Slashdot Mirror

Counterfeiting is about trying to pass 1 product off as another. They certainly look alike but without trying to pass it off as an apple product it can't be counterfeiting.

There are some amazing counterfeits out there. A trip to any swap meet/flea market across the US will turn up some good (and terrible) counterfeit goods from Coach bags, Louboutin shoes, to Rolex watches.

The Chinese have mastered the art of counterfeiting goods (and, apparently, entire companies).

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/27/technology/27iht-nec.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/08/11/us-apple-china-fake-idUSTRE77A3U820110811

While the Samsung products may have elements of the look of some Apple products, they're not counterfeit.

Just look at the results:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/aug-18-obama-leads-big-among-those-least-likely-to-vote/

It's pretty clear which side this sentiment is targetted at. The Republicans are playing a two sided game - to their base, they promise the world. To the others, they work actively on discouraging them to vote, by proliferating the attitude that the Democrats are failures, when it's they who have been responsible with endless obstructionist tactics.

Unfortunately "Taco Cowboy", you seem to be like the one who reads New York Times more than once a day. I cannot convenience or even try to explain to a person who is politically brainwashed and yet lead to believe you have freedom of speech. I'm sure you'd disagree with everything that is on display at RT.com, won't you?

I did not say that the limitations on communication was absolute. It was a temporary measure put in place to prevent bloodshed and panic. I'm more than happy to have a conference call with less than 5 people for a week, if it means it would save someone else's life. I suppose those are the differences between the two countries. People here are willing to accommodate difficulties in times of trouble, while Americans can't have their luxuries taken away even if the apocalypse is in sight. Oh yes, I meant the American people and not its government. I can't really blame you for our differences, now can I?

There are 1.1+ billion people here. We certainly have democracy that is best doable with such a wide spectrum of thoughts, cultures, religions, races and people; at this time. You have less than 1/3rd of our population and the funny part is that you still believe you have "democracy" and "free speech". When was the last time the US Govt. made a decision in the pure interest of its people? ObamaCare wouldn't be forced down on people nor would Assange be hunted down. Where is freedom of choice and expression, Mr. Taco?

India is by no means a "perfect" society. You will always have people agreeing to various subjects, including "honour killing" no matter what you do; that is the vast nature of this country. We can only do our utmost best to further educate people and that is being done. Your press would like you to believe that the whole world (minus the US ofcourse) is a "3rd world country". I suppose I can only expect so much from its reader.

Frankly, I suggest you read more than one news paper. Preferably one that isn't printed in the West and you'll see difference. You can start with RT and Al-Jazeera.

Did you not read this case: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

Or how about this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States

Or this one? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/us/justices-approve-strip-searches-for-any-offense.html?pagewanted=all

Or what about the FDA raiding "raw milk" sellers? http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/08/the-latest-raw-milk-raid-an-attack-on-food-freedom/243635/ Do you really think that those approving the bill creating the FDA would ever think of taxpayer money being wasted on these non-crimes?

And there are many, many, many, more. All regulation turns into bad regulation, its the nature of government to want more and more power, the only way to stop it is to have clearly defined boundaries like what the framers of the US constitution wished, but has been clearly ignored like in the Wickard v. Filburn case referenced earlier.

There is no way to know whether a law would be "good" or "bad" until after it is signed into law and (mis)-interpreted by the regulators and the court system. A law that sounds good on paper does not always translate to a good law in practice. Since there is no way to know whether a law would be "good" or "bad" the best course of action is to oppose them unless they have clearly defined boundaries, in the case of Net Neutrality I can see it opening up a whole other can of worms where the government decides what can and can't be on the internet, much like how Europe is going where a pro-regulation environment has allowed for entire sites to be blocked. Even the most "evil" ISP in America doesn't block The Pirate Bay but in Europe just about every ISP does.

You are wrong on all three counts.

O-rings. It was a stupid/deadly management decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/roger-boisjoly-73-dies-warned-of-shuttle-danger.html

Fukushima. “They completely ignored me in order to save Tepco money,” said Mr. Shimazaki, 65
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/world/asia/critics-say-japan-ignored-warnings-of-nuclear-disaster.html?pagewanted=all
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2920525&cid=40351611

WSJ article author is retarded and doesn't take into account bio-accumulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

Do you just make this stuff up? Read up on my other responses in this thread and learn a thing or two.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3057855&cid=41041571

You are wrong on all three counts.

O-rings. It was a stupid/deadly management decision.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/roger-boisjoly-73-dies-warned-of-shuttle-danger.html

Fukushima. “They completely ignored me in order to save Tepco money,” said Mr. Shimazaki, 65
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/10/world/asia/critics-say-japan-ignored-warnings-of-nuclear-disaster.html?pagewanted=all
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2920525&cid=40351611

WSJ article author is retarded and doesn't take into account bio-accumulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

Do you just make this stuff up? Read up on my other responses in this thread and learn a thing or two.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3057855&cid=41041571

As numerous sources have pointed out, his proposals do not work mathematically.

Ryan's do though.

Defend this nonsense. Ryan refuses to specify key parts of his plan, so for you to claim it works mathematically is a statement of outrageous ignorance or a commonplace lie.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/whats-in-the-ryan-plan/

Personally I don't have any "physical" problems of reading books on a tablet, although I seems people always tell that is "worst" for the eyes or that it is a much worst experience. That having a light source is bad for the eyes, that the refresh rate makes you eyes tired, etc. I don't experience those problems. The only thing where tablets do suck is reading outside and where e-ink sucks is comics and PDF's.

What I even find more remarkable is that every study or articles that I have read about the subject even refute the claims. I sometimes have the feeling that is something more then a psychological effect then a fact and maybe "facts" spread by e-ink manufacturers.

A backlit or nonbacklit display doesn't make a difference, Hornfeld says. And if you're reading a bright screen in the dark, your eyes will adjust. Your pupil gets large in the dark, so when you turn on a brightly lit display, it may bother your eyes at first, but they'll compensate. It's like when you wake up in the morning, open the shades, and are blinded by the light at first. But then you get used to it. LCD vs. e-ink: The eyestrain debate

From another article

Still, as regular readers of Bits comments know, there is a lively debate among fans of e-readers and paper books about which type of reading experience is most friendly to the eyes.

It turns out the answer isn’t as black-and-white as we might assume.

Doctors and researchers note that in most instances, paper can offer more visual sophistication than a screen. But certain types of paper, including inexpensive newsprint and the paper in softcover books, can actually provide an inferior reading experience for our eyes than the electronic alternatives.

Professor Alan Hedge, director of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Laboratory at Cornell University, said that reducing eye fatigue is less a matter of choosing a specific display than of taking short breaks from looking at the screen. When we read, Dr. Hedge explained, a series of ocular muscles jump around and can cause strain, regardless of whether we are looking at pixels or paper. “While you’re reading, your eyes make about 10,000 movements an hour. It’s important to take a step back every 20 minutes and let your eyes rest,” he said.

Today’s screens are definitely less tiring to look at than older displays, which refreshed the image much less frequently, causing a flicker.

Do E-Readers Cause Eye Strain

So please don't let the tablet horror stories discourage you, I would ask friends if you can't lend a tablet or E-ink device for a couple of hours and try it out for yourself.

I spend every dollar I get my hands on. Willard Romney? Not so much. What scares me about the very rich is that give the chance they will halt all human progress. Not because their evil, but because when you're that rich you can't imagine a better life. How can you be progressive when you already have the best that can be imagined?

There media is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/world/europe/suspense-ahead-of-verdict-for-jailed-russian-punk-band.html?pagewanted=all From the article: Human rights groups and Western governments, including the United States, immediately criticized the verdict as unjust and the sentence as unduly severe.

Yes the marginal tax rate for corporations in the US is the highest in the world.

However actual rate US corporations pay in taxes is nowhere near the highest in the world due to the myriad of tax subsidies, deductions, etc. in the US tax code that are not present in tax codes in other countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/03/business/economy/03rates.html

The idea that the US has an unreasonably high corporate taxation structure is complete baloney.

Unfortunately it is an idea that is pushed a lot on conservative opinion outlets.

It's disingenuous at best.

Plagiarism becomes an issue every time Vice President Joe Biden stands for election. Looks like they're trying to make him into a great patriot instead of a student who had to cheat to get mediocre grades.

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/16/after-review-time-says-fareed-zakarias-plagiarism-was-isolated-incident/

The rape allegations are just that, and even the stated facts by claimants pretty much do not equate to rape.

To quote anataka from tbp:
--
As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States
of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe.
Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here.
--

So whether or not you consider something rape has very little relevance in this case.

What should concern you though, is that one in five american women claim to have been the victim of rape, or attempted rape (by your definition). Perhaps you need to make your "Land of the free" also apply to the female half of the population? Perhaps you even have something to learn?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html

(I don't say that he is guilty. That is for the courts to find out. And it is rather unlikely that he will be convicted. I do however think he should subject himself to being interviewed in accordance with the law. But he seems very reluctant to go under oath and give his statement...)

Britian still says that they are going to arrest him as soon as he steps out of the Ecuadorean Embassy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html

The rape allegations are just that, and even the stated facts by claimants pretty much do not equate to rape.

To quite anataka from the piratebay:
--
As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States
of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe.
Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here.
--

So whether US law considers something "rape" or not has very little relevance to us.

Oh, and btw, given that one in five american women have been raped (by your standards), perhaps it is time you shape up your protection of the female half? Land of the free and home of the brave? ;-)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/health/nearly-1-in-5-women-in-us-survey-report-sexual-assault.html

This is a hollow argument and ignores 3 decades of deregulation on banking, which allowed banks to mix trading in banking in the same place of business

I think the separation of retail banking and investment banking was a reaction to the Great Depression when banks lost customer money that had been deposited. We have the FDIC and stuff like that so it's not an issue. Why do you think the two businesses need to be separated?

allowed impossibly complex derivatives to be applied unilaterally to make regulation virtually impossible

1. Why do you think these derivatives are impossibly complex and even if they are, who cares? Think of... anything in finance involving math. 30 year mortgages. The average person doesn't know enough math to understand how their monthly payment is determined, let alone if you throw in variable interest rates, PMI, MIP, etc. So what? The point is that the *idea* is simple even if the details aren't. "Pay your loan back over a 30 year period." Mortgage backed securities? Anybody who's heard of mutual funds or participated in microfinancing (e.g. kiva.org) can understand the concept of reducing your risk by issuing small slices of debt to many people instead of big slices to a few people. Credit default swaps? "You know the PMI on your mortgage? It's like that but can apply to any loan not just mortgages."

2. Complexity doesn't make regulation impossible, I don't know what you even mean by that. Progress makes regulation difficult, though, since rules are generally targeted at what exists, not what is yet to be invented. Of course if you want to outlaw progress that would solve that.

If the government is guilty of the crime you describe, it is precisely because a lobbyist from the banking industry pushed said rules through to further the progress of the banking systems desire to make money, even in the face of predictable disaster.

Are you crazy? If it were up to banks they wouldn't make loans to people with bad credit AT ALL. They'd leave that to the "payday loan" class of banker -- i.e. they're not bankers at all, they're scam artists. There's a lobby group called National Community that you should read about. They're hugely influential in the government and their mission is... well.. here's a great example that I found hilariously sad: http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/08/23/in-feds-move-on-capital-one-deal-a-test-of-dodd-frank/

Clarity, if not an answer, may have come inadvertently from National Community. The coalition argues that Capital One’s application to acquire ING Direct is suspect because Capital One refuses to lower its credit standards to extend Federal Housing Administration-insured loans to people with credit scores of 580. This is the lowest credit score allowed by the F.H.A. National Community contends that this is discriminatory against members of minority groups because they tend to have lower credit scores and have been hit harder by the financial crisis.

Capital One has responded by agreeing to lower its credit score requirements by 2012. For National Community, this is not enough, because Capital One’s F.H.A. loan volume is relatively flat in growth. Capital One is now a bit player with less than 1 percent of the F.H.A. loan market. National Community wants the combined entity to make more of these loans, since they help people who could not otherwise afford a mortgage.

So National Community is arguing that Capital One should take more risk when making home loans, but less risk in getting bigger and offering credit cards. Remember, the financial crisis was caused in significant part by excessive, and sometimes predatory, subprime lending. Capital One may not be predatory, but the borrowing National Community wants is lower down on the subprime scale and will create more risk.

Per

There was an English translation of the press conference available.

It's now in this NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/world/americas/ecuador-to-let-assange-stay-in-its-embassy.html?pagewanted=all

Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange

Ecuador, a country with a tenuous respect for international human rights law, is counter-intuitive refuge for the free speech and transparency crusader.

Ecuador's justice system and record on free speech have been called into question by Human Rights Watch, Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, and Amnesty International.

"I think this is ironic that you have a journalist, or an activist, seeking political asylum from a government that has – after Cuba – the poorest record of free speech in the region, and the practice of persecuting local journalists when the government is upset by their opinions or their research," José Miguel Vivanco, director of Human Rights Watch's Americas division, told the Guardian.

Vivanco points out that in April of 2011, Ecuador expelled the US ambassador Heather Hodges over diplomatic cables published by WikiLeaks alleging widespread corruption within the Ecuadorian police.

Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html

Ecuador’s highest court has delivered a staggering, shameful blow to the country’s democracy, siding with President Rafael Correa’s campaign to silence and bankrupt El Universo, Ecuador’s largest newspaper.

Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224

[...] the president ought to be known for "the most comprehensive and ruthless assault on free media under way in the Western Hemisphere".

According to various international rights organisations, 2011 was a bad year for freedom of speech in Ecuador, and 2012 does not bode well.

Following a change to the current electoral law, which comes into effect on 4 February, journalists will face restrictions when reporting on the forthcoming campaign for the 2013 presidential election.

The new article prohibits media from "either directly or indirectly promoting any given candidate, proposal, options, electoral preferences or political thesis, through articles, specials or any other form of message".

Also, to preempt this ridiculousness:

The UK didn't say it was going to "storm" Ecuador's embassy. (The origin of that claim? None other than Ecuador.) What the UK said is that Ecuador's embassy may be stripped of its diplomatic status (a move which would have serious diplomatic fallout), and police may arrest Assange.

People who think this is "good news" for Assange and/or Ecuador and/or the world at large are certainly showing their true colors: not only a disregard and lack of respect for freedom (including that of speech), but a celebration of anything that attacks the US and the West -- institutions which, for all their many imperfections, actually promote ideals of freedom and liberal democracy. Indeed, as Steven Aftergood, veteran crusader against excessive US government secrecy and director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy: "WikiLeaks must be counted among the enemies of open society because it does not respect the rule of law nor does it honor the rights of individuals."

• Sneak and Peek: https://ssd.eff.org/your-computer/govt/sneak-and-peek
• Stop and Frisk http://www.nyclu.org/stopandfrisk
• Warrantless Wiretapping http://www.engadget.com/2012/08/07/federal-appeals-court-says-warrantless-wiretapping-is-legal/
• License Plate Readers http://www.policeone.com/police-products/traffic-enforcement/license-plate-readers/
• Civil Seizure http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20091112/METRO/911120388
• Forfeit without Trial http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/07/megaupload-judge-recusal/
• Extraordinary Rendition http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/rendition701/
• Assassination without trial http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?pagewanted=all

Many people are laughing all the way to the morgue.

Xerox did file suit. http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html They didn't win the suit but they did actually file it.

They filed suit because they also wanted some of the money if Apple had won against Microsoft. Which they could only get indirectly, because Windows was much closer to the Mac than to anything Xerox ever did.

The reports also reveal a sometimes uneasy partnership with law enforcement agencies, with the carriers frequently rejecting demands that they considered legally questionable or unjustified. At least one carrier even referred some inappropriate requests to the F.B.I.

It's not even really rape; note that his so called crime only carries a crappy fine as punishment. Oh, and he isn't being charged either.

Are you going for a new record in "how dense can I pack errors about the assange case"?

1) The checkbox on the arrest warrant for "rape" was marked, and the UK courts found that the charges would be rape even under UK law (most notably, having sex with a person who's asleep, even ignoring that he did so without a condom which had been made clear was a precondition of sex with her - it's *always* illegal)
2) The charges are with penalties of up to four years in prison.
3) He cannot be charged in absentia under Swedish law. There is a series of steps which must be taken in order to lead to formal charges, and not all of them have been taken yet. Hence the warrant to continue the process. The European Arrest Warrant makes it clear that he is to be returned with intent to charge. Which also means it makes no sense to send over Swedish interrogators to the UK - not like anyone should have to give famous people special treatment anyway just because they say to.

Xerox did file suit.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/15/business/company-news-xerox-sues-apple-computer-over-macintosh-copyright.html
They didn't win the suit but they did actually file it.

I think itâ(TM)s more like we both had this rich neighbor named Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found out that you had already stolen it.

Apple had permission from Xerox to use the ideas they had as a base.

When Xerox filed suit against Apple in 1989 they swore to the courts that Apple did *not* have permission. http://www.nytimes.com/1990/03/24/business/most-of-xerox-s-suit-against-apple-barred.html "Apple also replied that while it might have borrowed ideas from Xerox, ideas were not protected by copyrights, only the way the ideas were expressed."

I would suggest reading more Krugman [nytimes.com].

Oh, here's your problem. Krugman is a fine economist, but when he is spreading propaganda, he is like the Rush Limbaugh of the left, except he's smart when he wants to be. When he's writing his column, he says whatever is necessary to push the viewpoint, even if he knows it's not true. For example, look what he says in this column:

[Mr Kyl says] unemployment relief “doesn’t create new jobs. In fact, if anything, continuing to pay people unemployment compensation is a disincentive for them to seek new work.”..... To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe.

That's what he says when he's trying to spread propaganda, but when he's writing a textbook, look what he says:

Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.

So which Krugman are you going to believe? Find a more honest economist, one who doesn't change his viewpoint every time the Democratic party does.

Heard of Greece and Ireland? The latter has really bent over and taken it for the bankers, I mean the team, but austerity measures have been a disaster for their economy.

I would suggest reading more Krugman.

"Everyone whines about HFT, but don't realize that it actually does add liquidity"

HFT adds nothing, all these trades do is take from the muppets (clueless investors) and give to the huge financial houses. The muppets add wealth by going into perpetual debt in order to buy luxury goods on the high street. The money for which is 'loaned' by the self same financial houses. You're only worth as much debt as you can incur over your lifetime. Yes - they're is a metric for that too.

Yep, telling your kid that they're failures has always been a great way to turn them into educated, stable, confident adults.

Ttelling them they are smart and winners is at least as bad. The best current advice seems to be to tell them that failing is part of the process of succeeding and is nothing to be ashamed of.

Figures you'd be the one to say this is a "good" thing, Hatta. ;-)

Ecuador's Rafael Correa under fire for media laws
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-16806224

Ecuador's free speech record at odds with Julian Assange's bid for openness
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/19/ecuador-free-speech-julian-assange

Ecuador’s Assault on Free Speech
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/opinion/ecuadors-assault-on-free-speech.html

Oh, I know that in your world Ecuador is probably some kind of panacea — but this really just shows Assange's true colors (and those of anyone who can't see anything in conflict between concepts like "free speech" and "Ecuador") in spades.

This is not news. This is Wikileaks publishing uncorroborated "evidence" that matches their expectations about "Big Brother".

Some things to remember:

• 1. The system is in no way secret and there are numerous publicly available sources of information about municipal uptake: public hearings, contracts, etc.
• 2. Most (if not all) of these emails were marketing materials or communiques regarding trial runs.
• 3. There is no evidence that TrapWire is currently in use as described in the Wikileaks release. See the NYTimes, Slate articles (among many others) that investigate the system's actual purpose and use.

Wikileaks has been more or less forgotten by the general public, so it's not surprising that they would take every opportunity to spout sensationalized conspiracy theories to regain the spotlight. After all, what would they be today without Mr. Manning's foolish self-sacrifice? A wanna be World News Daily.

Perhaps it is not feasible (or even desirable) for the /. editorial staff to vet everything that gets posted, but I for one am not interested in hearing every conspiracy theory floating on the web - regardless of the sympathy some may have for the source.

Likewise, but while a laudable intiative, its important to keep track of the whole process. A lot of that e-waste, maybe even the majority, gets smuggled out and dumped into developing countries where villagers burn the stuff in their fields to get what they can out of it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/science/earth/27waste.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/electronic-waste-developing-world

JPM, like all other big banks, are engaged in outright fraud. Like rigging municipal bonds, where the penalty was a just fine (ie - cost of doing business). Maybe even rigging LIBOR, where I bet the end result will just be another fine. The problem is, no one goes to jail since it is now official policy not to prosecute bank fraud.

Federal prosecutors officially adopted new guidelines about charging corporations with crimes — a softer approach that, longtime white-collar lawyers and former federal prosecutors say, helps explain the dearth of criminal cases despite a raft of inquiries into the financial crisis.

Though little noticed outside legal circles, the guidelines were welcomed by firms representing banks. The Justice Department’s directive, involving a process known as deferred prosecutions, signaled “an important step away from the more aggressive prosecutorial practices seen in some cases under their predecessors,” Sullivan & Cromwell, a prominent Wall Street law firm, told clients in a memo that September.

The guidelines left open a possibility other than guilty or not guilty, giving leniency often if companies investigated and reported their own wrongdoing. In return, the government could enter into agreements to delay or cancel the prosecution if the companies promised to change their behavior.

500 million? That is only a single days losses for this company.

Knight Capital. 440 million
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/trying-to-be-nimble-knight-capital-stumbles/

I think you should reconsider the risk of not investing a half billion dollars This is only a stop gap. We are considering the next step. shortening the distance a trade signal travels by sending protons through the earth. Purchasing a collider isn't affordable for every company so we will have a huge edge.

There is a rumor that this investment and our collider will stop terrorists and rogue states from laundering trades through our system as they have in the past.

You mean how like how in the US the government can take away your business and give the property to some mega-corp with deep government ties via eminent domain?

How often does this really happen, though?

One notable example from my neck of the woods are the businesses shunted out of the way so that Richfield could offer Best Buy a choice spot for their new corporate headquarters using eminent domain and tax-increment financing.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-court-of-appeals/1073064.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/realestate/05domain.html

A smaller business and residences were basically kicked out to make space for a big fish, all in the name of larger tax revenue. This wasn't even "deep government ties", this was an external business the city was trying to court into moving in.

Let us ignore the fact that if we got rid of the military tomorrow the next day we would probably be overrun by some other country the following day. Also if we ignore all the other things external to military spending (jobs that are needed to support the military, the money military members spend, etc) your numbers still won't produce a balanced budget. There also is the interest on the debt that is still accumulating that will further increase the debt but we can even ignore that and your numbers don't work. For reference see the following:
There is the obligitory XKCD Money chart
The NY Times "Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How $3.7 Trillion is Spent"
The NY Times "Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent"
The NY Times "Four Ways to Slice Obama’s 2013 Budget Proposal" best when viewed by department as it is pretty worthless otherwise
The U.S. National Debt Clock showing the 6 largest budget items.

It's not like eliminating all military spending would magically produce a $500+ billion surplus each year. Yes it would get us much closer to a balanced budget for a few years but there are also major structural issues with Social Security (you can find this in section II Overview pages 2-5) now projected to take in less in taxes that it distributes (in 2022 the trust fund will start to decrease as the interest no longer makes up difference) indefinitely. In 2033 it will be unable to meet the all current obligations. There are also similar issues with Medicare and Medicaid but those are going to be happening sooner.

Now back to real world were things have consequences and we are basically screwed. From what I have read in the past on this subject we are fully capable of digging our selves out of this hole as 13 years ago we were running a budget surplus at the federal level and actually retiring what debt could be. The problem is that everyone wants to keep their government benefit, tax break, subsidy, etc and we have politicians that know that cutting someone's benefit or raising someone's taxes is political suicide so it is just easier to put off the hard decisions until later. That way it is some other congress critter's problem when the shit really hits the fan. In the '90s with Clinton in the White House and Republicans in charge in the house and the senate it was easy with the economy booming the necessary changes were being made and people didn't feel it. Now in a bad economy these changes would be devastating and people might have to break out the pitch forks and torches which no elected official wants.

Let us ignore the fact that if we got rid of the military tomorrow the next day we would probably be overrun by some other country the following day. Also if we ignore all the other things external to military spending (jobs that are needed to support the military, the money military members spend, etc) your numbers still won't produce a balanced budget. There also is the interest on the debt that is still accumulating that will further increase the debt but we can even ignore that and your numbers don't work. For reference see the following:
There is the obligitory XKCD Money chart
The NY Times "Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How $3.7 Trillion is Spent"
The NY Times "Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent"
The NY Times "Four Ways to Slice Obama’s 2013 Budget Proposal" best when viewed by department as it is pretty worthless otherwise
The U.S. National Debt Clock showing the 6 largest budget items.

It's not like eliminating all military spending would magically produce a $500+ billion surplus each year. Yes it would get us much closer to a balanced budget for a few years but there are also major structural issues with Social Security (you can find this in section II Overview pages 2-5) now projected to take in less in taxes that it distributes (in 2022 the trust fund will start to decrease as the interest no longer makes up difference) indefinitely. In 2033 it will be unable to meet the all current obligations. There are also similar issues with Medicare and Medicaid but those are going to be happening sooner.

Now back to real world were things have consequences and we are basically screwed. From what I have read in the past on this subject we are fully capable of digging our selves out of this hole as 13 years ago we were running a budget surplus at the federal level and actually retiring what debt could be. The problem is that everyone wants to keep their government benefit, tax break, subsidy, etc and we have politicians that know that cutting someone's benefit or raising someone's taxes is political suicide so it is just easier to put off the hard decisions until later. That way it is some other congress critter's problem when the shit really hits the fan. In the '90s with Clinton in the White House and Republicans in charge in the house and the senate it was easy with the economy booming the necessary changes were being made and people didn't feel it. Now in a bad economy these changes would be devastating and people might have to break out the pitch forks and torches which no elected official wants.

Let us ignore the fact that if we got rid of the military tomorrow the next day we would probably be overrun by some other country the following day. Also if we ignore all the other things external to military spending (jobs that are needed to support the military, the money military members spend, etc) your numbers still won't produce a balanced budget. There also is the interest on the debt that is still accumulating that will further increase the debt but we can even ignore that and your numbers don't work. For reference see the following:
There is the obligitory XKCD Money chart
The NY Times "Obama’s 2012 Budget Proposal: How $3.7 Trillion is Spent"
The NY Times "Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent"
The NY Times "Four Ways to Slice Obama’s 2013 Budget Proposal" best when viewed by department as it is pretty worthless otherwise
The U.S. National Debt Clock showing the 6 largest budget items.

It's not like eliminating all military spending would magically produce a $500+ billion surplus each year. Yes it would get us much closer to a balanced budget for a few years but there are also major structural issues with Social Security (you can find this in section II Overview pages 2-5) now projected to take in less in taxes that it distributes (in 2022 the trust fund will start to decrease as the interest no longer makes up difference) indefinitely. In 2033 it will be unable to meet the all current obligations. There are also similar issues with Medicare and Medicaid but those are going to be happening sooner.

Now back to real world were things have consequences and we are basically screwed. From what I have read in the past on this subject we are fully capable of digging our selves out of this hole as 13 years ago we were running a budget surplus at the federal level and actually retiring what debt could be. The problem is that everyone wants to keep their government benefit, tax break, subsidy, etc and we have politicians that know that cutting someone's benefit or raising someone's taxes is political suicide so it is just easier to put off the hard decisions until later. That way it is some other congress critter's problem when the shit really hits the fan. In the '90s with Clinton in the White House and Republicans in charge in the house and the senate it was easy with the economy booming the necessary changes were being made and people didn't feel it. Now in a bad economy these changes would be devastating and people might have to break out the pitch forks and torches which no elected official wants.

Hitting people with wrenches is forbidden by the Bill of Rights.

Your point being....?

Didn't stop them from hitting Padilla or Manning with metaphorical wrenches. A couple more direct examples: reporters jailed (or threatened with jail) for not revealing their sources.

"Show of hands: how many of you guys even knew this guy's name before the VP announcement?"

Actually, Paul Ryan has gotten a lot of mention in political news for the last few years due to his budget proposals. That's the whole reason Romney picked him for VP. If you've been paying attention to American politics (and I don't blame you for not), you should have heard of him by now. People on the left talk about him a fair bit because the media takes his "deficit-reduction" plans very seriously even though they don't actually reduce the deficit (Republicans get a free pass on this sort of thing). Here's ThinkProgress way back in 2009:

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2009/03/30/37165/ryan-gop-budget/

Here's Paul Krugman in 2010:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/opinion/06krugman.html

Here's Dean Baker in 2010:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2010/08/can-we-plese-shut-the-washington-post-down-today.html

Here's Bruce Bartlett in 2011:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2011/04/07/Wealthy-Get-Free-Pass-in-Ryan-Budget.aspx

Finally, here's some Ryan critiquing from earlier this year:

http://baselinescenario.com/2012/03/24/why-do-new-york-times-columnists-keep-swooning-for-paul-ryan/

And here's DeLong again from yesterday:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2012/08/in-which-i-disagree-with-josh-barro-on-paul-ryan-arithmetick-has-to-be-primary-hey-rocky-watch-me-pull-a-rabbit-out-of-th.html

You'll note that neither Ryan's budgets nor their criticisms have changed very much. As for your friends, perhaps they felt their "cut+pasted pre-digested talking points that someone else wrote" were informative enough. There's nothing wrong with referencing someone else's writing.

The NYT has a much better article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/13/technology/motorola-to-cut-20-of-work-force-part-of-sweeping-change.html

It does state that they will be reducing the number of models from 27 to "just a few".

Also they are attempting to introduce a more "small start-up culture" to Motorola. They got rid of 40% of their vice presidents which has to be a very good start.

I guess then question becomes...can a family who does not have such skills and such access afford to live healthily on less than five dollars a day per person?

I think the first question you have to answer is if an average American family will eat healthily on any amount of money. Despite widespread belief, junk food is not cheap. See this NYTimes article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/opinion/sunday/is-junk-food-really-cheaper.html?pagewanted=all

(And I think the prices they give for the homecooked meal are significantly higher than I would pay.)

The article compares eating at fast food restaurants to eating home cooked meals, whereas I am talking about junk food eaten at home. I do not disagree that some high percentage of American families would not eat healthily on any amount of money but that doesn't answer the original problem of feeding someone (who doesn't have your wife's cooking skills) on food stamps alone.

I suspect most American families would eat crap no matter how much money you gave them, because that is what our food culture has become. We gave it all over to the food processing companies. It seems like homecooking has really been looked down on in this country over the last 30 years or so. But if you want to eat healthily, you still have to cook.

I think we can also agree that such skill should be taught, one way or another - perhaps in school though I could perceive some pushback for 'the American way' (or whatever else those who breed and sell beef would come up with to fight such education). Access to healthy food at reasonable prices is, perhaps, more difficult to achieve in some areas but is probably doable across much of the country.

Grocery Outlet produces a pamphlet on feeding your family on $3 a day: http://www.groceryoutlet.com/default/bargainistablog/09-09-14/Feed_your_Family_on_3_a_Day.aspx
The food doesn't sound terribly appealing to me, but I'm sure it's much better than many families are eating. Maybe such things should come with the food stamps check. Maybe such things do.

There are a lot of Home Economics skills that really should be taught to everyone. Everyone should learn the basics of financial management, cooking, and house keeping. None of these issues are that hard, for example, most of the things my wife makes are not complex. But if all the food you've ever eaten comes out of a cardboard box, how can you learn how to cook?

I have no idea what to do on the political end. It really annoys me that my daughter brings home all these preachy pamphlets about healthy eating from school, but what's on the school lunch menu? Beef Nachos and pepperoni pizza. Is that some kind of joke? But, of course, the food processing companies can write whatever they want into the laws, no matter who you elect.

I can only agree that educating young people correctly is important which, unfortunately, is not always a priority in our country and may not even be possible in situations where the parent(s) are so ignorant that whatever is taught the child is completely overridden. It would help, though, for those families who do want to feed their children well.

The only thing I could suggest around the school lunches there would be to get the other parents in the school to join you in complaining, assuming that they agree that beef nachos and pizza are not what kids should be eating.

I've removed my family from this equation by moving to France. My son eats very healthily at school and at home, though food prices are a bit higher here than in the US. At least neither you nor I are in Spain where there are regions that are planning to start charging kids who bring their lunch to school something like 3 USD per day for using the cafeteria.

> If Obama would've taken even a half-hearted swing and [sic] curbing the annual, national deficits, I'd listen

President Obama pushed for a four trillion dollar deficit reduction plan. And he kept pushing for it over and over.

There was even a framework along those lines written by the bipartisan Gang of Six. Note that President Obama and 40 or 50 odd senators from both sides of the aisle expressed support for the bipartisan plan.

But thanks to the Tea Party, the supposedly "fiscally conservative" Republican Party rejected it and anything like it. So instead of four trillion in deficit reduction, we got stuck with only two.

There is good reason modern jet fighters have recumbent seating, and it's not just for G forces.

I inherited a power recliner and can spend many hours surfing in it with zero discomfort.

The most comfortable position for your body isn't necessarily the one that's best for your body.

Standing (or sit-stand) workstations are getting a lot of press as being better for your health:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/stand-up-while-you-read-this/

I don't see a real tech angle on this, and it's not even particularly surprising or that interesting from a political angle. GOP candidate makes reasonably "safe" GOP choice, perhaps leaning right, but given his current party, it's not like there was much elsewhere he could've leant. I was vaguely intrigued by a suggestion that Romney could try a gambit of picking a pro-choice moderate to win over independents, at the risk of really pissing off the Republican base. But I don't think anyone seriously expected that to happen.

Overall I think the pick is a NOOP; few people who previously disliked Romney are now going to be won over, and vice versa.

Do I wish to deny the use of technology to amoral thugs who routinely abuse their power? Absolutely! Giving more power to the police has never worked out well, not for the US, not for any other country. Given their abysmal track record for protecting civil liberties why would I want to give them another tool to oppress people? Given their lax attitude towards real crime (ever report something stolen to the police?) and their attitude towards victimless "crimes" (they'll knock down doors and come in with riot gear to attack a suspected "drug dealer") why would I want to assist them? In most other countries the people act as a deterrent to police power. In the US you see this: http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/files/2011/11/original.jpeg in the rest of the world if a cop does that, you see this: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/07/05/world/sub-ukraine/sub-ukraine-articleLarge.jpg (both SFW images).

And to top it all off, their only checks end up being... other cops. No accountability to the people at all.

It was the states, such as Virginia.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/29/us/virginia-senate-passes-revised-ultrasound-bill.html?pagewanted=all

Alabama

http://www.care2.com/causes/discomfort-is-the-point-of-transvaginal-ultrasound-bill-sponsor-says.html

Sorry, I thought there were more. The Democrats opposed the Virginia bill; I'm not sure about the Alabama bill.

I wasn't trying to equate the stance against science w/ abortion clinic bombings, though I see that may come across in the thread.

I am worried, specifically about the stance that is being taken by the far right against science. Things like the text books in Texas changing based on religious views, removing critical thinking education , and denying climatology based on religion.

This is based on 2 minutes of googling. I am sure i could come up w/ more. You yourself admit that you don't believe in evolution. This theory is excellently proven and you can see it in action. you admit it yourself for giraffes. but based on the bible, are you saying you believe in a 6000 year old universe?

You mention the earth revolving around the sun, how long was that proven before the church changed its mind on that one?

Liberal arts is not useless.... Math is a beautiful thing, it helps us explain the world.

So how much math are you going to require a liberal arts major to take? There are academics writing serious pieces like this one in the New York Times that suggest the proper amount of college-level math (calculus or above) to require is none. Math as a language to describe the world would seem (at least to me) to require a minimum of differential equations and a real statistics class, both of which require a couple of semesters of calculus as a foundation. Or you could simply require them to pass a couple of "topics" courses to demonstrate that they understand there's a lot of different kinds of math out there -- but I certainly wouldn't trust them to actually use that math.

As to the question in the original post... it depends on what kind of software you develop. Much of mine was either real-time (where algorithms for solving discrete math problems and the math for computational complexity were useful) or tools to solve specific applied math problems (where I needed to know the problem-specific math).

I hate to break it to you, but on new enough cars you already can mess with them remotely. You can't get them to drive places, but you can, say, check if it's going fast enough and turn off the brakes. reference.