I see no reason to calculate for "peak oil". If the dominant proponents of the peak oil theory are correct about the time frame for oil running out, we are almost certainly doomed anyway. There are currently no prospective replacements for oil as a portable energy source. If, as I believe, the limits of oil production are gradually reached, the price of oil will gradually rise until such a time as it is economically feasible to develop and deploy a replacement. If I am wrong, the world is going to go into a catastrophic economic meltdown no matter what we do.
Where did I say anything about Google being in decline? I said that by the time most people would realize that Google was in decline it would be, for all intents and purposes, finished as a viable company. I do not claim to have any special knowledge about the state of Google as a company. What I said would apply to me as well, by the time I would be aware that Google was in decline, it would be essentially finished as a company.
The Great Depression was not caused by the stock market crash. The Great Depression was caused by the government reaction to the stock market crash. The crash of the housing market was a result of government policies causing the housing market to overheat and politicians refusing to allow a reining in of those policies. After the crash happened, Congress gave the job of writing the "fix" to two of the politicians most responsible for the problem not being addressed before it went "kablooie", Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.
Policies based on the idea that some individual, or group of individuals, can determine what is the best economic decision for people they have never met, in other words "progressive" policies.
The thing about Google is that by the time most people (even those more technically minded like those here on slashdot) realize that it is in decline (actual decline, not just suffering a temporary setback) it will be, for all intents and purposes, finished as a viable company. Between now and when that happens, Google may be able to turn itself into a company that is more resilient than that, but right now, if Google loses its search engine dominance, it will fall apart rather quickly.
The difference between the Great Depression and now is that it was caused by implementing bad government policies in response to a relatively normal business cycle downturn (one that was somewhat worse than otherwise because of already existing bad government policies), whereas are current situation is almost wholly caused by bad government policies that are being compounded by the same sorts of bad government policies that created the Great Depression.
We had few if any congressmen arguing that a sovereign default was "no big deal". We had quite a few arguing that a failure to raise the debt ceiling was no big deal. Their argument was that even if the debt ceiling was not raised, the U.S. government would not need to default.
The fact is that treasuries do not have risks they did not have 5 years ago, those risks are just 5 years closer now (and at this point, it is becoming clear that those risks are even closer than estimates put them 5 years ago). It appears that the U.S. has about 5 years to get its fiscal house in order. If it fails to do so in that time frame, it is probable that the world economy will go into a severe disruption that will make the Great Depression look like a wonderful time.
I use an electric mower, and you're not going to mow a 6 acre lawn with an electric lawn mower. In practice 100 feet is about as long an extension cord as you can use, and trying to mow a lawn that large would require numerous electrical outlets all over the place. And the subsequent trimming around them that would be necessary.
I use an electric mower, and you're not going to mow a 6 acre lawn with an electric lawn mower. In practice 100 feet is about as long an extension cord as you can use, and trying to mow a lawn that large would require numerous electrical outlets all over the place. And the subsequent trimming around them that would be necessary.
Paul Krugman, the man who says that something is bad economic policy when a Republican is President and good economic policy when a Democrat is President. Yeah, I'll put a lot of faith in what he has to say about economics.
At what point do you think the U.S Federal Government should act to rein in its spending? The thing is that Michelle Bachmann did not say that the U.S defaulting would not hurt anything. She said that the U.S. Congress not authorizing the government to borrow even more money would not hurt anything.
I believe that if you look at it you will discover that a significant part of this is the fact that the Administration used 60% of the new borrowing authority on the first day after it was authorized.
The reason that I know that Obama did not write Dreams From My Father is because it bears no stylistic resemblance to any other examples of Obama's writing, including his second autobiography.
I came across this in a novel by L. Neil Smith. In the book, he suggests, through the mouth of one of his characters, that there is no proof (and no way to prove) that everyone's fingerprints are different. At the time I attributed this to his extreme libertarianism. However, in the time since then I have seen numerous reports contending that no one has ever conducted a study to prove that fingerprints are unique to an individual and no references to such a study. Additionally, it appears that the acceptance of fingerprints as a means of identification came about by appeal to authority, rather than from any actual evidence as to the validity of such identification.
It seems likely to me that each person's fingerprints (those that have them) are unique. However, considering the evidence I have seen regarding how questionable the identification of individuals from fingerprints lifted at the scene (whatever scene that happens to be) by fingerprint experts has proven to be, on the occassions it has tested in a scientific manner, dubious at best.
It was not "proven false". The guy did some preliminary studies of it and concluded it was different. Those who had originally contacted him did not choose to pursue the matter for the type of study that would be needed to prove things conclusively. I do not know that Ayers wrote "Dreams From My Father", what I do know is that Obama did not.
As to launching his political career at the Ayers' home, you are saying that he launched it somewhere else. OK, where? Where did Obama first anounce that he was going to run for the State Senate of Illinois? According to everything I have seen, it was at the Ayers' home. You are claiming that it was somewhere else. Where was that?
"Once," eh? And this "launched" his career?
Yes, I do not believe that Ayers ghost wrote Dreams From My Father, primarily because I am not some fruitcake conspiracy theorist.
Did you read the article? It was the event where it was announced that Obama was the person that State Senator Alice Palmer had chosen as her successor for that office...the first elected office that Obama ran for (and was elected to). This is the usual definition of "launching" a political career, the occassion at which one anounces that one will first run for political office.
As for Ayers writing Dreams From My Father, the writing style of "Dreams From My Father" more closely resembles that of Bill Ayers' "Fugitive Days" than anything written by Obama. Additionally, the book "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage" references the fact that Ayers wrote a significant portion of "Dreams From My Father". The book "Barack and Michelle" was written by a strong supporter of Obama. The relevant quote from "Barack and Michelle":
Andersen continues, “In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams from My Father would be significant–so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’s own writing.”
The law he was violating is the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It does not matter how he got the credentials, unless the users actually and explicitly authorized him to log into their Facebook accounts to make these spam posts, he was violating the Act.
Tricking someone into giving you something is stealing. If I convince you I am from the tax collector's office and get you to give me the money that you owe in taxes, it is theft even though you willingly gave me the money. The courts will not buy a defense that it was not theft because I only tricked you into giving me your money.
You posted the part that was illegal. He stole their credentials and used those credentials to log into their Facebook accounts and post spam to their walls. It is illegal to log on to someone's account without their permission.
The ones that didn't march, risk jail and their lives?
Do you know where Barack Obama launched his political career?
In the home of Bill Ayers.
Do you know who Bill Ayers is?
He was one of the leaders of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground.
There are other politically powerful people who were part of the protests, most of them people whose role was actually admirable. I only use Bill Ayers as an example of someone whose role went beyond peaceful protest and even the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement into actual criminal violence who has risen to a position of political power
The problem with the Stanford Prison Experiment is that the initial instructions to the "guards" " gave them a clear sense that they should oppress the prisoners." This means that the conclusions reached by the study are not accurate. However, they are relevant to the current discussion, since many police officers, when they enter the profession, are, also, given the clear sense that they should oppress the "criminal" population (with the unfortunate correllary that the civilian population is the "criminal" population).
However, PopeRatzo is correct that the system can work. It requires that people pay attention to what is going on, and remain aware of the quote in my signature.
There is no such thing as a "legit license" of OSX not installed on hardware originally purchased from Apple. Part of the license is that it can only be installed on Apple hardware.
When did the U.S. actually cut education? The U.S. federal education budget has grown every year since the Department of Education was created.
And no, I don't want to a lot more things with less money and less people. I want the government to do less.
You are absolutely correct, and it is just a coincidence that the same people who are pushing this are the people who talk about how much they admire the fact that the Chinese government can "just get things done". It's not that these people want power for the sake of having power. They want power for the sake of doing things that are in "everybody's best interest", but that people are too stupid to do for themselves, or even to know that they want done.
I don't see it as sinister. I just know what happens when you give other people the power to make decisions for you. If it is someone you know, who knows you, it may turn out for the best. If it is someone you don't know, who doesn't know you, it never turns out for the best in the long run.
The purpose is of course to smooth out the demand, such that less power stations have to be built to cope with peaks. And to make most use of greener sources of power.
Well, yes, it is just a happy coincidence that the best way to do that is to give some faceless bureaucrat the power to decide when I can run my washer and dryer.
Slashdot Mirror
I see no reason to calculate for "peak oil". If the dominant proponents of the peak oil theory are correct about the time frame for oil running out, we are almost certainly doomed anyway. There are currently no prospective replacements for oil as a portable energy source. If, as I believe, the limits of oil production are gradually reached, the price of oil will gradually rise until such a time as it is economically feasible to develop and deploy a replacement. If I am wrong, the world is going to go into a catastrophic economic meltdown no matter what we do.
Where did I say anything about Google being in decline? I said that by the time most people would realize that Google was in decline it would be, for all intents and purposes, finished as a viable company. I do not claim to have any special knowledge about the state of Google as a company. What I said would apply to me as well, by the time I would be aware that Google was in decline, it would be essentially finished as a company.
The Great Depression was not caused by the stock market crash. The Great Depression was caused by the government reaction to the stock market crash. The crash of the housing market was a result of government policies causing the housing market to overheat and politicians refusing to allow a reining in of those policies. After the crash happened, Congress gave the job of writing the "fix" to two of the politicians most responsible for the problem not being addressed before it went "kablooie", Chris Dodd and Barney Frank.
Policies based on the idea that some individual, or group of individuals, can determine what is the best economic decision for people they have never met, in other words "progressive" policies.
The thing about Google is that by the time most people (even those more technically minded like those here on slashdot) realize that it is in decline (actual decline, not just suffering a temporary setback) it will be, for all intents and purposes, finished as a viable company. Between now and when that happens, Google may be able to turn itself into a company that is more resilient than that, but right now, if Google loses its search engine dominance, it will fall apart rather quickly.
The difference between the Great Depression and now is that it was caused by implementing bad government policies in response to a relatively normal business cycle downturn (one that was somewhat worse than otherwise because of already existing bad government policies), whereas are current situation is almost wholly caused by bad government policies that are being compounded by the same sorts of bad government policies that created the Great Depression.
We had few if any congressmen arguing that a sovereign default was "no big deal". We had quite a few arguing that a failure to raise the debt ceiling was no big deal. Their argument was that even if the debt ceiling was not raised, the U.S. government would not need to default.
The fact is that treasuries do not have risks they did not have 5 years ago, those risks are just 5 years closer now (and at this point, it is becoming clear that those risks are even closer than estimates put them 5 years ago). It appears that the U.S. has about 5 years to get its fiscal house in order. If it fails to do so in that time frame, it is probable that the world economy will go into a severe disruption that will make the Great Depression look like a wonderful time.
I use an electric mower, and you're not going to mow a 6 acre lawn with an electric lawn mower. In practice 100 feet is about as long an extension cord as you can use, and trying to mow a lawn that large would require numerous electrical outlets all over the place. And the subsequent trimming around them that would be necessary.
I use an electric mower, and you're not going to mow a 6 acre lawn with an electric lawn mower. In practice 100 feet is about as long an extension cord as you can use, and trying to mow a lawn that large would require numerous electrical outlets all over the place. And the subsequent trimming around them that would be necessary.
Paul Krugman, the man who says that something is bad economic policy when a Republican is President and good economic policy when a Democrat is President. Yeah, I'll put a lot of faith in what he has to say about economics.
At what point do you think the U.S Federal Government should act to rein in its spending? The thing is that Michelle Bachmann did not say that the U.S defaulting would not hurt anything. She said that the U.S. Congress not authorizing the government to borrow even more money would not hurt anything.
I believe that if you look at it you will discover that a significant part of this is the fact that the Administration used 60% of the new borrowing authority on the first day after it was authorized.
Yet West Virigina, which you claim is filled with poor people, colors very red on the election maps I can find.
Let's see how that works out
Yeah, that looks like a state dominated by Republicans.
I will give you that, but I do think that people give way too much credence to the fingerprint evidence that is presented in court.
The reason that I know that Obama did not write Dreams From My Father is because it bears no stylistic resemblance to any other examples of Obama's writing, including his second autobiography.
I came across this in a novel by L. Neil Smith. In the book, he suggests, through the mouth of one of his characters, that there is no proof (and no way to prove) that everyone's fingerprints are different. At the time I attributed this to his extreme libertarianism. However, in the time since then I have seen numerous reports contending that no one has ever conducted a study to prove that fingerprints are unique to an individual and no references to such a study. Additionally, it appears that the acceptance of fingerprints as a means of identification came about by appeal to authority, rather than from any actual evidence as to the validity of such identification.
It seems likely to me that each person's fingerprints (those that have them) are unique. However, considering the evidence I have seen regarding how questionable the identification of individuals from fingerprints lifted at the scene (whatever scene that happens to be) by fingerprint experts has proven to be, on the occassions it has tested in a scientific manner, dubious at best.
It was not "proven false". The guy did some preliminary studies of it and concluded it was different. Those who had originally contacted him did not choose to pursue the matter for the type of study that would be needed to prove things conclusively. I do not know that Ayers wrote "Dreams From My Father", what I do know is that Obama did not.
As to launching his political career at the Ayers' home, you are saying that he launched it somewhere else. OK, where? Where did Obama first anounce that he was going to run for the State Senate of Illinois? According to everything I have seen, it was at the Ayers' home. You are claiming that it was somewhere else. Where was that?
"Once," eh? And this "launched" his career? Yes, I do not believe that Ayers ghost wrote Dreams From My Father, primarily because I am not some fruitcake conspiracy theorist.
Did you read the article? It was the event where it was announced that Obama was the person that State Senator Alice Palmer had chosen as her successor for that office...the first elected office that Obama ran for (and was elected to). This is the usual definition of "launching" a political career, the occassion at which one anounces that one will first run for political office.
As for Ayers writing Dreams From My Father, the writing style of "Dreams From My Father" more closely resembles that of Bill Ayers' "Fugitive Days" than anything written by Obama. Additionally, the book "Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage" references the fact that Ayers wrote a significant portion of "Dreams From My Father". The book "Barack and Michelle" was written by a strong supporter of Obama. The relevant quote from "Barack and Michelle":
Andersen continues, “In the end, Ayers’s contribution to Barack’s Dreams from My Father would be significant–so much so that the book’s language, oddly specific references, literary devices, and themes would bear a jarring similarity to Ayers’s own writing.”
The law he was violating is the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. It does not matter how he got the credentials, unless the users actually and explicitly authorized him to log into their Facebook accounts to make these spam posts, he was violating the Act.
Tricking someone into giving you something is stealing. If I convince you I am from the tax collector's office and get you to give me the money that you owe in taxes, it is theft even though you willingly gave me the money. The courts will not buy a defense that it was not theft because I only tricked you into giving me your money.
You posted the part that was illegal. He stole their credentials and used those credentials to log into their Facebook accounts and post spam to their walls. It is illegal to log on to someone's account without their permission.
Here you go: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8630.html
I'm going to guess that you also do not believe that Ayers ghost wrote "Dreams From My Father" as well.
The ones that didn't march, risk jail and their lives?
Do you know where Barack Obama launched his political career?
In the home of Bill Ayers.
Do you know who Bill Ayers is?
He was one of the leaders of the domestic terrorist group the Weather Underground.
There are other politically powerful people who were part of the protests, most of them people whose role was actually admirable. I only use Bill Ayers as an example of someone whose role went beyond peaceful protest and even the civil disobedience of the civil rights movement into actual criminal violence who has risen to a position of political power
The problem with the Stanford Prison Experiment is that the initial instructions to the "guards" " gave them a clear sense that they should oppress the prisoners." This means that the conclusions reached by the study are not accurate. However, they are relevant to the current discussion, since many police officers, when they enter the profession, are, also, given the clear sense that they should oppress the "criminal" population (with the unfortunate correllary that the civilian population is the "criminal" population).
However, PopeRatzo is correct that the system can work. It requires that people pay attention to what is going on, and remain aware of the quote in my signature.
There is no such thing as a "legit license" of OSX not installed on hardware originally purchased from Apple. Part of the license is that it can only be installed on Apple hardware.
When did the U.S. actually cut education? The U.S. federal education budget has grown every year since the Department of Education was created.
And no, I don't want to a lot more things with less money and less people. I want the government to do less.
You are absolutely correct, and it is just a coincidence that the same people who are pushing this are the people who talk about how much they admire the fact that the Chinese government can "just get things done". It's not that these people want power for the sake of having power. They want power for the sake of doing things that are in "everybody's best interest", but that people are too stupid to do for themselves, or even to know that they want done.
The purpose is of course to smooth out the demand, such that less power stations have to be built to cope with peaks. And to make most use of greener sources of power.
Well, yes, it is just a happy coincidence that the best way to do that is to give some faceless bureaucrat the power to decide when I can run my washer and dryer.