Slashdot Mirror

Want to live in the White House but hate Washington politics? Check this out: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/us/08atlanta.html

if you are a troll, congratulations, that was the best synthetic moron i've seen in a while

if you are real: please, for the sake of humanity, don't have children. to say you are out of touch with a kindergartener's ability at compare and contrast and devoid of a firm grasp of reality is putting it mildly

here, read this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/asia/10koreans.html

and if you consider the new york times a biased propaganda tool of the military industrial complex, you can find the same story from many other sources around the world. the reality of the abuses of north korea make the usa look like a cupcake

I always took that to mean that there is no thing as national security, categorizing the NSA's mission statement as impossible.

I have always preferred the idea that total security is impossible (because it is) and that rather than costly defense programs, it is far better to be a favorite among nations, than to adopt imperialistic policies and meddle in the affairs of other religions and nations. Of course, this requires one to subscribe to the idea of "blow-back" which, according to the 2008 elections, only one candidate - Ron Paul subscribes to. What the NSA is, is a blow-back mitigation team.

Now just today we find out the real reason we are in Afghanistan. despite reports that bin Laden is in Iran and has been for 5 years. Clearing the way to Halliburton mining operations? We will see. If so is war necessary? China just buys the property then moves everyone out. We "sweep and clear".

But I digress. Even if we eliminate all the foreign threats, if we do not operationally respect our citizenry, they too will turn on us, as did the "uni-bomber" and the two people who attacked the IRS buildings (one by a truck bomb, the other by plane)

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but there's more money in the cure.

You are forgetting Saudi Arabia, made an incredibly wealthy country by any standard

What about the income of the average Saudi citizen? What is the distribution of incomes across all of society? Unequal distribution of wealth is a known driver of social unrest.

NY Times: "While poor Saudis line up for hours to obtain water in Jidda, others are able to take advantage of America's new-found disdain for gas-guzzling four-wheel-drives by snapping up imported cars."

American Chronicle "Currently, almost all of the oil wealth that flows into Saudi Arabia goes directly into the hands of the royal family. What that means is, roughly 5000 people control all of the money in the country leaving the other 20,850,000 living anywhere between lower middle class and abject poverty. "

Regardless, I would argue that Saudi Arabia is in fact getting more open - there are almost 8 million internet users. Even behind an Internet filter, the average citizen is getting access to more information than they did 10 years ago.

But of course you won't do it anymore than than asshat Peter Singer (look up his latest NYT column) will off himself.

Oh, come on, have you even READ his column? Singer isn't saying that everybody should just commit suicide because humans suck.

Singer is a philosopher, and he specializes in ethics. As a philosopher, it's his job to ask questions - difficult questions, questions that haven't been asked before, questions that noone yet has an answer for. As an ethicist, he's doing that in the field of ethics.

Most people presuppose that when somebody asks "should we do X?", what that person really means is either "yes, we should do X", or "no, we should not do X". This usually isn't a bad approximation, either, but it doesn't work for philosophers. Philosophers don't ask questions to communicate opinions that they have already formed based on gut feelings; rather, they ask questions to think about things and arrive at conclusions and form opinions in the first place.

As for singer, he's asking questions like "If a child is likely to have a life full of pain and suffering is that a reason against bringing the child into existence?", "If a child is likely to have a happy, healthy life, is that a reason for bringing the child into existence?", "Is life worth living, for most people in developed nations today?", "Is a world with people in it better than a world with no sentient beings at all?" and "Would it be wrong for us all to agree not to have children, so that we would be the last generation on Earth?".

These are all good questions that are worth considering. The answers aren't obvious, and thinking about these things, no matter what your opinion ends up being, will only strengthen your understanding of the matters at hand. They aren't comfortable questions, but that doesn't mean they aren't good or necessary ones, and attacking Singer for no other reason than that he's asking them reeks of anti-intellectualism.

Finally, here is a link to the blog post in question itself - you conveniently failed to provide one. I'd invite everyone to read it for themselves, make up their own mind, and enter the discussion (not necessarily in that order), rather than revelling in their refusal to have a discussion in the first place.

The response largely misses the NSA video's point: If you think you're a good fit for the NSA, the polygraph shouldn't stop you from applying for a job.

It's crap science, but the NSA can erect whatever arbitrary hoops it wants for employees. Any fool watching the NSA video for insight into other uses of polygraphs does so at great peril. The response is most informative when he says, "This is true of NSA employment practice, but . . ." Seriously, someone with a principled objection to the NSA polygraphing prospective employees, is going to have a real eye-opener on his first day of work there.

Accusing the NSA of intellectual dishonesty is as useful as accusing water of being wet. Polygraphic prospective hires doesn't have to catch anybody to serve a purpose. It's enough to drive the pissant commie sympathizers to bother someone else. Or maybe not.

Maximum individual freedom? Are you kidding me? How about the freedom to marry the person you love without the government insisting on knowing what kind of plumbing you each have between your legs? How about freedom from illegal warrant-less wiretaps when there's a perfectly legal means for achieving the desired effect, even retroactively (within 72 hours)? How about freedom from unnecessary wars based on known-to-be-false intelligence? How about the freedom to control your own reproductive organs? How about the freedom to buy books or borrow them from the library without having those records inspected by the FBI? I could go one, of course, but I believe I've made my point.

What, you don't believe me?

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/21/science/vast-laser-plan-would-further-fusion-and-keep-bomb-experts.html

Still don't believe you. I think a great part of my disbelief has to do with the fact that you don't provide evidence for your belief. If, for example, you read the above story, you get such things as:

Dr. Hugh E. DeWitt, a Livermore physicist who is a longtime critic of its weapons program, said antinuclear groups had erred in asserting that it was a cover for warhead production. "It's not that," he said. "No nuclear weapons can be designed with N.I.F. The relationship is more indirect in that certain weapon-physics problems could be approached experimentally."

In other words, the NIF research provides a way to test models for these "weapon-physics" problems - just as I claimed in the first place. Your story backs me not you.

As an aside, I also find the "concerns" for nuclear proliferation mentioned in the article to be laughable. A US uncertain of its nuclear weapons is far more likely to bring down nonproliferation treaties than the "hypocrisy" of conducting tests that fit easily within the various treaties's frameworks. Let's also consider it another way. The countries and organizations likely to try to develop nuclear weapons in the face of nonproliferation treaties and other obstacles don't care a whit about hypocrisy.

The large companies that would be employing this sort of system have agreements with the exchanges where the companies actually get paid to trade shares, because in doing so they make sure there is always a sell and buy offer out there when someone wants to trade their shares in any particular company. The transaction costs are thus effectively negative. It is similar to the setup used in high-frequency trading: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/24/business/24trading.html

If you were a small trader doing this you would get decimated by fees and other costs. But then again, you also wouldn't have the access required to set up the needed connections between your algorithm and the exchange computers.

Of course, this is not investing at all, it is gambling. It is setting up a computer that you hope can spot the spin and direction of the ball in the roulette wheel before betting is called off. Sure it could it make you a lot of money, but it isn't helping the market or society or the company being traded at all.

So do we have something like this now? IIRC during that weird 1000 point drop I remember hearing these high volume computerized trading systems account for 60 or 70% of the volume on a given day. And this was (one of) the reason for the P&G drop and 1000 point DJIA drop.

Ah found the article, it was 50 to 75%. Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/business/economy/07trade.html

Disclaimer: I teach at a high school in Australia which has just recently gone down a very similar road to this (parent funded macbooks - school funded and lent machines for parents who can't afford to buy or rent one themselves). I'm also the person responsible for the majority of systems and network administration and tech support to students and staff. On the issue of platform, we looked at several schools who have gone down both the Apple and Windows route (noone having gone with a hybrid approach), and based on the outcomes for students decided to go with Apple. Not because of cost. Not because of fanboyism - we've been a completely Windows school up until now. Because they were the tool which best suited the situation.

Now to address the practicalities of the situation.

1. We're a public school. I don't know if the situation is similar in the US as it is for us, but there is no way we could afford a 1:1 laptop program wholly funded by us, and department regulations prevent us from partially subsidising the cost of parents purchasing the machines themselves (the situation is changing somewhat though, and we are looking at how we might be able to fund a program ourselves in the future).
2. I've spoken to many schools regarding the level of funding which they make available to supporting their computers and networks, and while my school contributes less than the average, it's not much less. If I had to support a network of Windows, Linux, and OSX laptops (especially which students took home rather than just using in a controlled setting like in a regular computer lab), I wouldn't have any time to do the main part of my job, which is teaching (despite having significant experience with all three platforms). Having a nice homogeneous batch of macbooks makes the job of administering them and more importantly teaching and learning with them (which is the point after all) that much easier.

To those in the 'X didn't have a laptop and he worked out just fine' crowd:

This argument is the one that really rankles me. There are a huge variety of students in every classroom (even without counting inclusive schooling, which is seeing a significant number of varying levels of autism and other issues being thrown into the mix), and you can guarantee that there are several different learning styles in play in each one. Technology affords us that much opportunity to vary the methods in which we teach and learn that we would be fools not to take advantage of it.
(There was a Freakonomics podcast on this subject recently too - a bit light on the details, but it's nice to hear some discussion).

The opposing arguments of "We should be teaching kids how to think, not a particular platform" and "We should be teaching specific software packages on the dominant platform to get them ready for the Real World":
Sure, there is a demand for specific software skills in the work force - our local businesses tell us that when we send out our students for work placements in their final couple of years. But then a word processor is a word processor. If you know how to use one, then you know what features are available and it's just a matter of finding it and then you're set. What software skills do most of our businesses say they want? Word processing. The ones that deal with specialist software are either happy to do training or they expect applicants to have experience because it's clear that it is a part of the business.
So what about teaching kids how to think? I find this a curious argument for not using one platform or another, since really it shouldn't matter if the focus is on thinking, and really, if you're placing kids into an unfamiliar (assuming a Windows background) environment, isn't that going to encourage a bit more experimentation and curiosity?

A quick search on the NY Times site shows that word is used out of context: http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=googled&srchst=cse Google is not a verb. Thus one cannot be googling, have googled, or be planning to google in the future, yet the term is used in this way in several articles. While I understand where he's coming from, to single out Twitter and not other similarly retarded variations on websites or tech geek tools makes him just sound like an angry old man.

It isn't just one incident, it's literally thousands of very young people sentenced to absurd terms and even death, many times on feeble evidence that any competent attorney could successfully challenge.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1121-05.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1012-02.htm
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/11/24-4
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/national/03lifers.html

If Microsoft did this people would be all over their asses..

People on Slashdot say that a lot - but the truth is, Amazon already does this, and nobody really noticed.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/what-danger-do-blippy-and-swipely-pose-to-amazon/

If you go to their website, you'll find that behind Goatse Security is weev, well known troll. Slashdotters might know him as head of the GNAA.

"First of all, America is just one of many (if not all) nations which are addicted to oil. Singling out the US and americans for this is preposterous."

Really?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

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

No other nation comes close to the US in oil consumption. Regarding the Wikipedia list, and the EU being second, remember that the EU has 535 million people in it and an economy around 15% larger than the US'. The US has a population of 300 million. In other words, the whole of the EU uses only just over 75% of the oil the US does, but has a far larger population and still manages to maintain a far larger economy. In other words, there's no real valid excuse for the US' massive oil consumption.

"Secondly, and more importantly, as much as we all want (or at least, need) oil, no one forced BP to cut corners and be sloppy."

No one raise their voice about it either, because it meant they could keep their oil cheap. Just as no one raised a concern about any of the other oil companies who equally cut corners. BP being the ones unfortunate enough that it happened to them, doesn't mean the other oil companies act any differently whatsoever.

"And I mean BP specifically. They have a far worse record than other companies."

One single incident is your source to prove they have a far worse record than other companies? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I guess the inconvenient truth that Exxon mobile itself is currently also responsible for a major underwater oil leak passed many people by, because Africa just can't make the kind of world media noise that Africa can:

http://saharareporters.com/real-news/sr-headlines/6244-exxonmobil-oil-spill-in-niger-delta-exposes-nigerians-to-poisoned-fish.html

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/nigerian-oil-spills-make-exxon-valdez-look-like-drop-in-the-bucket/19483921

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/opinion/05iht-edejikeme.html

Do you still think the US is just like every other country in terms of oil addiction? Do you still think BP is somehow unique in it's spill? Feel free to search on the subject a little more to confirm the figures if you don't trust my links.

So is Apple being testy because of Android....or is this the gameplan all along, and Android was a good pre-emptive strike?

I don't think so. Google was one of the most important partners when the iPhone got its start: Google search, Maps, Youtube it was all on there. Then they decided they wanted a piece of the pie instead of depending on Apple and started directly competing with them making inane jabs in the process comparing Apple to North Korea and targeting them in their presentations. Don't start a fight if you can't take a punch.

I just downloaded Google Chrome 3.0.192.0 for Mac and it crashed before I could even open a page. There is no excuse for this; my Mac Pro is perfect in every way with eight 2.93 GHz cores, 32 GB RAM, and a fresh install of Mac OS X Leopard v10.5.7. Ergo any crashing Google Chrome does is Google Chrome's own fault!

Why is it that Apple and Mozilla can do this but Google can't? I ran Internet Explorer 8 for months before its final release, Firefox 3.5 since its 3.1 days, and found Safari 4 Developer Preview more stable than Safari 3. In fact, even WebKit is more stable than Chrome.

What really baffles me, however, isn't the instability I've come to expect from Google, but that Google has the audacity to ask for personal user info to improve its browser. Is the search engine maker datamonger really so desperate for my private information that it's stooped to the level of Trojan horses to get it?

They should ask me that when it doesn't crash on launch.

Everything Google does is just another way to sieve personal data away for targeting ads. This kind of Big Brother crap is more repulsive than the fat programmers that make it possible. Google, with its deep pockets and doctoral scholars, thinks that by holding user data hostage it can maneuver around Apple and Microsoft. While this may be true, I'm not willing to be a part of it.

In using Google's search, Gmail, Chrome or whatever else the faceless robot of a company invents, the user is surrendering their personal information to a giant hivemind. No longer are their personal preferences some choice they make; they're a string of data processed by a Google algorithm: Google dehumanizes its users!

So while Google is arrogant enough to paint spyware shiny so it can parse our browsing habits, the least they could do is make sure it doesn't crash. If Apple, Microsoft, and Mozilla can get their preview releases right, why can't Google? And now they're making their own operating systems?

Get real, Google! I'll use your crashing codebloat when my Mac is cold and dead and I'm looking for handouts. Until then, quit mining my personal data!

Close. It wasn't code that was injected, it was proprietary binaries. In other words, closed source kills. Yes, the same general category that gives us billions of lost hours from crappy drivers for good hardware. The same general category that is responsible for providing an incubator for the world's botnets.

That makes what Novell, Black Duck and other branches of Microsoft are doing so profoundly bad when they try to re-label their proprietary binaries 'open source' without releasing the full source. Just releasing some of the source doesn't count, it's as bad as all-binary proprietary. By release, that means read, edit and re-compile. Anything less is just plain dangerous.

You'd think that countries would learn. Or at least the US would learn. As things are, TSA is shaking people down for baby milk instead of doing something useful like nuking each and every NTFS partition on every harddrive that passes through customs. During a transitory period of a year or two, they could take it easy on the scum by just erasing every file ending in .com, .exe, or .dll and handing them a Fedora live CD. Tracking down and locking up the present and former executives of Microsoft and its partners would be another step forward. Off to Gitmo with the lot.

Close. It wasn't code that was injected, it was proprietary binaries. In other words, closed source kills. Yes, the same general category that gives us billions of lost hours from crappy drivers for good hardware. The same general category that is responsible for providing an incubator for the world's botnets.

That makes what Novell, Black Duck and other branches of Microsoft are doing so profoundly bad when they try to re-label their proprietary binaries 'open source' without releasing the full source. Just releasing some of the source doesn't count, it's as bad as all-binary proprietary. By release, that means read, edit and re-compile. Anything less is just plain dangerous.

You'd think that countries would learn. Or at least the US would learn. As things are, TSA is shaking people down for baby milk instead of doing something useful like nuking each and every NTFS partition on every harddrive that passes through customs. During a transitory period of a year or two, they could take it easy on the scum by just erasing every file ending in .com, .exe, or .dll and handing them a Fedora live CD. Tracking down and locking up the present and former executives of Microsoft and its partners would be another step forward. Off to Gitmo with the lot.

consider

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html

this was the top google hit.

Looking at this, the ussr explosions do not seem to be obvious hookum.

as far as some experts say, you can get a gaggle of talking heads to say about anything, and here it looks like a nuclear option is opposed politically and strongly, so you can expect about any sort of FUD. As far as risks and no experience, sure, fine point, one of the reasons you do serious prep studies.

A governmental rating system for energy/fuel consumption would never fly in the U.S.

Thank goodness for the wonderful "EnergyStar" rating.

How else can I be sure that I am getting the most from my gas-powered alarm clock and space-heater-feather-duster appliances.

The part added by kdawson isn't quite right. The article is available on the New York Times website, but was not written by them. It obviously says: "By PAUL QUINLAN AND JOSH VOORHEES of Greenwire", "Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved", "Greenwire is published by Environment & Energy Publishing." The actual New York Times article was written by different people and doesn't say anyone was "awed."

...Unfortunately there will be a next time.

There's a "next time" happening continuously. It just doesn't make the news because (A) it's not politically correct to vilify African regimes, and (B) sad pictures of oil-soaked birds in the Gulf of Mexico sell western guilt better than pictures of oil-slicked water in Nigeria where there aren't any more birds left to pull at bleeding heart strings.

Energy extraction is, certainly, a dirty business at the best of times; but BP has among the worst records in the industry(at least by the standards of outfits that have operations in US jurisdictions).

so unimportant, you can have all of the financial growth you want, but people's quality of life won't improve (except if you are rich)

the giant irony is that the communist party (in name only) is recreating the social conditions which led the revolution which created it in the first place. if the average guy on the street has no rights, i don't care how hypercapitalist you are, all of that pursuit of profit just means there will be a few more rich in shanghai

either china delivers on real improvement in people's lives, by focusing on their RIGHTS, or they are fomenting social instability. social stability is NOT guaranteed by a deathgrip on the media and the internet. why the grumpy old technocrats don't understand that is beyond me. they need to relax social and political controls, for the sake of a better china

so the issue is that for all their wisdom and learned intelligence, the grumpy old technocrats suffer from the simple human weakness of fear of letting go. and china will suffer for it, mark my words

all china is experiencing now is the worst excesses of the gilded age in the west, without any of the social and political growth that the west went through in the gilded ages as well, because the government of china won't let it. oh that growth will come, but it will come in explosive social upheaval that threatens the stability of the entire country, just because the government suffers from the weakness and folly that it thinks it has to control everything

the chinese worker is not going to live in meek slavelike deference forever while the rich cavort in shanghai. its a social injustice that china really should be more aware of than us in the west, because it was the same social injustice which led to the communist revolution a short time ago, all well within the span of lives of people still alive today. a worker's collectivist upheaval against a bourgeoise communist party seems like a hilarious absurdity, but that's where we are headed:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/09/business/global/09labor.html

UNLESS the government starts delivering on human rights. NOW

i'm reminded of another union force that toppled a communist regime, in poland, not too long ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Polish_trade_union)

And organisms. Don't patent life, plants, seeds, living things, etc. AFTER *that* nonsense is stopped, and monsanto gets what's coming to 'em

Monsanto may get their dues before life patents are outlawed. When the rise of superweeds wipes out the Monsanto engineered crops there may be little choice but to fire up Soylent Green and I'm sure there will be more than a few ready to offer Monsanto's board as the first Soylent offering.

This may prove to be an unpopular POV among some of you, but seeing it from a bit of a different angle - US always has to worry about the way things are somewhere else. Why don't we let these figure it out for themselves, let them ask for help when they need to and only get concerned when they get a new line of centrifuges going, besides it's not like ./ is going to see a drop in traffic because of this. The only ones who have consistenly benefitted from this are the military and the big pharmas, handing out anti-anxiety and PTSD prescriptions. So let's do some real work for once - plenty of problems to take care of this end.

I would say a transition of power seems more likely; especially after a few policy blunders.

Wouldn't want the people thinking they should take advantage of a weakness; because, if they do. they will miss out on all the fun later!

N. Korea Reshuffle Seen as Part of Succession Plan

This is an obvious opportunity to have an open source alternative. A simple program to recieve email from any address the user wants and let them add a custom subject field "password" that allows them to print remotely.

The idea isn't that great but if there's an HP driver version compared to even the most basic OSS version with the actual options to avoid spam delivery then it's a good thing for us. Not saying that people will print more or that they need to print from a device that they carry with them anyway, but if HP thinks there's a market a quick programmer could show them up very easily.

And the subject field / sender whitelist combo would be a good alternative to the so far unknown "features" that they fail to mention in the real article. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/technology/07printer.html?ref=technology

So you didn't read the article. there is a whole section entitled "The Myth of Multitaking" quoting research that shows your argument to be total shit.

The NYTimes has an article about this stating that Google has surrendered the information collected to the governments of Germany, Spain, and France.

"They see scientists being unable to tell us what's happening with global warming as a victory, so they'll fight harder than ever to keep denying funding."

The phrase to understand and protect our home planet was deleted from NASA's mission statement in 2006. Mission statements define budget expediture.

So, climate satts have been underfunded for ten years. Who took over the funding and policy apparatus in 2000 that might have led to this? Hmmm, could it be... SATAN?

They don't, it turns out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/health/research/03lancet.html

Right, the Lancet withdrew their 1998 paper linking autism to vaccines. What does that have to do with this article?

They don't, it turns out.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/health/research/03lancet.html

The feds actively forced the banks to make loans to unqualified people using a typical carrot and stick approach. The stick was to threaten bringing them in for congressional hearings for bogus crap to make it impossible for them to do business. The carrot was to use Fannie and Freddie which are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to buy all the known-bad debt from the banks.

Paul Krungman has been explaining since at least November 16, 2008, 5:36 pm. That the Fannie and Freddie (which are no longer GSEs but now 100% government owned through conservatorship) played only a small role in contributing to the Real Estate Bubble. He's linked to supporting evidence of this claim provided by Mark Thoma. He has also provided evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act played only a minor role as well. And he continues to provide more evidence this month.

He has even argued that the USA's federal government should continue to "keep Fannie and Freddie fully engaged in the mortgage-support business" as a form of quantitative easing, at least until the economy (as measured by the unemployment rate) continues operate below capacity.

If you are really interested in knowing about major contributor to the bubble in the Real Estate, Mortgage, and related Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Credit Defalt Swap (CDS) Markets, you should read up on Magnitar. I wish I had a clear answer on how to safeguard the non-participaing public from Magnitar-like problems. I'm sure it would have something to due with finanial regulation in the form of capital requirements, total leverage ratio limits and transparentcy in transactions for partisipants in CDO, CDS, and all other current and future financial markets.

The feds actively forced the banks to make loans to unqualified people using a typical carrot and stick approach. The stick was to threaten bringing them in for congressional hearings for bogus crap to make it impossible for them to do business. The carrot was to use Fannie and Freddie which are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to buy all the known-bad debt from the banks.

Paul Krungman has been explaining since at least November 16, 2008, 5:36 pm. That the Fannie and Freddie (which are no longer GSEs but now 100% government owned through conservatorship) played only a small role in contributing to the Real Estate Bubble. He's linked to supporting evidence of this claim provided by Mark Thoma. He has also provided evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act played only a minor role as well. And he continues to provide more evidence this month.

He has even argued that the USA's federal government should continue to "keep Fannie and Freddie fully engaged in the mortgage-support business" as a form of quantitative easing, at least until the economy (as measured by the unemployment rate) continues operate below capacity.

If you are really interested in knowing about major contributor to the bubble in the Real Estate, Mortgage, and related Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Credit Defalt Swap (CDS) Markets, you should read up on Magnitar. I wish I had a clear answer on how to safeguard the non-participaing public from Magnitar-like problems. I'm sure it would have something to due with finanial regulation in the form of capital requirements, total leverage ratio limits and transparentcy in transactions for partisipants in CDO, CDS, and all other current and future financial markets.

The feds actively forced the banks to make loans to unqualified people using a typical carrot and stick approach. The stick was to threaten bringing them in for congressional hearings for bogus crap to make it impossible for them to do business. The carrot was to use Fannie and Freddie which are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to buy all the known-bad debt from the banks.

Paul Krungman has been explaining since at least November 16, 2008, 5:36 pm. That the Fannie and Freddie (which are no longer GSEs but now 100% government owned through conservatorship) played only a small role in contributing to the Real Estate Bubble. He's linked to supporting evidence of this claim provided by Mark Thoma. He has also provided evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act played only a minor role as well. And he continues to provide more evidence this month.

He has even argued that the USA's federal government should continue to "keep Fannie and Freddie fully engaged in the mortgage-support business" as a form of quantitative easing, at least until the economy (as measured by the unemployment rate) continues operate below capacity.

If you are really interested in knowing about major contributor to the bubble in the Real Estate, Mortgage, and related Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Credit Defalt Swap (CDS) Markets, you should read up on Magnitar. I wish I had a clear answer on how to safeguard the non-participaing public from Magnitar-like problems. I'm sure it would have something to due with finanial regulation in the form of capital requirements, total leverage ratio limits and transparentcy in transactions for partisipants in CDO, CDS, and all other current and future financial markets.

The feds actively forced the banks to make loans to unqualified people using a typical carrot and stick approach. The stick was to threaten bringing them in for congressional hearings for bogus crap to make it impossible for them to do business. The carrot was to use Fannie and Freddie which are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to buy all the known-bad debt from the banks.

Paul Krungman has been explaining since at least November 16, 2008, 5:36 pm. That the Fannie and Freddie (which are no longer GSEs but now 100% government owned through conservatorship) played only a small role in contributing to the Real Estate Bubble. He's linked to supporting evidence of this claim provided by Mark Thoma. He has also provided evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act played only a minor role as well. And he continues to provide more evidence this month.

He has even argued that the USA's federal government should continue to "keep Fannie and Freddie fully engaged in the mortgage-support business" as a form of quantitative easing, at least until the economy (as measured by the unemployment rate) continues operate below capacity.

If you are really interested in knowing about major contributor to the bubble in the Real Estate, Mortgage, and related Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Credit Defalt Swap (CDS) Markets, you should read up on Magnitar. I wish I had a clear answer on how to safeguard the non-participaing public from Magnitar-like problems. I'm sure it would have something to due with finanial regulation in the form of capital requirements, total leverage ratio limits and transparentcy in transactions for partisipants in CDO, CDS, and all other current and future financial markets.

The feds actively forced the banks to make loans to unqualified people using a typical carrot and stick approach. The stick was to threaten bringing them in for congressional hearings for bogus crap to make it impossible for them to do business. The carrot was to use Fannie and Freddie which are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to buy all the known-bad debt from the banks.

Paul Krungman has been explaining since at least November 16, 2008, 5:36 pm. That the Fannie and Freddie (which are no longer GSEs but now 100% government owned through conservatorship) played only a small role in contributing to the Real Estate Bubble. He's linked to supporting evidence of this claim provided by Mark Thoma. He has also provided evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act played only a minor role as well. And he continues to provide more evidence this month.

He has even argued that the USA's federal government should continue to "keep Fannie and Freddie fully engaged in the mortgage-support business" as a form of quantitative easing, at least until the economy (as measured by the unemployment rate) continues operate below capacity.

If you are really interested in knowing about major contributor to the bubble in the Real Estate, Mortgage, and related Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Credit Defalt Swap (CDS) Markets, you should read up on Magnitar. I wish I had a clear answer on how to safeguard the non-participaing public from Magnitar-like problems. I'm sure it would have something to due with finanial regulation in the form of capital requirements, total leverage ratio limits and transparentcy in transactions for partisipants in CDO, CDS, and all other current and future financial markets.

The feds actively forced the banks to make loans to unqualified people using a typical carrot and stick approach. The stick was to threaten bringing them in for congressional hearings for bogus crap to make it impossible for them to do business. The carrot was to use Fannie and Freddie which are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to buy all the known-bad debt from the banks.

Paul Krungman has been explaining since at least November 16, 2008, 5:36 pm. That the Fannie and Freddie (which are no longer GSEs but now 100% government owned through conservatorship) played only a small role in contributing to the Real Estate Bubble. He's linked to supporting evidence of this claim provided by Mark Thoma. He has also provided evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act played only a minor role as well. And he continues to provide more evidence this month.

He has even argued that the USA's federal government should continue to "keep Fannie and Freddie fully engaged in the mortgage-support business" as a form of quantitative easing, at least until the economy (as measured by the unemployment rate) continues operate below capacity.

If you are really interested in knowing about major contributor to the bubble in the Real Estate, Mortgage, and related Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Credit Defalt Swap (CDS) Markets, you should read up on Magnitar. I wish I had a clear answer on how to safeguard the non-participaing public from Magnitar-like problems. I'm sure it would have something to due with finanial regulation in the form of capital requirements, total leverage ratio limits and transparentcy in transactions for partisipants in CDO, CDS, and all other current and future financial markets.

The feds actively forced the banks to make loans to unqualified people using a typical carrot and stick approach. The stick was to threaten bringing them in for congressional hearings for bogus crap to make it impossible for them to do business. The carrot was to use Fannie and Freddie which are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to buy all the known-bad debt from the banks.

Paul Krungman has been explaining since at least November 16, 2008, 5:36 pm. That the Fannie and Freddie (which are no longer GSEs but now 100% government owned through conservatorship) played only a small role in contributing to the Real Estate Bubble. He's linked to supporting evidence of this claim provided by Mark Thoma. He has also provided evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act played only a minor role as well. And he continues to provide more evidence this month.

He has even argued that the USA's federal government should continue to "keep Fannie and Freddie fully engaged in the mortgage-support business" as a form of quantitative easing, at least until the economy (as measured by the unemployment rate) continues operate below capacity.

If you are really interested in knowing about major contributor to the bubble in the Real Estate, Mortgage, and related Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Credit Defalt Swap (CDS) Markets, you should read up on Magnitar. I wish I had a clear answer on how to safeguard the non-participaing public from Magnitar-like problems. I'm sure it would have something to due with finanial regulation in the form of capital requirements, total leverage ratio limits and transparentcy in transactions for partisipants in CDO, CDS, and all other current and future financial markets.

The feds actively forced the banks to make loans to unqualified people using a typical carrot and stick approach. The stick was to threaten bringing them in for congressional hearings for bogus crap to make it impossible for them to do business. The carrot was to use Fannie and Freddie which are government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) to buy all the known-bad debt from the banks.

Paul Krungman has been explaining since at least November 16, 2008, 5:36 pm. That the Fannie and Freddie (which are no longer GSEs but now 100% government owned through conservatorship) played only a small role in contributing to the Real Estate Bubble. He's linked to supporting evidence of this claim provided by Mark Thoma. He has also provided evidence that the Community Reinvestment Act played only a minor role as well. And he continues to provide more evidence this month.

He has even argued that the USA's federal government should continue to "keep Fannie and Freddie fully engaged in the mortgage-support business" as a form of quantitative easing, at least until the economy (as measured by the unemployment rate) continues operate below capacity.

If you are really interested in knowing about major contributor to the bubble in the Real Estate, Mortgage, and related Collateralized Debt Obligation (CDO) and Credit Defalt Swap (CDS) Markets, you should read up on Magnitar. I wish I had a clear answer on how to safeguard the non-participaing public from Magnitar-like problems. I'm sure it would have something to due with finanial regulation in the form of capital requirements, total leverage ratio limits and transparentcy in transactions for partisipants in CDO, CDS, and all other current and future financial markets.

I would suspect years of defunding regulators and appointing industry allies in key enforcement positions.

It's SOP for the GOP. Cases in point:
MMS and Deepwater Horizon. ("The reports portray a dysfunctional organization that has been riddled with conflicts of interest, unprofessional behavior and a free-for-all atmosphere for much of the Bush administration’s watch.")

Tax enforcement ("over the past dozen years, staff at the Internal Revenue Service has shrunk by about 20 percent. That affects the agency's ability to catch people who cheat on their taxes. One estimate of the annual loss in tax revenue is $300 billion.") And before anyone apologist says, "BV-b-but C-C-Clinton!", tell me who ran the House and Senate? That's right, the GOP.

As I've already pointed out, when you vote anti-government, you get sabotaged government. So let me take a page out of the right's rhetorical playbook and ask them, "Why do you hate America?"

To put it simply, because of the recessionary spiral. As people spend less, businesses cut jobs leading to people having even less money to spend and leading to even further job cuts which can lead to a full-blown depression. If the federal reserve cuts interest rates to zero (increasing the amount of the money supply as much as possible) yet the recession continues to worsen, the only power strong enough to prevent a depression is enormous deficit spending by the federal government. Individual states can only do very modest deficit spending on their own.

Another problem is the needs for government services do not diminish during a recession (rather, the demand increases). People still get sick, the nation still needs to be defended, fires still need to be put out, people still need social security payments in order to meet their bills, kids still need to get an education, etc. If you cut all of these services then many more people will become homeless, be unable to get medical treatment and kids will have a worse education. Teachers now face the worst job prospects since the Great Depression (see http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/20/nyregion/20teachers.html) yet prior to this recession we were already facing an enormous challenge with improving education in this country.

When the US pulled out of the Great Depression it raised deficit spending to the highest rate in our history, up to 100% of GDP (during WWII).

If you do someday read the previously linked information about the "Pleasure Trap" my Douglas Lisle or "Eat to Live" etc. by Dr. Joel Fuhrman, you would see you that what is recommended is very different from being a "neo-puritanical (pleasure is bad!) health food nut".

As Dr. Fuhrman says, healthy eating can be as pleasurable over the long-term as unhealthy eating (or more, because you know what you are eating is good for you and it tastes great). I would rather have a home-made sorbet from my blender than even the best ice cream from the store -- it tastes better now that I am used to it, and I know it is good for me. A fast can sometimes help with that transition to reset the tastebuds back to normal.

Essentially, most people probably will get less enjoyment from a lifetime of drinking coffee (given various ill effects and periodic withdrawal symptoms, and the "return to baseline") than someone with a lifetime of drinking green smoothies (or other healthful things with some variety, fruity sorbets, fruity ice creams, and so on). The whole point of the article is that there is a return to baseline whatever you do, which is also the point of the "Pleasure Trap".

While you are obviously very knowledgeable about coffee, there is a lot of nuance and subtly in vegetables, fruits, edible beans, nuts, seeds, and whole grains than can no longer be appreciated by someone (say, in the USA eating the S.A.D. Diet) who has been trained to prefer an unhealthy amount of salt, refined sugar, and animal fat in their diet. See for example, in the industries own words:
"The Hard Sell on Salt"
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/health/30salt.html
"Salt also works in tandem with fat and sugar to achieve flavors that grip the consumer and do not let go -- an allure the industry has recognized for decades. "Once a preference is acquired," a top scientist at Frito-Lay wrote in a 1979 internal memorandum, "most people do not change it, but simply obey it." "

Anyway it is your life. Opportunity can only knock. You need to open the door and look into this issue of "the pleasure trap" for yourself if you want. Still, as Dr. Fuhrman said in the stuff I quoted, "One cup of coffee per day is not likely to cause significant risks, but the more you drink over this one cup maximum, the more likely it will interfere with your health." So, enjoy your (organic, fair trade, shade grown, etc.) coffee in moderation. :-)

But learning about "The Pleasure Trap" and related issues may help you increase your health and happiness in other areas of your life,
http://www.healthpromoting.com/Articles/articles/PleasureTrap.htm
http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/article16.aspx (same as above at the authors site, but adds a chart)
as might "Eat to Live":
http://books.google.com/books?id=CX8huSU0n8AC&printsec=frontcover
http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/debunking-diet-myths-the-food-pyramid-of-the-insane.html

Other good references on (mostly) healthier eating and cooking:
http://www.andreabeaman.com/
"Raw Food Made Easy DVD Preview"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bo6AdFYIidc

And a great place for learning culinary knife skills (though with a more eclectic cooking style):
http://www.kitchenonfire.com/video.html

the (admittedly few) police officers I've known personally have been intelligent

You must not live in Connecticut then.

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/07/04/magazine/a-patel-motel-cartel.html?pagewanted=all

you got a motel almost anywhere in the usa, and its likely to be run by an indian guy with the last name of patel

why?

basically, its a phenomenon of the immigrant experience: one random guy goes from country A to exotic foreign inscrutable country B. what should he do there? well, he tries career X, and he's successful at it. he writes home about it, and pretty soon a bunch of other guys, relatives usually, from country A are interested in pursuing career X in country B. its not because the patels are better at running hotels than the guptas and the ganeshes, or the chos or the mcneils, for that matter, but simply because people pursue what, and who, they know, that works

same goes with spelling bees and indian americans (but not american indians. i never understood why columbus made a silly mistake about where he thought he was, and we are STILL calling native residents of north america "indians". completely nonsensical)

All news of abuse, neglect, inefficiency, or frankly imperfection, is false.