Slashdot Mirror

To quote Reagan,

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

My friend Ben says you're an idiot.

https://www.brainyquote.com/qu...

As much as I hate government regulation and big government

Tell me about it! It just gets my goat every time I drive through Minneapolis without having one of the bridges collapse underneath me, that I can't buy cough syrup with formaldehyde anymore, toys with lead paint, a house where the wiring wont burn it all down within ten years after purchase - it's so unfair!

For example, both of Obama's successful campaigns (and many successful Democrat campaigns during those years) had lots of big talk about immigration reform. Funny thing is that during the time the Democrats had the Congress and the White House, nothing was done.

Oh, something happened alright - Obama took INS, a tiny program under Bush and expanded it by 4,000% into the brutal deportation system we have today, expelling more immigrants than all previous presidents combined. That's why if I ever meet John Leguizamo, I'll ask him "head or gut", then kick him in the balls after punching both.

Interestingly, if you go back to Obama's campaign speeches, especially from his first campaign, he actually talked quite a bit about "reigning in out of control spending in Washington." I don't think he actually even made an attempt in that regard.

Pretty much everything the guy ever campaigned on was a lie. It's funny watching conservatives hate on Obama, since he was a right-wing freakshow for eight straight years.

The president will get negative press no matter what.
Sometimes it will be partisan, sometimes it is just based on fact.
For the news, Pain sells, so the president will be shown for all his mistakes over the successes.
We need a responsible adult to realize that, and move forward.

Being President of the United States is the worlds most thankless job.

Being president is like being a jackass in a hailstorm. There's nothing to do but to stand there and take it.

Lyndon B. Johnson

Ole Lyndon could turn a phrase...

There was no censorship, which made them useless

There was some censorship — some groups were moderated, the moderators chosen by mutual consensus. The consensus was not binding on the non-consenting, however, and so could not itself become too abusive.

both of those platforms were so ridden with viruses (pre-malware vandalism)

Totally not a problem today, is it?..

What, precisely, did IRC and Usenet offer as a firewall against advertisement, government snooping and manipulation, and trolling?

What they offer is the diversity. Standing up your own IRC or NNTP server was and remains trivial. The like-minded could join your network with their own servers, carrying your channels and/or newsgroups. The early Internet's optimistic promise of "routing around censorship" would hold...

Now, try standing up your own Facebook...

Not really needed, if you remember the quote from Einstein. One simple experimental result that shows your model is wrong is all it takes.

... Are not enough...

In 5-10 years California will observe, that other places have higher availability of Internet service and wonder why.

Customarily, instead of suspecting their own regulatory burden, they'll accuse the evil KKKorporation$ of seeking "too much" make profit, and start seeking ways to compel them into less profitable things. In exchange for tax-payer subsidy...

The well known cycle of:

• If it moves, tax it
• If it keeps moving, regulate it
• When it stops moving, subsidize it

will be complete...

I want my music to go with me. What I need is the ability to listen to my Music when I am out in the middle of the boondocks with no cell service at all. I still get Sirius/XM most or the time, but while they do have a great cross section, when I want to hear Thelonious Monk, I want to hear it now, and I rarely ever get a chance to hear Gamma, or Blue Oyster Cult. If I buy the CD I can rip it to mp3 and then I can listen to it when ever, where ever I I am at. I absolutely love being in my Jeep, on top of a hill in the middles of no where listening to the https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Makes feel a kinship to Gen. Patton. You just know he saw the entire world through a filter of this movement.

https://www.brainyquote.com/qu...

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/qu... "

funny thing that family also contains Geese

what we currently call NAZIs may not be the original (now extinct) species but ...

Hey the grouping of things that may need to be dealt with "agressively" does not have to be narrow

no really. You can explain your stuff in complex codes, but you could've easily explain it in one or two lines too. This is a little offensive but didn't Einsteins said it before?

This one is for the comment above.

"What do you do?"

"I tell computers to do stuff"

"Ahh...ok... wait really?"

Yea. Nobody really wants to know the details, so you give them something light and simple to stir the conversation. By all means, the point of them asking was to talk about something not the details anyway.

For the article OP, you were asked about "recent accomplishments" and you wanted to explain process of producing compact visualizations of branched undo/redo histories while trying to be elegance and sound impressive. You then need to simply what you actually did. Think what is compact visualizations? What is branched undo/redo histories really is? Last thing is if you want it to be something that sounds impressive, then it needs to be reworded to something that can catch the reader's attention.

"Grady, anything cool you made recent?"

"Well our boss really likes to undo a lot, so I putted an undo button in an undo button, so he can undo while it can undo. I also painted some colors on top in case he can't see it."

When you don't need the details, it's not that hard. You can do it too.

Yogi Berra described this perfectly.

"He hits from both sides of the plate. He's amphibious."

https://www.brainyquote.com/qu...

"I don't understand what the issue is here.
Could somebody please explain?"

Perhaps an example from brainyquotes (sic) will help.

"Anyone who sees and paints a sky green and fields blue ought to be sterilized.
Adolf Hitler"

Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/au...

The gun grabbers are focused on assault weapons (AKA semiautomatic long guns and carbines) (never mind like 90% plus of murders are committed with handguns) because the semiautomatic long rifle is the main threat to their long term agenda of subjugation of the US citizenry, destruction of the constitution and imposition of the alt-left fascist wonderland.

I have yet to hear an alternative explanation that holds any water. Any of the more powerful long rifle cartridges can penetrate body armor, which you can guarantee all the jack booted brown shirts of the progressives will be wearing. Thus, no way they can set aside the constitution until we are disarmed. After that, they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want because they will have all the guns (police, military, etc.) and we will be disarmed. They learned this message from the mass murderer Vladimir Lenin who once remarked "1 man with a gun can control 100 without." https://www.brainyquote.com/qu...

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

You seem to have a problem keeping a post in order, so I'll start by reposting mine again:

Just remember that the Democratic Party of the 19th Century is ideologically aligned with the modern day Republican Party

No, actually, that's a lie. Oft-repeated, but still a lie.

Nope, it's the truth, you can see it in the voting blocks and identity messaging.

It is quite the ironic bit of circumstance.

after a shift in the mid 1900s.

There was no "shift" in the case of Republicans.

Oh my, you double-down on the error. Not only has the Republican Party shifted, it's shifted > two or three times, depending what what you count, perhaps as many as four.

But such shifts certainly do happen...

Tell that to the folks, like yourself, who still scream about John Wilkes Booth being a Democrat. It's quite hilarious.

Hopefully this will allow you to review it again, and improve your understanding. Now to reply to you, with such edits as to get the post back in proper order.

Nope, it's the truth [wikipedia.org]

What am I supposed to see on that Wikipedia page?

Information you lacked. Otherwise, if you had had it, you'd have been making a knowingly false statement. That'd make you a liar.

Could you be more specific, please?

What particular specification are you seeking?

The more bombastic a claim, the stricter the evidence requirements, you know...

Oh, the evidence is in the citations, you'll want to discuss that on the relevant Talk Page if you have any questions. Try to be more specific, otherwise you are unlikely to get answers, as general questions are rarely addressed effectively.

you can see it in the voting blocks and identity messaging.

No, I can't.

Your personal blindness to information you don't see does seem to be an issue. Now what are the reasons for that fault?

I do not know a Republican, who'd argue in support of slavery, for example.

So you don't know everybody who is a Republican, this was already known, and you're blind about your lack of awareness. Also already known.

However, you don't have to know somebody to observe what they say, especially when they write it in a book. Or it gets reported in the news. And...you would find results if you looked.

Meanwhile, for all your links to K-party systems in late 19th/early 20th century, which do not prove your point at all,

Yes, they do, since you claimed:

There was no "shift" in the case of Republicans.

A fraudulent statement disproven even by looking at Lincoln's own party platform, but also by well, cursory historical review.

You, of course, lack the moral integrity to admit your mistake. Either knowing, or unintended, but still a mistake.

we do know of prominent KKK-members running for office — overwhelmingly on Democratic tickets

What, are you so reliant on the KKK as your identifier that you can't find any *other* hate groups?

They weren't even the first in America.

Not that membership in such a group is the sole identifier of character, either, but you could at least branch out a little. It would show some actual rigor.

Of course, we were discussing a political party, and since they are elected, that means you need to

Just remember that the Democratic Party of the 19th Century is ideologically aligned with the modern day Republican Party

No, actually, that's a lie. Oft-repeated, but still a lie.

Nope, it's the truth, you can see it in the voting blocks and identity messaging.

It is quite the ironic bit of circumstance.

after a shift in the mid 1900s.

There was no "shift" in the case of Republicans.

Oh my, you double-down on the error. Not only has the Republican Party shifted, it's shifted > two or three times, depending what what you count, perhaps as many as four.

But such shifts certainly do happen...

Tell that to the folks, like yourself, who still scream about John Wilkes Booth being a Democrat. It's quite hilarious.

I believe it was a Nobel Winning Physicist who said, "if your data doesn't agree with your theory, it's your theory that is wrong, not the data. " (paraphrased)

1. Models are not "data". If the model is wrong, that means the model is wrong. But it doesn't disprove the underlying theory.
2. It was Richard Feynman.

Jean Cretien, former Prime Minister of Canada, would like to have a word with you...

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." - Jean Chretien

They have Nuclear reactors that can be designed where it is impossible for them to meltdown.

"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."

https://www.brainyquote.com/qu...

It's not about revenue at all. The goal is a federal government so weak that "we can drown in a bathtub". If that means bankrupting the federal government, so be it.

The tax cut serves two purposes:

- To hasten the process of dismantling the only power capable of holding the wealthiest Americans in check: the US federal government.
- To further consolidate power into the hands of the wealthiest, whom can then live with complete impunity, as was the case a century ago.

Now matter how much you automate, you'll require some labour - if only to feed the dog - and it'll still be cheaper in China.

On top of that land is probably cheaper, and being able to chuck mercury in rivers and pump out smoke at will adds another cost saving.

It comes down to whether that's enough to overcome the cost of shipping.

Perhaps a variation on Yogi Berra's famous line: "Nobody uses them--they're too popular."

The EPA was created by the Nixon administration amid protests about the quality of the environment, in particular our water and air.

A classic example of:

1. Something must be done!
2. This is something.
3. Therefore it must be done!

I do not see, how an ostensibly free country can tell citizens, it is illegal to use certain toilet models...

and hopefully Trump can reign it in

Only for the next President to reverse it all with the strike of a pen... As I say, all such "agencies" violate the spirit (if not the letter) of the Constitution and signify government overreach.

"$450 billion ($1,800 per resident) per year from 1987–1990."

Yeah, and the next sentence explains that figure as: "These losses included $18 billion in medical and mental health care spending, $87 billion in other tangible costs, and $345 billion in pain, suffering, and reduced quality of life."

Different ways to count it can result in vastly different numbers — depending on what one wishes to demonstrate, ha-ha... The point remains, though, the cost of crime, however you count it, is still below the "commie socialist programs" that serviscope_minor attempted to justify.

And, the "war on poverty" isn't solely about reducing crime

Of course, it is not! Moreover, I argue, that it is not about reducing crime at all. It is about genuine compassion for some and the ability to spread the wealth around for others. That "spreading" of the wealth of captive taxpayers is pure unadulterated tyranny, of course, and the folks advocating it usually have a vast conflict of interest.

The overhead of charities ranges from 15% to as much as 70% — with government's operations being on the greater side of it. It is an incredibly lucrative and powerful position to be in control of spending even $1 billion, even if a mere $150 million of it are yours to dispense on the "overhead". With $800 billion per year you can find words, sponsor poems, finance movies and other artworks, and even find a smooth talking nincompoop, who will sincerely protect your trough, while denouncing opponents as greedy and egoistic bastards...

the sticks and stones, aka name-calling

What? How are the sticks and the stones equivalent to name-calling?!

all "rights" are created by people

Nope. Emphasis mine:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Whoever it is, that created you in your belief-system, granted you your rights. It is, of course, convenient for Statists to pretend, that the government is the fount of rights instead — to make it easier to revoke them. But that's a road to tyranny — and a short one, too.

talking about a "war" on speech just confirms your bias.

I will not apologize for being biased towards liberty. The war on speech is very real, as I outlined, and has been fought before. For example:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

So Americans, go look in the mirror and consider that this budget, as a nation, reflects you.

Yep. As we've been saying for 150 years: Government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the Earth.

Maybe, other nations prefer to be governed by the benevolent and omniscient elites, who know, what's good for their subjects better, than the subjects themselves do. But we here prefer the government, that follows the will of the people, however dumb.

they can look at individual apartment buildings and decide that the demographic living in that building is too poor, or too likely to chose the competition

Well, that would seem like a perfectly normal line of reasoning — why sue them over it?

But I doubt, that's the full reason. In the suburbs of NYC they are perfectly willing to hook-up individual standalone houses — a proposition that seems costlier, than wiring even a small share (like 10%) of apartments in a building. They are willing compete with other providers too. Indeed, my monthly FiOS fee is the same today as it was 6 years ago, but the throughput is up from 35Mbps up/down to 75Mbps — because they are well aware of the "introductory offers" I am getting from Comcast.

So, why are they willing to "leave the money on the table" in NYC? I think, this story indicates, there is no money on the table there — that the city's regulatory climate is so suffocating, only the highest-paying customers get served. This explanation would be consistent with what we already know about the culpability of local governments for the dearth of Internet-service options, and with Google Fiber's unwillingness to touch NYC and other large (hence corrupt) cities with a 10-feet pole...

And you should also admit that Trump is largely the source of the "hire local" climate, he's caused companies to rethink their outsourcing plans, especially in light of the alternative candidate who said explicitly that she wants completely open borders for job seekers.

Nope. That's been something proclaimed for YEARS. It's been a scam.

So is Trump's "Carrier deal" and "Ford and he lied about "Boeing too.

Durp, durp, durp. You lie about Hillary Clinton as well. Just like Your Orange God

Who also made up a story about bidding on drugs. LOL. Yeah, let's see him change the Republican's opposition to the reform proposed by Democrats for decades. He'll either come up with a way to screw us, or fail and claim he somehow saved us anyway.

But none of that matters. I don't think many people really care who takes the credit.

Is it important to you?

Help me out here.

Why should credit even matter?

Ask your good buddy, Donald J. Trump, who puts his name on everything.

Sorry, but some of us know that Donald only wants CREDIT for success, he doesn't even care if the job gets done.

Maybe you like his over-the-top bombastic style of self-aggrandizement, maybe you think his much vaunted narcissism is a matter of virtue, but you're the one who has to look at what you've embraced.

With open eyes. He's already said he likes being liked. He can't see a problem in that. He'll be a suck-up to anybody who offers him praise.

And if you dare to criticize or challenge him, he'll throw a tantrum.

I think every member of a society should balance personal motives such as profit, against the greater good.

Maybe, people should do this. But legally requiring it is a road to ruin.

Painful as it may be to boys and girls of the Che Guevara/Bernie Sanders persuasion to hear, there is no system with better quality of life than Capitalism, under which greedy sociopaths find it deeply rewarding to develop and make available to us the ever-better communication, transportation, medical, and other technologies.

Of course, you and Karl Marx both see these people straight through — had it been profitable for them to produce crushed glass, they would've produced just that. But no one wants to pay for crushed glass, so they produce what we want instead.

See also "benevolence of the butcher".

and then pursuing anyone who develops a lower cost variant, particularly when the "test" as it were is simply identifying pre-existing and non-made-made genes

For some reason, these tests simply did not exist, until these nasty people invented them. So, I ask you again, would the world have been a better place, if these greedy bastards have never been born? And, if you think it would have, why don't you just ignore their existence and not get tested?

not allowing them to game the system to our detriment and to their gain.

Given that you and I lose precisely nothing by ignoring their (overpriced) offerings compared to them not being available at all, it is, quite obviously, not your detriment, that worries you, but, indeed, their gain.

Stop counting other people's money and make your own. Then tell us about your charitable instincts.

I can't imagine why. I mean it's not like there's ever been a problem with it before in Eurpope...

Yes, various Authoritarians — from Franco in the West to Stalin in the East — made elimination of the freedom of speech their top priorities:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

— Joseph Stalin

The proper reaction to "bad" speech is good speech.

But if you are willing to justify other nations' not having an equivalent of the First Amendment by their history, what other freedoms and liberties would you excuse them not having, uhm? Maybe, Iran is justified in its persecution of gays by some terrible homosexuality-related episode of the past — I'm sure, one or two can be named by an expert on the country's history? Or, perhaps, it is Ok for the sunny and cheerful people of Mexico to continue banning abortions — because of some exquisite evils taking place in Chichen-Itza centuries ago?

Please go monkey dance "developers!" to your visualbasic developers instead!
Even if we can run linux tools on windows kernel, the system is still to heavy, outside our control... and have a still shitty company behind, just look to all the user tracking MS added to it and "edge is safer than firefox and chrome" bullshit... not, MS is still a shitty company

on the good side... MS is clearly jumping to the "then you win" step from the First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

Given that we spent the majority of the previous version of this story bitching about how the math is rubbish and that the story is clickbait, why the hell would you bring it back?

Nothing's changed. The math is still rubbish, and trying to claim that 62% of iOS devices failed is dumb enough that it makes one's head want to implode. Please go look up the definition of insanity and then go sit in a corner and think about how many man hours of time across the globe has just been wasted by posting this dumb story on Slashdot.

Except that as long as sex is consensual, there is no rape (no matter what the reason for it).

Until the next morning, when some fickle people, completely eschewing personal responsibility for their own personal choices start complaining... then the SJW's hear about it... then what was actually consensual turns into "rape"... then the cops arrive... then the courts screw you... then you're on the Sexual Offender's List and your life is ruined.

No shit. Just like that.

Here's what's right, ladies and gentlemen: You get drunk or drugged or simply really enthused? That state is your responsibility except in the extremely unlikely event the drink or drugs got into your system via force or deception. You are responsible both for your choices, and the consequences of those choices.

It is not another person's responsibility to read your drunk or drugged or enthused mind and try to figure out if you're making a decision you will back up or not. It's your responsibility to see to it that you make decisions you can live with. (The obvious smart thing is not to get drunk or drugged in the first place, but smart rarely seems to be in play here)

Even in the (very unlikely) case where force or deception was involved in getting you into a particular state of mind, the responsibility for non-consensuality in any guise is that of the person who was responsible for the forcing or the deception. Who could easily not be the person, or be in league with the person, who went a-romping with/on your happy-parts. If it isn't — then the romper is not a rapist and should not be regarded as one. If you do regard them as one under those circumstances, then all you've done is create another victim. Only now you are the victimizer.

Unfortunately society has shit itself and fallen in it on these issues; personal responsibility is something no SJW understands, or wants to understand.

The end game if the SJWs keep control of this issue is definitely going to be non-conscious sex robots. This is because they will be the only partners that you will be able to count on not to call consensual acts rape. Because rape can't apply to an object. I hope, anyway. There would be a lot of raped socks, bananas and cucumbers out there if so, not to mention some extremely offended bottles of lube, so probably not.

Just remember, fellas, she changes her mind, you're going be fucked in a way you really, really won't like. Forever, the way most of the laws are now. Because legislators just can't go wrong "getting tough on Sexual Offenders" and they make it a regular part of their sausage-making.

Years of lying about her stonewalling, hiding and destroying of government records, blatant mishandling of classified material, and raking in millions in family cash while in office and selling access - those are "minor scandals" to you? Please don't do anything dangerous this year, like voting.

Yes, Hillary and Bill have made enemies who continue to try to make something out of nothing. Pretty much anyone who survives washington for this long has. I think Churchill said it best:

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. Winston Churchill
Read more at: link

At the times of Watergate, journalists relied on illegally-obtained information to bring down a Republican President. That was and remains deemed heroic and brought them accolades and Pulitzer Prizes.

Bradley Manning's exposures made him (or her? — one never knows with Illiberals) — a hero as well. He may be in prison, but he is a hero still — with numerous fans at home and abroad.

Julian Assange was a hero too, as long as his exposures harmed Bushitler. But then things started to get weird. First, Wikileaks published a few bits about WMDs found in Iraq after all, leading to questions of whether Bush really "lied". That was still forgivable, because the found caches weren't "massive".

But now that his releases harm a Democrat, his words are, as the very first post here claims, "bullshit" and he is not to be believed. One can really be forgiven for suspecting, people call the same acts different names depending on whether they are useful or harmful to Democrats.

See also "Peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism".

I'm familiar with the quote, which is why I'm against the Patriot Act and PRISM. I'm also familiar with Acton. That's why we have separation of powers, the fourth estate, the 22nd Amendment, and want as much transparency as possible, so too much power doesn't end up in too few hands. The fourth estate has failed us, due in large part to the 1996 Telecommunications Act allowing for greater media consolidation. That was signed by Bill. Wikileaks has largely filled that role in their absence.

Also, Wikileaks is doing very little editing. They might be selective on what they are releasing when, but they leave the archives untouched to the point that it does endanger some lives and still contain malware.

This exactly what the AC was talking about--folks trying to be clever instead of seeing what should be obvious.

Secondly, they can't release 'propaganda' if the DNC wasn't doing shady shit in the first place.

Say what? Your naïveté is touching, but apparently you've never heard of Richelieu, so let me impart a little wisdom to you:

Give me a 2-minute tape recording of yourself talking. It can be about anything--your dog, your grandmother, the weather. Absolutely does not matter.

Now give me an hour, a razor blade, and a roll of sticky tape. I can have you saying that you worship Baal, want to fuck Hitler, plan to assassinate the governor of your state, or any damn thing I want. And that was 20 years ago--nowadays I could do it digitally in half that time.

Hope you feel a little smarter now.

It would sicken me if mundane crime, or even terrorism, in this country, lead the way for places like China and Russia to have backdoors so they could continue with their boot stamping on a human face, forever.

It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract. Alan Shepard Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...

But making one company jump through hoops while another gets to ignore them is?

Except it was not Uber, who created those hoops. The taxis have suffered from the usual Big Government approach to business:

1. If it moves, tax it;
2. If it continues to move, regulate it;
3. When it stops moving, subsidize it.

If we all had smart-phones 100 years ago, today's taxi regulations (and the various boards enforcing them) would not have been created. Which means, it is time for them to be abolished.

Way to fuck up a great quote, dumbass.

.... John von Neumann said..... In 1947.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...

      It would appear that we have reached the limits of
      what it is possible to achieve with computer technology,
      although one should be careful with such statements,
      as they tend to sound pretty silly in 5 years.

For the record: I have produced this quote around 20 years ago when similar statements about the "end of moore within 5-10 years" were made

Your hillbilly toothless mountain man "individualism" doesn't play so well in the city.

When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.

— Thomas Jefferson

You could at least get the source right?

That quote is more reliably attributed to Les Dawson.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...

Bill Gates is not particularly famous for his deep thoughts nor bon mots.

Of course he is. His last deep thought gave us Windows.

You could at least get the source right?

That quote is more reliably attributed to Les Dawson.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quo...

Bill Gates is not particularly famous for his deep thoughts nor bon mots.

In the past they lured more people into CS courses at university.

CS is NOT a "Programming" Class. FAR From it. Just ask the father of CS.

Frankly, I'm fine with Christians or Muslims trying to take over the world.

I'm not fine with either one of them taking it by force. If your words can't convince me, then let me be. Think of better words.

Yeah, I hear you. As a Christian, I am appalled at the thought of converting others at the point of a sword, as was too often done during the Crusades. Even today, some are still all too willing to go for that barbaric approach. I would appreciate it if my so-called Christian brethren would take the example of our Lord, who urged a rich young man to "sell all you have and come follow me"; when the guy refused, rather than chase after him and compel him to comply, Jesus let the guy walk away. Or the time when "many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him".; rather than impatiently lash out in anger his response was to ask the twelve "You do not want to leave too, do you?” If more Christians would actually follow the example of the one they claim as saviour and Lord, the world would be a much better place.

The school district says it will pay about $18,000 annually for SnapTrends

I guess this is really a great thing since the school district has all that excess money that they can't find a use for.

Seriously, is not it wonderful, the schools finally do not need to hold a bake-sale to get the money they need?

Ah, and perfect timing too — because schools are no longer allowed to hold bake-sales.

The Administration may have failed to bring America's gasoline prices to the European levels. But the promise to bankrupt the coal-industry is coming fulfilled.

Maybe, he sincerely believes, coal is a poison and should go away. But it is far more likely, that he — or some of his more pragmatic allies in the party — are simply scheming to buy the companies for pennies on the dollar and then politically rehabilitate the fuel with the help of politicians grateful for their donations. And even ask taxpayers for assistance. Seriously, wouldn't Department of Energy be happy to issue grants and low-interest loans to something with "Green Coal" or "Clear Coal" on the first page of their brochure?

the Obama administration's environmental regulations raised operational costs

As the old adage goes:

1. If it moves, tax it.
2. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
3. When it stops moving, subsidize it.

The little scheme involves immense PROFIT to the well-connected cronies, who snatch the struggling businesses between the 2nd and the 3rd step.