Slashdot Mirror

Some would argue that 20km or 20,000km above is, indeed, "over [my] house".

From the wiki article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_rights:

"the Latin phrase Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad caelum et ad inferos ("For whoever owns the soil, it is theirs up to Heaven and down to Hell.")"

In addition, the so-called "drone debate" has led to things like this: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/31/oregon-drone-bill-would-claim-the-airspace-above-your-shoestrings

That was very informative. I would mod you up but I'd rather discuss. I'm not a geneticist, chemist, or a farmer either but you seem to know more about it than I do. I'm curious about what exactly is patented. Is it the enzyme, the dna sequence, the method for gene transfer, all, or some combination? I'm okay with the process being patented but the enzyme and dna could occur through natural or artificial selection. It seems possible at least that non-GMO varieties could develop the same enzyme, not through cross-pollination, but from exposure to the Round-Up herbicide.

I recognize that at least in the U.S., where even non-GMO crops are likely clones, there is probably not enough variety in the gene pool to make the necessary mutations to resist Round-Up without careful breeding. It would appear that weeds develop resistance which implies the possibility that weeds do not care about patents :)

Is it illegal to breed Round-Up resistant corn if it results in the production of the same enzyme?

what's so funny?

You could argue that the defense budget should take a hit to pay for other stuff, but there are people out there that might argue that the government has no business paying out for programs it wasn't created to manage. The armed forces were something that the government was created to handle, and while waste should be curtailed, you can't argue that just because it gets a lot of money, that now completely separate programs deserve that money as well. It's like giving my kid who mowed the lawn 20 bucks and then my other kids complaining that I am not giving them 20 bucks for the finger painting business that I never asked them to start.

...and those people arguing that would be the same as you, not understanding the reality of our original founders intent, even when it's spelled out for them.

Excerpts from Article 1, section 8:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Yes, that's right... no standing army, let alone marines or air force. Our government wasn't created to manage our military, at least the way our military is at this time. In fact, it explicitly forbids it. Our government was created with the idea of a national militia, that would be called up in case of an insurrection, or an invasion.... basically a national guard, controlled by the states, but who's structure and training regiment is defines on the national level so everyone is well trained.

Now, those programs you don't think our government was created to manage: the preamble of the Constitution is considered the driving theme behind the work, and it's position is considered often in legal arguments, especially by SCOTUS (well, used to be... it's hard to see that with some of the newer reversals of precedence that the Roberts court has presided over).

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Now, i could be wrong... but there i don't see mention of "worldwide military empire" in there.

It comes back to this: we are spending more than the entire rest of the world on our military and national defense. We loose ten times more people each year in driving accidents than we have in the last decade from terrorists and wars combined; yet we've spent ~10-12 trillion on national defense, plus another 2-3 trillion on two wars... and.. how much to improve driving safety? And now, we're loosing key elements of our infrastructure because we have basically a bunch of cowards who don't feel safe unless we spend all that money on the military, even though it's quit possible we'll loose many more lives without this infrastructure.

We really have our priorities fucked up, and largely because we have ignorant cowards where we need leaders, and just ignorant cowards as citizens.

Just to add a little concrete to what you wrote . . .

Good News on Gun Violence Could Shape Gun Control Debate - May 07, 2013

... Firearm homicides have declined 39 percent since 1993, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report released on May 7. A separate study by the Pew Research Center put the decline at an even more impressive 49 percent. Nonfatal gun crime also dropped over two decades—by an eye-opening 69 percent, according to the government...

NRA Director, Ted Cruz Slam Obama on Gun Prosecutions

... Cruz also slammed the president for failing to prosecute felons and fugitives who illegally tried to purchase guns, saying in 2010 of 48,000 illegal gun purchase attempts, the administration only prosecuted 44. Instead, Cruz said, Obama is going after the "constitutional rights of the people who are complying with the law."...

It's really about control, not guns.

No, you need to change jobs, period.

According to this site: http://www.westportone.com/candidate/counteroffer.htm :

"According to national surveys of employees that accept counter-offers, 50-80 percent voluntarily leave their employer within six months of accepting the counter-offer because of unkept promises. The majority of the balance of employees that accept counter-offers involuntarily leave their current employers within twelve months of accepting the counter-offer (terminated, fired, laid off, etc.)."

So, basically, if you go to your boss with another offer in hand and accept a counteroffer, he or she is going to screw you over simply because they can. And that's how the big sharks swim in the deep end of the pool. If you want better working conditions and/or more money, change jobs. The only exception is if you work in academia, where you have the protections of tenure.

See also:

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2012/03/26/why-you-shouldnt-take-a-counteroffer

http://ask.slashdot.org/story/02/06/13/0615238/is-it-wrong-to-accept-an-employment-counter-offer

No, you dont.

Did you even check, or did you assume? What sort of Americans are you dealing with when they're 'shocked' by 100 km to the next gas station? That's only 60 miles. I've seen signs that say 125 miles to the next, or 200 km. Must be East-coasters who think the mid-west is 'flyover country'.

Let's check your work: You guys average 15530 km per year
Americans average 12k-15k miles per year, this site says 13,476 miles. Which works out to 21,696 km/year. Or 40% more than Aussies, which I'd qualify as 'heck of a lot more'.

Let's verify a bit: Population of Australia: 22.7M. KM driven: 232,453M km. KM per man, woman, and child: 10,240 km.
Population of the USA: 313M. Distance driven: 3M million miles., or 3,000 Billion miles. 9,413 miles per year, or 15,154 km per person. 48% more than Australians.

but if you blow 0.06 an Aussie cop would just tell you to sit down for half an hour and test you again if your BAC reduces he lets you go as long as you pass the personality test).

Personality test? Oh, institutional corruption, got it.

Once again, Australia has already solved this problem. If you cant pay your fines in Australia, a sheriff starts repossessing your property (starting with your car). As for people who drive on a suspended license, they risk years in jail here in Australia.

You mean the totaled car that was wrapped around a tree? Or do you kick people out of their homes in Australia?
Oh, and we do it in the USA as well. Problem being that, especially for multiple DUI offenders they generally drive such crappy cars that it costs more to have the sheriff confiscate it then they get at auction. Oops...

You'd be surprised how many offenders are white collar.

You really think this? The problem is twofold:
1. The poor people can't pay the fines. It costs somewhere around $22k/year to keep them in jail/prison.
2. The rich people can pay the fines, then carry on more or less like nothing happened.
3. Both parties will often obtain a $500-1000 car to drive that they register under somebody else's name so no breathalyzer equipment is installed.

A first time DUI in the USA can run you over $15k. It's not cheap.

You're going to have to face it: There isn't some 'magic bullet' policy difference between the USA and Australia. It's a lot of little ones, and the difference between .05 and .08 for DUI isn't really one of them.

This is why blood tests will reduce the number of people going to court.

With the really sleazy lawyers they'll still go to court, especially the rich types, because all they have to do is convince the jury something is in doubt, that he doesn't deserve the conviction, get some piece of evidence like the blood test tossed out on some technicality, etc... Heck, get some sympathetic drink-drivers on the jury. Lots of options.

Stop locking up pot heads and concentrate on removing actual dangers from society.

Agreed.

No, the original poster wasn't talking about 'news' as such, but about where people get their information.

This quote (from here) kind of backs up both our points on occupy vs. tea party:

According to the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, the Tea Party at its height of news attention (as of October 21, when the study was released) filled 7 percent of the newshole, during the week of April 13-19, 2009. That week, the young Tea Party engaged in major national protests marking Tax Day. Since then, the group has popped up again and again in news covered, albeit while garnering less attention.

Occupy, meanwhile, increasingly occupied the media's time during its first three weeks of existence, peaking at 10 percent of the newshole during the week of October 10-16. Since then, it has remained a major storyline in the media, but coverage has fallen off. Still, it has remained in the spotlight relatively consistently since its birth.

The point is it took 3 weeks for news coverage of occupy (anti-corporate) to take off, while the tea party (pro-corporate) was covered immediately. All the while, the occupy protests were much, much larger. You're right, occupy eventually 'won' the most media coverage, but rightfully so, it was larger and generated more interest nationwide.

The US also

False, you can file by paper, or do it through a web browser. Im sure theres Mac software too.

Almost all of the US healthcare requires mandatory use of IE

Ive had healthcare my whole life. I dont use IE, and havent for ~9 years. Also, this ISNT DRM.

Most of the govt healthcare websites (Medicare, Medicaid, etc) for fee for service physicians will only work with Windows and IE. No other operating system or browser is supported.

Where are you getting your info, I tried googling this and found zero to support that.

Most US insurance carriers web portals such as Navinet [navimedix.com] require IE and ActiveX.

Who is Navinet? Ive had Blue Cross, Kaiser, and United Healthcare. Never had to use IE. I wouldnt call "one small provider" most.

Instead MicroShaft has thrown alot of money in the healthcare industry in order to DRM lock it into it's own proprietary junk.

Baloney. Ive dealt with 4 of the top 10 providers in the US and have never dealt with this. This isnt a grand conspiracy. Im sure Microsoft lobbied for ActiveX at one point, but that ship sailed a long time ago and this IE only thing is a rarity these days.

after killing off regulations, the large corporations would have an even larger stranglehold on the marketplace, as there would be no anti-trust laws to keep them from colluding, price-fixing, etc. and any competitor who tried to enter the field would be crushed before they could get a foothold.

This sounds scary, but the reality is that a burdensome regulatory system favors large entrenched companies over start-ups. Back when Microsoft was smaller, they didn't like government, but these days they have a ton of lobbyists in D.C. just like every other major company.

Do you remember the days when IBM was "the evil empire" and ruled computing with an iron fist? Tell me, which anti-trust law was used to take them down? Oh wait, that didn't happen. IBM fought the anti-trust courts to a stand-still until the Reagan administration just gave up on it, and then the rapid evolution of desktop computers took away IBM's monopoly position. Whatever you think of Microsoft and IBM now, back then Microsoft did us all a service by helping yank the rug out from under IBM. (Microsoft now lives in fear that mobile computing and/or browser-based apps will do to Windows what Windows did to IBM mainframes.)

Market forces can allow a nimble start-up to take market away from an entrenched monopoly. But if that monopoly is cemented in place by laws, it's basically impossible for the start-ups to even get off the ground. Imagine if IBM had been able to get a law passed that payrolls could only be computed on a computer "certified" by a government agency, and the certification was a morass of red tape and fees. IBM would have just tasked a few of their full-time lawyers to navigating the red tape, would have coughed up a few fees they could easily afford, and would have relaxed knowing that no little uncertified desktop computers could undercut their monopoly.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2012/10/19/lift-the-regulatory-burden-on-small-businesses

And I'm not convinced that anti-trust laws are well-written or completely beneficial to the economy.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/case-against-antitrust

Nah, I'd say my main issue is just how much "genetic modification" is no silver bullet. As this article goes on about, using Roundup Ready resistant crops just encourages more herbicide usage. And just like there being super microbes resistant to antibiotics from overuse, there's now super weeds resistant to Roundup Ready. I mean, obviously some of that's just inevitable--that's the magic of evolution. But, it makes clear the point that if GMO crops are to be a part of the mix in an area, they should be offsetable in a reasonable period of time with non-GMO crops.

The problem, of course, is that farmers will reasonably just do whatever is economical. And even with mandates to plant some many acres of non-GMO crop for some many acres of GMO crop, it's clearly a vested interest of regulators and farmers to push for unsafe limits and to ignore as long as possible the adverse effects until it's too late. It'd be clearly different if, oh, we were try to actually wipe out certain weeds or insects with a herbicide/insecticide program. But that's generally not a viable issue--and it'd possibly be ecologically disastrous. So, there clearly needs to be a lot more planning and oversight than what is really being done. And that doesn't even get into the issue of cross-pollination of GMO crops with similar species plants. :/

The NRA (~ 4,200,000 members) dwarfs the size of the ACLU (~ 550,000 members) making it one of Americas largest, important civil rights organizations. You might find this interesting: NRA: Membership Has Grown by 250,000 in One Month

Do you think you will be referring to the ACLU as the 0.15% vocal minority?

NRA Has 54% Favorable Image in U.S.
USA Today: Support for gun control bill falls below 50%

...no, no -- that's not how it's going to be "picked up".

Let's take a look:

NBC News: Particle confirmed as Higgs boson

Associated Press: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson

Reuters: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN

Wall Street Journal: New Data Boosts Case for Higgs Boson Find

FOX News: Physicists say they have found long-sought Higgs boson

Washington Post: A closer look at the Higgs boson particle that helps explain what gives matter size and shape

Chicago Tribune: Strong signs Higgs boson has been found: CERN

Sky News: Higgs Boson: Experts Sure Of 'God Particle'

New York Daily News: Physicists say they have discovered crucial subatomic particle known as Higgs boson

Boston Globe: Physicists say they have found a Higgs boson

BBC (UK): LHC cements Higgs boson identification

BusinessWeek: Case for Higgs Boson Strengthened by New CERN Analysis

The Daily Mail (UK): Scientists say they HAVE found the 'God particle' - but admit they still aren't sure what type of Higgs boson it is

The Independent (UK): Have they found the Higgs boson at last? Cern physicists say they're confident of 'God particle' breakthrough

Telegraph (UK): Higgs boson: scientists confident they have discovered the 'God particle'

News Limited (AU): Higgs boson, the God particle, discovered by CERN

US News and World Report: Physicists Observe Higgs Boson, the Elusive 'God Particle'

None of these articles make any links to "God" other than a few -- mostly UK, not US -- sources referring to it as the so-called "God particle", but even those explain exactly what this particle is theorized to be, not anything supernatural, "proving God exists", or having anything whatever to do with God.

This is called chronic media multitasking, and you are not alone (likely a large portion of those calling you a loser and telling you to get over it are avoiding doing something more important). http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/brain-and-behavior/articles/2009/08/24/chronic-media-multi-tasking-makes-it-harder-to A single-tasking environment would be helpful, but at what cost? While it isn't good to read your e-mail and surf the net while you are trying to get something done, it IS often useful to look up that related e-mail or useful reference. You might use some measure to block the websites you abuse the most, but who is to say something else won't take their place? What worked for me was simply to recognize and study the problem. Once you see what a common occurrence it is, and how it affects your ability to function even after the fact, it should make it easier to prioritize fixing it. For me that meant hiding most Skype notifications, closing my e-mail client while I worked, and closing out programs that I didn't need for the current task. Your mileage may vary; this is what worked (very well) for me.

2002. Tuition at my school has increased $10,000 since then and to pay the sticker price you have to have rich parents who contribute on your behalf.

And no, it is literally impossible to get $100,000 debt at an in-state public university because the most expensive public university is only $15,000 so four years doesn't add up so far.

People who have $100,000 student debts have the titles "doctor" and "esquire". That debt load sucks, but those jobs pay well.

If people paid for it all their lives, then there should be more than enough money...right?

Wrong. Fact is most people go through what they paid in, with interest before they die. That means it's just another form of welfare. You can argue the merits, but thems the facts.

There were definitely a lot of stinkers in those days. But sadly, I think that for many of us the Vega was the worst of the worst.

I'm all for increasing STEM graduates in the USA. But according to this article there were 600,000 unfilled STEM jobs in the USA last year, and 300,000 unemployed STEM workers ("only one unemployed STEM worker for two unfilled STEM jobs throughout the country"- not finding one of those 600k jobs due to mismatched skill sets). This does include skilled blue-collar jobs. Even if a decent STEM education program were implemented now, and enough students entered it, it would be several years before they were ready to enter the workforce. Those jobs are there now. If there were a surplus of STEM workers in the USA, or even close to it, then there's no way we should be importing thousands of foreign STEM workers- but that doesn't seem to be the case.

I posted the link to the L.A. Times article to show an example of Ronald Reagan's inattention. His son thought the same thing: Reagan Son Claims Dad Had Alzheimer's as President Quote:

"Watching the first of his two debates with 1984 Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale, I began to experience the nausea of a bad dream coming true. At 73, Ronald Reagan would be the oldest president ever reelected. Some voters were beginning to imagine grandpa -- who can never find his reading glasses -- in charge of a bristling nuclear arsenal, and it was making them nervous. Worse, my father now seemed to be giving them legitimate reason for concern. My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered." Page 205.

There are many other such sources.

Even if we had a full deceleration of surrender from the N. Korean regime, the people wouldn't listen to America. Too much bitterness exists from generations of brainwashing.

I'm not so sure about that. Some things that we take for granted can be pretty eye-opening, especially to a starving people.

In fact the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all taxes and the top 50% pay 98% (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html).

Here's how that works. The top 10% have 74.5% of the wealth!

Granted, we're supposed to be taxed on income, not wealth (although I'm still not sure why that's the case), but if you feel it is wrong that 10% pays 70% of the taxes, I'd expect you to be equally upset that 10% owns 74.5% of everything.

To further highlight why your outrage is baseless (the result of 5 minutes spent on google, you should try it sometime) :

The top 10% got 45% of before-tax income.
The top 1% got 93% of income growth.

I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%.

The bottom 50% is tired of being exploited by the top 50%, but it seems that "being tired" of something isn't quite enough to make it stop.
If things keep going the way they're going, pretty soon the top 50% will be tired of getting chased by mobs armed with torches and pitchforks. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.

In fact the top 10% of earners pay 70% of all taxes and the top 50% pay 98% (http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html).

Here's how that works. The top 10% have 74.5% of the wealth!

Granted, we're supposed to be taxed on income, not wealth (although I'm still not sure why that's the case), but if you feel it is wrong that 10% pays 70% of the taxes, I'd expect you to be equally upset that 10% owns 74.5% of everything.

To further highlight why your outrage is baseless (the result of 5 minutes spent on google, you should try it sometime) :

The top 10% got 45% of before-tax income.
The top 1% got 93% of income growth.

I think you mean the top 50% are getting tired of funding the bottom 50%.

The bottom 50% is tired of being exploited by the top 50%, but it seems that "being tired" of something isn't quite enough to make it stop.
If things keep going the way they're going, pretty soon the top 50% will be tired of getting chased by mobs armed with torches and pitchforks. It's happened before, and it'll happen again.

Does anyone know if scanners from 1996 were able to scan in a document, launch an e-mail application, and attach said document to the e-mail?

Yes, Paperport from Visoneer was one. The Mac version was AppleScriptable and people regularly did things like transfer scanned images into e-mails, Filemaker databases, etc.

aside: the term TFS is looking for is "Legal Plunder". Bastiat coined it in 1850 in The Law, and it was then an existing problem, so don't expect a quick resolution so long as the same power structures remain in place (people hate to admit that they're the ones with the role of being fleeced).

I guess my mind wondered. I thought of Mitch McConnell. I guess his super power is the ability to ingest without a lower mandible, impressive.

According to this article the TSA spent 80 million dollars on scanners. According to This article they're spending 245 million dollars more to test them. According to this article a human life is worth 7.4 million dollars. We've spend an extra 40 billion dollars since 9/11 on airport security. That means we need to have saved 34 lives by body scanner alone or 5405 lives by all airport security.

It doesn't add up.

The Treaty is one of a series of modern mutual legal assistance treaties being negotiated by the United States in order to counter criminal activities more effectively. The Treaty should be an effective tool to assist in the prosecution of a wide variety of crimes, including drug trafficking, money laundering, and terrorism offenses. The Treaty is self-executing.

The Treaty provides for a broad range of cooperation in criminal matters. Mutual assistance available under the Treaty includes: taking the testimony or statements of persons; providing documents, records, and articles of evidence; locating or identifying persons; serving documents; transferring persons in custody for testimony or other purposes;executing requests for searches and seizures; assisting in proceedings related to immobilization and forfeiture of assets, restitution to the victims of crime and collection of fines; and any other form of assistance not prohibited by the laws of the State from whom the assistance is requested.

I recommend that the Senate give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty, and give its advice and consent to ratification.

GEORGE W. BUSH.

TREATY WITH BELIZE ON MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS

This tiny nation of only 280,000 people does seem to draw a surprising number of fugitives. They come here ''for the same reasons as the tourists,'' says Gerald Westby, Belize's police commissioner. ''It's English-speaking and close to Mexico.'' Some try to blend in with vacationers on sun-drenched coastal islands like Ambergris Cay, and others...try to find sanctuary in the jungle. They also appear to find comfort in the poverty (hence, their money goes further) and lawlessness (figuring they won't be a priority for local cops). Belize City is a violent place, currently suffering from a rash of ''pedal by'' shootings--executions by gunmen on bicycles.

Belize signed an extradition treaty with the United States in 2000, but officials are often quite willing to expedite a deportation instead of the lengthy extradition process. ''Belize is very close to being one of the most cooperative Central American nations,'' says James Schield, chief of international investigations for the U.S. Marshals Service.

Trouble in Paradise : U.S. fugitives may think they can hide in Belize, but here's the untold story of how some get caught

Cooperation on this level works both ways. If Belize wants McAfee they will very likely get him.

Except R isn't interested in compromise. For example, way back when Obama started with redoing health care, he invited the Republicans to participate and said "Lets start with the plan from one of YOUR people, John McCain." The response was that that plan was unacceptable and that they wouldn't participate AT ALL.

Please find less biased sources of news. What actually went down couldn't have been farther from the truth. If you want the truth, you follow the moderates (like Olympia Snowe for instance, who originally voted FOR the healthcare bill in initial committee, but quickly grew frustrated as the size of scope of the bill spiraled out of control and no one wanted to continue discussing it). What actually happened (and was flat out stated in the press by Dems) is that they believed in 2008 that they had a "mandate" delivered by the people to avoid Republican ideas at all costs (remember the "your policies fucked the country, now we get to drive" rhetoric Obama continually spewed?) This "mandate" concept is happening yet again, where now Obama seems to think the people want him to be a stickler for fucking the rich: http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/14/obama-signals-hes-firm-on-raising-taxes-for-wealthiest-americans-obama-signals-hes-firm-on-raising-taxes

You want to see compromise? See what length Boehner took to TRY to make a debt deal happen and then look at how easily Obama undid months of effort by attempting to move the goalposts at the last minute: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/magazine/obama-vs-boehner-who-killed-the-debt-deal.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Read that and then tell me the Republicans are the only ones who have a compromise problem.

It's not really ready to collapse, that statement was most likely aimed at helping it secure low cost loans with governmental backing, as is the way of things in Japan

Are you really sure that this way of things is exclusive to Japan?

I admit my considerable ignorance of Nate Silver's blog - and humbly ask for pardon. i did not mean to question anyone's integrity and I don't think I was "making up shit" :-)

I question the value of any polling - even if it is well done. example: The Carter/Reagan 1980 election was "too close to call" according to the polling data - and reagan won an electoral college landslide. Of course most /.'s probably remember Gore/Bush and the exit polling brouhaha (and "hanging chads" who could ever forget "hanging chads" I've also heard pollsters complain about the limitations of current methodologies (if you are calling people on landlines then you are using an increasingly smaller portion of the likely voters) - I'm wondering if a "Dewey defeats Truman" event could be in the works ...

They're not necessarily useless, but state-by-state polls are critical for determining a winner because of the electoral college. Fortunately, they conduct state-by-state polls.

Yes, there is polling done on a state by state basis - but that does not seem to be what is being discussed: from the blog, emphasis mine: "And increasingly, it is hard to find leads for Mr. Romney in national surveys — although several of them show a tie."

I believe that Obama naively did not expect the Republicans to dedicate themselves to stopping him from getting reelected.

Yes, I'm sure that was his first and enduring thought on the matter.

Also, I don't think anyone expected the Republicans to declare war on reality.

That should be, "war on reality, as reported." That is the key, as reported. The BBC leadership admits it as a bias problem, but there can't be a problem in the United States?

As Margaret Thatcher noted, "The facts of life are conservative."
It is the reporting that is liberal.

Pew: Public Perception of Media Bias Hits Historic High

In Pew's biennial news survey, out today, the public revealed an alarming opinion that the media just can't be trusted to tell a story straight. . . . Said Pew, "The overall ratings for the performance of the news media are quite negative: Fully 66% say news stories often are inaccurate, 77 % think that news organizations tend to favor one side, and 80% say news organizations are often influenced by powerful people and organizations. The percentage saying that news stories are often inaccurate has risen 13 points since 2007, with much of the increase coming among Democrats and independents."

Media bias worse than money in politics

Rasmussen Reports Tuesday revealed poll results that 47 percent of likely voters feel that "media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than big campaign contributions." Fewer, 42 percent, say money is more evil.

Worse for the media, 51 percent believe that "most reporters will try to help the president," while just 9 percent will go to bat for Republican Mitt Romney. The polling is just the latest to slam media bias, with most still viewing the TV, internet and print reporters on the left's payroll.

The following has been known for some time now, from more than one study.

Journalists dole out cash to politicians (quietly)

Msnbc.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

The Vast Left-Wing Media Conspiracy

When I'm talking to people from outside Washington, one question inevitably comes up: Why is the media so liberal? The question often reflects a suspicion that members of the press get together and decide on a story line that favors liberals and Democrats and denigrates conservatives and Republicans.

My response has usually been to say, yes, there's liberal bias in the media, but there's no conspiracy. The liberal tilt is an accident of nature. The media disproportionately attracts people from a liberal arts background who tend, quite innocently, to be politically liberal. If they came from West Point or engineering school, this wouldn't be the case.

Now, after learning I'd been targeted for a smear attack by a member of an online clique of liberal journalists, I'm inclined to amend my response. Not to say there's a media conspiracy, but at least to note that hundreds of journalists have

The fact is that American capitalists have an interpretation of "the free market" meme that is indistinguishable from some ephemeral "right" to get rich through any means.

By their own analysis, wages go down when the supply of available labor goes up and wages go up when the labor market is tight.

So they act as though they just don't know whatever it is you're on about , and maybe you're a little racist or xenophobic or protectionist -or all three - when you point out that by prevailing on Congress to flood the market with H1Bs, you're putting your thumb on the scale of the "free market" in favor of business owners and to the disfavor of labor .

American capitalism isn't now and never was about the free and fair functioning of a market for goods and labor. It was is and always will be about crony capitalism.

If wages are up, the free market solution to that problem is something we briefly had in the late 80s and early 90s - massive enrollment and enthusiasm on the part of the job seeking portion of the citizenry for Computer Science as a major. More labor chases those dollars and the labor market swells stabilizing wages. Everyone wins. But the idea that everyone wins makes American business owners want to puke.

You have to read Ron Hira from Rochester University and Norm Matloff - two guys who actually crunched the numbers on this topic - in order to understand that absolutely, indisputably, the H1B program is nothing but another of the ways the rich prey on the middle class and undermine their opportunities so that the rich can pocket a little more money:

http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/do-we-need-foreign-technology-workers/

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/sciencecareers/2011/09/answers-for-sen.html

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-foreign-stem-graduates-get-green-cards/broad-stem-grad-green-card-exemptions-would-distort-labor-market

Would putting up a bill board in South Central LA that says Drive By Shootings are a Felony, would that be racist?

No, and if South Central LA has a lot of drive-by shootings, I would say it's appropriate.

Are you trying to imply that there's a lot of voter fraud that goes on in poor, minority-populated neighborhoods?

Have you ever even looked up voting fraud statistics? You should - knowing what you're talking about is a great way to avoid saying stupid things.

Tell ya what, I'm a nice guy in a good mood, I'll make it easy on you: here's a map of all "known" voter fraud cases since 2000.

Have fun with that.

You people are just plain losing it.

Waddayamean, "you people??"

LOL

Ah, poperatzo, good to hear from you.

How do you expect to have "secret voting" when Mitt Romney's son holds an equity interest in a company that makes voting machines (a company which has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Romney campaign).

The vote is secret since there isn't personally identifiable information linked to the vote itself.

Do you think that everyone at the company are both Romney only voters and are unethical? If not, how would they expect to keep quiet the sort of conspiracy you posit? Surely they would expect their behavior to be under scrutiny?

Does their contract cover the whole state, and do they actually have the means to change the vote?

We've outsourced our elections.

Only the manufacture of voting machines, and do you really want the government in that business? The elections are supervised the same old way, and votes are still cast by voters.

I have absolutely zero confidence in the integrity of US elections. and not because of "voter fraud".

Voter fraud? The very idea! Rest assurred, it doesn't always work. ;) (Just because I know you've listened.)

Besides, don't worry, the the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the NAACP and the ACLU have your back, in yet another embarrassment to the United States.

Statistics can be interpreted in many many ways. Deaths per mile are higher, deaths per hour on the road are much lower So I get to spend more time going less distance and have a higher risk of death? Sounds like a win-win situation!

So I get to spend more time going less distance and have a higher risk of death? Sounds like a win-win situation!

You say that sarcastically, but you're reading it wrong. Hour for hour, bicycling is less deadly that being in an automobile. In fact, according to this source, biking is half as dangerous as driving:

[The Failure Group (now Exponent)] looked at a variety of activities and determined that the number of fatalities per million hours of exposure was 0.26 for biking, 0.47 for driving, 1.53 for living (all causes of death), and 8.80 for motorcycling. In other words, they found that the risks of biking were about half that associated with driving and a sixth of that associated simply with being alive.

Regarding fewer miles traveled that's actually a feature, not a bug. For longer distances (greater than 15 miles) I use car share or public transportation. If the destination is still out of range, I simply don't go. I personally think of forgoing needless travel as carbon-footprint budgeting.

"Breaking the Law is useful in enforcing the Law that is illegal under the foundation of Law."

Wonderful little police state you got there.

Most people here will mistakenly think your comment is snide, but isn't it closer to the mark to call it appreciation tinged with envy?* Of course it isn't true, the United States isn't a police state. Defending yourself against would-be mass murderers, that is terrorists as opposed to political dissenters, is not oppression. Neither is surveillance on people in direct contact with Al Qaida oppression. You'll know the United States is a genuine police state when "slandering the state" earns you 10 years in a labor camp as was common under various socialist regimes of the sort you don't seem to criticize much.

The United States isn't quite there yet as President Obama's "Green Jobs Czar", Van Jones, was just a little too openly radical for the present age.

Proposed Soviet Legal Code to Retain Execution - By ESTHER B. FEIN, Special to the New York Times, December 18, 1988

Groups and individuals monitoring human rights have been anticipating the legal changes, hoping that they would eliminate articles that have been used to suppress and punish political dissent - in particular, Article 70, which sanctions imprisonment for anti-Soviet agitation, and Article 190, which allows it for anti-Soviet slander. But the ''guidelines for criminal legislation of the U.S.S.R. and the constituent republics,'' do not mention either article. They deal with some, but not all, of the individual statutes, and mostly offer direction to the 15 republics for rewriting their criminal codes.

* Nobody should be confused about the willingness of would-be revolutionaries to fight the system they intend to overthrow with its own procedures (Rule 4) to maximize their opportunity to act legally while working to subvert the nation. (Once power passes to them, surprises can follow.) The founding leadership of the ACLU is a case in point:

First, Roger Baldwin: Baldwin was the founder of the ACLU . . . Baldwin was an atheist. He was also a onetime communist, who, among other ignoble gestures, wrote a horrible 1928 book called Liberty Under the Soviets. Notably, he was smart enough not to join Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Other early officials of the ACLU, which was founded almost exactly the same time as the American Communist Party, included major party members like William Z. Foster, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, and Louis Budenz (who later broke with the party). Communists used the ACLU to deflect questions from the U.S. government over whether they were loyal to the USSR, were serving Joe Stalin in some capacity, and were committed to the overthrow of the American system. . . .

So bad had been the ACLU in aiding and abetting American communists that various legislative committees, federal and state, considered whether it was a communist front. The 1943 California Senate Fact-Finding Committee on Un-American Activities reported that the ACLU "may be definitely classed as a communist front." The committee added that "at least 90 percent of its [the ACLU's] efforts are expended on behalf of communists who come into conflict with the law." That 90-percent figure was consistent with a major report produced by Congress a decade earlier, January 17, 1931. --- The ACLU's Not-So-Holy Tri

When fusion centers did address terrorism, they sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties. The centers have made headlines for circulating information about Ron Paul supporters, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters, and advocates of gun rights"

- make a mental note that DHS treats Ron Paul supporters as 'terrorists'. Apparently at the minimum 15% of population of USA are on this terrorist list just according to this little fact.

Also note that Republicans and Democrats always are very capable of 'putting their differences aside' when attacking a third party candidate, especially as it was the case with Ron Paul. The Republican primary debates were televised by various networks, Ron Paul was mostly ignored, in one debate, hosted by CBS, Ron Paul got a total of 89 seconds of speaking time out of 90 minutes. Of-course there were 7 more people on stage, still, even if split evenly everybody could get almost 12 minutes of time. And that's with 'serious' people on stage like Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum.

Why are Ron Paul supporters labelled as terrorists? Is it because Ron Paul wouldn't go to war with Iran?

Is it because Ron Paul wouldn't authorise torture of prisoners?

Is it because Ron Paul is against the federal government telling people how to live their lives? Some will say that leaving things up to States is wrong, they are missing the bigger point, that leaving things like that to federal government is completely wrong and unconstitutional. As to allowing people to deal with these issues on State level does not mean that the State should in fact interfere with people either! At the minimum there should be competition among States for residents.

Is it because Ron Paul wants to audit and eventually get rid of the Federal reserve? The Fed is the actual main tool of destruction of US economy with its inflationary policy.

Is it because Ron Paul actually wants to balance the budget and start working out the problem of debt? Yes, it means cutting all sorts of programs and departments, but a government that you cannot afford will destroy you.

Is it because Ron Paul is against bail outs, stimulus and any form of welfare including corporate welfare?

Is it because Ron Paul is honest about Medicare and SS being bankrupt? He offers a transition period off these programs by means testing people and cutting military spending, foreign aid spending and various illegal domestic programs first that are not Medicare and SS, and by allowing people to opt out of the system and save their money for themselves to take care of themselves.

Is it because Ron Paul is in general against government intervention into the economy?

----

Of-course no MSM outlet is reporting on Gary Johnson being in the race, being on 47 ballots (and Washington DC) out of 50 in USA. He is not on all 50 yet because of lawsuits by Romney campaign. Gary Johnson is trying to prevent the debate between Romney and Obama with a court order or to be in that debate. Gary Johnson is also trying to get documents released that would show whether th

No, I'm sorry, but no. To the contrary: currently, the peak electrical power usage is typically early afternoon. If electric cars charge overnight, when power is in oversupply, they fit superbly into the existing power structure.

If it turns out to be a problem that people plug in their cars at 6pm but the off-peak hours don't start until 10pm, that can be easily solved with a timer. Implementing a time-of-day dependent rate structure would also help, but no change in the grid itself is needed.

What are you smoking? First off you completely ignore that more electric power must be produced. From.. coal? oil? nuclear? Oh right.. solar and wind. Good luck with that one! Per the link below, for every 3 EV Leafs you put on the road you are adding the equivalent of another household. Sorry, that energy has to come from somewhere.

Second, do you seriously believe that you can constrain the behavior of a sufficiently large number of owners to only charge when overall electric demand is low? Hey EVs are better! You can only 'gas up' after 10PM, not when you want or need to!

And third, this still ignores the effects on local grids. Demand may be low now at those hours but once you drop your EVs on, that goes out the window. And as the link below notes, neighborhoods have varying ability to handle those spikes in demand. And we already know that applies to regional grids as well.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/02/15/city-grids-may-not-be-ready-for-electric-cars

Hey, maybe we could stop burning so much coal and switch to lower-CO2 emitting natural gas? Oh wait, we already did.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/08/in-a-surprise-co2-emissions-hit-20-year-low/1#.UFx1MI2PVkY

Or maybe we could raise the gas mileage requirements on cars?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/08/27/tough-government-gas-mileage-rules-good-for-drivers-auto-industry

Anyone who thinks we aren't doing _anything_ isn't paying attention. Personally, however, I won't think we are serious until we start building newer, safer, CO2-free nuclear power plants. If you don't support more nuclear power, you aren't serious about stopping Global Warming, and you haven't studied the problem enough. Yes, I'm looking at you, Greenpeace.

Necron69

Because those people (highly skilled / educated immigrants) just happen to also CREATE more jobs than your beloved "US CITIZENS". So in the long run, even lazy asses who only complain about "they taking errr jerbs" get to benefit as well.

Counters and accepting them may be more common these days due to the high cost of onboarding new employees but a company RARELY forgets you accepted that counter and you may pay for that raise in more ways than you expect.

http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/outside-voices-careers/2012/03/26/why-you-shouldnt-take-a-counteroffer

Are you exaggerating when you say "massive handouts"? My understanding is that the oil industry is allowed tax breaks that are equivalent to what other industries get, and they do not get the direct subsidies that say wind and solar get. Depending on what tax break that is being considered this is 2-4 billion a year, maybe 2% of their profit.

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/rick-newman/2012/03/29/why-big-oil-should-give-up-its-tax-breaks
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/29/us-obama-energy-idUSBRE82S11P20120329
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_prez_oil_tax_break_lies_Y2Yj6KCU9QIO0BKHs1Be7M
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june11/oiltax_05-12.html

You may think taxes are low, but the U.S. corporate tax rate is the highest in the world.

You might be able to raise taxes even more on just the working class, but you'd not come within spitting distance of even eliminating the DEFICIT, much less actual debt.

The only serious way out involves LOTS of cuts, everywhere. If you pretend otherwise you are simply ignorant or on a mission to doom us all. Sure some taxes will be raised also, but it's foolish to pretend taxing will get you all the pretty baubles of government rule you have grown accustomed to.

1) Nobody makes money making sub-prime loans. It's trivial for any idiot to understand that loaning money to people who can't pay it back is a dumb idea.

False! Extending a loan (or owning a mortgage-backed security) to anybody is a great idea so long as I get my commission (or sell it at a markup) and no longer own it when it goes kaboom.

In your imagination, the only party willing to buy those bad loans was the government. In truth, most everybody bought them. Partially this is because the ratings agencies gave these mortgage-backed securities the highest ratings. But the notion this was a wholly government-created situation is just libertarian wishful thinking. Nations in which banks were deregulated the most did worst (see also Ireland), and those where time-tested regulations were preserved did best (see Canada - where average net worth is now higher than in the US).

http://www.neowin.net/news/us-government-makes-jailbreaking-unlocking-and-ripping-dvds-legal

http://money.usnews.com/money/business-economy/technology/articles/2009/09/30/is-it-legal-to-copy-a-dvd

What's illegal, again? If you do it for noncommercial use (such as making a backup to your hard drive) it's perfectly legal.

Welcome to several years ago. Do try and catch up.

After I made this comment, I did some reading (oh if only I'd done it in reverse...), and you're exactly right. The pressing problem in Bangladesh is indeed that rising saltwater levels are surging into freshwater rivers, "salting" agricultural water supplies, and causing famines (not to mention collapses of local economies).

Many residents of poorer countries will probably drown in floods (as many of the replies to the replies to my post pointed out, it's not the averages that are the issue, but the extremes, which will be more intense due to climate change), but it probably won't be in the millions (Katrina was pretty bad, and the death toll was 2k).

That makes the assumption that not publicizing the outbreak was for political purposes. It is quite possible that the reason for not publicizing it was that the actual size was small and the harm would have been larger than the good.

As for closing the hospital, perhaps the reason the hospital in Florida was the last in the nation is that all other states realized that dedicated TB hospitals were not a good idea. Medical conditions are always better dealt with in local communities and local hospitals. Sending patients away to dedicated hospitals removes them from their support groups causing depression and worsening many conditions.
The hospital in question was not only used for TB. According to the American Hospital Association it was also used for elderly/disabled (Acute long-term care, Skilled nursing care and Intermediate nursing care), end-of-life services (Palliative care) and other outpatient services. The 50 bed hospital had 65 admissions last year. To me that looks like an underutilized hospital ripe for closing. It makes a great sound bite during a campaign but it does not mean it is a bad thing.

So Chuck Schumer is the best senator?

The grade school system is terrible and needs improvement. Luckily they do not run the university system. The US consistently has more top universities than any other country.

US News and World Report: http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world ARWU (compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University): http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp QS World Rankings (compiled by a London corp): http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011

One Small example, Stanford, who is #3 in several rankings, has 8 Nobel laureates and 1 Fields Medal among its alumni, pretty good isn't it?

However, this example is completed with the École normale supérieure - Paris (usually out of the top30), despite being very small (compared to the number of Stanford students), it has 12 Nobel laureates and 10 Fields medal.

In France, research isn't as strictly linked to the university (due to the way legal setting is there), as it is in the US, I guess that makes such universities decrease their ratings, and gives US unviersities an advantege in the evaluation (papers and citations generated from the university are evaluated and have weight).

The grade school system is terrible and needs improvement. Luckily they do not run the university system. The US consistently has more top universities than any other country.

US News and World Report: http://www.usnews.com/education/worlds-best-universities-rankings/top-400-universities-in-the-world
ARWU (compiled by Shanghai Jiao Tong University): http://www.arwu.org/ARWU2010.jsp
QS World Rankings (compiled by a London corp): http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings/2011

The main reason tuition has been rising faster than college costs is that colleges had to make up for reductions in the per-student subsidy state taxpayers sent colleges. In 2006, the last year for which Wellman had data, state taxpayers sent $7,078 per student to the big public research universities. That's $1,270 less (after accounting for inflation) than they sent in 2002.

Public universities have been reining in overall spending per student in recent years. Flagship public universities' spending per student has risen from about $12,400 in 1995 to $13,800 in 2006 after accounting for inflation. But since 2002, spending at public colleges has generally not exceeded inflation.

Increases in spending were driven mostly by higher administration, maintenance, and student services costs. Public universities spent almost $4,000 per student per year on administration, support, and maintenance in 2006, up more than 13 percent, in real terms over 1995. And they spent another $1,200 a year on services such as counseling, which was up 23 percent. Meanwhile, they spent about $8,700 a year on classroom instruction for each student, up about 9 percent.

Big private universities, powered by tuition and endowment increases, have increased spending dramatically while public schools have languished. Total educational spending per student at private research universities has jumped by almost 10 percent since 2002 to more than $33,000. During that same period, public university total spending was comparatively flat and totaled less than $14,000 a year.