Slashdot Mirror

The USPS wouldn't actually be in the red if it weren't for the stupid rules congress imposed on them a few years back where they are the only federal entity that has to have 100% retirement funds paid for (my understanding is the industry standards are 10-15% funded) In fact they were doing fairly well until the change.

You understand correctly. From USPS Healthcare Expenses (and other sources):

Since 2006, the Post Office has been legally required (by Congress) to pre-fund health benefits for future retirees (for the next 75 years) at a cost of around $5.5 billion a year.

Time Magazine and a few other places have picked up on one researcher's results.

Some music groups have switched to Pay What You Want for a digital copy (mp3 download) of their album.

I bet they will have much more money than with any other distribution model.

For example, Psygnosis band started with this model, along with other merch and bonuses for those who want extra.

Even if I'm not a big fan, I paid a whooping 8€ for their album, digital copy, because I was happy to have it DRM free, and to be trusted by the band which feels confident that their listeners will pay a fair price.

All this money goes to the band, this is at least three times what they could get with physical sales.

I'm fairly sure Thom Yorke knows all about pay what you want, and How much he's likely to make

Forget MRI scanners. This issue is *everywhere* in healthcare. Read the Bitter Pill article in Time: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html

Don't forget : Prescott stole Geronimo's skull, the source of all his family's power, thereby allowing them to break Tecumseh's Curse!

I bet you think I'm making a joke...

OK, now you're just sounding stupid

Sometimes when something sounds stupid to you it means that you are the one that is uninformed.

Fareed Zakaria GPS : Last Look: Russia's Rehabilitation of Stalin
Rehabilitating Joseph Stalin

revealing what was already there before imbibing.

So is it being sober that changes people's personalities?

I don't think either side in this discussion has presented any evidence one way or the other. Saying "I feel it is thus" is not evidence, for either camp. I googled a bit, and found these links, but I accept that they don't constitute evidence by themselves either;

http://healthland.time.com/2013/01/04/our-personalities-are-constantly-changing-even-if-we-think-theyre-not/
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/releases/weight-gain-linked-with-personality-trait-changes.html

Part of the issue may be defining what 'personality' really means. Is there any basis to make a declaration that we all possess an unchanging and unchangeable personality, that we are always the same as we were yesterday? And if we do change, then surely at least some of those changes must be driven by triggers other than whatever happens between our ears?

Currently their are organ transplants upon which a donor would depend on if alive. There is little evidence that anyone is currently murdered for their heart for the wealthy. Although, there is also evidence that the wealthy do get put high on the list of organs. Some of this is due to the wealthy being able to go where the list is short and being able to file a mountain of paperwork.

It's also important to think about this coupled with other technology. It's been 12 years since scientist made headless mice It's conceivable that headless clones of people could be grown. They would probably need to be grown ahead of time though. Might be more effective to just make different models of bodies for people to choose from rather than each individual person getting their own body back.

Absolutely agree. But I think this article is hinting at a bigger problem. Time Magazine did an interesting article that analyses the upcoming generation and there is some truth in the analysis. (Cue flame war in 3... 2... 1..). But the key here is the analysis on the view of authority and the introspective narcissism that is much more prevalent. These factor in when we consider things like cell phones on in the theater.

I am also friends with a number of high school teachers and they echo the issues raised in the Time Article.

Obama's current->plan() || current->legislation() Face(s) Long Fight

Everything from gun legislation after massive shooting sprees to just keeping the government fucking running has been next to impossible for this guy. Instead, you can thank the party of no for making sure we reaffirm 'in god we trust' and try to repeal healthcare reform 33 times. because thats way more important.

Let's see. With Apple, you can target 100% of 17% = 17% of phone buyers, whereas with Android you can target 75% of 75% = 56% of phone buyers.

http://techland.time.com/2013/04/16/ios-vs-android/

iOS users spend 3.5x as much on apps as Android users....

And iOS users are on average more affluent....

http://techcrunch.com/2012/09/26/forrester-iphone-app-users-young-and-wealthy-android-app-users-skew-older/

Hell, it's even a higher chance of getting struck by lightning than getting killed by a terrorist...

Chance of getting struck by lightning in a year 1 in 1000000 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_strike )
Chance of getting killed by a terrorist 1 in 20000000 ( http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/06/chances-of-dying-in-a-terrorist-attack-number/ )

Some more statistics on helthcare-risks http://www.washingtonsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/CDC-Mortality-CHart.jpg

http://terrorism.about.com/od/issuestrends/a/EconomicImpact.htm :

The US alone now spends about US $500 billion annually--20 percent of the US federal budget--on departments directly engaged in combating or preventing terrorism, most notably Defense and Homeland Security. The Defense budget increased by one-third, or over $100 billion, from 2001 to 2003 in response to the heightened sense of the threat of terrorism – an increase equivalent to 0.7 per cent of US GDP. Expenditures on defense and security are essential for any nation, but of course they also come with an opportunity cost; those resources are not available for other purposes, from spending on health and education to reductions in taxes. A higher risk of terrorism, and the need to combat it, simply raises that opportunity cost.

Estimated cost of NSA per year ~$4 Billion
Amount spent on cancer research by US goverment per year ~$5.6 Billion ( http://report.nih.gov/categorical_spending.aspx )
Amount needed to end world hunger ~$30 Billion per year.
Amount needed for universal healthcare in the US ~$200 Billion ( http://truecostblog.com/2009/05/13/how-much-would-universal-healthcare-cost/ )

You Tories look down on Libertarians like feudal lords used to look down on democrats.

The USA is about the only country in the world which insists on taxing its citizens who are normally resident in another country. And if you renounce your citizenship, you are deemed to have done so for tax reasons, and have to pay an exit tax on all your assets.

Free to go? Not so much. You are an economic hostage.

http://world.time.com/2013/01/31/mister-taxman-why-some-americans-working-abroad-are-ditching-their-citizenships/

I'm afraid that without the unpleasant consequences of martyrdom the standard social inertia cannot be overcome. It is the brutality of the oppression of the martyr that incites the rebellion, not his call for social change. The martyr accepts that he's going to be oppressed and acts for change anyway. That is what makes martyrs special. We had this need long before the time of Jesus and I don't expect an end to it in my lifetime.

The law is wrong and needs to be changed. He did, in fact, break the law: he divulged state secrets entrusted to him under threat of severe penalty for disclosure. I believe he did the right thing, but it was still illegal. If you have strong moral convictions but not the will to expose yourself to punishment you should avoid this situation because the internal conflict between your will to do the right thing and your fear of punishment can drive you insane. In that case you are not martyr material.

Since this is the NSA he had to know they would find him - that's what they do. By outing himself he probably avoids some extrajudicial retirement. Nobody from here out is going to believe he locked himself in a duffel bag, or died of autoerotic asphyxiation, or overdosed on bath salts.

I'm not saying that he should be punished - only that he will. They'll get Julian Assange one day too, even if his punishment is to be hunted to the end of his days. By dragging it out so long that the defiant act becomes disassociated in the public mind with the tyrannical punishment the authorities may be doing themselves a favor and blunting the rebellion. But eventually Caesar gets what is Caesars until Caesar is no more.

Anyway, what do you care? By your own account you fled. You should probably fix or prevent the problems in your new home wherever it is. All politics are local. If things get too tough in your new home you can always find another one more to your liking. People who flee tyranny also do not martyrs make. Fleeing tyranny is for most the wisest course until there is no place to turn. If you've go the wit and will to make it anywhere and lack anchors like family and tradition, going to where the field is ripe with berries and the wolves are more like dachsunds is just smart. Win wherever you are! If things are going like you think our generation's version of the underground railroad is going to need another end. By building up resources to shelter refugees you can be that end. That seems to be a role you're more suited to than taking up arms against the tyrant.

Certainly if you intend to act, this is not the place to say so.

The disclosure is about what's being done. Want details? Lots of people here can provide details on how it can be done.

Not can be done, but is being done. Opinions are a dime a dozen, it is the facts of the matter that are important.

So maybe the have to meet in person. The park is a traditional spot.

Doesn't scale well for moving data from Pakistan or Yemen to the US.

Yes, sufficient detail to stop the attacks would have required required FBI headquarters to read the emails from their field offices.

That doesn't actually change my point. And for what it is worth, the CIA had data that the FBI needed.

Statistically speaking, you're an idiot if you play the lottery. Any mathematician will tell you not to do it

Source? I play the lottery in ONE circumstance and I doubt it can be refuted... based on my motivations. On the big, big jackpots where many coworkers pool their money and buy tickets, I always join in. NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT because my odds of winning are any more. Rather, I'm trying to avoid the worse-case scenario where by all the people that used to work for/with me can now buy and sell the company and *I* can't. If I win, I'll be in a much better position to share in their happiness. As for the $20 it may cost in a year (for as rare as it happens), I spend much much MUCH more in goodwill purchases of girl scout cookies and other stuff they enagage in (walks, other charity buy things). I don't care that I can buy that crap at a third of the price. I care about supporting their endeavors since they work the asses off.

What the fuck would "any mathematician" say about that? You won't know because you're so stupid.

Also, your "any mathematician" is such total fucking STUPID bullshit.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/07/how-mit-students-scammed-the-massachusetts-lottery-for-8-million/

There are actually large empty towns in China because the wealth is actually disproportionate there and there are rich people who own property just because that is the only way to gain wealth. Money gets taken. But they can have their empty towns. Communism fail.

https://www.google.com/search?q=empty+chinese+towns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=rnmxUbHtDbGg4AOM7IHABA&ved=0CCoQsAQ&biw=1201&bih=814

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1975397_2094492,00.html

http://www.news.com.au/business/china-building-mega-cities-but-they-remain-empty-sparking-fears-of-housing-bubble-burst/story-e6frfm1i-1226611169281

So you guys might not have to worry. People may never inhabit this structure. It might be purely for vanity.

Mar 2011: "Tokyo Electric, the owners of the plant, said five workers had been killed at the site, two were missing and 21 had been injured." link

Apr 2011: "On March 24, three workers at the Fukushima nuclear power plant were exposed accidentally to high localised radiation while standing in contaminated water". link

Jul 2011: "A newly released document says the Japanese government estimated in April that some 1600 workers will be exposed to high levels of radiation in the course of handling the reactor meltdowns at the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant". link

Dec 2011: "Masao Yoshida, who led the fight to bring Japanâ(TM)s crippled Fukushima nuclear station under control, steps down tomorrow for medical treatment after almost nine months directing the disaster response from inside the plant". link

Dec 2012: "Dozens of workers received potentially cancerous doses of radiation to their thyroid glands during recovery work at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, according to data submitted to the World Health Organization. link

July 2012: "An executive at construction firm Build-Up in December told about 10 of its workers to cover their dosimeters, used to measure cumulative radiation exposure, with lead casings when working in areas with high radiation, the Asahi Shimbun newspaper and other media said." link

July 2012: "Japanese officials are investigating whether workers cleaning up in the wake of the Fukushima nuclear disaster were pushed to shield their radiation meters so they could keep working for longer on the contaminated plant". link

> - OSX - anybody who tells you that this is somehow a better working environment than ms windows honestly is just lying.

Quit trolling. Do you even _use_ OSX on a daily basis?

I've been using computers since the early 80s and have used a ton of OSes: Apple DOS 3.3, Apple ProDos, DOS 2.x - 6.x, Win3.1 .. Win8 (inclusive), Irix, BeOS. For the past 2 years I've been using OSX as part of my day job.

My thoughts based on _experience_: As a power user OSX is pretty darn good. You can Alt-Tab into & out-of games all day long without _any_ hiccups. On Windows alt-tabbing back INTO the game almost always forces a 1 or 2 second hiccup. The way Windows manages devices & scheduler in Windows is wonky.

+ The UI is good. Clean and (mostly) well designed (although Apple appears to be making more and more bone-headed decisions lately.) The 4 hot-corners of the desktop (Expose) is fantastic. Borders are only 1 pixel thick in OSX in contrast to the fugly 8 pixel width on Win 8. OS also has the advantage that MS Office shows the menu bar ALONG with the stupid ribbon.

+ On the MBP the trackpad blows away any Windows laptop I've tried.

+ BSD under the hood which makes porting to Linux helluva a lot easier for command line apps. XCode is a decent IDE.

- OSX Virtual Memory still stinks (I've been able to completely hard-lock OSX once about every 6 months) on 10.6 and 10.7.

- GPUs have always sucked on the MacBook. TF2 with everything turned down and barely able to get 20+ fps on a 3 yr old 17" MBP.

= When needed the majority run Windows in a VM (Parallels) and we have a few dedicated Windows boxes. A lot of developers (~20) also run Linus inside a VM (VMWare or VirtualBox) (no Plus nor Neg, equal = tie)

We have an office of ~70 people who use OSX on a daily basis and would also basically agree you are completely talking out of your ass. So yes, OSX is _good_ enough for daily use.

Besides, Linux _already_ won on the mobile space.
http://techland.time.com/2013/04/16/ios-vs-android/

Here you go. It came up about 2 years ago now - http://healthland.time.com/2011/06/30/did-airport-scanners-give-boston-tsa-agents-cancer/

I'm not expecting a "major technological breakthrough" either; whether adoption is "anytime soon" is a matter of definition of "soon."

I figure 'soon' equates to 'when someone like my mom would buy one.' which means it has to be good for daily driving and the occasional 400-mile road trip to visit family across the state.

today's "daily commute only, no long road trips" range cars

Which cars are those? All the models I know of are capable of both (granted, due greatly in part to existing gasoline-based infrastructure). Anyway, a gasoline ForTwo can theoretically go from KC to STL on a single tank (71 MPG, 8.7 gal tank), whereas the electric model (84 mi on a full charge) would have to be charged at least 3 times one way, at 8 hours per charge.

will, in a decade or two, be up to the full range of gas vehicles.

"A decade or two" is a long friggin' time. Who knows what we'll come up with between now and then? (P.S. this is why I think futurists, AKA self-proclaimed oracles, are idiots).

Over the same time period, suitable infrastructure will get gradually rolled out into place.

Right... and in the 1960's, they were convinced that 20 years in the future we'd all have jetpacks and live on space colonies. Pure speculation, then and now.

By the way, do you have any reference about battery production --- for the types going into current and near future electric cars --- being "insanely polluting," comparable to the insane level of pollution released over the lifetime of a gasoline car? I've seen various FUD articles trying to "prove" points like that, but nothing that actually stands up to much scrutiny.

Funny, in my research I saw the opposite - various articles that tried to downplay the fact that hybrids and EVs pollute as much if not more than their gasoline or diesel counterparts. C'est la vie, eh, mon frere?

Anyway, here are some links:

http://www.auto123.com/en/news/hybrid-and-ev-production-pollutes-more-than-gas-cars-but?artid=132278

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/04/electric-cars-may-pollute-more-than-gas-models-study.html

http://healthland.time.com/2012/02/14/why-electric-cars-are-more-polluting-than-gas-guzzlers-at-least-in-china/

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/does-hybrid-car-production-waste-offset-hybrid-benefits1.htm

Cheers.

"Anonymous coward" or not, you sir/madame have just done the internet a great service. More GoG is always good, even Time magazine thinks so! Proof: http://techland.time.com/2013/05/06/50-best-websites-2013/slide/gog-com/

There is also plenty of upaward mobility in the US if you are willing to sacrifice and work for it.

No, no there isn't. only 1.3% of those born into the poorest 10% managing to âoestruggle upwardâ into the top 10%, while nearly one third of those born into the top 10% are able to hold on to their class position. Hard work is the least effective way to get ahead in America. Being put into right womb by the right penis and coming out of the right vagina is the best predictor of success, and it's not because of inheritance of genetic traits.

I actually feel like this is the best time for intelligent people to be alive.

Probably true. That doesn't mean that it couldn't be much better.

It didn't seem to work for me so I went to http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12 and then was able to browse to the article.

Here's the actual link see if it works if you have issues http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12/facebook-comments/

So you ride the short bus, eventually figured something out, and want to deprive your fellow "special" types of the same opportunity.

It didn't seem to work for me so I went to http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12 and then was able to browse to the article.

Here's the actual link see if it works if you have issues http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12/facebook-comments/

So you ride the short bus, eventually figured something out, and want to deprive your fellow "special" types of the same opportunity.

It didn't seem to work for me so I went to http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12 and then was able to browse to the article.

Here's the actual link see if it works if you have issues http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12/facebook-comments/

It didn't seem to work for me so I went to http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12 and then was able to browse to the article.

Here's the actual link see if it works if you have issues http://techland.time.com/2013/05/12/facebook-comments/

I'm going to call bullshit on your entire post unless you can provide citations for each of your specific points:

Who the fuck are you?

In any case, just for laughs, I went and found a citation. Less than 1.3% of the top 10% got there due to hard work. Now imagine what percentage of the top 1% this applies to. Snicker snort.

that nearly no one in American government has ever worked for a living

The complete quote is "Nearly no one in American government (at least, at any significant level) has ever really worked for a living." You doubt that the majority of politicians have never had a job that required sweat? Also, since you're so free with placing conditions, I will call bullshit on your entire comment if you attempt to cite any job which a politician could fail upwards from, because those jobs don't count.

I doubt you'll be able to provide any supporting information for your claims

But there it is, and I found it with google. Ironically, when I search for "successful people did not get there because of hard work" most of the first page of results are links to a bunch of essays by kids asserting that hard work is the most important factor, and that luck is unimportant, in spite of the simple fact that the opposite is true, and whose vagina you came out of is what matters most, because your social class is one of the most important elements of "luck" which defines success. Which makes me wonder if Google is just being gamed hard again, losing the arms race against SEO dickwads, or if they want people to believe that hard work matters.

No, it was not a mandatory lockdown.

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/was-boston-actually-on-lockdown/

Vegas wasn't like the 50 years ago. try 70.

You sure?

From the article "Las Vegas was a gold mine for the Mafia from 1963 to 1966."

Lyman Filament Extruder II:

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:34653

http://techland.time.com/2013/03/04/how-an-83-year-old-inventor-beat-the-high-cost-of-3d-printing/

A longer-term goal is developing optical telescopes that could resolve the planet directly. More tantalizing still would be sending a space probe out for an in-person visit — and it’s not entirely crazy to think it could happen, though it would take some patience. “With current technology,” said Loughlin, “it would take 40,000 years to get there. Given our propensity for instant gratification, that’s not really in the cards.”

Source

Build a ship that can last 40,000 years.

I don't know what tablet/phone you have, but Kobo has both Android and iPhone apps.
Of course the greatest selling point they have is that they are not Amazon. That whole employing Neo-Nazis to police their slave labour / fucking over third party sellers / software patents thing makes me want to spend as little money as possible in their store.

From Time Magazine:

Nor did they address the most powerful critique of their research, namely the issue of causation. As Paul Krugman points out, we know that Japan’s high debt levels are the result of slow growth caused by a financial crisis, not the other way around. In addition, the research can’t explain why the United Kingdom grew so quickly after World War Two, despite high debt levels.

Yes, they were harsh, no, they didn't impede growth,

Parent apparently didn't read the article, where it said, amongst other things, "politics and ghastly bureaucracies have thwarted efforts to adopt offshore wind farms in the US," "While the US is still waiting for its first offshore wind farm, much of the developed world has already," "everything from 'visual pollution' to the 'desecration of Indian burial grounds' have been thrown at Cape Wind"... Yeah. Sure sounds like money is the problem there.

But since you don't know where to start "with all the money dumped into failed energy projects", here is as good a place as any. "According to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuels received $409 billion in subsidies globally in 2010, compared with $66 billion for renewable power." So how come a mature and developed industry needs six TIMES the amount of subsidies that research and development does? Is fossil fuel not profitable or something?

If we want to talk about wasting money on "failed energy projects", I can think of no better example than our wasteful spending on fossil fuel subsidies. Probably not what you had in mind though when you made your off the cuff remark though, eh?

First of all, a system where people profit off of people being sick will tend to encourage keeping people sick. Why would it work any other way? At the very least, it seems to profit off of doing tests that aren't necessary and charging exorbitant multipliers on cheap items. If you haven't read it already, go read the Time article on the state of costs in the US healthcare system: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2136864,00.html

It's notable that there's actually a new profession for people that analyse the bills line-by-line to figure out what hospitals are triple-billing for (i.e., things that should be included in, say, room costs, are showing up as separate line items) and where the markups of three or four-HUNDRED percent are unnecessary.

And what will REALLY make them shit their pants is when they all switch...and nobody shows up.

The process of them shitting their pants has already begun.

The sad part of it is that they still don't get it - they think that they can solve it by bringing it to iDevices and such, without changing the basic subscription model of cable.

Oh boy, what rubbish. Let's address some of your points:

1. You failed to show a correlation between drug prohibition and incarceration. Do we have substantially more people in jail *because* of the war on drugs? If so, prove it.

2. It doesn't matter that everyone consumes drugs at the same level (to be proven, where is your source?). What matters is who deals and distributors said drugs. I highly doubt that as many white people distribute drugs as other ethnic groups and it makes perfect sense to dish out longer jail time to distributors than users. So what are you really complaining about here?

3. There is a reduction (on a gross-level, not net), but the population is increasing and drug distributors are better funded than people enforcing the law. Are you implying that ineffective drug enforcement means we should give up altogether? Sex trade and child labor is on the rise too, should we stop trying to curb those crimes too?

4. I'm not going to argue for/against this.

5. I'm sure terrorism had nothing to do with it. The world is changing my friend, drugs are only part of the problem.

6. I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The DEA and main police force are separate beats. I trust my local police force just fine, thank you very much.

7. Last time I checked, drug use was illegal (and enforced as such) in most countries around the world, so I have no idea what you're referring to.

8. Poor logic. Again, should we legalize all form of criminal acts for fear of what the black market will do? Laws exist for morale reasons. Selling drugs is like selling Alcohol to a known Alcoholic. It is highly addictive and prays on people's weakness.

9. Many people experiment, but most move on and hold nothing but respect for law enforcement. Most people don't smoke pot and do crack through the rest of their life.

10. That's a problem that affects all felons. Where do you draw the line? Shouldn't we try to improve the life of *all* felons? Why the focus on drug felons alone?

Obviously you failed to watch the debate.

1. 50% of the Federal inmates, 25% of state inmates for drug offenses: http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs

2. You're just being racist.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/07/study-whites-more-likely-to-abuse-drugs-than-blacks/
http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/06/19/race-drugs-and-law-enforcement-united-states#_Part_I:_Race

A recent study in Seattle is illustrative. Although the majority of those who shared, sold, or transferred serious drugs[17] in Seattle are white (indeed seventy percent of the general Seattle population is white), almost two-thirds (64.2%) of drug arrestees are black.

3. I don't even understand you're point in the first sentence. It's totally incoherent. The second, about the sex trade, completely misses the point because the number of people who use prostitutes is vastly smaller than those who use drugs. The drug war is like outlawing french fries -- sure, they make you fat but so many people use them, it's pointless to push against the tide. The same cannot be said about prostitution. If we ever get to the point that is the case, then we can address that -- right now, it's just off topic. A diversion.

5. As Greenwald pointed out in his debate, the egregious civil liberties violations of the last decade, first took root in the drug war.

6. Google "drug war militarization of the police force" and pick an article: https://www.google.com/search?q=drug+war+militarization+of+the+police+force

7. Again, you totally didn't watch the debate

They started buying it up in 2005 or before, when all the long distance telecoms were going belly up and they could get it for pennies on the dollar of the installation cost. They have also been buying Peering points. This is not just in the US, but globally. In 2010 they were rumored to have more network than all but two global ISPs, and there is reason to believe that estimate was way low.

The point of these purchases was to get out ahead of a deep pocket competitor (guess who) who might try and lock them out of the Internet, drive up their transport costs or otherwise "cut off their air supply". It was defensive insurance, but they use it to keep their network costs down, investing in hardware technologies in-house to the point where nobody moves bits cheaper than Google. They have been wondering what to do with the excess for a long time, since bandwidth of this fiber has increased at a logarithmic rate due to progress in signalling technology and is now many hundreds or thousands of times Google's own considerable needs.

it's nauseating how one of the smartest demographics on the web degenerate into 'they take our jobs' types on this matter. required reading http://business.time.com/2013/01/30/the-economics-of-immigration-who-wins-who-loses-and-why/

this is one slashdot discussion that i wont benefit from!

4chan (specifically /v/) hates EA enough that they rallied their extremely large amount of users into voting for EA in this, and knowing 4chan I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are using proxies and similar stuff to register even more votes for EA. And of course we already know that they have no problem with significantly influencing polls.

The decision that "privacy is dead" happened over a decade ago. Or, do you not remember Scott McNealy, former chairman of Sun Microsystems, who in 1999 said, "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." And the observation by Oracle CEO Larry Ellison: "The privacy you're concerned about is largely an illusion. All you have to give up is your illusions, not any of your privacy." ??

Privacy gets in the way of money, and money is a means of attaining and exercising power. Throw in the alarming statistic about CEO psychopaths, and you have what ails our world today.

Government has no incentive whatsoever to intervene here, because they also directly profit from stomping on privacy. Look at this editorial for instance. Unless the politicos are themselves harmed by the loss of privacy, they have no incentive to protect it, and every reason to trample all over it instead.

The cleary proscribed solution to this problem is to exploit the fuck out of this surveylance society they are working oh so hard to make, and put THEM under the spotlight. It is the only way to get the retractions on positions and rulings required to halt the slide downhill. The leaders are only concerned with themselves, as is true of all psychopaths. You have to make them feel the fires too to get them motivated to do what is right, and they will bitch mightily about it the whole time.

Amusingly, that's what orgs like wikileaks aimed to do. We saw how that's worked for the likes of Assange. (Yes, he is the very definition of douche, but a douche that exposed a lot of dirty dealing, and pissed in a lot of cheerios, which is exactly what was needed, and is still desperately needed.)

Nobody with a soul and any understanding whatsoever denies the devastation that caustic drugs (EG: Meth, Krocodil) can cause. What should be vigorously debated is the actual effectiveness of making drugs illegal.

Hey, the point is to reduce deleterious use of drugs, not just to make them illegal, which doesn't necessarily solve the problem.

Portugal has given us an example that holds our current strategy out in sharp relief. The New York Times weighs in, as well as Forbes Magazine and Wikipedia

Do you care to show me the studies that show how criminalizing drugs consistently cause a reduction in abuse?

What are you, a worthless DEA shill?

After five years:.

"Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well.

After ten years:

"There is no doubt that the phenomenon of addiction is in decline in Portugal," said Joao Goulao, President of the Institute of Drugs and Drugs Addiction, a press conference to mark the 10th anniversary of the law.

The number of addicts considered "problematic" -- those who repeatedly use "hard" drugs and intravenous users -- had fallen by half since the early 1990s, when the figure was estimated at around 100,000 people, Goulao said.

Portugal's holistic approach had also led to a "spectacular" reduction in the number of infections among intravenous users and a significant drop in drug-related crimes, he added.

Now, NOVARTIS will start making generics.

Generic drugs made by third parties are sorely needed by non G8 nations across the world. Indian companies are the leaders in making generics....like Chinese companies in making electronics / hardware. The argument of multinationals pharma companies like NOVARTIS claims the high cost of R & D for inventing new drugs for keeping up the high price. This has been debunked by the report on TIME (and many other sources) which proved the same drug or treatments costs vary highly depending on who pays. And such costs are amortized from G8 nations itself. Also none of these companies are making any losses in their balance sheet whatsoever...what they demand is permanent 'rent seeking'.

Today's TIME has an OPED by their Delhi correspondent with grave warnings on future of Indian pharma - the type of warnings issued by World Bank / IMF / West on Developing countries - basically on the lines on "do as I say, not as I do". I guess NOVARTIS marketing droids called TIME headquarters and asked them to run a sympathetic piece. We are talking about a company with $54 billion sales and $9 billion plus profit in 2012! Imagine their power. And now imagine the 'purported losses' on a few drugs going out of patent in developing countries - it will be negligible at best.

There is no way any Indian - except for the 2-3% of the elite - can afford a $2600 ~ Rs 130000 / - cost for a month long treatment. This is a country with no health social safety net other than public medical colleges and affordable primary health care facilities and medicines. (Private Health Insurance is a new phenomenon, slowly catching on, the advantages and disadvantages we know...we have to look at USA.)

The only argument which can be made against Indian generics - "if you can't afford the drug, why don't you suffer the consequences". I guess even the most hard nosed penny pinching corporate drone is not THAT heartless.

Instead of fighting the generic manufacturers, NOVARTIS should create their own special generic versions and beat them on a price point. But the suits running the show looked at some powerpoint and decided, lets first fight, if we lose start making generics.

Now, NOVARTIS will start making generics.

Generic drugs made by third parties are sorely needed by non G8 nations across the world. Indian companies are the leaders in making generics....like Chinese companies in making electronics / hardware. The argument of multinationals pharma companies like NOVARTIS claims the high cost of R & D for inventing new drugs for keeping up the high price. This has been debunked by the report on TIME (and many other sources) which proved the same drug or treatments costs vary highly depending on who pays. And such costs are amortized from G8 nations itself. Also none of these companies are making any losses in their balance sheet whatsoever...what they demand is permanent 'rent seeking'.

Today's TIME has an OPED by their Delhi correspondent with grave warnings on future of Indian pharma - the type of warnings issued by World Bank / IMF / West on Developing countries - basically on the lines on "do as I say, not as I do". I guess NOVARTIS marketing droids called TIME headquarters and asked them to run a sympathetic piece. We are talking about a company with $54 billion sales and $9 billion plus profit in 2012! Imagine their power. And now imagine the 'purported losses' on a few drugs going out of patent in developing countries - it will be negligible at best.

There is no way any Indian - except for the 2-3% of the elite - can afford a $2600 ~ Rs 130000 / - cost for a month long treatment. This is a country with no health social safety net other than public medical colleges and affordable primary health care facilities and medicines. (Private Health Insurance is a new phenomenon, slowly catching on, the advantages and disadvantages we know...we have to look at USA.)

The only argument which can be made against Indian generics - "if you can't afford the drug, why don't you suffer the consequences". I guess even the most hard nosed penny pinching corporate drone is not THAT heartless.

Instead of fighting the generic manufacturers, NOVARTIS should create their own special generic versions and beat them on a price point. But the suits running the show looked at some powerpoint and decided, lets first fight, if we lose start making generics.

Protectionism is every bit of a "corporate" profit thing as it is a "union profit" thing. In fact, unions pushed for that much harder than any corporation did. That whole thing was all about saving jobs, and it had the result of taking away jobs elsewhere for the reason you just stated. They did the same with the sugar tariffs. Or this:

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1978963,00.html

Hey look at that, we're paying our tax dollars to brazilian farmers for giving us...nothing...

Actually though we are still the top manufacturing country in the world, just we could be doing a lot better if there weren't any tariffs. It's a bit of a shock when you tell people this when they are already under the assumption that the US doesn't manufacture anything any more. China makes a lot of junk like t-shirts and iphones. We make earth movers and jumbo jets.

Something you always need to take into consideration though is that labor rates figure into the cost of *everything* you buy. If you pay higher wages, then you are going to pay higher prices. If you pay higher prices, then how does having a higher minimum wage benefit you? It's just a wash. And we're not just talking imported goods either, look at food prices. I've done research on Australia because I'm looking at taking up a job there. Personally I don't take politics into consideration when I'm moving unless it affects my livelihood. If I always did that, hell I'd have nowhere to go.

The only political thing I'd have an issue with there is if I ever became a national, I'd be forced to vote. As it currently is, I think voting is mostly just a waste of time as I've found most voters don't actually give a shit about what they are voting for, they just want to see their side win as if it was a football game. The signal to noise is so bad that trying to get your message across is an act in futility, so there's really no point. I'd imagine that forcing them to vote probably amplifies the problem, but I have little experience with the average Australian voter.

The 'ink' isn't going to be a problem. Someone already thought of that as one of the things that might hold back 3D printing. There is a great article on it: http://techland.time.com/2013/03/04/how-an-83-year-old-inventor-beat-the-high-cost-of-3d-printing/

From the article:

"In May of 2012, the contest, dubbed the Desktop Factory Competition, debuted on iStart.org, a Kauffman-owned platform for entrepreneurial competitions. Sponsored by Inventables, Kauffman and the Maker Education Initiative, it offered $40,000 from Kauffman and hardware prizes such as a 3D printer from Inventables to the first person or team who submitted plans for an open-source device capable of turning plastic pellets into filament. The rules also mandated that the parts involved could cost no more than $250, priced at a 400-unit quantity."

....

"Buy a kilogram of pellets and make your own filament, and the cost goes down to $10. Buy 25 kilograms of pellets in bulk, and you can print the chess pieces for just $5."

"we pulled out of Iraq the day that Bush's plan had us leave Iraq"

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/

"but we have only left one war..."

Seriously? You need a link to prove that the U.S. military is still in a war in Afghanistan?

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/08/17239340-defense-chief-chuck-hagel-in-afghanistan-were-still-at-war?lite

Notice that they talk about a time-table for pulling out U.S. troops in 2014. This is 2013, which should clue you in that the troops are still there.

Do you really need a link to prove that Obama ordered a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan? Yes, he's Commander-In-Chief, and this was an undeclared war. Therefore, he could have ordered an immediate troop withdrawal on his first day in office.

Re: Iraq:

"decision to leave Iraq ...was not actually taken by President Obama â" it was taken by President George W. Bush, and by the Iraqi government."

http://world.time.com/2011/10/21/iraq-not-obama-called-time-on-the-u-s-troop-presence/#ixzz2OBQRZXos

As the other comment attempted to point out, the Iraqi government refused to sign a new Status Of Forces Agreement to extend the U.S. troop presence. As such, Obama was compelled to withdraw on the Bush timetable. I suppose the other option would have been to start a new war to overthrow the new government.