Considering there's only $250k total, and the average employee incurs 150-200% overhead (so the human resources guy tells me), even if they spent all the money on one person with no equipment costs the most they could pay him would be $100k. Hardly a ridiculous salary if you've ever lived in a big city in the US, much less the bay area (where I am). Likely the actual figure after equipment costs will be much less and split up among several people.
We do know why so many people are willing to die to hurt us! We're all a bunch of infidels and satan worshippers! And once we understand why they want to kill us, how does that stop the attacks!
I can see it now: "Okay Mr. Osama, we know why you are trying to kill our women and children. Now will you please stop blowing us up? Pretty please!"
The parent (and the American media) completely mis-states the terrorists motivations. They're not trying to kill us because we're infidels, they're trying to kill us because we invaded their countries. Our presence (as infidels) in their holy lands degrades their religion, they want us gone. Makes since to me, since we have no right to be there in the first place! If we just pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Qatar, and all the other contries we have troops stationed in, then maybe they would leave us alone. It saves us money, we don't get bombed any more, so why the hell not do it! Oh yeah, because American oil companies need someone to push around those governments so we can make money.
Your boss should not overrule your concience. Being a Marine does not absolve him of his moral obligation to act in a manner befitting a member of the human race. The armed forces specifically indoctrinate their members to forget this fact. I wish more of the members of our armed forces had the intestinal fortitude to stand up and refuse to commit acts they believed to be morally reprehensible.
Some of you will say that this would undermine the effectiveness of the armed forces. I agree, it would undermine their effectiveness as a tool of opression and agression, however it should leave them well positioned to fulfill their original role, as defenders of the people against foreign armies.
Bring the armed forces home, and keep them here!
Don't give me any of that "preemptive defensive strike" either, I can't believe the American people fell for that BS.
This argument has been posted repeatedly and is vacuous at best. There are more than two options, otherwise we would have been shooting protesters/rioters up until now.
Please count to 10 before pressing submit in the future.
That 99.4% of the population doesn't support a movement does not imply that 99.4% of the population opposes it.
All popular movements start out as minority movements, because the rest of the population isn't sufficiently educated, or has been indoctrinated by the government controlled media. Those other 99.4% of the population that doesn't support you might not even know what's going on.
Example: Take East Timor, the US funded a state-run genocide by Indonesia. We did it because we wanted to drill for oil off East Timor and Indonesian control facilitated that aim. Now I'm sure 99.4% of the US population doesn't support genocide (there aren't that many neo-cons yet are there?), but I sure as hell never saw 298 million of them protesting with me or otherwise supporting the movement.
If you really feel that way, then start voting for third parties. Better yet, organize people in your community to do the same, or start your own party. Sure, people will say you're throwing your vote away, and it seems hopeless now, but we've got to start somewhere. Restoring power to the people is the only way to prevent governments from perpetrating these sorts of atrocities in the future. Bottom up organization puts the people in direct control and makes it much easier for them to react to practices they disagree with than our current top-down system.
So the question is, what do I mean by bottom up? Labor unions (when properly organized) are bottom up organizations, especially if they don't have fixed leaders, i.e. 'leadership' exists for the minimum time necessary and everyone participates in it. Likewise co-ops are bottom up organizations that put the power in the members hands rather than in the hands of corrupt C-level execs at some corporation, think REI vs. Halliburton. Where does governmnet fit into all this you say? Well, this is a tough question to answer, but I'm thinking of some system that is based on popular involvement (though completely popular systems are obviously unfeasible, or are they?). This system would have to be organized in such a fashion as to prevent power from becoming entrenched for any significant period of time. Sound like Anarchy, it is, but not the kind the government indoctrinates you against.
But if we license kids the only people who will have kids are criminals... (yes, I realize the argument is vacuous, I just find it funny)
Forced sterilization, now there's an option...
Yeah, we only protect the countries where we have vested corporate interests! So open up your borders to free trade and prepare to be bankrupted or get used to stuff blowin up.
What makes you think that you trying to foist your religious beliefs on me will make me more likely to donate money than a well reasoned argument for donating said money?
Honestly, how much data do they expect you to be able to retain? Some of this stuff makes technical sense (i.e. logs, etc.) but the amount of data generated by others would be huge. There's a fixed amount of disk space available, I mean they can't expect you to delete your pron cache on the RAID or remove your mp3s from the SAN just because of some terrorists can they? If we do that the terrorists win.
I'd just edit the logs and say the message was lost due to high network volume:)
Not so much 'died' as evolved. This is the lynchpin in my plan to sterilize people who insist on reproducing while leaving those who refrain from spraying their DNA around the gene pool alone. I take your $300 and fry your reproductive organs and in return give you a grainy black and white video of a hamster in a jar of vaseline, um... I mean your baby.
People are the problem, stop procreation now.
Rebel from your genetic overlords (see Richard Dawkins, _The_Selfish_Gene_)
What makes you think that because the corporation retains the money, it will benefit the employees? I'll buy the stockholders, but not the employees.
Republican legislation over the last 20 years has allowed corporate America to reap increasingly greater profits. Tax cuts, breaking down anti-trust barriers, and political nepotism have made corporations richer than ever before, yet the income gap between the rich and the poor has been widening at an increasingly alarming rate. Corporate America does not have as its main interest its employees, but rather its bottom line.
As for stockholders, if the employees don't make enough money to invest in the company then they see no benefit. Furthermore the people who actually have the money to invest in the company are the people who already have money, the people at the top. This perpetuates a self-reinforcing cycle of greed that has only ever effectively been addressed by progressive legislation (by William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and other early 20th century politicians). Unfortunately the Republicans have been systematically dismantling this legislation since the 60s.
The completely free market is a failure, trickle-down economics is a failure. This is regrettable, I would like to think that as responsible human beings we could make a free market work, unfortunately history demonstrates otherwise. The only explanations I can offer are somewhat elitist and in no way provable, so I will refrain from discussing them.
Corporations have the power to do great things for the American people due to their organizational skills, unfortunately due to a lack of regulation they are the greatest blight on the American economic landscape. In response to your question, "isn't [it] a bigger win for more people if corporations can leverage their size in the process." No, it is not, this chokes out competition and promotes monopolization which corporations will in turn use to further oppress the working class. It is the government's role to promote diversity and innovation, and this can only be done by leveling the playing field for small companies. That being said, I have little hope that the current government will be able to disentangle themselves from their corporate masters long enough to do so.
Sorry for the rant, its been a frustrating 5+ years.
Depleted uranium ammo has been blamed for higher cancer rates, but I've yet to see any conclusive proof. Besides, it's only Yugoslavians... Anyone who has a crappy enough society that they have sufficient amounts of spent depleted uranium ammo laying around their country probably deserves cancer. If someone is willing to travel several thousand miles and fire expensive ammo at your country/countrymen, you should probably reevaluate your method of civil government, and do something to fix it.
(Notice I said 'spent' ammo, as the main problem is the dust/particulates that come off the shell when it's fired, live ammo is much less dangerous).
Thanks for driving up the price of the Qube I was bidding on on Ebay. I guess I'll have to go put together a mini-ITX box just to spite the article. There should be an Ebay listing that comes with a slashdot article, kinda like the premium listings where you end up at the top of the page, but a lot more expensive...
There is a difference between undetectable and stealthy (i.e. difficult to detect).
There are some theories regarding "bi-static" radar systems that can be used to detect stealthy aircraft due to the fact that these aircraft are designed to reflect radar energy away from the transmitter. By using one or more remote receivers, this scattered energy can be detected>
http://theregister.co.uk/content/2/19874.html
Slashdot Mirror
WMA playback is not a feature, it's more like a DRM virus...
Check out Wal-Mart Watch.
Considering there's only $250k total, and the average employee incurs 150-200% overhead (so the human resources guy tells me), even if they spent all the money on one person with no equipment costs the most they could pay him would be $100k. Hardly a ridiculous salary if you've ever lived in a big city in the US, much less the bay area (where I am). Likely the actual figure after equipment costs will be much less and split up among several people.
Some of you will say that this would undermine the effectiveness of the armed forces. I agree, it would undermine their effectiveness as a tool of opression and agression, however it should leave them well positioned to fulfill their original role, as defenders of the people against foreign armies.
Bring the armed forces home, and keep them here!
Don't give me any of that "preemptive defensive strike" either, I can't believe the American people fell for that BS.
Can I get a -1:Troll for the parent please?
Please count to 10 before pressing submit in the future.
All popular movements start out as minority movements, because the rest of the population isn't sufficiently educated, or has been indoctrinated by the government controlled media. Those other 99.4% of the population that doesn't support you might not even know what's going on.
Example: Take East Timor, the US funded a state-run genocide by Indonesia. We did it because we wanted to drill for oil off East Timor and Indonesian control facilitated that aim. Now I'm sure 99.4% of the US population doesn't support genocide (there aren't that many neo-cons yet are there?), but I sure as hell never saw 298 million of them protesting with me or otherwise supporting the movement.
So the question is, what do I mean by bottom up? Labor unions (when properly organized) are bottom up organizations, especially if they don't have fixed leaders, i.e. 'leadership' exists for the minimum time necessary and everyone participates in it. Likewise co-ops are bottom up organizations that put the power in the members hands rather than in the hands of corrupt C-level execs at some corporation, think REI vs. Halliburton. Where does governmnet fit into all this you say? Well, this is a tough question to answer, but I'm thinking of some system that is based on popular involvement (though completely popular systems are obviously unfeasible, or are they?). This system would have to be organized in such a fashion as to prevent power from becoming entrenched for any significant period of time. Sound like Anarchy, it is, but not the kind the government indoctrinates you against.
Just my $0.02
But if we license kids the only people who will have kids are criminals... (yes, I realize the argument is vacuous, I just find it funny) Forced sterilization, now there's an option...
Yeah, we only protect the countries where we have vested corporate interests! So open up your borders to free trade and prepare to be bankrupted or get used to stuff blowin up.
What makes you think that you trying to foist your religious beliefs on me will make me more likely to donate money than a well reasoned argument for donating said money?
I'd just edit the logs and say the message was lost due to high network volume :)
Sombody mod parent Troll. Even though he's pretty funny IMHO...
Not so much 'died' as evolved. This is the lynchpin in my plan to sterilize people who insist on reproducing while leaving those who refrain from spraying their DNA around the gene pool alone. I take your $300 and fry your reproductive organs and in return give you a grainy black and white video of a hamster in a jar of vaseline, um... I mean your baby. People are the problem, stop procreation now. Rebel from your genetic overlords (see Richard Dawkins, _The_Selfish_Gene_)
Yes, damn him for making quality films where stuff doesn't blow up enough...
What makes you think that because the corporation retains the money, it will benefit the employees? I'll buy the stockholders, but not the employees.
Republican legislation over the last 20 years has allowed corporate America to reap increasingly greater profits. Tax cuts, breaking down anti-trust barriers, and political nepotism have made corporations richer than ever before, yet the income gap between the rich and the poor has been widening at an increasingly alarming rate. Corporate America does not have as its main interest its employees, but rather its bottom line.
As for stockholders, if the employees don't make enough money to invest in the company then they see no benefit. Furthermore the people who actually have the money to invest in the company are the people who already have money, the people at the top. This perpetuates a self-reinforcing cycle of greed that has only ever effectively been addressed by progressive legislation (by William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, and other early 20th century politicians). Unfortunately the Republicans have been systematically dismantling this legislation since the 60s.
The completely free market is a failure, trickle-down economics is a failure. This is regrettable, I would like to think that as responsible human beings we could make a free market work, unfortunately history demonstrates otherwise. The only explanations I can offer are somewhat elitist and in no way provable, so I will refrain from discussing them.
Corporations have the power to do great things for the American people due to their organizational skills, unfortunately due to a lack of regulation they are the greatest blight on the American economic landscape. In response to your question, "isn't [it] a bigger win for more people if corporations can leverage their size in the process." No, it is not, this chokes out competition and promotes monopolization which corporations will in turn use to further oppress the working class. It is the government's role to promote diversity and innovation, and this can only be done by leveling the playing field for small companies. That being said, I have little hope that the current government will be able to disentangle themselves from their corporate masters long enough to do so.
Sorry for the rant, its been a frustrating 5+ years.
RTFA, they were, as stated repeatedly on this site and the blog...
Fortunately you don't make our laws... And if I'm ever charged with "defemation" I know whose account to upload kiddie porn to :)
Spoken like someone with a 6-digit UID :P
Depleted uranium ammo has been blamed for higher cancer rates, but I've yet to see any conclusive proof. Besides, it's only Yugoslavians... Anyone who has a crappy enough society that they have sufficient amounts of spent depleted uranium ammo laying around their country probably deserves cancer. If someone is willing to travel several thousand miles and fire expensive ammo at your country/countrymen, you should probably reevaluate your method of civil government, and do something to fix it.
(Notice I said 'spent' ammo, as the main problem is the dust/particulates that come off the shell when it's fired, live ammo is much less dangerous).
Thanks for driving up the price of the Qube I was bidding on on Ebay. I guess I'll have to go put together a mini-ITX box just to spite the article. There should be an Ebay listing that comes with a slashdot article, kinda like the premium listings where you end up at the top of the page, but a lot more expensive...
Why was I not told!!! I want to live in perl harbour. Someone please post a map.
http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/2001/Jun /0099.html
http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/2001/Jun /0099.html
There is more information here on the Czech "Tamara" anti-stealth radar, which apparently the Iraqis were set to buy in November 1997.
There is a difference between undetectable and stealthy (i.e. difficult to detect). There are some theories regarding "bi-static" radar systems that can be used to detect stealthy aircraft due to the fact that these aircraft are designed to reflect radar energy away from the transmitter. By using one or more remote receivers, this scattered energy can be detected> http://theregister.co.uk/content/2/19874.html