Slashdot Mirror

Same for "p3n1s 3nl4rgm3nt", Nigerian scams, or phishing.

Yea, you may make money from this, but it all evens out in the end.

Not True:

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/does-a-darkened-google-really-save-electricity-104/

Theres a good pile of evidence that this Texas wind thing is one giant con so that Oil man Mr. Pickens can use newly created government power of eminent domain to snatch up land and sell his water pet project under the radar.

I wouldn't be surprised. But, even without Pickens' wind (and water?) project, the existing wind turbines in West Texas are having difficulty delivering their full potential to where it is needed.

Anyone who thinks someone who was part of the 80's raiders and swift boating can actually do something without a hidden con is a fucking idiot.

There's no need for a partisan attitude -- hidden agendas are bipartisan pursuits. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who despite her efforts to save the planet by blocking repeal of offshore drilling bans, is apparently under the impression that natural gas isn't a fossil fuel. Maybe she is influenced by her investment of 100-250K in Clean Energy Fuels Corp, a company run by Pickens that markets compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas as a fuel for motor vehicles.

Theres a good pile of evidence that this Texas wind thing is one giant con so that Oil man Mr. Pickens can use newly created government power of eminent domain to snatch up land and sell his water pet project under the radar.

I wouldn't be surprised. But, even without Pickens' wind (and water?) project, the existing wind turbines in West Texas are having difficulty delivering their full potential to where it is needed.

Anyone who thinks someone who was part of the 80's raiders and swift boating can actually do something without a hidden con is a fucking idiot.

There's no need for a partisan attitude -- hidden agendas are bipartisan pursuits. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, who despite her efforts to save the planet by blocking repeal of offshore drilling bans, is apparently under the impression that natural gas isn't a fossil fuel. Maybe she is influenced by her investment of 100-250K in Clean Energy Fuels Corp, a company run by Pickens that markets compressed natural gas and liquefied natural gas as a fuel for motor vehicles.

Prisons make big money, paid for by tax dollars. The state pays $x/day to a private prison to house a prisoner and the prison makes a profit at that rate. It's extremely profitable

trickle down isn't pixie dust. It doesn't make everyone rich. It's not supposed to. But, there is a reason that even our poor in the US are much better off than many average citizens in 3rd world countires. That's because trickle down, DOES indeed trickle down. It's called 'Trickle' for a reason. It's better than having the government attempt to plan who gets what, there's just too many variables for that. Everything the government plans for our money has a two fold negative effect: A) something always comes up that was unintended and negative, and B) it reduces the incentive for someone to become successful (i.e. rich and taxable) on their own if there is nothing but additional burden incurred in crossing the line. Don't even bring up Paris Hilton or her ilk, because they aren't anywhere near good representatives. Most people who have money earned it, despite what 'pro-socialists' or 'redistribute the wealth' fans would say, they did not inherit it. Of the wealthy in the US (according to a Wall Street Journal survey,) 69% earned it without inheritance, and 6% solely inherited it, and 25% or so say they've a combination of the two. Source

By the way, as an indication of just how badly McCain and the GOP is running their campaign strategy...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/23/new-mccain-ad-gets-more-personal/

And guess who's speaking at the Democratic convention? Horrible, horrible move. If she chooses, she could tear McCain a new one for that ad.

When have you seen a woman gymnast in more than 1 olympics? When have you seen a 24 year old female gymnast, much less a 40 year old one?

Well, she's not 40, but 33-year-old Oksana Chusovitina won the silver medal in vault. Her success will likely go a long way towards inspiring older gymnasts to continue competing past 20.

And Dominique Dawes competed in the 2000 Olympics at 24.

Here is an article regarding cannibalization of CD sales by DVDs for your entertainment:

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2004/03/cd_no_dvd.html

It is NOT outlets like iTunes OR piracy OR music quality that is depressing CD sales.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20070209/082603.shtml

iTunes is just ONE retailer of music that accounts for 75% of online sales. There are MANY CD retailers.

CD sales still account for the vast majority of music sales:

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB117444575607043728-lMyQjAxMDE3NzI0MTQyNDE1Wj.html

Now mod my VERY insightful original posting back up.

Yeah, we Americans have been horrible for our use of drugs esp. in these olympics.

Why here is an article condemning all 4 of the Americans that have failed so far
Fani Chalkia Maria Isabel Moreno Kim Jong-su Do Thi Ngan Thuong
Anything else that you notice us Americans doing wrong? We have so many faults, I think that you should list them all here.

as a solution:

For Most People, College Is a Waste of Time

Of course, the Educational Industrial Complex will never allow it to happen. Yes, a good university education is a good way to pass many of those certifications (including the CPA) but pretending that EVERYONE must go to college is cruel.

he has changed his position on off shore drilling

Why do the US media sites rank the medal table different from everyone else?

I imagine it's to put the US first. Personally I think it's a ridiculous way of ordering things. It encourages playing safe for bronzes, which is boring and contrary to the spirit of the Olympics.

Then again we've got to remember that no official table exists and it's not in the Olympic spirit. Personally, I think an official one should be made just to settle things once and for all. It's all well and good saying people shouldn't rank the countries, but they do and it affects both tactics and funding.

An (America-centric) article on the subject can be found here.

Obama is completely black-and-white in his assertions that his political opponents are wrong, wrong, wrong about how they see things. His completely, unshakably clear on how wrong everyone else is.

"McCain thinks that we now should put more troops in Afghanistan, I think is a good thing," Obama added at a press conference at 10 Downing Street,"

If you are going to be so vehement in your portrayal, you better make sure you can't be contradicted in less than 30 seconds on google.

He's NO different than his opponents in that sense, except that he's pandering to the warm-and-fuzzy crowd,

What part of "read his second book" do you fail to understand? You judge him on sound-bites, its no surprise he seems vague. All politicians sound like bullshitters if you only listen to sound bites.

Wait a minute, isn't this the 21st? Chronologically, it is. But last Friday, Russia -- like the mad scientist Emmett Brown in "Back to the Future" -- thrust us backward by about 150 years in the Caucasus: into the age of imperialism and geopolitics, resource wars and spheres of influence.

It was strictly 19th-century when Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin casually announced that "war has started." In the old days, such pronunciamentos were routine; war, to recall Clausewitz, was just the "continuation of politics with the admixture of other means." (For the specifics, look up: the Crimean War, Prussia's conquest of Germany, the Balkan Wars; then go farther afield to the Spanish-American and Russo-Japanese wars.)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121848870627030979.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

It's interesting how history repeats itself. Most notably, the Russia-Ossetia-Georgia chaos reminds me of the start of the first World War.

The author insightfully wrote, "We could walk away from [savage Russian brutality against Western nations], hoping for things to cool off, and let the Russians impose sway over the lower Caucasus for now. But no one will fail to notice our weakness. If we don't draw the line here, it doesn't get easier down the road with any other border or country. We would be risking the future of Afghanistan, and the stability of Iraq, on the good will of Moscow and the mullahs in Tehran. This is how the game of grand strategy is played, whether we like it or not."

By RICHARD SPERTZEL
August 5, 2008
PageA17

Over the past week the media was gripped by the news that the FBI was about to charge Bruce Ivins, a leading anthrax expert, as the man responsible for the anthrax letter attacks in September/October 2001.

But despite the seemingly powerful narrative that Ivins committed suicide because investigators were closing in, this is still far from a shut case. The FBI needs to explain why it zeroed in on Ivins, how he could have made the anthrax mailed to lawmakers and the media, and how he (or anyone else) could have pulled off the attacks, acting alone.

I believe this is another mistake in the investigation.

Let's start with the anthrax in the letters to Sens. Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy. The spores could not have been produced at the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, where Ivins worked, without many other people being aware of it. Furthermore, the equipment to make such a product does not exist at the institute.

Information released by the FBI over the past seven years indicates a product of exceptional quality. The product contained essentially pure spores. The particle size was 1.5 to 3 microns in diameter. There are several methods used to produce anthrax that small. But most of them require milling the spores to a size small enough that it can be inhaled into the lower reaches of the lungs. In this case, however, the anthrax spores were not milled.

What's more, they were also tailored to make them potentially more dangerous. According to a FBI news release from November 2001, the particles were coated by a "product not seen previously to be used in this fashion before." Apparently, the spores were coated with a polyglass which tightly bound hydrophilic silica to each particle. That's what was briefed (according to one of my former weapons inspectors at the United Nations Special Commission) by the FBI to the German Foreign Ministry at the time.

Another FBI leak indicated that each particle was given a weak electric charge, thereby causing the particles to repel each other at the molecular level. This made it easier for the spores to float in the air, and increased their retention in the lungs.

In short, the potential lethality of anthrax in this case far exceeds that of any powdered product found in the now extinct U.S. Biological Warfare Program. In meetings held on the cleanup of the anthrax spores in Washington, the product was described by an official at the Department of Homeland Security as "according to the Russian recipes" -- apparently referring to the use of the weak electric charge.

The latest line of speculation asserts that the anthrax's DNA, obtained from some of the victims, initially led investigators to the laboratory where Ivins worked. But the FBI stated a few years ago that a complete DNA analysis was not helpful in identifying what laboratory might have made the product.

Furthermore, the anthrax in this case, the "Ames strain," is one of the most common strains in the world. Early in the investigations, the FBI said it was similar to strains found in Haiti and Sri Lanka. The strain at the institute was isolated originally from an animal in west Texas and can be found from Texas to Montana following the old cattle trails. Samples of the strain were also supplied to at least eight laboratories including three foreign laboratories. Four French government laboratories reported on studies with the Ames strain, citing the Pasteur Institute in Paris as the source of the strain they used. Organism DNA is not a very reliable way to make a case against a scientist.

The FBI has not officially released information on why it focused on I

>could not "weaponize" the anthrax (WTF does that even mean anyway?)

In this context, what it means is managing to take Bacillus anthracis growing in culture, getting it to form spores, extracting those spores in a way that they're still viable, drying them, physically separating them into a homogenous fine powder (called 'milling') and in this particular case, apparently then uniformly coating the powdered bits with a hydrophilic silica that had an associated surface electric charge.
Above taken from this wall street journal article (which says these weren't physically milled but were particularized in some other way.)

There's a *lot* of work involved in making these samples, and it requires access to large amounts of very high-tech equipment, stuff that a microbiologist who is making vaccines doesn't have. The equipment doesn't exist anywhere outside of the old US bioweapons labs at Fort Dettrick, according to multiple other people.

Let me add that Glenn links to an interview with am immunologist and editor of Biosecurity and Bioterrorism and a WSJ oped with the former head of the biological-weapons section of Unscom and former member of the Iraq Survey Group (who also provided strongly misleading Congressional testimonial about the WMD capabilities of Iraq).

They both provide some technical details about why they question the Ivins and only Ivins theory.

The WSJ editorial board wrote, "No matter who fired the first shot last week in the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia, Moscow is using the separatist issue as an excuse to demolish Georgia's military and, if possible, depose its democratically elected government. Russian forces moved ever deeper into Georgia proper Monday. They launched a second front in the west from another breakaway province, Abkhazia, and took the central city of Gori, which lies 40 miles from the Georgian capital of Tbilisi. These moves slice the country in half and isolate its ports, most of which Russia has bombed or blockaded. Moscow dismissed a cease-fire drawn up by European nations and signed by Georgia.

Russian bombers have also hit residential and industrial areas, making a mockery of Moscow's charge that Georgia is the party indiscriminately killing civilians. Russian claims of Georgian ethnic cleansing now look like well-rehearsed propaganda lines to justify a well-prepared invasion. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of tanks, ships and warplanes were waiting for Mr. Putin's command."

"Apple raised hackles in computer-privacy and security circles when an independent engineer discovered code inside the iPhone that suggested iPhones routinely check an Apple Web site that could, in theory trigger the removal of the undesirable software from the devices.

Mr. Jobs confirmed such a capability exists, but argued that Apple needs it in case it inadvertently allows a malicious program -- one that stole users' personal data, for example -- to be distributed to iPhones through the App Store. "Hopefully we never have to pull that lever, but we would be irresponsible not to have a lever like that to pull," he says." - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121842341491928977.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology

So - it IS for disabling apps - and we(you the iPhone owners) will just have to hope that they donøt disable something they shouldn't disable.

To sum it up: The blacklist IS for disabling apps!

If placing a wind generator on a piece of land would produce enough electricity to pay for itself and make a profit then you can bet that the land owner will put one up.

Erecting a wind genie isn't all it takes, the electricity has to be transmitted as well. Do you recall those rolling blackouts in California several years ago? A wind farm capable of producing 10 megawatts of power sat idle because the power cables were not strung up to deliver the power.

If a technology is truly worth implementing then it will stand on its own and not need to be subsidized.

Does that also apply to all other energy sources? Bush and McCain want to subsidize nuclear power. McCain doesn't want to subsidize solar but he will nuclear. I agree subsidies distort markets, that includes subsidies for nuclear power.

Falcon

My dispute with this line of reasoning is that we use an insignificant amount of oil for electricity generation purposes. So your three war argument is off-topic.

The significant hydrocarbon sources for our electricity is coal and natural gas.

Of which, receive some of the most marginal amounts of subsidy in the industry

As for being used on cars and such - solar doesn't have enough density to realistically power a car via an on-car array.

I would hold that the Exxon Valdez incident argues FOR drilling ANWR. Just about everything that could go wrong did. But today you could wander that area and never realize anything untoward had ever occurred.

You wouldn't notice anything unless you were a fisherman who had his life destroyed by Exxon Valdez. More than 10 years later (this from 1999) the fishing industry still hadn't recovered. People in Alaska are still (wrote this February) waiting for compensation, 20 years later. So far the fishermen haven't seen a dime from Exxon. Even today studies are finding wildlife is still adversely effected.

If you think everything is the same for those who had to live through Exxon Valdez you're obviously living in your own fantasy world.

Oil is not a long-term solution.

Agreed. But it IS the only short term solution anyone is proposing.

Drilling for oil off shore is a short term solution? Yea, while people are talking about it, not one of them has said anything about how long it will take before the first drop of oil pumped will end up in someone's gas tank. I surely doubt that will happen one year, forget one month, after exploration starts. The "Wall Street Journal", which is not an environmentalist group, says offshore drilling "won't affect physical supplies of oil." Here's an iteresting quote from Fadel Gheit, oil and gas analyst with Oppenheimer & Co. Equity Capital Markets Division: "If we were to drill today, realistically speaking, we should not expect a barrel of oil coming out of this new resource for three years, maybe even five years, so let's not kid ourselves". Oh, and don't blame Democrats for the offshore drilling ban, as president George H.W. Bush imposed an executive ban in 1990.

Why waste another dime on trying to extend the supply.

Because we need energy NOW.

Yea, right, if we start drilling now we can pump oil now. HAHA!!! See above quotes.

Falcon

Sorry if there any errors, or omissions, I am trying to be accurate. A lot has happend in a little over a week.

The following takes place between July 29th and August 7th:

August 07, 2008:
Judge rejects student visa injunction sought by H-1B opponents
Tech workers don't have standing to fight Bush administration visa move
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9111963

August 07, 2008:
Jobless claims surge to highest level in 6 years
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/07/news/economy/jobless_benefits.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes

August 06, 2008:
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports big drop in tech jobs
Almost 50,000 IT positions lost in last 12 months
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/07/news/economy/jobless_benefits.ap/index.htm?cnn=yes

Aug 06,2008:
Yet another visa, this one allows 5000 Koreans to work in the USA each year
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200808/200808060014.html

August 06, 2008:
Apple sued over treatment of it's tech workers
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/08/06/apple-gets-sued-indentured

August 05, 2008:
Bogus diploma ring busted
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/content/education/chi-diploma-mill-04-aug04,0,2164133.story

August 03, 2008:
July marks seventh consecutive month of job loses
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/46146.html

August 02, 2008:
Sun to cut between 1000 to 2500 jobs
http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/08/01/sun-us-tech-market-wont-shine-soon/

August 01, 2008:
Gartner's grim IT hiring outlook
http://blogs.zdnet.com/careers/?p=140

August 01, 2008:
Feds charges man for H1-B fraud
http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/stories/PE_News_Local_S_visa01.47edb3e.html#

Jul 31, 2008:
More than 3.7 million Americans had full-time jobs chopped to part time
the largest figure since the government began tracking such data more than half a century ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/31/business/economy/31jobs.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

July 31, 2008:
Layoffs set for 22,000 California state workers
http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_10046324

July 30, 2008:
WTO Doha talks collapse
India's backdoor attempt to allow more H-1Bs into the USA failed, for now
http://www.economicpopulist.org/?q=content/why-you-should-be-thrilled-wto-doha-talks-collapsed

July 30, 2008:
NY gov slashes spending; state said in "recession"
http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN3032764920080730?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

July 30, 2008:
China trade has cost 2.3 million U.S. jobs
http://www.reuters.com/article/politic

It may just be a sign of the times.

I don't mean to seem negative, but several recent reports articles seem to indicate that economic conditions might be less than ideal for IT workers. Today, August 7, CNN reports: Jobless claims surge to highest level in 6 years. On Auguest 6, CNN reports: Bureau of Labor Statistics reports big drop in tech jobs - Almost 50,000 IT positions lost in last 12 months. On July 29, this Wall Street Journal blog claims: Tech Departments Cut Budgets, Stop Hiring. Interesting to note that Microsoft still claims that there are sever shortages of IT workers. Wipro claims the USA is being protectionist by not expanding the H-1B caps, and both presidential candidates seem to be guest worker friendly.

But I'm sure President Obama and his "windfall" tax on any company with a 10% profit will revitalize business!

Ah, come on. It's clear that Obama's windfall tax won't target all business. Just the businesses that will get him elected by his screaming extremist fanbois. As the WSJ opinion piece says (links above)...

In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes.

Actually, the private space industry is as active today as it has ever been despite decades of failed companies. But the Wall Street Journal reports that SpaceX has received several hundred million dollars of taxpayer investment that is now being reconsidered. Military planners had anticipated using the company's Falcon family of launchers to boost smaller, less-expensive satellites. NASA has a partnership with SpaceX to develop a rocket to resupply the International Space Station.

I personally can't wait until the top entry in google on their names will be "got sued by Jane Doe for defamation", together with a link to their highly professional statements. I'm sure it will greatly enhance their careers in the fast food industry.

You may well change your mind about these women if you read the PDF referred to above http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/IravaniComplaint.pdf.

It is a filing by a Mr. Ciolli in which are described many actions taken by the women or their attorneys. They were trying to sue, as well as libel and slander, him while using him as a pawn to extract concessions from yet a third party. Among other things, they refused to serve process upon him while keeping him named in their lawsuit, thereby holding him in a legal limbo. They also used the well-worn SCO tactic of requiring him to remove alleged defamatory postings, all the while refusing to identify the postings in question.

As a result of their vicious game-playing, he had an employment offer rescinded. The offer would have resulted in his getting a $160K/year (plus bonuses) position. A second chance at a clerkship was refused when the potential employer googled his name and came up with the bitches' frivolous lawsuit.

Meanwhile, despite her denials and her assertions that she lost an employment opportunity due to the scandal, she was in fact employed by Morrison and Foerster http://www.mofo.com/ (yes, mofo is the name they proudly refer to themselves by), one of the most prestigious law outfits in the US -- at a salary of $3,080 per week. That works out to $160,160 per year as a fucking SUMMER ASSOCIATE.

Except of course that he was not the administrator of the board in question, nor he posted any posts on the matter at all and was simply sued in error as the two hysterical harpies fired their lawsuits blindly at random targets:

To quote the Wall Street Journal:

DeWitt pointed out that in an online letter to another blogger, Ciolli and his partner Jarret Cohen identified themselves as AutoAdmit's administrators and defended its "free, uninhibited exchange of ideas."

Sounds like they had reason to believe him to be the administrator, since he claimed to be.

Riiiiight. From the Colli's suit papers: "109: Mass media outlets, including Countdown with Keith Obermann and National Public Radio reported that Mr. Ciolli was guilty of defamation, copyright infringement and other torts ...."

Then I suggest Mr. Colli sue them - the presence of a lawsuit accusing someone of misconduct is just that, an accusation. If those mass media outlets reported him as guilty of rather than accused of it's not the fault of the people suing him.

As for the rest, muckracking is only useful in politics.

Hah! You have a handy-cam, in your house or your car, maybe with you 1/10th of the time when you go out?

And by comparison, where are their multiple, billion dollar apiece, can-read-the-comics-page-still-folded-through-a-mile-of-dirt satellites? You know, the ones that they sent up under promises of foreign spying only, but recently decided to allot for use as domestic surveillance tools?

My friend, you can't even get convictions against the cops you film beating people half to death, much less keep an eye on their masters. Don't fool yourself.

I realize I am breaking some kind of Slashdot rule here, but I've googled this further.

On March 9, the Dean of Yale's law school wrote this: "The Washington Post ran a story about several of our students who have been personally targeted on an internet message board. While this message board purports to be about law school and law school admissions, it contains numerous sexist, racist, homophobic and other derogatory comments by anonymous posters. Some of these comments include the names and personal information of our students and other individuals, along with many false and hurtful assertions."

Furthermore, their names are stated clearly in this PDF of Ciolli's lawsuit against the two women.

A PhD doesn't make a good teacher. It is much more likely to make a really bad teacher.

Citation? I had a lot of great university teachers. 8.5 years (4 BS, 4.5 MS/PhD) at the university level insured that I saw many of them. Nearly every class was taught by the professor themself. It was very rare a TA lectured. The vast majority of professors (all PhDs) were good to great - 75%. What may be true about a PhD is that they are no more likely than average to be good teachers. However, they will have many preresiquites a good teacher needs that a person of average to below average intelligence may lack. For this reason, I doubt your statement is true but I will read your citation when posted.

I've yet to see a law firm give a job to a person who doesn't pass the bar. Should we start blasting lawyers, too?

Law firms hire paralegals, legal secretaries, custodians, and many others without law degrees. Many law students get hired on the basis of passing the bar exam. Do you HONESTLY think (or, "do you honestly THINK"?) that headhunters are going to wait for a formality like that? No fucking way. Hire then worry about that shit. Their employment contract will spell out whether and when a bar exam has to be passed. This link suggests Michelle Obama (!) had a job lined up prior to passing the bar. It still meets your criteria - sort of. She had the job but had to pass the bar exam but the offer was not extending on the basis of having but on the basis of getting in the future.

http://www.lawfirmstaff.com/articles/index.php?id=50100&cat=75
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/10/03/a-call-out-for-jds-no-bar-passage-required/

NH: Eh, we don't need the bar exam:
http://www.piercelaw.edu/news/posts/2008-06-23-chronicle-on-daniel-webster-scholar-honors-program.php

WI: Sort of the same deal:
"It's the same way nearly every year, thanks to one of the first legalities that students at both schools commit to memory: Wisconsin is the only state in the country to maintain a "diploma privilege" that exempts most graduates of the state's law schools from taking the bar exam."

I am curious. Upon what do you base your statements?

When will it be Reid's Turn?

It's credit mobilier all over again except this time it's housing instead of rail roads. Fannie Mae and Mac are schemes to buy votes with tax payer dollars and use more tax payer dollars to fund electoral campaigns.

Both parties are in it up to their neck.

There's obviously no short answer to this question, but this article from the Wall Street Journal presents a really interesting alternative to the American educational system, which is a mess that's I've written about extensively. Essentially, hours upon hours of homework followed by regular tests are not the answer. Allowing kids to have enough time to think for themselves would be a start.

One thing we in IT are typically very bad at is transition planning. I was discussing this with friends over the weekend - what Microsoft had going for it was a good transition plan after Bill Gates. While Ballmer isn't the best CEO for the company, at least the transition was long enough with Steve at the helm that Bill's departure this summer became a non-event for the company. Lots of interviews and "remember when" videos to be sure, but no one on Wall Street or in the press was left wondering who would lead Microsoft in a post-Gates world.

On the other hand, Apple has worked themselves into a corner. Effectively, Steve Jobs is Apple. Take away Jobs, and Apple suffers. I wasn't aware of Steve's health problems this week, but when I was discussing Apple this weekend I postulated that if Jobs were suddenly to become sick, or for some other reason suddenly be absent from the company for an extended time, Apple's stock price would drop dramatically. And now, catching up on the news I see that's exactly what happened.

Apple needs to create a transition plan, and make it clear to the community - investors and users alike. It doesn't matter if Steve plans to remove himself from Apple in a year or 10 years, there needs to be a clear #2 with the chops to effectively manage Apple in Steve's absence. Steve needs to project that person into the public consciousness by having the person back him up in presentations and public appearances, even to the point of introducing new products at MacWorld and CES, etc instead of Steve.

Apple is an innovative company, and Jobs is seen to lead that innovation, so this #2 person needs to be "leaderful" and innovative as well. That's a tough pair of requirements to meet, but if Apple is to survive Steve's eventual departure, he/she must be seen as Steve's spiritual equal among Mac geeks.

No-one cares if you criminalise lower class/unemployed/homeless/poor people. [...] Criminalise people who are successful, have nice houses, jobs, and are otherwise highly respectable, and you have a potential storm on your hands.

I'm calling bullshit.

How many times has congress held hearings into the "criminal" nature of Big Oil, Big Drug, Big Whatever; and the only people that care are those on the stand, while those in the lower and middle classes cheer on in visceral hatred for those in the higher classes.

The truth is in fact the opposite of your post. People are always willing to screw those on top, just to "make it fair". Why do you think it is that the top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of the tax revenue in America?

Its because it is socially acceptable to penalize the upper classes and give stuff away to the lower class. Therefore, it wouldn't make sense that this is some grand scheme to screw the lower classes because no one would notice. Rather this is a grand scheme by these r-tards to further expand the government by any means necessary (and get a few kickbacks from the lobbyists while their at it).

Not exactly "on-topic", but related. There is a convincing argument, that Batman is a paean to Bush — a right-wing movie, that's immensely popular, while the left-wing ones ("Stoploss," "In The Valley of Elah," "Rendition" and "Redacted") bombed (pun intended by the blogger):

Like W, Batman is vilified and despised for confronting terrorists in the only terms they understand. Like W, Batman sometimes has to push the boundaries of civil rights to deal with an emergency, certain that he will re-establish those boundaries when the emergency is past.

Namibia comes to mind. Few high profile CEO's are/were camping out there. Though they don't have an official extradition policy, it appears Interpol can nab you if it wants.

Now the historical annual rate of return of an S&P 500 index fund is 11.3% over the last century...

According to the Wall Street Journal the S&P500 from 2000-2007 only returned 1.6%, and if you include the absolutely dismal 2008 (thru June) economists are already calling this the "lost decade" since returns over the past 10 years are pretty flat. Worse when you factor inflation. With returns like that, solar panels would've certainly been the better investment. At the least, you wouldn't be as subject to local Edison's blackouts and other various fiascoes, which for some reason seem to be getting more and more common and taking longer to fix each time.

Just the thought of being independent from the local power grid woes is pretty appealing.

This comment reminded me of an article I read in the WSJ last week. The article talks about the high cost placed on the consumer due to deregulation. Worth a read before bashing regulation. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625744742160575.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

As a former resident of Texas and once a proponent of electric deregulation, I can say that the last five years have been an eye opener. While at the beginning many including myself talked about the possibilities from a theoretical standpoint, the actual execution of deregulation has been a disaster. The WSJ just did a piece on Texas deregulation this past week which you can find here.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121625744742160575.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I do believe modernized transmission would go a long way to helping the state like the article talks about, but I also believe Texas should fully embrace the national power grid. Since Texas is not connected in any major way to any other state's grid, ERCOT runs the show and FERC rules need not apply. This gets the double whammy of double set of rules for those who would choose to do business in the state and disallows any load balancing from other grids.

For a state that went from one of the cheapest electric rates to one of the most expensive (I live in NYC now and its only slightly cheaper then Texas), combine this with the folly that was California its a crushing blow against the idea of electricity deregulation. While the WSJ article talks about soaring natural gas prices (most of the state still gets its electricity from natural gas) and congested transmission as being culprits, I think you have to look at the volatility in pricing. Electricity is the most volatile commodity man has created. Unfortunately, no business, market, or participant structure can sustain 10,000s percent moves in intra-day pricing.

As a libertarian leaning thinker I believe in the free economy and as little market regulation as possible, but I am also scientifically-minded individual meaning I will examine the evidence from both sides. Given what we have seen in the markets that have been deregulated, the data and evidence conclude that electric deregulation just does not work.

Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field is strong, but it does not enable time travel.

Yet... Or has it already?....

I notice that you've lost your original enthusiasm to defend Ehrlich's work.

So why are you so eager to be a global climate change denier?

Please re-read my original post and point to the exact sentence where I deny anything.

And I happen to be fairly well educated in economics

Then surely you know about the Simon-Ehrlich wager and the pitfalls of ignoring technological innovations to solve problems?
And maybe you also know something about optimal resource allocation.

, are you bordering on personal insult too?

I thought I was just keeping up the original tone of your post. Apologies if I misread your original reply.

It isn't that they got away with it, he can reformulate the arguments and resubmit them. In fact, that is probably why the court suggested going into the 1st amendment arena.

And no, the only remedy isn't allowing the bad guy to be let go. Anyone can complain to the bar which can remove the prosecutions ability to practice or even work as a prosecutor (look at Jack Thompson and Bill Clinton. Also, the alleged activity can be punished by the local political scenes, or if it wasn't a federal case, any higher jurisdictional means. If the city prosecutor is rabidly corrupt, then the state or federal AG's office can bring charges on them. This can go up to the federal level where independent prosecutors can be assigned. Here is a situation where the government was manipulated by the judge in order to get a special prosecutor in a criminal contempt case involving Dickie Scruggs (look to the Katrina section)..

4chan has attracted the WSJ for god's sake, you can't deny their (our?) influence over the internet. After watching Fannie and Freddie's stock price all day, I burst out laughing when I found out that WSJ had done an article on the butthole of the Internet.

Epic flail!

Besides, 1 & 2 came from those habbo raiders. Nobody cares what they think.

...and vivoleum is PEOPLE!!!!

I suspect we are at the faux tipping-point - where everyone starts squealing about prices but few are actually willing to change their behavior.

Apparently you haven't been reading the latest news on automobile sales trends.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121484164201916119.html

SUV sales are falling fast while the demand for smaller fuel-efficient or hybrid vehicles is currently outstripping supply.

Yes, it's true that the demand for gasoline was historically quite price-inelastic. As oil heads toward $200/barrel, we're starting to see real price effects.

The crack about the Fairness Doctrine is particularly illuminating because it is so ignorant.

The Fairness Doctrine. was a pre-internet rule supported by both Conservatives and Liberals, used because the government was controlling who could broadcast television and radio.

Since broadcast mass media "speech" was already totally controlled ("non-free") on the airwaves via the FCC (though for reasons of technology rather than politics), the lucky (and very wealthy) few who had been granted the privilege to broadcast were required to provide time to both sides of any controversial issue. This rule was administered by the FCC, who still performs the same function today with regards to moral standards, language, etc... pretty much everything but politics, where they were instructed by Reagan and Bush (sr. and jr.) to stop (and not yet forced by congress to resume, despite several failed attempts).

The Fairness Doctrine is as irrelevant on the Internet as it is to a newspaper or a public park, since there is no meaningful barrier for anyone to "speak" in these venues.

It will not be thus forever, but today in 2008, TV and radio still have a substantial audience and influence (as evidenced by gross advertising revenues), and it is still only an exclusive, government controlled elite club who can broadcast on these systems. Repealing the Fairness Doctrine essentially allowed the broadcasters as a whole to skew farther to one side of the ideological spectrum or the other legally (where before it would have been very difficult to go too far and stay within the law). Those with wealth and power (and that changes in cycles) can thus use the broadcast media for propaganda purposes, a concept familiar in places like Russia, Italy, etc. and now increasingly familiar here in the USA.

As Rupert Murdoch is now considerably warm towards Barack Obama (see the WSJ), I wonder if Conservatives who previously thought this was a great idea are now beginning to reconsider.

Murdoch himself has a history of switching the political orientation of his propaganda machine; in the U.K., for instance.