Slashdot Mirror

> What's so fucking special about gold anyway?

Well, for one, hard currency is a lot less likely to be just created en masse like Soft currency. Let me tell you a little story about Zimbabwe:
  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576314953091790360.html

I am not saying we should go back to gold. However, if you want to understand money, start with the excellent summary from The Ludwig von Mises Institute:

http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

Money is nothing more then an exchange of energy (be it time, knowledge, services, or items). The token that is used to represent those things are irrelevant.

--
Classmates.com (MemoryLane) is a SCAM

"I didn't say that, I said the goal is not to make profit. In fact how about "preserve future profits".

So you didn't say the goal of a company is not to make a profit but you said it is not to make a profit?

And strangely enough, they seem to be growing profitabilty,,,,Are you suggesting that Apple won't see year over year growth in 2013? 2014? 2015?

"Your right growing revenues "unprofitably" is not a recipe for success [its not true]"

So, if they grew revenue by adding MMI and MMI is losing money, what is that if not growing revenue unprofitably?

"The fact that it is affecting third party development support is a simply another sign."

http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/12/20/google-play-grows-app-store-king/

" Because right now I see Google investing in their future"

You obviously haven't looked at Apple's long term capital expenditures,,,,

"The Motorola deal cuts their tax bill because Google is vastly profitable :)"

You get "tax breaks" on losses. Losing money to pay less taxes is not a "strategy".

"Since when did selling one million devices a month become a bad thing :"

http://allthingsd.com/20120711/googles-nexus-7-costs-152-to-make-ihs-isuppli-teardown-finds/

And it sells for $199. Of course Asus doesn't make the whole $58 per device, they sell it at a discount to wholesellers.

"The reality is companies make massive profits from Android phones...don't pretend otherwise"

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/04/us-google-motorola-idUSBRE8930L020121004

"Google Inc raised its estimate of the cost of job cuts at its money-losing Motorola Mobility unit in the third quarter and warned of "significant" additional charges from further restructuring."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444897304578043782276831090.html

"HTC Profit Falls 79% Amid Competition "

http://techcrunch.com/2012/08/23/sony-mobile-to-lay-off-off-1000-people-as-part-of-restructuring/

"Today, Android OEM Sony announced that its loss-making mobile handset division Sony Mobile Communications would be laying out 15% of its workforce "

LG's profit is far from massive....
http://bgr.com/2012/10/24/lg-q3-2012-earnings-138-6-million-dollars/

So where are all of these Android manufacturers that are making tons of profits?

Apple accounts for 60% of the profit in the mobile industry.

http://www.intomobile.com/2012/11/14/asymco-apple-and-samsung-account-99-smartphone-profits-q3-htc-and-lg-only-other-profitable-companies/

"You need to make up your mind what you are arguing with Apples store. I have one point, Apples pursuit of Profits over market share is stupid, "

So, if it were stupid, then how does it make 60% of all mobile profit?

"It also means less money from its store."

Facts are your friends.....
http://www.idownloadblog.com/2012/12/20/google-play-grows-app-store-king/

"Apple does not make an awful lot of money from the computer market."

So which PC company makes more money selling computers than Apple makes selling Macs?

" I notice that the Chromebook is the best selling device on Amazon."

Yes and Amaz

While I tend to agree with you that taxes need to rise and spending needs to fall, but there were some real consequences (or still are actually) if the deal doesn't go through. The Alternative Minimum Tax, which was once upon a time designed to make sure the wealthiest Americans would pay at least some taxes, is not indexed for inflation and has to be reset manually every year. If it doesn't get reset right now, couples who earned $45k per year in __2012__ (this means this coming tax bill, not next years (there is not a whole year to fix it)) will get hit with the AMT. That's $33750 for you slashdotters (filing single).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324731304578191863373273492.html

You also don't get use your standard deduction or other deductions when calculating your income subject to the AMT. Plus, if you're expecting a refund to pay for Christmas, you might not even be able to file your taxes till March because the IRS has to mess around with its computers.

So, kind of a big deal.

No, a balanced budget is the last freaking thing we or any country needs.

- USA used to be a large borrower, but it used to borrow in order to build up production capacity. The borrowing was private, not government, not public.

Eventually over the 19th century so much production was built up that USA became largest manufacturer and exporter and that's why it was able to pay its debts and become largest creditor, and it was creditor even up to Reagan era, when it finally turned around and became a debtor nation. It took almost a century to squander its wealth, that's what it means. It means that USA wealth that was built up during the 19th century was truly staggering, but everything ends, even staggering amounts of wealth.

spent on things that will increase profitability and/or revenue

- aha, but that's not what is happening at all. Private borrowing that leads to increase in productive capacity is basically stopped, it's all government borrowing, which is only done in order to keep consuming.

Half of the money that USA government spends is borrowed money, but this has nothing to do with productivity, it only has to do with consumption. SS, Medicare, Wars and other spending, it's all consumption, there is no 'increase in profitability'.

Nobody is growing profitability in USA except for some energy miners, and they are paying taxes to the uncle Sam through the nose.

Your next few statements show how you completely misunderstand the problem, you think taxes must be high and so must safety net. Here is the thing: safety net must not exist and taxes must not exist either, that's how you get growth, not by stealing from people who can produce (and they can produce anywhere else, which they have conclusively shown) and you can't subsidise people for not working with money you steal from those who produce and call that 'trade'.

That's not trade. If person A produces and person B doesn't, there can be no trade between them. They are not trading anything, if person B consumes on credit the question is: can he produce enough in the future to offset the debt? If we doubt that then why would we give them the credit?

Of-course what is actually happening in USA (and Greece and all these other socialist countries) is that person A is taxed through the nose and person B votes for politicians who promise to take from person A and give to person B.

Then they have the gull to tell people that consumption by person B with money that was stolen from person A to redistribute products that person A created to person B constitutes a working economic model.

---

None of those things would be solved by a balanced budget amendment.

- you are CORRECT on this one, not for the reasons that you think but for other reasons. Balanced budget amendment doesn't mean anything at all if to 'balance the budget' you decide to tax people even more.

No, the only true way to fix the problem is to cut government, cut government spending, reduce government at the minimum by 50% (which is how much of government today is paid for with borrowing, almost 50% of all money that gov't spends it borrows, so at the minimum 50% of gov't must be cut).

totally preventable budget crisis

- depends on what you are trying to say here, your statement is ambiguous.

Was the budget crisis totally preventable? Sure, it was totally preventable because growth of government was preventable. Of-course nobody wanted to prevent it. The politicians never want to prevent growth of government, they are scared even of some insignificant delay in increase of growth, never mind actual reduction.

The mob didn't want to prevent anything, the mob was promised free lunch paid for by the top couple of percent, it's a huge heist that the mob is involved in, and the hit men are the politicians. Supposedly the mob justifies the theft with the words: democratic. Well sure, that's why democracy is such a terrible system, it allows the majority to steal from minority, that's why USA wasn't set up as a democracy. That's why different branches of government were not set up to agree with each other.

That's why 'compromise' is supposed to be a dirty word. Gov't is not supposed to work together, it's not supposed to move in one direction.

Why have House, Senate, POTUS, SCOTUS at all if all you are interested in is some form of consensus? No, then you simply have a King and he'll give you consensus. The branches of gov't exist to prevent each other from working, from doing deals, they don't exist to help each other to do deals, again, this was perverted some time back and now it's all consensus.

They have consensus, they all like to spend and they will not cut anything. Even some reductions in proposed increases of spending are not allowed to pass, never mind actual spending cuts.

The USA economy is not recovering, it cannot recover because of the government, because the regulations, taxes, inflation prevent any capital from being formed and invested in USA. There should be drastic reduction of government in order to restructure the economy and actually restart it. Of-course the word 'restructure' means break down first by allowing many companies to fail, allowing many people to fail, all those companies and people that are leveraged, they have to work away their debts, declare bankruptcies, pay their creditors some cents on a dollar. The money has to be freed, the balance sheets need to be balanced again, but this won't be allowed to happen voluntarily. It will be imposed upon the USA involuntarily, because the real debt ceiling is not the one that you set yourself, the real debt ceiling is the one imposed upon you by your creditor.

So was the crisis totally preventable? Sure, the government could be reduced, the Constitution could be followed, the Fed, IRS, FDIC, FHA, HUD, EPA, FBI, DHS, TSA, dep't of energy, commerce, education, interior and many more could be shut down. The dollar would no longer be printed, the banks would no longer be able to borrow at fake 0% interest rates, the Treasury would no longer be able to sell to those banks, so the Fed could no longer monetise the debt via the bank proxies.

That could happen, but it won't happen. Instead there will be a consensus, the spending will not be cut in any meaningful manner, the taxes will be raised upon people who are already disproportionately taxed, which is why they moved production abroad and others failed to continue at all. The taxes are not only the rates, they are regulations such as labour, environmental, 'anti-terrorist' and others.

The reality is that the only way that USA will restart its economy at this point will be through a real collapse. A type of collapse that will make 2009 and the Great Depression (both were created by the Fed and gov't regulations), look like just another sunny day. I am talking about the dollar and the US bond collapse. That's the only way now. Why? Because the US gov't and the mob won't allow a real restructuring, wh

You realize America is trying to run a first-world state with taxes that are around half of what they are almost anywhere else in the developed world?

- that's right, about 50% of population in America are not paying federal income taxes, and the top 2% of the population are paying 41.5% of all the income taxes that are collected. So did you mean that? Probably not, you probably meant to say that the rich are not taxed enough in America?

Of-course the wealthy are taxed more than ever in USA. The people that are not contributing given the fact how they vote for more and more government, are the majority. Majority votes for this insanely sized government though they clearly are not interested in paying for it, so that's how discrimination is created against a minority. This started with the introduction of the first income taxes in USA and became worse over the years.

Well, 30 years of "the wealth will trickle down" are now coming back to haunt us.

, no what's coming back to haunt you is the big government that you voted for. It's the destruction of the productive capital that the big government caused that is coming back to haunt you, destruction of savings and flight of capital due to inflation, regulations and ever increasing taxes.

The words 'trickle down' are supposed to be pejorative, of-course they are not. The real 'trickle down' economics is the economics of production. Production begets consumption, consumption is a trivial consequence of production. The problem with America is that it is no longer a producer but it is a huge consumer on the basis of its dollar so far being accepted by foreign producers. Ones that stops the music stops.

Aircraft are not designed with Faraday cages for the passenger compartment, nor are they equipped with RF interference detectors.

Both of which are easily solved problems. 2.4 GHz WiFi wavelength is about 4.8", meaning something as coarse as chicken wire would block it (and has, for example http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126221116097210861.html). Although if you're designing a cage, you usually aim for mesh holes about 1/10 of the wavelength so 1/2" rat wire would work well. Of course since a plane is already a long aluminum tube, you just have to worry about the windows, internal gaps, cable runs, and emf picked up from non-shielded cables in/out of the passenger compartment.

If errant EMI from devices was really such a problem, I would expect the FAA would require adequate shielding anyway. The reality is that the cockpit electronics themselves produce a substantial amount of EMI. Being in close proximity, they are generally shielded pretty well already. One should also realize the APUs (power generators) and engines themselves spit out a lot of broadband EMI all by themselves.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119393867164279313.html

Acer understands.

Tablets are an accessory. They are an extension of a desktop. They are not desktop computers, they are not laptops. They are NOT here to replace those. And you don't want to spend $500+ on an accessory for your computer.

Acer also understands that people don't need/want a cell phone data plan for their tablet. We got wifi, it's more then good enough.

Provided the FCC allows Acer to sell these in the USA (this article didn't say it, but another article i read about it did say the FCC hadn't approved those yet, here's the article: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/12/24/acer-plans-to-launch-99-tablet/)

But of course, it's about the consumers, isn't it? Is cheap good enough, or will cries of "it's not an iPad" ruin it's run?

I'd rather have a 10" to 12" screen myself, so hoping this plays out well.

It hasn't been a quick decision. The FDA has been considering their application since 1995.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703989304575503891676987232.html

The critics have raised every conceivable objection to GM food, and none of them has held up. I've talked with scientists on both sides of the issue, including the Natural Resources Defense Council. The critics have made their case. Good for them. That's their job. Every point has been answered. If they can come up with something new, I'd like to hear it. But they haven't.

I'm no fan of greedy businessmen, but I do believe in scientific progress. They have to overcome the burden of proof to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that it's safe, and they've done so.

People who are several generations away from American (or any) agriculture don't realize that breeding and improvement of animals and plants has been going on for ten thousand years. They've done the same kind of thing with conventional breeding.

To answer your question, they can't reproduce with wild salmon because they're triploid; they have an extra set of chromosomes.

Even if they did -- maybe 1 out of a billion -- you'd have nothing more than the normal genetic variations in fish. Growth hormones are evolved to turn on and off in different cycles according to the environment in all kinds of animals. There are already animals with extra growth genes from conventional breeding, like Belgian bulls. It doesn't do any harm.

Hybrid seed corn, developed by Henry A. Wallace, revolutionized American agriculture.

It's a small improvement, and not that important by itself, but the problem with the anti-GM movement is that it's anti-science. They're in there with the anti-vaccine people. It comes down to, they don't trust corporations. I don't trust corporations either, but get your arguments right.

That's funny. I just read an article a week ago explaining that the forecasts were off: "Evidence points to a further rise of just 1C by 2100. The net effect on the planet may actually be beneficial."

[It says] Larry Page is a dictator. A tyrant...

It also says he hasn't really changed much in the past few years.

Tensions erupted during a meeting with about a dozen executives at Google's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters about 18 months ago when Messrs. Page and Brin shouted at each other over how aggressively Google should move into targeting, according to a person who had knowledge of the meeting. "It was awkward," this person said. "It was like watching your parents fight."

Mr. Brin was more reluctant than Mr. Page, this person said. Eventually, he acquiesced and plans for Google to sell ads targeted to people's interests went ahead.

I often go back to that article when I hear Page-did-this, Page-did-that, and I love to, because everything that has gone wrong with Google, its transformation into a marketer paradise, and Brin's general fawning for him since, can be traced to it. It's easy for people to love you and build your goals when you give them no other damn choice.

[It says] Larry Page is a dictator. A tyrant...

It also says he hasn't really changed much in the past few years.

Tensions erupted during a meeting with about a dozen executives at Google's Mountain View, Calif., headquarters about 18 months ago when Messrs. Page and Brin shouted at each other over how aggressively Google should move into targeting, according to a person who had knowledge of the meeting. "It was awkward," this person said. "It was like watching your parents fight."

Mr. Brin was more reluctant than Mr. Page, this person said. Eventually, he acquiesced and plans for Google to sell ads targeted to people's interests went ahead.

I often go back to that article when I hear Page-did-this, Page-did-that, and I love to, because everything that has gone wrong with Google, its transformation into a marketer paradise, and Brin's general fawning for him since, can be traced to it. It's easy for people to love you and build your goals when you give them no other damn choice.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323339704578173173413977046.html Its a phone with two screens one with e-ink the other lcd. Its...interesting.

Having a social media presence is pretty crucial to doing the sort of freelance work you're describing, since so much of how you get business happens via word of mouth (and so much of "word of mouth" happens on social media).

One of the simplest things you can do to protect your privacy is to create an email addres that you *only* use for social media accounts (like, a special gmail address that just forwards mail to your regular adress, or maybe facebook@yourdomain.com if you own your own domain). This rather horrifying article from the WSJ about the way that social media tracking work makes clear that your email address is a big part of how your identity is tracked online. If they can't match the email address you use for your Facebook login with any other aspects of your online identity, you have some protections.

If you're using them strictly as a business tool, I wouldn't worry too much about photos -- I do think it's helpful to have a photo of yourself, especially in a one-to-one business like freelance photography. You can set your Facebook account so other people can't tag you in their photos.

Here are another couple of links: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/12/12/a-comparison-of-the-2008-and-2012-nctc-guidelines/ and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html.

From what I can tell, it appears to mostly be changes in 1) what information can be gathered, 2) on whom (don't need suspicion of terrorist activity anymore to search through someone's files), 3) how long it can be retained (5 years for innocent people, forever for anyone suspected of criminal activity), and 4) more importantly, the methods that can be used to gather it. In the past, it wasn't possible to do "dragnet" type searches looking for a specific pattern (i.e., show me everyone who searched for "how to make a bomb" on Google in the past 6 months and purchased more than 500 rounds of ammunition), but had to be a search on a specific person of interest (i.e., show me what Mohammad Mohammad searched for on Google last week).

As far as I can tell, there hasn't yet been a change in what actions can be taken based on the findings in that info, but the groundwork for action without due process has been laid for some time already.

Here are another couple of links: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/12/12/a-comparison-of-the-2008-and-2012-nctc-guidelines/ and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006.html.

From what I can tell, it appears to mostly be changes in 1) what information can be gathered, 2) on whom (don't need suspicion of terrorist activity anymore to search through someone's files), 3) how long it can be retained (5 years for innocent people, forever for anyone suspected of criminal activity), and 4) more importantly, the methods that can be used to gather it. In the past, it wasn't possible to do "dragnet" type searches looking for a specific pattern (i.e., show me everyone who searched for "how to make a bomb" on Google in the past 6 months and purchased more than 500 rounds of ammunition), but had to be a search on a specific person of interest (i.e., show me what Mohammad Mohammad searched for on Google last week).

As far as I can tell, there hasn't yet been a change in what actions can be taken based on the findings in that info, but the groundwork for action without due process has been laid for some time already.

Here you go, should work for a week.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324478304578171623040640006-lMyQjAxMTAyMDEwMzExNDMyWj.html?mod=wsj_valettop_email

Calling the police/security is reasonable. Using physical/electrical violence isn't.

Its only going to get worse. With measures like this being put into place without congressional over site how far can we be from a total police state?

It could have been worse. They could have sided with the country that's massacred more Indians than any other country: India.

Did you know that 5,000 children under the age of 5 die every day in India of easily preventable conditions? http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2012/09/13/almost-5000-indian-children-die-daily/

If famine is genocide, then modern India is infanticidal.

The Wall Street Journal had a big article about this practice, which is not new and is fully mainstream among U.S. companies. The article contains this COMPLETELY AMAZING quote" "Dataium [a company that facilitates this tracking] said that shoppers' Web browsing is still anonymous, even though it can be tied to their names. "

"The U.K. has been monitoring its citizens via a network of CCTV cameras for sometime and they appear to be especially prevalent in cities such as London where we have been lead to believe that your movements are recorded as soon as you step onto the street."

I live in Tottenham North London (a rather notorious area for riots) and I only see CCTV cameras on major roads.
There is one speed camera just down the road but that has been non-operational since it was installed several years ago.

Plus, here is a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118714764716998275.html :)

Socialism works for people who don't pay for it.

Of-course today it is the wealthy that are forced to pay for all this socialism and that's why the concept is so popular with the majority of voters, who are simply voting for a bigger government that promises to tax the rich and redistribute the proceeds of this confiscation, more commonly known as theft or robbery (it is done with weapons of-course, under the barrel of a gun).

More on the topic of taxing the wealthy today much more than 60 years ago and with a video.

Of-course the purpose of taxes is supposed to be using it to pay for minimum Constitutionally sized government, not this forever growing monstrosity people vote for today. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally by the way.

Simply put, the US is in no position to lecture anyone about incarceration rates [wikipedia.org].

Simply put, you just changed the subject from one which many Europeans and Westerners would rather avoid, limits on free speech, to the ever popular topic of US prison population (Why do they have so many people in jail when crime rates are dropping? Duh!)

Why free speech is baffling to many
European Free Speech Under Attack
Are there limits to freedom of speech?
Muslim Protests Show Limits of Free Speech

For fresh lobster outside of Maine, mostly shipping costs. The actual wholesale price, bought in Maine, was really cheap this year due to the glut.

This is the link to the interview http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323717004578159481472653460-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwNDEwNDQyWj.html or maybe it only shows a summery depending who you are. I personally interpreted the article completely different; My summery would have been "Irrelevant Microsoft", but it touches on issues such as the antitrust case; owing a phone hardware company while expecting others to use your OS; The issue of Goggles relationship with Apple [Where WSJ got its title] all worthwhile topics of discussion, but as I said the thing I derived from it was Microsoft not being part of the "Gang of Four", and its products not even worth commenting on.

The only reason the US has an advantage in building these big machines is because they needed these big machines when there wasn't anybody else building them yet

That's just not true. The reason the US has an advantage in building these big machines is that we're good at building these big machines. We have the best of everything; the best raw materials, for example. And the biggest corporations which can spend the most money.

If China would suddenly need machines twice the size as the US builds, they'd soon be leaders in building big machines.

There is no such thing as machines twice the size as the US builds, because if someone wants a bigger machine, we'll build it. And China buys its heavy equipment from other countries, but now isn't buying any to speak of, because their building boom has gone bust and they have entire cities lying empty because their economic model does not permit the citizenry to have sufficient wealth to be able to inhabit them, and yet their government is not actually communist, and will therefore not simply place people into those cities based on merit.

Yes, most of China's economy revolves around cheap labour and low costs, that doesn't mean they don't have any highly skilled engineers or the ability to create top quality.

It's not that they don't have any highly skilled engineers, but they don't have the ability to create top quality because that is not their goal. The goal is always to maximize profit. This does not set them apart, of course, from most "American" companies, but if you take a look I think you'll find that the so-called American companies that don't give a shit about quality are having their shit made in China. They might as well be a Chinese company with an American sign. As well, if you consider the history of Chinese manufacturing, there is actually no evidence they have ever had great engineers. When they rip off a design they copy it so faithfully that it contains the original flaws, even obvious ones. This has been obvious for as long as industrial goods have been coming out of China. They might be technically capable of producing the highest quality product, but they appear to be culturally uninterested in doing so.

The irony in reference to this post is Asus and Sony are now profitable since they dropped Windows.

Since when did either Sony (notice all the laptops with Windows 8 on them) or Asus (note the "ASUS recommends Windows 8" line). So what exactly is supposed to be ironic when both are still selling Windows machines? Maybe you meant "Windows Phone"? But then again, when did either of them sell Windows phones?

Samsung I believe is making out like gangbusters

Yes, Samsung would be the one vendor they were referring to.

ZTE

O really? Steep profits drop adds to ZTE woes .

Huawei doing great.

Huaweii profits dropped 22%. Yeah sounds like they are doing great what with their profits dropping off at huge rates.

Stop spreading this ill informed garbage.

Says the guy spreading the ill-informed garbage.

...oh you mean HTC which is STILL profitable, and makes...you guessed it windows phones.

HTC Profit Falls 79% Amid Competition. Oh and HTC makes more Android phone models than Windows phones for quite some time now.

Oh your making a point about your beloved Apple making lots of profits...I'm afraid Apples pursuit of profits is already hurting Apples market share, which didn't work out well last time...they became Microsofts Bitch. They are already irrelevant.

Yes, their market share has gone down because the market has expanded with tons of shitty Android phones flooding the market not because they are selling less phones and tablets.

Their resources page reads like a Who's Who of, well, sites anyone can link to?

We’re proud to provide you with the following resources:

Professional Organizations and Governmental Agencies

American Bar Association
Library of Congress
American Association of Justice
Association of Trial Lawyers of America

News and Information

The Wall Street Journal
CNN Legal News
The National Law Journal
Law.com

Legal Resources

United States Federal Law
U.S. Code Search

And the footer text of their pages:

Content copyright 2012. Yes It Is No Piracy - DMCA Remover. All rights reserved.

Clearly they were in the DCMA removal business.

Talking point? How about documented fact

And that's the WSJ, not exactly a 'liberal' publication...

... and have been doing just fine ever since...

October 26th 2012 - Ericsson Profit Drops 43%
July 18th 2012 - Ericsson Profit Drops 64%

I'm not sure about Illinois, but in California, the problem isn't current pension payouts. The problem is the payouts we've promised to future retirees are sorely underfunded. In the late 90s the state legislature made the calculation that the stock market would keep going up and up, and expected that the DOW would be around 30,000 right now. Add to the problem that CALPERS hasn't made the best investments, and California has a $500billion unfunded liability.

Note that if any CEO of a company managed retirement funds like the state legislature does, he/she would be [CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation].

FTFY. It goes back to the 1980's and is coming home to roost now.
1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576605482876191482.html
2. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/retirement-heist-u-pensions-plundered-corporate-greed-author-131151510.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB92939825896784903.html

And much of it was due to an FASB accounting rule change that those same corporations initially resisted. Excellent quote that sums it up: "For years, people saw the pension as this bucket of money you can't touch ... Companies are looking to not leave the asset dormant, but use it to deliver better returns for the company."

The California state legislature wasn't doing anything new they were simply following the well-beaten path blazed by major corporations.

I'm not sure about Illinois, but in California, the problem isn't current pension payouts. The problem is the payouts we've promised to future retirees are sorely underfunded. In the late 90s the state legislature made the calculation that the stock market would keep going up and up, and expected that the DOW would be around 30,000 right now. Add to the problem that CALPERS hasn't made the best investments, and California has a $500billion unfunded liability.

Note that if any CEO of a company managed retirement funds like the state legislature does, he/she would be [CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation].

FTFY. It goes back to the 1980's and is coming home to roost now.
1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576605482876191482.html
2. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/retirement-heist-u-pensions-plundered-corporate-greed-author-131151510.html
3. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB92939825896784903.html

And much of it was due to an FASB accounting rule change that those same corporations initially resisted. Excellent quote that sums it up: "For years, people saw the pension as this bucket of money you can't touch ... Companies are looking to not leave the asset dormant, but use it to deliver better returns for the company."

The California state legislature wasn't doing anything new they were simply following the well-beaten path blazed by major corporations.

I know this was a joke, but it reminded me of a recent article regarding using your neighbor's WiFi: http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/11/21/court-police-can-locate-wireless-internet-moochers-without-a-warrant/ Short story: no warrant needed.

WSJ has a pretty good write up here but that may also be paywalled; don't have the time to test it out.

You eliminate the tumor. That doesn't mean it eliminates every possible cancer for the rest of your life - people who get cancer will probably end up needing multiple treatments over their 80 year lifespan.

That was the entire point of this therapy - self-replicating T-cells. One treatment theoretically should end that particular type of cancer forever. That's always been the problem with all cancer treatments - did you get all the cells? One surviving cell can cause a whole new set of tumors... This treatment, when effective, would seem to provide a good answer to that particular question - plus you're not poisoning your body to kill them in the first place. That last piece alone is a huge step forward in many ways.

And $5k per treatment? Never gonna happen.

And sequencing the entire human genome wasn't going to happen until 2030, and would never be practical for medicine at millions or billions of dollars. So they said in the 90s when they started the Human Genome project. Now it's 2012 and genetic maps cost roughly $3000, soon to be $1000 or less News flash - technology advances are making many things cheaper very very fast. Once the process is known, mapping the genome and inserting the proper trigger genes will easily be a sub-$5K process, and I could see it eventually being automated and resting in the sub $1K range. Now, you may still need to be in the hospital for a couple of days if your cancer is relatively far along, I won't argue that one.

Yeah, nothing at all - except about 3 months ago, they formed a partnership with Novartis to expand the research. And how, exactly, do you imagine the research was funded to begin with?

Well, I somehow missed that - must have been on vacation when it was announced. Thanks for pulling up a reference. Novartis is interesting - I know them from animal medicine, and from a brief overview, they don't seem to have a vested interest in current cancer treatments (I could be wrong on this). That makes them a perfect candidate to support this new research.

As for who funded this - it was a private angel fund set up in memory of a cancer victim by her family that paid for the development and trial of the treatment. That was why the first trial was so minuscule, funding was a major issue. No one else would touch it at the time.

Just get it fast before the new owners change the recipe to make it more healthy.

Hey funny guy, the article mentions they object on religious beliefs. So only criminals or animals make use of RFID? Walmart clothes must be criminals. I certainly hope you appreciate the irony if you use a mobile phone, since that actually broadcasts your location instead of simply responding.

Try and provide falsification conditions for your statement. What would it take for you to feel that Google genuinely isn't evil?

Are fraud and deception proof enough that they are?

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2011/August/11-dag-1078.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704240004575084851798366446.html

http://www.zdnet.com/google-fined-for-obstructing-us-street-view-probe-4010025882/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402531,00.asp

http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/03/google.shtm

Free speech and limited government left the Democrat party after the Viet Nam War. Read Camile Paglia or the WSJ's Free Speech Died on Campus.

Conservative talk radio is jammed with talk of the importance of liberty (Example, Mark Levin, who wrote Liberty and Tyranny). Libertarians, too are obviously against intrusive government, for example, Ron Paul's farewell speech.

A lot of people think that Republican's are just a bunch of Christian, gun-toting hicks, and Democrats are the protectors of the little people, but of course the truth is more complicated..

What part of Google's profits declined last quarter don't you understand? Or do you not trust WSJ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20121018-712893.html

Google Inc.'s (GOOG) third-quarter income shrank 20% as total costs jumped and advertising prices continued to slide.
Despite consistent double-digit revenue growth for more than two years, Google's shares had been moving sideways for much of 2012. That changed in July, as concerns faded about its Motorola acquisition and the price of mobile-search ads, leading the stock to hit new all-time highs and post its biggest quarterly rally in nearly seven years.

The company, which dominates the search-engine market, closed its $12.5 billion purchase for cellphone maker Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. in May, as it looks to expand as a hardware provider. It also recently pushed into the increasingly competitive tablet market with its Nexus 7. The Motorola unit posted an operating loss in the second quarter and was viewed as a potential drag on results.

Uhhhhh....

http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20121018-712893.html

Apple:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/26/technology/apple-profits-rise-24-on-iphone-5-sales.html

Motorola is losing money not making money.

Someone does t know the difference between profit and revenue.

The difference is people are still willing to lend us money hand over fist, even at a known loss to themselves.

France Joins Germany to Sell T-Bills At Negative Yield.

UHN! take it, bitches!

But seriously, unions are the source of everything wrong with this country. Like the 40-hour work week and pensions.

From this article on pilot salaries posted by another commenter, it appears SouthWest is at or near the top of the pay scale and Wiki calls them "the largest low-cost carrier in the United States". It appears as if lower fares don't translate directly to lower pay, or as the WSJ article put it, "The obvious lesson: A profitable company, whether UPS, FedEx or Southwest, can pay its workers more."

The real question is "Why don't they change the salaries?" One of the biggest complaints out of pilots these days is ridiculously low pay (and some of the figures are shocking--we're talking full-time airline pilots making in the $25,000 a year range). So yeah, it's hardly surprising that experienced pilots are leaving in droves. I'm pretty sure you could make more as a bush pilot in Alaska than working for most airlines these days. Hell, you could make more as an office drone.

In short, there isn't a pilot shortage. There is a decent salary shortage.

I like these pictures better than the ones in the article. They do a better job showing how dark it gets outside.

with the airlines sandwiched between rising costs for fuel and unsteady demand from price-sensitive consumers

Really? Actually, jet fuel prices have leveled off in the last six months.

Not all the airlines are doing badly. Southwest--a low-fare carrier--is doing just fine. Maybe there are other problems at the "traditional" airlines.

Actually. American Football games have just 11 minutes of action

Generous, when you consider that there's only eleven minutes of actual sport being played. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575002852055561406.html