Slashdot Mirror

Oh, man, that was bad, good catch.

I'm still concerned about M3, and I found a site that recreates M3 from other Fed data still available. You'll see that that hasn't dipped below 5% annual growth since 2005, and was over 14% for most of 2008. It's currently trending downwards, which is good, but 5% growth of M3 is still a hell of a lot of new money.

And then there's the Fed's $9 Trillion in off-balance sheet transactions that they can't even account for. If you count those as part of the money supply (and I do) then the supply of dollars has in fact doubled.

The difference is that the supply of gold fluctuates unpredictably based on natural deposits, industrial use, and the activity of mining companies, while the supply of dollars fluctuates deliberately according to the monetary policy imposed by the central bank. Generally we're better off when the supply is controlled by people who know what they're doing rather than random fluctuations -- if you think business cycles are bad now, take a look at how they worked before the Federal Reserve -- although the outcome can be catastrophic when it's controlled by people who have no clue (i.e. Zimbabwe).

So you're saying the people who didn't see the current crisis coming, assured us it was contained, and then told us we barely avoided catastrophe know what they're doing and are the perfect stewards for our monetary system?

Ben Bernanke: There is no housing bubble to go bust.

Ben Bernanke: Subprime Mortgage Problems Contained

Ben Bernanke: We barely avoided catastrophe

The Federal Reserve was founded in 1913. The Great Depression started 16 years later.

The intrinsic value of gold is that it is rare enough to hold large quantities of wealth and cannot be manufactured arbitrarily. The second reason is why every fiat currency has historically failed, despite the fact that people were told by the bankers that they knew what they were doing this time.

"...of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring classes of mankind, none has been more effective than that which deludes them with paper-money." -- Daniel Webster

You do realize the rest of the world is still laughing at us right? For instance, he has managed to insult our closest ally.

As with most media articles, things are omitted to make biased reporting seem legitimate. How about the fact that only the pro-Tory (anti-Gordon Brown) British Press are the ones making an issue of it? How about the fact that Gordon Brown thoughfully gave Obama a seven volume Churchhill biography, apparently not knowing that Churchhill supported the Kenyan opposition that tortured Obama's grandfather? Seems slightly more insulting to me than some DVDs.

Nevermind that Bush gave Gordon Brown a leather jacket as his official gift in 2007... where was the outrage then?

Just like the iPod gift to the Queen, the media left out the part that makes it thoughtful: Obama also gave the Queen a rare songbook signed by Richard Rodgers (one of the Queen's favorite musicals is Rodgers and Hammersteinâ(TM)s Oklahoma) and the iPod contained a selection of songs from the songbook.

Not only that, but he can't decide what his policies will be. Sure, he's going to oppose sending troops to Iraq, only then to decide that he should send troops to Afghanistan instead.

Except that he campaigned on leaving Iraq in a time frame supported by Military commanders and that Afghanistan was where we should be committing troops. Read here for how he stated his intent to increase troop levels in Afghanistan back in July 2008.

Oh, and he can't actually decide if he wants to close Gitmo or not.

Your linked article actually shows that Obama is committed to closing Guantanamo, did you even read it? Of course the President's general counsel said that closing the base would be delayed if we can't find somewhere to transfer the prisoners, what else would you expect?

This man is just as much a bumbling fool as Bush was, but then again, "we" elected someone who hasn't ever served a full term of office at the federal level before. I don't know what "we" expected.

Do you realize that George W. Bush never served at the federal level prior to being elected president? His only chops were as Governor of Texas for 4 years.

You, sir, are a perfect example of why real debate and discourse do not occur in the media. You shun any view point or research or fact that does not already support your opinion. You'll take a single line 'He sucks!' as proof over a well written article that explains the complexities involved. You, and many like you on both sides of the political spectrum, are an idiot.

You do realize the rest of the world is still laughing at us right? For instance, he has managed to insult our closest ally. Not only that, but he can't decide what his policies will be. Sure, he's going to oppose sending troops to Iraq, only then to decide that he should send troops to Afghanistan instead. Oh, and he can't actually decide if he wants to close Gitmo or not. This man is just as much a bumbling fool as Bush was, but then again, "we" elected someone who hasn't ever served a full term of office at the federal level before. I don't know what "we" expected.

"You can imagine European bureaucrats coming up with a handbook of acceptable thought and using that as a guide for website banning."

I don't have to IMAGINE that as they are already DOING it!

Germany: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer22feb22,0,2752813.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

U.K.: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97127

France: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/11/20/202040.shtml

Those are just the tip of the iceberg. France started doing this back in 2000. Germany fired it up in 2008 with state created "for teh childrenz!!!11!!!" anti-porn / anti-torrent laws. The U.K. is increasingly surveillance happy and began banning "sex offenders" from social networking sites.

Now the U.S. may or may not have free-er speech than those three countries but if it cannot be conclusively demonstrated that they DO then what rationale is there for making the change? You'll also note that those are generally considered first world countries with good to excellent free speech track records. When you start examining other countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Venezuala, etc you can see how censorship would QUICKLY become the order of the day.

You'll note that all of my examples show censorship being applied using the foundation of FEDERAL (National) law. It's not some hurk hurk jerk judge in a single state or municipality (like Kentucky) showing stupidity about how the Internet works.

Long post short: Without any sense of national patriotism, I am American, I am VERY happy that ICANN has remained here. We may not be the best at free speech but we are a *very* long way from the worst.

Of course it was to the United States. It goes with the desk in the oval office (made from the timbers of the sister ship to the source of the timber in the desk that's already there). It should go to the national archives, but if it actually looks good on the desk (and people can deal with the symbolism of having a British gift on that desk) then I would imagine it could be used there too.

This came up eight years ago, when the Clintons were accused of taking some gifts with them when they left (see here). For a sitting president to accept a large personal gift would really not work. I bet Gordon Brown can keep the DVDs.

So right you are ! If there's one thing we've all learned from the financial crisis is that industry is fully capable of regulating itself without any government oversight.

Under President Bush government increased regulations more than LBJ or Nixon. There was no deregulation under Bush, though there was under Clinton.

Falcon

<sarcasm>Your right. China SO much better than Bush. Why didn't I see that?</sarcasm>

I know...because your wrong. Bush didn't wage war on the rest of the world. There was a lot of misrepresentation on the part of most of the media about Iraq. WW II was a lot worse, but if you believed them, then Iraq was far worse! Bush preemptively attacked two nations who were supporters of terrorism before they could harm us more. Both now have a freely elected governments, and Iraq is now running their own security. The plan was always to hand over (& eventually leave) the country when Iraq was capable of protecting itself. That is now the case, and we now have a timetable to leave with Iraq able to stand on their own. If you believed Obama, Clinton, et. al. then this was never going to be possible. They were wrong, and the media, and the liberals, misrepresented Iraq to a majority of the people in order make themselves look better to regain power. A lot of people/suckers fell for the smoke and mirrors.

Bush liberated people, and China suppresses people. They censor the internet, and they use their prisoners (some of whom are just religious people) for spare body parts for other people. Did you get a transplant from China? Then it came from a prisoner (also (second article),). To be fair China has placed a ban on sales of body parts requiring a signature from the donor, but I don't know how this effects the human body parts harvesting from prisoners.

China doesn't need to place a value on human life because they have over a quarter of the population of the Earth (even with the 1 baby per family law). The value of life in China is cheap. Kill one person, and there are still many left to take that persons place. Take the treatment of baby girls. According to this article China is taking steps to prevent this from completely devastating their population.

<sarcasm>Oh yeah, you are so right, Bush is so much worse. Didn't you hear about the human harvesting in the inner city?</sarcasm> For those that don't get it, there is no human harvesting in the inner city.

You may wish to ask yourself "How is that the Democrats managed to raise more money than the bigoted old white guy party?" You may come up with some surprising answers.

By turning off the identity-validation checks on their web site's electronic donation system.

They were largely responsible for the Great Firewall of China.

So I would think that their involvement, as well as that of Nortel and other network gear OEMs, is more desirable than that of Application/OS/Search companies.

Or, you could do what Obama does and let the same person give multiple donations to you with the same credit card under whatever pseudonym you like, thereby bypassing any sort of campaign donation limit.

I'm sure McCain will follow suit as soon as he figures out "how to turn the damn thing on."

Obama isn't any kind of leader of "the (Democratic) party". Obama is a puppet of "the party". He's never challenged a single idea or position that the "the party" has held.

This has been one of McCain's talking points and he brought that up a few times in debates. McCain, one time darling of the mainstream media and Democrats, got his "maverick" tag for actually opposing some of the Republican parties positions. Too bad he also modified his tune after being the party nominee to win more support and show his "conservative" side.

Just remember, McCain has enough liberal positions that even conservatives don't like him or are wary of him. That speaks far more to me than a guy who's parroting the party line.

Of course, the Democrats would love for you to think that McCain is Bush's best friend, and therefor another evil Republican, when there's nothing farther from the truth.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/5/10/232336.shtml

Free-flowing credit fueled the dot com bubble. The government controls the credit.

But if the Clinton administration is placing all these terrible controls on the market, why would credit be so "free-flowing"? Isn't that counter to the evil socialist aims of the Democratic party? Don't they seek to add additional controls to everything? Why would credit be so free-flowing under tight controls?

Damn, Democrats know how to rewrite history.

Its a good thing that the GOP has such a profound moral high-ground to stand on with this issue. Because of course its not like the conservative has a massive media presence or anything. And they've never wanted us to forget about things they've done or anything.

What?? They sure do go dump Toxic Waste because there aren't specific injunctions and court orders not telling them to...
http://www.mentalfloss.com/blogs/archives/11165
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/5/27/93622.shtml?s=ic
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Toxic_waste_dump_killing_children_in_Kenya_UN_report_999.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/06/MN2510MASF.DTL&type=printable

You think these companies waited until they were in trouble to start dumping their crap?

China foes in House deploy Nazi analog
Harry Wu Exposes China's Nazi-like Genocide
Google returns about 3,710,000 results like this.

Just thought you might like to know that you aren't the only Nazis around.

Actually, the B2 has been retrofitted (sans rotary munition magazine) to hold a really really really big *something* supposedly called the 'M.O.P.':
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1915871/posts
Excerpt: "$88 million to modify B-2 stealth bombers so they can carry a newly developed 30,000-pound bomb called the massive ordnance penetrator, or, in military-speak, the MOP. The MOP is the the military's largest conventional bomb, a super "bunker-buster" capable of destroying hardened targets deep underground."
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/7/26/212543.shtml

I can see Kucinich running around screaming 'the sky is falling' and 'Impeach' in the same sentience... (Personally, Mr. Kucinich, I am not too keen on Iran *EVER* having *ANY* nukes, despite potential for local Iranian nuclear contamination to their environment!!! The idea is to to keep the radiation contained OVER THERE not to have a big boom OVER HERE!! ). http://www.commondreams.org/news2007/1108-21.htm

Drug lords kill many many more. But do they get a special status? Are there special surveillance laws because of them? No!

Maybe not special surveillance laws, but our 4th amendment rights DID get eroded. Take a look at this, this, this, this, and this. For drugs, it was the seizure part that got trampled. For "terrists" it's the search part. There's always some bogeyman we're willing to sacrifice our rights to.

Ironically, a warmer planet may not necessarily make for warmer local conditions. Keep in mind that global warming is higher than expected temperatures, not higher temperatures. Scientists expect things to get cooler as part of normal earch cycles... however they probably won't get as cool as they would have due to global warming. See: http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/NASA_Climate_cooling/2008/05/01/92541.html

On a warm cycle we will have something to worry about.

Otherwise, you'd have been SOL, Delaware.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/17/90822.shtml

Pack of billionaire hypocrites, the lot of them.
>:P

• Qasim overthrows the monarchy and becomes PM.
• A Baath group of 6 including Saddam - with CIA help - try to assassinate Qasim and fail - he flees the country - also with CIA help, and eventually goes back.
• A different Baath group successfully performs a coup a few years later - also with CIA help. Arif becomes president. Saddam put in jail.
• Saddam escapes and joins yet another coup by a Baath group - this one resulting in the Al-Bakr as president and Saddam as deputy.
• Saddam becomes power behind the throne - seizes western-owned oil companies and uses money to develop modern Iraq infrastructure.
• He becomes a general, eventually forces Al-Bakr to resign. Saddam takes over and does his famous video-taped "weeding" of the Baath leadership - calling out names and leading them away one by one(22 eventually executed)

The NASA budget - Obama is correct. We are 9 trillion in the hole thanks to the Shrub. We can't afford to go to Mars. Obama is just being a grown-up.

The real difference:

John McCain Opposes Net Neutrality

Obama is for Net Neutrality

Obama is for Net Neutrality

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/6/3/224720.shtml McCain Opposes Net Neutrality Arizona Sen. John McCain has announced that he opposes "net neutrality." McCain appeared at the All Things Digital conference in Carlsbad, Calif., and said he did not think government regulation of internet service providers to stop them from censoring, slowing down, or otherwise disrupting consumerâ(TM)s access to the internet in order to stifle competitors or undesirable content was an appropriate solution. "When you control the pipe you should be able to get profit from your investment,â he said, according to TheDailyBackground.com. Later, McCain said: "Iâ(TM)m all for the government encouraging competition, but Iâ(TM)ve found over time that less government involvement is better. "Unless there is a clear-cut, unequivocal restraint of competition, the government should stay out of it,â McCain said. "These things will sort themselves out.â

Easy, but not a good example. Halliburton, or more to the point, Kellogg, Brown & Root, is the only company in the US that can handle what needs to be done in Iraq. Ever wonder why no other company has sued the government over the Iraqi contracts? Because no one else can do the job. Sorry, try again.

Probably not the best place to mention McCain, considering he opposes network neutrality

Boy, you said it and demonstrated it. I take serious issue with your explanation of how far left and right the three candidates you discussed are. I'd bet $50 you are a conservative and/or republican, just by the fact that you labeled all three candidates as liberal to some degree.

Honestly, I think that all this talk of McCain being moderate or a democrat in republican clothing is just a thinly veiled attempt to attract conservative leaning Democrats who feel guilty about voting for a republican. I only hope that most people will see through this game. McCain is a conservative, republican, plain and simple. I was ready to vote for him over Gore in 2000 when he stood up for his principles and told the religious right to shove it. Since then, he's gone over to the dark side and has cow-toed to all sorts of religious right nut jobs. He lost my support when he gave the commencement speech at Liberty University:

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/5/14/142724.shtml

Look at his positions for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain

Theodore Dalrymple is the british equivalent of Rush Limbaugh, if you want to find out what england's really like I suggest you look a bit harder. Also I would pick and choose your news reports carefully, I mean from where I'm sitting, Canada looks pretty awful, but I know it's not that bad.

He refuses to acknowledge his white heritage.

Is this like the Chinagate scandal?

One workaround is for technically civilian agencies like police and so forth to use them instead. Another is to classify an operation as "other than war".

Treaties are amusing, but there is no logical reason not to use non-lethal agents in fighting, so I agree with working around rules like the above. If its fine and dandy to kill and maim someone, it is logically fine and dandy to use non-lethals to lessen the level of violence.

UN forces using tear gas:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=10768&Cr=liberia&Cr1=

I doubt we'll see anyone prosecuted for using non-lethals instead of firing into a crowd. :)

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/214326.shtml

Approved over 4 years after Chinese scientists apparently already began experimenting with the same.

Oh, and the obligatory "I for one welcome our new <insert your own human/animal hybrid here> overlords."

There's nothing new here. The DEA has been seizing property for the last decade or longer, and placing the onus on American citizens to prove their innocence. So now the administration wants to extend it to property used in copyright violations as well. Civil Asset Forfeiture (google it, or here's something from 2001 to get you started: http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/6/27/191414.shtml ) has not been overturned yet as it relates to the drug property. Why would anyone expect it to fail in the copyright arena? Face it, you have no right to property under the American constitution as it is currently being interpreted by the legislative and judicial branches.

So, you like using generalizations and applying them to whole groups. In that case, since most stupid people vote Democratic, that proves Democrats are Stupid people. Or Most Handicapped people. Or most black people, or most women or ....

Large parts don't make up the whole. Nor do they represent the other parts that don't. So, indeed, you've proven my point. It was nothing more than a bigoted response having nothing to do with the SCIENTIFIC arguments for or against Vaccinations.

Next up, Abortions. Now that it is SCIENTIFICALLY proven that Abortions INCREASE the risk of cancer, I wonder if you'll bring the Bible thumpers as a means to dismiss this evidence ....

http://www.newsmax.com/health/breast_cancer_abortion/2007/11/07/47415.html

Because we all know that it is just "fear mongering" on the part of fundimentalist churchians.

America's middle-class was shrinking as the country lost its manufacturing base and jobs to inexpensive imports, Trump said in an interview at his Manhattan office, pointing especially to China.

"If you want to open a business in China, it is virtually impossible," Trump said. "And yet, if China wants to come here and do something, there is no problem whatsoever."...

"China is doing a major number on the United States," Trump said. "If we had politicians that knew what they were doing, they would stop that so fast that your head would spin."

So why ruin their plans when the terrorist can just give bad information and end his torture while the attack can still go on as planned. They have nothing to fear since after the attack it's no longer a ticking time bomb situation so what are we going to do to them when we find out they gave bad intel?

Because sometimes it works. And if a city like LA were going to be nuked, I'd personally take the chance on possibly getting intel that will save lives. Plain and simple.

Like I posted a few minutes ago in another thread. McCain said it worked on him...

Because torture doesn't work.

Some people might disagree.

It does not give us answers or better intelligence. It only hurts us, and destroys the values we hold dear.

You know what else is inhuman? A nuke blowing up in downtown LA and killing millions.
All I'm saying is that before you say that the US is evil and wrong for torturing information out of *people who want to kill us all*, you might look at the part where they are trying to get this information out of *people that want us all dead*.

It's inhuman. And if you're going to commit inhuman atrocities, you'd better have a damn good reason, rather than simply "Why not?"

I don't commit inhuman atrocities--I'm a geek. I occasionally disconnect a few hundred users from halflife by unplugging the wrong connection. My reasoning doesn't boil down to "why not". I was simply asking for your take.

You mean Steve Forbes, right? The guy who said that oil would go back down to $55/barrel (or lower).

No wonder his father's wealth has been squandered. Yet, amazingly, financial hacks like Kudlow still have him on from time to time.

Homicide rates: per 100,000 pop. (Wikipedia)

Florida (concealed carry): 13.9
Hong Kong (strict gun control): 0.63

I noticed you didn't include a link, so are those homicide rates for all homicides or just those where a firearm was used? I'd like to see a breakdown in the number of homicides were committed by what types of weapons. For instance, I don't know if it's still true, but at one tyme more Japanese a country also with strong gun control laws had a high rate of homicide with swords and other bladed weapons. But even if a population is disarmed it doesn't mean there's less crime or homicides:

Dave Kopel, Dr. Paul Gallant and Dr. Joanne Eisen
Thursday, March 22, 2001

During the 19th century, and most of the 20th, Britain enjoyed a well-deserved reputation as an unusually safe and crime-free nation, compared to the United States or continental Europe. No longer.

To the great consternation of British authorities concerned about tourism revenue, a June CBS News report proclaimed Great Britain "one of the most violent urban societies in the Western world." Declared Dan Rather: "This summer, thousands of Americans will travel to Britain expecting a civilized island free from crime and ugliness ... [but now] the U.K. has a crime problem ... worse than ours."

Not surprisingly to many observers, the violent crime rate has risen dramatically and steadily since gun bans have been instituted. That's a trend seen wherever strict gun control laws have been implemented. And that's the part of the story British officials have tried to keep under wraps.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/just_26_favor_senate_immigration_plan

A quick search on Google provided me with the following links, most support or tend to support the claims I made.

http://www.illegalaliens.us/polls.htm

http://www.npg.org/immpoll.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44154

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155413,00.html

Latest polls show it is closer to 3/4 than 2/3. In the meantime, I suggest that you broaden your circle of friends.

Now, as for Illegal Immigrants, do you know how much of the prison population are "undocumented aliens"? How many of them are murderer's, and how many victims? Just because you don't like the terminology I use, doesn't mean it isn't factual. The problem is that when one ignores time (3200 in 3 hours vs more over years ..) doesn't make the facts any less factual. Funny thing about statistics is one can make any case one wants with them, if they have the right data.

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/3/27/114208.shtml

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to say that the sole reason for development was as stated above. The US used teargas in Viet Nam, and non-lethal weapons such as rubber bullets were used by the British in Northern Ireland, and I think by the Israelis against Palestinians. But there may be a problem with this sort of weapon. According to http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/4/3/214326.shtml The US was unable to use teargas due to a chemical weapons treaty. It wouldn't surprise me if some treaty some where disallowed this thing on the battlefield, but not at home...

Did you really just cite

Reuters
and the Associated Press
as
examples
of
accuracy
in reporting?

Wow, just wow.

It's those supersonic torpedoes you have to be worried about.

Please don't further encourage the current (and following) administrations about how the regime in +850 controls the people so well. Merely because nonconformists in the USA are not murdered by pouring molten iron on them http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/5/7/ 120250.shtml, does not exculpate these one iota.

As for the Linux issue, I could envision export diversion through one or more more countries that hold a significant fraction of the US federal debt. It would not be wise to slap sanctions on nations that hold the noose. Yeah, what was that nation? You know, the one where someone was standing before a tank facing it as it approached him on television on or about 4 June 1989.

Link to article discussing the "soft-money" donations, and how the GOP is wiping the floor with the Dems.

Your OpenSecrets link is misleading and inaccurate, because politicians are not required to report the number of sub $200 donations. When you look at the $5 and $10 donations, etc, and do the math correctly, the GOP comes out way ahead of the Democrats right now.

Campaign Finance Reform helped the GOP, too. From that article: The Supreme Court's ruling on campaign finance gives the Republicans, who raise far more in small donations, a big advantage in next year's elections for the White House and Congress.

Didn't verify sources so grain of salt, and the ads on the site make one wonder as to the validity, but heres the only take I have found.

Not that the little 'ol trade embargo imposed in 1962 and still in effect today would have anything to do with that, eh?

Sorry, that — the embargo — comes with the confiscations of property, mass executions of dissenters, and, most importantly, with inviting an openly hostile power to install nuclear missiles aimed at the US on your territory. Presumably — to fulfill your promise and desire to see the United States (or, at least, NYC) destroyed...

USSR has pumped a lot of resources into Cuba to compensate for the embargo. It was not enough — you can not compensate for the government, that is both bloody and incompetent...

PS - I'm am an Israeli and am living in the state of Israel. I'm Jewish by birth. I've been exposed to most of the dark and light sides of Islam. I've also heard every possible bit of anti-Islamic propaganda.

It's good that you're open minded. I hope the Muslims will be as open minded when they are in a majority in a few decades time.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/11 /124803.shtml

and that you don't end up like these guys here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

or these
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banu_Nadir

Note what happened to poor Safiyya

Who's a liar? If you dare to read from one of those dangerous books, you will be disciplined.