Slashdot Mirror

Now, the real question here is indeed how representative am I for the public?

It doesn't matter if you represent the public at large or not. You have an opinion, and have stated it, so it should be weighed equally to any other opinion (including my own).

an 100% trust the representatives will do the best in all circumstances, and no control is ever needed once the vote is cast?

Of course not. Personally, I'd rather not listen to the mindless drivel of politicians all day, so I do put a lot of trust into my elected officials. If I didn't, I'd run for office myself. That said, I do think it'd be interesting to see a politician offer direct voting to constituents. Communication (the biggest barrier to direct democracy) has improved a wee bit in the last two centuries.

how come the judges have the power to interpret the law created by the representatives? How come that, even with the judges having this power, the society found useful to use jury in serious cases?

The judicial system in general is a limit on the practical application of laws. It's not intended to change the law (which is why people get so upset about "legislating from the bench"). The role of a judge is to determine how laws apply in a fair manner. For example, is it fair to allow consumers to unlock phones? Is it fair to allow carriers to lock them? A judge should be the one deciding.

In civil matters, there's usually an established method to re-evaluate an issue later. Civil decisions don't matter as much as criminal cases. In a criminal case, a judge's bias could easily get an innocent bystander a death sentence. That's why there's a right to have a trial by one's peers, where fellow members of society will decide whether the evidence indicates guilt.

Good set of reasons to limit the law, but I don't think one can come with a complete and full-proof set of reasons (this would be a law in itself).

When a law becomes a problem, those who oppose it should petition the government to repeal it. The matter then falls to the judges to evaluate whether the law is still necessary. It literally becomes a judgement call.

And even if they did browse for contacts and such, privacy is not an essential liberty, is it now?

Nope. Not in a public area, where a phone rewired into a bomb can kill hundreds (or given the worst case, thousands) of people. In granting extra power to customs officers, Congress has voted that the right to life is more important that the right to privacy, in this limited area. If you want to opt out, don't cross the border. Again, the legislature can only go so far. If the general public want privacy rather than safety, they (we) can petition. When the government is convinced that the public opinion and need has changed, the laws will be changed to reflect it.

As long as it is not you (or government, or anyone else for that matter) to judge what is a minor inconvenience to myself or to anyone else anyone else, I don't see a problem with this.

Through levels of representation and indirection, it's me. It's also you. It's everyone together, democratically.

PS: Thus far, your facts are as close to accurate as anything else in the past 9 years. Personally, I think the border security is asinine. I also think it's asinine to blame parties or a few politicians for things that have been generally accepted by the public. I'm glad to see support for security theater waning, but people jumping right into the political rhetoric annoy me.

A couple of resistors and Apple thinks they can sue anyone that makes a knockoff. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2010-07-29-appleknockoff29_ST_N.htm This needs to be resolved in court so Apple can be forced to pull their heads out of their a-pods.

Here is a better documented and very recent analysis. They found that Federal employees tended to earn more than private industry (though not in some areas, including one pertinent to slashdot - Computer Support Specialist); however state and local employees (which is who is looking for swimming pools) are paid less than private industry on average.

I wish the Indian government would stop grandstanding in general...

Take for example the Nano. Great, its cheap nice concept... So why are they running out of them? I would even like to see the bottom line on that car and I am willing to bet its a money looser.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/07/tata-nano---worlds-cheapest-car----gets-price-hike/1

Here are the classic indicators; waiting list, price hike and very low sales. If the Nano had any profit Tata would be building them like there is no tomorrow. After all why not? So why not? Its a money looser...

Just like this 35 USD touchscreen device will be a money looser!

So I am curious, did Charles Lane have a whining rant to publish in 2002 when Bush signed off on a $30,000 tax credit for monster trucks?

From what I have read, very few schools make money on sports. They may make money on a football or basketball program, but they sure don't on soccer, volleyball, hockey, crew, etc.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2008-05-16-financial-study_N.htm

How about just not giving credit for D's?

Then next it will be C's. How about we just jump to the end and go pass/fail.

The problem isn't that students are getting D's. The problem is grade inflation where everyone needs to get an A or they're a loser, and school districts that can't bring themselves to actually fail a student so they give them a D and move the cattle along.

Once upon a time, C didn't mean mediocre, it meant average. A's and B's were for students that went above and beyond the school's expectations. A D was a signal that parents/teachers needed to invest some time helping that child master a given subject.

When I was in public school the district used the ESMIF grading scale.

E - excellent
S - superior
M - medium or average
I - inferior
F - failure

Now suppose that any place you performed below average you were considered a failure.

This is all sleight of hand to get the public to look at a new shiny thing while districts and communities continue to fail the next generation of children.

There is some hope though. Some school districts are experimenting with going with subject master rather than grade advancement. Here is what the Kansas City Mo school district is trying to turn around a dying educational program.

And here is a little more in-depth presentation. Mastery Learning

I would take it one step further, I would say there is only 1 passing grade. You have either mastered the subject or you have not.

The approach is a simple concept. If a student quickly masters a subject they can take a test and move on. If they haven't, then the teacher provides more instruction and study material until the student masters the topic. It would lead to schools allocating resources more efficiently to students; more to those that need them and less to those that do not. While that might not seem fair to parents who have 'smart kids', you have to realize that your child is going to have subjects where they excel and subjects where they struggle.

And if you must have some my kid is smarter than yours measurement, it can be the time it takes to master all the required subjects or the number of additional subjects mastered before graduation.

Oh, thank God. From the title I thought Hollywood was re-releasing Titanic in 3-D. Although the guy hitting the propeller would be pretty cool in 3-D.

Well, you're in luck because James Cameron has a Spring 2012 target to have a 3D remastered version of the movie in theatres. Not only will you get to watch your "will he blend" propeller scene in glorious multi-dimensional detail, you'll also get to experience Kate Winslet's 30' tall boobs nestled in your lap.

Perhaps they were testing it in winter. Given the choice between riding around Afghanistan in an poorly insulated Humvee in the Afghan winter waiting to get blown up or ambushed or laying out in an weaponized outdoor tanning bed I think I'd put on some trunks and catch up on some light reading.

Well I'm sure if the government handles AT&T, Comcast, etc. like they did Goldman Sachs, I'm sure everything will be hunky-dory

//sarcasm off

Bit of a joke? What exactly would that be? http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/environment/2008-05-11-hybrids-gas-prices_N.htm I've owned a 2006 Civic Hybrid for the past four years and calculate the savings based on my driving habits and the cost of gas every year. It recouped its cost over a year ago and has currently saved me well over $1000. It also pollutes less. So...why is this a joke?

Except if you're calculating the savings based on cost of gas and driving habits alone, you're missing a major part of the equation. Did you include the $23000 it cost you to buy a new car, as opposed to continuing to maintain/repair and feed gas into your old one? Or if this was your very first car, did you do the calculations for getting a cheap used car vs new car, and take the price difference into account?

If you absolutely had to get a new car, did you look a the 2006 Civic -- 10-12k cheaper than the Hybrid, with gas mileage that's not appreciably worse? Did you take into account that 10-12k price difference in your calculations?

When you look at the miles you drive without taking into account the base cost, you're only seeing part of the picture needed to determine if you recouped your cost. And unless you drive a 40-50k miles a year, your costs have not been recouped. (I did a breakdown of the math in a comment some time back, and showed that it would take gas in the range of $8-9/gallon to recoup costs over a five year period at 12k a year; or $5-6/gallon to recoup them if you assumed you had to buy a new car and calculated based on price difference.)

Also, hang on a minute. Please actually pretend that you read *all* of the link you submitted. At least be slightly even-handed, as the article seemed to be, because about 1/2 of your very article (past the title) directly contradicted you.

The 2010 is the warmest year on record link you sent *also* said this:

Marc Morano, a global-warming skeptic who edits the Climate Depot website, says the government "is playing the climate fear card by hyping predictions and cherry-picking data."

Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.

He says too many of the weather stations NOAA uses are in warmer urban areas.

"The only reliable data set right now is satellite," D'Aleo says.

He says NASA satellite data shows the average temperature in June was 0.43 degrees higher than normal. NOAA says it was 1.22 degrees higher.

Think of insulation. Insulation can keep heat in, and it can also keep heat out. Insulation will keep your house warm in the winter, and also cool in the summer. It's not that hard to understand, is it?

Although CO2 may be causing cooling high in the troposphere, it's keeping the surface of the Earth warm. So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record, with Arctic and Antarctic ice continuing to melt, despite low solar activity.

Government jobs are now -generally speaking- higher paying than civilian jobs, at least in the US. Of course this will contribute to the insane economic trickle down theory of boom and eventual bust/collapse (along with the usury and wealth skimming industry and money "creation" model we have), but they hold most of the aces now and can just demand that everyone else support their growth and raises.

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20091211/1afedpay11_st.art.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503983_162-5007862-503983.html

Probably because it's dangerous to pick on serial killers as a group.

"We call this one the "Genetic Researcher Decapitator".

Also, genetics does not work that way. Either you're an epically great troll or you simply didn't take any biology at any time in your life.

So you are saying gene therapy never works to cure anything? Lets look into that,

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-01-28-bubble-boy-gene_N.htm
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/colortherapy/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2009/02/28/gene_therapy_gets_closer_to_a_cure/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7003-gene-therapy-is-first-deafness-cure.html

So what you are saying is you'd rather continue to leave people hopelessly disabled rather than attempt to find a gene therapy? And as far as fetuses go, you can screen every fetus and guarantee that the fetuses born don't have the gene.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-02-13-dolphin-defenders_x.htm what a wonderful world

The problem isn't that they weren't aware of the privacy dramas, it's that they were perfectly aware of those privacy dramas and wanted to participate in the data harvesting at the expense of their customer's privacy. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2010/05/blizzard-and-facebooks-friendly-social-networking-deal-launches-with-starcraft-ii-/1 The relevant quote is "Essentially, with one click I'm populating my social network in Battle.net on Facebook. "

So... it's not worth canceling over yet.

I definitely had fun playing the game and enjoyed the friends I made there but this RealID stuff isn't stopping here. They have big plans: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gamehunters/post/2010/05/blizzard-and-facebooks-friendly-social-networking-deal-launches-with-starcraft-ii-/1

The point I was trying to make is that for all the hand wringing about Three mile island, cherynobl, hiroshima, the exxon valdez, to any other "epic" environmental catastrophe, life actually seems to be getting better (or more efficient in the case of your computing)

You sure pick some bad examples.

TMI wasn't much of catastrophe at all, and not an environmental one.

Chernobyl can be said to favour the environment, since it removed a city, and left lots of room for nature to move into. Dying of cancer after 5 years is a big deal for people, but very tolerable for many animals. But it had plenty consequences for sure, which still persist today, and it still is mostly unpopulated. World-wide it had tremendous consequences for the adoption of nuclear power.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were completely intentional, and were inflicted on enemy terrotory, where nobody of the ones responsible about it cared about the consequences of it, except for that the more horrible it was, the better.

Exxon Valdez is the one good example. The damage endures. Yes, it got better, but it's still not completely fixed. Just because you don't hear about it anymore, doesn't mean it's all fixed now.

Yes, we can live through such things and go on, nobody said we can't. But the consequences persist for decades. Enough oil spills and nuclear accidents will make things very unpleasant.

We cannot afford to piss in our kitchen, or shit in our living room, but we cannot assert that exhaling CO2 is the same thing as shitting or pissing.

The problem is that the atmosphere and the ocean are very much a sort of "kitchen" or "living room". It's not some magical place that makes everything you dump into it disappear. They're big, but very much finite. Also, breaking something is much easier than fixing it.

The big problem with the knee jerk environmentalist position is that the basic assumption, "if man did it it was bad", simply doesn't hold true in all cases.

I see very little of this assumption. I hope you're not going to say that the reason environmentalists say oil spills are bad is just "because man did it". People already are suffering plenty consequences due to the gulf spill, and that will continue for quite some years.

I guess the bottom line is this -> we're always going to get bitten in the ass some day, but we can't let the fear of that stop us from living life.

We can greatly reduce the amount of times we get bitten in the ass. Just think if BP had been a bit more careful. It would have worked out a lot cheaper for them.

Main Point: We don't argue that climate change isn't happening, and if that's what you think the debate is about then you are completely wrong.

It's interesting that you brought that up, given the history of the climate change "debate." Because until about 10 years ago, saying global warming doesn't exist was the position of the deniers. The position was that global temperatures were not increasing. Then the position was changed to admitting that that temperatures were increasing, but no faster than historical rates, even though it's clearly exponential growth. (i.e. the hockey stick, and yes, even the "new" "refined" hockey stick) Even earlier this year you had conservatives mocking global warming because of a blizzard.

You're the one that doesn't understand the history of your own position.

As a historical parallel, I suggest you read up on cancer and the tobacco lobby. "Doctors smoke Camels," but the tobacco industry knew they caused cancer in nineteen-fifty-fucking-three , yet they denied it for 45 years. Even recently before Congress, the CEOs of the tobacco industry declared under oath, I believe that nicotine is not addictive, even though the American Heart Association (you know, doctors), have said "nicotine addiction has historically been one of the hardest addictions to break."

No you're being played, but you don't realize that, because you're too "intelligent" and "independent" to realize it.

Personally I think Christians (practicing their faith in "loving others") are the best kind of citizen one can have. They follow the just laws, they pay taxes and help their fellow men.

I am sure Tempest Smith, John Britton, James Barret, Robert Sanderson, and George Tiller, among others, are glad to hear that. It is nice to know that death cultists^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H christians are such good neighbors.

Oddly enough I seem to remember a sonic based weapon along these same lines designed for exactly that intent. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2005-11-07-cruise-blast_x.htm Obviously not as fun as microwaving some peg legs, but still cool

My city's university offers free tuition PLUS addition $1000 to women who take engineering. Why in the world would women turn that down?

Because they learned at a very young age that "Math class is tough!"

We don't need another gulf. The gulf will bounce back, likely a lot faster than you think it will.

I think you are hopelessly optimistic. Do you have any idea how many blades of grass there are in the Louisiana wetlands? Do you expect BP to scrub each and every one of them? The Alaskan coastline is still not back to normal after the Exxon Valdez disaster. I'll be shocked if I ever eat another gulf shrimp in my life.

Sometimes carrying out justice hurts innocent people. Imprisoning a man who has robbed a bank may deprive his daughter of a father. Shutting down BP may deprive some retirees of a pension (current employees can always get a job at a more responsible company). This is regrettable, but justice is more important. This is also why we diversify.

My desire to wipe BP out is not out of spite, but a desire to never see anything like this happen again ever. If I have to pay more for gas as a result, that's well worth it.

You mean "STORE VOICE (that only you can hear)".

It's one thing to criticize a product. We here on slashdot do it all the time. In the case of the iPhone, Ballmer boldy predicted that "There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share." It only took a year for the iPhone to exceed WinMobile's marketshare. Three years later, WinMobile's share is in a downward spiral while iPhone and Android gain. If you read the full article, Ballmer also quotes facts are figures which turn out to be wrong. It reminds me more of the Iraqi Minister of Information more than anything else.

I disagree.

Foxconn doesn't let their workers take breaks, whereas in the US most states require a break every 2 hours as well as other labor protections (1.5 time for overtime).

God are you naive. Ever heard of Wal-Mart? http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2005-11-02-walmart-employees_x.htm

Too long ago? http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1870&, http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1658&, http://ag.ca.gov/newsalerts/release.php?id=1517&

I'm not sure about the wisdom of putting expensive "smarts" into a garment that gets changed/washed a lot. Wouldn't it be better as a belt?

That was my first thought as well. Wouldn't it be better to not have electronics in your laundry? A detachable waist band/arm band/strap would have been much logical... unless of course, the point is to collect vital data without the knowledge of the wearer....

Or maybe the military don't change them as often.

apperantly...

Having worked for the police in multiple cities, and for the government in many more, I can safely say that you'll never get a ticket for going 55 in a 50 zone. Yeah, I know there are exceptions, but just don't use that as an argument. It's silly and wrong.

You may want to tell your police friends this.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-30-speeding-cushion_N.htm/

You mean just like he didn't call upon the US to kill Hugo Chavez? ;)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-22-robertson-_x.htm

A growing body of academic and market research suggests millennials — who are in their mid-20s and younger — are civic-minded and socially conscious as individuals, consumers and employees.

61% of 13- to 25-year-olds feel personally responsible for making a difference in the world, suggests a survey of 1,800 young people to be released today. It says 81% have volunteered in the past year; 69% consider a company's social and environmental commitment when deciding where to shop, and 83% will trust a company more if it is socially/environmentally responsible.
Two-thirds of college freshmen (66%) believe it's essential or very important to help others in difficulty, suggests a survey of 263,710 students at 385 U.S. colleges and universities. The 2005 report, by the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles, found feelings of social and civic responsibility among entering freshmen at the highest level in 25 years.
Volunteerism by college students increased by 20% from 2002 to 2005, says a study released last week by the federal Corporation for National and Community Service.

Maybe I'm overstating the point but I just don't see how volunteering as a local fireman whilst studying Physics, or working with disabled kids whilst studying History, or spending hours in retirement communities while trying to do something fancy with election data from the last 20 years, can be defined as anything but empathetic. That's the kind of thing my peers were fulling their time with.

Finally, regarding the debt question - in my experience I've found that those with the biggest debts are the ones with most empathy. Those with debts of over 200k are damn near living saints. Same goes for those on financial aid really. It's a damn small sample I know but it sure as hell felt like the ones doing the most good on my campus were also the ones recieving the most aid. There's always space for a cynical interpretation but it's of unknown value in this situation.

You don't think watching his predecessor die would be sufficiently effective?

No, I don't. They will literally execute you and steal your organs (note that the family is not permitted to see the body once the about-to-be-murdered-individual is put into the death van) if you cheat on your taxes in China. (They don't have enough death vans for everyone, so they still use bullets for execution as well.) China admits to executing ten times more people per capita than we do here in the USA, and it's pretty safe to assume that the actual numbers are much, much higher.

Furthermore, people commit crimes for which the penalty is death all over the world every day. There are two reasons people commit crimes that they know they could be punished for. One is that they don't believe they will get caught. Two is that they don't care if they get caught, either due to reason of insanity or poverty. If you and your family will starve to death next month, you might as well steal some food today, even if you're likely to get something lopped off for it. But seriously, if criminals don't think they will be caught and/or punished, what's the motivation not to commit crimes? Even our "leaders" are unscrupulous bastards for the most part, so "because it's the right thing" has lost much of its cachet. And since white collar criminals are least likely to believe they will be caught, it's not hard to believe that we can have precisely the same problem with food safety all over again. It's also worth mentioning that we have only China's word for it that the particular individual they killed was really to blame. What if that really isn't why it happened?

IronPort used to play both sides of the street back in 2002. They sold rackmount "spam filter" boxes, and they also sold, er, "email delivery appliances". These included mechanisms for using hundreds of different IP addresses, to avoid triggering spam filters. IronPort was also behind "Bonded Spammer", a scheme where they paid ISPs to whitelist their spam. They even bought SpamCop and built Bonded Spammer into it.

Cisco finally bought IronPort, and they got out of the spamming business. Bonded Spammer lives on as ReturnPath. If you have anything to do with mail processing, it's worth understanding how to identify ReturnPath email (the IP address is tagged in DNS) so it can be moved to the "bulk" folder. If you use SpamAssassin, it comes with a big negative value for ReturnPath emails to get them through filters. Change that to +2 or so; if somebody paid to use ReturnPath, they're a bulk sender.

They take all our tax money and return nothing.

For every federal tax dollar that Texas paid to the US in 2005, Texas received 94 cents. Texas ranks #35 among the 50 states and DC:

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html [Scroll to page 43]

They dumb down the rest of the nation

Various measures of academic ranking are subjective, but this one puts Texas at #25, almost right smack on the national average:

http://www.morganquitno.com/edrank.htm

and they are also probably largely responsible for most of the failed mortgages.

In 2007, the mortgage foreclosure rate in Texas was 1.21%, compared with 1.33% in the West South Central region and 1.69% nationally:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2007-12-06-delinquency-chart_N.htm

I have to admit: you may have set the record for the most ignorance shown in a single post on Slashdot.

From 1981-2005 (latest year data is available) Texas PAID more Federal taxes than received in Federal Spending - EVERY SINGLE YEAR. That's not true of California or Massachusetts.

The Tax Foundation

If you look at foreclosures adjusted for population then Texas is not one of the problem states. You might want to start by returning California to the Russians.

Texas is large and diverse. Are there things that the state government does that embarrass me? Of course. Are there any states where that is not true?

No, minor failures happen with regularity. It's just selective memory. Nobody remembers the minor ones. The last minor shuttle equipment failure was just five weeks ago.

I'm sorry but the jobs moved over seas partially because of America's declining social appreciation of work. It won't take you much of an education to Google for proof. Just in case you went to USC I'll furnish the first link. Here

The short of it is that there aren't enough technically skilled people to keep those jobs here in America.

It isn't people's opinions that matter, it's what you can do that matters.

With regard to the definition of where space begins? No, that has absolutely nothing to do with what can be done there.

There is a good reason why there's no industrial market for these flights.

Yep: cost. There are a great deal of researchers waiting to get their instruments into the "ignorosphere" once the cost allows it.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm Here is a cite for you. There are many more, but I will leave that research to you.

I didn't realize there is a textbook ideal capitalism. Isn't that sort of like textbook ideal temperature? Economics recognizes capitalism as one of several elements vital to a stable, modern economy. So I'm not sure what you mean by ideal capitalism. Perhaps you're referring to what might be called "extreme" capitalism, where capitalism is unchecked by socialism and the economy is unstable and collapsing?

Obviously we have reached the point of the discussion where no common ground can be found and we need to argue the meaning of 'is'. My point is that I think it is naive to think that in this day and age that market forces are the sole arbiter to bring about optimal result when there are bad actors. That seemed to be what you were implying, but it doesn't matter.

So what? So does Bic with their razors. So does Nintendo with their video games. Why do you think those barriers are uncompetitive when people have several other choices of smart phones, including ones with larger shares of the market?

If it isn't clear by now why I think that is the case, then no amount of discussion will get any further, after having made my points about the lack of perfect markets, hidden externalities, lock-in, etc. Comparing the relative investment in a Bic razor handle versus the investment in a computing ecosystem...if you can't see that there are additional barriers to easily switching to a competitor, no wonder Microsoft is still where it is.

I disagree. The government 's job is to follow the law and prevent illegal actions. Unless they are specifically granted the legal authority to regulate something, they have no business spending my tax dollars on it.

I would say that the government's role is to MAKE and enforce any laws necessary to ensure the basic freedoms we hold dear. The whole point of this is that it is up for debate as to whether there is in fact something Apple has done that might run afoul of regulations.

What are you talking about? Large computer appliance makers have done this for ages for software they offer through a service to end users. Ever tried shipping a DS game that didn't use Nintendo's tools? If Apple is the one suppling the application store, they have every legal right to place whatever criteria they want on those making applications (with a few specific exceptions).

You are missing the subtlety. You can code your DS game in any language you want, using any toolkit that works with the given APIs. Plenty of DS games are written in various languages, with shared game engines and toolkits that are not provided by Nintendo.

We will have to agree to disagree on the 'they can do anything they want' argument, in so far as whether they should be *allowed* to do anything they want, especially given the various additional lock-ins, exclusivity, etc. that prevent (read excessively increase the economic cost of) the ease of switching.

Not the government's job!!! Certainly not with my tax dollars.

Somewhere this has gone off the rails. Arguing for arguments sake gets us no where. Haven't you heard? Taxes are the lowest they have been in 60 years: http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-05-10-taxes_N.htm

I don't think you understand freedom of expression. It applies only to the government not to private companies. A publisher deciding not to publish your book is not a barrier to freedom of expression. You're free to express, Apple is free to express only what they want. You have no right to express yourself via any private venue forcibly taking the resources to do so from another.

You are making a false analogy again. Apple in this new scenario is Barnes & Noble or Borders or Amazon...not the publisher. And I do think there is a categorical difference between expression, and expression predo

Reading the article, it's pretty clear that who we have to thank is a conservative columnist reporting a bunch of imaginary conversations

Well, you have imaginary conversations, does not mean everybody else's are...

More importantly, his was just one of the first links popping up, when searching for the phrase "support the troops but not their mission".

Or will you deny this ever being said by a (very) prominent Democrat, for example?

unfortunate how most anti-nuclear arguments use Chernobyl as an example - we can build them so much safer today. Looks like the oil drilling technology hasn't come as far, while still capable of producing devastating effects for years to come.

Unfortunate how most pro-drilling advocates used the slogan "we can build them much safer today".1 2 3 4, etc etc.

These are the same old arguments businesses constantly give to get around regulation. Call the laws "outdated", "old", and talk about how progress has made them unnecessary.

We saw the same "mining is much safer today" from coal companies skirting regulations. And it's the same line of argument that was used to remove regulations from the financial industry. And it's used pretty much everywhere that "stifling" government regulation stands in the way of "economic progress and freedom".

At 5:00 in this video you can learn how the oil companies lobbied successfully to NOT have to use modern safety backup systems:

"BP didn't want to spend the money for a system- a fail-safe system... used all over the world... except the United States because we give them a free pass. ...it's called the "acoustic switch" system.. it's a relay system that... stops the oil exactly from the source... If BP has to do business in Norway, they have to use the switch. When they do it in the US, they don't have to use it... During the Bush deregulation years, you had the mineral management service that told companies like BP that "gee whiz we have a new policy- it's the closed-door Dick Cheney policy..." that allowed the industry to bypass safe systems like the acoustic switch, and there was no need to spend $500,000 with a company that was making $40 billion dollars. It was a complete bypass of safety."

If she pretexts to find out whether there's a leak on her board, she's now acting as a corporate officer, and thus the company is liable, not Carly, unless the prosecutor or plaintiff can convince a judge to pierce the corporate veil.

This is just flat out wrong. There is no concept of "piercing the corporate" veil with respect to criminal prosecution. Veil-piercing is a product of civil law. Moreover, it is very common for corporate officers to face criminal prosecution for acts committed to further the corporate interest.

To convict a person of a crime, one must generally prove an illegal act committed with the proper state of mind (called mens rea, and in financial crimes this generally means intent to commit the ac). In many corporate scenarios, the mental state does not exist in a single person - it is spread out across many people - and is therefore very hard to prove. In some cases, this spreading out of responsibility is such that no single person ever had the necessary mental state necessary to support a conviction. Corporate prosecution is a way to punish such acts without abrogating our general principle that we don't punish people who didn't commit a crime. It is in addition to prosecution of persons, not instead of, and thus means that more crimes can be punished under our corporate laws than could be if those laws did not exist.

In sum, if a person commits a crime, the legal requirements for prosecution are the same whether committed to further a private or corporate interest.

As a side matter, Fiorina was not at HP when the investigation happened. Link. More importantly, there was little or no evidence that the chair at the time new about the pretexting before it took place. They hired a private investigator who engaged in pretexting. Although this is legally enough to warrant civil liability, it is not sufficient to support criminal liability.

For the cognitively challenged, you could try searching for "NATO Afghan killings" - just to get started.

"Consumed by fireball, the Afghan village devastated by Nato strike on Taliban" - The Guardian, September 4 2009

"Moeen Marastial, a member of parliament from Kunduz, said: "Local people are telling me 130 people have been killed despite all the promises of Nato to do fewer bombardments and reduce civilian casualties. There will be a reaction to this. It is a very bad day for international forces in Afghanistan."

and

"Nato strike kills 27 Afghanistan civilians" - BBC, February 22, 2010

"At least 27 civilians died in a Nato air strike in southern Afghanistan, the Afghan cabinet says, revising downwards a prior statement that 33 were killed"

and

"U.S. Admits Role in February Killing of Afghan Women" - New York Times, April 4, 2010

"After initially denying involvement or any cover-up in the deaths of three Afghan women during a badly bungled American Special Operations assault in February, the American-led military command in Kabul admitted late on Sunday that its forces had, in fact, killed the women during the nighttime raid."

and

"NATO strikes killing more Afghan civilians" - USA Today, April 16, 2010

"Deaths of Afghan civilians by NATO troops have more than doubled this year, NATO statistics show, jeopardizing a U.S. campaign to win over the local population by protecting them against insurgent attacks."

and

"NATO Investigates 3 Afghan Civilian Deaths" - New York Times, May 1, 2010

"The French military took responsibility on Friday for killing four Afghan children during a missile strike in early April, and NATO said it was investigating allegations of a military convoy gunning down two Afghan women and a girl in southeastern Afghanistan."

and

"NATO checks report of Afghan civilian deaths" - Reuters, May 1, 2010

"NATO said on Saturday it was investigating whether shots fired by its troops in southern Afghanistan had killed two women and a child traveling in car."

Of course, expending any effort whatsoever to consider the plight of those being killed in Afghanistan and finding out some facts - rather than making a false assumption and then using your error to defend killing innocent people - might have taken you almost as much time as you spent supporting the murders committed by "our guys."

it is the very concept of personal property let alone possessing one's thoughts .. that is one of the ruling classes greatest tools of control over the rest of humanity .. as it is one of if not the main progenitor of a ruling class .. that and the RIGHT to control the thoughts and actions of others .. to think of oneself as greater than GOD .. for though we are told that there maybe consequences after the fact .. not even GOD tells me what i can and cannot do while i am alive ..

i do not in truth even own my body .. as my cells can mutiny if i do not respect their sovereignty or allow them to come into contact knowingly or unknowingly with a mutagenic substance or environment ..

the concept of owning my thought .. my ideas .. should be laughable to any truly free thinking individual ..

i for one .. from personal experience .. know that to a greater or lesser degree we are almost all capable of intercepting the thoughts and feelings of others .. we simply deny it because of it's implications .. the idea that anyone individual is the original source of an idea or thought .. and thus it owner is meaningless .. however it is very convenient and useful for those who believe they own the world and have the right to possess it and its resources .. which include the working class .. the other 98% ..

the three main concept that are used to control humanity and which must be rejected if the true meaning of democracy .. individuals being in control of their own lives .. is ever to manifest on planet earth during the course of human history .. are the concepts of political boundaries and borders .. written codified laws .. and organized religions .. as these are the three main tools that have been used to divide .. conquer and control humanity .. by the ruling class .. the force and source of EVIL on earth ..

we are on the verge of developing technologies that will allow the reading of an individuals thoughts .. and may already have the technologies to control the thought of individuals .. some of which are quite old and well studied ..like introducing high concentrations of fluoride into the drinking water ..

and others ..

The Sound of Silence is a military-intelligence code word for certain psychotronic weapons of mass mind-control tested in the mid-1950s, perfected during the 70s, and used extensively by the “modern” US military in the early 90s, despite the opposition and warnings issued by men such as Dwight David Eisenhower.

This mind-altering covert weapon is based on something called subliminal carrier technology, or the Silent Sound Spread Spectrum (SSSS) (also nicknamed S-Quad or “Squad” in military jargon). It was developed for military use by Dr. Oliver Lowery of Norcross, Georgia, and is described in US Patent #5,159,703 — “Silent Subliminal Presentation System” for commercial use in 1992.

and this one .. HSS .. a lot if S's in this shit .. http://www.directionalsound-usa.com/hss/ Hypersonic sound speakers .. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/techinnovations/2003-05-19-hss_x.htm .. you can not even log into www.atc.com .. the parent company wi

Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That's a real issue. And while I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards which I believe can be unfair to people who've been wrongfully harmed, I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That's how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.

but that doesn't support the statement by the GP. Or from this interview

Well, let's take an example. And I -- they may be represented here, I wasn't sure, but the Mayo Clinic, everybody has heard of it. It has got some of the best quality care in the world. People fly from all over the world to Rochester, Minnesota, in order to get outstanding care. It turns out that Mayo Clinic oftentimes provides care that is as much as one-third less expensive than the average that's provided or -- or some other health care systems that aren't doing as good of a job. Now, why is that? Well, part of it is that they have set up teams that work together so that, if you go first to your primary care physician and they order a test, you don't then have to duplicate having two more tests with other specialists, because they were in the room when you first met with that primary care physician. They know how to manage chronic diseases in an effective way so that we have people who are getting regular checkups, if they're trying to manage diabetes, as opposed to us paying for a $30,000 foot amputation because we didn't manage the disease properly. So they are doing all kinds of smart things that we could easily duplicate across the system, but we don't. And our job in this -- in this summer and this fall, in which I think everybody understands we've got to move in a different direction, is to identify the best ways to achieve the best possible care in a way that controls costs and is affordable for the American economy long term.

Based on this, I'd say that Obama is right and the GP is full of crap.

I love how you guys manage to blame it all on Clinton, and even Carter! But for the sake of argument, suppose it is their fault. Then why didn't Reagan, Bush, and Bush 2 fix it? W. even had majorities in both houses of Congress for most of his presidency. Instead, the Republicans added fuel to the fire. Neither Democrats nor Republicans stopped the madness.

Now, perhaps the Democrats can be excused on grounds of incompetence. After all, they're the party of blue collar workers. Finance isn't their strength, supposedly. But the Republicans-- they're supposed to be the financially responsible and savvy people. They sure don't look it, despite this recent revival of budget concerns over the new health care program and the costs of bailouts. In 2003 the neo-cons spent our wealth on their own agenda. That "War of Choice" did more damage to the budget than the bailouts and health care combined. They thought it could cost as little as $30 billion. Instead, the minimum cost of the Iraq War to the US is estimated to be $3 trillion. How could they have got it so wrong? In contrast, cost of the new health care bill and the bailouts, and stimulus spending is estimated to be $940 billion, $109 billion, and $862 billion respectively.

And the returns that we got on all this spending? It was hoped that the Iraq War would trigger a domino effect that would spread democracy throughout the Middle East and the Arab and Islamic worlds. This has got to be stupidest pie-in-the-sky, cavalier, woolly, misty, calf-eyed dreaming engaged in by politicians in at least 2 generations. I expect that sort of thinking from innocent 1st graders, not from canny, experienced, and supposedly intelligent politicians. I expect they'd damn well better do their homework. Find out everything they can and be damn sure they get it right before committing trillions of the nation's dollars and the lives of our soldiers to such a risky and provocative course of action. And they didn't do that. To learn that the allegations over WMD had been "sexed up" and were just flat wrong was embarrassing and damaging. And to see how Bush's government was treating analysis that didn't shore up what they wanted to think was shameful, disgusting, and scary. Not only didn't they do their due diligence, they arrogantly dismissed the work and reports of those who tried. That's how they could get an estimate not off by 2 or 3 times, but 100 times too low. I call that rampant and reckless disregard of the facts. That's the sort of crap I expect from stupid dictatorships, not from democracies. Dictatorships are the sorts of governments that are suckers for the sort of impressive seeming gigantic projects that cause more damage than good, ignoring all contrary analysis, or even branding such as treason. As for the rest of the world, none of the other troublesome nations have been frightened into making changes, and Iraq itself is still in danger of tearing itself apart in a bloody civil war, splitting into Kurd, Sunny, and Shiite areas. Indeed Iran is behaving worse than ever. Seems they might be figuring that Iraq cost us so much in both money and good will that we may be unwilling or unable to spend what it would take and rally a coalition to deal with them militarily, if it comes to that. We already had Afghanistan on our plate, there was no need to start another war just to "show the flag". There's the idea that we did it for the oil. Perhaps, but if so, that also was a strategic mistake. If invested in renewable energy, that money could have done much to eliminate our dependence upon foreign oil. And there's this little problem of Cli

Yes, they are. Years ago an employee of Coca Cola tried to sell the secret formula to Pepsi. What did Pepsi do? They called Coca-Cola and provided details. Coca-Cola then called the FBI and set up a sting.

I don't mind citing... but lately some of the citation requests are for things that were all over the news just a few weeks back.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2010-04-07-income-taxes_N.htm
"Nearly half of U.S. households escape federal income tax"

The anthrax attacks hit the Capitol at the same time legislators were being pressured to pass the PATRIOT Act. The anthrax attacks delivered the unspoken message to our representatives that "nobody is safe from terrorists".

I'm not saying that Vice President Cheney was involved in any way, but you've got to admit that his agenda, formed long before September of 2001, got a big boost from the attacks.

Obviously though, he's far too nice of a guy to ever do anything underhanded.

Yep, just like Barack Obama's far too nice a guy to engineer a financial crisis as a pretext for nationalizing/taking over large banks in the name of "reform", while cozying up to Goldman-Sachs CEO:

While Goldman Sachs' lawyers negotiated with the Securities and Exchange Commission over potentially explosive civil fraud charges, Goldman's chief executive visited the White House at least four times.

Seen the redactions from Blogo's Obama subpeona? The ones that say Obama lied about the sale of his Senate seat and his ties to Tony Rezko?

Or would nice-guy Obama LIE to the public about the cost of Obamacare:

President Obama's health care overhaul law will increase the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

How about this from the NY Times, that suddenly gets run now that we all have magic health care from heaven thanks to the world's biggest celebrity:

New York’s insurance system has been a working laboratory for the core provision of the new federal health care law — insurance even for those who are already sick and facing huge medical bills — and an expensive lesson in unplanned consequences. Premiums for individual and small group policies have risen so high that state officials and patients’ advocates say that New York’s extensive insurance safety net for people like Ms. Welles is falling apart.

Gee, sure would have been nice of the NY Slimes to run that story a month or so ago, eh? But no, Baracky sure didn't know he was LYING about his claims that Obamacare would reduce health care costs, now did he?

Oh, but tinfoil-hat loons like you get modded up for jumping on the "Cheney and all Rethuglicans are teh eviilll!!!" shit-for-brains bandwagon?

When Obama's lies regarding health care are going to directly cost people about ten thousand dollars each - per year? While the Obama/Pelosi deficits would pay for the ENTIRETY of BOTH wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in about eight months?

Gotta love how the same people who spent 8 years screaming "Dissent is patriotic!" are now trying to label dissenters as "seditious" and "dangerous".