Slashdot Mirror

Turns out, when you make the kids of the rich and powerful go to the same schools as everybody else, those schools turn out to be decent. Here's an article on how Finland outperforms the USA in education.

That's like saying that the US postal service is the cause of global warming. Global average surface temperatures were going up while the post office was raising first class postage rates. So, according to your reasoning, the post office is going to cause us to all fry (if you think they will continue to raise rates).
Here is something for folks with limited reasoning ability (progressives). CORRELATION IS NOT THE SAME AS CAUSATION!

There are no private schools in Finland. Turns out, when you make the kids of the rich and powerful go to the same schools as everybody else, those schools turn out to be decent. Here's an article on how Finland outperforms the USA in education.

Here's a better analysis for you.

Yes! The NSA should immediately stop hiring people who have no concept of privacy and like to indiscriminately gather private data and use it for whatever purpose they see fit.

...

Oh. No, wait a minute...

Ah, the sweet, sweet irony.

You mean he abused his privileges. He is a low level tech, not privy to high level discussions. Compare him to Mark Felt, who was in a position of power and knew for certain through his daily dealings that the administration was abusing his power. He didn't have to raid Nixon's private files to show it. Here's a better analysis for you.

So only the powerful may expose the powerful?

You mean he abused his privileges. He is a low level tech, not privy to high level discussions. Compare him to Mark Felt, who was in a position of power and knew for certain through his daily dealings that the administration was abusing his power. He didn't have to raid Nixon's private files to show it. Here's a better analysis for you.

So you don't want to go out on a limb and agree that stopping mass murder by the thousands and tens of thousands of Iraqis by the government was a good thing?

Although violence from terrorism by al Qaida and affiliates has been flaring in Iraq, overall it is still much more peaceful than it was. Terrorism is a minor problem compared to Saddam.

10 Years After the Fall of Saddam, How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War?

The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.

"Iraq, today, 10 years on from the war, from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, is not what the Iraqi people hoped for and expected. We hoped for an inclusive democracy, an Iraq that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbors," Salih said. "To be blunt, we are far from that."

"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."

You might find this interesting: Iraq seeks help from US amid growing violence

The united states DOES do those things. Just not within their own boarders.
They are doing it now in Iraq and Afghanistan, they did it all the time in South America by funding and arming terrorist groups there.

Could you point out where the mass grave are that the US filled by deliberately killing entire towns? Where are the mass graves from the political opposition? You're simply wrong.

No, the US does not do what the Soviets and Germans did. That includes Iraq and Afghanistan. The reverse is true. The US put and end to Saddams filling of mass graves, and exposed them to the world. Some in the world oppose and protest putting an end to Saddam's reign of terror.

10 Years After the Fall of Saddam, How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War?

"Iraq, today, 10 years on from the war, from the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, is not what the Iraqi people hoped for and expected. We hoped for an inclusive democracy, an Iraq that is at peace with itself and at peace with its neighbors," Salih said. "To be blunt, we are far from that."

"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ... Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves. Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq. And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."

Many more mass graves have been found since this next item:

Excavating Mass Graves in Iraq: The Bitter Search for Truth in the Desert Sand - 2005

Already some 300 mass graves have been excavated since the end of Saddam's reign of terror. Although exact figures on the number of victims vary depending on who is counting, the Iraqis estimate that at least 500,000 bodies lie in the mass graves. The evidence collected in the pits is not only important to give relatives peace of mind, but also to assemble evidence against Saddam Hussein when he stands trial.

You weren't feeding a troll, your post is a troll.

Considering how well diamonds sell despite the fact that their scarcity is also artificial, that may not be a good way to make your point.

If the above is news to anyone- or something you hadn't thought much about- this article and this article (both from "The Atlantic") are very enlightening. Note that the first is from 2006, and the second from 1982, but still very informative. From the latter:-

The [..] idea that diamonds are rare and valuable, and are essential signs of esteem—is a relatively recent development in the history of the diamond trade. Until the late nineteenth century, diamonds were found only in a few riverbeds in India and in the jungles of Brazil, and the entire world production of gem diamonds amounted to a few pounds a year. In 1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic value—and their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity. [.. They ..] realized that they had no alternative but to merge their interests into a single entity [De Beers] that would be powerful enough to control production and perpetuate the illusion of scarcity of diamonds. At its height -- for most of [the 20th] century -- it not only either directly owned or controlled all the diamond mines in southern Africa but also owned diamond trading companies in England, Portugal, Israel, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland.

Considering how well diamonds sell despite the fact that their scarcity is also artificial, that may not be a good way to make your point.

If the above is news to anyone- or something you hadn't thought much about- this article and this article (both from "The Atlantic") are very enlightening. Note that the first is from 2006, and the second from 1982, but still very informative. From the latter:-

The [..] idea that diamonds are rare and valuable, and are essential signs of esteem—is a relatively recent development in the history of the diamond trade. Until the late nineteenth century, diamonds were found only in a few riverbeds in India and in the jungles of Brazil, and the entire world production of gem diamonds amounted to a few pounds a year. In 1870, however, huge diamond mines were discovered near the Orange River, in South Africa, where diamonds were soon being scooped out by the ton. Suddenly, the market was deluged with diamonds. The British financiers who had organized the South African mines quickly realized that their investment was endangered; diamonds had little intrinsic value—and their price depended almost entirely on their scarcity. [.. They ..] realized that they had no alternative but to merge their interests into a single entity [De Beers] that would be powerful enough to control production and perpetuate the illusion of scarcity of diamonds. At its height -- for most of [the 20th] century -- it not only either directly owned or controlled all the diamond mines in southern Africa but also owned diamond trading companies in England, Portugal, Israel, Belgium, Holland, and Switzerland.

It happens.

We got twinkies back, we can reclaim place again.

That's probably a good thing, we were tired of tapping into our national twinkee reserve and shipping them south to the US, just like you keep trying to get us to open our strategic national maple syrup reserve.

[citation needed]

Actually, Most Countries Are Increasingly Spying on Their Citizens, the UN Says.

An article in the Atlantic earlier this year discussed a technology apparently widely employed by hospitals to monitor whether patients are experiencing "interoperative awareness" during surgery: a Bispectral Index (BIS) monitor, which performs a electroencephalogram continuously during surgery and checks it against patterns thought to indicate conscious awareness. In early testing, it looked like it could detect most cases of interoperative awareness and was quickly adopted in hospitals from around 2004, but its reliability is now in question and the device, though still widely used, is controversial.

From TFA, it seems this system is aimed at understanding brain damage and not at preventing interoperative awareness. Unfortunately the article doesn't give enough detail to know if the new tool is also based on EEG (I can't access the original study through the paywall). But, if it is, and if it gives a better sense of what patients are aware of, maybe it will have some use in the operating room as well.

Do you think people are aiming to be obese?

Yes! Americans are generally lazy overeaters, poor AND rich. This is well documented -- just look at the portion sizes in US vs Europe (http://www.webmd.com/diet/news/20030822/french-secrets-to-staying-slim).

They eat what's available to them in their budget which is usually overly processed unhealthy food.

I get that that's a common talking point, but I've never seen it played out in reality as a primary driving factor. I'm sure it's probably a contributing factor (in rich people's diets as well), but I simply refuse to believe it's the sole, or even the primary, reason. Every time I see an article trying to chalk up obesity to "cheap food", it always comes with a correlary of "excessive eating" and "poor exercise". Just look at this Mexico report (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57592714/mexico-takes-title-of-most-obese-from-america/):

To quote:

That wasn't so much a problem in past generations, when most Mexicans lived on the land, worked hard physical labor and couldn't afford a daily feast. But the more sedentary lifestyles, combined with the ability to eat as if it were a party most days, has helped lead to the country's girth growth. There are plenty of healthier choices like broth-based soups, fresh fish, salads, vegetables and fruits. But those tend to be more expensive for the Mexican poor and working class. And the heavier fare is just so good. Many here also blame the popularity of US fast food restaurants and junk food snacks, which have spread rapidly since the opening of the local economy to global marketers in the early 1990s. Urban Mexicans wolf down pizza, hamburgers and deep-fried chicken with abandon. Relatively cheap chips, cookies and sugary soft drinks pack the shelves of the convenience stores and mom-and-pop groceries that are as common here as cacti, even in poor rural towns and villages.

What that tells me is that poor people can afford far more food than they could historically, and as a result, they're eating much more food. Similarly, their lifestyles are far less active. But why blame the culture when you can blame evil corporations?

If you want to know what's really going on, look here: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/as-countries-get-richer-they-trade-hunger-for-obesity/277930/

Here's how it works: Urbanization leads to new, more sedentary types of jobs, as more people start slinging expense reports instead of hay bales. And as more women move into white-collar work, they have less time for cooking and rely more heavily on prepared food, which tends to be less healthy. Children, too, don't play outdoors as much and spend more time sitting.

You see, it's not that they can't afford to eat more healthy or exercise more...they probably could. They simply choose not to. In the past, they couldn't afford to eat much, so they had hunger pangs, but dealt with the hunger and stayed thin. Now they can afford to eat, so they trade hunger for obesity instead of "hunger pangs + healthy eating". It's the exact same reason people have such a hard time dieting and keeping weight off: because the regimented life of denying one's self tasty foods isn't very compelling, so they always go rushing back to the sweets. Pumping more money into the system doesn't change that -- people will still follow the course of least resistance (or should I say "cheapest resistance"). Only "sin taxing" unhealthy foods would do any good.

Proof and sources:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/02/liar-liar-pants-on-fire/317/

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/newecn/Classes/Art/INT1/Mac/1930s/1930sAA.html

http://www.economonitor.com/danalperts2cents/2009/01/23/unhappy-days-are-near-again/

Or just look at https://www.google.com/search?q=unemployment+1930s+graph&client=firefox-a&hs=9cz&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=fflb&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=riwDUqS_CqOdyQHG24DYDw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1536&bih=694
  where you can see dozens of nice little graphs that show unemployment dropping throughout FDRs term.

Once again- no knowledge of history.

"and if the risks of them having one are outweighed by the benefit of having one"

So true.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

you went off the deep end and claimed that Obama would like to kill all the detainees.

Oh, no, I'm sure, he would not like to do it. As I said, I don't think, he is particularly bloodthirsty. But, I'm quite certain as well, if he thought he could get away with it in order to "Close Gitmo", he'd do it... Without liking it...

The whole hoopla about Guantanamo has made the poor SOBs' fate much worse — it is now more politically palatable to kill the alleged scumbags than to detain them... It started before Obama took office, but he and his participated in making it so.

The sentiment is also the reason, the SEALs were ordered by the President to kill bin Laden, even if taking him alive were possible (which it were — at least, according to the official story).

I think if the NRA didn't represent its membership, its membership would not continue to increase, and those members would not continue to part with their money to support the organization.

The NRA's income is over $200,000,000 a year. A very few companies, such as Smith & Wesson, Ruger, and MidwayUsa, can afford to give the NRA $1,000,000 each per year (these are well publicized donations, because they buy much good will with gun owners). There simply aren't enough players in the gun industry as big as those three, who are also willing to give the money regularly, to support an organization that spends over $200,000,000 a year, and there is simply no incentive for large secret donations by gun companies.

As spelled out in the Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/

Between [2005] and 2011, the Violence Policy Center estimates that the firearms industry donated as much as $38.9 million to the NRA's coffers.

So even the most anti-gun-rights group in the country, only claims that the NRA got $38.9 million from the firearms industry in a 6-year period. That's 3.2% of their budget.

Examine this from a game-theoretical perspective, and ask yourself, "does it make sense to say that the NRA does not represent gun owners?" "Who would be in a position to hurt the NRA the most if the NRA decided to represent manufacturers at the expense of owners?" "If the NRA does not represent gun owners, why does their membership continue to increase?"

When your conclusions don't match the data, maybe it's time to reexamine your assumptions.

I do understand the point you're trying to make about the NRA: you're arguing that because they only support one civil right, they are not a civil rights organization. Would you similarly say that because the American Civil Liberties Union does not speak out for stronger third amendment protections, they are not a civil rights organization? Or that because the Electronic Frontier Foundation does not support ninth and tenth amendment lawsuits, they are not a civil rights organization?

The point I'm making is that you can't plug your ears and say, "they're not a civil rights group," simply because they either support a civil right you don't agree with, or fail to give support to one you do agree with.

http://www.sfgate.com/health/article/Porn-addiction-destroys-relationships-lives-3272230.php

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/06/coming-out-as-a-porn-addict/277106/

http://www.sunjournal.com/news/0001/11/30/livdearabby022713/1324109

http://pornographyaddiction.net/?p=13

And that's from a simple google search. Saying it does nothing is like saying PTSD is imaginary. All fine and dandy till the PTSD guy is pointing a loaded m-16 at you (Fort Hood).

What about the studies that say that online porn leads into more extreme online porn and addiction in a snowball effect? That's the true danger.

I think we can ignore the studies from either side of the argument and apply a little common sense here in that nothing good can come of it for us as a species.

I'm 63. That's old enough to remember the newspaper headlines over an outbreak of polio and seeing pictures of iron lungs in magazines, and being quarantined when I got measles.

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/01/what-america-looked-like-polio-children-paralyzed-in-iron-lungs/251098/

I was in first grade when the first polio vaccine was administered to us.

This was a rite of passage alright. A passage from fear and disease.

Human lifespan increases in the second half of the 20th century were from decreased childhood mortality. It is not just a 'rite of passage'.

Yeah Reagan was the turning point for all we see today. Fool even removed the Solar Panels Mr. Carter put on the White House, that should tell you where he stood. He was a good actor though, the sheep fell in line with him. Definitely Oscar worthy.

You hit the nail on the head. Rather - you are the nail.

The Bush administration has installed the first-ever solar electric system on the grounds of the White House. The National Park Service, which manages the White House complex, installed a nine kilowatt, rooftop solar electric or photovoltaic system, as well as two solar thermal systems that heat water used on the premises.

Source.

Rather than present Carter, Reagan, Obama et al as 'just guys of varying attributes', you instead made a big-ass statement by omitting key facts. The Carter panels were removed as part of a remodel (1986, so well into the 2nd term), not so much a political statement. The Carter panels cost about $30,000 which - had they bought gold - might be worth a quarter million today.

You're playing the "red-vs-blue" thing very well and I'm sure your masters are pleased.

I agree that the US is behind Europe on fuel efficiency of our car fleet - though we have made recent strides. Also, the measure that the Europeans use for fuel economy is much looser than the US standard - in reality, many of the cars available are virtually the same yet have drastically different ratings in the US and Europe.

You can't compare the entire US to France - the US on the whole has a much rougher climate than most of France. There are few areas of the US with the kind of mild climate that part of Europe enjoys. Our east coast has extremes of temperature - if you live in a place that is warm in the winter, it is almost uninhabitable without AC in the summer. If you live in a place with nice summers, the winters are cold and require a lot of heating. There are places in the Northwest with similar temperatures, but they tend to have a 6-month drought season and a 6-month rainy season, so they aren't ideal for traditional agriculture and thus aren't as densely settled.

We have some recent trends in the US that you might not be aware of. One, kids are less interested in cars. Young people are going completely carless in cities - though the cities tend to be those with decent public transportation. That's not even a requirement, though, as car sharing has become the vogue. Young people are flooding into once-crumbling downtowns.

In addition to these recent demographic shifts, we found a new way to get at huge reservoirs of natural gas that Europe is skittish to do themselves, and now Europe is burning our excess coal. The result is that the US has decreased its own emissions by 20%, and much of that is now added to Europe's total (though the economic downturn is still keeping emissions low). It's true that France is crazy for nuclear, and I admire and covet their willingness to reprocess fuel. But they are very much an anomaly in Europe - everyone else is abandoning nuclear (or at least pretending to), because a tidal wave might suddenly hit Germany and cause a nuclear emergency.

Bush would have killed him too.

Bush would've killed him, if it were the only way to get rid of him, sure. But, given an opportunity to capture the scumbag alive, Bush would've gone for it, no doubt — if only for the intelligence value... Unfortunately, the outcry over detaining people in Guantanamo has made the other option far more palatable for the cynical (like Obama) and their short-attention span supporters (like yourself).

Hussein was delivered to justice only because the air strike on the Presidential Palace in Baghdad on 19 March 2003, which was intended to kill him, missed.

Sure. Because at that point he was still the Commander of the enemy military and thus a perfectly legitimate target. But when Marines were dispatched to take him out of his rathole, they were not ordered to kill him on sight. Unlike the SEALs dispatched for Osama bin Laden.

I noticed that Hussein's heinous sons didn't get "delivered to justice".

Because those two gentlemen actively resisted capture. There was a firefight — and the two died with arms in their hands.

Now, bin Laden was not resisting. One of his wives charged the SEALs and was calmly shot in the leg — not killed. SEALs are professionals and would not just kill a human being willy-nilly. But they follow orders. Why did Obama order them to kill, not capture bin Laden, even though the same helicopter, that carried his body, could've just as well carried him out alive, is on the President's conscience.

That you defend him — is on yours.

I'd rather they come after them with a drone than with an invasion

Sure. And it is legal too, no problem there. But when it is done to simply stop the flow of new detainees into Gitmo (to fulfill, someday, Obama's 2007 electoral promise), then it becomes rather unethical, does not it? Because capture and detention (even if indefinite) is much better, than fiery death from the sky for both the subject and his family. If you had no problem with Gitmo detentions, then, fine. I don't blame you for accepting Obama's doctrine. But if you were among the media-whipped crowds condemning Bush for the mere detentions, then you can not be true to yourself, if you don't condemn Obama in even stronger terms for the extra-judicial killings of the same people.

I'm not saying there arent issues

Oh, there most certainly are issues! Because Gitmo was made into such a hot potato during the previous presidency, the current President, evidently, banned putting new detainees in there... Guess, which of the two alternatives to such detentions did he pick? Right, kill them on the spot — no judge, no jury.

That his supporters, after condemning Bush for the mere detentions, are a-Ok with the extra-judicial killings, is really telling any observer everything one needs to know about their attention spans. That the President is ordering the killings for political expediency (so as not to be blamed for Gitmo's existance much), never mind the possibility, however slight, that a few of them are innocent, is telling the same observer about his values and morals. That he does it despite the intelligence value destroyed by each killing, expands nicely on his priorities.

To sum up: the "village idiot" and "Constitution-shredder" Bush presided over Milosevic and Hussein being delivered to justice. Harvard-educated lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize-winner Obama presided over bin Laden and Qaddafi shot on the spot...

Both. Scarcity will disappear for a larger portion of the population, but imo wealth is already just consuming higher-end versions of the same toys.
There will be a point where labor+logistics within the country will be a equation, but fuel costs and overseas instability will have to rise.
Such as
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/making-it-in-america/308844/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-simple-graph-showing-the-american-manufacturing-worker-is-suddenly-an-incredible-bargain/266339/

But survey results from executives seem to disagree
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/Process-Industrial-Products/manufacturing-competitiveness/mfg-competitiveness-index/index.htm?id=us_furl_pip_gcmi_121412

The biggest question I have is just how many shops will be able to re-awaken manufacturing at large-scale if/when. One of several common concerns:
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/08/28/4-key-roadblocks-to-u-s-manufacturing-competitiveness/

Both. Scarcity will disappear for a larger portion of the population, but imo wealth is already just consuming higher-end versions of the same toys.
There will be a point where labor+logistics within the country will be a equation, but fuel costs and overseas instability will have to rise.
Such as
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/01/making-it-in-america/308844/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/a-simple-graph-showing-the-american-manufacturing-worker-is-suddenly-an-incredible-bargain/266339/

But survey results from executives seem to disagree
http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_US/us/Industries/Process-Industrial-Products/manufacturing-competitiveness/mfg-competitiveness-index/index.htm?id=us_furl_pip_gcmi_121412

The biggest question I have is just how many shops will be able to re-awaken manufacturing at large-scale if/when. One of several common concerns:
http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/08/28/4-key-roadblocks-to-u-s-manufacturing-competitiveness/

Slightly dated now that el Presedente Chávez has passed on, but I doubt much has changed since. I'm sure Snowden will be happy if he makes it there, although he should probably bring toilet paper with him.

Venezuela toilet paper shortage sends ordinary lives around the bend - 23 May 2013

Scarcity of toilet rolls seen as part of 'general malaise' in which Venezuelans have to use guile during shortage in many staples

Venezuela crackdown deemed worst in years

Chavez Wasn't Just a Zany Buffoon, He Was an Oppressive Autocrat - Mar 5 2013

Like an old-style dictator, he treated the state as his personal plaything but, unlike one, his power rested not on violence but on genuine popular affection. Venezuela's history since 1999 has been the story of that contradiction playing itself out across the lives of 29 million people.

Chávez's insistence on absolute submission from his supporters paved the way for the rise of an over-the-top cult of personality. As questioning any presidential directive was a sure career-ender for his followers, the upper reaches of his government came to be dominated by yes-men. Further down the food chain, too, extravagant displays of personal loyalty were required from every person in every nook and cranny of Venezuela's massive and fast-growing state apparatus, with state-owned factory workers required to attend rallies and clerical personnel fully expected to donate part of their salaries to the ruling party.

Instead of a police state, Chávez built a propaganda state, one that churned out slogan after slogan stressing the intense, personal, near-mystical bond between him and his followers. . .

Finding no resistance, Chávez gave free rein to his creative streak. He changed the country's official name, shifted its time zone by half-an-hour on a whim and added an extra star to the flag. At one point, he ordered the National Coat of Arms changed on his then 9-year-old daughter's suggestion. When an opposition satirist responded by publishing an Open Letter to the First Daughter -- reasoning that if she was now making public policy, people had a right to address her -- Chávez had the paper that printed the letter fined for violating a child's privacy.

Venezuela - 2013 Index of Economic Freedom

In 1999, Hugo Chávez won the presidency, vanquished the traditional party system, and launched his Bolivarian Revolution aimed at “Socialism for the 21st Century.” Chávez styles himself the leader of Latin America’s anti–free market forces and has made alliances with China, Cuba, Russia, and rogue states like Iran. He has persecuted his political adversaries and critics, restricted media freedom, undermined the rule of law and property rights, militarized the government, and tried to destabilize neighboring Colombia. The national assembly, which he controls, passed a 2009 constitutional amendment allowing him to seek yet another presidential term, and he won re-election in October 2012. Venezuela has Latin America’s highest inflation rate (currently nearly 30 percent); chronic electricity, food, and housing shortages; and skyrocketing crime rates.

The judiciary is dysfunctional and completely controlled by the executive. Politically inconvenient contracts are abrogated, and the legal system discriminates against or in favor of investors from certain foreign countries. The government expropriates land and other private holdings across the economy arbitrarily and without compensation. Corruption, exacerbated by cronyism and

They didn't think they could hit apple's price point for the original iphone, but they were wrong. They could have met that price point.

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/05/paul-otellinis-intel-can-the-company-that-built-the-future-survive-it/275825/

As the Gay Population is probably between 3%-10% I doubt that make it a major factor.

Americans Have No Idea How Few Gay People There Are

In surveys conducted in 2002 and 2011, pollsters at Gallup found that members of the American public massively overestimated how many people are gay or lesbian. In 2002, a quarter of those surveyed guessed upwards of a quarter of Americans were gay or lesbian (or "homosexual," the third option given). By 2011, that misperception had only grown, with more than a third of those surveyed now guessing that more than 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian. Women and young adults were most likely to provide high estimates, approximating that 30 percent of the population is gay. Overall, "U.S. adults, on average, estimate that 25 percent of Americans are gay or lesbian," Gallup found. Only 4 percent of all those surveyed in 2011 and about 8 percent of those surveyed in 2002 correctly guessed that fewer than 5 percent of Americans identify as gay or lesbian.

Gallup survey claims 3.4 percent in U.S. are LGBT
Study sees gays as 1.7 percent of population (US)
1.5% of Britons say they are gay or bisexual, ONS survey finds

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/05/europes-record-youth-unemployment-the-scariest-graph-in-the-world-just-got-scarier/276423/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/youth-unemployment-rate

http://now.msn.com/youth-unemployment-rate-twice-that-of-any-other-age-group

Perhaps you are not looking in the right place.

Because as it stands, even after today, it's not fair.

Its even less fair than it was before today...

Just figured I'd point that out, because the bullshit phrasing of "equal rights" that the homosexual lobby uses is as I said, bullshit. They want to be included in the "special rights" group, and adding more to that group would only bring us closer to equality if that group consisted of 50% or more of the people already, but its less than 50%, and the cost if being single is significant.

And what has he done for the black community that even comes close to approaching the gifts he's given to the overwhelmingly white upper class? Electing an Uncle Tom does not prove that there is no institutional racism. The truth of the matter is that Obama's presidency is nothing more than a means of getting black people to support policies that harm black people.

To enlighten you, here's a few articles discussing just how little Obama has done for his most dedicated supporters.

And yes, there's the argument that he is the "president of all Americans, not just African Americans". Which is very true. But the right way to help Americans is to help those who need it the most.

There's no right answer here.

You're more likely to be killed by you fucking living room couch falling on you than from a terrorist attack. The "right answer" is to stop cowering under your bed any time a corrupt authoritarian yells "Boo", whichever party he's from.

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/americans-are-as-likely-to-be-killed-by-their-own-furniture-as-by-terrorism/258156/

You drink wine with added sugar? And sweeten your tea? Jeez. Maybe you think Jamie Oliver is a good cook, too? Again, for your benefit, double blind tests prove that people can't even tell white wine from red wine if they look the same. Yes, that includes you, too.

Wine can be sweet without ADDED sugar, just from natural sugar residues. So much for you knowledge regarding wine.

On the other hand. a blind test between red and white whine should be easy as pie as white wine is served chilled. :-P

But seriously, the results of this experiment of course varies with the wines you use. I know of at least one red wine (Trollinger) that is supposed to taste almost like a white wine (and should also be served a bit chilled). But if you have a little bit of practice, it shouldn't be hard if you use *typical* red and white wines.

On the other hand: a lot has changed in the wine market during the last 15 years. (at least over here) Around that time, some wine critics discovered that the most famous El Cheapo Supermarket (Aldi) secretly decided to act as a price breaker and offered wines with an amazingly great price/quality ratio. They didn't take their 2 Eur Chateu Hobo out of their shelves, but added good wine in the 5-8 EUR range. And good wine with such agressive pricing was unheard of.

In addition, the production of wine has been industrialised (Nappa Valley, I'm looking in your direction!) and new technologies (chipping or using destillation to reduce alcohol concentration) made it easier to produce cheap wine at greater volume and (even more important) constant quality.

So the key point of that linked article is: Good wine doesn't need to be expensive anymore. And objective metrics never made more that 50% of perceived wine quality anyways. The rest was always personal taste and a taste according to the expectations set by the type of wine.

So it's a quite common trick to foil wine buffs by good, non-expensive wine. And in the upper price regions, you get more unique tastes. But with the more "unique" a taste is, you'll find more people who simply don't like it.

It's the same with Budweiser. If you serve something without any taste, you'll hardly find anyone who doesn't like the taste of it. Simply there is no taste to dislike. Serve something with a distinctive taste, and people will be split between "yummy" and "ewww... what's THIS!"

You drink wine with added sugar? And sweeten your tea? Jeez. Maybe you think Jamie Oliver is a good cook, too? Again, for your benefit, double blind tests prove that people can't even tell white wine from red wine if they look the same. Yes, that includes you, too.

That is a totally appropriate example for a wine buff. It is a poor analogy for everyone else. First, it is unclear what are we comparing here. The concert hall, the work itself or the performance? Make up your mind, because you're not qualified to speak of at least two of these.

Still, unlike "wine tasting", which is totally arbitrary, there are some objective criteria by which we can judge all three.

Admittedly, the work itself is hardest to judge, as it depends most of all on the "taste" of the listener. The proliferation of auto-tuned performances with compressed sound kinda underscores the point. Maybe Salieri is good for someone.

The performance can be compared by objective criteria -- how well the musicians know the score, how good they are technically, etc. etc. After a point, when issues of "style" and "taste" come to play, it is the same as wine.

The concert halls are easier to compare, at least in terms of acoustics. They were probably built to objective criteria.

Fortunately, popular opinion does not decide what the truth is. What am I in the minority of in human history, anyway? If we're looking at all humans who have ever lived, no religion can claim to be a majority. Even within large, organized religions that rally together under a single label, there is considerable disagreement over what happens to a person after death. There has never been a majority consensus on the subject.

Also, you may change your mind when you are actually faced with death. Many people who believe like you very much think about it when death actually is imminent.

No, that's unlikely and also not true.
Here's some reading material.
I'll give you the short version: facing death typically only reinforces somebody's existing beliefs. Also, even if somebody does change their beliefs when they are scared and irrational, that does not mean their previous beliefs are wrong -- people frequently make poor decisions when scared and irrational. Also, you're really just reiterating the old "no atheists in foxholes" statement, which is insulting, condescending, and false.

in its shelters. "In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them."

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

I fail to see any regret in their actions of 2011, since they continued in 2012: http://www.vi.virginia.gov/vdacs_ar/cgi-bin/Vdacs_search.cgi?link_select=facility&form=fac_select&fac_num=157&year=2012

in its shelters. "In 2011, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) behaved in a regrettably consistent manner: it euthanized the overwhelming majority of dogs and cats that it accepted into its shelters. Out of 760 dogs impounded, they killed 713, arranged for 19 to be adopted, and farmed out 36 to other shelters (not necessarily "no kill" ones). As for cats, they impounded 1,211, euthanized 1,198, transferred eight, and found homes for a grand total of five. PETA also took in 58 other companion animals -- including rabbits. It killed 54 of them."

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/03/petas-terrible-horrible-no-good-very-bad-history-of-killing-animals/254130/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-j-winograd/peta-kills-puppies-kittens_b_2979220.html

as an owner myself, don't fool yourself about the NRA

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/12/whom-does-the-nra-really-speak-for/266373/
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16324652

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/

It doesn't take a lot of googling to find longer periods. Has it looked different hundreds of thousands of years ago? YES. YES IT HAS. Has it ever changed so rapidly?

Quick question to you (and don't use a search engine to try an answer) ... what are the five most common gasses in the atmosphere, and what are their concentrations? Can you answer that? I'll give you N2 and 02, but what about the next three? Be honest with yourself. Did you google it? I've found that most AGW deniers can't even name the first two, which shows a complete lack of ignorance on the subject beyond what they've learned from their filtered media outlets. Without facts, reasoned debate on the subject is impossible. At this point, I'm sure you've used your favorite search engine to look around. Now, what is the most abundant greenhouse gas? What is its concentration in the atmosphere? How much has that increased since the industrial revolution began?

An American is more likely to be killed by a car than by a terrorist, and yet for some reason the US spends countless billions of dollars trying to stop terrorism.

Cars? Heck, bathtubs and home furniture are a greater risk to Americans than terrorism.

Perhaps the psychological factors are important, and indescriminately targetting civilians with military hardware is not as harmless as you seem to think?

Not really, when you look at the real underlying motivations. In Israel, it's to forestall any real peace process because any real peace would involve them returning illegal settlements. In America, the underlying motivation is profit. Those porno scanners and hellfire-equipped drones make someone a pretty penny.

That someone just isn't you or me.

Huh? Are you talking about this? I'm sure they'll retrieve the black boxes and figure it out. This is a fully modern aircraft that crashed on land.

Maybe the pilot was a Muzzy

Huh? Are you talking about this? I'm sure they'll retrieve the black boxes and figure it out. This is a fully modern aircraft that crashed on land.

"most oil nations are so corrupt that social scientists argue over whether there is an inherent bondâ"a âoeresource curseââ"between big petroleum deposits and political malfeasance" link

That's because the 'democratic' west have made it their business to keep these countries corrupt, so as to maintain control of the OIL.

The Secret of the Seven Sisters

The reason all of my comments were just moded down in a single day (to take down my 'karma' to prevent me from commenting) is the same reason that USA jails a man for 25 years by entrapping him in a drug deal.

It is all about the size of government in USA, there are too many people who are pro-government, pro-theft and pro-oppression and against individualism, against humanism, against capitalism, against freedom as a general principle. That's because they are part of the system, part of the problem.

When you need the stuff bad enough, pretty much anything goes. http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/02/diy-weapons-of-the-syrian-rebels/100461/

And pollution.

Pollution