The Federal Gov't. didn't force a takeover. They said "here's some money, it's comes with strings attached". The banks hoped those strings wouldn't be enforced, but that hasn't been the case(thankfully). A lot of banks have opted to pay the money back. I sincerely doubt this would have been the case if they had just been given a blank check.
The automakers are just F***** and have been for a long time. Their bailout was to soften the blow of all of them going down in close proximity, and at a time when there was no faith in the economy. Maybe it wasn't needed, maybe it prevented a lot of suffering. I'll wait until we're on the other side of this recession to see what the effects were.
Also I love how you say "There is a huge difference between anti-trust action, and State take-over of a company" in your first sentence and then equate the two in your last.
Why would he give terrorist organizations publicity/legitimacy/proof they were reaching their goals? The more he spazzed out about it locked down all flying or whatever you expected him to do the more the "terrorists win". A calm measured response condemning the people that failed their jobs and letting everyone else do their jobs made the most sense.
Because 8 years ago when this was approved both the congressional majority and the president were Democrat...
We'll see how they handle this situation. And while I agree it's not likely to be much better than the original Republican oversight, give "credit" where it's due.
but WTF Monsanto, FDA. This is bad for EVERYBODY. Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth, ever(except maybe the Hopi).
This is why you can't let lobbying continue as is. I don't think this out-and-out corruption through bribery, but I'd bet my bottom dollar Monsanto spent a lot of money wispering into ears that GMO posed no health risk and was a forgone conclusion. Hell, they didn't even need to check their own data, what could possibly go wrong? Besides that's the FDA's job right? Meanwhile the FDA hears all about how Monsanto wouldn't let any GMO through that would hurt their consumers. Of course they know the technology better, and their own analysis should be thorough enough to allow for FDA approval.
I'll take a Department of Redundancy Department that does its goddamn job over a regulatory body that doesn't.
Because people have beat their children and practiced infanticide since the beginning of humanity that means we should accept it as human nature and not interfere?
If you like history this guy has an interesting take on it.
I agree this move is probably to offer more comprehensive hosting services in the future as well as try and cheapen their own costs. But the whole "control over society" bit is out there. For better or for worse they're just a company looking out for that bottom line. I don't think they're trying to be the federal gov't as you seem to be suggesting.
There are anthropogenic global warming skeptics, and there are also deniers.
Skeptics say while there is non-trivial linkage of CO2 to warming, and increased CO2 is being caused by humans, and the current trend of climate data shows a warming, there is unlikely to be catastrophic change in climate, and efforts to prevent a catastrophic change are likely not well spent for their own sake.
Deniers claim the science is wrong and there is an implicit conspiracy among climate scientists because their armchair climate theories are not taken seriously when they have shaky scientific methodology.
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard
Higher standard than what though?
By higher standard I don't think he is referring to morals, but that a higher standard of accountability should come with more power.
Your arguments are absurd, the original argument wasn't.
Yes it was, but it was only absurd by following the logic of the OP. "In plain view" means "in plain view", not "in plain view with equipment strapped to my head". The second you move away from that there's no guarantee where it will end.
You're basically saying that it would be in some way a violation for a cop to point an FLIR camera at a house, but not a violation for a citizen to do the exact same action while the cop looks over his shoulder.
Requiring the cooperation of a citizen is one more check than there was before so I'd prefer that to nothing. The legal system can sort out the loopholes.
Now, I do grant you that there is a difference between pointing a camera at a single building because of "information received" vs. flying over neighborhoods in helicopters with a FLIR camera searching for heat sources indiscriminately. The former is fine by me, the latter is not, mainly because the latter is not about enforcing the law, it's about using anti-drug-laws to produce income sources for the police department themselves.
Fishing expeditions are supposed to forbidden by the constitution but you wouldn't know it these days.
This is why scientists will never "win" a politicized debate.
Anybody can grab a couple one-way hash arguments off their favorite talking heads and it takes a couple of pages of context to explain why a relatively simple statement is wrong even though it has truthiness to it.
For example opening the data probably wouldn't help anybody because institutions who are actually qualified to look at the data all ready have access to it. You'd just get a bunch of quacks who'd "poke holes" using more truth-y statements without scientific process. The "75% of the whole tree ring data" canard as described above is a good example.
And your critique of Peer Review is misguided. Some scientists are biased, that's nothing new and there have been long standing feud between different camps which theories fit the given data sets/experimental evidence best. The best way to counteract this is to have lots of different scientists peer review papers, which is what happens now.
That's the craziest interpretation of "in plain view" I think I've heard. Wiretapping equipment is cheap so it should it be available to the local police without a warrant because, in your estimation, we can "see" the electronic signals with equipment cheaply?
To take the argument to its absurdity, crowbars are cheap so the police should be able to bust into your house without a warrant?
The researchers determined the age of the lakes by counting crater impacts, a method originally developed by NASA scientists to determine the age of geological features on the moon. More craters around a geological feature indicate that an area is older than a region with fewer meteorite impacts. In the study, the scientists counted more than 35,000 crater impacts in the region around the lakes, and determined that the lakes formed approximately three billion years ago. The scientists are unsure how long the warm and wet periods lasted during the Hesperian epoch or how long the lakes sustained liquid water in them.
So to answer your question the moon is the reference point.
It has large error bars, but it's the best we have until we can send radiometric dating to these areas. [Crater Counting]
I'm trying to figure it out. Is it a typo that wonderfully illustrates the benefit of welcoming automated editors? Is steakthskynet what our meatspace reporters should be called? Or is it simply an insightful tag tragically misspelled?
Congress' whole process is ridiculous. Up until about 2 weeks ago opencongress.org listed the 2,000 page bill as ~60% changed from the house version. ~3,000 pages is tough for someone to read, but given a month and a half time with reading bills as my full-time job, some aides working under me to summarize portions, and the fact the bills are double spaced with 2 inch margins on each side it doesn't sound impossible. I went to check what the final % changed from the house-passed bill was today and this is what I see:
Introduced in House 989 n/a n/a
Engrossed in House 899 3 20%
Placed on Calendar Senate 970 8 Show Changes Hide Changes 5%
Amendment in Senate 353,330 753 99%
Well if the market was unable or unwilling to support a relatively neutral search engine, I would say there is an argument for regulation. However Google is making a killing exactly by being relatively neutral and comprehensive.
But did they evolve that way due to artificial or natural selectors? I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if it described the Navi as cultivating their environment or simply reacting to it.
You don't have to understand Mendel diagrams to be good at crop bioengineering(although it can make the process much more efficient).
Some people below you are. I respect that you aren't though.
I'm just saying that you shouldn't romanticize things or people. You have to strike a balance.
My point is simply that this is a Hollywood movie and you have to expect it. In discussing the actual merits of some given proposal you have to deal with the reality of a situation, but in the case of a dramatic work of fiction, not so much.
In the case of the movie, there was no obvious reason why you had to strip mine the unobtainium and thus destroy the home tree. Why couldn't they have done sub-surface mining? God knows it still would have been profitable given the margins they were working with. That would have presented a reasonable third way.
I think the movie went to some lengths to portray the corporation (and by inference all corporations) as greedy and uncaring. While that was certainly true of the past, I think it's much less true of the present. Just look at ideas like horizontal drilling.
But that reasonable third way wouldn't have made as much profit, and if you think that wouldn't effect the decision of a board of trustees or CEO whomever, then you are missing the point. The Home Tree directly parallels Yucca Mountain, strip mining for uranium, and other past events. Rich CEO's probably care about the world they live for their kids, but not necessarily the world they leave for other peoples kids or even their own grand kids. And if they see the world going to crap anyway they'll ensure the best world for their kids by making money in the present anyway.
It doesn't matter if that culture is the Wild West, Roman Legions, or Prehistory, how often do you see someone going to the bathroom in a movie if it's not for comedic effect?
To dismiss the idea of living sustainably as "White Guilt", or "Noble Savage", or general "Crazy Leftist" propaganda is missing the point of the movie. You don't have to go back to the woods and hunt in a loincloth, you just have to recognize that the our current system of living is not the only system that has worked. It has it disadvantages and just as we shouldn't buy into another system wholesale, we shouldn't dismiss it outright either.
Slashdot Mirror
The Federal Gov't. didn't force a takeover. They said "here's some money, it's comes with strings attached". The banks hoped those strings wouldn't be enforced, but that hasn't been the case(thankfully). A lot of banks have opted to pay the money back. I sincerely doubt this would have been the case if they had just been given a blank check.
The automakers are just F***** and have been for a long time. Their bailout was to soften the blow of all of them going down in close proximity, and at a time when there was no faith in the economy. Maybe it wasn't needed, maybe it prevented a lot of suffering. I'll wait until we're on the other side of this recession to see what the effects were.
Also I love how you say "There is a huge difference between anti-trust action, and State take-over of a company" in your first sentence and then equate the two in your last.
So they're finally calling them on the price fixing of CDs?
I wonder if Hollywood Accounting could save them.
Or the press.
Why would he give terrorist organizations publicity/legitimacy/proof they were reaching their goals? The more he spazzed out about it locked down all flying or whatever you expected him to do the more the "terrorists win". A calm measured response condemning the people that failed their jobs and letting everyone else do their jobs made the most sense.
Is that a joke about "The People's Republic of China" moniker. Or is there some more obvious aspect I'm missing?
Piece of the puzzle to be sure. But GMO foods and agribusiness would exist without gov't subsidy.
I agree it's the reason corn is so heavy in American diets today.
Because 8 years ago when this was approved both the congressional majority and the president were Democrat...
We'll see how they handle this situation. And while I agree it's not likely to be much better than the original Republican oversight, give "credit" where it's due.
but WTF Monsanto, FDA. This is bad for EVERYBODY. Especially considering Americans eat more corn than anyone on Earth, ever(except maybe the Hopi).
This is why you can't let lobbying continue as is. I don't think this out-and-out corruption through bribery, but I'd bet my bottom dollar Monsanto spent a lot of money wispering into ears that GMO posed no health risk and was a forgone conclusion. Hell, they didn't even need to check their own data, what could possibly go wrong? Besides that's the FDA's job right? Meanwhile the FDA hears all about how Monsanto wouldn't let any GMO through that would hurt their consumers. Of course they know the technology better, and their own analysis should be thorough enough to allow for FDA approval.
I'll take a Department of Redundancy Department that does its goddamn job over a regulatory body that doesn't.
Because people have beat their children and practiced infanticide since the beginning of humanity that means we should accept it as human nature and not interfere?
If you like history this guy has an interesting take on it.
Thank you. I'm surprised it took so long for someone to say this.
I agree this move is probably to offer more comprehensive hosting services in the future as well as try and cheapen their own costs. But the whole "control over society" bit is out there. For better or for worse they're just a company looking out for that bottom line. I don't think they're trying to be the federal gov't as you seem to be suggesting.
I hope you think hard about what you said because you're promoting social darwinism and that road leads to dark places.
No, genocide is not new, but that does not make it right or desirable when two cultures come into contact.
There are anthropogenic global warming skeptics, and there are also deniers.
Skeptics say while there is non-trivial linkage of CO2 to warming, and increased CO2 is being caused by humans, and the current trend of climate data shows a warming, there is unlikely to be catastrophic change in climate, and efforts to prevent a catastrophic change are likely not well spent for their own sake.
Deniers claim the science is wrong and there is an implicit conspiracy among climate scientists because their armchair climate theories are not taken seriously when they have shaky scientific methodology.
You, sir, are a denier.
Law enforcement needs to be held to a higher standard
Higher standard than what though?
By higher standard I don't think he is referring to morals, but that a higher standard of accountability should come with more power.
Your arguments are absurd, the original argument wasn't.
Yes it was, but it was only absurd by following the logic of the OP. "In plain view" means "in plain view", not "in plain view with equipment strapped to my head". The second you move away from that there's no guarantee where it will end.
You're basically saying that it would be in some way a violation for a cop to point an FLIR camera at a house, but not a violation for a citizen to do the exact same action while the cop looks over his shoulder.
Requiring the cooperation of a citizen is one more check than there was before so I'd prefer that to nothing. The legal system can sort out the loopholes.
Now, I do grant you that there is a difference between pointing a camera at a single building because of "information received" vs. flying over neighborhoods in helicopters with a FLIR camera searching for heat sources indiscriminately. The former is fine by me, the latter is not, mainly because the latter is not about enforcing the law, it's about using anti-drug-laws to produce income sources for the police department themselves.
Fishing expeditions are supposed to forbidden by the constitution but you wouldn't know it these days.
This is why scientists will never "win" a politicized debate.
Anybody can grab a couple one-way hash arguments off their favorite talking heads and it takes a couple of pages of context to explain why a relatively simple statement is wrong even though it has truthiness to it.
For example opening the data probably wouldn't help anybody because institutions who are actually qualified to look at the data all ready have access to it. You'd just get a bunch of quacks who'd "poke holes" using more truth-y statements without scientific process. The "75% of the whole tree ring data" canard as described above is a good example.
WTH? The emails say nothing about grant approval.
And your critique of Peer Review is misguided. Some scientists are biased, that's nothing new and there have been long standing feud between different camps which theories fit the given data sets/experimental evidence best. The best way to counteract this is to have lots of different scientists peer review papers, which is what happens now.
That's the craziest interpretation of "in plain view" I think I've heard. Wiretapping equipment is cheap so it should it be available to the local police without a warrant because, in your estimation, we can "see" the electronic signals with equipment cheaply?
To take the argument to its absurdity, crowbars are cheap so the police should be able to bust into your house without a warrant?
The researchers determined the age of the lakes by counting crater impacts, a method originally developed by NASA scientists to determine the age of geological features on the moon. More craters around a geological feature indicate that an area is older than a region with fewer meteorite impacts. In the study, the scientists counted more than 35,000 crater impacts in the region around the lakes, and determined that the lakes formed approximately three billion years ago. The scientists are unsure how long the warm and wet periods lasted during the Hesperian epoch or how long the lakes sustained liquid water in them.
So to answer your question the moon is the reference point.
It has large error bars, but it's the best we have until we can send radiometric dating to these areas. [Crater Counting]
I'm trying to figure it out. Is it a typo that wonderfully illustrates the benefit of welcoming automated editors? Is steakthskynet what our meatspace reporters should be called? Or is it simply an insightful tag tragically misspelled?
Introduced in House 989 n/a n/a
Engrossed in House 899 3 20%
Placed on Calendar Senate 970 8 Show Changes Hide Changes 5%
Amendment in Senate 353,330 753 99%
Absolutely ridiculous.
Well if the market was unable or unwilling to support a relatively neutral search engine, I would say there is an argument for regulation. However Google is making a killing exactly by being relatively neutral and comprehensive.
But did they evolve that way due to artificial or natural selectors? I haven't seen the movie yet, so I don't know if it described the Navi as cultivating their environment or simply reacting to it.
You don't have to understand Mendel diagrams to be good at crop bioengineering(although it can make the process much more efficient).
Nobody's dismissing it.
Some people below you are. I respect that you aren't though.
I'm just saying that you shouldn't romanticize things or people. You have to strike a balance.
My point is simply that this is a Hollywood movie and you have to expect it. In discussing the actual merits of some given proposal you have to deal with the reality of a situation, but in the case of a dramatic work of fiction, not so much.
In the case of the movie, there was no obvious reason why you had to strip mine the unobtainium and thus destroy the home tree. Why couldn't they have done sub-surface mining? God knows it still would have been profitable given the margins they were working with. That would have presented a reasonable third way. I think the movie went to some lengths to portray the corporation (and by inference all corporations) as greedy and uncaring. While that was certainly true of the past, I think it's much less true of the present. Just look at ideas like horizontal drilling.
But that reasonable third way wouldn't have made as much profit, and if you think that wouldn't effect the decision of a board of trustees or CEO whomever, then you are missing the point. The Home Tree directly parallels Yucca Mountain, strip mining for uranium, and other past events. Rich CEO's probably care about the world they live for their kids, but not necessarily the world they leave for other peoples kids or even their own grand kids. And if they see the world going to crap anyway they'll ensure the best world for their kids by making money in the present anyway.
This just in, Hollywood romanticizes cultures.
It doesn't matter if that culture is the Wild West, Roman Legions, or Prehistory, how often do you see someone going to the bathroom in a movie if it's not for comedic effect?
To dismiss the idea of living sustainably as "White Guilt", or "Noble Savage", or general "Crazy Leftist" propaganda is missing the point of the movie. You don't have to go back to the woods and hunt in a loincloth, you just have to recognize that the our current system of living is not the only system that has worked. It has it disadvantages and just as we shouldn't buy into another system wholesale, we shouldn't dismiss it outright either.
Yes. Extra description is double plus ungood.