Slashdot Mirror

Not true. West Texas doesn't subsidize solar, and there are mammoth solar arrays being installed there. Note that this is the Wall Street Journal, not a particularly liberal paper.

This is happening and all you can talk about is dog poo ..

A New Computer Glitch is Rocking the Mutual Fund Industry

No, in lieu of a smoking gun you judge, analyze and infer from the information you have, the experience you have gained over a lifetime of asessing information and every bit of data that you have. http://www.wsj.com/articles/ta...

Two words. Delta Smelt. That is what happens when you have rabid environmental policies run amok.

American business has reaped huge productivity gains from its white collar workforces

Not lately. We may be getting to the point where to improve productivity you'll have to automate yourself out of a job.

And let's not forget that Joseph Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest, maintains that the series of events that led to his imprisonment began when he refused to capitulate to the government's surveillance demands.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

"Environmentalists" fighting tooth and nail to dismantle carbon-free nuclear generation, and insisting that we can decarbonize with renewables alone will doom the oceans if they have their way

Ah, the "only nuclear can safe us" myth. When looking at this without ideology, one quickly learns that nuclear is simply too expensive. As such, it is not a solution to any problem - investing in nuclear makes the situation worse by wasting resources.

No, you are operating under the myth that we have the time to wait for renewables like solar and wind. We don't, decades of science and engineering are ahead of us.

Renewables are already today more cost effective than nuclear. There is no engineering needed. More engineering will only make it better.

Minimizing carbon output requires nuclear. Avoiding nuclear results in more carbon released into the atmosphere. Look at Germany's current consumption:

"Germany is one of the largest consumers of energy in the world. In 2014, it consumed energy from the following sources:
Oil 35.0%
Bituminous coal 12.6%
Lignite 12.0 %
Natural gas 20.4%
Nuclear power 8.1%
Hydropower, windpower, solar 2.1%
Other renewable 9.0%
Renewable energy is more present in the domestically produced energy, since Germany imports about two-thirds of its energy. This however is offset by exports of energy"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

"Berlin's "energy revolution" is going great—if you own a coal mine. The German shift to renewable power sources that started in 2000 has brought the green share of German electricity up to around 25%. But the rest of the energy mix has become more heavily concentrated on coal, which now accounts for some 45% of power generation and growing. Embarrassingly for such an eco-conscious country, Germany is on track to miss its carbon emissions reduction goal by 2020.
Greens profess horror at this result, but no one who knows anything about economics will be surprised. It's the result of Chancellor Angela Merkel's Energiewende, or energy revolution, a drive to thwart market forces and especially price signals, that might otherwise allocate energy resources. Now the market is striking back.
Take the so-called feed-in tariff, which requires distributors to buy electricity from green generators at fixed prices before buying power from other sources. Greens tout the measure because it has encouraged renewable generation to the point that Germany now sometimes experiences electricity gluts if the weather is particularly sunny or windy.
Yet by diverting demand to renewables, the tariff deprives traditional generators of revenue and makes it harder for them to forecast demand for thermal power plants that require millions of euros of investment and years to build. No wonder utilities favor cheaper coal plants to pick up the slack whenever renewables don't deliver as promised.
Mrs. Merkel's accelerated phase-out of nuclear power after the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan has had a similar effect. Shutting profitable nuclear plants deprives utilities of revenue and saddles them with steep decommissioning costs, which makes cheaper coal more appealing."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/ge...

Even then the ability to manufacture sufficient battery (or alternative) storage is unknown.

This is another myth. Renewables can easily be expanded by a significant amount without additional storage. In fact, Germany has a bit of pumped storage which are currently under-utlized today because renewables fit better to the demand curve.

Easily expanded. They can't even manage what renewables they are currently using:
"The government in the past assumed that enough new power transmission

The real problem is that California's population has grown by about 30% in the past 20 years, and the water system hasn't kept up. That's a staggering rate of growth. Keeping people out isn't realistic

Actually, keeping people out is the answer. Put national guard on the boarder, specifically the southern border with Mexico to keep out illegal immigrants. You see, there's actually a mass exodus right now -- at least of citizens.

Citations:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304444604577340531861056966
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/15/upshot/the-california-exodus.html
http://www.housingwire.com/articles/32489-high-cost-of-california-housing-driving-resident-exodus

“None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings, but some included IC-derived classified information and should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network,” wrote Inspector General I. Charles McCullough in the letter to Congress.

Hackers go to jail for insider trading because it rips off punters without access to the inside information.

So what about High-frequency trading? Investment bankers pay a premium to the stock exchange to connect their computers closer than everyone elses. They get inside information microseconds before those same punters, and milk them for it, and it's all legit. Isn't High-frequency trading just another kind of insider trading?

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/re...
http://faculty.chicagobooth.ed...

Here's the SEC Filing that got the ball rolling on this unfortunate situation.
There's also some info in the WSJ writeup.

Their CFO had left in April and their Chief Accounting Officer just resigned ... unknown how those relate to what happened.

Bummer to see this happen to Ubiquiti as they seem like a good company.

What do you think provides the 220 voltage to the connector outside your house or to make the hydrogen or to make the steel to make the cars (or bicycles)?

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/m...

We have a long way to go still ;).

Governments, at least if they deserve the name, first and foremost have the goal of keeping a country running. There you actually have the chance that the service provided IS the primary goal.

There's a whole branch of economics which completely contradicts that, so let's start with some examples... can you name a few governments among the 196 or so in the world today which "deserve the name" under your definition and we can see how the people in those governments actually behave?

After all, how many lives has the FDA cost? What medical devices are we missing because the FDA delays them?

What you seem to see as a feature (long delays and hoops to jump through for government approvals), others have identified as a bug in the system.

Flight numbers are reused

Not infamous, doomed flight numbers, or not at least until many years have passed.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesia...

Yet the fact remains that there were hundreds or even thousands of MH370 flights prior to the one that was lost.

Flight numbers are reused

Not infamous, doomed flight numbers, or not at least until many years have passed.

http://blogs.wsj.com/indonesia...

last year a Virginia court ruled that if you use biometric locks you can be compelled to unlock the device. So no I don't use them.

I seriously doubt that. I only have global sales number, not US specific, but there are many online retailers that are larger. Newegg had around $2.7 billion in revenue in 2013. The same year Amazon had $68 billion, Apple had $18 billion, Staples and Walmart both had around $10 billion in online sales. Sears (a company that every talks about as dieing) and QVC (yes the website for that crappy home marketing TV station) both had nearly $5 billion in revenue. Even among consumer electronics CDW and Best Buy had more online sales at over $3 billion each. And again, while these are global numbers, most of those companies are US based, with strong US sales.

Newegg is one of hundreds of online retailers of simular size. While it is a great company, it's adoption of bitcoin is by no means an indication that something has gone mainstream.

Source: http://www.wsj.com/news/intera...

Um:

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

DID YOU READ?
RETROACTIVELY CLASSIFIED!
means she committed no crime at all.

Actually no... it means that some emails were retroactively classified, others have been determined to have been classified at the time of sending:

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

Do try to keep up.

Another desperate attempt to stop the inevitable.

Yes, all hail President Sanders!

She claims that she deleted only e-mails of a personal nature and handed over all of the "requested" emails. It's your word against hers.

Well, that and the word (or actions) of Sidney Blumenthal who turned over work emails which she didn't. Oops!

The information in question was classified at a later date. It was not classified at the time it was transmitted.

Your information is out of date, from http://www.wsj.com/articles/in...

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

Your information is out of date: http://www.wsj.com/articles/in...

In a letter to members of Congress on Thursday, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community concluded that Mrs. Clinton’s email contains material from the intelligence community that should have been considered “secret” at the time it was sent, the second-highest level of classification. A copy of the letter to Congress was provided to The Wall Street Journal by a spokeswoman for the Inspector General.

The four emails in question “were classified when they were sent and are classified now,” said Andrea Williams, a spokeswoman for the inspector general. The inspector general reviewed just a small sample totaling about 40 emails in Mrs. Clinton’s inbox—meaning that many more in the trove of more than 30,000 may contain potentially secret or top-secret information.

Ignorance of the law is not and has never been an excuse.

This is a legal principle that literally goes back to Greek antiquity.

How Heller-ishly convenient. There are so many criminal laws on the books, it is impossible to know them all (ask the ABA, they tried to simply count them, which is much less than _knowing_ them, and failed: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB... ). And yet an individual person without ranks of lawyers to do the research, is presumed to know each and every one. This is extremely dangerous because it gives those in power the ability to lock up anyone they don't like, which means that an individual's freedom and liberty -- core American values right? -- are subject to the whim of any dickweed with a little power.

No. Robotic surgery is not the clear winner. For many procedures, robot surgery has a higher complication rate than the same procedures done without a robot.

Here's one example: http://www.wsj.com/articles/ro...

The Wikipedia entry also provides a link to studies which explain why high performing math teams tend to have more males than females. Linky.
The long and short of it is that while both boys and girls have similar average scores, the boys have a higher variance than the girls. Meaning they have more very high scoring members of the population and also very low scorers. The girls scores were more clustered around the mean.
So if there was a team made up of the highest scoring math students there is a much higher chance it will be mostly boys. No penis driven oppression, no grand conspiracy, the teams are drawn from the best in the population. Though, if it makes people feel better they could form a team of the absolute worst math students and it would be mostly boys as well.

The most dangerous thing that could come out of that part of the world is a united empire run by religious fanatics or whose government is influenced enough by fanaticism that it looks away while people within the empire use its resources to cause inflame hatred and commit terrorism. Allowing ISIS to gain control of Iraq and Syria would be less dangerous to America than allowing Iran to gain control of Iraq and Syria because in the first case you have two nations who balance each other instead of one much larger nation trying to unify itself behind a shared hatred.

Iran is already making war against America both directly and by proxy. https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.wsj.com/articles/ir... http://www.nationalreview.com/... Does this deal do anything to end that state of war? Does this deal do anything to prevent Iran from gaining domination in Iraq and Syria? Or does it just prevent America and allies from stopping them?

I can't believe how many comments like this are floating around.

So you don't think the world wide recession had any role? Maybe do some fact checking before you blame the Greeks for much of the woes. It's pretty much accepted that without the recession, the Greeks wouldn't be in this crisis. Unless you think they are responsible for that too.

Doubt it will have an impact on your thinking, but here's a couple of links for you. http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jo...

45 % of Greek pensioners live below the eu poverty line. Your asking about if there is really a humanitarian crisis? Well I would call it a crisis but what type I'll leave for others. I don't see you too worried about all the banks and euro leaders calling it a crisis so I guess you just have have
a problem with applying to word to individuals instead of banks.

I guess that applies here to - it's pegged to the CPI.

Note that the CPI in reality isn't a constant basket of goods and services, it's an expanding basket.

Maybe in the USA (?)
"The CPI measures the change in the cost of purchasing a fixed basket of goods and services." Source Australian Bureau of Statistics. Those figures are calculated from costs in capital cities. Costs in regional areas are much higher (and that's where most of "poverty" is).

But the US keeps adding on new benefits on top of the basic welfare system: food, health care, housing, phone service, Internet service, etc.

No disagreement there - though I find the late trend of saying that poverty is a choice morally offensive.

The problem is that welfare isn't poverty:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics...

Interesting (thanks). It's defined differently here (we currently use an international standard). i.e. welfare is actually below the defined level of poverty. Labor (left) wants to use "relative" poverty, the Liberals (right, currently in power) disagree.

In fact, "poverty" in the US (and Australia I imagine) has largely been eliminated. The term "poverty" these days is defined as "relative poverty"; it has little to do with lack of material resources, it's just another measure of the spread of the income distribution.

I've covered our use of relative poverty (see above). As to whether it's largley (1 in 7) been eliminated here, I'd go with "less visible in the capital cities".
This article is based on the fairly recent ACCOS report.

I don't know of a solution but I suspect that education and integrated public housing may help reduce problems in the future.

I don't think so. Since poverty is defined in relative terms [sic in the USA], raising the general level of education doesn't affect poverty rates at all, even if it makes everybody more productive. Public housing has been a failure, and you can't force people to live next to people they don't want to live next to.

Raising the level of education could change the number of people who qualify for jobs for which there are few or no candidates. We (Australia) can put public housing anywhere - and do. I don't know that it's been declared a general failure (here). Certainly when it's segregated high density it's a failure - people tend to be more likely to change when shown how to do things differently as opposed to told. When all the people you "know" (your neighbours) sleep all day, drink all night, and spend their waking hours trying to work out how to get by without working, and how to get "things" without paying - there's little to contradict the belief that you can't change how you live. Especially when it's institutionalised i.e. public schools in low income areas cater to the perceived outcomes - lifestyle subjects, little or no preparation for higher education, and what's called "vegie" subject (math and english for the unemployed - not for the workplace).
As an example of proposed measures to "solve" the problem (which seem unlikely to work) one proposed plan is: to relocate large numbers of people from a Southern NSW housing estate - to a high density, low income estate in Canberra (yet to be built). Canberra is a relatively small place, not on a port or with a major river from the sea. Not only is the local market small - it's economy is based almost entirely on a trickle down from Federal government expenditure. The "idea" is that this move will somehow create a manufacturing industry by providing a large workfo

I guess that applies here to - it's pegged to the CPI.

Note that the CPI in reality isn't a constant basket of goods and services, it's an expanding basket. But the US keeps adding on new benefits on top of the basic welfare system: food, health care, housing, phone service, Internet service, etc.

No disagreement there - though I find the late trend of saying that poverty is a choice morally offensive.

The problem is that welfare isn't poverty:

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics...

In fact, "poverty" in the US (and Australia I imagine) has largely been eliminated. The term "poverty" these days is defined as "relative poverty"; it has little to do with lack of material resources, it's just another measure of the spread of the income distribution.

I don't know of a solution but I suspect that education and integrated public housing may help reduce problems in the future.

I don't think so. Since poverty is defined in relative terms, raising the general level of education doesn't affect poverty rates at all, even if it makes everybody more productive. Public housing has been a failure, and you can't force people to live next to people they don't want to live next to.

Welfare increases are pegged to the CPI. It's financed by an old piece of legislation that takes the money from income taxes. Welfare is soley the domain of the federal government (no food stamps).

Here's an interesting report on social expenditures in the OECD:

http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/OE...

The US is pretty middle of the road, and actually a bit more on the side of supporting low income people (a lot of social spending in places like France and Germany goes to people who don't need it).

Anyway, I think empirically, spending more on public education or other programs doesn't work. I think the real problem is massively regressive taxation, combined with massive regulations due to rent seeking, that greatly increase the cost of simply existing as a breathing human being.

One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.

So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.

Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.

We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.

Hit. Nail. Head. I wish I had mod points today. What's happening with liberalism today is a case study in self destruction. All we need to do is sit back and watch it play out.

Like those ideological purity tests...if we started measuring conservatives on the basis of how conservative are you, it would surely mark the beginning of the end. Liberal purity tests have pushed their kind so far to the extreme, they're now attacking themselves. And their tactic of keeping one constituency or another outraged at any given time has totally backfired.

I don't really blame liberals for being baffled. They've spent so much time in an echo chamber, they've lost touch. When reality finally slaps them in the face, it is only natural for them to try to figure out what happened. The question is, do they have the capability to make the necessary changes in order to correct their course?

Somehow I doubt it. Liberals are so

One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.

So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.

Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.

We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.

Hit. Nail. Head. I wish I had mod points today. What's happening with liberalism today is a case study in self destruction. All we need to do is sit back and watch it play out.

Like those ideological purity tests...if we started measuring conservatives on the basis of how conservative are you, it would surely mark the beginning of the end. Liberal purity tests have pushed their kind so far to the extreme, they're now attacking themselves. And their tactic of keeping one constituency or another outraged at any given time has totally backfired.

I don't really blame liberals for being baffled. They've spent so much time in an echo chamber, they've lost touch. When reality finally slaps them in the face, it is only natural for them to try to figure out what happened. The question is, do they have the capability to make the necessary changes in order to correct their course?

Somehow I doubt it. Liberals are so

One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.

So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.

Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.

We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.

Hit. Nail. Head. I wish I had mod points today. What's happening with liberalism today is a case study in self destruction. All we need to do is sit back and watch it play out.

Like those ideological purity tests...if we started measuring conservatives on the basis of how conservative are you, it would surely mark the beginning of the end. Liberal purity tests have pushed their kind so far to the extreme, they're now attacking themselves. And their tactic of keeping one constituency or another outraged at any given time has totally backfired.

I don't really blame liberals for being baffled. They've spent so much time in an echo chamber, they've lost touch. When reality finally slaps them in the face, it is only natural for them to try to figure out what happened. The question is, do they have the capability to make the necessary changes in order to correct their course?

Somehow I doubt it. Liberals are so

One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.

So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.

Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.

We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.

Hit. Nail. Head. I wish I had mod points today. What's happening with liberalism today is a case study in self destruction. All we need to do is sit back and watch it play out.

Like those ideological purity tests...if we started measuring conservatives on the basis of how conservative are you, it would surely mark the beginning of the end. Liberal purity tests have pushed their kind so far to the extreme, they're now attacking themselves. And their tactic of keeping one constituency or another outraged at any given time has totally backfired.

I don't really blame liberals for being baffled. They've spent so much time in an echo chamber, they've lost touch. When reality finally slaps them in the face, it is only natural for them to try to figure out what happened. The question is, do they have the capability to make the necessary changes in order to correct their course?

Somehow I doubt it. Liberals are so

One of the more positive things that has happened recently is that they got starved for victims so they started attacking their own political camps. They were basically doing purity tests. Once everyone is a liberal how do they justify their existence? well... they then ask "how liberal are you"... and they just start goal posting moving to make sure they have enough people to be outraged with at any given time.

So anyway, they were doing that and eventually they hit a segment of their own political contingent that fought back. And now they're a little baffled because a lot of the wind has gone out of their sails. They're getting attacked from all sides now and they're losing credibility rapidly.

Its funny because they're such dogmatic robots that they don't really understand what happened.

We'll see... they'll either be suppressed to the general good of society or they'll osterize most of their political base which will lead to a structural schism in the faction which will weaken them collectively.

Hit. Nail. Head. I wish I had mod points today. What's happening with liberalism today is a case study in self destruction. All we need to do is sit back and watch it play out.

Like those ideological purity tests...if we started measuring conservatives on the basis of how conservative are you, it would surely mark the beginning of the end. Liberal purity tests have pushed their kind so far to the extreme, they're now attacking themselves. And their tactic of keeping one constituency or another outraged at any given time has totally backfired.

I don't really blame liberals for being baffled. They've spent so much time in an echo chamber, they've lost touch. When reality finally slaps them in the face, it is only natural for them to try to figure out what happened. The question is, do they have the capability to make the necessary changes in order to correct their course?

Somehow I doubt it. Liberals are so

I think you've confused "data" with the plural of anecdote.

According to the very conservative numbers from the NCVS (national crime victimization survey) nearly 300,000 rapes and/or sexual assaults occur each year.

Interesting. Does the NCVS gather any stats on the crime of false accusation of rape? No? Can you point me to any reputable organization that does?

Single or even double-digit number of false rape reports in the newspapers is statistical noise.

Reported rapes are themselves a dark figure; false rape accusations are an even darker figure. In practical terms, it may be impossible to get to the actual number of false accusations.

Nonetheless, the FBI's numbers say 1 in 12 reported rapes are unfounded. The FBI also notes that for the more general class of "false accusations of adult crime", women perpetrate the majority of them.

As I'm writing this:
Shanghai's average P/E is 17.31.
( Source: http://www.sse.com.cn/market/d... )

Dow Jones Ind Avg P/E is 16.2.
( Source: http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/... )

1. The idea is to buy low and sell high. Prices aren't low yet.
2. A lot of people in China bought at very high valuations and hoped to sell at an even higher level to a "greater fool" to make a profit. This is called greed, and these people are in pain. Especially since so many of them bought on margin.

Greece isn't fixable.
Here's why:
http://www.grreporter.info/en/...
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
http://www.themalaysianinsider...
http://panteres.com/2015/05/07...

That has nothing to do with export regulations and everything to do with the fact that strong implementations of asymmetric cryptography and user friendliness have, so far, proved to be mutually exclusive.

In fact, PGP has become the defacto standard for assymetric, non-centralised cryptography - so I'd say it's been very successful.

How much financial success did Phil Zimmerman enjoy?

PGP was sold to Network Associates for $36 million. I don't know how much of that Zimmerman saw personally, but I'd call that a financial success.

http://blogs.wsj.com/brussels/...

You mean the current nuclear deal that they have said they will not honor? There is no final deal yet, and the preliminary deal was being sabotaged by the Ayatollah:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/ay...

You can try to claim that this somehow will stop them building a weapon, but I just don't see it. They still have Uranium mines, they still have the centrifuges, what is to stop them from making more refined Uranium to build bombs with? They are after all saying the inspectors will not be given access to military facilities...which is where you do this kind of work...

You can claim that I am ignorant, but you have given no facts, just hyperbole.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

A college friend's father lives in a retirement community and got free $6k golf cart because they are street legal. The state had to change their subsidy rules after a far more than expected number of people took advantage of this. This was long before federal subsidies.

Because it triggers victims. Here, read up on the subject.

"I'm gonna see it! I want it to be as beautiful as possible, even if it's inside the box. A great carpenter isn't going to use lousy wood for the back of a cabinet, even though nobody's going to see it." This is Steve Jobs pushing the Macintosh team to redesign the circuit board because some of the spacing was ugly.

Steve Jobs also pushed them to make it boot as fast as possible, rejected computer fans because of noise, and said a multibutton mouse would be inelegant. He went to great pains to make the Apple Store out of glass. Even his slides were Zen.

He was a complex character. He certainly wasn't your typical businessman:

"My passion has been to build an enduring company where people were motivated to make great products . . . the products, not the profits, were the motivation. Sculley flipped these priorities to where the goal was to make money. It's a subtle difference, but it ends up meaning everything."

Don't feel like doing a full survey for the reading impaired, but here's an example: Crack bad, cocaine good. This reduced the weight ratio for federal punishment between possession of crack cocaine and cocaine powder from 100:1 to 18:1, and eliminated the minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years for possession of crack cocaine. Guess what population group was involved in crack, and which in powder when the original law was drafted?

As for organizations, you might want to do some reading into the way the American judicial system hands out sentences for black versus white for exactly the same offense. Check out this paragon of liberal reporting . Being black gives you a 20% longer sentence by default for similar crimes. An ongoing program of sentencing black harder than any other group.

This took me 2 minutes of googling. You might want to try this. It's all pretty well known and out in the open. I'm curious how come that you're not aware of this and think everything is equal and unbiased in the USA. Watch Fox a lot?

Start by getting the government out of philanthropy and other benevolence. They suck at it, but insist on spending tax-dollars on it anyway.

But be careful — if you find something, that seems useful, the government may decide to impose it on everyone (at gun-point, which is how government does everything.)

Of course, the Statists would lament:

It's bad news when the government is in such disarray that it needs a money from a billionaire to keep providing services to the country's neediest

but don't fall for it. First of all, such statements are self-contradicting — because it is exactly the money from billionaires, that the government spends on "the country's neediest" even when it is not shut down. Top 20% of the earners pay 84% of the income tax today... But, when a philanthropist chooses to spend his money this way, it is noble and legal, whereas for the government it is a patently unconstitutional thing to do:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

— James Madison

Yes, boys and girls, "helping the needy" is just as illegal for the state to do as is eavesdropping on your communications or searching your house without a warrant...

exactly, well said

Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them

-Chief Justice Roberts

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/...

all Scalia has is a bunch of mental masturbatory snark. the guy thinks he is so clever and witty, you can tell he likes listening to himself. thing is, he is a witty wordsmith, actually

but he's fucking wrong on the substance of the matter, and that's what really matters

Rule of Law vs. The End Justifies the Means

But there is no particularly deserving end in this case. Nothing to justify the means with... Torture, at least, was claimed to prevent some acts of terror and even capture bin Laden.

Welcome to Police State 2.0.

Contrary to the "not really" you began with, Statism is the problem:

"If your government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have."

— Thomas Jefferson

In other words, if you want Federal government to give you "free" public schools, you'll have to accept Department of Education Police — along with the (not-) SWAT teams.

The interesting question is how long can this last before we reach a level that is not affordable to the majority of the demographic that is being serviced.

Care to guess what happens at that point? New construction doesn't sell, developers go bankrupt, new construction is sold at auction for lower prices. Then the new units available at lower prices push down prices of other housing, which makes purchase more affordable, which results in renters buying, which curbs rent prices.

Unless of course, large financial companies and well-connected donors are threatened by that circumstance.

Then, the central bank will step in, through its many channels, to put a floor under rental prices ("So I think if we spent enough money, got enough of a hit right now, it would look like a floor on house prices, and we might have something every bit as good as a floor on house prices."). The multiple government housing agencies (Fannie, Freddie, FHA, VA, USDA, etc) can also step in to influence the rental market, as they did the housing market.

Blackstone is a company securitizing rental flows and selling them. They are the largest private equity company in the world ("By both profit measures, the first quarter set quarterly records for Blackstone, the world’s largest private-equity firm").

The former head of the US central bank, Bernanke, is now employed by Citadel, a massive hedge fund.

My point is simply this: house prices did not revert to historical norms because of the big players - donors - that would have been deleteriously impacted by it. With big players moving into the rental market, if something went wrong with their business plan, don't expect them not to use their clout to get the government and central bank to do something about it.

The interesting question is how long can this last before we reach a level that is not affordable to the majority of the demographic that is being serviced.

Care to guess what happens at that point? New construction doesn't sell, developers go bankrupt, new construction is sold at auction for lower prices. Then the new units available at lower prices push down prices of other housing, which makes purchase more affordable, which results in renters buying, which curbs rent prices.

Unless of course, large financial companies and well-connected donors are threatened by that circumstance.

Then, the central bank will step in, through its many channels, to put a floor under rental prices ("So I think if we spent enough money, got enough of a hit right now, it would look like a floor on house prices, and we might have something every bit as good as a floor on house prices."). The multiple government housing agencies (Fannie, Freddie, FHA, VA, USDA, etc) can also step in to influence the rental market, as they did the housing market.

Blackstone is a company securitizing rental flows and selling them. They are the largest private equity company in the world ("By both profit measures, the first quarter set quarterly records for Blackstone, the world’s largest private-equity firm").

The former head of the US central bank, Bernanke, is now employed by Citadel, a massive hedge fund.

My point is simply this: house prices did not revert to historical norms because of the big players - donors - that would have been deleteriously impacted by it. With big players moving into the rental market, if something went wrong with their business plan, don't expect them not to use their clout to get the government and central bank to do something about it.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...

According to this site (pay-walled) the ban was for a week or so. Am I missing something? You say "we started" which, sort of, implies that you are involved in some way so you may have information that I am unable to access or find. No, I do not pay to subscribe to WSJ or anything. I just happened to check BugMeNot and found out that they have changed since I visited them some many years ago. So, I did a little searching and *tada.wav* I found a password that worked. It was the first try, too. Some company posted the password saying that they got a subscription, here was the user/password, feel free to use it but logout after you are done. I can handle that.