Hmm, it does appear now that I can download one song at a time, but I don't see any way to download a whole album, or the whole collection. For it to be useful to me, I need to be able to do this.
If I lose my entire collection of music at home, I would like to be able to download it again...
It's also the opinion of the founding fathers of the U.S. who authored the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah, no. It's not. It might be shared by some of them, but definitely not all of them.
Not all the "founding fathers", but the founding fathers who authored the Constitution. Chiefly, that's James Madison, with huge influences by Jefferson, Adams and Paine. Yes there were those like Hamilton who despised the ideas that ended up passing. But again it was Madison's ideals that ended up in the Constitution, not Hamilton's.
And even so, that doesn't change things. They were not some infallible deity; they were just men. And times have changed since their times.
They were just men, yes. But the law hasn't. It sounds like you don't care much for the law. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Yes, you have. That's all you've said. If something is receiving government money, then it must not be worth having. And that is completely and utterly false.
Wrong again. There are a great many things that don't "turn a profit" that are worth having.
I'm simply saying that if something receives government money, that's wrong. Because it's illegal. And unethical, because the government doesn't have any money that it hasn't already stolen from its citizens (in most cases against their will).
Well, OK, it matters in that more of a bad thing is worse than less of a bad thing.
That's your opinion, but most people would consider that to be completely and utterly wrong.
Yes, it's my opinion. It's also the opinion of the founding fathers of the U.S. who authored the U.S. Constitution.
I fail to see the value in the idea that something has to turn a profit in order to be worth having. Quite frankly, I find that idea, and those that espouse it, to be quite retarded.
I can agree with you here. I don't believe I ever espoused this idea at all.
Honestly, SHUT UP about "government-funded" already. Combined federal, state and local gov't contributions make up about 5.8% according to their latest figures. The vast majority of their funding comes from individuals, businesses, and universities (amongst others).
Whether it's 5.8% or 16% as other have said doesn't matter. Every penny of government funding is wrong. And it's every bit as wrong as every penny the government gives Catholic charities or whatever.
So while you may have a point with your "shut up", it does matter since the government has no business funding any private business or entity.
Well, my sister's company uses Dreamhost, and they were hacked. They do use ftp (instead of sftp) to upload their files, so I'm guessing that's the likely culprit. I've since set them straight.
I've been a loyal Dreamhost cusomter since 1998 and I'm happy with their response.
...when they actually do something, it's invariably a disaster.
Invariably? This passes for insightful? I might have gone for funny, but it's a pretty tired knee-jerk cliche. Don't forget that even Ron Paul, the patron saint of libertarianism is a congressman. He must not think the exercise is utterly futile.
Ron Paul, whom I support, would be the first to tell you that the govt needs to get out of the business of [many, many things], and that govt makes a disaster of things.
YouTube is blocked by the proxy nazis here at work, but I looked at those articles. The first one is simply a rehash of Mish's original post, and the second one is simply wrong. For example: "Isn't the dollar much stronger and aren't foreign stock markets much lower today than they were when he advised readers to invest in them"? -- No, both are much lower. Of course, it could have been true when the article was written, but Schiff invests for the long term. The results shown in that portfolio were clearly short-term results (i.e. bought right before the 2008 crash).
And Schiff is the first to admit he had no idea the Fed was going to begin Quantitative Easing which is simply propping up the stock market for the short term. It's easy to see that massive inflation is in our future, but *nobody* knows exactly when. Mish likes to say "Schiff was wrong about hyperinflation". I don't recall Schiff ever giving a date for this event, but just that it will happen given our current policies (which aren't likely to be changing). He's quite right about that. But it's still a future event, so it's premature to declare him "wrong" about that.
And yet that doesn't contradict anything I've said.
The complaints made by Mish (Mike Shedlock) have been well-hashed out and well-refuted, and as I said, those who joined immediately before the crash and then bailed out before the bounce of course lost. But those that hung around are well back into the green.
It may be fun and self-serving to spread such myths about Peter Schiff, but it's simply not true.
Those who have been with him for 5+ years are deeply in the green. Only those who joined immediately before the Asian markets fell had a temporary setback, but even those are now in the green. No market is constantly going up. But in the long run Schiff's vision is spot-on.
Personally, I opened an account at EuroPac in 2008, and my portfolio is up 342%. Of course that's largely due to a small stock (of which I had 40,000 shares) went up 1200% within the span of a year. Discounting that "lucky" home run, my portfolio is up 48%. I'm quite happy with the results, naturally.
So by your logic, the welfare clause and the commerce clause (which, yes, have been abuse to the nth degree) would pretty much cover anything. If that's true, then what, pray tell, would be the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments? Seriously, if the founders indeed intended for the feds to do pretty much whatever, then why specifically spell out that "all else is the purview of the states and the people"? There would be no "all else". Makes no sense.
Of course the writings of chief architects of the Constitution (Madison, etc. in the [anti]Federalist Papers, etc) made it quite clear what their intentions were with respect to this debate.
But you are right, there was a debate even among the founders, with Madison and Jefferson on one side, and Hamilton on the other. And yes, things went off-kilter pretty much right away. The Constitution is by far a perfect document, as it was a compromise between the two camps. But compared to where we are now (rather close to collapse) I'd much rather be back at the point of that awful compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
Why spend time and resources changing what is a natural cyclical phenomena? Such an exercise can only end badly.
-Mike
P.S. to moderators: this is only a troll to the politically-motivated.
Hmm, it does appear now that I can download one song at a time, but I don't see any way to download a whole album, or the whole collection. For it to be useful to me, I need to be able to do this.
If I lose my entire collection of music at home, I would like to be able to download it again...
I have 60 gigs of music stored on music.google.com, at zero cost
Yeah, but once you upload it, you cannot re-download it, right? So it's not the same functionality...
What utter nonsense.
It's also the opinion of the founding fathers of the U.S. who authored the U.S. Constitution.
Yeah, no. It's not. It might be shared by some of them, but definitely not all of them.
Not all the "founding fathers", but the founding fathers who authored the Constitution. Chiefly, that's James Madison, with huge influences by Jefferson, Adams and Paine. Yes there were those like Hamilton who despised the ideas that ended up passing. But again it was Madison's ideals that ended up in the Constitution, not Hamilton's.
And even so, that doesn't change things. They were not some infallible deity; they were just men. And times have changed since their times.
They were just men, yes. But the law hasn't. It sounds like you don't care much for the law. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
Yes, you have. That's all you've said. If something is receiving government money, then it must not be worth having. And that is completely and utterly false.
Wrong again. There are a great many things that don't "turn a profit" that are worth having.
I'm simply saying that if something receives government money, that's wrong. Because it's illegal. And unethical, because the government doesn't have any money that it hasn't already stolen from its citizens (in most cases against their will).
-Mike
Yes, it matters very much.
Well, OK, it matters in that more of a bad thing is worse than less of a bad thing.
That's your opinion, but most people would consider that to be completely and utterly wrong.
Yes, it's my opinion. It's also the opinion of the founding fathers of the U.S. who authored the U.S. Constitution.
I fail to see the value in the idea that something has to turn a profit in order to be worth having. Quite frankly, I find that idea, and those that espouse it, to be quite retarded.
I can agree with you here. I don't believe I ever espoused this idea at all.
-Mike
Agreed. I was only using the example others provided. Special favors (or favoritism) by govt is always a bad thing.
Honestly, SHUT UP about "government-funded" already. Combined federal, state and local gov't contributions make up about 5.8% according to their latest figures. The vast majority of their funding comes from individuals, businesses, and universities (amongst others).
Whether it's 5.8% or 16% as other have said doesn't matter. Every penny of government funding is wrong. And it's every bit as wrong as every penny the government gives Catholic charities or whatever.
So while you may have a point with your "shut up", it does matter since the government has no business funding any private business or entity.
So it landed, bounced, and then crashed through the cottage?
Or was it just a meteor like most? :-P :-P :-P :-P
Lower 4 digit number, as not requested.
Oh, how convenient that would be. :-/
Well, my sister's company uses Dreamhost, and they were hacked. They do use ftp (instead of sftp) to upload their files, so I'm guessing that's the likely culprit. I've since set them straight.
I've been a loyal Dreamhost cusomter since 1998 and I'm happy with their response.
I like to give to the WBAT Kids Campaign
http://www.wbal.com/kids/
100% of your donation goes directly to needy kids in one form or another. The radio station assumed all of the administrative costs.
Can't get any better than that!
...when they actually do something, it's invariably a disaster.
Invariably? This passes for insightful? I might have gone for funny, but it's a pretty tired knee-jerk cliche. Don't forget that even Ron Paul, the patron saint of libertarianism is a congressman. He must not think the exercise is utterly futile.
Ron Paul, whom I support, would be the first to tell you that the govt needs to get out of the business of [many, many things], and that govt makes a disaster of things.
Actually, they're really not doing anything. As usual, they're only giving the illusion of doing something.
Which is good, since when they actually do something, it's invariably a disaster.
Yeah, it would only work once.
Anyone who invents a non-carcinogenic method of repelling mosquitoes 100% effectively will be my hero for life.
Hahahaha, you actually made me LOL.
Thanks, I needed that.
When geeks meet and have sex, that's like incest.
YouTube is blocked by the proxy nazis here at work, but I looked at those articles. The first one is simply a rehash of Mish's original post, and the second one is simply wrong. For example: "Isn't the dollar much stronger and aren't foreign stock markets much lower today than they were when he advised readers to invest in them"? -- No, both are much lower. Of course, it could have been true when the article was written, but Schiff invests for the long term. The results shown in that portfolio were clearly short-term results (i.e. bought right before the 2008 crash).
And Schiff is the first to admit he had no idea the Fed was going to begin Quantitative Easing which is simply propping up the stock market for the short term. It's easy to see that massive inflation is in our future, but *nobody* knows exactly when. Mish likes to say "Schiff was wrong about hyperinflation". I don't recall Schiff ever giving a date for this event, but just that it will happen given our current policies (which aren't likely to be changing). He's quite right about that. But it's still a future event, so it's premature to declare him "wrong" about that.
And yet that doesn't contradict anything I've said.
The complaints made by Mish (Mike Shedlock) have been well-hashed out and well-refuted, and as I said, those who joined immediately before the crash and then bailed out before the bounce of course lost. But those that hung around are well back into the green.
It may be fun and self-serving to spread such myths about Peter Schiff, but it's simply not true.
Those who have been with him for 5+ years are deeply in the green. Only those who joined immediately before the Asian markets fell had a temporary setback, but even those are now in the green. No market is constantly going up. But in the long run Schiff's vision is spot-on.
Personally, I opened an account at EuroPac in 2008, and my portfolio is up 342%. Of course that's largely due to a small stock (of which I had 40,000 shares) went up 1200% within the span of a year. Discounting that "lucky" home run, my portfolio is up 48%. I'm quite happy with the results, naturally.
Bzzzzzt, try again.
While the moron Greenspan was once a Randite, while in control of the Fed he did the complete opposite of what he said he once believed in.
i.e. He practiced 100% Keynesianism at the Fed.
What about the other studies which have "again" shown there's some link between cell phone use and cancer.
Truth is, it hasn't been proven conclusively either way yet. And it may never be.
So by your logic, the welfare clause and the commerce clause (which, yes, have been abuse to the nth degree) would pretty much cover anything. If that's true, then what, pray tell, would be the purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments? Seriously, if the founders indeed intended for the feds to do pretty much whatever, then why specifically spell out that "all else is the purview of the states and the people"? There would be no "all else". Makes no sense.
Of course the writings of chief architects of the Constitution (Madison, etc. in the [anti]Federalist Papers, etc) made it quite clear what their intentions were with respect to this debate.
But you are right, there was a debate even among the founders, with Madison and Jefferson on one side, and Hamilton on the other. And yes, things went off-kilter pretty much right away. The Constitution is by far a perfect document, as it was a compromise between the two camps. But compared to where we are now (rather close to collapse) I'd much rather be back at the point of that awful compromise.