Hence the reason to suspect that it will go out of business if this sale does not go through. If Duetsche Telekom doesn't want T-Mobile anymore (which evidence suggests is the case), and they can't sell it to AT&T, what is going to happen to it?
Deutsche Telekom wants to sell off T-Mobile. For all practical purposes, AT&T is the only potential buyer. DT has said that they are not going to invest any more money into the T-Mobile network. T-Mobile's network needs significant updating for them to remain competitive. If DT is unable to sell T-Mobile and is unwilling to invest any more money in their network, T-Mobile will be on a downward spiral.
It is true that T-Mobile will not just "go out of business". However, if the deal with AT&T does not go through because of Federal Anti-Trust concerns, it is unlikely that T-Mobile will be sold off as a single unit, since, in the U.S., only AT&T uses compatible technology. Additionally, the parent company, Duetsche Telekom has expressed that they have no interest in investing any more money into T-Mobile. This suggests that if this deal does not go through T-Mobile will be sold off in pieces.
Reading comprehension fail. The poster you replied to said "less CO", not "less CO2". That is an important difference since CO is indeed a pollutant, while CO2 is a normal component of the atmosphere.
No, the Justice Department has blocked the merger. AT&T could take that to court. Sprint is trying to get a court ruling first. By going to court before AT&T challenges the Justice Department in court, Sprint is attempting to get the case judged from a perspective that they believe is least likely to favor the merger. Sprint would prefer to see T-Mobile go out of business to seeing it gobbled up by AT&T (or Verizon).
According to the article it took 12 years to go from 5 billion to 6 billion (1987-1999). It took another 12 years for the population to go from 6 billion to 7 billion (1999-2011). The article projects that it will take 13 years to go from 7 billion to 8 billion. According to the article, the world's population reached 4 billion in 1974.
Basically, your population projections do not fit those of the article. The fact is that the rate of population increase is declining and there is some evidence to suggest that it will start to decline somewhere around 9 or 10 billion.
You know what the most efficient birth control method is? Increased per capita wealth. Do you know what the most efficient way to increase per capita wealth is? Free market economics with a rule of law government.
The thing is that as a country's population gets richer, its rate of population growth goes down. As a matter of fact, most industrialized nations have negative population growth (that is their populations are declining).
if this were the case, then the same system that was used to teach 50 years ago would hold the same interest today.
Actually, that represents one of the problems in teaching today. The system that was used to each 50 years ago was clearly superior to the one's used today, yet, the overwhelming majority in the teaching establishment rejects returning to it out of hand because it is "old-fashioned". The basic problem with education today is that new theories of how to teach come out every several years. The "old-fashioned" methods work. The problem is they require the student to want to learn. Of course, the fact of the matter is that there is no way to teach students who don't want to learn. Many of the new theories about teaching are attempts to get students who otherwise are not interested in learning to learn. The fact of the matter is that with a significant fraction of the student population the only thing that will get them to learn is negative reinforcement.
You know, there is no way to communicate with someone as divorced from reality as you are. If you had any idea what real slavery was like, you would realize how completely asinine and self-absorbed your post indicates that you are.
Are you saying that the rules for campaign contributions (however you wish to define them) are not stricter today than they were 40 years ago? Or are you saying that corporate influence is no greater today than it was 40 years ago?
Then how can you claim that any of your actions are moral? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to not believe in morality and claim that you behave morally.
You know, that explanation would make sense if it was not for the fact that as stricter rules have been imposed on campaign contributions, the influence of corporations has increased.
So, if I interpret things your way, I am wrong. Of course, since I don't do that, I am not. I interpret that someone who chooses to behave morally is not amoral. Furthermore, I would contend that Jimmy Swaggart was not a moral actor, at best, he was an amoral actor (I use the past tense because I have heard nothing about him in several years and therefore have no opinion of his current behavior). I do not reference the morality of Jerry Falwell because there were things I "knew" about his actions that reflected badly on him that I later learned were false. At this point, I do not have first hand knowledge of any immoral behavior on the part of Jerry Falwell and because of my experience with other "knowledge" i had of him turning out to be false, I no longer make any judgement about his morality one way or the other. You claim that you behave morally, therefore you are not an amoral person. The reasons for choosing moral action does not matter as to whether or not that action is moral.
Wadhwa slams China for its practice of applying the 'engineer' label to auto mechanics and technicians, yet fails to slam the US for its practice of applying the 'engineer' label to sanitation workers, building janitors, boiler operators, FaceSpace coders, MSCEs and DeVry graduates.
The question is this, do the Chinese count auto mechanics among those they count in their official job numbers as being engineers? I know that the U.S. does not count "sanitation engineers" as "engineers" in its job numbers.
I was aware of this. I was using that comparison to explain that while there is no practical difference between describing someone as an immoral person and describing them as an amoral person, there is indeed a difference between describing an act as immoral and describing it as amoral.
When applied to a moral actor, there is no practical difference between amoral and immoral. A person who chooses their actions without concern as to whether or not they are moral (an amoral person), is unlikely to behave significantly better than a person who conciously chooses immoral actions.
However, when applied to actual actions, there is a world of difference between amoral and immoral. An immoral action is always morally wrong, no matter what the context. An amoral action is neither morally right nor morally wrong, in and of itself. Whether an amoral actions is morally wrong or morally right is determined by the context in which the action is taken.
Well, then I guess you just have to live with the world that other people are willing to put in the effort to create. BTW, William Wilberforce died just after his efforts were fully successful and he had already changed the world for the better by getting the slave trade outlawed years earlier. The thing is, if you are working for change because it benefits you, you are no better than the people who "bought and paid for" the politicians. On the other hand, if you are working to make the world a better place, what does it matter if you live long enough to actually experience the new world you worked to help create?
There is no other solution. Either you are willing to work as hard and long as it takes to make the change, or you have to live with the world created by those who are.
if you want to change society, you do live in a democracy and are supposed to change it by voting.
Gotcha.
*votes for Obama*
*stands by helplessly as wages fall while the government demonstrates its only competence to be launching cruise missiles*
And right there is your problem. Someone says that if you want to change society, vote and your thought is the only office that makes a difference is that of President. When, in fact, you can cause greater change by changing who your Township supervisors are, or your state legislator, or your Congressman. Changing things does not happen in 4 years or 8 years, it takes a long time.
As an example, in England, William Wilberforce began working towards the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery in 1787, Parliament did not outlaw the slave trade until 1807. Slavery was not abolished until 1834, just days before his death. Changing things takes time and commitment, not just showing up at the ballot box every four years.
How about you listen to this short radio episode [schiffradio.com], the guest is Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson Guitars. You will find out how a classic American company became an enemy of the state by providing 1200 jobs IN USA, that's right. The reasons? Who knows. The government doesn't have to tell the reasons, you peons, not even peons in the sense that you do work. You are just a number in the line up that they can use for displaying the meat mass, how much there is there to "count the votes" or whatever they need you for, and you aren't too good for organs anymore, being on FDA approved drugs and department of Agriculture subsidized foods.
I have been following the Gibson Guitar story for a few days now. At this point, it appears that there is one of two reasons why Gibson is under this investigation. The first is because Gibson employed Americans to finish the wood rather than workers in either India or Madagascar. The second possible reason is because the CEO of Gibson is a Republican contributor.
Martin Guitars imports the same sorts of woods from the same locations, but they are not being investigated. Martin Guitars CEO is a Democratic Party contributor.
Looks like this was a "shovel ready" project. Get the shovels out and bury the company.
One of the major investors in this company was bundler of campaign contributions for Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign and a significant contributor himself. Additionally, the Energy Department failed to follow proper procedure before anouncing that this company was getting loan guarantees.
Just because the merger is not approved does not mean that T-Mobile will continue as a viable alternative. My understanding was that the reason that Deutsche Telekom was selling T-Mobile was because they were not making enough return on investment.
The first article says that AT&T will give T-Mobile $3 billion if the deal does not go through, but that is not the case. AT&T will give Deutsche Telekom $3 billion if the deal does not go through. There is no reason to suppose that Deutsche Telekom will pass that money on to T-Mobile.
Are we any better off if T-Mobile goes bankrupt? I do not know if that will happen if this deal does not go through, but there is reason to suspect that it might.
Slashdot Mirror
Hence the reason to suspect that it will go out of business if this sale does not go through. If Duetsche Telekom doesn't want T-Mobile anymore (which evidence suggests is the case), and they can't sell it to AT&T, what is going to happen to it?
Deutsche Telekom wants to sell off T-Mobile. For all practical purposes, AT&T is the only potential buyer. DT has said that they are not going to invest any more money into the T-Mobile network. T-Mobile's network needs significant updating for them to remain competitive. If DT is unable to sell T-Mobile and is unwilling to invest any more money in their network, T-Mobile will be on a downward spiral.
It is true that T-Mobile will not just "go out of business". However, if the deal with AT&T does not go through because of Federal Anti-Trust concerns, it is unlikely that T-Mobile will be sold off as a single unit, since, in the U.S., only AT&T uses compatible technology. Additionally, the parent company, Duetsche Telekom has expressed that they have no interest in investing any more money into T-Mobile. This suggests that if this deal does not go through T-Mobile will be sold off in pieces.
Reading comprehension fail. The poster you replied to said "less CO", not "less CO2". That is an important difference since CO is indeed a pollutant, while CO2 is a normal component of the atmosphere.
No, the Justice Department has blocked the merger. AT&T could take that to court. Sprint is trying to get a court ruling first. By going to court before AT&T challenges the Justice Department in court, Sprint is attempting to get the case judged from a perspective that they believe is least likely to favor the merger. Sprint would prefer to see T-Mobile go out of business to seeing it gobbled up by AT&T (or Verizon).
According to the article it took 12 years to go from 5 billion to 6 billion (1987-1999). It took another 12 years for the population to go from 6 billion to 7 billion (1999-2011). The article projects that it will take 13 years to go from 7 billion to 8 billion. According to the article, the world's population reached 4 billion in 1974.
Basically, your population projections do not fit those of the article. The fact is that the rate of population increase is declining and there is some evidence to suggest that it will start to decline somewhere around 9 or 10 billion.
You know what the most efficient birth control method is? Increased per capita wealth. Do you know what the most efficient way to increase per capita wealth is? Free market economics with a rule of law government.
The thing is that as a country's population gets richer, its rate of population growth goes down. As a matter of fact, most industrialized nations have negative population growth (that is their populations are declining).
if this were the case, then the same system that was used to teach 50 years ago would hold the same interest today.
Actually, that represents one of the problems in teaching today. The system that was used to each 50 years ago was clearly superior to the one's used today, yet, the overwhelming majority in the teaching establishment rejects returning to it out of hand because it is "old-fashioned". The basic problem with education today is that new theories of how to teach come out every several years. The "old-fashioned" methods work. The problem is they require the student to want to learn. Of course, the fact of the matter is that there is no way to teach students who don't want to learn. Many of the new theories about teaching are attempts to get students who otherwise are not interested in learning to learn. The fact of the matter is that with a significant fraction of the student population the only thing that will get them to learn is negative reinforcement.
You know, there is no way to communicate with someone as divorced from reality as you are. If you had any idea what real slavery was like, you would realize how completely asinine and self-absorbed your post indicates that you are.
Are you saying that the rules for campaign contributions (however you wish to define them) are not stricter today than they were 40 years ago? Or are you saying that corporate influence is no greater today than it was 40 years ago?
Then how can you claim that any of your actions are moral? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim to not believe in morality and claim that you behave morally.
You know, that explanation would make sense if it was not for the fact that as stricter rules have been imposed on campaign contributions, the influence of corporations has increased.
I did not read the article, but even from the misleading summary I got the impression that the article was making some such comparison.
So, if I interpret things your way, I am wrong. Of course, since I don't do that, I am not. I interpret that someone who chooses to behave morally is not amoral. Furthermore, I would contend that Jimmy Swaggart was not a moral actor, at best, he was an amoral actor (I use the past tense because I have heard nothing about him in several years and therefore have no opinion of his current behavior). I do not reference the morality of Jerry Falwell because there were things I "knew" about his actions that reflected badly on him that I later learned were false. At this point, I do not have first hand knowledge of any immoral behavior on the part of Jerry Falwell and because of my experience with other "knowledge" i had of him turning out to be false, I no longer make any judgement about his morality one way or the other. You claim that you behave morally, therefore you are not an amoral person. The reasons for choosing moral action does not matter as to whether or not that action is moral.
Wadhwa slams China for its practice of applying the 'engineer' label to auto mechanics and technicians, yet fails to slam the US for its practice of applying the 'engineer' label to sanitation workers, building janitors, boiler operators, FaceSpace coders, MSCEs and DeVry graduates.
The question is this, do the Chinese count auto mechanics among those they count in their official job numbers as being engineers? I know that the U.S. does not count "sanitation engineers" as "engineers" in its job numbers.
I was aware of this. I was using that comparison to explain that while there is no practical difference between describing someone as an immoral person and describing them as an amoral person, there is indeed a difference between describing an act as immoral and describing it as amoral.
When applied to a moral actor, there is no practical difference between amoral and immoral. A person who chooses their actions without concern as to whether or not they are moral (an amoral person), is unlikely to behave significantly better than a person who conciously chooses immoral actions.
However, when applied to actual actions, there is a world of difference between amoral and immoral. An immoral action is always morally wrong, no matter what the context. An amoral action is neither morally right nor morally wrong, in and of itself. Whether an amoral actions is morally wrong or morally right is determined by the context in which the action is taken.
Well, then I guess you just have to live with the world that other people are willing to put in the effort to create. BTW, William Wilberforce died just after his efforts were fully successful and he had already changed the world for the better by getting the slave trade outlawed years earlier. The thing is, if you are working for change because it benefits you, you are no better than the people who "bought and paid for" the politicians. On the other hand, if you are working to make the world a better place, what does it matter if you live long enough to actually experience the new world you worked to help create?
There is no other solution. Either you are willing to work as hard and long as it takes to make the change, or you have to live with the world created by those who are.
if you want to change society, you do live in a democracy and are supposed to change it by voting.
Gotcha. *votes for Obama* *stands by helplessly as wages fall while the government demonstrates its only competence to be launching cruise missiles*
And right there is your problem. Someone says that if you want to change society, vote and your thought is the only office that makes a difference is that of President. When, in fact, you can cause greater change by changing who your Township supervisors are, or your state legislator, or your Congressman. Changing things does not happen in 4 years or 8 years, it takes a long time.
As an example, in England, William Wilberforce began working towards the abolition of the slave trade and of slavery in 1787, Parliament did not outlaw the slave trade until 1807. Slavery was not abolished until 1834, just days before his death. Changing things takes time and commitment, not just showing up at the ballot box every four years.
Why would they do that? The Big Bang Theory is more consistent with Genesis than any other Cosmological theory of the origin of the universe.
Big Bang Theory: once there was nothing, then Bang there was an explosion of energy
Genesis: God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
How about you listen to this short radio episode [schiffradio.com], the guest is Henry Juszkiewicz, CEO of Gibson Guitars. You will find out how a classic American company became an enemy of the state by providing 1200 jobs IN USA, that's right. The reasons? Who knows. The government doesn't have to tell the reasons, you peons, not even peons in the sense that you do work. You are just a number in the line up that they can use for displaying the meat mass, how much there is there to "count the votes" or whatever they need you for, and you aren't too good for organs anymore, being on FDA approved drugs and department of Agriculture subsidized foods.
I have been following the Gibson Guitar story for a few days now. At this point, it appears that there is one of two reasons why Gibson is under this investigation. The first is because Gibson employed Americans to finish the wood rather than workers in either India or Madagascar. The second possible reason is because the CEO of Gibson is a Republican contributor.
Martin Guitars imports the same sorts of woods from the same locations, but they are not being investigated. Martin Guitars CEO is a Democratic Party contributor.
Looks like this was a "shovel ready" project. Get the shovels out and bury the company.
One of the major investors in this company was bundler of campaign contributions for Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign and a significant contributor himself. Additionally, the Energy Department failed to follow proper procedure before anouncing that this company was getting loan guarantees.
You forgot to mention that GE's Jeffrey Immelt also got a job as Obama's Job Czar (probably as a reward for moving U.S. jobs to China).
Just because the merger is not approved does not mean that T-Mobile will continue as a viable alternative. My understanding was that the reason that Deutsche Telekom was selling T-Mobile was because they were not making enough return on investment.
The first article says that AT&T will give T-Mobile $3 billion if the deal does not go through, but that is not the case. AT&T will give Deutsche Telekom $3 billion if the deal does not go through. There is no reason to suppose that Deutsche Telekom will pass that money on to T-Mobile.
Are we any better off if T-Mobile goes bankrupt? I do not know if that will happen if this deal does not go through, but there is reason to suspect that it might.