Slashdot Mirror

What do you mean by this? The market enforces rules as to which orders are first in the queue.

Unfair rules in this context. They get to be 30 milliseconds ahead of everyone:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/07/24/business/0724-webBIZ-trading.ready.html

They can also post orders AND cancel them before others can go through with the transaction. So if you have a simple automated system - they can figure out what your minimum/maximums/rules are.

Quote first link: "High-frequency traders often confound other investors by issuing and then canceling orders almost simultaneously. Loopholes in market rules give high-speed investors an early glance at how others are trading. And their computers can essentially bully slower investors into giving up profits -- and then disappear before anyone even knows they were there. "

Incidentally, this is a perfect example of why I feel that absolute freedom of speech is important.

“Markets are there for capital formation and long-term investment, not for gaming,” [Michael Durbin] says here

Amen to that. The markets should operate as though there are humans at every step. Otherwise there's no need for humans on the edges, either.

As always you don't fail to disappoint. You debunk my stats (even the money?), while providing nothing to debunk them with. I call bullshit on your entire post. Please provide references. While I realize that proving an opinion like your can be a daunting task for anyone, thats what the big kids do. Also, the Red cross as an agenda pushing site? You are a delight ! Those fuckers at the Red Cross!! Nobody trusts them! Historically The Red CRoss have been way more untrustworthy than the US military I would DEFINITELY believe the army's numbers over the Crosses!
Here is a link to some info about the Red Cross so perhaps you may consider learning about the folks who you just trashed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_cross
I won't even deal with you where you imply that any act covering the printing press covers the internet, its simply to ridiculous to dignify with a forml response

3 people have been charged, not just Manning.

Lsstly. here is a lik to where Daniel Ellsberg compares the penatgon papers to wikileaks
http://www.ellsberg.net/
Here is a link to where the NYT compares the pentagon papers to Wikileaks
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/world/24london.html
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=625023
Here is a transcript of an interview with the attoney general in which... you guessed it!
http://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131687812/wikileaks-a-reminder-of-the-pentagon-papers
And In case you didn't know the AG is kinda a high ranking civil servant.

So, now that I have provided evidence that ALL (not some) of the people involved have said its a solid comparison... its seems as though the absence of both facts and research have in way impeded you from forming strong opinions. Well played.

I await your responses to my previous questions

It's only lying if you do it intentionally. If ten labs independently and without knowing of each other perform essentially the same experiment, and one of them has a statistically significant result, is that lying? The other nine won't get published because, unfortunately, people only rarely (and for large or controversial experiments) publish negative results, but the one anomalous study will.

The vast majority of science is performed with all the good will in the world, but it's simply impossible for scientists to not be human. That's why we do replicate experiments - hell, my wife just published a paper where she tried to replicate someone else's results and got entirely different ones, and analyzed why the first guy got it wrong.

Meanwhile, the French are falling all over themselves selling high tech military equipment to the Russians.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/29/world/europe/29france.html?_r=1

Is your google finger broken or something? I mean seriously, where do you get off saying "Do something that is so easy for me to do or I'll label you as something you don't want to be labeled as". Hell, you even added the obligatory, If your source is something I don't like because of my perceived biases towards them, I will counter with a sit you should have preconceived biases with.

And while this was supposedly discussed by conservatives as shocking, it was widely reported in the news media and dismissed out of hand so I figured it would be common knowledge by now.

But hey, I'll give you credit. I didn't realize that my google finger would bring up a story on this very topic from Salon.com. Nor did I realize that most of the larger media organizations I could find stories about this at ended up just talking down the the importance of the role ghostwriting plays on a book. And articles debunking it without actually debunking it. IT even goes on to describe the dangers in the values people assign to the authors of books they support. And that was my main point, I wouldn't give him that much credit.

So i guess it is all a conservative conspiracy or something right? I mean a big conspiracy in which Obama's Publisher was in on too. Maybe it was a ploy to build sales. Maybe it was a comment reflecting the truth. It's hard to say, and we all know we can trust the news media right? I mean especially this conservative media outlet.

Anyways, whether it's true or not, it doesn't seem to be that Obama is following his manifesto in practice.

Renting a house is often more rational in the long term, purely in terms of financial gains. it all depends on the relative costs of loan financing and renting and the relative performance of a single real estate investment against some other investment strategy.

Of course. However these normally line up to make ownership a win in the medium term let alone the long term. Today's market is an aberration, but even so its the medium term outcome that is threatened not the long term.

Do you have some figures to back up that those benefits outweigh the initial additional issues in the long term?

Have fun with this calculator:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html

The default settings predict a win for owning at year six and FWIW this was roughly the time frame where my former apartment's rent matched my equivalent (same neighborhood, same square feet) condo's mortgage plus taxes. The default settings also indicate that at year 18 the savings catch up to your down payment. However that doesn't account for the opportunity cost of having invested that down payment elsewhere. Using a 10 year US Treasury rate of 3% and you catch up to the hypothetical interest at year 22. Note that we have not even consider appreciation of the property over 22 years, that down payment was an investment in the property.

TSA actually tried once to stop Ted Kennedy from flying because his name was one the list:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/us/senator-terrorist-a-watch-list-stops-kennedy-at-airport.html

Here's the original story from the New York Times.

There just weren't any WMD's, and really there never were ever going to be any

I think the thousands of Kurds who died in nerve gas attacks would beg to differ, if they were alive to do so.

Yes, that's right. At one time during Saddam's long, terrible reign he actually did possess WMDs, and was shown conclusively to have used them against Iranian troops on the battlefield in contravention of international law, and eventually against Kurdish civilians at Halabja. Unfortunately the US government tried for weeks to accuse Iran of that attack, lying through their teeth at press conferences and at the UN, in order to shift the blame away from their client Saddam, whom they were backing in his attack on Iran. It was the Iranian press and ABC News Nightline that set the record straight. A few years later the CIA were saying the opposite, to boost public support for a war against Saddam and his WMDs. Few remembered by then that he had been using them with the CIA's blessing.

Who knows: if the relevant State Dept documents showing their full knowledge of what Saddam was up to had been leaked sooner, rather than waiting until they were officially declassified, the political cost of tolerating his use of nerve gas might have become too great, and the attack on the Kurdish civilians at Halabja might never have happened.

Why exactly [hasn't] some decent Western power has had [sic] that vile repugnant monster Mugabe filled so full of holes you could use him as a soup strainer is beyond me.

One of the cables addressed that point.

8. (C) The other scenarios are all less attractive: a popular uprising would inevitably entail a bloodbath, even if it were ultimately successful; Mugabe's sudden, unexpected death would set off a stampede for power among ZANU-PF heavy weights; a palace coup, whether initiated within ZANU-PF or from the military - in which Mugabe is removed, killed, exiled or otherwise disposed of, could well devolve into open conflict between the contending successors. Similarly, some form of "constitutional coup" i.e., a change at the top engineered within the framework of ZANU-PFQs "legitimate" structures could well prove to be merely the opening bell in a prolonged power struggle. None of the players is likely to go quietly into the night without giving everything they have, including calling on their supporters in the security services. Moreover, experience elsewhere would suggest that whoever comes out on top initially will struggle, and more than likely fail, to halt the economic collapse.

It would help if people could read the cable we are discussing. From the cable it looks to me like Tsvangirai is trying to negotiate a plan to reduce sanctions.

Another interesting cable sums up the situation in Zimbabwe back in 2007.

"How the White House secretly hooked network TV on its anti-drug message: A Salon special report."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/01/13/drugs
"President Clinton's drug czar, Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, some of America's most popular shows -- including "ER," "Beverly Hills 90210," "Chicago Hope," "The Drew Carey Show" and "7th Heaven" -- have filled their episodes with anti-drug pitches to cash in on a complex government advertising subsidy."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/04/movies/04flyb.html?_r=1
Pentagon's New Goal: Put Science Into Scripts
From drugs to science to a positive view of military life, its all been emotional blended in for generations.
If your movie gets too "historical", funding and support can stop.
... kid to read up on science and scientific issues .. and drugs and soda ... and wars ... and diet and .. [you got funding?]

"We need a Fairness Doctrine for the internet. For example maybe you'll visit foxnews.com and a popup will ask if you want to read democrat.org too. We need to include that as part of net neutrality and other FCC regulations."

[citationneeded]. I can't find any record of a quote like this.

"We need to pass a law to remove MSNBC and FOXnews from cable television." The latter came from a Congressman Kennedy who is a nobody

I can find a Kennedy who has opinions on MSNBC and FOXnews, but he isn't a Congresman, and he does not appear to be calling for censorship. George Kennedy - former managing editor at the Missourian and professor emeritus at the Missouri School of Journalism. He says:

"I’m not arguing that our traditional approach to journalism is inherently superior to the ideological model. After all, that model has served Great Britain and much of Europe pretty well for a long time. But it’s sure not what we’re used to, and confusing to many, even within the industry.

For us consumers, the important thing to remember is this: Fox and MSNBC are playing by different rules than the broadcast networks or NPR. If you like your news straight up, you’ll prefer the latter. If you like it with a twist, you know where to look."

There was a Senator Rockefeller who said:

“There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the F.C.C. to say to Fox and to MSNBC, ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; to our ability to do our work here in Congress; and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.”

A lamentation of ideologically driven news media - quite different from the claim that he is actively seeking laws to shutdown ideological news organizations.

And then of course there's Obama himself who gave a college speech advising them not to read the internet news sites and only listen to WH press releases

What he actually said:

The class of 2010 is "coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't always rank that high on the truth meter," the president said, earning an honorary doctorate of laws degree during the ceremony.

"And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations -- none of which I know how to work -- (laughter) -- information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it's putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy

With so many voices clamoring for attention on blogs, and on cable, on talk radio, it can be difficult, at times, to sift through it all -- to know what to believe, to figure out who's telling the truth and who's not. Let's face it, even some of the craziest claims can quickly gain traction. I've had some experience in that regard,"

Funny that you interpret it as an attack on freedom, when even FoxNews acknowledged that this bit of the speech was a reference to some false internet rumours: "Obama has endured some nasty rumors at the hands of the Internet. Blogs and comment pages continue to allege that the president has not been honest about his place of birth -- Hawaii -- or about his religion -- Christian."

So if there's confusion by Republicans, it's because of what they are he

I guess my point was to tackle the things that we had the technology for and the capability today,

Where is this nuclear technology?

France successfully powers the country on Nuclear power very economically

"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."

though their reactors are generally much more modern designs that waste far less fuel

Citation needed. Here's some of my own:

Finland's Olkiluoto Nuclear Power Plant, designed and being built by the French Government owned AREVA was supposed to be compleated last year, 2009, but is not scheduled to be done before 2012 3 years behind schedule. And because of cost overruns "there is a real risk now that the utility will default". In Finland, Nuclear Renaissance Runs Into Trouble.

"Cost overruns and delays have jeopardized the fate of nuclear plants around the world." Study warns of steep cost overruns at new reactors. Is it time to press reset on nuclear?: "Cost overruns, delays in building reactors are sapping a nuclear revival".

"Boiling The Frog: Nuclear Optimism Hides True Costs Till It's Too Late".

And those are just some of the links I have in my bookmarks.

What I think people fail to realize is that we don't have to solve all our problems in a day

But isn't that exactly what proponents of nuclear power are advocating today? "Build more nuclear power plants, we'll fix the problems later." It's either that or they ignore the problems and say they don't exist.

Falcon

MS helped the Russia gov legally via "anti-piracy raids" with Windows using NGO's who where critical of the Russian gov.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/world/europe/12raids.html?_r=2

EPA wants new tax for superfund

Subsidies for superfund increased from 300 million in 1995 to 1.2 billion in 2005

President bush shift costs of superfunds to taxpayers

and just because no one seem to know this

Oil among most subsidized industry in the US

Elimiating major subsidies saves 45 billion over 10 years

Faith based debate is ineffective. Facts are what counts. Just because all the documentation is not listed does not mean that one's faith based opinion is correct. Sometimes one has to read something other than the approved texts.

I don't know why but this link bypasses the paywall: click.

Because it's in the "Environment" section. No one reads that.

I don't know why but this link bypasses the paywall: click.

You pay (currently) about 13% less at the pump for E85 [e85prices.com] but you get 35% less mileage:

When subsidies are added E85 is more expensive.

you've made a fools bargain.

What was made was Corporatism which is what Benito Mussolini said Fascism should appropriately be called.

E85 has never been cost effective at the pump IN SPITE of the massive subsidies and tax breaks.

By the same token oil would be more expensive if it wasn't subsidized. Oil subsidized? Yes, oil is subsidized in the US.

Falcon

Also bullshit. Quote:

It was long thought that caffeinated beverages were diuretics, but studies reviewed last year found that people who consumed drinks with up to 550 milligrams of caffeine produced no more urine than when drinking fluids free of caffeine.

Meanwhile, fucking *sports drinks*, which are meant to hydrate you, have sodium in them.

Seriously, do you just accept every populist myth you hear as fact without any critical thinking whatsoever?

I would assume the opposite. That Apple would love to see Google swipe the rug from underneath Microsoft because Google can play nice with others. Right now Apple's like European monarchs during the American Civil War: they're content to watch the north and south battle one another, they'd prefer the south to win b/c that would mean greater fragmentation and less tariffs, but they're not going to interfere because the war benefits them more than a victor on either side would.

Seems you've missed quite a bit of Apple/Google animosity lately.

Steve Jobs: "Make no mistake: Google wants to kill the iPhone. We won’t let them."

"Mr. Jobs returned to the topic of Google several times in the session and even disparaged its slogan “Don’t be evil” with an expletive, which drew thunderous applause from his underlings."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/technology/14brawl.html

The US gas production is more and more dependent on shale gas production, due to the progress of the hydraulic fracturing technique . Although the American Petroleum Institute claims that there this technique pose little or no threat to underground drinking water, environmentalists say otherwise and their voice has been gaining strength thanks to the recently released Gasland documentary film.
What is clear to me is that there is no reason to explain why Dick Cheney exempted the gas drilling industry from the Safe Drinking Water Act, but to protect the gas industry profitability...
To be fair with Democrats, I also have to say that Obama strongly supports shale gas extraction. Good luck, America!

All they need to do is look at this guy's record:

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

It was not until he murdered someone that he actually got in any trouble. Never mind how many run-ins he had with the police or the fact that other people had seen him hitting his girlfriend; none of that got him kicked off the team or kicked out of school.

It is no secret that athletes are held to a different standard. When it becomes a scandal, the rest of the world gets a glimpse of the truth; here's another case:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/sports/ncaafootball/30binghamton.html?_r=1

Some of the players on Binghamton's basketball team were accepted there as students without regard to their record or academic performance, simply because they showed promise as basketball players. It wasn't until several of them were arrested in a short period of time that this became a scandal that the New York Times saw fit to cover.

If you think that nobody is turning the other cheek for star athletes, I have a bridge to sell you...

I'd rather have a monolithic cement dome home, which wouldn't be practical to rotate.

I'd also rather spend those millions of dollars to help more than 44 million Americans below the poverty line, many of whom don't have domes, homes, apartments or boxes of their own.

But a nice rotating view does sound pretty cool. And anyway, if the impoverished really want "food" and "shelter", maybe they should pitch in and build some rotating homes. That's where the real money is.

Testimony? They don't need testimony. They have chat logs implicating Assange in aiding Bradley Manning with submitting the documents. The law is pretty clear about these things. We'll just have to wait for his trial.

If you mean this, then what they have are chat logs of Manning telling Lamo that Assange helped him with the upload to WL. Read the article. This is very different to Assange helping Manning to *obtain* the documents, and while IANAL it appears that helping to publish secret documents as such is not a crime. And Assange claims not to have any contact with Manning.

A trial may bring some light into it, but as far as the Manning case shows it appears that the US military prefers to torture its soldiers instead of shedding light by a speedy trial. And Assange is neither a US citizen nor is he located in the US, so I still fail to see why he should be subject to US laws.

Well, NOW we can cry foul:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/21/why-apple-removed-wikileaks-app-from-its-store/

According to an Apple spokesman, it was pulled because it violated a rule about disclosing names and places that could endanger people`s life.

That`s bull. I dont see them blocking CNN app or the other various news outlet applications out there.

They are killing the messenger`s messenger.

Wikileaks is guilty only of receiving the data and publishing the parts they feel are morally justifiable to make public, not stealing, and not espionage, and certainly not treason (they aren't even eligible to commit that one).

Well, thats kind of the problem.

Taliban Study WikiLeaks to Hunt Informants
WikiLeaks Comes Under Fire from Rights Groups
Wikileaks Fails “Due Diligence” Review

This could turn into a feedback loop. If enough informants against the Taliban and Al Qaeda are killed as a result of Wikileaks, it could have consequences in the United States or Europe.

The diplomatic consequences have already been considerable.

What motivates Assange?

In December, 2006, WikiLeaks posted its first document: a “secret decision,” signed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, a Somali rebel leader for the Islamic Courts Union, that had been culled from traffic passing through the Tor network to China. The document called for the execution of government officials by hiring “criminals” as hit men. Assange and the others were uncertain of its authenticity, but they thought that readers, using Wikipedia-like features of the site, would help analyze it. They published the decision with a lengthy commentary, which asked, “Is it a bold manifesto by a flamboyant Islamic militant with links to Bin Laden? Or is it a clever smear by US intelligence, designed to discredit the Union, fracture Somali alliances and manipulate China?”

The document’s authenticity was never determined, and news about WikiLeaks quickly superseded the leak itself. Several weeks later, Assange flew to Kenya for the World Social Forum, an anti-capitalist convention, to make a presentation about the Web site. “ No Secrets

Assange the Anti-American

Manning supposedly had some encrypted chats with Assange prior to releasing any material. It will be very interesting if those come to light.

kmac06, you have a reading comprehension problem.

I said the worst of the Communists left the Party and became the conservative movement of today.

Under George W. Bush, the White House ordered interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to use the *exact* same torture techniques that were used by the Soviet and Chinese Communists against American prisoners and their own political prisoners in Siberia, according to U.S. training manuals disclosed at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/02/us/02detain.html

(Of course, as a conservative, you will say that you don't believe disclosures by the Senate Armed Services Committee.)

Most Communists left the Party when they realized its brutality and anti-democracy.

Most Republican conservatives just hunkered down and defended their leaders when their party did the same thing.

"Across United States public schools, just 74.9 percent of students who were freshmen in the fall of 2004 graduated from high school on time in 2008, according to a report from the National Center for Education Statistics." source.

Regarding your college situation, here's what I did: freshman and sophomore years, I worked as a waiter and earned about $15/hr including tips. I worked fulltime during the summer and 10 hours per week during the school year. I made about $12k/year and didn't pay any income tax once I got through all of the lifetime learning credits or hope credits or whatever the hell they were. Junior and senior years, I did some computer programming for a local insurance company for $20/hr. That was a great deal for them, and it was more money than I thought I'd ever see, so I was pretty happy, too.

Tuition was $5k/year. I know it's a lot higher now--I just looked and it's $8,987 this year. I didn't buy books because they would be a waste of money for me: I am a slow reader and wouldn't be able to read them. In-house dues at my fraternity house were $450/mo including rent, utilities, food (yes, food), and many social activities. Round up to $500x9 months in school=$4500. I lived at home during the summer. So that was about $10k in tuition, room, and board on $12k-$18k/yr in income. I did not take out any loans.

Are you working a little too hard? I showed up with 1.5 years of AP credit and took a light course load so I could work (as in, for money). Guess how hard it was for me to get my first programming job after graduation, given that I already had 2 years' experience? That's right; it was pretty darn easy. Experience always trumps education, and I had a well-known insurance company+IBM on my resume.

Regarding your invention, yup, I guess you're right. Might as well just pack it in and go home. Game over. There's just no solution. Oh well, so sad. No one will talk to a poor college student. You're just a victim here, after all.

On a serious note, you're right about one thing, my parents gave me a gift that many parents do not give their children. They demonstrated (not told, demonstrated) that through consistent, persistent action, you can make just about anything happen.

You seem to have given up, which is fine if it works for you. Good luck in your endeavors.

I know it's a crazy thing to say around here, but owners of the telecommunication companies are just as deserving of having their needs served by government as the consumers of telecommunications services. Government doesn't exist to protect the rights of citizens who are consuming over those who are producing.

This isn't strictly about producers and consumers - it's more about the ability of a very few corporations who own the connections to the home (AT&T, cable companies, etc) to block competition from other innovative companies. Or to extort money from other companies because they have an essential monopoly on those customers. It's about them being able to shut down Netflix to force people to buy from their on-demand services instead.

Maybe it will make you feel better to know that pension funds, which keep a great many of our elderly working class and middle class housed and fed, are among the largest owners of those corporations.

No, the vast majority of elderly are kept housed and fed by Social Security. The poorest 40% get 83% of their income from Social Security and only 4-7% from pension funds, the next 20% (the middle quintile) get 66% of their income from Social Security and only 17% from pension funds. The next 20% (upper middle class) get 47% of their income from Social Security and only 26% from pension funds. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/are-we-a-nation-of-property-owners/

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/magazine/25internet-t.html

However, if an agent of the government uses his/her position to commit a crime, you can sue the agent him/herself, but not their employer.

Even then, there are broad exclusions that protect certain federal employee classifications from lawsuits provided the harm was not caused by the employee's gross negligence. For instance, air traffic controllers (FAA employees) cannot be sued for their actions (for instance, here's an article about an air traffic controller that confused two aircraft and ended up killing 34 people...no gross negligence, no lawsuit). Many other government positions fall under similar exemptions.

The problem is that by allowing corporations to grow into monopolies and mega-corporations who have diversified and subsumed entire markets

And who gave corporations that power? Governments did.

Take any major industry... food for example. If you do a little research you find that it all boils down to half a dozen super corporations, that control everything from the seed that's planted to the packaging that arrives at your grocery store.

Half of the food in my kitchen, back in September it was more like 3/4, I either grew in my garden or I bought at local farmers markets. For about a month this summer I ate salad every day, I picked the greens from my garden. Though I didn't if I wanted to I could have, and might this coming year, join a community supported agriculture(CSA) based local farm. For a set amount of dollars I would have fruit and veggies, produce, delivered from the farm to me weekly. More and more people are buying into CSA.

Do you honestly plan to stop eating at restaurants or buying the 95% percent of the food on the shelves that contains the wheat, soy, or corn products produced by those mega-corporations?

I am a member of 2 co-ops in my are, though there are a bunch more. All of them in my area buy from and support local producers, so called "conventional" and organic.

You know the ones, that are receiving billions of dollars of your tax dollars in subsidies for the privilege of better controlling your life.

I have argued repeatedly against subsidies, whether they are farm subsidies or nuclear power industry subsidies.

Falcon

What are you blind? It's all over the affidavit document. Andrew T. Reynolds swears that it's all true. First line of the document.

My apologies, I assumed /.ers would be relatively familiar with this idea. Sources should have been provided and I'll also retract 'studies' for articles. Also note that knock-off is different than counterfeit; I'm not saying the latter is helpful, just the former.

http://www.techdirt.com/ for general stuff on this topic.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0909/p09s01-coop.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/05/business/05scene.html?ex=1333425600&en=bfb7593c76d8b819&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=faking-it This one is interesting as it provides a guilty conscience aspect that eventually would have people buying the brand names to feel better about themselves.

I think the basic point is that people who knowingly buy knock-offs were never going to be initial purchasers of the brand name goods. But they would buy them once the price became palatable to them. No sale was 'lost' by

I didn't visit that site since ages, and yet the GP's link wants me to log in.

But if I remove the https://myaccount.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI= from the beginning of the URL, it shows me the article. LOL

A modicum of due diligence would help you, poor misguided coward. The SEC didn't bother to start investigating Enron until after their shares had already plummeted by 83% in one year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/01/business/sec-opens-investigation-into-enron.html

What was the government doing the whole time Enron was stealing all this money? Hmmm?

For FUCK'S sake, cite the fucking original source not what has been passed through all these useless parasites regurgitating while diluting and colouring whatever facts there were at each step? So, it took me 2 whole minutes to find at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/19/world/europe/19assange.html

What next: A Tweet referring to a blog copying a Usenet post... How can the editors let these douchebags promote their worthless blogs like this, in the guise of a news story they've plagiarised from someone else?

Why is the summary not linking to the original article and instead pointing to a blog-post which is supposedly regurgitating a Press Trust of India release based on the NYTimes article? This story is also about 3 days old :S

well, to your first point, I agree. In fact, I sort of alluded to that type of activity when I mentioned the black ops funding and pointed to some examples of funding directed in ways to obscure it's original intent or value to military weapons.

As these are not simply things dictated by the republicans and have to be placed into a bill to become law, if and when something like this crops up, other committees in the house and senate should be able to stop it from being detrimental as well as from being railed on by those leaders looking at it. You know, like the $400 step ladders that navy was buying when a step ladder as Sears could be purchased for $40. After some members of congress wanted heads on a plate, they found out that those $400 step ladders had special cleats that locked it into place on small cutters and other navy vessels with safety lanyard attachments on it to protect sailors from the rolling and other motions of the nature of the boat being in the water. I guess before those step ladders came about, you almost had to dry-dock some of the smaller crafts in order to do simple repairs (some of which might need done when in action) in rough seas or risk loosing the crew overboard.

For your second point, I don't think you are understanding it as it is presented. That or I'm not, one or the other. It appears to me that this is just a starting point where the public points to things to take a look at and then once that is identified, deeper inspection and discussion comes about. After community discussion, it gets presented as a bill and goes through congress requiring congress to discuss and vote on it before anything is actually done.

And BTW, Death Panels is something that the left has more or less admitted to. In fact, they are talking about it as the means of savings on the Obama care legislation. You can find Paul Krugman saying it here in which he clarified what he meant here You can find Peter R. Orszag talking about it here too. Now granted, they don't come out and call it a death panel, but they validate Palin's definition of a death panel "

I was about laughed out of town for bringing to light what I call death panels, because there's going to be faceless bureaucrats who will — based on cost analysis and some subjective idea on somebody's level of productivity in life.... call the shots as to whether your loved one will be able to receive health care or not. To me, death panel. I called it like I saw it, and people didn't like it

".

Please, skip past the bias of the pages they are hosted on and look at the statements made. Also, Orszag's comments seem to be edited together, I have not attempted to pursue a complete segment from him as I did a simple google search for "democrats admit to death panels" to get the examples. And while the actual term death panel isn't used in those comments, I'm reminded of Shakespeare in that a rose by any other name would smell as sweat the same.

New York Times already came out with something like this. It doesn't let you work with individual programs, but it only takes a few minutes of clicking before you realize that scrutinizing every detail of a (deliberately distorted) bad NSF decision actually doesn't save you much money compared with, say, raising taxes back to Clinton levels or ending the war in Afghanistan.

It makes me despair for the Republican party, because it makes me think that they might actually be drinking their own KoolAid. And that is never a good sign.

China is by no means moving in the GOOD direction, they have forced Google to leave and according to some cables from wikileaks, it's just because of a stupid Chinese leader finding some webpages that upsets him! The GFW is fucking people here everyday! More on this at New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/world/asia/05wikileaks-china.html?pagewanted=all

FOX blocks Cablevision Internet subscribers from their shows on Hulu.

72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

As opposed to a NY Times article stating that thats EXACTLY what will happen.

Sorry, I couldn't help but notice the huge mistake you are making here. What you are pointing to is NOT a regular article of the NY Times, but rather an Op-Ed article, i.e., an article written by someone unaffiliated to the newspaper. In this case, the author expressing his opinions is Douglas Holtz-Eakin:

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was the director of the Congressional Budget Ofice from 2003 to 2005, is the president of the American Action Forum, a policy institute.

Furthermore, Holtz-Eakin was an adviser to John's McCain's presidential campaign, and the American Action Forum is a well-known conservative think-tank.

My point is that what you are reading is NOT the news reported by the NYT or the opinions of its editorial staff, but the opinions of an unrelated expert who, right or wrong, has a clear right-wing bias.

Oh, and now that I look closer at the other article... again you are pointing to an Op-Ed article, featuring the opinions of someone (apparently) unrelated to AlterNet.

Do take into account that NYT, AlterNet, and most other presumably responsible news sources frequently feature the opinions of very diverse people, even those with views opposing those of their editorial staff.

72 percent believe the economy is getting worse

While a quick google search shows this article-- By the very site claiming that "economy getting worse" is misinformation-- from august, stating that "the economy is getting worse"! Wow, just wow.

72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit

As opposed to a NY Times article stating that thats EXACTLY what will happen. So we're sitting here bashing on how bad Fox is, when an avid reader of the times could walk away with exactly the same impression? Sort of like how above someone could have read an alternet article about how the economy is sinking, only to be called stupid for doing so in an article 4 months later? Fantastic. Not to mention "healthcare reform bill reducing deficit" is speculation ANYWAY (you saying there will be NO differences from projected costs?), so its rather brash to call anyone who believes otherwise "misinformed".

60 percent believe climate change is not occurring

I would wonder A) how the question was worded (ie, "do you believe MAN has caused significant global warming" vs "do you believe the climate is changing"), and B) what the poll statistics were for other news networks, or the population in general. Sadly the link to the poll is down, if anyone managed to grab it I would be interested in seeing it.

In fact the big problem with the article is that its so biased its not even funny-- the headline puts the worst of slashdot's to shame. You've got flamebait, wild speculation, and assumptions of causation when only correlation is shown. The links to previous polls are hillarious-- we have one poll, by NBC, showing that NBC viewers are smarter (didnt we just get done laughing at poll by Microsoft showing that Microsoft's browser is the best?). And their conclusion, that I particularly liked:

The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason.

Yes, that totally follows-- first, we're going to assume causation, and then we're going to assume intent, and then we're going to claim, whats more, that there is a reason behind all this, and finally that all of this is corroborated by the poll.

Excuse me, while I dont much like a lot of what I see on Fox, its a hell of a lot better than this sort of garbage (well, the news segments at least).
Commenters, if you dont much like Fox, thats great, but please note just how biased this story you're applauding is. Its practically a parody of itself.

At least one source (marketing, though) claiming that PZEV can emit less than ambient: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/automobiles/low-cost-path-to-low-emissions.html

And, there are other sources detailing how to accurately test a PZEV to avoid getting a negative emissions reading.

He was purportedly the lead Iranian scientist trying to eliminate stuxnet.
https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/12/02/world/middleeast/AP-ML-Iran.html

How about paying the developer a percentage of the amount that you get when you re-sell the house, every time for the next hundred years:
 
  Resale Fees That Only Developers Could Love