst of the pain: bills to immediately pay soldiers, to let the National Institute of Health look after kids with cancer, etc. And the Republican Party has offered the money to pay for staff at the memorials. All of these offers are rejected by the Democrats... in other words, the Democrats have chosen to keep the pain as high as possible, and you are personally feeling that pain.

The previous shutdowns have pretty much ended in compromise. This time around, President Obama has publicly declared that he will not compromise at all ever, and he and the other top Democrats have used the most incendiary language possible. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/wallace-grills-jack-lew-your-history-is-wrong-obamas-refusal-to-negotiate-unprecedented/

So the Republicans are trying to get a one-year delay in implementing Obamacare. We have Obamacare websites that don't work, we have waivers granted to many large companies, we have a one-year delay in corporate obligations under Obamacare, This thing isn't ready to go. And yet President Obama and the other top Democrats are choosing to maximize the pain of the shutdown while at the same time proclaiming that they will not compromise at all ever.

If the Republicans back down at this point without getting anything, they are screwed several ways. As far as I can tell, this is exactly what President Obama wants. Therefore he wants the common people to feel pain, to blame the Republicans for the pain, and to demand that the Republicans cave. (You may feel that this is over the top. Ask yourself: when was the last time a President tried to talk the stock market DOWN? That's unprecedented but Mr. Obama did it.

Smart crooks won't do stuff like Silk Road.

There are plenty of other ways to make money illegally AND get away with it. Check out Wachovia, Bank of America, HSBC, Standard Chartered etc - money laundering: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-31/money-laundering-banks-still-get-a-pass-from-u-s-.html . Or MF Global - outright theft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_Global#October_2011:_MF_Global_transfers_client_account_funds_to_its_own_account

Then there are the usual ways to make lots of money unethically but legally.

It's more to do with the fact that China is running massive corporate, scientific, industrial and military espionage operations against the West, particularly the US (but Europe is also badly affected). I wouldn't let the Chinese within 10 miles of the place.

I was curious so I looked into some of your examples.

Emirates: The UAE is an odd bird in that only 13% of its population are natives - most are foreigners just working there. It seems that if you are one of the natives, you are covered by government-paid health insurance, and if you are a foreigner you are forced into a mandatory insurance system, like Obamacare. According to this article, it is far more socialist than the US: all citizens get free healthcare, free education, subsidized utilities, free land, zero interest loans for homes, etc. All told, citizens average $55,000 each in handouts. About 20% of UAE residents live below the poverty line, compared to 15% of Americans and 6% of the French.

Hong Kong: Provides universal healthcare to citizens through public-run hospitals. While it is true that Hong Kong is known for being a bit stingy with welfare, they do offer free public education for 12 years and subsidize college. They provide subsidized rents to 30% of the population and subsidized home purchases for another 18%. Still, their total social spending compared to GDP is roughly 1/3 that of ours - but ours has gone from around 24% in 2008 to around 30% as a result of the recession. 20% of people there live under the poverty line.

Singapore: I've spent considerable time there. The health care is "free market", but heavily subsidized by a mandatory contribution from your pay check. The free market aspect is nice because it gets people shopping around, but the fact is that the bulk of the cost is still paid for by taxes. If you get really sick and you don't have enough money, the government steps in with a safety net. On the welfare side, they are a pretty good example, but the goverment owns something like 85% of the island and builds all of the housing. And while they do not have government-run social security, they do have mandatory pensions. I have to say that, aside from the whole "self reliance" mentality, the whole place has a "big brother" feel to it. The government is way more in your face... they own everything and they micromanage everything. There is only one real political party, and the newspapers aren't allowed to criticize it. It "feels" more socialist. Singapore doesn't even bother with a poverty line :)

Saudi Arabia: I don't think you meant to put this on the list. It has become a notorious welfare state. The locals get oil money and they bring in foreigners to do all of the work. There is no real economy there except for oil - though the government is working to change that.

I would also point out that of your 4 examples, 2 are oil-rich and 2 are these odd-ball city-states with a very unique history. Hong Kong is one city, yet it has the same population as all of Norway! Comparing the two is only instructive to a certain point.

none of what you say is true.
there is ABSOLUTELY NO MANDATE to abolish obamacare.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html
http://editors.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/republicans-foil-what-most-u-s-wants-with-gerrymandering.html

In the last election 33 Democraticic seats were up for grabs, far more than the Republicans.
The Democrats not only retained their seats, but won a couple extra.
the republicans only barely retained control of the house, and they did it with fewer votes (by redistriciting to marginalize democratic voters, and attempted voter suppression) than the democrats. IE, the republicans lost the popular vote in the election: more people voted democratic than republican.

The fact that one party has a majority in the Senate does not mean they get to set the agenda unilaterally.

Then explain how a minority of the House can dictate the agenda and hold the Congress, indeed the Government, hostage and force a shutdown over an issue they've lost 50 times already? The ONLY REASON the government shutdown is because the bipartisan majority that would have prevented it, is prevented from doing so by the Hastert Rule. the Hastert Rule is allowing a minority of the house, made up of extremists from one party, to dictate the agenda.

The Majority Leader of the Senate has refused to follow these rules. Why? Because he is completely unwilling to compromise. He has also refused to bring most House bills to the floor of the Senate, a power that is his, since every bill brought to the Senate floor must be proposed by Senate leadership. If he thinks he might lose he simply does not allow a vote. This is not democracy.

You just described the House, Beohmer, and the republicans, and dont even see it.
The republicans are playing a PR game. They have created a false middle ground, and then dictated that the senate should go to committee, to re-liegistlate something that has already been legislated FIFTY TIMES. They've lost EVERY TIME. You lose a vote once, you try again a couple more after some persuasion, sure.

BUT NOT FIFTY TIMES.

Again: at what point do Republicans ackowledge that the reality of democracy is that you dont always get what you want, and that sometimes you're on the losing (minority) side?

none of what you say is true.
there is ABSOLUTELY NO MANDATE to abolish obamacare.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html
http://editors.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-18/republicans-foil-what-most-u-s-wants-with-gerrymandering.html

In the last election 33 Democraticic seats were up for grabs, far more than the Republicans.
The Democrats not only retained their seats, but won a couple extra.
the republicans only barely retained control of the house, and they did it with fewer votes (by redistriciting to marginalize democratic voters, and attempted voter suppression) than the democrats. IE, the republicans lost the popular vote in the election: more people voted democratic than republican.

The fact that one party has a majority in the Senate does not mean they get to set the agenda unilaterally.

Then explain how a minority of the House can dictate the agenda and hold the Congress, indeed the Government, hostage and force a shutdown over an issue they've lost 50 times already? The ONLY REASON the government shutdown is because the bipartisan majority that would have prevented it, is prevented from doing so by the Hastert Rule. the Hastert Rule is allowing a minority of the house, made up of extremists from one party, to dictate the agenda.

The Majority Leader of the Senate has refused to follow these rules. Why? Because he is completely unwilling to compromise. He has also refused to bring most House bills to the floor of the Senate, a power that is his, since every bill brought to the Senate floor must be proposed by Senate leadership. If he thinks he might lose he simply does not allow a vote. This is not democracy.

You just described the House, Beohmer, and the republicans, and dont even see it.
The republicans are playing a PR game. They have created a false middle ground, and then dictated that the senate should go to committee, to re-liegistlate something that has already been legislated FIFTY TIMES. They've lost EVERY TIME. You lose a vote once, you try again a couple more after some persuasion, sure.

BUT NOT FIFTY TIMES.

Again: at what point do Republicans ackowledge that the reality of democracy is that you dont always get what you want, and that sometimes you're on the losing (minority) side?

Why would MS appoint somebody to advise them on privacy of their customer's data? How does it benefit the shareholders?

Vaguely, by maintaining customers' loyalty and trust. Specifically, by keeping Microsoft out of the court battles that some other companies are fighting.

Why don't we ever get articles like this one on slashdot?

Because it is solly based on a false premise.

Global warming has slowed since 1998 even though humans spewing ever more greenhouse gases are almost certainly to blame for damaging the atmosphere.

This statement is based on, they say a report summary...

That’s according to a 36-page summary of a report from a United Nations panel released in Stockholm today concluding Earth’s temperature since 1998 has increased at less than half the pace of longer-term averages since 1951.

... which they cleverly never cite directly or link to. Here is the link...
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

The statement made by the article is never explicitely made in this report. On the contrary already on page 3, it is explained why a statement such as the one made in the article is, while true in a specific context, is missleading due to local variations in observed trends. If you look carfully at figure SPM-1 and the statement made on page SPM-3 (3), you will not only see that the author of the article missunderstood the statement made, but even inverted completly its interpretation and meaning.

The report states that the trend evaluate between 1998 and 2012 is slower thant the rate evaluate between 1951 and 2012. This trend variation is fully explained by a local change in temperature variation due to a strong El Nino over the 1960-1990 period and has nothing to do with global warming.

Ironically, the journalist missunderstood (deliberatly or not) the explanation why the use of local trend is missleading in understanding climate change and used the missleading trend stated as example of trend not to use to base is thesis on. I couldn't write "Wooooosh" loud enough.

And we should see more such nicely writte article on /. Yeah, that would be awesome.

Go read the report and learn something.

Why don't we ever get articles like this one on slashdot?

I would say "because it's bollocks", but that isn't a credible reason, many articles posted on slashdot are bollocks.

Why don't we ever get articles like this one on slashdot?

Is someone trying to suggest that if the press release was given at 2:00:00 in a machine readable format, a computer parsed the information... and made a decision to trade without human interaction/vention, it would have been kosher?

Ummm, what? That's exactly how most trades originate.

Here: "Today, when Bloomberg releases a market-moving headline, on average it takes 4 seconds for the markets to move after the news story hits. Bloomberg machine-readable news can help you get ahead of that window.... Bloomberg's Event-Driven Trading feed offers clients instant, machine-readable delivery of Bloomberg's world-class news and data, including breaking headlines, exclusive worldwide market-moving coverage, structured financial data from company releases, news analytics, and global economic data."

Trying to compete with these guys by websurfing is really no different than reading the evening paper.

Well, here's a recent article that says the percentage of trades that are automated has been falling and may only be slight majority now.

That's already happening.

Brazil is pulling away from doing business with US tech firms.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-19/nsa-spying-gives-advantage-to-brazil-s-local-tech-firms.html

Germany is pissed:
http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/08/14/german-backlash-to-nsa-spying-gets-stronger/

EU in general is looking elsewhere for technology:
http://gigaom.com/2013/06/07/nsa-spying-scandal-fallout-expect-big-impact-in-europe-and-elsewhere/

Business world wide is starting to look elsewhere:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/09/10/how-the-nsa-revelations-are-hurting-businesses/

Cloud Computing was just sentenced to death by NSA
http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/04/spying-bad-for-business/

The NSA revelations will prove to be one of the biggest detriments to US computer technology business in decades.
 

Um, dude, that changed a long time ago.

Only if 2016 is a "long time ago."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-24/u-s-military-vows-to-put-women-in-combat-roles-by-2016.html

The US military still has a ban against women in combat positions, though that's supposed to be changing. Yes, they've seen combat, but only accidentally or indirectly.

to users of the almost extinct XP.

If by "almost extinct" you mean "Still installed on over half the computer in Asia," then sure. Bonus: It's still installed on over a third of machines worldwide I'm sure China will appreciate yet another American trying to meddle in their developing economy by giving them an operating system that no other major country would be expected to use as a replacement desktop, simply because we were nice enough to provide it free of charge. There's no possible way this do-good attempt to "save" the good people of another country... because as we all know, Western culture never tries to force other cultures to do what they want "for their own good".

Get a little international perspective, Slashdot. It's not like Microsoft practically gave away XP to developing countries to lock them in, and then jacked the price up for the upgrade, while giggling maniacally like some evil overlord. Jeez... why does the rest of the world hate imperialism so much? It's not like it ever enviously eyed their booming economy and thought; What can we do to cash in on this without looking like total dicks? Oh! I know... how about we pull support for their dominant operating system and force them to spend hundreds of millions on upgrade fees!

Snark aside, this disproportionately targets developing economies and non-western countries. Anywhere else, this would incite comments about racism, cultural warfare, etc., but since it's just an innocent tech giant all I've heard is crickets. Put yourself in the shoes of the rest of the world though; They have aging computers that can't run Windows 7 because of the significantly higher hardware requirements, and while they produce most of that hardware, they can't buy it because their workers all make pennies on the dollar. Are these people just going to drop off the internet, crawl down a dark hole, and die as a service to the rest of us, who hate the poor in the third world? Probably not: Instead, they'll form the backbone of supermassive new botnets, without any way to secure those systems, it'll become a cesspool of all manner of digital evil.

But at least Microsoft's profit margins will be up, so there is that.

The same logic would apply to their Surface tablets, but it hasn't happened

Hasn't it?

"Image" is for fools. If you're serious about keeping it safe -- rather than just using Switzerland as a marketing slogan -- do some research about the location of where you want to set up shop.

The Crypto AG thing was just one tidbit on Switzerland. Are you aware they have a data retention ordinance? The "Federal Act on Surveillance of Postal and Telecommunications Traffic" is the name. Be prepared to keep logs of everything in and out for at least 6 months.

And, yes, fewer people are sending money to Switzerland.

That's a good point. While the US and the UK have had a formal agreement on intelligence sharing since WWII (the UKUSA agreement), they're allies of the US, with a mutual defense treaty (under NATO) with the US.

Israel is not formally an ally of the US. While the US provides "security assistance" to Israel, there's no mutual defense treaty. There was an "exchange of diplomatic notes on mutual defense assistance" in 1952, and there's the Camp David agreement (US, Egypt, Israel) from 1979 which ended the wars between Israel and Egypt. Other assistance from the US is on an ad-hoc basis, and it's mostly money, not troops.

This is significant. When some parties in Israel were talking about bombing Iran, and expecting the US to help, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff told Israel that the US would not become involved. Not Congress, not the President, the head of the JCS. No treaty, no support without orders from higher.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-10/nsa-spying-seen-risking-billions-in-u-s-technology-sales.html

You might also be interested in nickel ore, which is prone to liquefaction during shipping. The resulting instability is why nickel ore ships represent about 25% of all dry bulk ship losses, despite accounting for only 0.1% of dry bulk cargoes.

And if you believe that? I have a bridge you might be interested in. Its already been reported that the NSA has had access to the Google and Yahoo DBs and a security letter trumps any and all subscriber agreements so if you are betting on that to keep your data out of big bro's hands? you are wasting your time dude.

The moral of the story is thus: If a company is in the USA or UK? Give it up, the data is now in the hands of the NSA, it does not matter what the company says, if they are on US soil its NSA's data now.

There's a lot of conjecture about who was behind the attack, and none of it can be confirmed.

It does seem unlikely that it was actually Assad or his government directly ordering the attack, since his conventional war is proceeding extremely favorably for him and the introduction of chemical weapons could only make life more difficult. On the other hand the idea that it was his brother have been floated, which makes more sense since he wouldn't have to suffer any of the consequences.

It seems equally plausible that the whole thing was set up from inside one of the factions by agitators of foreign intelligence agencies. Although the USA, Britain and France all have a reason to do this (misdirecting media gaze away from internal totalitarian surveillance scandals, for instance, and profiting from the arms sales that inevitably result from a war), Russia is a much more likely candidate as it could sit back and see the USA and its lackeys weaken their positions by bashing their heads against a brick wall in the Middle East, as well as continuing to profit from arms sales to the region. Russian news agencies have also been floating the idea that it was a false flag attack from the start (casting the USA as the most likely agitator since they're usually the ones responsible for false flags), and as the saying goes, there's no smoke without fire.

One thing you can be absolutely sure about, and that's that there will be no way to prove this one way or the other.

Does this mean that the founding fathers of the USA have all gone to hell? They did effectively disobey secular authority... the King of England.

The Gadsden flag (a snake saying "don't tread on me") was the flag of the US before the Stars and Stripes. Read Genesis 3, especially verses 13-15 to understand the theological significance. God does the treading. Those who were flying the flag were identified themselves with Satan. The founding fathers may or may not have been Christian, they certainly were theologically literate. They understood (or would have except for willful blindness) the symbolism.

Whether they went to hell or not, the roots of that disobedience are bearing bitter fruit in today's U.S.

A couple of areas where you can see this fruit are gun control and health care. Both of those are rooted in the resulting view that authority is something that you have to protect yourself against (with your own assault rifle) and is totally incapable of nurturing you (providing basic universal health care).

The rejection and hatred of authority results in the impasse where horrific mass murders occur frequently -- but authority is incapable of dealing with the danger of widespread gun ownership.

Almost all other developed countries recognize the greater effectiveness of universal public health care and benefits that a government healthcare system can provide. Because of fear of authority, the U.S. citizens pay too much for too little. Bloomberg recently published a ranking of the world's most efficient health care. The U.S. ranked right up there at #47, just after Iran and just before Serbia.

Ignoring the misuse of the term 'revenue'...

Your statement flies in the face of reality through reporting like this and this and this. Though it is true that some of the largest companies 'in the US paid anywhere between 25% and 50%' but it was not of revenue, or even profit, but of their expected payment to be allowed to exist in a civil society. There is nothing stopping them from moving to lawless places and doing as they please. If people want civilization, they should pay for it.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-18/japan-unit-4-pool-s-heat-exceeded-three-times-normal-iaea-says.html
http://news.yahoo.com/fukushima-plant-steps-closer-fuel-rod-removal-010447411.html
Empty the pool of fuel bundles .... 1,533 fuel rods ~1,300 used fuel rod assemblies? ~ 400 tons ~18 meters above the ground :)

Except it is NIMBY in this case.

financial impact of cumulative regulation is especially challenging to a small plant in these market conditions.

The government of Vermont is applying punitive taxes and regulatory hurdles in an effort to remove this plant.

The federal government already sided with Entergy but that doesn't mean VT won't stop trying.

Germany will produce higher greenhouse-gas emissions in 2013 on top of a 1.5 percent gain last year. German hard coal imports went up 25 percent in the first quarter to 10 million metric tons.

Coal plants are the natural replacement for base power previously provided to Germany by nuclear. Gas powered generators are now economically unfeasible there because of cheap peaking power from solar and wind during the day. EON is closing its unprofitable 430 megawatt gas-fired Malzenice plant in Slovakia in October.

Six coal plants with a combined capacity of 4,536 megawatts are due to start generating in Germany this year - only four coal plants providing 623 megawatts will close this year.

It may have caused GS to lose some money.

Which doesn't happen. Every day is an up-day for Goldman, but they don't control the markets...

There are close to 200 countries in the world. The US is mentioned one time in a list of Top Ten and somehow that's not enough? Please. There are at least 190 countries that don't even have ONE city mentioned.

OK, here's another "Top 10 Internet Countries" from earlier this year made just for you:
http://www.bloomberg.com/slideshow/2013-01-23/top-10-countries-with-the-fastest-internet.html#slide1

Spoiler: US is not on the list; Israel is.

But I've kinda learned from all the BuzzFeed lists spam not to pay attention to any of these lists.

One notable difference between a casino and the stock market is that in the stock market, the odds are in the your favor.

Not any more, for 3 reasons:
1. There is now the equivalent of the House on the stock markets, in the form a few banks who control the majority of assets.
2. The largest investment banks can and do rig almost everything, from International interest rates to aluminum commodity pricing to municipal bonds.
3. HFT combined with premiums paid for slightly early releases of information mean that by the time an ordinary investor has heard about a serious problem in one of their holdings, the damage is already done because someone else found out and reacted to it 2 seconds earlier. In other words, the true price of your assets is based on information you can't see.

> Nobody in their right mind is proposing to keep using coal to get off nuclear.

Then Germany isn't in their right mind, because that's exactly what they're doing.

I didn't say coal plants produce more nuclear waste than nuclear plants; I said the radioactive waste isn't contained in a discrete area. You're also ignoring my main point, which it the cost of lives in fuelling the plants.

Don't forget:

* The Obama Administration, no doubt with an eye to the 2014 elections, has announced that certain parts of the Affordable Care Act (a/k/a Obamacare) will simply be postponed until after the election. Nothing in the ACA gives this power to the Executive branch.

* President Obama attempted to make "bench" appointments when Congress was still in session. Months later, this one got shot down in the courts.

* The IRS went after political enemies of the Administration. There may or may not have been direct orders from President Obama. (I am not ruling out something along the lines of "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" instead of direct orders.) Not only is selective enforcement of the law illegal, but the IRS released confidential details of some conservative organizations to those organizations' political enemies, which is absolutely illegal with no possible wiggle room.

* Eric Holder's Department of Justice has a history of flouting the law.

I read an article that observed that one of the traditional checks on the power of government is the worry that, when the pendulum shifts and the other party is in power, that the other party might start taking advantage of any precedents you set. The article speculated that the Obama Administration isn't worried about this, as the mainstream media is solidly in Obama's pocket and yet implacably opposed to the Republicans. This leaves the Obama Administration free to do things that would get any Republican a firestorm of horrible publicity.

Fans of Bill Clinton, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, used to chant "Bush Lied, People Died. Clinton Lied, Nobody Died." Remember that nobody died in the Watergate scandal, and think very hard about the Benghazi scandal. But the mainstream media isn't interested in Benghazi or any of the other scandals, any more than they have to be.

I'm not sure why I bothered to write this as somebody will mod it down to -1 really fast, rather than writing a rebuttal.

Until there is a Libertarian candidate, who is remotely viable, picking Republicans is what Libertarians ought to be doing. Because Republicans are far less wrong on economy. And economic freedom is required for prosperity...

The opposite is literally true. I don't personally vote economic issues (there's nothing wrong with doing so), but if I were to, voting Republican would not be an optimal choice.

On contrast, if an ultra-Conservative "RethugliKKKan" wins elections and, horrors, manages to outlaw abortions... Guess what? I'll still be able to afford my daughter's trip to Canada, should she ever want the procedure.

You seem to primarily vote your wallet, and you also have a liberal position on at least one social issue, or, at least, you're not crazy about the Republican platform position on that issue (please correct me if I read you wrong). Again, nothing wrong with that, but holding a Republican preference with what you've shared of your political views seems... decidedly strange. I'd honestly be interested in how you arrived at the preference you have.

...the deterioration of our economy...

What deterioration? Now, I'll be the first to admit that we're not exactly seeing Clinton-era growth, but we are seeing steady, albeit slow, improvement. Again, literally the opposite of deterioration.

FYI: Link to Bloomberg video. Seems like Musk was vacillating but now is going to build a prototype.

And how do we fertilize all these bio-fuel crops?

Why, that would be with nitrogen phosphate fertilizers.

And where do we get the industrial quantities of this chemical needed to fertilize acres of these plants?

Why, that would come from oil.

The percentages, if everything goes right, no storms or weather hiccups destroy the crops, and if the subsidies are in place to keep the plan moving forward, if all that works, then bio fuels appear to work out a little better than burning straight oil. The sun is inputting a portion of the energy, after all.

And hey! That's great! Offsetting the cost of oil by combining it with some sunlight.

Though, in doing so, arable land is being destroyed. (Though, the PR video suggests that they're only using acres "unsuitable" for producing food, a claim which is nothing more than spin amounting to a bald faced lie. Those farmers electing to switch from growing food to the more profitable bio fuel crops aren't picking up and moving to other patches of land.)

It might also be mentioned here that agriculture itself kills land. Soil, plant and animal life are sustainable only if they function in close circuit. Tilling and force-fertilizing soil kills it. Irrigation from rivers increases the saline levels of the soil to toxic levels in a matter of decades; the salts have nowhere to go and so accumulate. Root systems removed creates the problem of soil erosion, which occurs much faster than the earth can replenish it through natural means. Already food based agriculture is unsustainable, a one way ticket to overpopulation through excess production, poor health through carb based diets and inevitable famine.

Soil is a finite natural resource, and our agricultural practices are quickly spending through the supply which took millennia to save up. When it's gone, it's gone and you're left with desert. Look at the Middle East; once a lush garden, burned through by agriculture by a much smaller population base. It happened within recorded memory.

Adding cars to the number of biomass consumers can only speed along this process.

Bio Fuels are the result of short term thinking at best.

But leaving aside the question of food and the fact that the world is in short supply, that food prices are going up and people are going hungry in America today.., what do we do about energy needs?

What about solar technologies which don't rely on living systems. What about solar panels?

There are plenty of arguments against them, many seen around Slashdot. Yet several European countries have embraced the technology with a great deal of success.

How successful? Well, successful enough to threaten the established energy industry. Spain is currently drafting new legislation aimed at creating tax laws designed to limit the growth of solar power. The more solar you collect, the more you pay, all in an effort to keep the fossil fuel players happy. (Along with a list of flawed rationalizations for their actions to keep people from open revolt.)

Unfortunately, the idea that solar is bad persists. Private engineer types seem to be easily corralled by the energy giants via simple PR spin. Not really a surprise there. Smart people are among some of the most easily manipulated. They've been trained to trust men in lab coats and educational authority figures up through childhood. All it takes is a slick presentation by Exxon or Shell or any one of the others to satisfy their hunger for rational thinking on a subject, (or as is so often the case, the ersatz stand in for rational thinking). Toss in a dash of technology-hating hippie dogma, (much like the patently irrational but nonetheless effective "welfare moms bleeding the system!" ploy), to trigger an easily directed series of emotional response. Anger at the alternative and a nice, calming flood of reward center feedback in their brains which bypasses the higher thinking centers.

And so what do we end up with?

Corn oil. Or in this case, sugar can petrol.

Price per stock doesn't matter shit.

Market value of the whole company at least say something but that's measured in number of stocks * price / stock.

But as for instance the IT crash told you prices and expectations can be wrong as well.

I don't know if these numbers are correct:
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/SMSN:LI
Market Cap (M USD) 163,796.86
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAPL:US
Market Cap (M USD) 412,866.47

If they are Apple is valued at 2,52 times the price of Samsung electronics.

Price per stock doesn't matter shit.

Market value of the whole company at least say something but that's measured in number of stocks * price / stock.

But as for instance the IT crash told you prices and expectations can be wrong as well.

I don't know if these numbers are correct:
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/SMSN:LI
Market Cap (M USD) 163,796.86
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/AAPL:US
Market Cap (M USD) 412,866.47

If they are Apple is valued at 2,52 times the price of Samsung electronics.

Chromebook sales are actually doing very well: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-10/google-chromebook-under-300-defies-pc-market-with-growth.html

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought people were starving in China and a very few (1%) can actually afford an iPhone or a new computer.

You're wrong.

http://www.zdnet.com/chinas-internet-population-surges-to-564-million-75-percent-on-mobile-7000009813/
http://www.minyanville.com/sectors/global-markets/articles/Apple-Inc-Doubles-iPhone-4-Sales/6/21/2013/id/50472
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-26/apple-iphone-share-shrinks-as-china-s-huawei-to-zte-lure-users.html

The market is huge, closer to 50% than 1%, and Apple's sales, while growing rapidly, aren't as large as Samsung's or growing as fast as those of Huawei or ZTE.

It should be obvious that there are a lot of reasons besides poverty to prefer other smart phones over Apple phones.

ASML aquired Cymer, the EUV light source maker. See her in the last section: Cymer Acquisition

I agree that ASML "only" assembles machine parts build by others.

Don't cry, wait a bit and there won't be very many Amazon warehouse workers to worry about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWNuaPE4DTc
I'm sure they can eventually have a robot that can replaces those pickers. Right now it might be just a bit expensive.

Amazon owns Kiva:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/amazon-acquires-kiva-systems-in-second-biggest-takeover.html

Yes, he did.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-13/apple-decision-in-samsung-itc-case-rescheduled-to-may-31.html

I certainly don't remember any screaming from liberals in 1987.

In fact the only screaming is that we are hearing from conservatives in 2013.

Amount of money spent on lobbying in Washington, D.C., in 2012

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/samsung-s-patent-spat-with-apple-spurs-u-s-lobbying-push.html

• Samsung: $900K, up from $150K in 2011
• Google: $19.2M, up from $9.7M in 2011
• Facebook: $4M, up from $1.4M in 2011
• Apple: $2M, down from $2.3M in 2011

And where do you think that $100,000+ in tuition goes? Answer: it lines the pockets of all the fatcat school administrators. These schools are not in the business of education; they're in the business of making money so they can grow their bureaucracies.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-14/bureaucrats-paid-250-000-feed-outcry-over-college-costs.html

"When did the "police state" cancel the vote?"

Didn't need to, the system controls the election process. This is why, by the time the last two presidential elections came about. The primaries to select candidates were determined by the time most of the country got to vote. Sure we got a choice of Obama vs McCain/Romney. But that is akin to the Soviets getting to vote for the two candidates they were given in the Communist party.

"When did the "police state" shut down shutdown the newspapers, radio, and TV stations?"

When it monitored and harassed the Associated Press. When it terrorized whistle blowers. When it made it uncomfortable to speak out about real issues about our government.

And for the most part, it doesn't need to because nearly ALL of our media is owned and controlled by a handful of men. Any mainstream reporter going against the grain is simply let go and finds that no major outlet will hire them.

"but actually shut down the newspapers, radio, and TV stations?"
I do not believe the Nazis nor the Soviets ever did this. They simply maintained influence over. And if you think that's not the case. You're not reading enough.

"When did the "police state" stop you from traveling without an internal passport?"
When they made me license my vehicle, and when they monitored it's travels. No, they don't need to stop me. They have an automated system that allows them to accomplish the same thing sans the need to stop. It's called TECHNOLOGY.

"When did the "police state" dismantle all of the political opposition parties and jail the leadership?"

They haven't needed to jail the leadership. Because the laws are written to make it almost impossible for political opposition parties to gain a foothold in the elective process. When they do, as in the case of Ron Paul winning massive amounts of delegates. The system simply breaks the laws. Knowing it is too costly, and ineffective to pursue a challenge through the court system.

"When did the "police state" suspend habeas corpus?"

What need is there to suspend it? When you have so many laws and willing courts to convict people on. One can argue it was suspended when people are thrown in jail for growing and trading orchids. And trumped up charges. Or when ANYONE who objects is automatically charged and sentenced to resisting arrest.

Police states do not necessarily absolve the judicial process.

"When did the "police state" start punishing people for wanting to leave the country?"

See the ex-patriate acts and other laws that restrict the removal of wealth from America. And there are many more being proposed.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/senators-to-unveil-the-ex-patriot-act-to-respond-to-facebooks-saverins-tax-scheme/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-01/wealthy-americans-queue-to-give-up-passports-in-swiss-capital.html

"When did the "police state" close the churches?"

Well, let's look at Iran and elsewhere. Where mosques are part of the police state. The existence of, or persecution against, churches is not a criteria for a police state.

But there is talk of removing tax exempt status.

"When did the "police state" start imprisoning people for criticizing the president? When did the "police state" start having people fired from their jobs for not supporting the government?"

What jobs?

"When did the "police state" stop using jury trials?"

Is Bradley Manning receiving a jury trial? Do we even know? It's secret....

"When did the "police state" start banning books?"
I think you assume that for a police state to exist, all requirements of past police states must exist.

But how about forbidding the U.S. military forces from viewing the UK News site th

Some news sites that Mansfield is working on special projects. That could mean iTV, iWatch, iRealityDistortionField, whatever.

Most western-designed machines also have final assembly in China, in addition to the components mostly being made in China. For example, HP assembles many of its laptops in Chongqing in a joint facility.

There might be some difference, since the design is done by HP, and they oversee the production to try to ensure it's in accordance with their design. I'm not sure how much of a barrier to slipping something in that provides, but it might be nonzero.

NO other company has to do this and UPS and Fed Ex sure as fuck don't do this,

Actually, every privately owned company by law is required to fully fund their liabilities to be considered solvent. That's why they hate liabilities like unused vacation and go to great lengths to avoid them. This just hit the USPS hard in part because it was a sudden change and in part because Congress overestimated its liabilities. Here's a good rundown: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-02/understanding-the-post-office-s-benefits-mess.html