Slashdot Mirror

I can't be the only one shocked, SHOCKED to discover, the government is inefficient and wastes money. I mean, after the staggering success of everything else it operates — things like US Postal Service or Amtrak — it is certainly most disappointing to encounter a government program, that fails to live-up to our high expectations.

Nay, this may even chill our collective enthusiasm for making food and shelter a government's responsibility too — you can't be healthy without nutrition and a roof above your head, can you, so it only would've seem natural to further expand the government's omniscient and benevolent control into that direction. But not any more... Not quite...

The IPhones biggest security threat is the US Federal Government.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

No one argues for unregulated markets.

Reasonable regulation, built on experience, is all that people ask for and all that is needed.

Forcing companies to provide mortgages to people who are patently unqualified is an example of unreasonable regulations that resulted in untold devastation to the economy.

Now, the Feds are going around telling banks that these businesses are "bad" and that if they provide service to them, they'll be audited from top to bottom. It is a defacto suppression of Free Enterprise based on a political viewpoint.

And for those of you that would say this is a good thing, what would you say when at some point, abortion providers suddenly become "bad" businesses?

People like Waxman and others would love for us to have a Command Economy, if not literally, at least virtually. Since that is fundamentally immoral and 100% incompatible with our Constitution and the laws which flow from it, they are trying an end run around the issue with targeted regulations designed not to protect the consumers, but to encourage/discourage businesses to achieve the same results.

It's the rules, the bureaucracy and the paperwork

Don't forget the corruption.

As we've learned from multiple agencies that flaunt records keeping laws by deliberately employing systems that are incapable of meeting statutory requirements, the motives of these people are criminal. As an IT person you `will' or `will not' based on their perogatives, legal or otherwise. If they want a twenty year old email system maintained because an upgrade would mean their traffic is recoverable after six months, you're going to find yourself maintaining an ancient POS and ignored (at best) anytime you point it out.

If they want a massive, possibly illegally obtained or misused database analyzed for extra scrutiny of political opponents you get to help them abuse power. And you'll keep your mouth shut about it too, or they'll put you and your stapler in the basement.

You could just change the government there and allow people more freedoms, including religion. Being fascist dickwads certainly isn't helping things. I'm not an advocate for religious practice however peoples' beliefs can force them to do something awful just to draw attention to their plight. Instead of stabbing people randomly, people being repressed in China could be like Shen Yun and put on a show about it. No? Well okay carry on then creating something that'll put more people in jail or bring back the labor camps.

Why would you need a Taxi in Washington DC?

The Patent Office, in an effort to modernize and attract more talent (you know, accept less salary for your engineering/science degree by working for the government instead of the private sector) implemented a plan to permit people to work from home, and from there to work remotely from the city the Office itself is located at, any city you want (within the 48 contiguous states). This was a natural outgrowth of an earlier (and successful) effort to eliminate paper at the office and work entirely electronically.

The actual source material for the Post article appears to show growing pains that one can reasonably expect from permitting thousands of employees to do their work from home, hundreds or even thousands of miles from the Office (if they qualify). Whereas the Post article seems written intentionally to inflame the reader (for what... maybe to sell more advertising? build cred for the writer?), the source material shows no wide-spread fraud, just your typical employees finding that, with the freedom to work at home, it's real easy to put your work off until deadline and then cram, or not put in the hours you would if you had a supervisor looking into your cubicle each morning. Same shit the private sector has been dealing with for years.

From what I can tell from the source, the management of the PTO is on it, and has been on it at least since the report came out in 2012. The only difference is that, because this is government, it's public and everyone can arm-chair quarterback their asses (probably as they themselves goof off at their terminals at work or from inside their momma's basement), whereas if a private company were going through this, it would be an internal matter and none of your damned business.

The Patent Office performs a function that is crucial; not even the Koch brothers would deny that. Shitting on the whole lot of them because a couple of employees can't handle the freedom of telework is unfair and dishonest, particularly coming from people taking suspiciously long lunch hours to write comments on slashdot :-|

'Australia banned guns: Sure, there are no school massacres but the murder rate hasn't decreased.'

You're reading the wrong newspaper, the Washington Post says otherwise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"So what have the Australian laws actually done for homicide and suicide rates? Howard cites a study (pdf) by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides. That provides strong circumstantial evidence for the law's effectiveness."

The cost of solar dropped 20% in the last couple years, and is expected to drop quite a bit more, due to both technological and manufacturing improvements.

FYI - the biggest reason for the price drop wasn't economies of scale, but because China flooded the unholy fuck out of the solar market, in a bid to dominate it since manufacturing solar panels isn't all that technically complex (at least not when compared to most other things).

It used to cost around $3/Wp, and China's backing of SunPower, SunTech and similar ventures glutted the price down to ~$0.90/Wp; however, last I checked a couple of years ago (I used to work for SolarWorld) it still cost around $1.25/Wp to manufacture a 250W panel, and that's not counting margins slimmer than even a PC OEM enjoys.

The French nuclear industry does not have the very best reputation for diligence and safety. I would not be too surprised if they have a major accident some day. That is the flip side of having no NIMBYs.

To put the whole risk into financial perspective, I suggest mandatory insurance on a level that is sufficient to cover a Fukujima-class accident. Estimated costs of that one are around $100 billion:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/for-tepco-and-japans-fukushima-daiichi-nuclear-plant-toxic-water-stymies-cleanup/2013/10/21/406f4d78-2cba-11e3-b141-298f46539716_story.html

With that insurance requirement in place, by all means let the market decide if nuclear is still worthwhile ;-)

Troll?

to pay somebody 18K after tax, employer has to pay what, 28K

- is that the 'Troll'? Only if you do not run a business and do not know what the employer's actual costs are when their employee makes that 18K net.

Is this troll? - Well, I guess a link to a Washington Post can be considered one, I give you that.

However it doesn't change the fact, 31% of Americans have 0 savings, 19 of those between 55 and 64 have 0 savings. Maybe the USA economy is a Troll with those numbers.

s 324.5 Million settlement is yet another cost on employment,

- is this the troll? So 324.5 Million dollars (or more eventually) taken from the companies is somehow not a cost of labour in USA? What is it the cost of then if not labour cost, imposed by unauthorised government rule?

Yeah, well, I guess if you are not here supporting what the court did you are a troll, there is no difference of opinion here, just those who are RIGHT and those who are TROLLS.

In USA labour cost is expensive while what the employee gets after taxes into his hands is not much. For example to pay somebody 18K after tax, employer has to pay what, 28K at least? So where is the delta going? Because it's not going towards the employee and it's not available to hire more employees or to invest in business otherwise. Well, it's going towards the government, preventing employees from having savings (31% of Americans have 0 savings, 19 of those between 55 and 64 have 0 savings) preventing Americans from starting their own companies because they have no savings and from so much more. Imposing enormous costs on the employers as well.

My point is, this 324.5 Million settlement is yet another cost on employment, higher labour costs, lower output. Companies are ran by people, governments shouldn't have any authority whatsoever to prevent people from coming to agreements, even if the agreement is not to hire from each other or whatever. This is another nonsensical grab of unauthorised power of-course by the government.

It will be interesting to see if the F35 arrives at all.

And it, probably, should not. Modern technology already does — or soon will — allow sending a "zerg rush" of remotely-operated drones to overwhelm enemy's defenses. Remotely operated by the new generations raised on video-games — and often too fat for personal fighting anyway.

Oh, and it is not just aircraft — the same logic would apply to tanks and ships. Once you no longer need to care about the soft pink body(ies) inside the military vehicle, you can stuff if with much more weaponry, make it do things which would've killed the human personnel before (like 20-g turns), and comfortably send it on "suicide" missions.

Shame most of that concrete in China is going to waste, since a large percentage of the buildings they are building has no one using them.

http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Tesla is trying to be a disruptive force in the auto market, they aren't going to do that by locating in Detroit. Too many "old car" thinkers.

Offer them a job and they'll think any way you want them to. And I imagine some of those old car thinkers bring some old-school practical experience with them too, particularly useful when it comes to competing with establishment titans like Ford, GM, etc. (with their dirty tricks).

email your friend encrypted pdf files and tell him the pdf file password over the telephone.

Unless your friend is in a foreign country, where the NSA retains 30 day recordings of all phone conversations. Hopefully, they don't do the same for domestic calls. Better to exchange the password in person, in advance.

Yup, like the recent one about men not being able to 'be alone with their own thouhgs'..

That same data can also read 'Men, more willing to put up with pain' or 'Men, more curious and want to know what they may experience'

The gold dollar was about to put a check on Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' crapola, but Nixon defaulted on the gold dollar, crossed the words 'I owe you' from 'I owe you X dollars' from the bank notes and called the little paper previously known as the 'Federal reserve note' into 'dollars'. This is what allowed the government to perpetuate its growth to the gargantuan size it is today and it is what killed USA economy reversing the economic growth in USA and eventually wiping out the economy completely.

As to statistics, some people compile this data, of-course unemployment rate shows some of this but the details of unemployment are much more important than the compiled averages, the poorer segment of society, the black Americans have suffered higher unemployment rate since the programs against poverty started, than ever before. Actually before the minimum wage was introduced in the 1938, unemployment among blacks youth (16-25, formative work years) was lower than among whites by 15%. Actually each 10% increase in minimum wage mandate had a disproportionate decrease in employment upon the minorities, which is counterproductive if the goal is to decrease poverty, of-course it was not, the goal was to turn people into dependants, voting for bigger and bigger government, while growing the said government.

The gold dollar was not allowing the government to carry with that goal and Nixon chose to default on the actual dollar than to abandon big government ideology.

Actually there ARE some experimental treatments and antivirals, both general and specific to Ebola, being worked on. At Emory, in particular. (It's their business.)

In fact, according to previous reports, THIS GUY was working on them. And he had ONE dose of one of them WITH him.

Unfortunately, when he and a colleague both started showing symptoms, THIS GUY gave the ONE DOSE to the OTHER GUY.

Actually, the infected doctor, Kent Brantly, gave the treatment to another missionary, Nancy Writebol, and she's also being evacuated on that plane. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... They haven't announced what the treatment is, but it might have been IgG blood serum http://www.livescience.com/471... separated from the blood of one of the other victims. Or it might have been a new untested adenovirus vaccine, which works (on monkeys) even after they're infected. Or it might have been a monoclonal antibody. Or it might have been an experimental RNA virus. http://www.nature.com/news/ebo... I can't understand why they're keeping it a secret.

These untested treatments are all desperate measures. From what I've read in the New England Journal of Medicine clinical cases, these are the kind of treatments that they use when everything else fails, the patient is dying, they don't know what else to do, and there's nothing to lose.

As I understand it, the odds are against it, but they're the best doctors in the world, and I hope it works.

I also don't understand why they're bringing them to the U.S. The only treatment is supportive care. I think they also have planes that are set up with a transportable ICU, so they should be able to treat them on site.

There is a risk of the virus getting out, no matter how careful they are. They're doing this all for the first time. One problem is that handling a case like this is so complicated, and you only have to make one mistake. An ICU is full of equipment. Since ebola can't be treated, an epidemic spreads until it kills off so many of its victims that there's nobody left to infect, and it burns itself out.

With SARS, a lot of medical workers, particularly nurses, got infected, and they were a large number of the fatalities.

Here's news for you mate. There is no shortage of skilled workers. There is only capitalistic elites applying very strict selection requirements via flavor of the month bullshit requirements (ignoring that coders learn new languages without having to get a degree or cert). This is done so they can pretend to be looking for workers, when in fact they are trying NOT to hire anyone so they can meet the government's requirements and employ more lower paid H1B visa workers. There are actually HR seminars about how NOT to hire people while still complying with the requirements of looking for work. "Oh my, you don't have a Certificate or Degree in $LANG, I'm afraid that's a requirement. Yes, you may say you know it, but how do I know that?" In fact, they just filter all applicants by their strict filter and you don't even get interviewed. They have to interview a few folks, just to seem legit, but that's the nature of this beast.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Unless I'm mistaken, one of the few remaining samples of smallpox is located in Atlanta.

There's some in the storage closet in Maryland. Might be some in Atlanta, too. Who knows. The reason they call it smallpox is because it's so hard to see. Makes it difficult to keep track of.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/07/08/smallpox-discovered-sitting-in-maryland-storage-room/

Are you similarly willing to acknowledge that these tunnels were used for purposes that aren't quite so nefarious, or do you refuse to acknowledge reality when it fails to cast a negative light on the Palestinians?

I have seen news reporting that the tunnels to Egypt were mostly used for smuggling. I haven't seen any news reporting that the tunnels to Israel were used or intended for any purpose other than attack. You keep postulating that maybe they could be or could have been used for smuggling, but you haven't presented any evidence to support your ideas. I can't prove a negative, but I don't see why the onus should be on me to do so.

I don't lump all the Palestinians into a single bucket. Hamas is the problem here, not every single Palestinian.

There is evidence that the tunnels were intended for attack:

Describing this emerging âoetunnel war,â a Palestinian militia document obtained by the news Web site al-Monitor said the objective of the underground network was âoeto surprise the enemy and strike it a deadly blow that doesnâ(TM)t allow a chance for survival or escape or allow him a chance to confront and defend itself.â

There are three types of tunnel, experts say. The first are economic: hundreds of tunnels burrowing into Egypt, which allowed Hamas to funnel in resources, guns and rockets until the Egyptians sealed off many of them.

Another set of tunnels reportedly services the Hamas high command. âoeEvery single leader of Hamas, from its lowest ranking bureaucrats to its most senior leaders, is intimately familiar with the route to the security tunnel assigned to him and his family,â al-Monitor reported. âoeThe most senior leadership has its own specific tunnel.â

The last kind is allegedly driving the Israeli invasion: tunnels that can carry Hamas militants under the Gaza border and into Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/21/how-hamas-uses-its-tunnels-to-kill-and-capture-israeli-soldiers/

This whole situation is a tragedy, but the vast majority of the blame must fall onto Hamas. Israel would live in peace with Gaza if they could. The gift of greenhouses was repaid with rocket attacks.

Are you similarly willing to acknowledge that these tunnels were used for purposes that aren't quite so nefarious, or do you refuse to acknowledge reality when it fails to cast a negative light on the Palestinians?

I have seen news reporting that the tunnels to Egypt were mostly used for smuggling. I haven't seen any news reporting that the tunnels to Israel were used or intended for any purpose other than attack. You keep postulating that maybe they could be or could have been used for smuggling, but you haven't presented any evidence to support your ideas. I can't prove a negative, but I don't see why the onus should be on me to do so.

I don't lump all the Palestinians into a single bucket. Hamas is the problem here, not every single Palestinian.

There is evidence that the tunnels were intended for attack:

Describing this emerging âoetunnel war,â a Palestinian militia document obtained by the news Web site al-Monitor said the objective of the underground network was âoeto surprise the enemy and strike it a deadly blow that doesnâ(TM)t allow a chance for survival or escape or allow him a chance to confront and defend itself.â

There are three types of tunnel, experts say. The first are economic: hundreds of tunnels burrowing into Egypt, which allowed Hamas to funnel in resources, guns and rockets until the Egyptians sealed off many of them.

Another set of tunnels reportedly services the Hamas high command. âoeEvery single leader of Hamas, from its lowest ranking bureaucrats to its most senior leaders, is intimately familiar with the route to the security tunnel assigned to him and his family,â al-Monitor reported. âoeThe most senior leadership has its own specific tunnel.â

The last kind is allegedly driving the Israeli invasion: tunnels that can carry Hamas militants under the Gaza border and into Israel.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/21/how-hamas-uses-its-tunnels-to-kill-and-capture-israeli-soldiers/

This whole situation is a tragedy, but the vast majority of the blame must fall onto Hamas. Israel would live in peace with Gaza if they could. The gift of greenhouses was repaid with rocket attacks.

A peace where the occupier continues to steal land from you at an ever increasing rate.

You might be interested in reading this article.

Let me guess.... the article you link to details how every tunnel they've found contains a strictly audited log of past use which conclusively demonstrates your point? No?

I know you are being sarcastic here, but seriously, what would it take to convince you that a tunnel from Gaza into Israel was intended for attacking Israel?

How about if it was actually used to attack Israel... would that be enough to convince you? (Link with no subscription needed)

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2014/0728/Hamas-attacks-by-tunnel-rattle-Israelis-on-Gaza-border-video

It sucks to have rockets raining down on civilians, but those are because Israel prevents Hamas from acquiring more sophisticated weaponry capable of being targeted.

You are seriously arguing the moral equivalence of Hamas and Israel? You are seriously saying that it's okay for Hamas to rain down rockets indiscriminately on civilians because Israel has been able to keep them from getting better weapons?

This is where I say "Have a nice life" and stop bothering to try to talk to you about this, or anything.

Much like the purpose of the IDF is to kill Palestinians

The "D" stands for "Defense", not for "Kill Palestinians". And if Israel really wanted to kill Palestinians, why do they go to so much trouble to try to warn people to get out of areas that are about to be hit?

If they really wanted to just kill people, they could be racking up the kills a lot faster than they are.

But you don't even believe that yourself. You are either trolling me or trying to make some sort of point with hyperbole.

Or perhaps we can be reasonable people and acknowledge that these tunnels have been being used to smuggle essential supplies ever since the Israeli-Egyptian blockade was put into place

No, the tunnels from Gaza into Israel have never been used to smuggle essential supplies. The tunnels from Gaza to Egypt, yeah sure.

Worse still, such dangerously reasonable lines of thought might lead to a peaceful agreement between the two warring parties.

If only a peaceful agreement were possible.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/why-dont-i-criticize-israel#.U9WnT5ebKes.twitter

Have a nice life.

It is more to do with proportional response.

This is utter bullshit. If an enemy is trying to kill you, you try to kill them — using the best weapons you've got, hitting them as hard as possible. Because they are doing their best.

You also have to consider that the Palestinian people as a whole are not Hamas

That lie was exposed as such, when the Gazans voted — in free and internationally-observed elections — for Hamas.

For every innocent non-terrorist killed, that will recruit many terrorists.

Contrary to the haters' portrayal, IDF are not indiscriminate killers they don't need this sort of calculations to try their hardest to avoid killing innocent civilians. Shit still happens, unfortunately.

hows that gay marriage thing coming in the US?

All US citizens have the exact same right, when it comes to marriage: they can be married to one person of the opposite gender, who are not too closely related to them by blood.

That about 3% of the population are unable to exercise that right is unfortunate, but it does not mean, they are deprived of the right.

Not any more so, than a quadriplegic is deprived of the right to practice karate.

Soon to be freaking out in front of several governmental bodies: Your HMO

They will claim the treatment is worse than the cancer. They'll want the feds to recommend that people not take this test because it will "mislead" 9inform) the public and cause them to seek unnecessary (expensive) treatment for a condition that might just go away on its own. Then they'll use the governments recommendations as an excuse to deny people coverage.

Sound crazy? They already did it! http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

The biggest problem with health care in this country are HMOs. The second your doctor works for the same company that pays for your treatment, his paycheck is directly affected by any increased treatment he suggests. This impairs his judgment, leads to reduced treatment and ironically leads to increased cost down the road.

You are 100% right, antisemitism is a very real and very awful thing, but so is Israeli apartheid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_the_apartheid_analogy).

A few Israeli soldiers are refusing to serve and can get away with saying everything that needs to be said. (Well they can get away without being called antisemitic, but they are going to jail for it): http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

I have the luxury of being friends with people who believe in different religions (including Islam and Judaism), and there is nothing about the religions or the people that prevent peaceful coexistence and friendship. When religious beliefs seem to be a factor in this conflict, I think they are being manipulated for political ends.

Well, no one is quite the expert at mass murder that the Israelis are, as they're proving in Gaza right now by butchering 4 civilians for every enemy "soldier" that they kill.

The Israelis are fighting an enemy that intends to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible. The Hamas Covenant says (exact quote from the English translation): There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Hamas has repeatedly fired rockets and artillery shells into Israel, indiscriminately trying to maim and kill anyone in Israel. Hamas started this, not Israel.

Israel has been dropping leaflets: "Get out of here, we will be attacking the area soon." They have telephoned houses and sent texts: "Get out of the area, it's not safe." They have dropped non-exploding payloads on buildings before dropping the bombs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/14/video-this-is-what-an-israeli-roof-knock-looks-like/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israeli-troops-raid-rocket-launching-sites-in-gaza-as-residents-are-urged-to-evacuate/2014/07/13/4c1a0528-0a68-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

Hamas has been using schools, churches, hospitals, and people's houses to store weapons or launch rocket attacks.

Given all of the above, there is total moral clarity here. Hamas literally wants to destroy Israel, started the conflict, and endangered its own people; Israel has repeatedly shown that they would be willing to accept a two-state solution, but Hamas will only accept a one-state solution, i.e. Israel destroyed and that land part of Palestine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-expands-ground-operation-in-gaza-1405836870

So, yes, it's true that Israel has not managed to fight a war with no collateral damage. But what would you have them do?

How patient would you be if someone was shooting rockets that were falling in your home town, and from time to time some innocent person (possibly a child) was maimed or killed? How long would you let that go on?

I am grateful that my own decisions (and especially my mistakes) don't have life-or-death consequences. I don't envy the leaders of Israel, deciding how to handle an implacable enemy that uses the innocent as human shields.

Well, no one is quite the expert at mass murder that the Israelis are, as they're proving in Gaza right now by butchering 4 civilians for every enemy "soldier" that they kill.

The Israelis are fighting an enemy that intends to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible. The Hamas Covenant says (exact quote from the English translation): There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Hamas has repeatedly fired rockets and artillery shells into Israel, indiscriminately trying to maim and kill anyone in Israel. Hamas started this, not Israel.

Israel has been dropping leaflets: "Get out of here, we will be attacking the area soon." They have telephoned houses and sent texts: "Get out of the area, it's not safe." They have dropped non-exploding payloads on buildings before dropping the bombs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/14/video-this-is-what-an-israeli-roof-knock-looks-like/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israeli-troops-raid-rocket-launching-sites-in-gaza-as-residents-are-urged-to-evacuate/2014/07/13/4c1a0528-0a68-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

Hamas has been using schools, churches, hospitals, and people's houses to store weapons or launch rocket attacks.

Given all of the above, there is total moral clarity here. Hamas literally wants to destroy Israel, started the conflict, and endangered its own people; Israel has repeatedly shown that they would be willing to accept a two-state solution, but Hamas will only accept a one-state solution, i.e. Israel destroyed and that land part of Palestine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-expands-ground-operation-in-gaza-1405836870

So, yes, it's true that Israel has not managed to fight a war with no collateral damage. But what would you have them do?

How patient would you be if someone was shooting rockets that were falling in your home town, and from time to time some innocent person (possibly a child) was maimed or killed? How long would you let that go on?

I am grateful that my own decisions (and especially my mistakes) don't have life-or-death consequences. I don't envy the leaders of Israel, deciding how to handle an implacable enemy that uses the innocent as human shields.

Well, no one is quite the expert at mass murder that the Israelis are, as they're proving in Gaza right now by butchering 4 civilians for every enemy "soldier" that they kill.

The Israelis are fighting an enemy that intends to destroy Israel and kill as many Jews as possible. The Hamas Covenant says (exact quote from the English translation): There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.

Hamas has repeatedly fired rockets and artillery shells into Israel, indiscriminately trying to maim and kill anyone in Israel. Hamas started this, not Israel.

Israel has been dropping leaflets: "Get out of here, we will be attacking the area soon." They have telephoned houses and sent texts: "Get out of the area, it's not safe." They have dropped non-exploding payloads on buildings before dropping the bombs.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/14/video-this-is-what-an-israeli-roof-knock-looks-like/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/israeli-troops-raid-rocket-launching-sites-in-gaza-as-residents-are-urged-to-evacuate/2014/07/13/4c1a0528-0a68-11e4-bbf1-cc51275e7f8f_story.html

Hamas has been using schools, churches, hospitals, and people's houses to store weapons or launch rocket attacks.

Given all of the above, there is total moral clarity here. Hamas literally wants to destroy Israel, started the conflict, and endangered its own people; Israel has repeatedly shown that they would be willing to accept a two-state solution, but Hamas will only accept a one-state solution, i.e. Israel destroyed and that land part of Palestine.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-moral-clarity-in-gaza/2014/07/17/0adabe0c-0de4-11e4-8c9a-923ecc0c7d23_story.html

http://online.wsj.com/articles/israel-expands-ground-operation-in-gaza-1405836870

So, yes, it's true that Israel has not managed to fight a war with no collateral damage. But what would you have them do?

How patient would you be if someone was shooting rockets that were falling in your home town, and from time to time some innocent person (possibly a child) was maimed or killed? How long would you let that go on?

I am grateful that my own decisions (and especially my mistakes) don't have life-or-death consequences. I don't envy the leaders of Israel, deciding how to handle an implacable enemy that uses the innocent as human shields.

This reminds me of a story I read a few years ago about a landmine clearing robot that was designed to have its legs blown off and still travel through the minefield.

Depends how you define "very popular" I guess. The most popular way to bypass state-level censorship in the Arab world and elsewhere is a product called HotSpot Shield. When Turkey blocked Twitter some time ago, HSS experienced 1000% growth and reached 1.1 million installs in the iOS App Store alone within only four days, with 800,000 regular users.

In contrast Tor went from 30,000 to 40,000 "direct connects" from Turkey.

HSS doesn't get much press in the geek world as it's just a plain old VPN run by a company in California that inserts ads into people's web pages to pay for the bandwidth costs. But usage wise it utterly dominates Tor.

Both the USA and Russia have, at various times, given out shoulder-fired SAMs to various "rebels" or "freedom fighters" or whatever. And thus, I presume that such missiles might be purchasable on the black market.

Pro military gear, a tracked vehicle something like a tank (looks like this), is only available directly from a government, usually with "advisers" to train the "rebels" or "freedom fighters" in their use.

The original comment wasn't perfectly phrased.

Israel has never shown themselves to be ready for peaceful coexistence (and neither has Hamas).

This article is quite relevant to the above claim...

According to the Obama administration, there's nothing wrong with the southern border. In fact, the borders are even more secure today then a decade ago. I wish I made that up, even though they were warned 2 years ago about it.

Heck, look what Tesla already accomplished - they complained about California's ground rules, and got an exemption written into law for themselves - without casting a vote or spending a dollar! From the article: "On the legislative front, state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, co-authored a bipartisan bill, yet to be fleshed out, enabling Mather Field's business park, outside Sacramento, to avoid time-consuming environmental reviews. Large tax breaks were floated, like the $425 million tax break passed earlier this month for Lockheed Martin to persuade the company to build a new generation of bombers at its Los Angeles plant."

How can businesses refuse to play politics when half-billion dollar handouts are to be had for the asking?

Here's an article on google's political coming of age:

The rise of Google as a top-tier Washington player fully captures the arc of change in the influence business.

Nine years ago, the company opened a one-man lobbying shop, disdainful of the capital's pay-to-play culture.

Since then, Google has soared to near the top of the city's lobbying ranks, placing second only to General Electric in corporate lobbying expenditures in 2012 and fifth place in 2013.

... Today, Google is working to preserve its rights to collect consumer data - and shield it from the government - amid a backlash over revelations that the National Security Agency tapped Internet companies as part of its surveillance programs. And it markets cloud storage and other services to federal departments, including intelligence agencies and the Pentagon.

"Technology issues are a big - and growing - part of policy debates in Washington, and it is important for us to be part of that discussion," said Susan Molinari, a Republican former congresswoman from New York who works as Google's top lobbyist.

The most horrible thing about corruption is that one it sets in, you can't just unilaterally opt out without severe negative consequences.

The US Government never really admitted, from wikipedia:
The U.S. government issued notes of regret for the loss of human lives and in 1996 paid reparations to settle a suit brought in the International Court of Justice regarding the incident, but the United States never released an apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing.[8]

Bullshit.

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

"The U.S. government deeply regrets this incident," Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a Pentagon news conference.

>> you'll bet that he comes out looking stellar in his state-controlled media

Not just that. That even "our media" will pick up on Russia winning and the west losing. For example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... ...etc.

If I were the government, I would do it by mandated carbon emission levels per watt of power generated by power companies. The idea is similar to the way that fuel efficiency standards were mandated for automobiles and led to vastly more fuel efficient cars.

And if you have a standard and enforce it by penalties (presumably financial ones) how is that really any different from a tax aside from taking longer and being less effective? We use mandated fuel efficiency standards because that was a politically acceptable compromise, not because it was the best policy. The fastest way to get fuel efficient cars is to raise the price of fuel for those cars. The higher the price of fuel the more consumers are going to begin to buy more fuel efficient cars. The EU has much higher fuel prices and as a result has higher average fuel economy in the cars people buy even after the recent increase in mandated fuel standards. If people actually want to buy more fuel efficient cars then companies will find ways to supply them. Taxing fuel is a proven effective way to get people to take an interest in fuel economy.

Setting aside Apple for the moment, there's nothing "theoretical" about Amazon engaging in actions of this sort. They've been doing it as long as Apple has, at least.

Using most favored nation clauses and the agency model, which is exactly what got Apple in trouble: http://www.selfpublishingrevie...
Leveraging their near-monopsony to try and gouge the publishers: http://www.teleread.com/ebooks...
Making hard-to-implement immediate demands when the publishers pushed back: http://www.thepassivevoice.com...
Delisting multiple publishers during re-negotiations: http://time.com/110412/amazon-...
Jacking shipping times from a few days to 3-5 weeks: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The author's guild is outright accusing Amazon of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/...

Spend 30 seconds Googling around. You'll be shocked at what all Amazon has already done when it comes to this industry, and it's only been getting worse in recent years. It's like looking inside the door at a sausage factory: you'd have wished you never looked.

I found this interesting: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Sorry, you're incorrect in both accounts.
You're going to cite advice from a site who's sole goal is to sell you more credit cards?
Credit cards are always, and forever will be a scam. If you have the cash, use the cash. If you don't, you shouldn't be buying it.
For some real info... follow this link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
What should be most interesting to you is that "Credit Cards" weren't even a "Thing" until the Supreme Court struck down predatory lending laws in the 1970s... Let me restate that... Preditory lending laws prevented credit cards from being legal.

Mortgage rates have nothing to do with why you shouldn't pay off your home loan. Your home loan is your single biggest tax deduction, and unless congress changes things, will remain so for the rest of your life. The higher the interest rate on the loan, the larger the deduction so the as long as the interest rate is competitive with the market it's still a good thing. If you can get a better rate from another bank you should, and if rates country wide are terrible, you should probobly pay it down quite a bit... bot not totally pay it off.

  And I want to be clear here, I'm talking about a first home... if you own 2nd and 3rd homes that's different... The deduction you get from that loan in enormous. More importantly, when you retire and start collecting on your 401k, that 401k is going to get taxed! And now that you're retired and paid off your loan, you'll have no deduction at all! While you're drawing on your 401k you need to be using your home loan deduction to reduce that tax burden. You should plan to have that loan paid off around the time the 401k runs out... then you switch to your Roth IRA which you've already payed the taxes on. If you plan correctly, you shouldn't be paying taxes after your homes paid off.

But yes, perhaps I should have been more detailed... That's why I said you should go take a class. Don't listen to me, don't listen to anyone on slashdot or even your friends. Get educated, figure it out for yourself. There is so much mis-information on these topics you can only really trust someone that you're paying (a true fiduciary under contract or a professor.)
For more info on other reasons you should wait to pay off your home-loan, see this: http://www.aarp.org/money/inve...

Uncle Sam is in top gear hiring thousands of people a month. The "great recession" saw temporary furlows and no actual job loss among Federal workers. Now they're back on pace as the largest employer and the fastest growing employer.

Good times!

points only to volume of arctic sea ice

Volume vs. spread — hair-splitting. The submitter's write-up makes no distinction either.

My point was, an important piece of data was omitted. Which, in my not so humble opinion, constitutes a lie by omission.

And an important piece it is. You may not like the source I offered, but, whoever the messenger is, the facts are undeniable. Contrary to predictions of the computer models, the ice sheet in Antarctica is expanding — not shrinking. Mind you, these are the same models, on whose — now demonstrably faulty — predictions we are supposed to dramatically alter our way of life and government.

[dailykos.com]

For someone criticizing another poster's sources, offering a link to a blog run by by Communist Illiberals, is truly rich. I'll give you that...

If he can declare war without congressional approval...

When did he do that?

When the US bombed Libya in 2011.

Of course, Obama said that wasn't "hostilities"::

Let’s be honest: President Obama’s claim that U.S. military action in Libya doesn’t constitute “hostilities” is nonsense, and Congress is right to call him on it.

Blasting dictator Moammar Gaddafi’s troops and installations from above with unmanned drone aircraft may or may not be the right thing to do, but it’s clearly a hostile act. Likewise, providing intelligence, surveillance and logistical support that enable allied planes to attack Gaddafi’s military — and, increasingly, to target Gaddafi himself — can only be considered hostile. These are acts of war.

I guess Obama was confused by his plethora of "If you like your plan, you can keep it." and similar lies, and just lied about dropping bombs on Libya out of habit.

I think this is what he's talking about:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Yes, NSA spies on Congress. No, Congress doesn't like that, but they don't mind the rest of us being spied on. She was only pissed off about the spying once she realized she was also targeted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/... records that eight states still have a religion test on the statute books. It's been disabled now, but clearly evidences that the states had no compunction about imposing religious test for the first 150 years of the Federal constitution.

It's clear that any policy of the states was not prevented by the Federal constitution as originally enacted. Coincidentally the Washington Post has an article about the continuing requirement to believe in God in 7 state's laws http://www.washingtonpost.com/... Note that these are CURRENT laws - though effectively disabled by the 1960s decision of SCOTUS referred to in the article. But it is clear that there was no compunction about religious testsfor at least the first 170 years of the constitution!