Slashdot Mirror

Keynesianism has never worked in practice.

... except between 1930 and 1945.

And for those who think that WW II spending wasn't Keynesianism, you misunderstand Keynesianism.

According to something I heard on the radio the only time the us government was spending enough to satisfy Keynes theory was during world war II, before that the government was not spending enough.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100018973

The relevant car analogy would be jump starting a car. If you do not hook up the jumper cables properly you can damage the electrical system of one or both cars, and after you have succesfully jump started the car you should remove the jumper cables to allow the car to run on its own power.

Amazingly enough France doesn't have this problem because they recycle the waste.

Sorry, but reprocessing plants don't get rid of all waste. And they are plutonium factories. Prime terrorist targets. Do you think we'd let Iran have one?

Concerns have been raised about contamination both from processing, and from transporting waste to France's reprocessing center.

In point of fact, France has large problems with nuclear waste. The people in the region slated to be the waste dump are fighting it, oddly enough.

They have attempted to sweep the problem under the rug by shipping waste to Russia.

And we haven't even touched on the reactor safety issues of having a bunch of nuclear plants built by developing nations.

I know that many technophiles have a romantic attachment to nuclear power, to the idea of Mighty Science Harnessing the Power of the Atom. But its time to get over it.

I have yet to see any proof that we are running out of fissionable material.

You're unaware that the planet's supply of uranium is limited? Odd gap in your education, that.

...how many Pied Pipers will be laid off?

All the ones that the feds can't catch. Or so I hope.

For evidence that isn't anecdotal and dates from 1982, see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7618722 . This got a lot of play when it came out. I also teach at college and this research certainly jives with my experience.

yeah that sounds about right, the bbc is telling us to watch out for narcissists.

i'm more worried about thieving corporations setting up fraudulent phone competitions e.g. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=12096744

what part of the bright new future involves a public service body that steals money from gullible consumers?

No, actually, i had that paren, but hastily tried to find the open paren and when my eye failed (or my mind failed to register its presence) i deleted the close paren. Later, after looking over my comment, I instantly saw the open paren.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101727048

Near the end of the audio report i heard something along the lines of "vicar", "closeted vicar" and murderous or bloodthirsty or the like...

On second thought, i might even have to be corrected about my assertions on the **nnnot* about concentration enhancement. But, then again, NPR is not *always* correct, either...

I'd just like to add that to settle global bribery and corruption charges, Siemens recently agreed to pay $1.6 billion in fines - ~$900m to the US, and the rest to the EU. Now that's what I call "staggering".

Frequencies capable of being heard by humans are called audio or sonic. The range is typically considered to be between 20Hz and 20,000Hz.

Only people with abnormally acute hearing can hear past the nyquist frequency. This doesn't even take into account the fact that older people lose the ability to hear frequencies that high.

NPR Has a story about how hard it was to recreate moon rover tires. In short, if it wasn't for an old engineer breaking regulations and keeping one in his closet at home, NASA would have had to start over from zero.

More proof that the geek doesn't have a clue about the realities of the sex trade in children.

Chronicling The Plight Of 'Very Young Girls' [Feb 24, 2009]
Very Young Girls

The FBI found more than 2,800 child prostitution ads posted on craigslist, with Chicago, Illinois, in the top 10 cities for juvenile prostitution, Dart said.
Craigslist entered into an agreement with 43 states' attorneys general in November to enact measures that impose restrictions on its Erotic Services section. The agreement called for the Web site to implement a phone verification system for listings that required ad posters to provide a real telephone number that would be called before the ad went public.
Craigslist also imposed listing fees, requiring a credit card, for ads in the section. The proceeds were to be donated to charity.
Dart called the fees "dirty money" and said the move was a "publicity stunt" that had little practical effect because pimps use stolen credit cards or post ads in free sections. Lawsuit accuses craigslist of promoting prostitution

Sorry to burst your balloon, but it seems that global ocean temperatures are actually falling, not rising. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

You said, and I quote: "We can live our lives by adages or we can make new decisions for our own generation." You also accused me, again quoting: "For someone who trusts neither the Democrat or Republican party, you are precariously positioned in regurgitating the same bullshit I've seen posted all over the internet." and yet when I asked to elaborate as to HOW you plan to "make new decisions for our own generation" suddenly I am "assuming" too much and you CAN'T explain.

This is like saying "I have a way to solve the economy and give everyone a million dollars" and when someone asks HOW you plan to pull off this miracle you reply "You assume to much so I can't explain anything to you." so for someone who accuses ME of slinging bullshit it sure as hell smells like you are slinging some yourself. I can back up my position with links if you like. Here is one showing how 16 million men have simply stopped voting altogether. And of course here is a nice one about the culture of corruption in congress, with lobbyists simply buying whichever side wins.

I can go on ALL day backing up my positions, so let us see you do the same, or at least have the guts to explain WHAT your position is. Because I still want to hear how you are going to pull off this miraculous "make new decisions for our own generation" when your choices are bought before you can do anything. You can't turn 1+1 into 3, you actually have to have an uncorrupted choice to start with and I can provide links all day long that show that is something we simply don't have. Hell it is so bad our comedians make jokes about it. So please enlighten us.

I have no idea where Wikipedia is getting that 2% number, because it's not even correct according to its own citation. Maybe they're talking about funding direct from the federal government (e.g., not through the CPB). I don't know.

According to NPR, they are funded by:

31% listener pledges, memberships, etc. As the GP points out, tax-deducatable donations are just a special kind of government funding.

20% corporate underwriting

11% from Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which is federally funded)

10% licensee supported (some of which are funded by local/state, federal?)

9% from foundations (any of which may receive government support) and major gifts

5% state and local governments

14% all other sources (Wikipedia claims universities, some of which are subsidized by government)

Well when the press overwhelmingly describe themselves as liberal (or slanted in a particular direction) its a serious concern: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1919999
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1001/campaign-media

The problem is, that those that are liberal think of themselves as centralists \ moderates to validate their opinion and that becomes pervasive in their reporting. Now on the left we have MSNBC with their inspiring "worse, worser, worsest" mantra and on the right we have the ever forgiving O'Reilly from Fox. There's also Rush on the right but on the left is Rather, Bill Maher, Moore and a whole slew of other commentators. And in pop culture, SNL \ Daily Show \ Colbert Report \ The View as obvious examples, that are so left leaning. Was there a Lil' Clinton show on Comedy Central that I missed? Perhaps they're going to be adding Lil'Obama...'cos if they weren't biased they'd have done it right?

So you can bleat on all day until you're blue in the face about the liberal bias "myth" but it doesn't make it any less true. Now obviously anyone is entitled to their opinion, that I'm ok with - just don't tell me its not biased.

Even Detroit would have difficulty coming up with a way to make a $10 keyboard cost $100. $40/hour with a production rate of two keyboards per hour and markups galore?

As was reported on NPR a little while ago http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100076874 there's a little company in Lexington, KY called Unicomp http://www.pckeyboard.com/ that still produces the old IBM Model M keyboard, the one with the really loud click and lots of tactile feedback. They charge $69 per keyboard. Not quite a four dollar keyboard, which can be had today, but compares well to the fancy $100+ keyboards that some other brands market. (Although arguably with less gee-whiz functionality.)

BTW, if you're looking for a new Type M, made in the Kentucky, go here. There was a story on NPR recently about Unicomp and their versions of the Type M-- they're the only ones making them anymore.

The NPR show This American Life recently did an episode on Keynes and his theory. The reason for doing this now, according to them, is because with the stimulus package, Obama Gives Keynes His First Real-World Test (transcript).

It's a very interesting read, and it was an even better listen. They do a good job of explaining Keynesian economics, the various schools that cropped up after Keynes' death and the ascendancy of interest rate manipulation by the central bank to control the economy.

This view held sway until a month ago â" Dec. 16, 2008, to be precise. That's the day the Federal Reserve tried to stabilize the economy by lowering the interest rate all the way down to zero percent. The Fed can't go lower, but the economy has kept worsening. The one effective tool seemed to have stopped working.
[...]
Economists and policymakers started looking around for some other way to fix things. They dusted off some old books and found that there's one guy in particular who'd given a lot of thought to get out of a situation like this.

That guy being Keynes, of course. Even if you're a fan of his theories you have to admit that this is a huge gamble.

I believe that Austrian economics are the closest to the mark, and my sole disappointment with the show is that the Austrian model, which runs counter to Keynes, the Chicago school and supply-side economics, is never mentioned. Though it doesn't have a huge following it is not a fringe school, and it is the Austrian economists who predicted the current crash. Still, what the show covers it covers very well, and it is well worth your time.

how much difference was there between neanderthals and modern humans, and was it enough of a difference that they could not have interbred.

According to the researcher they had on NPR this morning, that question has not been answered. Here is the NPR link. The third paragraph talks about the divergence between humans and neanderthals. The next to last paragraph mentions the question of interbreeding. You of course can listen to the entire broadcast by following the link at the top of the article.

You and I have different dna.

That is true as individuals, but as we are both humans, we have the same overall genome and so could breed (assuming male-female of course). With neanderthals having a slightly different genome than humans, there could be enough of a difference to not have allowed that to happen, especially since we and they diverged to two different branches just as we and the great apes diverged even earlier. Obviously, those in the know will have to make that determination.

Why is it that corporations are expected, even encouraged, to act amorally, but we expect morality to be enforced by our government?

Because corporations have to compete. The one with the least ethics will win, unless the government enforces the minimum ethics standards for all — this, BTW, is the only legitimate reason for government regulation, but I digress.

The US has very strong anti-bribery law (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), which prohibits and severely punishes bribery of foreign officials by corporations.

What's needed is some kind of FCPA-2.0, that would expand the definition of "corrupt practices" to include cooperation with oppressive governments. This should be done sooner, rather than later — while the said governments don't have good alternatives registered in less scrupulous locales. In particular, it may be too late for cell-phones. Whatever business Vodafone may lose because of higher ethics standards, may be picked up by Thuraya, for example.

Unfortunately, our new administration may view such things as silly "ideological rigidity". In fact, all, that a rogue regime needs to do to get our "hand of friendship", may be to "unclench their fist" (directed at us). That their other fist — one directed towards their own subjects — will remain just as (or even more) suffocating is not important, as long as "America's prestige is restored".

Or better put:

What hope do people have who believe in things that can't be observed or tested?

Because I see everything in the world as explainable by the laws of nature I am free to live without archaic ideas like 'That flood happened because you're a sinner.' and that gives me hope because I can learn what really causes a flood and support leaders who build levees and support proper water management.

I like how Penn Jillette put it:

"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism. Atheism is not believing in God. Not believing in God is easy -- you can't prove a negative, so there's no work to do. You can't prove that there isn't an elephant inside the trunk of my car. You sure? How about now? Maybe he was just hiding before. Check again. Did I mention that my personal heartfelt definition of the word "elephant" includes mystery, order, goodness, love and a spare tire?

So, anyone with a love for truth outside of herself has to start with no belief in God and then look for evidence of God. She needs to search for some objective evidence of a supernatural power. All the people I write e-mails to often are still stuck at this searching stage. The atheism part is easy.

But, this "This I Believe" thing seems to demand something more personal, some leap of faith that helps one see life's big picture, some rules to live by. So, I'm saying, "This I believe: I believe there is no God."

Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.

Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures. Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have."

The author of this article makes it seem like the term "Darwinism" is thrown around by scientists all the time. They never give a reference of where they've seen this term, like "according to this database, a million published papers mention Darwinism". That is bad journalism.

In a previous article about the Discovery Institute's ID textbook, it is pointed out that no one says this. It is just a term created by creationists to use in their arguments. But, it is understandable how someone clinging to ideals would think scientists do the same.

Also, this seems mostly like an American thing. NPR has a story that says no one thinks this way in the UK.

Hell, I've seen prosecutors let people sit in DETENTION for years without a trial (one famous case in my state involved a teenage girl who was held in detention for 6 years without trial, before the prosecutor admitted he had no case and she was released). Sometimes a person is arrested and never gets an actual trial (whether they're held in detention or released).

We need much, much stronger laws to deal with prosecutors who commit unjust acts. If you are unjustly kidnapped and held in a cell for years, it doesn't matter to you whether your captor is the state or a psychotic madman. Both are equally traumatic, and both aggressors should be punished as harshly.

I heard a story on NPR this morning about a black man who was falsely accused of rape and died in prison. The real rapist sent letters to the prosecutors admitting to the rape. Not one of the prosecutors responded to those letters. By any reasonable code of justice, every one of those prosecutors would be guilty of a crime. IMO, a crime much worse than rape.

I don't know how to do it though. You're never going to get a prosecutor to prosecute another prosecutor for prosecuting.

Of course, there's no way Iran could have faked this (again). :-)

Beer sales are increasing now without any special bonuses for workers facing hard times. There was a story on the radio about this a couple of days ago. There was the owner of a liquor store saying that business was booming, and some other dude talking about how instead of going to a game, he was more likely to buy a case of beer and watch it at home.

Last night npr had a story about Obama's huge stimulus plan being the first real test of Keynesianism, and how conservatives (they quoted somebody from the Cato Institute) hated it.

I thought, Huh? It was Reagan who ushered in the modern era of huge government spending to juice the economy. Both Bushes did it too, with Jr taking it to new heights.

The main difference I see with Obama is that less of the money will go to the military-industrial complex and tax cuts for the rich, and more into infrastructure and services that benefit greater number of people. I think that's potentially good, but doesn't change the fact that the federal budget deficit is downright terrifying and unsustainable.

As for Reagan breaking up the Soviet Union, give me a break. Communism never works, with or without Reagan. It was Clinton who was smart enough to reap the peace dividend by closing bases and bring a govt. surplus, which Reagan never would have done.

Talk is cheap. Remember Clinton and Gore saying "The era of big government is over"?

Obama's already done something about it. He recently named Nancy Killefer to be the Chief Performance Officer, and she'll be in charge of a new office tasked with eliminating government waste and downsizing the budget. Now, there's no guarantee that he'll listen to her recommendations, but of course that begs the question of why he'd even create the office in the first place if he had no intention of eventually reducing the deficit.

...by stupidity.

I think Hanlon's Razor applies here. Many people here on Slashdot like to put on a tinfoil hat and shout "AstroTurfing" for almost anything. I'm harder to convince of that.

I'll put aside what many have pointed out here, that the film in question has already been released in places.

NPR had an interview a month or so ago with David Edelstein, a film critic who happened to be the first to go public with a negative review for Dark Knight. In other words, he was the one responsible for first knocking it down from a 100% rating on metacritic and similar meta-rating sites.

In the interview he said he regretted having been first because of the backlash he received, but that he stood by his rating.

He also went on to point out the deluge of emails he received from angry fans. Many of whom would go on to criticize him at length while prefacing the email with "I haven't actually seen the film yet, but..."

Fanboys are rabid. They defend movies, hardware, software, etc, often sight unseen, because they want their horse to win. Even if they don't actually know what it looks like.

In this case, the movie is based on a book. I don't doubt that many of the votes on NetFlix are folks who have rated the film sight unseen, because they WANT to like it. They're jazzed about it, and they want it to be rated highly.

Just heard an interview with the photographer on NPR. It's semi-off-topic in that it doesn't have to do with the medium used for photographs but still an interesting piece I think. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99353598

Really people this is over.

Not really. The only ship that is sailing is the executive pardon ship; there isn't a chance in hell Obama will pardon anyone from the Bush administration for the torture stuff, and when you're out of office, it makes it much harder for you to retaliate (or get anyone in the current administration to retaliate) for going after you criminally.

There was a long podcast on Fresh Air recently (I think this is the one) about how nobody in the Bush administration is traveling outside the US- no book deals, conferences, vacations, or speaking tours. It's uncharacteristic (look at Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and Bush Sr., for example.) Basically, they're scared shitless of being arrested and extradited. The human rights violations (torture, for starters) are so heinous in international law that ANY COUNTRY that signed the various conventions can choose to prosecute- and any that does can use extradition treaties to get their hands on such a person. Worse still, they can press the US government to cooperate with the investigation; do you really think Obama will fight handing over evidence of human rights violations and war crimes? He's already pissing off people left and right with his inauguration choices and proposed appointments...

Now, suddenly, we also internally have no hold on the justice department (which will be working for Obama and a democrat-controlled congress) who could choose to investigate, mainly because it's much less embarrassing to take care of this in-house than not. It's practically a slam-dunk case; Cheney admitted on national TV that he reviewed (and thus authorized) the torture of gitmo prisoners.

Well, I don't watch any TV, let alone news. And most news is no better, as far as being opinionated, than talk radio (which, ironically, I do listen to).

That said, I think NPR (not sure if that is necessarily the same as PBS though) is decidedly biased as well. And I might add, NPR did cover the dog story on "All Things Considered." (Online here.)

It's a bit nicer than the print article: Here

They are very clear in saying that what they have created is "NOT ALIVE."

This is very interesting work.

I read this article a few hours ago from Drudge ... and while the article may be 100% accurate and irrefutable, there was another article that was also on there, also published today:

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

I'm not sure if the left hand knows exactly what the right hand is doing ... but to me, it seems like two completely different scenarios.

Obviously, the earth has cooled before ... and it's warmed up before. Nobody is disputing this fact.

Certainly, in the past few decades, CO2 has risen. And, for the past 650,000 years, it has been fluctuating, but topped out around 360ppm. Though if you go back even further, you'll see that CO2 has been much higher (see pg 23) than recent times. One has to question what is the optimal level for the Earth? Is it now ... at 385ppm, or in pre-historic times at over 1000ppm?

By using 7g of CO2 emissions per search, the article really gives such a vague scare of global warming. By my interpretation, we should shut down that evil CO2 emitter, at least thats what they are implying. Alternatively, just create a new tax obviously, this will reduce levels ... somehow.

As far as a solution for the "global warming" problem ... I'll have to think about it while I turn up the heat in the house while I shovel snow outside.

BTW, yes I do know that Weather != Climate ... but currently, it is just fsck'n cold.

You have a strange definition of "I". You are not merely the atoms of which you are composed. In fact 98% of the atoms in your body are replaced yearly. It's not the atoms that matter, it's the pattern they're arranged in. Allowing scientists to study that pattern, and preserve even just a little bit of that information reincarnates you in a much more real way than reuse of the atoms in your corpse.

Animals such as cats and dogs (and even albinohumans) have reflective surfaces in their eyes, the tapetum lucidum.

For any creature that hunts at night, any modification that increase the amount of photons that reaches the rods and cones of the retina are going to be of benefit. Having this reflective in front of the retina would also be to an advantage. For a creature living underwater, having a reflective surface that concentrates light from above into the retina would also be an advantage, but it would not be an advantage to reflect light from below.

Also, when fish reproduce they are going to have hundreds of offspring, where the odds of survival are very low for the first year, so anything that improves the chances of survival, even if by a small amount is going to be of benfit. Consequently, the eyeball is one of the first organs to be fully formed. Since there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of couples breeding every year, that is a vast number of random combinations of genetr to be tried out each year.

I think you think I'm more of a troll than I actually am...

Well I just think you are placing way too much faith in market forces to deal with negative externalities.

I'm not old enough to have bitched about all of those things

But your logic is the exact same that was used by those who did. All the examples are ones where the effects of producers actions made stuff cheap(er), and harmed the environment and people. The constant cry of 'government shouldn't meddle in the market' is a little hard to take philosophically, and extremely hard to take pragmatically (financial industry bailout much?)

Usually the problem with those negative examples is that someone freaked out about something (global cooling! global warming! global climate change! financial crisis!) and decided that SOMETHING needed to be done NOW.

I'd submit that the problem is more that something bad for people/environment is happening, and though the gov't is finally get around do something about it, the industry that is going to be effected tried its damnedest to minimize the effectiveness of the regulations. Care to give any examples that exemplify your assertion?

That's exactly what I classify this as: a half-baked short-term solution that won't do anything in the long run.

Right, like raising CAFE standards didn't do anything in the long run. Or increasing refrigerator standards didn't do anything. Or limiting tailpipe emissions didn't do anything.

Energy efficiency is one the best examples of where government regulation can, and has, made verifiable improvements in real, meaningful areas.

-Ted

But you don't see Muslims protesting against suicide terrorists. And that's the big problem with Islam.

Actually, it happens, but the "mainstream" media don't seem to make a big deal of it - probably because it doesn't fit the Zeitgeist, and so isn't going to help their ratings as much as other kinds of "news" could.

• "Islam Against Terrorism"
• Fatwa issued against terrorism
• Protest in Bahrain against terrorism
• Saudi Arabia issues statement that Islam is against terrorism

There are of course many more examples - Google is your friend.

Another interesting note is that you don't really see Christian groups protesting against radical Christianity either. It does happen from time to time, but it's rarely reported on as it fits the Zeitgeist even less (both the radical Christianity and opposition to it are uninteresting right now from a news perspective)

Just to note: I'm not Muslim - in fact, I think they're all a bunch of kooks for believing in an invisible sky god. I think the same thing about Christians, Jews, Satanists, Wiccans and pretty much every other religion as well though.

didn't you get the memo? Barack H. Obama is the new messiah. HE has brought forth HOPE. HE will pay for our cars and houses. HE will create 3 million new jobs. And HE has totally ripped abs.

I used to think this was a joke, but a journalist on NPR recently stated: "[description of economic woes ...] Is there any light at the end of this darkening tunnel? Where is what the Greeks called the deus ex machina -- the god who descends at the critical moment to sweep all our troubles away?
That could be President-elect Barack Obama [...]"

NPR says he's a god now, not just Limbaugh.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98912392

Because our primate relatives without religion and minimal culture who share much of our genetic makeup behave just as you say. They fuck each other in public whenever... Oh, wait!

It's interesting that the submitter didn't think that the radio show that aired the story was worth mentioning. (Weekend Edition Sunday, which I used to listen to a lot before the podcast glut took over my headphones.) Apparently NPR now has a lot of listeners who only know them through their podcasts.

That's beginning to include me, even though I've been listening to NPR since most of you were still in grade school. I used to be fanatical about their content. They seemed to cater to people with more intelligence and longer attention spans than a lot of competing media. But now, public radio networks in Australia, Canada, and the UK have gotten into podcasting in a big way, and their product actually makes NPR look just a little lame. The Aussies in particular excel at science reporting and serious audio documentaries, two kinds of reporting that NPR doesn't really care for.

Qualification: NPR does have some good science reporters, but they rarely get enough air time to cover anything in depth. And they also have some really bad ones.

I'd probably listen to more NPR podcasts if they had more. They've strongly resisted podcasting complete shows, afraid of antagonizing the member stations who pay the bills. Of the shows I listen to, only Fresh Air offers a complete podcast, and that one is not carefully edited for online consumption, and material is often missing. (Some of this may be for copyright reasons, but I think it's mostly sloppiness.)

What podcasts they do offer are mostly except shows, like the Shuffle Podcast. They do have an interesting new feature that allows you to mix your own keyword-driven podcast.

It's interesting that the submitter didn't think that the radio show that aired the story was worth mentioning. (Weekend Edition Sunday, which I used to listen to a lot before the podcast glut took over my headphones.) Apparently NPR now has a lot of listeners who only know them through their podcasts.

That's beginning to include me, even though I've been listening to NPR since most of you were still in grade school. I used to be fanatical about their content. They seemed to cater to people with more intelligence and longer attention spans than a lot of competing media. But now, public radio networks in Australia, Canada, and the UK have gotten into podcasting in a big way, and their product actually makes NPR look just a little lame. The Aussies in particular excel at science reporting and serious audio documentaries, two kinds of reporting that NPR doesn't really care for.

Qualification: NPR does have some good science reporters, but they rarely get enough air time to cover anything in depth. And they also have some really bad ones.

I'd probably listen to more NPR podcasts if they had more. They've strongly resisted podcasting complete shows, afraid of antagonizing the member stations who pay the bills. Of the shows I listen to, only Fresh Air offers a complete podcast, and that one is not carefully edited for online consumption, and material is often missing. (Some of this may be for copyright reasons, but I think it's mostly sloppiness.)

What podcasts they do offer are mostly except shows, like the Shuffle Podcast. They do have an interesting new feature that allows you to mix your own keyword-driven podcast.

But honestly, why? The US has demonstrated that there is little to no interest in pubic rail.

Sure it has. They're called subways in NYC, and they carry 6.4 million passengers in a city of 8.2 million. And with high gas prices, Amtrak ridership has jumped in both rural and urban areas.

Supporting a high speed rail network is a no-brainer:

1. It will create millions of much needed jobs.
2. Will provide much greater fuel efficiency than either cars or planes.
3. Will alleviate traffic congestion and mean less wear on roads.
4. Fast travel with no TSA bullshit.

The Big 3 were in a bad spot because they were left holding the bag when gas prices skyrocketed.

No, they're in a bad spot because they wanted to keep selling high margin gas guzzlers in the face of rising gas prices, just like in the 70's. So they had their lunch eaten by the Japanese, just like in the 70's. Katrina should have been a big wake up call, but only Ford seemed to (partly) get the memo that maybe they should have some more fuel efficient models.

The UAW is evil because they "bent the big three over the table during the fat years" by demanding profit sharing, and reaping fat bonuses for their workers.

No, what's funny are the Republicans who bitch about the UAW not going down to minimum wage, yet have no problem with Rick Wagoner keeping his job. You know, the CEO of GM that has presided over a $70 billion loss for the company and still makes $16 million a year.

A video of the blind man walking down the corridor accompanies this story at National Public Radio.

Unfortunately, the unpleasant truth is that there generally isn't a conspiracy

Generally, there isn't.

Sometimes, there is.

Back in 1605, a bunch of guys really did conspire to blow up Parliament. In 1776, a couple of rabble-rousers really did conspire to break off the American colonies from the British Empire. In 1968, during a student protest the Mexican Presidential Guard conspired to use its own snipers to act as agents provocateur and get the Army to open fire on the protesters. In 1972, a bunch of idiots from Nixon's "Committee to Re-elect the President" really did conspire to eavesdrop on and steal records from their Democratic opponents. In 2001, a couple of nutjobs really did conspire to hijack planes and crash them into high-value American targets.

Was the Lusitania used as some sort of agent provocateur? I don't know. It's certainly not as batshit crazy as the "the U.S. government set up the WTC and Pentagon destruction with missiles and explosives" 9/11 theories.

Did Microsoft and the NSA conspire to put backdoors into Windows? I don't know. But given the track records of the two organizations in question, it's certainly conceivable.

To say that the failing of the "Big 3" is strictly due to the UAW is absolutely ridiculous. I don't see Toyota and Honda going under here (albeit, they are not doing so hot right now, but who is?), and they pay the same wages, if not higher, and offer the same benefits to their US assembly workers that are offered to the UAW workers. Huh, how could this be? Oh yeah, Toyota and Honda have been making QUALITY automobiles for the US markets for 30+ years while the Big 3 continue to make SHIT and shout "Buy American!" from the rooftops as they move their assembly plants to Mexico and lay off American workers. Meanwhile Toyota and Honda build plants in the US and higher American workers and pay them good wages and supplement that with good benefits packages (see http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5062797 for one example).

The main point here is that trying to blame the failure of the "Big 3" on the union is just plain ignorant as there are far more factors to it than that. For one example, gas prices have skyrocketed in the past years and so people have flocked more than ever to more fuel efficient cars (i.e. Toyota, Honda and others) and moved away from gas guzzling tanks being pushed by the "Big 3". While Toyota and Honda have had hybrids on the market for years, it has taken the Big 3 until basically now to finally come out with one. They've spent the last 30+ years trailing behind in real categories like fuel efficiency and reliability. Instead they tout the "Buy American" and "Bigger is Better" (the small dick compensation philosophy) while they've lost more and more market share to the car companies that actually produced quality products. Before foreign car companies started selling cars here, people thought it was perfectly normal for your car to be trash in 70,000 miles. Then, lo and behold, actual competitors hit the market and their cars keep running for 200,000-300,000 miles, and sometimes more. Suddenly the US car companies HAD to get off their asses and put a product that wasn't complete SHIT since people were starting to see that crap cars weren't just "how things are". Amazing what a little *actual* competition does.

The reason that the Big 3 are failing is pure capitalism. They have sat back on their haunches and trailed far behind the demands of the consumer while others moved in and produced what people really wanted, instead of what the people were told they wanted (see dick compensation philosophy above), and now they are dying because of it. The failures of the "Big 3" have almost nothing to do with the UAW since the kinds of decisions that were made, or not made, as the case may be, were all made by non-union employees who were all taking home a whole lot more pay than any of the union workers.

Do you realize that China had something like 10% of GDP in Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae?

Are'nt you are saying that China used its money to help start the financial crisis?

Russia doesn't have the economic infrastructure or, these days, the world standing to be a real economic superpower. (They weren't much of an economic superpower during the Cold War, either, when compared to the United States.) And frankly, I don't think Europe has the steel in the spine to stand up to their threats (Russia, China-to-a-lesser-extent, Muslim immigration and the recent problems therewith, and even the United States) in any significant capacity.

China--there, you have something. But it's not going to be "divided across China, Europe, and Russia." If anyone "fights," it's going to be a fight between the United States and China, and the rest of the world, like it or not, are the chess pieces. But even then it's not going to be the drag-out fight, because it is mutually beneficial for China and the United States to stay very close trading partners. (For more on this, I suggest Tom Friedman's The World Is Flat--I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it's worthwhile for sure.)

Everybody owes the United States money and the United States owes everybody money. That means a U.S. recession will be a global problem for a very, very long time. Do you realize that China had something like 10% of GDP in Freddie Mac and Frannie Mae? Everybody's money is here.

I think you need to learn more about modern politics and economics before you make sweeping statements.

An interesting NPR story I remember listening to about polygamous African-American Muslim families.

Here is an interview with Suzanne Corkin that includes taped dialog with H.M. featured at NPR.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7584970

He sounds like a very nice person. Dr. Corkin is with the Dept. of Brain and Cognitive Sciences at MIT.

From 1986 to 1996, Microsoft's stock soared more than a hundredfold as the company's Windows operating system and Office applications dominated the PC industry.

That explosive climb made millionaires of employees who had accepted options as a substantial part of their compensation for 60-hour workweeks fueled by a diet of Twinkies, Coca-Cola and marshmallow Peeps. The sudden riches led many to refer to themselves as "lottery winners.

"While the exact number is not known, it is reasonable to assume that there were approximately 10,000 Microsoft millionaires created by the year 2000," said Richard S. Conway Jr., a Seattle economist whom Microsoft hired to study its impact on Washington State. "The wealth that has come to this area is staggering."

The Microsoft Millionaires Come Of Age [May 29, 2005]

_____

Not everyone draws the winning hand, of course - some simply come into the game too late.

The Few, the Tech-Savvy Few: Option Millionaires [Feb 11, 2007]

For comparison's sake, Microsoft currently employs about 90,000 world-wide.

In 1990, around 6,000.

France seems to have a good handle on it.

Not so much. Yes, reprocessing reduces it somewhat - but creates plutonium factories, great terrorist targets and a huge security problem if we want to find a solution that's globally applicable. And reprocessing produces pollution itself, and doesn't eliminate all the waste. France's "solution" has been the same as the U.S.'s: stick your head in the sand.

Some of the wast they ship to Russia. A lot of it lies around in short-term storage, big barrels or holding tanks, and everybody prays for no leaks. They've designated the town of Bure as their main nuclear waste dump, like the U.S. has designated Yucca Mountain, but are getting the same sort of push-back about it.

Uranium or plutonium fission is a highly sub-optimal energy source. Much better to put resources into developing accelerator-based "energy amplifier" reactors that are subcritical, can burn up nuclear waste, and run on thorium, and also of course fusion, including making better use of that big fusion reactor just 93 million miles away.