Slashdot Mirror

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1891465,00.html

Bravo. 2 minutes to post a link.
The editorial force is strong in this one.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1891465,00.html

Exactly. What other company do you know that got bailed out _twice_ ?

Chrysler. Ronald Reagan bailed out Chrysler.

Falcon

Actually, that was a different tax credit, the synfuels tax credit passed in the 1970s, not the new mixed-fuels tax credit.

So, pick your scenario:

1) The Congressmen who passed this new credit were ignorant of how the similar synfuels credit was exploited earlier this decade, despite broad publicity of the abuse (in, for example Time .
2) The Congressmen who passed this new credit were aware of how it could be abused, but were too incompetent to put in safeguards against abuse.
3) The Congressmen who passed this new credit were aware of how it could be abused, and intended it to be so abused.

I think it's much older than that. Some of the early 80s games had that, from what I remember.. and it was probably around earlier than that.

But I found an interesting link when googling for a citation of a different method to prevent copying, from the 70s..
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,911192,00.html

No but you might get one for bumping up Mootykins with a vote.

PUUUULLLEEEZE, let's not start making up usage statistics wildly.

I didn't "make up" anything. Almost every study I've ever read places the number of Americans who have tried pot in the 40% to 50% range. Here's a Time article that quotes a study saying the number is 42%.

The non-government-funded research my company performs continues to agree with this as well

Ah, so you have a vested interest in the war on civil liberties^W^Wdrugs, do you? Well, thanks for at least telling us you are probably biased.

On a similar note, what will Time do if Moot wins the #1 most influential person of the year?

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1883644_1886141,00.html

These guys have nothing on the auto industry, or did you miss the article in Time on Wednesday? Let me quote:

The wooden but plucky CEO of GM, Rick Wagoner, told the press that if his company is allowed to go into Chapter 11, it will end up being a simple liquidation. GM will be torn into pieces and sold off as scrap.

The title of the article is "General Motors Checkmates Obama in Two Moves".

Time for CTRL-ALT-DEL and restart it all.

Hey, maybe Rome is bringing back limbo like they are indulgences http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1881152,00.html?iid=perma_share

I do find it interesting that many private schools have an annual tuition that's less than the average amount we are paying per student for public schools and manage to turn out higher test scores and better educated/adjusted students.

Private schools produce better students? I'm not so sure about that. Can you find someone who has refuted the study referenced by either of these articles? They may refer to the same study, I can't tell.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670063,00.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/opinion/19wed2.html
I haven't done sufficient research to say for sure that private schools are not better, but I'm happy to send my children to public school when the time comes (my oldest is 2, so it's not all that far away).

Yeah, and Hamas is _totally_ capable of eradicating Israel. It's like a few native Americans stating they want to eradicate the US. Laughable.

Hamas is bigger than that. Is Palestine capable of eradicating Israel? Because the Hamas leader is more popular than current Palestinian president, and while the Hamas party isn't more popular that the Fatah party, Fatah isn't doing jack for the citizenry while Hamas is busy building clinics and kindergardens. In short, Hamas is set to assume leadership of Palestine and use the nation's resources against Israel.

(But this has nothing to do with Trident missles...)

First of all, let me thank you for acknowledging, that the hypocrisy I pointed out actually exists. Now let's go back to discussing, whether it is worth more of your concern...

if torrent files were used (and often times specifically designed) to murder other people.

The very first mistake in your reply is the use of the term "murder" instead of "kill". "Murder" is a crime, "killing" — not necessarily so. Guns are specifically designed to kill. That some of the killings end up being murders is the responsibility of the gun-users, not gun-makers.

Or such is the defense used by both the gun-manufacturers and The Pirate Bay.

The whole point of a legal system/justice dept. is to handle exceptional cases of law...

What?! Why is handling "exceptional cases of law" the "whole point" of a legal system? Of course it is not! A decent legal system is consistent in both its laws, and their application — in all (or most) cases, not just the spectacular heists you read about on front pages. That said, TPB with its flaunting is already an exceptional and spectacular case anyway.

Lastly, the jump between impacts of economic and violent crimes may be difficult to imagine, but there is a fairly-determinable cost of human life. And, although counted by "soul-less" bean-counters working for governments and insurance companies, it is based on what people themselves are willing to pay (as gauged by, say, consumers' willingness to spend on optional safety equipment like airbags). So, each $129K lost to copyright violations, is, according to Time-quoted Standford scientists, worth a year of human life (even more, according to insurers). And each $million lost is murder (not just "killing").

Time magazine recently had a very good article about this. It's spread across 4 pages, so here's the important part:

"The key to attracting online revenue, I think, is to come up with an iTunes-easy method of micropayment. We need something like digital coins or an E-ZPass digital wallet -- a one-click system with a really simple interface that will permit impulse purchases of a newspaper, magazine, article, blog or video for a penny, nickel, dime or whatever the creator chooses to charge..."

"...Admittedly, the Internet is littered with failed micropayment companies. If you remember Flooz, Beenz, CyberCash, Bitpass, Peppercoin and DigiCash, it's probably because you lost money investing in them..."

"...Under a micropayment system, a newspaper might decide to charge a nickel for an article or a dime for that day's full edition or $2 for a month's worth of Web access. Some surfers would balk, but I suspect most would merrily click through if it were cheap and easy enough..."

"...I say this not because I am "evil," which is the description my daughter slings at those who want to charge for their Web content, music or apps. Instead, I say this because my daughter is very creative, and when she gets older, I want her to get paid for producing really neat stuff rather than come to me for money or decide that it makes more sense to be an investment banker."

Lest we steer ourselves into a another precarious situation like the current one with fossil fuels, perhaps it would be good to look at the issues with acquiring necessary raw materials, should the current domestic battery market expand by an order of magnitude.

Assuming many of the batteries manufactured still require cobalt, then increasing the demand of that material by 10x would almost certainly place peculiar political demands on the country that provides most of the world's cobalt: the Congo. To paraphrase a commenter on the original article, will we end up "bringing democracy" to the Congo as we just did in Iraq?

What about cadmium? NiCd Batteries already represent the majority of the world's use of cadmium. It's a by-product of zinc manufacturing, and poisonous in high concentration. Following a trend already everpresent the local auto industry, more manufactured cadmium comes from our neighbors to the North and South than from us, even tho we have the largest market of the 3 countries. To what extent would existing environmental problems with cadmium manufacture be exacerbated by the damand increasing 10x?

Finally there is nickel. The company that provides 20% of the world's supply, Norilsk Nickel, also happens to reside in one of the world's most polluted areas. How would both the local environmental damage, AND the US's relationship with Russia, be altered by a 10x increase our demand for nickel?

Arlen Specter said as much to the press, you can hear the audio here. A lot of Republicans wanted the stimulus to pass, but were afraid to have their "fingerprints" on the legislation. The Republicans are simply to cowardly to face down the Club for Growth and Dear Leader Comrade Rush.

The bill is the biggest single tax cut in history and the Republicans still wouldn't vote for it. This is a party run by people who mail tire gauges and silly putty and bricks to their enemies and getting good soundbites on the news when they should be writing good laws. A party completely obsessed with appearances and run by media celebrities.

I was shocked to find out just how varied the laws are from state to state regarding whether felons can vote.

In some states, your rights are restored automatically once you're out of prison and off of parole or probation. In other states, you have to get the governor to restore your rights. Where I live (Arizona), it's somewhere between those two extremes, but you definitely have to go through a process to get your civil rights restored.

In predominantly red states, there's a lot of incentive to make it as difficult as possible for felons to resume voting, mainly because felons who vote tend to vote Democrat, not Republican. (That's not universally accepted wisdom, but it is echoed in one of the articles I'll link to in a second.) On the other side of the debate, statistics show that felons who vote are 50% less likely to be re-arrested.

So, here are some articles that deal with the topic of felony voting:

From Time, Why Can't Felons Vote?

From the Washington Post, Why Can't Ex-Felons Vote?

And finally, Some Felons' Voting Rights Left Behind Bars

There are some pretty choice quotes in each of those articles, and I recommend reading all three.

As for Iowa, it seems that Governor Tom Vilsack issued an executive order in 2005 which restores voting rights to felons who have completed their sentences; prior to that, Iowa was one of the states that required ex-felons to apply to the governor's office to restore their voting rights. Digging deeper, though, it appears that this was a one-time clemency deal, and people who hadn't completed their sentences prior to July 4, 2005, are required to go through the old system or a new, streamlined (mostly automatic) system to apply to have their rights restored.

Dan Glickman, CEO of the MPAA is a former House Democrat, who (after being Clinton's secretary of agriculture because he's from Kansas) became the MPAA's top lobbyist.

California is a Democratic state, and Hollywood is the signature industry in the state. Probably not a coincidence.

Liberal Celebrities are some of the biggest donors and campaigners for Democrats, but the Republicans despite tax policies that would benefit them don't get near as much support.

Of course the Democrats pay all this back with legislation that is favorable to Hollywood's copyright stance.

Sure the Republicans outlaw acts and crackdown on crime including some that some people would rather be legal, but the Democrats are out to control thoughts by liberal teachers in public schools and universities, journalists in papers and on TV, legal actions by the ACLU and politically correct thought.

However at least the Catholic church isn't dismissing the idea's, which is a long way from the outright attacks made by more fundamentalist churches. The thing about this debate is that while fundamental theist's attack science and the theory of evolution using doubt, no counter-argument is made that has any impact on the faith of proponents of Intelligent Design.

Science and Religion are different bodies of knowledge, but not mutually exclusive because both use reason as a tool for different goals. There are scientific people who are religious and religious people who are scientific. Making a science based argument about the ignorance of Intelligent Design to someone who has a predominately religious background make both sides dig their heals in. That's why this debate has become so polarised.

I've found that having an understanding of the doctrine that supports scientific investigation and framing that discussion so that it attacks the underpinnings of Intelligent Design an important tool. Building and demonstrating an understanding of the theocratic aspects of this debate is an important tool to disarming the proponents of Intelligent Design and helping them understand why science is important to their faith.

A scientific argument explaining the shortcomings of Intelligent Design to a religious person really just reveals their ignorance of science and, as such, they feel ignorant of science but it's not important to them.

A theocratic argument explaining the shortcomings of Intelligent Design to a religious person reveals the shortcomings of Intelligent Design when compared to the discoveries made by a study of Evolution.

When confronted with one of these discussions I point out that Intelligent Design limits how far humanity explores nature, or in theocratic terms "the works of God". I go on to point out that there is nothing in the Theory of evolution that attacks Christian beliefs but, in fact, uses science as a tool to uncover the amazing wonder of how nature works, or in theocratic terms "the glory of God".

It's at this point that proponents of Intelligent Design start to join the dots for themselves. The insecurity they feel about Darwin's idea's attacking their belief system give way to the possibility that Intelligent Design could actually be a form of blasphemy, something that is important to a religious person.

I think it's important to frame the debate this way because the Intelligent Design position cleverly deceives religious people into accepting ignorance over education and promotes the notion that science aims to dispel religion. Science and Religion have to co-exist in society if we are to dispel ignorance and fundamentalism.

The US consumes about 100 quads a year.
Show me a way to reduce that by say 20% without a net reduction in GNP and standard of living.

The only way GNP will be reduced is if people cut spending, and as the financial melt down showed people do need to cut spending and save more. How many are losing or are about to lose their homes? You don't think their standard of living won't be affected? Now by becoming more energy efficient people can save money. For instance by turning down the thermostat by a few degrees mys sister was able to save about $150 a month in heating last year. And as I said above, all my lights are CFLs. Even though I use a computer almost all day everyday, my electric bill is probably the lowest I know. Because my bills are relatively low I have more money to spend on other things, and that helps me because I am on disability and don't work. Try to live on what I get for disability then see if you don't try to cut your expenses too.

This idea that everyone can live off the food in their own yard is happy-talk. If the world tried to provide its own food, we would quickly starve. Large fields are more efficient.

Seeing as more and more city farms and gardens are cropping up all over the world, plenty of people disagree with you and are proving gardening does feed people. And large fields only produce more food if they are drowned in synthetic fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides. All of these are made from petrochemicals.

I applaud your personal experiment, but there isn't enough vegy oil for 1% of the population.

So, instead of a number of different solutions working together you want one big solution? That's what got us where we are now, it only worked for a short period of tyme though.

we went to the moon without impacting the economy. Going to the moon is an easier task than solving our energy problems.

Maybe not if we had an Apollo or Manhattan scaled project. Heck, the US did those alone but it wouldn't have to with energy. Europe and Asian nations could very well join in the effort. Even China, which passed the US in CO2 emissions, is pushing for alternative energy.

Falcon

Bull, the IPCCC report says that it's "very likely" that human made CO2 results in climate change. That's about as definitive as you're likely to get from a very large group of scientists. Yes the precise details are not clear yet, but most of the uncertainty is about how *bad* it could/would get. That human activity is vastly increasing the CO2 levels is clear. That this has a significant influence on the climate is pretty much as well.

Something similar here to the actions of Henry Ford.
Rich successful man running amuck. Take a look at this from Time Magazine.

Bill Gates needs to tone it down a bit. Oh, and each mosquito represents another version of Windows 7.

Obama has made several statements that lead many of us to believe that he's not quite sure WTF he's doing

Here's something that worries the hell out of me. Apparently we shouldn't be keeping our nuclear deterrent reliable and having any sort of assurance that the weapons actually work as designed.

It's been my observation (as a recovering liberal) that liberals don't really care as much about the Constitution as they profess to. They can invent a "right to privacy" that isn't listed anywhere when it supports their agenda while denying the plain text of the 2nd or even 1st amendments when it suits their agenda.

Time just ran an interesting story about how the Dems want to regulate direct to consumer drug advertising. Mind you, I tend to think the pharmaceutical industry has gone overboard with advertising (why do drugs need to be advertised? Shouldn't they sell themselves?) but I also tend to think that they have the right to advertise their product if they want. The money quote from that article is:

Waxman takes a harder stance. "I think the First Amendment is not an absolute guarantee to say whatever [we want] under any circumstances," he says. "We often prevent free speech when it can do harm - such as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater ... I think there's a balancing. A very limited restriction on the First Amendment right to advertise drugs, if there is such a right, is reasonable for the public safety."

Unbelievable. He's comparing advertising to shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater. The former serves a legitimate purpose -- the latter has none. And how is public safety enhanced by regulating advertising? Because the sheep are so stupid that they'll try and get drugs they don't need if they see a fancy TV commercial? Why is that something the government needs to be involved in?

Freedom means nothing to liberals if they think that freedom places us in the smallest amount of danger. We need the government to protect us from all sources of harm because we aren't grown up enough to do it for ourselves. If that means trampling on the Bill of Rights then so be it -- the founding fathers never could have anticipated repeating firearms or big pharmaceutical companies!

Get away from the oppressive heat in Victoria? Not likely if you were here in the last week or so. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1876299,00.html

Haven't we known for 40 years now that injecting water into a fault can trigger a quake?

I'm sorry but I can't let this slide. Iran's history of sabre-rattling?

Of course you can't let it slide, because I'm certain you believe everything they do is exclusively for peaceful purposes. Just like other launches they've done.

It seems like every few weeks either the US and/or Israel keep making threats against Iran ("no option is off the table").

I don't recall mentioning Israel in my post. Odd.

It would be fantastic if my point would have been taken at face value. Iran's President has been making a variety of strong statements for quite some time now, and I'm not going to enumerate through a healthy list when Google can provide more than enough articles to illustrate my point. The simple truth to the matter is that Iran's strong words and sabre-rattling imply that we need to take the purposes of this launch with a healthy dose of skepticism. Is that too much to ask?

As for Iran's belligirent attitude towards the US, that is amply explained by the US' sorry history of intervention in that country (overthrowing the democratically elected Mossadegh and installing the tyrant Shah). If that happened to your country, you might feel just slightly miffed towards the country that caused that to happen.

I wasn't debating what bearing the US' history has had on Iran's statements as of late. I'm simply pointing out that their statements are indicative of ulterior motives with regards to demonstrations like this launch.

Remember these guys? What happened to their idea? A jet-powered hybrid?

And I remember in the 70s stories about a new ice age coming. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html A little searching finds that there is a cycle of warnings going on all last century, We don't know enough to tell one way or other, although if I had a choice, I'd rather have global warming.

Blah-blah-blah. US seized the opportunity to create worldwide dependency on its currency while all major countries/regions' economies were in ruins. US milked all advantages of that up to this moment (and now it has credit crisis because it got accustomed to issuing debt/currency like crazy).

De Gaulle v. the Dollar, perhaps De Gaulle was on to something?

No, he's complaining that the Drudge Report, a conservative blog that gets noticed by a lot of higher-profile conservatives, is reporting the story wrong. Four years from now (or eight, depending), this issue will probably be raised again. When that happens, which version of history are people going to listen to and believe?

In fairness to the Drudge Report and the Time live blog, it seems that a correction (of sorts) has been issued:

James Poniewozik - 1:00 p.m.: Drudge now backpedaling: "Obama AND CHIEF JUSTICE flub oath..."

Well considering Drudge ran a headline saying "OBAMA FLUBS THE OATH" according to this and certain bloggers are going to go crazy blaming Obama, I think it's important to get out what actually happened.

The main thing Jobs did was streamline the business to a few things Apple is good at. Sure he's got charisma by the truckload, cachet as a Silicon Valley luminary, and sway with media heavyweights in Hollywood and elsewhere. But arriving at a sensible business model was his main achievement -- and one that has worked remarkably well for Apple, with nearly all metrics breaking records for several years now.

I agree completely, but I would personally put greater emphasis on the fact that when Jobs re-took Apple's helm, they were in a desperate need of person who would be perceived as a phoenix-like leader who could resurrect their once powerful company from its impending doom. This is probably precisely why some people erroneously assume that the death of Jobs will mean the death of Apple, because he had so much to do with its rebirth. However, a majority of Apple's customer base knows no other Apple but the One Jobs Built Yet Know Not His Name. Does your average iBook wielding, iPod sporting college student really know who Jobs is, and how important he was to the revival of the company? No. Do they like their flashy toys? You bet. Will they buy another one when their last toy broke? Probably.

Oh, and Jobs & Co. managed to convince Microsoft to invest $150 million into the company in 1997, which was effectively announced as a "truce", and helps to underline the fact that Apple was not resurrected by only one man. Read this old Time Magazine article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986850,00.html/ (about Microsoft's deal) and this one http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986849,00.html/ (focusing more on Steve Jobs) - both are in the same issue. I remember it pretty vividly as I was a teenager at the time who was the only kid in school with a Macintosh. At the time, the Apple fanatics (these were *true* apple fanatics, the ones that kept the company on life support for years who make many 'fanboys' today look like milquetoasts) booed at the decision, but I don't believe anyone except for perhaps Steve Jobs and a few others actually knew what it signified. It meant that Apple was essentially withdrawing from the big business game, and Microsoft would help Apple get more into the "Home" game by porting Microsoft Office to the Mac OS - the game that Apple originally started out playing in the first place. It also helped that Apple had a *lot* of good press from Time. I'm not aware of any large joint-stock holders that had large investments in both companies, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

The main issue Apple will have to overcome is the perception issue surrounding Jobs. Case-in-point: on the NBC Nightly News last night, Brian Williams talked for several minutes about dismal news about the economy, devastating job losses, thoughts from economists about how this won't end in 2009, dreary report after dreary report, a ceaseless drumbeat of doom and gloom...until he said (paraphrasing, here) this: by far the most shocking news, shocking I tell you, was that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would be stepping down for a medical leave of absence, and a dedicated story segment followed, complete with Maria Bartiromo from the Exchange floor. When you've got a cult of personality like that, how can you escape it?

Personally I feel that Apple does not need Jobs any more - they have captured the attention of the market that they have always wanted to serve , casual users and people willing to shell out extra cash for fewer headaches at home. They will survive even in this horrific economy because while people are willing to take fewer risks these days, people will still need personal computers at home. This means that they will look more for reliability, and I will bet that they will be willing to spend a premium on a computer that they percie

The main thing Jobs did was streamline the business to a few things Apple is good at. Sure he's got charisma by the truckload, cachet as a Silicon Valley luminary, and sway with media heavyweights in Hollywood and elsewhere. But arriving at a sensible business model was his main achievement -- and one that has worked remarkably well for Apple, with nearly all metrics breaking records for several years now.

I agree completely, but I would personally put greater emphasis on the fact that when Jobs re-took Apple's helm, they were in a desperate need of person who would be perceived as a phoenix-like leader who could resurrect their once powerful company from its impending doom. This is probably precisely why some people erroneously assume that the death of Jobs will mean the death of Apple, because he had so much to do with its rebirth. However, a majority of Apple's customer base knows no other Apple but the One Jobs Built Yet Know Not His Name. Does your average iBook wielding, iPod sporting college student really know who Jobs is, and how important he was to the revival of the company? No. Do they like their flashy toys? You bet. Will they buy another one when their last toy broke? Probably.

Oh, and Jobs & Co. managed to convince Microsoft to invest $150 million into the company in 1997, which was effectively announced as a "truce", and helps to underline the fact that Apple was not resurrected by only one man. Read this old Time Magazine article http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986850,00.html/ (about Microsoft's deal) and this one http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,986849,00.html/ (focusing more on Steve Jobs) - both are in the same issue. I remember it pretty vividly as I was a teenager at the time who was the only kid in school with a Macintosh. At the time, the Apple fanatics (these were *true* apple fanatics, the ones that kept the company on life support for years who make many 'fanboys' today look like milquetoasts) booed at the decision, but I don't believe anyone except for perhaps Steve Jobs and a few others actually knew what it signified. It meant that Apple was essentially withdrawing from the big business game, and Microsoft would help Apple get more into the "Home" game by porting Microsoft Office to the Mac OS - the game that Apple originally started out playing in the first place. It also helped that Apple had a *lot* of good press from Time. I'm not aware of any large joint-stock holders that had large investments in both companies, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

The main issue Apple will have to overcome is the perception issue surrounding Jobs. Case-in-point: on the NBC Nightly News last night, Brian Williams talked for several minutes about dismal news about the economy, devastating job losses, thoughts from economists about how this won't end in 2009, dreary report after dreary report, a ceaseless drumbeat of doom and gloom...until he said (paraphrasing, here) this: by far the most shocking news, shocking I tell you, was that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would be stepping down for a medical leave of absence, and a dedicated story segment followed, complete with Maria Bartiromo from the Exchange floor. When you've got a cult of personality like that, how can you escape it?

Personally I feel that Apple does not need Jobs any more - they have captured the attention of the market that they have always wanted to serve , casual users and people willing to shell out extra cash for fewer headaches at home. They will survive even in this horrific economy because while people are willing to take fewer risks these days, people will still need personal computers at home. This means that they will look more for reliability, and I will bet that they will be willing to spend a premium on a computer that they percie

What *really* creeps me out are these reprints of Goebbels stuff, that are being hawked today: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1871736,00.html.

The government doesn't seem to need to take any action against that.

The joke is that the publisher is a Britain.

Why everyone in Human Resources should be fired.
What is the most important job for the government, which
'belongs' to all of us?
Counter-Espionage, yet FBI hired and promoted Robert Hanssen.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,221911,00.html
Personality tests and even Polygraph Tests are lazy crutches
for Human Resources.
http://antipolygraph.org/pubs.shtml
Is this an historical pattern of Non-scientific methods and magic?
Salem Witch Trials
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/salem/salem.htm
In the Civil War, the North had the big advantage of money (all the
gold was in New York City), factories, naval blockade, large armies.
What General did Abraham Lincoln Hire That ALMOST LOST THE WAR?
General George McClellan was ill for a time, which further delayed his action, but on his return he continued to find reasons not to move forward. Frustrated, Lincoln at one point sent General McClellan a note asking whether, if the general did not plan to use his army, he, Lincoln, might borrow it.
What did the Washington HUMAN RESOURCES think of General Grant, who
eventually WON THE WAR?
        General U. S. Grant, graduate of West Point was a DRUNKARD
and had been cashiered from the Army because of that problem.
Even after his convincing victories at Forts Henry, Donelson, and at the Battle of Shiloh, there were still grave doubts in Washington about his competence.
Would Einstein have been hired when he had few references?
        Einstein tried to 'argue with his professors.'
Please, the following is a joke, FICTIONAL humor.
Would MOST Human Resources have been hired after passing a STRICT MENSA TEST (high IQ) and programming test?
Human Resources is in charge of salaries and EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION.
Almost ALL OF HUMAN RESOURCES at HR Conferences say ethics is VERY IMPORTANT,
yet they may be hypocritical?
stock option manipulation
http://weblog.infoworld.com/techwatch/archives/010282.html
http://money.cnn.com/2007/01/18/technology/monster_options/index.htm

Oxymoron.

That's not true. Congress does act. All the time. On really important stuff.

Yeah, I'm sure everyone else is really jealous of a state facing a $41 billion budget deficit over the next 18 months. Economic expansion, indeed -- CA's government is the laughing stock of the nation.

What California (and everyone other state, Federal, and local government) needs to do is STOP figuring out endless new ways to spend OUR money.

"Fixing" TV energy consumption is NOT what they need to be focused on right now.

First chink?

Holy f**k, Obama is considering ex Time Warner CEO as sec. of commerce!!!!!

If that happens, Mr. Fox, here's the keys to the Internet chicken coop!!! Buh Buy to net neutrality!

Between that and this pick, will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!

He is pro-technology. After all, DRM is tech.

Between that and this pick, will all the Slashdot Obama koolaid drinkers who thought he was supposedly pro-tech please stand up and be heard now!

Seconded. Shapewriting was invented by Per Ola Kristensson before 2004 (pdf warning), not by Kliff Kushler in 2008. WritingPad has been available on the iPhone for almost a year now. It has even been praised by Time magazine. These guys are jumping on the bandwagon. They only get more press since they are "the people who invented T9".

No, but theres the 50 top ten lists provided by time magazine: here.

Or,a top 10 list of top 10 lists! Your wish is granted: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2008/top10/ Your list is on the right side of the page.

The long-term cost of smoking to society is estimated to be around $7 per pack of cigarettes smoked in medical care and lost productivity. Taxation is one way of internalizing these costs while at the same time increasing the incentive to not smoke. There's a Time article that covers a few other points for and against the taxes.

Oh, there are always good justifications for major social-engineering projects. And this is one that a lot of people (mostly non-smokers) have no problem with because they don't feel it affects them ... let those nasty smokers pay for their own bad habits. The problem, as I said before, comes in when the Feds decide (for whatever reason) that they're going to come after you for some other heavy-duty tax to save you from yourself. I mean, what are the consequences, say, of a diet heavy in fast-foods? Should be taxing the hell out of Big Macs? The social costs of diabetes (and other dietary-related conditions) are comparable to tobacco. What about driving? People die from that all the time, both from traffic accidents and pollutants. Electric power? Thousands of people die every year because of power-plant emissions ... some number from cancer caused by thorium emissions from coal burning. There are many, many products and activities that cause long-term harm to human beings. Do we tax them all?

It's a bad road to be going down.

The long-term cost of smoking to society is estimated to be around $7 per pack of cigarettes smoked in medical care and lost productivity. Taxation is one way of internalizing these costs while at the same time increasing the incentive to not smoke. There's a Time article that covers a few other points for and against the taxes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/oct/02/digitalmedia.musicnews

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1666973,00.html

Or look at iTunes. Don't tell me that the stuff there isn't available via bittorent elsewher. People still end up buying from iTunes, despite the "free altrnatives".

Are we even sure that Global Climate Change is something that we need to stop?

Yes.

Why?

Because Earth is where we live, and the known, proven results of CO2 pollution from coal and petroleum combustion are all bad for humans. So far, those results include more and severer storms and floods and other weather disasters, rapidly rising sea levels, melting glaciers and polar ice, and destruction of ocean habitats due to increased dissolved CO2, and the vast majority of us intend to keep our home habitable. May the horrible job markets of the near future be worst of all for former mortgage-backed securities traders, lenders who encouraged "liar loans", Blackwater mercenaries, and Exxon's global warming deniers.

Ultimately everyone can be replaced, for the worse or the better. There was a time when Jobs recruited Sculley from Pepsi because of his Marketing skills. It nearly to bankruptcy, as Scully moved Jobs out of Apple and got Apple in a very awful financial shape.

Steve came back. The success started as Steve immediately decided industrial design was important for Apple. It is very hard to give design such an important role in a company. To be a serious creative and innovative company, it requires a different kind of leadership. The lack of innovative products proves this wisdom. You don't have to take my word for it. Ask Apple CEO Steve Jobs about it, and he'll tell you an instructive little story. Call it the Story of the Concept Car.

"Here's what you find at a lot of companies," he says, kicking back in a conference room at Apple's gleaming white Silicon Valley headquarters, which looks something like a cross between an Ivy League university and an iPod. "You know how you see a show car, and it's really cool, and then four years later you see the production car, and it sucks? And you go, What happened? They had it! They had it in the palm of their hands! They grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory! "What happened was, the designers came up with this really great idea. Then they take it to the engineers, and the engineers go, 'Nah, we can't do that. That's impossible.' And so it gets a lot worse. Then they take it to the manufacturing people, and they go, 'We can't build that!' And it gets a lot worse.

When the company becomes even more successful and scales up in size, it will be tempting to be to busy with the company and less with innovation. In a big bureaucracy it's hard to maintain a athmosphere where creatvity can flourish. Success can also lead mean the company loses it's identity and traditions. This can even happen now when Steve Jobs is still at Apple.. What Jobs Not Giving This Year's Macworld Keynote?

Running a much bigger company requires even more of a leader. Trying to scale up innovative power, many have tried but lost. However I think Apple set the mark. I surely hope Steve will be able to drive it much further, if not it will be extremely hard to find someone else that can. The challenge for leadership never has been bigger.

Just to offer an alternative viewpoint, not all agree with the viewpoint that Margaret Sanger was a racist. Furthermore, some would argue that she adopted the language of eugenics because that's what was popular at the time -- the United States had a eugenics program which was studied by Nazi Germany, and actually was praised by at least one high-ranking Nazi official during a visit to the United States. (Clearly, this was well before World War II started.)

Time Magazine gives a brief biography of Sanger, and here's another article which gives an even shorter, but I believe equally balanced, portrayal. The Wikipedia article about Margaret Sanger seems to need a lot of work -- it seems particularly biased toward the view that Sanger was a racist and eugenicist, and most sections are marked as probably misiterpreting or misrepresenting the cited source material. That's pretty bad scholarship, IMHO.

Personally, I don't see a big problem with eugenics in general. The problem is, the term has been villified because of what some groups (e.g., the Nazis) did in the name of eugenics, especially atrocities such as forced sterilizations and abortions. This is why I think any kind of state-sponsored eugenics is a bad idea -- such a program can too easily be abused. Instead, I think a more Libertarian approach is warranted, so that couples should be allowed to go to genetic counseling (a form of eugenics) when they plan to have a baby. When genetic engineering (a tool of reprogenetics, a form of eugenics) becomes available to weed out disease traits and select for desirable traits (e.g., high intelligence), parents should be allowed to avail themselves of such techniques.

But you were really trying to sling mud at Planned Parenthood by associating it with things that everybody "knows" are bad. In the end, Planned Parenthood is more about distributing condoms and birth control pills than it is about performing abortions, because the goal has always been to stop unwanted pregnancies in the first place.