Sure you need to maintain your brakes. However, when I buy a brand new car, I don't have to rip out the OEM brake system and install a "fix" as soon as I buy the car or risk it failing on me on the way home.
I use the breaks for years before I need to replace the pads, and maybe rotors. As far as the software, no I don't need to maintain it.
I race my car (legally) and don't have to service my ABS. Nor did I need to replace it with an "update"
Then we should see that coming soon, right? Fact is, it doesn't get any more "heavy hitter" laden than this one. As a prior poster mentioned some of these guys are not exactly anti-government types.
Even the poll mentioned earlier made to be pro-Kerry says Bush has better trade policies than Kerry.
Either way, they are both big government candidates. These guys are just saying which one is presenting a bigger big government "plan".
They asked 100 academics. The amount responding was about half, and many didn't answer all the questions. Compare that to several hundred recognized leaders in the field of economics.
There was clearly bias in the answers. For while a large majority thought Bush's plan was better on social security when asked specifically about it, when asked which was better in an either or, they said Kerry was better on it.
Not to mention "Would you rather work for Bush or Kerry?" 81% Kerry. People, when government academics (people who do not work the private sector) prefer to work for given political figure, it generally means they expect more benefits for themselves.
Let us apply some logical thought to these "findings"...
44,000 workers for Wallyworld in CA. Ok, I'll grant that.
In addition, 23 percent fewer Wal-Mart workers are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance than large retail workers as a whole.
DO you ask yourself why this may be,or assume it's a bad company? Does it occur to you that a significant portion of WM employees are secondary workers, and they are covered by their spouses health coverage. Many of them work at WM because of their additional 10% off, are covered by their husband's insurance, and thus have no need to get additional insurance. All of them? No. But it is a *choice* made by the employee in any case.
Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.
California has a problem, and it isn't WM. Remember how many bemployees they are talking about? 44,000. Do the math. That is about 1954 bucks/employee. But wait the 86 MILLION sounds more scary, right?
Now, how much in California state taxes was taken from those workers? Well CA residents pay about 7.25% in sales tax alone. It has "six brackets and a top rate that kicks in at a relatively low $39,133 of income."
Yes folks, in California the state tax comission considers you "rich" if you make 40K/year. So if you are the spouse of someone making say 25K/year in CA, and you go to work for WM there, working 30 hours a week, you jump to the maximum tax bracket. Californians' tax burden is about $120/$1000 of income. Or in the case of a 15K/year WM worker, $1,800.
Knowing full well (from personal experience) that what actually gets to those in need of help, CA could save itself some money by not taking it in the first place. How much better off would those poor second-wage earners at WM be if the government there didn't jack up their cost of living through taxation and regulation?
With six tax brackets, it's a sure bet that anyone taking a second job at WM, either for themselves or as a second earner in the household, and not making 40K/year or more will pay a higer portion of taxes as they jump a bracket or two. How much more revenue does that bring to CA? The top bracket is, IIRC about 9.5%.
There are other demographics to consider in the WM employee field. Many may well be college students; covered possibly by their school or parents, getting PA, and spending (ostensibly) most of their time learning and partying, not supporting a family. And as anyone who ha sbeen "Greeted" knows, they employ mostly elderly people at the door -- many of whom are covered by medicare, are on retirement plans, etc..
It is also important to note that the study referenced admits to not having real data. Then they claim that it won't affect their numbers. What the parent post left out was that according to that "study" (it's really an estimation) non-WM retailers' employees relied on public assistance for a per person average of 1401, a difference of about $551.
They don't claim in the details that CA WM employees earn 9.70/hour. They say that is the average WM salary. If we apply that same calculus, WM pays about 2-3 bucks more per hour here than do McDonlalds and other such jobs. They also would pay more than most retailers around here. Suddenly, that doesn't sound so bad. Hell I know people working in IT that make that, and are happy about it.
In case you didn't catch it, the cost of living here is massively different from CA. Yet the Socialists fail to take that into consideration and assume that their creation of an average is applicable across the board. No suprise there. In this case it benefits their agenda.
That this organization (Socialists) singles out walmart is obvious by actually reading the study. They admit they have no demographical data to go on, and then assume that people
So basically, they are saying if they had the original printer, and the document they could put the two together.
In order for this to provide the means to track a forged document to it's source will require printers to be "tested" when sold so their "printing fingerprint" can be recorded.
Otherwise, at best if can serve as a confirmation, not a tracing method. This is how ballistic characteristics test are used. They are used to confirm that a gun fired a bullet, not to trace the bullet to the gun.
1 milligram of plutonium spread on a field would kill the grass, no matter how you dilluted it and grass wouldn't grow again for a long time.
I'm sure I didn't explain this as well as he could have, but I hope you get the gist of it.
Your concept is correct, but your facts are horribly incorrect and it distracts from your point.
WIkipedia describes the myth of Pu toxicity you refer to.
A Perspective on the Dangers of Plutonium also deals in reality on the effects and dangers of Plutonium. Plutonium's danger lies in it's radioactivity and a Mg spread out over a field of grass is all but inconsequential. Junkscience.com has a short blurb about the effects of low-level radioactivity that would suprise many who have been led to beleive that radioactivity is a large and deady threat.
Toxic is a relative term, not an absolute, and there are multiple avenues of toxicity. Most laymen use the term to mean a substance's chemical toxicity.
Plutonium's chemotoxicity is less than that of caffiene, acetiminophen, and so on. It's radiotoxicity is 1/200th that of Radium, a naturally occuring substance in soil.
So basically, that horse urine is a greater threat to that field of grass than that Mg of plutonium.
Oil won't escape from containment and (supposedly) cause catastrophic global warming...
Yup, mankind discovered oil by dowsing, not because they found it on the surface. Not to mention the large quantities of natural leakage of oil from it's underground source into the oceans for hundreds/thousands of years.
Wal-Mart has 3500+ domestic stores, and nearly 1500 international units. They pull in over $60 BILLION dollars per quarter and $2 billion of that is PROFIT.
So you are saying that Walmart only pulls a 3.33% profit margin. That's a pretty small margin. If WM is trying to make up 2 bucks on each disc sold, and figure they sell 100 million albums/year then we are talking about a net change of approximately 200M bucks, or an increase of... about 2.5% increase in profits bringing them to approximately 8.2 billion/year or about a 3.4% profit margin.
Anyone know what the profit margin for companies such as Tower Records and such are?
the current electricity grid would need to be replaced
We are talking several hundred billion dollars, if not a trillion plus.
Let me introduce a second, even bigger green energy machine, the Continental SuperGrid, to deliver the preferred energy carriers, electricity and hydrogen, in an integrated energy pipeline. The fundamental design involves wrapping a superconducting cable around a pipe pumping liquid hydrogen, which provides the cold needed to maintain superconductivity (Figure 3). The SuperGrid would not only transmit electricity but also store and distribute the bulk of the hydrogen ultimately used in fuel-cell vehicles and generators or redesigned internal-combustion engines.
He then goes on to say it would take 100 years and 1 trillion dollars.
Yes. I can change paper tray preferences, not only toggle duplex but deside which edge it flips on, and more. I can choose print quality settings, orientation, paper type, etc..
Get the current tools and join the world of good printing. Been here for a few years now.
A friend of mine sent me $35 bucks via paypal, it arrived.. Then the other day I checked my account and it was EMPTY. I have not bought anything with paypal in the last month, so where did my balance go?
Bullshit. China is almost assured of being a raging economic success at this point, as long as they can keep a handle on their raging growth. You specifically mentioned them, and tried to dismiss them, because they derail your whole "Freedom and Democracy = "Wealth" theory. Singapore is another raging financial success and they aren't a towering symbol of freedom either.
Bullshit on you. His argument was that wealth and economic freedom result in political freedom. That argument was clearly stated. Yet you went for a strawman. Tsk. Tsk.
"Rising standards of living solve most of the pressing problems facing the world today."
Excepting of course energy consumption and pollution.
Actually pollution levels drop as wealth increases. Try some research it may open your eyes. Energy consumption increases until the wealth builds to a point where it can be decreased through technology. Again, this is borne out by history. One example is the whaling industry. the move to kerosene as opposed to whale oil for lamps and heating resulted in a large drop in total energy consumption.
"Wealthy/Free nations don't tend to make war on each other."
No but they do make war on poor nations especially ones they want to turn in to colonies, reference the British empire, the French empire, the German empire, the American empire(formally dominating the Phillipines and the entire Western Hemisphere and now moving to Asia and the Middle East.
You just inadvertently made the PP's point.
China is almost certain to surpass the U.S. as the world's economic superpower unless something cataclysmic happens, especially if the U.S. keeps its head up its ass and keeps handing all its capital and IP over to China.
Not keeping up on reality eh? China is actually losing mass amounts of manufacturing jobs... more so than the US.
Singapore is far free-er than it was prior to the economic changes; and friends there tell me it is also moving more toward more freedom.
Anyone who beleives Iraq and Vietnam are the same war in different times and places, understands neither Vietnam, nor Iraq; regardless of whether they think the Iraq or Vietnam wars were right or wrong.
It seems to me that you would want China to reduce its emmissions too. However according to wikipedia China emits 2.3 tons per capita of CO2 while the U.S. 20.1 tons per capita (Europe at 8.5 tons per capita.) and isn't this the way to look at emissions?
Ordinarily, i'd agree. bu tint his case, per-capita means nohting. The environmental effects are per-unit of pollution. it doesn't matter if it's 5 people putting out 100 tons total or 50 people putting out 100 tons total. What matters is the total.
This is a case where the effect is what needs to be measured, not the per-capita output. If you wanted to measure per-capita you must take into account the effects of international trade. Consider the possibility that country A produces 10T/cap versus country B at 5T/Cap. But it so happens that Country B enjoys the fact that country A actually manufactures the goods used in B, and the manufacturing process produces a few T/Cap.
Thus, IF one wants to measure, it has to be aggregate, not per-capita. Further, sinks must be taken into account as well. If country A produces 1000 T/year versus B producing 500T/year, but A has the vegetation and sinks that soak up or consume 750T/year, whereas B only sinks/consumes 100T/year, A is the least polluting.
Yet another reason singlenumberitis is such a bad affliction.;)
If you really want to stop this kind of activity, put an end to the corporation. Businesses should not be treated like people; immune to nearly everything. You can be for business, indeed even big responsible business, and against the government dealing out special protections to them.
All systems are bad. All systems contain some good. The only reason capitalism is held in high regard by people who've actually studied the entire matter is that of all the bad systems in existence (i.e. all systems), it is the least bad and provides the most good.
BTW, when dealing with reality and whether or not a given resource distribution system, is good or bad, or whether bibery or racism are good, bad or limited, one gains no respect or weight of authority when telling others to go read science FICTION.
Maybe you should spend less time in fiction and more in the cold hard reality when determining your views on reality? And by the way, racism is by definition limited to your skin color. To say otherwise is to lessen the impact of racism. There is unreasonable discrimination in all sectors of life, but they are not all racism.
The US in an attempt to avoid legislative oversight, and in an attempt to keep US forces under US operational control, provides them outside of the "blue helmet" section. That is, they are combat troops in support of the peacekeeper actions, but are not uder operational control by the UN.
This should get you started: http://www.cato.org/dispatch/01-10-01d.h tml as there are many references for you to seek out and examine.
One of the things you need to be aware of is the difference between chapter VI and Chapter VII missions. The numbers you often see, and appear to cite above, are limited to Chapter VI missions.
The DoD report you are looking for is: "US Forces Participating in, or Acting in Support of Selected UN Operations, UNSC Resolutions, or Non-UN Peacekeeping Activities, As of 3/27/97," Department of Defense, Office of Public Affairs.
You also should do some research on the relationship between the UN and NATO. NATO is a sub-unit of the UN, as you read it's charter. If you start adding in the NATO expenditures and troop support, it gets even more lopsided. If you ever wondered why NATO did not disband after the fall of the USSR, learning the truth behind the creation of NATO will tell you why. Note however, that the US DoD does *not* indicate how much of it's budget is specifically directed to NATO operational and military support.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/12-30-200 2/ vo18no26_nato.htm should get you started on that research.
For such a misinformed post. Oh wait, nevermind, it is/, after all.
Has it ocurred to anyone that the reason the UN "can't get anything useful done" is that the US owes close to $600 Million in dues? The US also routinely withholds money whenever it feels it can gain leverage on an issue.
So you believe all you hear, right? Have you ever considered which national military makes up the bulk of the UN "peacekeepers"? Did you know the US is billed for 25% of the UN's operations (over 30% for the "peacekeeping" operations), in addition to the non-dues support it provides (which has estimates ranging from 15-20+ Billion in the last 8-10 years)?
Indeed, between 1992 and 1997, the US provided "voluntary" (in truth all of it is voluntary, the UN has no rightful or legal claims to *any* national treasury) support topping 11 billion dollars --just for "peacekeeping" activities. A march 1997 report showed US troops supporting such actions numbered approximately 68,000.
Hey, maybe we can just "pay our dues" and stop making all that voluntary contributions. Whaddya say? Wanna trade that 11+ Billion for 600 Million? No? Didn't think so.
Did you know that in fact, when it comes to peacekeeping forces, more than half the member countries refuse to make payments? Indeed, the UN thinks it is owed some 5+ BILLION in USD, yet we don't see you, or other UN apologists, pushing for the rest of the member countries (about 2/3rds any given year) to pay up (BTW, France is included in the top 5 list).
And FYI, the "withholding" of US funds has been tied directly to reforming functional aspects of the UN, such as the portion the UN allocates, the funding of conferences and organizations directly opposed to the United States (something no country should have to support -- organizations that oppose it), and a proper accounting of the US' military support which has far exceeded it's "assigned share".
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues
So does Russia, so does China, France. All five of the permanent members of the UNSEC have veto powers, but that is ONLY limited to the (in)Security Council. "The council's five veto-wielding permanent members are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US."
Indeed, do you know which country has used their veto power more than the rest? Bzzzt, no it isn't the US, it is USSR/Russia.
In the early days of the United Nations, the Soviet commissar and later minister for foreign affairs, Vyacheslav Molotov, said no so many times that he was known as "Mr. Veto."
The Soviet Union was responsible for nearly half of all vetoes ever cast. Molotov regularly rejected bids for new membership because of the U.S. refusal to admit the Soviet republics. The United States has invoked its veto power 76 times, usually to ward off actions against Israel.
-- http://www.peace.ca/securitycouncilveto.htm
In the UN General Assembly, there is no veto power. Indeed, the UN GA can override the SC through UN resolution 377 which allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security". http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/a major.htm
And guess which country pushed for that ability? Yup, the nasty old United States, in 1950. But that action has rarely been used. Indeed, only ten times since it's inception has it been used. Why was it not used in the Iraq affair? not enough support. If the majority did indeed oppose it, they were apparently unwilling to go on record as being against it.
Given the actual layout of functions and powers in the UN, your claims fall flat on their face, as the US does not have "veto power over most issues ", that the USSR has used the veto power more than any other member of the SC, that veto is no
If it is a matter of actual qualifications, why vote? Honestly, if a coroner needs to have certain skills, degrees, training, etc. who gets the job is not something you (the general population) should vote on. If you want the best skills for the job, make it a hired position. If you are voting for a position, than by definition the only qualifications are what it takes to get on the ballot.
In actual fact there is no evidence that a bistable system is bad. Indeed the entire point of our electoral system in that the winning person enters witha strong mandate to govern
Yup, getting less than 50% creates a strong mandate. Come on, even getting 55, or 60% of the voting public is not a strong madate. It is not possible to get "a strong mandate to govern" when the majority of eligible people do not vote. Right now, we see national polls putting the two leading candidates at pretty much dead even.
You are close to the truth when you mention the senate, but miss the mark. It may hurt many to know, but the Senate was never intended to represent the people. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, not the people.
Thus, each state in the Senate gets the same number of votes. the Presidency is a president of union, not of the States, thus it is not a popular vote position, nor should it be.
The real key to reform, IMNSHO, is not necessarily voting method, though it clearly needs adapted to more than two candidate races, but to fix the system itself.
First, step: return Senator choice to the state governments.
Ideally, each state would have it's Senate elect it's Senators; each State's Senate would be elected by it's county governments (or what a given State may call them). House of Representatives still remains elected by the people, as it should.
The final cog in this wheel is to have the Federal budget divided amongst the states. The Federal Government essentially hands a bill to each state, and the State makes it's payment to the FedGov. How they bill their people fo rit is up to them, though I'd suggest billing the Counties and leaving it up to them.
This brings and end to several problems in the current system. For one, those voting for a big budget at the Federal level, have to explain why they elected to send away more money, as opposed to now when they talk about what the "brought back". It also brings back representation for each State. Unfunded mandates to the states themselves have cost us billions in "of budget or unbudgeted items". Further, the system described above extends the idea of a split-level governmental system down to the local levels.
When a complete novice wants to install something from a CD on OSX all they do is drag the.app bundle to the hard disk, with Linux you either have to use some vendor specific tool to manage
Oh vendor specific eh? So do tell us, how many non-Apple vendors use OSX's installer? What? You say there are no other vendors of OSX other than Apple? So then Apple's installer is also vendor specific, no?
You know, you may want to get current yourself before calling Linux dated. We've had Synaptic available for Debian and RPM based distributions now for what a couple years? It's repository oriented, tracks dependencies for you, is graphical, and obviously is not vendor specific. Every once in a while I, my wife, and many others just take a look to see what is new or in need of an update in Synaptic, select install/upgrade, and we're off.
So either you need to learn what is current so you can speak with any sense of authority, or you need to well you figure it out.
Aroudn here, I work in a fortune 50 company with OpenOffice.org, Evolution with the connector, and integrate just fine in the windows infrastructure.
I used synaptic, paid zero for the software, used a GUI for the install, didn't have to browse the web, didn't need to buy a CD, and didn't have to manage any dependencies. Just a few clicks and I was off. I'd say that works pretty damned well -- all of it desktop oriented, all of it graphical. All of it something any normal user can do.
Slashdot Mirror
Kerry in a landslide.
Of rocks, mud, or both?
The same Kerry that fought to keep encryption a munition and unexportable?
2 010-1028_3-5291476.html
The same Kerry that fought for the clipper chip?
The same John Kerry that wanted the government to have key escrow?
The same John Kerry that co-sponsored the Hollings bill to create government mandated copy-protection on content in 2002?[1]
That John Kerry is now supposed to be a saviour reagrding the DMCA?
If you believe that I've got a legal DVD containing all Microsoft's OS code on it for sale; with an open source license.
1: http://news.com.com/John+Kerrys+real+tech+agenda/
Sure you need to maintain your brakes. However, when I buy a brand new car, I don't have to rip out the OEM brake system and install a "fix" as soon as I buy the car or risk it failing on me on the way home.
I use the breaks for years before I need to replace the pads, and maybe rotors. As far as the software, no I don't need to maintain it.
I race my car (legally) and don't have to service my ABS. Nor did I need to replace it with an "update"
When I was in college (I'm a second-year grad student now)
;)
Uhhh if you are a grad student, you are in college. Therefore "was" is not approriate. Clearly, it wasn't an English degree.
Then we should see that coming soon, right? Fact is, it doesn't get any more "heavy hitter" laden than this one. As a prior poster mentioned some of these guys are not exactly anti-government types.
Even the poll mentioned earlier made to be pro-Kerry says Bush has better trade policies than Kerry.
Either way, they are both big government candidates. These guys are just saying which one is presenting a bigger big government "plan".
They asked 100 academics. The amount responding was about half, and many didn't answer all the questions. Compare that to several hundred recognized leaders in the field of economics.
There was clearly bias in the answers. For while a large majority thought Bush's plan was better on social security when asked specifically about it, when asked which was better in an either or, they said Kerry was better on it.
Not to mention "Would you rather work for Bush or Kerry?" 81% Kerry. People, when government academics (people who do not work the private sector) prefer to work for given political figure, it generally means they expect more benefits for themselves.
Let us apply some logical thought to these "findings" ...
44,000 workers for Wallyworld in CA. Ok, I'll grant that.
In addition, 23 percent fewer Wal-Mart workers are covered by employer-sponsored health insurance than large retail workers as a whole.
DO you ask yourself why this may be,or assume it's a bad company? Does it occur to you that a significant portion of WM employees are secondary workers, and they are covered by their spouses health coverage. Many of them work at WM because of their additional 10% off, are covered by their husband's insurance, and thus have no need to get additional insurance. All of them? No. But it is a *choice* made by the employee in any case.
Reliance by Wal-Mart workers on public assistance programs in California comes at a cost to the taxpayers of an estimated $86 million annually; this is comprised of $32 million in health related expenses and $54 million in other assistance.
California has a problem, and it isn't WM. Remember how many bemployees they are talking about? 44,000. Do the math. That is about 1954 bucks/employee. But wait the 86 MILLION sounds more scary, right?
Now, how much in California state taxes was taken from those workers? Well CA residents pay about 7.25% in sales tax alone. It has "six brackets and a top rate that kicks in at a relatively low $39,133 of income."
Yes folks, in California the state tax comission considers you "rich" if you make 40K/year. So if you are the spouse of someone making say 25K/year in CA, and you go to work for WM there, working 30 hours a week, you jump to the maximum tax bracket. Californians' tax burden is about $120/$1000 of income. Or in the case of a 15K/year WM worker, $1,800.
Knowing full well (from personal experience) that what actually gets to those in need of help, CA could save itself some money by not taking it in the first place. How much better off would those poor second-wage earners at WM be if the government there didn't jack up their cost of living through taxation and regulation?
With six tax brackets, it's a sure bet that anyone taking a second job at WM, either for themselves or as a second earner in the household, and not making 40K/year or more will pay a higer portion of taxes as they jump a bracket or two. How much more revenue does that bring to CA? The top bracket is, IIRC about 9.5%.
There are other demographics to consider in the WM employee field. Many may well be college students; covered possibly by their school or parents, getting PA, and spending (ostensibly) most of their time learning and partying, not supporting a family. And as anyone who ha sbeen "Greeted" knows, they employ mostly elderly people at the door -- many of whom are covered by medicare, are on retirement plans, etc..
It is also important to note that the study referenced admits to not having real data. Then they claim that it won't affect their numbers. What the parent post left out was that according to that "study" (it's really an estimation) non-WM retailers' employees relied on public assistance for a per person average of 1401, a difference of about $551.
They don't claim in the details that CA WM employees earn 9.70/hour. They say that is the average WM salary. If we apply that same calculus, WM pays about 2-3 bucks more per hour here than do McDonlalds and other such jobs. They also would pay more than most retailers around here. Suddenly, that doesn't sound so bad. Hell I know people working in IT that make that, and are happy about it.
In case you didn't catch it, the cost of living here is massively different from CA. Yet the Socialists fail to take that into consideration and assume that their creation of an average is applicable across the board. No suprise there. In this case it benefits their agenda.
That this organization (Socialists) singles out walmart is obvious by actually reading the study. They admit they have no demographical data to go on, and then assume that people
So basically, they are saying if they had the original printer, and the document they could put the two together.
In order for this to provide the means to track a forged document to it's source will require printers to be "tested" when sold so their "printing fingerprint" can be recorded.
Otherwise, at best if can serve as a confirmation, not a tracing method. This is how ballistic characteristics test are used. They are used to confirm that a gun fired a bullet, not to trace the bullet to the gun.
1 milligram of plutonium spread on a field would kill the grass, no matter how you dilluted it and grass wouldn't grow again for a long time.
I'm sure I didn't explain this as well as he could have, but I hope you get the gist of it.
Your concept is correct, but your facts are horribly incorrect and it distracts from your point.
WIkipedia describes the myth of Pu toxicity you refer to.
A Perspective on the Dangers of Plutonium also deals in reality on the effects and dangers of Plutonium. Plutonium's danger lies in it's radioactivity and a Mg spread out over a field of grass is all but inconsequential. Junkscience.com has a short blurb about the effects of low-level radioactivity that would suprise many who have been led to beleive that radioactivity is a large and deady threat.
Toxic is a relative term, not an absolute, and there are multiple avenues of toxicity. Most laymen use the term to mean a substance's chemical toxicity.
Plutonium's chemotoxicity is less than that of caffiene, acetiminophen, and so on. It's radiotoxicity is 1/200th that of Radium, a naturally occuring substance in soil.
So basically, that horse urine is a greater threat to that field of grass than that Mg of plutonium.
Oil won't escape from containment and (supposedly) cause catastrophic global warming...
Yup, mankind discovered oil by dowsing, not because they found it on the surface. Not to mention the large quantities of natural leakage of oil from it's underground source into the oceans for hundreds/thousands of years.
Wal-Mart has 3500+ domestic stores, and nearly 1500 international units. They pull in over $60 BILLION dollars per quarter and $2 billion of that is PROFIT.
... about 2.5% increase in profits bringing them to approximately 8.2 billion/year or about a 3.4% profit margin.
So you are saying that Walmart only pulls a 3.33% profit margin. That's a pretty small margin. If WM is trying to make up 2 bucks on each disc sold, and figure they sell 100 million albums/year then we are talking about a net change of approximately 200M bucks, or an increase of
Anyone know what the profit margin for companies such as Tower Records and such are?
Read the article and you see it isn't about methane so much, It's about nuclear and hydrogen, and airborne pies.
We are talking several hundred billion dollars, if not a trillion plus.
He then goes on to say it would take 100 years and 1 trillion dollars.
In other words "aint' gonna happen".
Yes. I can change paper tray preferences, not only toggle duplex but deside which edge it flips on, and more. I can choose print quality settings, orientation, paper type, etc..
Get the current tools and join the world of good printing. Been here for a few years now.
yeah cuz "real banks" don't have problems with transactions.
A friend of mine sent me $35 bucks via paypal, it arrived.. Then the other day I checked my account and it was EMPTY. I have not bought anything with paypal in the last month, so where did my balance go?
Beer.
Bullshit. China is almost assured of being a raging economic success at this point, as long as they can keep a handle on their raging growth. You specifically mentioned them, and tried to dismiss them, because they derail your whole "Freedom and Democracy = "Wealth" theory. Singapore is another raging financial success and they aren't a towering symbol of freedom either.
... more so than the US.
Bullshit on you. His argument was that wealth and economic freedom result in political freedom. That argument was clearly stated. Yet you went for a strawman. Tsk. Tsk.
"Rising standards of living solve most of the pressing problems facing the world today."
Excepting of course energy consumption and pollution.
Actually pollution levels drop as wealth increases. Try some research it may open your eyes. Energy consumption increases until the wealth builds to a point where it can be decreased through technology. Again, this is borne out by history. One example is the whaling industry. the move to kerosene as opposed to whale oil for lamps and heating resulted in a large drop in total energy consumption.
"Wealthy/Free nations don't tend to make war on each other."
No but they do make war on poor nations especially ones they want to turn in to colonies, reference the British empire, the French empire, the German empire, the American empire(formally dominating the Phillipines and the entire Western Hemisphere and now moving to Asia and the Middle East.
You just inadvertently made the PP's point.
China is almost certain to surpass the U.S. as the world's economic superpower unless something cataclysmic happens, especially if the U.S. keeps its head up its ass and keeps handing all its capital and IP over to China.
Not keeping up on reality eh? China is actually losing mass amounts of manufacturing jobs
Singapore is far free-er than it was prior to the economic changes; and friends there tell me it is also moving more toward more freedom.
Anyone who beleives Iraq and Vietnam are the same war in different times and places, understands neither Vietnam, nor Iraq; regardless of whether they think the Iraq or Vietnam wars were right or wrong.
It seems to me that you would want China to reduce its emmissions too. However according to wikipedia China emits 2.3 tons per capita of CO2 while the U.S. 20.1 tons per capita (Europe at 8.5 tons per capita.) and isn't this the way to look at emissions?
;)
Ordinarily, i'd agree. bu tint his case, per-capita means nohting. The environmental effects are per-unit of pollution. it doesn't matter if it's 5 people putting out 100 tons total or 50 people putting out 100 tons total. What matters is the total.
This is a case where the effect is what needs to be measured, not the per-capita output. If you wanted to measure per-capita you must take into account the effects of international trade. Consider the possibility that country A produces 10T/cap versus country B at 5T/Cap. But it so happens that Country B enjoys the fact that country A actually manufactures the goods used in B, and the manufacturing process produces a few T/Cap.
Thus, IF one wants to measure, it has to be aggregate, not per-capita. Further, sinks must be taken into account as well. If country A produces 1000 T/year versus B producing 500T/year, but A has the vegetation and sinks that soak up or consume 750T/year, whereas B only sinks/consumes 100T/year, A is the least polluting.
Yet another reason singlenumberitis is such a bad affliction.
If you really want to stop this kind of activity, put an end to the corporation. Businesses should not be treated like people; immune to nearly everything. You can be for business, indeed even big responsible business, and against the government dealing out special protections to them.
All systems are bad. All systems contain some good. The only reason capitalism is held in high regard by people who've actually studied the entire matter is that of all the bad systems in existence (i.e. all systems), it is the least bad and provides the most good.
BTW, when dealing with reality and whether or not a given resource distribution system, is good or bad, or whether bibery or racism are good, bad or limited, one gains no respect or weight of authority when telling others to go read science FICTION.
Maybe you should spend less time in fiction and more in the cold hard reality when determining your views on reality? And by the way, racism is by definition limited to your skin color. To say otherwise is to lessen the impact of racism. There is unreasonable discrimination in all sectors of life, but they are not all racism.
The US in an attempt to avoid legislative oversight, and in an attempt to keep US forces under US operational control, provides them outside of the "blue helmet" section. That is, they are combat troops in support of the peacekeeper actions, but are not uder operational control by the UN.
h tml as there are many references for you to seek out and examine.
0 2/ vo18no26_nato.htm
This should get you started:
http://www.cato.org/dispatch/01-10-01d.
One of the things you need to be aware of is the difference between chapter VI and Chapter VII missions. The numbers you often see, and appear to cite above, are limited to Chapter VI missions.
The DoD report you are looking for is:
"US Forces Participating in, or Acting in Support of Selected UN Operations, UNSC Resolutions, or Non-UN Peacekeeping Activities, As of 3/27/97," Department of Defense, Office of Public Affairs.
You also should do some research on the relationship between the UN and NATO. NATO is a sub-unit of the UN, as you read it's charter. If you start adding in the NATO expenditures and troop support, it gets even more lopsided. If you ever wondered why NATO did not disband after the fall of the USSR, learning the truth behind the creation of NATO will tell you why. Note however, that the US DoD does *not* indicate how much of it's budget is specifically directed to NATO operational and military support.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/12-30-20
should get you started on that research.
Has it ocurred to anyone that the reason the UN "can't get anything useful done" is that the US owes close to $600 Million in dues? The US also routinely withholds money whenever it feels it can gain leverage on an issue.
So you believe all you hear, right? Have you ever considered which national military makes up the bulk of the UN "peacekeepers"? Did you know the US is billed for 25% of the UN's operations (over 30% for the "peacekeeping" operations), in addition to the non-dues support it provides (which has estimates ranging from 15-20+ Billion in the last 8-10 years)?
Indeed, between 1992 and 1997, the US provided "voluntary" (in truth all of it is voluntary, the UN has no rightful or legal claims to *any* national treasury) support topping 11 billion dollars --just for "peacekeeping" activities. A march 1997 report showed US troops supporting such actions numbered approximately 68,000.
Hey, maybe we can just "pay our dues" and stop making all that voluntary contributions. Whaddya say? Wanna trade that 11+ Billion for 600 Million? No? Didn't think so.
Did you know that in fact, when it comes to peacekeeping forces, more than half the member countries refuse to make payments? Indeed, the UN thinks it is owed some 5+ BILLION in USD, yet we don't see you, or other UN apologists, pushing for the rest of the member countries (about 2/3rds any given year) to pay up (BTW, France is included in the top 5 list).
And FYI, the "withholding" of US funds has been tied directly to reforming functional aspects of the UN, such as the portion the UN allocates, the funding of conferences and organizations directly opposed to the United States (something no country should have to support -- organizations that oppose it), and a proper accounting of the US' military support which has far exceeded it's "assigned share".
Add to this the fact that the US has veto power over most issues
So does Russia, so does China, France. All five of the permanent members of the UNSEC have veto powers, but that is ONLY limited to the (in)Security Council. "The council's five veto-wielding permanent members are China, France, Russia, the UK and the US."
Indeed, do you know which country has used their veto power more than the rest? Bzzzt, no it isn't the US, it is USSR/Russia.
-- http://www.peace.ca/securitycouncilveto.htm
In the UN General Assembly, there is no veto power. Indeed, the UN GA can override the SC through UN resolution 377 which allows the General Assembly to recommend collective action "if the Security Council, because of lack of unanimity of the permanent members, fails to exercise its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security".
http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/landmark/a major.htm
And guess which country pushed for that ability? Yup, the nasty old United States, in 1950. But that action has rarely been used. Indeed, only ten times since it's inception has it been used. Why was it not used in the Iraq affair? not enough support. If the majority did indeed oppose it, they were apparently unwilling to go on record as being against it.
Given the actual layout of functions and powers in the UN, your claims fall flat on their face, as the US does not have "veto power over most issues ", that the USSR has used the veto power more than any other member of the SC, that veto is no
... or so they think.
If it is a matter of actual qualifications, why vote? Honestly, if a coroner needs to have certain skills, degrees, training, etc. who gets the job is not something you (the general population) should vote on. If you want the best skills for the job, make it a hired position. If you are voting for a position, than by definition the only qualifications are what it takes to get on the ballot.
In actual fact there is no evidence that a bistable system is bad. Indeed the entire point of our electoral system in that the winning person enters witha strong mandate to govern
Yup, getting less than 50% creates a strong mandate. Come on, even getting 55, or 60% of the voting public is not a strong madate. It is not possible to get "a strong mandate to govern" when the majority of eligible people do not vote. Right now, we see national polls putting the two leading candidates at pretty much dead even.
You are close to the truth when you mention the senate, but miss the mark. It may hurt many to know, but the Senate was never intended to represent the people. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, not the people.
Thus, each state in the Senate gets the same number of votes. the Presidency is a president of union, not of the States, thus it is not a popular vote position, nor should it be.
The real key to reform, IMNSHO, is not necessarily voting method, though it clearly needs adapted to more than two candidate races, but to fix the system itself.
First, step: return Senator choice to the state governments.
Ideally, each state would have it's Senate elect it's Senators; each State's Senate would be elected by it's county governments (or what a given State may call them). House of Representatives still remains elected by the people, as it should.
The final cog in this wheel is to have the Federal budget divided amongst the states. The Federal Government essentially hands a bill to each state, and the State makes it's payment to the FedGov. How they bill their people fo rit is up to them, though I'd suggest billing the Counties and leaving it up to them.
This brings and end to several problems in the current system. For one, those voting for a big budget at the Federal level, have to explain why they elected to send away more money, as opposed to now when they talk about what the "brought back". It also brings back representation for each State. Unfunded mandates to the states themselves have cost us billions in "of budget or unbudgeted items". Further, the system described above extends the idea of a split-level governmental system down to the local levels.
When a complete novice wants to install something from a CD on OSX all they do is drag the .app bundle to the hard disk, with Linux you either have to use some vendor specific tool to manage
Oh vendor specific eh? So do tell us, how many non-Apple vendors use OSX's installer? What? You say there are no other vendors of OSX other than Apple? So then Apple's installer is also vendor specific, no?
You know, you may want to get current yourself before calling Linux dated. We've had Synaptic available for Debian and RPM based distributions now for what a couple years? It's repository oriented, tracks dependencies for you, is graphical, and obviously is not vendor specific. Every once in a while I, my wife, and many others just take a look to see what is new or in need of an update in Synaptic, select install/upgrade, and we're off.
So either you need to learn what is current so you can speak with any sense of authority, or you need to well you figure it out.
Aroudn here, I work in a fortune 50 company with OpenOffice.org, Evolution with the connector, and integrate just fine in the windows infrastructure.
I used synaptic, paid zero for the software, used a GUI for the install, didn't have to browse the web, didn't need to buy a CD, and didn't have to manage any dependencies. Just a few clicks and I was off. I'd say that works pretty damned well -- all of it desktop oriented, all of it graphical. All of it something any normal user can do.