Slashdot Mirror

Assuming an online poll counts as 'consolidating' (did you mean confirmed?)

Did you even click the link? The top 10 list was whittled down from 5000. That's what I mean by "consolidated".

anything, and ignoring that Dick Armey and Ryan Hecker are not leaders of any tea party,

Dick was on the Daily Show two days ago talking an awful lot like he thought he was part of the Tea Party movement. But who else do you want me to throw in their? Someone is setting up rallies.

did you even read that contract? More than half the issues mentioned there are economic issues.

Half of what I said was economic issues.

Note the things you don't see. You don't see "Get our country back for God-fearin white Americans", you don't see anything about immigration. Now, the majority may feel some way or another on those issues, but the thing that holds them together is the economic. If that goes then they break up into segments, the religious right, the anti-immigration group, etc.

Those are the exact conservative talking points. Regardless:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/16/us/politics/16rallly.html

Actually your entire post shows a lack of understanding of political realities. For example, gun-rights advocates aren't divided along the dem/rep lines, they are divided in a rural/urban way. The NRAA pays a lot of money to Democrats. In 2008, 20% of their budget went to Democrats.

Oooo, 20%? It's not like they're an industry lobby group paying off whoever they can to get what they want or anything...
Besides, urban areas lean much more towards Democrats and rural areas tend to be more Republican. They all have a lot of the same correlation.

You've also misunderstood the power balance. The tea-partiers are not following Newt Gengrich, Newt Gengrich is following tea-partiers. He knows how to attract a crowd, and he's saying all the right things to make them like him, but he is following them.

Huh? That's how every political party works. I don't think that there's people with mind control powers or dictators forcing anyone to march in lockstep. That doesn't mean that there aren't figureheads, and the figureheads that get reported on are current or former Republican leadership.

63% of mainstream Americans stated that their views were closer the Tea Party Movement than to president Obama (mainstream as opposed to the political class). You better take anything like that seriously, whether you agree with it or not.

80% of Americans think that the government is covering up the existence of aliens. Many, many people will believe stupid things. Regardless, poll results show a much fewer numbers actually following the Tea Partiers. Most people tend to be apathetic (non-voters are more common than voters for any presidential candidate in quite some time).

You're repeated attempts to paint things in broad strokes account for a lot of your stupidity. Stop doing it. It only makes you dumber./quote> Again, depends on the broad strokes. It's a broad stroke to say that the average physician has an MD (a small minority don't, but the vast majority do). If statistics can be found to back up the stroke, it's not uncalled for. Again, the vast majority of Tea Partiers are the conservative Republican base. They're not some vast number of untapped libertarians coming out of the woodwork, to rain economic theory manna from the heaven, so don't pretend that they're only interested in economic issues.

State and local governments in major cities always have their hands in public transportation in one way or another; it's true for bus, light rail, subway, etc.; so what's so special about bikes?

One difference between the two, I suppose, is that bus, light rail, subway, etc. are for efficiently moving a large group of people. You don't see local, state, or federal government in the car rental business or the Segway rental business. Why should they be in the bike rental business?

Besides, as I understand it, Paris is having some problems with it's bike rental system.

Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ''one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.''

Moreover, Mr. Obama's own grandfather in Kenya was a Muslim. Mr. Obama never met his grandfather and says he isn't sure if his grandfather's two wives were simultaneous or consecutive, or even if he was Sunni or Shiite. (O.K., maybe Mr. Obama should just give up on Alabama.)

Riding bikes can lead to impotence in human males. See http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/health/nutrition/04bike.html. I don't think this is what the candidate was thinking about...

Here is something to think about: All U.S federal government spending has infinite cost. If the federal debt is never repaid (with 12 trillion in debt that's not an unreasonable assumption) then nothing will ever be paid for. Taxpayers will be servicing the interest on the principal debt forever. Have a nice day! :) For further consideration here are some words from Thomas Edison printed in the NY Times Dec. 6, 1921 on adding debt to increase the public wealth. Skip the first column of the article. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C04E0D7103EEE3ABC4E53DFB467838A639EDE http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C04E0D7103EEE3ABC4E53DFB467838A639EDE

Here is something to think about: All U.S federal government spending has infinite cost. If the federal debt is never repaid (with 12 trillion in debt that's not an unreasonable assumption) then nothing will ever be paid for. Taxpayers will be servicing the interest on the principal debt forever. Have a nice day! :) For further consideration here are some words from Thomas Edison printed in the NY Times Dec. 6, 1921 on adding debt to increase the public wealth. Skip the first column of the article. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9C04E0D7103EEE3ABC4E53DFB467838A639EDE http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C04E0D7103EEE3ABC4E53DFB467838A639EDE

And also, the government would be suing itself (Government DOJ versus Government School). That rarely happens.

Correct. It normally takes either harming children, or something of this magnitude to get the government to prosecute itself.

On Sunday, Ms. Fisher, who had accused Mr. Hurd, 53, of sexual harassment, disclosed her identity in a statement from her lawyer and said that she had never had a sexual relationship with Mr. Hurd. "I was surprised and saddened that Mark lost his job over this," she said. "That was never my intention."

I find that a bit annoying, because sexual harassment claims are a bit like atomic bombs, they have devastating results and should only be used as a last resort. If she didn't want him fired, there were probably better options.

I don't think Google has to do anything. I saw a rather interesting article on the nytimes about 20-somethings not "growing up". https://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/magazine/22Adulthood-t.html?src=me&ref=homepage Perhaps there is no co-relation, but if the young and capable minds are being held back by traditional moral image expectations of established businesses - the natural economics of business will slowly grow replacements. The process could potentially be expedited by inefficient businesses getting an enema. Schmidt says the individuals must change to fit the businesses by changing their names. I suspect that's less efficient than businesses adapting to the individuals. Perhaps there is an middle road.

Similarly, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) recently obtained an Energy Star certification for a gasoline powered clock radio, among other things. It's a pencil whipping operation with no credible investigation of manufacturers claims. Worry not! The EPA has since announced reforms to this stellar program, so have no doubt that whatever price premium such august recognition demands is worth every certified penny.

And for anyone who needs it, here's a citation about the crooked judges.

Nobody is suggesting this? BWUA HAHA HA HA AHA HAH AH AHAHAHAHA....excuse me while I cough myself into a stroke...

Seriously. It took 60 seconds to find out that MADD *is* pushing for it in every car and that the auto manufacturers and insurance companies are playing ball.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/support-grows-for-alcohol-interlocks-on-cars/

The NHSTA, your government, wants them as mandatory equipment in ALL vehicles by 2013.

http://interlockfacts.com/

Is there any other fantasies I can disabuse you of? Santa Claus? Maybe the tooth fairy?

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/support-grows-for-alcohol-interlocks-on-cars/

It took 30 seconds to find that on Google.

Here's a little clip "The auto and insurance industries are already involved in a cooperative research program to develop passive monitoring systems."

Itanium is still going strong in high end servers. It is a tiny market, but Itanium sells well

While I didn't find figures for "going strong" and "sells well", parent is apparently along the right lines. I had no idea that Itanium now sells enough to be profitable!

professional journalism, in the mainstream, died decades ago.

And if your definition of professional journalism is "unbiased writing", then it never existed in the first place.

Too many people believe in this mythical golden age of journalism, when all reporters were unbiased and pure of heart.
Which is bunk, because it never existed. Pulitzer prize winning reporters for the NY Times were nothing but flacks for Joseph Stalin (especially Walter Duranty). Walter Cronkite reported that America couldn't win in Vietnam on the eve was what was the biggest military victory for the US in the war. Had Dan Rather not gotten caught, he'd still be anchor at CBS today.

Reporters have had bias as long as there have been reporters.

You wrote: "I think I was the only person in Detroit to see it coming. I looked at what japanese cars were out there, the build quality, mileage, price, etc.then looked at the insane detroit horsepower wars with ancient car designs, just throw more pushrod engine at the situation.. I went "these people are all loony tunes crazy" and quit."

I guess part of the problem with predictions is where does it leave the individual who believes them when it is so out of step with what everyone else believes? There you felt you needed to quit your job because your accurate beliefs were so far out of touch with the self-delusion (though presumably you moved onto something better, but for many, that may be the end of a profitable career). In the 1970s, Amory Lovins was one of the people who predicted oil shocks and said, all externalities considered (including security costs and pollution), renewables where cheaper:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power

For some people, they turn that prediction into money through investments (though it takes money to make money, plus business savvy, luck, connections, etc.). Although sometimes that entails other ethical compromises.
"From Predators to Icons; How to succeed as an entrepreneur : The New Yorker"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/browse_thread/thread/9b81e569f28d8739

But for most people, there is not much you can do with that knowledge (other than, as you did, on a very local scale). My wife had a related metaphorical idea, of moving above the scene of the world and having a great vision of what was "reality", but then that vision not always being that helpful when you come back to Earth. As I said elsewhere, what good does it do to the fly to know the chemical composition of amber? Still, there may be some use, since people are not flies and have more capacity to act (like you did, to improve your local self sufficiency). A related post by me that touches on some of that:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/6819187b74f4b7db

Still, as I heard recently, talking about alternative stuff can help create small communities of practice, that are working towards common goals, or at least inspire others to think about stuff going on in that area. For example, Home Power Magazine has long been an inspiration to me.

Also, the trends are not all bad. I predict that between curing vitamin D deficiency (Dr. Cannell) and people eating more whole foods (Dr. Fuhrman) the USA may save upwards of a trillion dollars a year in medical costs. Just one supporting point:
"A Decade Of Vitamin D Supplementation Would Save $4.4 Trillion Over A Decade"
http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi111.html
So, that's good news to go with the bad. The future is a mix of both. What's really crazy is that, if you realize that, giving health care (including nutritional counseling and access to whole foods) to everyone in the USA is really affordable.
"Eat an Apple (Doctor's Orders)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/business/13veggies.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=business

So, it is sad to see all the misinformed arguing and all the needless suffering, whether of sick people with preventable disease, accomplished machinists and toolmakers who lose their chance to make lots of useful stuff, or even kids suffering in prison-like schools.
http://www.thewaronkids.com/
One alternative public school is documented here (and AERO lists many alternatives)

Wow, that all sounds pretty neat and mostly a lot of "hard fun".
http://www.papert.org/articles/HardFun.html

And related:
"Mortgage Free!: Innovative Strategies for Debt Free Home Ownership"
http://books.google.com/books?id=U8olv7h0of4C
"How to Survive Without a Salary: Learning How to Live the Conserver Lifestyle"
http://books.google.com/books?id=ImmgMBhdeHkC
"Life After the City: A Harrowsmith Guide to Rural Living"
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fmq19Hv1fqYC

We live in a somewhat passive solar home, and do a bit of organic gardening (but we can't bear to cut down the beautiful trees where we are to have a bigger spot to garden or more sunlight, although I agree with you about the economics of that -- plus, doing stuff outdoors also saves on entertainment expenses and, as you allude to, gym memberships. :-)

Karl Marx and his fans (like Simon Clarke in "The Global Accumulation of Capital and the
Periodisation of the Capitalist State Form")
http://www.riff-raff.se/en/furtherreading/clarke_global.php
predicted an extension of credit to keep capitalism going just before it collapsed (whatever one can say about his proposed cures, a lot of Marxian diagnosis of problems with capitalism was accurate).

Someone just recently sent me this summary about Simon Clarke's writings: "The stages he addresses and ultimately rejects as being too vaguely defined to be considered as true periods are: Mercantilism, Liberalism, Imperialism, Social Democracy, and Monetarism. He identifies (in 1992 or before) monetarism as either being a new phase or (as it turned out) a reassertion of free-market Liberalism that will cause overaccumulation, the solution to which will be imperialism and extension of credit, which will only delay a deeper recession or depression. That's nearly a 20-year-out economic prediction that turned out to be very accurate! (Granted, he didn't offer dates, but he predicted some of the most critical events.)"

I'm adapting the following from a reply on that.

Just one more datapoint on that predicted "extension of credit":
"Debts Rise, and Go Unpaid, as Bust Erodes Home Equity"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/12/business/12debt.html?src=me&ref=business
as "capitalism hits the fan" (a talk by a Marxist economist)
http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/

So, agreeing with others, it is a good diagnosis by Marx and fans, up to a point, but poor prescription for current day events, as this essay says from 1971 by Murray Bookchin (someone more into decentralization):
"Listen, Marxist!" by Murray Bookchin
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bookchin/listenm.html

A fan of Charles Fourier suggested to me that everything good about Marx came from the earlier Fourier. And Fourier was more into self-reliant living (though at a village level).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fourier

Here is a document I put together forty years after Murray Bookchin wrote, and two hundred after Charles Fourier:
http://knol.google.com/k/paul-d-fernhout/beyond-a-jobless-recovery
The document suggests that there are four majo

We cannot, because your government will not let us, decriminalize consumption in Mexico.

I think you guys just did about a year ago.

Thanks.

By the way, a bit unrelated, but on cars and oil, :-) here is a post by me on why luxury safer electric cars should be given out free to everyone in the USA in order to lower taxes (so, sometimes redesign of a magic bullet is cheaper: :-)
"Why luxury safer electric cars should be free-to-the-user"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en

And that does not even take into account using the cars as part of a smart grid, or the possibility our electric and natural gas use might go *down* if we stopped refining oil into gasoline:
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
"So I can get 24 miles in my ICE on a gallon of gasoline, or I can get 41 miles (at 300wh/mile) in my RAV4EV just using the energy to refine that gallon. Alternatively - energy use (electricity and natural gas) state wide goes DOWN if a mile in a RAV4EV is substituted for a mile in an ICE!"

The question is, why did mainstream academics ignore or laugh at someone like Amory Lovins for so long?
http://www.oilendgame.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
"The book argues that U.S. domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption, by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy.[1] In the preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still very current."

So, basically renewable have been *cheaper* than fossil fuels since the 1970s when you include all externalities (pollution, health consequences, military, risk), but those costs are not paid at the pump, but on your taxes, your health care bill, or paid by ongoing suffering or problems faced by future generations. But instead we have endless economists parading about for decades shouting at us that renewables (solar thermal, wind, geothermal) are too costly, when it turns out that is actually a total lie (it's like saying that not changing the oil in your car is cheaper because it costs $20 for an oil change and you don't need it *today* and your rich uncle will buy you a new car anyway if the engine dies in this one). Meanwhile, Portugal just does renewable energy anyway:
"Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/earth/10portugal.html
As does China:
"Our One-Party Democracy"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html
But I know of someone who said she helped design a totally solar house in NJ that got bought and bulldozed by an oil company decades ago...

Science and technology is shaped in large part by strong economic interests. A book about the politics of the telephone including how companies fought municipalities that wanted buried cables instead of telephone poles everywhere:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0yE-CP4SmlYC
A professor who writes about these sorts of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Winner
An essay in the Atlantic on "The Kept University":
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/03/press.htm

Still, the original article on Alzheimer's researchers cooperating bucks the trend, so I can hope for

Thanks.

By the way, a bit unrelated, but on cars and oil, :-) here is a post by me on why luxury safer electric cars should be given out free to everyone in the USA in order to lower taxes (so, sometimes redesign of a magic bullet is cheaper: :-)
"Why luxury safer electric cars should be free-to-the-user"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en

And that does not even take into account using the cars as part of a smart grid, or the possibility our electric and natural gas use might go *down* if we stopped refining oil into gasoline:
http://www.evnut.com/gasoline_oil.htm
"So I can get 24 miles in my ICE on a gallon of gasoline, or I can get 41 miles (at 300wh/mile) in my RAV4EV just using the energy to refine that gallon. Alternatively - energy use (electricity and natural gas) state wide goes DOWN if a mile in a RAV4EV is substituted for a mile in an ICE!"

The question is, why did mainstream academics ignore or laugh at someone like Amory Lovins for so long?
http://www.oilendgame.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
"The book argues that U.S. domestic energy infrastructure is very vulnerable to disruption, by accident or malice, often even more so than imported oil. According to the authors, a resilient energy system is feasible, costs less, works better, is favoured in the market, but is rejected by U.S. policy.[1] In the preface to the 2001 edition, Lovins explains that these themes are still very current."

So, basically renewable have been *cheaper* than fossil fuels since the 1970s when you include all externalities (pollution, health consequences, military, risk), but those costs are not paid at the pump, but on your taxes, your health care bill, or paid by ongoing suffering or problems faced by future generations. But instead we have endless economists parading about for decades shouting at us that renewables (solar thermal, wind, geothermal) are too costly, when it turns out that is actually a total lie (it's like saying that not changing the oil in your car is cheaper because it costs $20 for an oil change and you don't need it *today* and your rich uncle will buy you a new car anyway if the engine dies in this one). Meanwhile, Portugal just does renewable energy anyway:
"Portugal Gives Itself a Clean-Energy Makeover"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/earth/10portugal.html
As does China:
"Our One-Party Democracy"
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09friedman.html
But I know of someone who said she helped design a totally solar house in NJ that got bought and bulldozed by an oil company decades ago...

Science and technology is shaped in large part by strong economic interests. A book about the politics of the telephone including how companies fought municipalities that wanted buried cables instead of telephone poles everywhere:
http://books.google.com/books?id=0yE-CP4SmlYC
A professor who writes about these sorts of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langdon_Winner
An essay in the Atlantic on "The Kept University":
http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/03/press.htm

Still, the original article on Alzheimer's researchers cooperating bucks the trend, so I can hope for

Patent Minefields - helping drive innovation forward!

Your satire is well taken. Here's an example, Rare Sharing of Data Leads to Progress on Alzheimer's, that shows how much can be accomplished when everyone agrees to share and work together. Perhaps this collaboration is not perfect and the outcome not certain, but perhaps it's a start. We accomplish more when we work together.

The key to the Alzheimer's project was an agreement as ambitious as its goal: not just to raise money, not just to do research on a vast scale, but also to share all the data, making every single finding public immediately, available to anyone with a computer anywhere in the world.

No one would own the data. No one could submit patent applications, though private companies would ultimately profit from any drugs or imaging tests developed as a result of the effort.

...And the collaboration is already serving as a model for similar efforts against Parkinson's disease.

The information isn't required to be entirely harmless. It only has to be a lot more helpful than harmful. I personally wouldn't wish to take the moral burden of causing unintended deaths or injuries and if it would happen (didn't yet, as far as we know) Assange would have to bear that burden.

You kind of lost me with the first sentence there. "The information isn't required to be entirely harmless" for what, exactly? Are you saying that espionage is protected speech?

But why is it that noone talks about the number of lives that the release of these documents will save?

Obviously, I can't speak about the motives of others, but I think that it's reasonable to assume that the dangers involved in revealing this kind of information far outweigh the hypothetical benefits. You might want to read this article about the Taliban's reaction to the leaked documents. It's a certainty that lives were put at risk by what this asshat did. At best, it's only a possibility that the length of the war will be shortened by the WikiLeaks documents. With the exception of the operational details the reports contain, a lot of this information was known by the press (and the members of the public who've been paying attention) already. It's been known (or at least suspected) for some time that Pakistan and Iran both have dogs in the fight in Afghanistan. The fact that this is mentioned in the reports shouldn't come as a real surprise to anyone.

I think the release of the information by WikiLeaks was grossly irresponsible, and Assange should be arrested by Iceland and deported to the U.S. to face trial for espionage. The person in the Army who leaked the information should face treason charges (when he/she is found) and if found guilty, be executed. If there turns out to be a Hell, may they both burn there eternally.

The NYTimes, Newsweek, and a host of human rights groups seem to disagree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/world/asia/29wikileaks.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/09/AR2010080903045.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703428604575419580947722558.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews
http://en.rsf.org/united-states-open-letter-to-wikileaks-founder-12-08-2010,38130.html

If I had a choice of US occupation and the government by the likes of Taliban and whoever is going to take over Iraq after we leave (Shiite extremists owned by Iran?) I would choose US occupation every time.

A lot of Afghans felt that if they had a choice between Soviet occupation and the forces that the US was imposing in their place, they would prefer the Soviets.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/11/world/asia/11afghan.html

The US government didn't pay any attention to their desires, democratic or otherwise, or to international law.

And a lot more people were killed as a result of that US interference than Wikileaks will ever bring about. After the Soviets were defeated, the Mujahadeen went on a killing spree with brutal tortures (castration, etc.).

So you want to legislate morality. We must all believe in your ethics,

So first off, there's a difference between morality and ethics.

anyone who doesn't follow your ethical code must be punished,

And what's the alternative to following an "ethical code"? Is rape and murder OK?

Funny how similar the views of the right-wingers and left-wingers are when you reduce them to their cores.

When you create a mocking, oversimplified caricature of a position, sure. In fact, you can also reduce nearly every human endeavor to an attempt to get enough food and sex, or to compensate for not having enough sex.

It's just that such reductions, even if they were accurate, don't add much to the conversation.

So let's consider: The extreme right-wing would like to, among other things, make it illegal to create or distribute certain works, including violent video games, among other things. Many of them would like their own creation myth taught in a science class, given equal weight to real science, and excluding all other creation myths. They'd like to prevent other people from marrying each other, and many would like to outlaw certain sexual acts.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Everything I just mentioned is an attempt to impose their own morality on a behavior which harms no one.

By contrast, I am wanting to legislate against behavior which actually harms people. Again, there's a reason rape and murder are illegal -- is it that much of a leap to also outlaw fraud and attempt to restrain anticompetitive, predatory business practices?

If you wanted to say that the purpose of government is to prevent people from unjustly enriching themselves to the detriment of others, then perhaps we could agree. Then it would just be a matter of determining what is "just".

What's unclear about it? When a business takes advantage of a physical monopoly to censor communication in order to make a quick buck, that's unjust -- never mind the absurd pricing scheme.

But you seem to believe that some people are intrinsically entitled be enriched at the expense of others who intrinsically deserve to be punished,

I'm sorry, you seem to have spun that entirely around to mean just the opposite of what I said. You also haven't even set up a clear strawman.

What do you mean by intrinsically? There's nothing intrinsic to the person, it's the position they're in, and more importantly, what they've done with that position. And I am not trying to enrich some at the expense of others, I am trying to stop a small number from enriching themselves at the expense of everyone else.

are willing to use government powers to forcibly do so

Government intervention is one way to deal with a market failure, yes. Do you admit that market failures exist? If so, how would you solve them without the government?

government powers derive entirely from the fact that the government has a monopoly on force.

Patently false -- private security groups (rent-a-cops) exist.

The government should no more be benefitting the CEO of the company than the janitor.

Unfortunately, the practical reality is that corporations become little fiefdoms -- pretty much all of them, so switching companies helps very little -- which creates an imbalance of power such that if the government does nothing, they are benefiting the CEO far more than the janitor.

Other approaches, such as unions, have been tried, without much more success.

Actually, I typoed - 1997, not 2007. As the summary says, "late 1990s".

http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/16/science/scientists-use-light-to-create-particles.html

You mean the same USPS that, up until the recent economic downturn and rise of email, was actually running a profit?

You may think that the reason you're dissatisfied with theObama administration is because of substantive objections to their policies:that they've done so little about crisis-level unemployment, foreclosures and widespread economic misery. Or because of the White House's apparently endless devotion to Wall Street. Or because thePresident has escalated a miserable, pointless and unwinnable war that is entering its ninth year. Or because he has claimed the power to imprison people for life with no charges and to assassinate American citizens without due process, intensified the secrecy weapons and immunity instruments abused by his predecessor, and found all new ways of denying habeas corpus. Or because he granted full-scale legal immunity to those who committed serious crimes in the last administration. Or because he's failed to fulfill -- or affirmatively broken -- promises ranging from transparency to gay rights.

Remember, a vote for a Democrat or a Republican is a vote for the status quo, no matter what BS they vomit during the campaign.

And the Taliban has made clear that they will be hunting down said informants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/nyregion/10attendant.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=homepage

Man, you must have skipped your sociobiology classes, whatever they call it lately. Women bear the brunt of reproductive cost. And due to male insecurity over paternal certainty, even if the rape doesn't lead to an unwanted pregnancy, the woman feels (legitimately) devalued as a mating prospect. Males justify this attitude of blaming the victim with an internal Mel Gibson voice-over (she was asking for it).

On the male side of the reproductive coin, the worst case scenario is paying support for a child that isn't even yours, and that you can't actually visit, and won't love you enough to check you into rehab if you falter in middle age. See How DNA Testing Is Changing Fatherhood. The courts presently have little problem with this, despite its historical demographic slant, and I've yet to read a feminist complaint on this front.

India has also caught the bug. See Don't do paternity test routinely. The previous article argues in favour of precisely this measure.

I don't get the Hurd controversy. America basically impeached the smartest man in American politics since Robert McNamara and there was never a hint of harassment. Over what? Bad judgement concerning small sums of money that wouldn't even top up a petty change jar in the sexually enlightened nation of France.

Mark's obligation to the HP shareholder was to single-source his lechery, or nix his duplicity. Fail to pass elementary skill testing question, do not pass GO multiple times, nor collect over $50m in bonuses.

That link does not back up the claim that "Some disasters are caused by policy change due to political pressure."

The article (Fannie Mae Eases Credit To Aid Mortgage Lending) says:

• In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.
• Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
• ''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

That appears to be pretty black and white to me, but maybe my glasses need a stronger rose tinting.

Even if it did, you have not proven that Clinton had anything to do with it. The article itself says nothing about the where the new directions came from.

From the article again:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

Does one of us have a reading comprehension problem?

It does say that compliance with the CRA is voluntary.

The article doesn't have any of these words in it:

1. compliance
2. voluntary
3. CRA
4. community
5. reinvestment

Did you even bother to read the article?

Yes he did, back in 2003. Unfortunately, Barney Frank stalled it, claiming that "these two entities-- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac-- are not facing any kind of financial crisis". Then when the Democrats introduced their own after it was too late, they claimed the Bush administration "failed to make it a priority".

*sigh* Do I have to link to this AGAIN? Some disasters are caused by policy change due to political pressure.

So you think the new york times wouldn't publish actual documents?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/26warlogs.html#report/15A27543-B022-4736-AC31-71006B18794E [nytimes.com]

From the top of the page

NOTE: The following information (TF-373 and HIMARS) is Classified Secret / NOFORN. The knowledge that TF-373 conducted a HIMARS strike must be kept protected. All other information below is classified Secret / REL ISAF.

Is the new york times going to be prosecuted for handling and disseminating classified documents now you think?

So you think the new york times wouldn't publish the actual documents?
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/world/26warlogs.html#report/15A27543-B022-4736-AC31-71006B18794E

From the top of the page

NOTE: The following information (TF-373 and HIMARS) is Classified Secret / NOFORN. The knowledge that TF-373 conducted a HIMARS strike must be kept protected. All other information below is classified Secret / REL ISAF.

Is the new york times going to be prosecuted for handling and disseminating classified documents now you think?

The decision to buy a hybrid is usually emotional, not rational. A 2007 survey indicates that most (57%) Prius owners' primary motivation for purchasing the vehicle is because "it makes a statement about me". As other posters (and a South Park episode) have commented, buying a hybrid is just a new way to be smug.

Yeah, we would.

Yeah, we would.

By the way, this also applies to firms that bring in foreign attorneys. Reference recent NY Times article. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/business/global/05legal.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=outsourcing%20to%20india&st=cse. My thought is that unemployed attorneys might be more politically active than unemployed IT developers.

According to the satellite photo, the object is still in Greenland's lower colon. No need to clear the pool just yet.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/08/08/opinion/08dotearthglacier/08dotearthglacier-blogSpan.jpg

If you look at the top scientists, most of them believe in God :)

Do they? This page says that 40% of scientists surveyed believed in god (way less than the populace at large) and only 10% of "elite scientists" believe in god. I wouldn't consider 10% of scientists to be "most" of them.

From TFA:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/07/vast-ice-island-breaks-free-of-greenland-glacier/

> Petermann is a sleeping giant that is slowly awakening.
> Removing flow resistance leads to flow acceleration.

Basically, this means flow acceleration would speed up erosion of the corners that "landlock" it relatively quickly. Pressure caused by the increasing flow on the parts that do the "landlocking" could also lead to the iceberg breaking into smaller parts thus making it easier to make it to the open water.

> Let's be honest. The reason the military doesn't want their own people to see the wikileaks documents is because it doesn't want them to realize what a complete farce this war (and by extension the war in Iraq) is.

At first I thought they were just being stupid, but what you say makes far more sense. Interestingly The DoD advised soldiers not to watch HBO's "Baghdad Hospital: Inside the Red Zone" because they may find it traumatic but there was more to it:

"Senior Army officials have scaled back their planned participation in an advance screening of a coming HBO documentary about an Army Combat Support Hospital in Baghdad because of fears that the graphic footage could demoralize soldiers and their families and negatively affect public opinion about the war, Army officials said Friday."
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/12/us/14cnd-hbo.html

To me this is pretty lame. Sure, soldiers have to fight wars. But "negatively affecting public opinion" shouldn't be their concern. Leave that to the politicians who start wars. Soldiers fight wars, but they're not supposed to "encourage" them. The same applies to so-called "Media Units" in the military.

I couldn't find that example, but there is no shortage of other examples of "vigilante justice" based on finding people listed in sex offender registries, and, yes, you can get added to such a list for public urination.

Because I don't find it surprising at all that in NK where the Internet access is restricted to a few high-rank people the probability of someone sending classified papers is almost zero.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CEEDF173FF930A15753C1A9609C8B63&n=Top%2FReference%2FTimes%20Topics%2FPeople%2FK%2FKim%20Jong%20Il

I was quite certain this case was bad enough already.

That's the school who had two staff strip-search a thirteen year old student.

The FTC lacks the legal authority to fine Intel unless they breach the terms of the FTC settlement.1 Also, the way this was brought as a section 5 investigation and not a standard anti-trust case had two major implications. One was that it allowed the FTC greater lattitude in what it could go after Intel for, but it also didn't create the opportunity for triple damages liability that a standard anti-trust litigation suit would have opened Intel up to.2 After a normal anti-trust case competitors can apparently go after the convicted for triple damages in certain cases. Not sure why that didn't apply to MS.

Symbian is all but dead, blackberry is still in the lead, but is losing ground fast- and this is despite the fact that in the business market the blackberry is pretty much ubiquitous. Android is gaining ground at a tremendous rate.

This was just on slashdot a few days ago:
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/02/android-passes-iphone-for-new-subscribers/

Egypt isn't all sand dunes. Near the Nile it's pretty light on the sand dunes, and 4600 years ago could have been even less sand-duney.

They even had paved roads.