When was that? I do not know of any industry that actually had the number of regulations they were required to comply with reduced, let alone eliminated. This is a favorite game of politicians and bureaucrats, change and increase the number of regulations that an industry needs to comply with and call it "deregulation" because they got rid of some high profile regulation, while imposing a bunch of regulations that they do not mention in the press release.
Which is why the Framers of the Constitution wrote the Constitution to strictly limit the power of the Federal government. Unfortunately, over time people have dismantled those limits.
Actually I'd say that's true of all "isms" including capitalism as we see what a corrupt mess we have in DC now.
Except of course the fact that the corrupt mess we have in DC now is not the product of capitalism at all. It is the product of attempting to centrally plan the economy (by whatever name you choose to call it--fascism, socialism, communism, "crony capitalism", or something else). Capitalism (as most people use the term) is the opposite of a centrally planned economy.
Under communism as Marx thought it, everyone works according to their ability: you don't have the choice to slack off by allowing your capital to "work for you".
No, instead you have the choice to slack off and let productive members of society provide for your needs.
NO, you are missing the major point. This law is designed to allow companies such as GE that have patents on energy efficient light bulbs to sell them for more money by eliminating competition from ol fashioned incandescent bulbs.
Absolutely, how are these companies supposed to overcharge for these newly patented technologies if they have to compete with the bog simple, cheap to manufacture standard incandescent? I get a kick out of the people who bemoan corporate influence in politics praising this product of corporate influence in politics.
No more than the fact that they had the backing of several billionaires and numerous millionaires affected the OWS to even gather enough publicity to get started.
the only real difference in Xenu and his galactic cruiser and the tales of a miracle healer and his divine Father are the fact that they are separated by 2,000 years.
There is another significant difference. The guy who was the only source for the story about Xenu died a wealthy man, the people who were the source for the story about the miracle healer for the most part died rather torturous deaths (the one exception died in exile on an isolated island).
That is not correct. While Scientology was founded by a science fiction author, there is significant evidence that he was a complete nutjob who actually believed the stuff he preached (although that is open to debate). What is clear is that he carried the manuscript that became the founding documents of Scientology around in the trunk of his car and acted like a classic paranoid about it.
You seem to have a misapprehension of what a religious fundamentalist is. Since the first group of Fundamentalists was a Christian group, their self-definition is a a good starting place to the use of the term. Fundamentalism is at its root a belief in the "inerrancy" of the religion's scripture generally with an understanding that that scripture is literally true. Since the Mayan prophecies are not part of the scripture of any currently practiced religion with any significant number of adherents, it seems unlikely that there are any religious fundamentalists who are likely to alter their behavior in any way an the basis of those prophecies.
I read you post further down thread and followed the link and looked up information on other sites about this group. No evidence was ever presented that the group had any intention of "helping" the start of Armageddon along. The accusation was made and the group was deported, but the Israeli government presented no evidence to support the allegation, such as weapons seized from the group (neither did any other governments). Spokespeople for the group deny that they had any intention of initiating any violence. Additionally, Christian Fundamentalism has a specific definition which this group does not meet from the information that is listed in the links I can find on them..
I had missed the sarcasm in your sig. However, I think it probably still makes a good one two punch for someone (you, in this case) to make the "Crony Capitalism" argument (which is basically true, except for the capitalism part) and the for someone else (me, in this case) to point out that what is called "Crony Capitalism" is a product of a centrally planned economy (of which fascism, socialism, and communism are the most widely known forms) and involves no form a capitalism at all.
I take it that means that you have not heard about how the ATF facilitated the movement of several thousand high-powered weapons to Mexican drug cartels? or about the DEA becoming the major money launderer for those same cartels? or about how the Obama fast tracked a loan to a company whose major investor was a big financial supporter of Obama's campaign? And when it became obvious that even that would not save the company from bankruptcy re-worked the loan so that the investor would get his money out before the government did?
Just this morning a came across a column that mentioned a number of people in the press who claim that since the organizations they work for have failed to report on the Obama Administration's many scandals the Obama Administration is remarkably scandal free, when in fact there have been as many, or more, scandals(or what would be scandals if the media chose to report on them) in the three years of the Obama Administration as there were in just about any previous administration.
It is not "Crony Capitalism". The thing that is often referred to as "Crony Capitalism" is just the inevitable result of a centrally planned economy (whether that centrally planned economy is called fascism, socialism, communism, or something else is irrelevant). When you give certain people the power to plan the economy, the end result is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, those people will start to manipulate things to favor their friends and associates. I just came across an article this morning that talked about this and reviewed a book on the subject titled "Throw Them All Out".
The question is not how far Babbage could have progressed. It is pretty clear that he progressed in design nearly as far as the length of his life allowed. The question is, what would someone else have done with his ideas if he had stopped constantly trying to improve his designs and actually built a commercially successful machine (evidence suggests that he had a potentially commercially successful design that he abandoned in favor of developing a more advanced design--which would probably have been commercially successful as well if his investors had not gotten tired of waiting for him to perfect a device).
I am confused, what does the burning of the Library of Alexandria have to do with the Catholic Church? There are several stories of the burning of the Library of Alexandria, none of them involve the Church of Rome. The first story says that it was burned by Julius Caesar in 48 BC. The second story says that it was burned by Emperor Aurelian (who reigned before Constantine and attempted to make the Sun God the chief deity of the Roman Empire) when he put down a revolt in Egypt during his reign. The third story says that it was burned by Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria (who considered himself at least equal to the Bishop of Rome). The fourth story says that it was burned by the Muslims when they conquered Egypt.
The poster I responded to appeared to think that the author assumed we would connect this "space ball" with the movie "SpaceBalls" when I can find nothing in the story indicating that the author is even aware of the movie "SpaceBalls."
I am utterly confused. Why would anyone need it explained to them what a space ball is? In this context a "space ball" is a ball from space. There is no connection between this story and Mel Brooks, except that Mel Brooks made a movie named SpaceBalls and this story is about a ball that fell from space.
I slightly disagree with your estimation of the current balance of power between the US and China. I believe that the US military could establish a beachhead on Chinese territory. However, the cost in men and resources far exceeds anything that could be accomplished by establishing such a beachead. Additionally, there is just enough uncertainty in the calculations of that balance of power to scare the bejezus out of any rational thinker on either side whenever such a confrontation is thought about. On one side, how would Chinese soldiers react to the "flash-bang" of US military technology? On the other side, how would US military technology function in the face of Chinese countermeasures? And yet again, the Chinese have developed technologies and techniques that they believe would help them offset the US military technological advantage, would it work as well as the Chinese think it would? Is the US military's understanding of it accurate, or is it better than they think?
One of the few lessons that Western militaries learned from WWI and WWII is, don't underestimate your opponent's military capability and don't overestimate your own (the Chinese may have as well, but it is harder to get a read on their military culture. Some of their generals have made statements that suggest not, but it is not clear that it reflected the generals' actual thinking rather than a view that they wished some parties to think they had) .
The difference between the US $ and bitcoins is that I don't know anybody who will force-ably lock me up if I fail to pay them a set amount that they will only accept in bitcoins. If you live in the US, you must pay your taxes in US $. I am unaware of anyplace in the world where you must pay your taxes in bitcoins.
Excuse me, but right after the "docoumentary" "Supersize Me" came out, someone decided to test what would happen if you went to McDonald's and made healthy choices. They ate only at McDonald's for 30 days, just like Morgan Spurlock did, except that they used a different set of rules than he did (for example they did not supersize a meal just because the cashier asked if they wanted to). At the end of the 30 days, their cholesterol had dropped and they had lost weight. Look into the documentary "Me and Mickey D."
Slashdot Mirror
When was that? I do not know of any industry that actually had the number of regulations they were required to comply with reduced, let alone eliminated. This is a favorite game of politicians and bureaucrats, change and increase the number of regulations that an industry needs to comply with and call it "deregulation" because they got rid of some high profile regulation, while imposing a bunch of regulations that they do not mention in the press release.
No, but it was regulation that allowed them to do so.
Which is why the Framers of the Constitution wrote the Constitution to strictly limit the power of the Federal government. Unfortunately, over time people have dismantled those limits.
Actually I'd say that's true of all "isms" including capitalism as we see what a corrupt mess we have in DC now.
Except of course the fact that the corrupt mess we have in DC now is not the product of capitalism at all. It is the product of attempting to centrally plan the economy (by whatever name you choose to call it--fascism, socialism, communism, "crony capitalism", or something else). Capitalism (as most people use the term) is the opposite of a centrally planned economy.
Under communism as Marx thought it, everyone works according to their ability: you don't have the choice to slack off by allowing your capital to "work for you".
No, instead you have the choice to slack off and let productive members of society provide for your needs.
They fought this change tooth and nail because they were quite happy with the way things were.
Not only did they not fight this, they lobbied for it.
NO, you are missing the major point. This law is designed to allow companies such as GE that have patents on energy efficient light bulbs to sell them for more money by eliminating competition from ol fashioned incandescent bulbs.
Absolutely, how are these companies supposed to overcharge for these newly patented technologies if they have to compete with the bog simple, cheap to manufacture standard incandescent? I get a kick out of the people who bemoan corporate influence in politics praising this product of corporate influence in politics.
No more than the fact that they had the backing of several billionaires and numerous millionaires affected the OWS to even gather enough publicity to get started.
did the government force the rating agencies and banks to repackage said loans as A, AA, AAA packages and sell them to investors?
No, because, for all intents and purposes, it was the government, in the form of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that repackaged said loans and sold them.
the only real difference in Xenu and his galactic cruiser and the tales of a miracle healer and his divine Father are the fact that they are separated by 2,000 years.
There is another significant difference. The guy who was the only source for the story about Xenu died a wealthy man, the people who were the source for the story about the miracle healer for the most part died rather torturous deaths (the one exception died in exile on an isolated island).
That is not correct. While Scientology was founded by a science fiction author, there is significant evidence that he was a complete nutjob who actually believed the stuff he preached (although that is open to debate). What is clear is that he carried the manuscript that became the founding documents of Scientology around in the trunk of his car and acted like a classic paranoid about it.
You seem to have a misapprehension of what a religious fundamentalist is. Since the first group of Fundamentalists was a Christian group, their self-definition is a a good starting place to the use of the term. Fundamentalism is at its root a belief in the "inerrancy" of the religion's scripture generally with an understanding that that scripture is literally true. Since the Mayan prophecies are not part of the scripture of any currently practiced religion with any significant number of adherents, it seems unlikely that there are any religious fundamentalists who are likely to alter their behavior in any way an the basis of those prophecies.
I read you post further down thread and followed the link and looked up information on other sites about this group. No evidence was ever presented that the group had any intention of "helping" the start of Armageddon along. The accusation was made and the group was deported, but the Israeli government presented no evidence to support the allegation, such as weapons seized from the group (neither did any other governments). Spokespeople for the group deny that they had any intention of initiating any violence. Additionally, Christian Fundamentalism has a specific definition which this group does not meet from the information that is listed in the links I can find on them..
I had missed the sarcasm in your sig. However, I think it probably still makes a good one two punch for someone (you, in this case) to make the "Crony Capitalism" argument (which is basically true, except for the capitalism part) and the for someone else (me, in this case) to point out that what is called "Crony Capitalism" is a product of a centrally planned economy (of which fascism, socialism, and communism are the most widely known forms) and involves no form a capitalism at all.
I take it that means that you have not heard about how the ATF facilitated the movement of several thousand high-powered weapons to Mexican drug cartels? or about the DEA becoming the major money launderer for those same cartels? or about how the Obama fast tracked a loan to a company whose major investor was a big financial supporter of Obama's campaign? And when it became obvious that even that would not save the company from bankruptcy re-worked the loan so that the investor would get his money out before the government did?
Just this morning a came across a column that mentioned a number of people in the press who claim that since the organizations they work for have failed to report on the Obama Administration's many scandals the Obama Administration is remarkably scandal free, when in fact there have been as many, or more, scandals(or what would be scandals if the media chose to report on them) in the three years of the Obama Administration as there were in just about any previous administration.
It is not "Crony Capitalism". The thing that is often referred to as "Crony Capitalism" is just the inevitable result of a centrally planned economy (whether that centrally planned economy is called fascism, socialism, communism, or something else is irrelevant). When you give certain people the power to plan the economy, the end result is that sooner or later, and usually sooner, those people will start to manipulate things to favor their friends and associates. I just came across an article this morning that talked about this and reviewed a book on the subject titled "Throw Them All Out".
The question is not how far Babbage could have progressed. It is pretty clear that he progressed in design nearly as far as the length of his life allowed. The question is, what would someone else have done with his ideas if he had stopped constantly trying to improve his designs and actually built a commercially successful machine (evidence suggests that he had a potentially commercially successful design that he abandoned in favor of developing a more advanced design--which would probably have been commercially successful as well if his investors had not gotten tired of waiting for him to perfect a device).
I am confused, what does the burning of the Library of Alexandria have to do with the Catholic Church? There are several stories of the burning of the Library of Alexandria, none of them involve the Church of Rome. The first story says that it was burned by Julius Caesar in 48 BC. The second story says that it was burned by Emperor Aurelian (who reigned before Constantine and attempted to make the Sun God the chief deity of the Roman Empire) when he put down a revolt in Egypt during his reign. The third story says that it was burned by Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria (who considered himself at least equal to the Bishop of Rome). The fourth story says that it was burned by the Muslims when they conquered Egypt.
The poster I responded to appeared to think that the author assumed we would connect this "space ball" with the movie "SpaceBalls" when I can find nothing in the story indicating that the author is even aware of the movie "SpaceBalls."
I am utterly confused. Why would anyone need it explained to them what a space ball is? In this context a "space ball" is a ball from space. There is no connection between this story and Mel Brooks, except that Mel Brooks made a movie named SpaceBalls and this story is about a ball that fell from space.
I slightly disagree with your estimation of the current balance of power between the US and China. I believe that the US military could establish a beachhead on Chinese territory. However, the cost in men and resources far exceeds anything that could be accomplished by establishing such a beachead. Additionally, there is just enough uncertainty in the calculations of that balance of power to scare the bejezus out of any rational thinker on either side whenever such a confrontation is thought about. On one side, how would Chinese soldiers react to the "flash-bang" of US military technology? On the other side, how would US military technology function in the face of Chinese countermeasures? And yet again, the Chinese have developed technologies and techniques that they believe would help them offset the US military technological advantage, would it work as well as the Chinese think it would? Is the US military's understanding of it accurate, or is it better than they think?
One of the few lessons that Western militaries learned from WWI and WWII is, don't underestimate your opponent's military capability and don't overestimate your own (the Chinese may have as well, but it is harder to get a read on their military culture. Some of their generals have made statements that suggest not, but it is not clear that it reflected the generals' actual thinking rather than a view that they wished some parties to think they had) .
The difference between the US $ and bitcoins is that I don't know anybody who will force-ably lock me up if I fail to pay them a set amount that they will only accept in bitcoins. If you live in the US, you must pay your taxes in US $. I am unaware of anyplace in the world where you must pay your taxes in bitcoins.
Excuse me, but right after the "docoumentary" "Supersize Me" came out, someone decided to test what would happen if you went to McDonald's and made healthy choices. They ate only at McDonald's for 30 days, just like Morgan Spurlock did, except that they used a different set of rules than he did (for example they did not supersize a meal just because the cashier asked if they wanted to). At the end of the 30 days, their cholesterol had dropped and they had lost weight. Look into the documentary "Me and Mickey D."