Nigerians may disapprove, so would citizens of Niger, of-course only when someone misspelled their country names. On the other hand (just a guess) some people, who use this in their own conversations to address one another also may find this kind of 'funny'.
You should really listen to George Carlin's 7 dirty words. It is not the words that are 'evil', it is the context of the word usage.
Well, I am actually a Canadian, what we have in Canada is nothing like what I am using in Germany right now. Compared to German system, Canada doesn't even have health care, but never mind that.
In Canada it is supplementary insurance, you could have that to cover a more expensive drug or to cover extra cost for a separate room in a hospital or something to that order, but you don't have a fully functioning system of private health care. That's the stuff I am talking about.
Except that just last week they were talking about the nuclear program in the US and that out of the 3 delivery systems that US has, eliminating any single one would immediately pay for the health care and education for everyone in the US.
Do you know the 3 systems that US has to deliver the thousands of nukes it amassed? 1. Bombers. 2. ICBMs fired from ground stations. 3. Nuclear missiles fired from submarines.
Get rid of Bombers only for example and pay for your health care and plenty of money would still be left over.
So to answer your question, no you do not need to pull everyone out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but may I ask you what the hell are you doing there? You have already 'won' those wars, when are you getting out? That was a rhetorical question.
The correct answer is never. You are never getting out of there because it is not a profitable proposition for your 'defense' contractors and the government.
Elective surgery is not something that should be insured against.
- 1. if someone is willing to provide insurance for a fee, then what is your objection?
I know dancers and sportsmen insure their body parts against damage, people insure their luggage, people insure whatever they want. It's between them and the insurance company and has nothing to do with anything except money.
-- 2. who are you to say that it is an 'elective surgery'? Are you a doctor? Why can't someone have any coverage for any type of condition based on a contract? Why is the government interfering with this?
3.
On second thought, abortions might be cheaper than birth, in which case the government still has cause to intervene lest the country be depopulated due to a single industry's profit-motive.
- that's stupid. Government needs more bodies, more cannon fodder. More supposed tax payers.
What, do you have reading comprehension problems? Women who today have abortion coverage in their private insurance will not be able to have that anymore in their private insurance.
Except that in the rest of the world there are countries that are doing better than single payer. Germany even UK, I am not certain about France, they allow private insurance coverage if you can afford it. It's like a private option and a public option. Both.
US could have it with its 'public option' or with Medicare at cost buy in for all, but that's not going to happen, because that would introduce actual competition into the system. Can't have that.
What is going to pass is a few regulations that are supposedly going to make it not possible for an insurance company to drop coverage, to do rescission and a few more items. - This is good.
Here is what you are not going to get:
1. No optional public insurance against private insurance, the prices will not go down. Worse than that, what is happening is private insurance is raising prices to offset any of the new changes that will be coming with this 'reform'. Does not look good.
2. You probably are going to get a mandate, which is unfortunate given that you will have no public option. You will be forced to buy into expensive private insurance, there will be no choice or it looks like you will get some sort of a fine. Does not look good.
3. No cheaper drugs imported from other countries. The bill was introduced earlier this fall, but Obama actually killed it very very personally because he signed a deal with the manufacturers to do this: no competition from cheaper imported drugs AND the patents are to be extended from 5 years to something like 12 years. Does not look good.
4. Looks like US is one of the backwards countries that will try to limit women's access to health care they need. You going to get the 'reform' that will prevent any private insurance coverage for women that includes abortion. This is no joke, even for those who have coverage today, looks like they will actually lose it with this 'reform'. Does not look good.
The other part of it, the cost of it, that's a moot point. It was calculated that if Medicare was provided as a buy in for anyone at all, at cost (at cost - means whatever it costs, but no money is made for profit), or if there was a public option, then the reform could even save money. The way it is going to happen with no public negotiations with hospitals, no public negotiations with drug manufacturers, no import of cheaper drugs, no generics because the patents will be extended, well, I don't know if this will be cost neutral. It does not matter really, if US just cut its WAR cost, it's defense contractors costs they could probably fund the entire reform in health insurance and there would be enough money for the public education reform. Of-course that's not going to happen.
Anyway, Pelosi and Obama and the rest of them are lying sacks of shit. They do not want to take a vote on the public option, they will not take a vote on Grayson's proposal to just allow anyone to buy into Medicare at cost. This is not a health reform, this is just a little chunk of 'change' you were promised. Take it and be happy, cause you are not going to get anything better at all.
dumb ass. I will have a prediction success rate that is very close to a 100% based on many yes/no predictions because there is a possibility that a very remote third thing will happen that I may not even know about, but you missed the whole point.
I make 2 contradicting predictions, make sure that there is a proof of the date when I make the predictions and then based on the outcome of the event I select the prediction that actually happened.
Example: will a stock go up or down? I say it goes up in the envelope A, I say it goes down in the envelope B.
Why is it possible that none of the above things happen? Because a stock maybe blocked or delisted, a company can disappear, a terrorist may strike or a meteorite may take out a city with the company in it. Those are the remote 3rd possibility.
If the stock goes up, I show my prediction A, if the stock goes down, I show my prediction B.
If you predict the opposites you can be 99% correct.
If I write 2 opposite predictions for an event that could really only have 2 outcomes (with a very small chance of something else happening altogether) and then in the future I show everyone one of the two, the one that ended up happening, I'd be almost 100% successful at predicting 'the future'.
7.... create sister corporations to make terrible bets on purpose, buy really bad bets with the free money from the Fed.
8. Bet against the sister corporations, bet at derivatives that pay 1000:1 or better even, who cares right?
9. If possible even resell the bets, get other sucker to buy these bets but have an entity that bets against the corporations that hold the bad bets.
10. When shit hits the fan, well then. The sister corporations and other corporations that made terrible bets with government money, they will get 'bailed out', after all, those are government money 'at stake' of being destroyed by the bets, right?:)
11. Get paid from the bets made against the bad bets, get paid at the derivative prices from the bailout money. Now we are talking hundreds of billions.
12. Did I mention that while getting money from the Fed and becoming a monopoly based on bought politicians, make sure to move any actual production of shore to the cheapest possible locations? Oh yeah, do that. For a monopoly this makes perfect sense, this is economy of scale. The competition, the moms/pops, the got creamed by the excessive regulations and the unfair competition from the tax breaks etc. They would have kept the jobs local, they are not big enough to benefit from such a move. As a huge monopoly guaranteed by the government, well it just makes sense to move production to the cheapest locations.
13. Take the bailout money and pocket it, after all, those are well deserved bonuses on the well placed bets against bad bets (never mind I bet against bad bets that I bet myself on with the Feds money:)
14. Fuck the rest of them, plebes, move the fuck out before they understood what hit them and before the rest of the country falls apart and prevents the real capital from leaving.
The thing is, you are the free market guy, not the troll that you are replying to.
Also the thing is, free market has hardly ever been tried in this world, people don't want free market, people just want profit for themselves.
In reality we cannot have free market because there will always be at least 2 people, who do not care about such things and only want to get ahead in front of everybody else. In fact, it's not just 2 people, it's almost everybody, under those conditions the idea of the 'ideal free market' is moot and a non starter.
--
Here is how I would go about getting ahead:
1. Go Shindler style. Befriend some people in power by being nice and slick and paying for drinks and making people laugh and give people free stuff, they like that, and then make sure to participate in various extracurricular activities with these people, play golf, buy them drugs, get them access to hookers or something, you know, the works.
2. Become an invaluable asset to the people in power, also learn their secrets in the process, gain leverage.
3. Propose something that will help them do what they do. For example pay politicians by providing corporate donations and gifts. In exchange ask for some help with becoming a preferred corporation, some special tax breaks and such. Get some government contracts and make sure that money flows back nicely from the contracts too.
4. Get a guy or two, who are close to retirement in the local government to do something for you, not extremely significant BUT visible. Once they 'retire', pay them, make them your lobbyists, get their wives and such on some 'consulting' position that pays but does not require anything to do actually. This is good publicity for the rest of the politicians, they'll know you are a player, they'll take the bait of the implied bribe: work for me now, you'll get paid when you are out.
5. Now real work starts, make your case to other politicians, work on becoming big, really big. Good tax break, new regulations making it difficult for anyone new to get into the field, remove competition, create difficulties for others in the field by special regulations, the works.
6. Get bigger and bigger, become one of the really preferred corporations, those who get free money at no interest from the Fed. Get on that tit, it's wonderful.
7. Start the real magic here: get into derivative markets, create a separate set of corporations that will take on really really really bad bets on purpose.
I wonder what the ultimate result of this will be. I know that the US will always need mechanics, plumbers, electricians, retail clerks, warehouse people, office workers, etc, but none of these jobs pay very well
- your analysis is lacking the larger view.
I mean if that was really a question, here is how it goes: service sector does not create wealth in the sense that jobs in the service sector do not produce anything, that changes the trade balance of the country. Translation: service sector jobs do not produce anything that can be exchanged with foreign economies, it is nothing that foreign economies can use.
From this perspective, everything should become a little clearer, shouldn't it? Service sector jobs do not increase the value of the currency that is exchanged with other countries. When US prints its dollar and then foreign countries buy the dollar, what can they exchange it for? The only thing that is so far globally uses the dollar as the currency of exchange is oil. That happens for various reasons, probably the most valid reason at this point is the giant army standing behind the dollar, because it is certainly not anything of any value that the US can back the dollar with. It is not gold, it is not electronics, it is not cars, it is not new energy equipment, nothing that is produced in the States, except for weapons probably, can truly back the dollar up.
What you are observing with the economic collapse, which obviously not a recent invention, it was long in the making, for decades really, is that now the corporations are global, the politicians are bought, and corporations together with the politicians are looting a disaster area.
Remember the hurricane Catrina and some people looting food stores and other stores? Well, that happens when everything collapses, you have some looters. It's the same thing, only looters are much more evil than 'Tyron with some soggy twitters' (that's not mine, that's from a Maher's show). You see, your looters now are making away, out of the country with not millions, not billions, with hundreds of billions and even with trillions of these greenbacks, and they have moved the manufacturing away, they have moved everything of value away, they will be fine and the rest of the US population will suck it, right?
This has started a long long time ago, when the Fed was created and was allowed to 'issue' new money, whether it's dollars or treasury bills, any money at all that they print and distribute at almost no cost to large preferred corporations in return for political donations, contributions, so that the same people stay in power. This is corruption to the maximum. They have created wars under false pretenses, they have removed governments and installed banana republics, they have removed democratic governments and installed archaic despotic demonic rulers in many parts of the world. They have pulled a fast one on many people, including the US citizens, you know, 'the consumers'. They have rewritten the books on economics to say that 'consumption' is the base of economy, when in fact it is PRODUCTION. You have no production base left, forget about whatever the remaining stuff you are still producing. Texas government is changing what goes into your text-books, it will affect the rest of the country. You have no education system that is worth mentioning, no savings, everything is on credit and the credit is going to come to an abrupt ending.
China will have to stop giving you the money, it is almost at the point, where Chinese remove the artificial ratio set between their currency and the US dollar. This will be removed, reluctantly, because the Chinese own many dollars after all, in greenbacks, in treasuries. Well, that's too bad for them, but it is only delaying the inevitable, when they let go of the exchange rate and it will move to its market value and Oil will no longer trade in the USD.
Finally some stupid levy idea that does not cause me to pay for something I don't use.
MP3 players will have a levy on them? Go right ahead. Can we please get rid of the other levies though, like on hard drives and blank DVDs? I don't own an mp3 player, so it does not concern me, but I don't listen to music at all, and the other levies are definitely a discrimination against myself and the other people who do not download or listen to music but who do buy blank media and hard-drives.
we just had this same discussion on/. concerning Flash vs HTML5, I said HTML5 was a clear winner, because it is not Flash, because it is not a proprietary tech.
Some disagreed. I still say it is the only right way to go, towards the open standards, to be just like the rest of the Internet, which could not have survived without the open standards. Don't care if Flash is 5 times faster and 10 times flashier. We need an open standard, so that nobody owns the only allowed implementation, so that nobody can control the Internet through proprietary means. Many people want to control the Internet, proprietary tech is the only way that they could, let's not lose our Internet to them.
Can you come up with your own points on why allowing UTF-8 on/. would be a disaster? I think you cannot. Stop parroting other people's thoughts, they are valid for certain types of problems are invalid for others. Allowing UTF-8 characters on this website can be done, some people just don't want to let other languages in.
Then it's 3.83 years only. With a bulk discount will only cost maybe $10 per card, that's only 1000,000,000 a billion? Chump change for any government. Spend 100 times more money, get results in days.
On that one ATI board that get 103K passwords per second and only 4K on the latest quad-core intel (which by the way, is almost 26 and not 20 only times faster.)
So that's wonderful. How many passwords are there in 1024 bit SSL encryption? 1024 asymmetric is equivalent to 80 symmetric algorithm, so that's like 2^80 passwords, right?
Let's say 100,000 passwords per second, that's 10^5.
383.3 million years to go through every password in 2^80 possibilities.
In reality, of-course, not every combination is used, many passwords can be eliminated by heuristic and also it helps to have a good dictionary file handy, from which to generated most likely password combinations. That probably cuts down from 383 million years to something much more ATI friendly. Of-course we need to use stronger cypher.
As a final note: at last I understand why Hugh Jackman needed the 7 monitor setup, each one must have been used as an output device for the video card it was connected to. Obviously the video cards were the actual power behind all that hacking!
So why not completely eliminate the checks, leave the money orders/certified checks around for those who need them, this will eliminate the 'float' immediately?
It's an outdated technology, don't we know how to wire money at this point?
This bill contains 3-strikes and you are out law, which means that if someone is merely accused of copyright violation 3 times, their broadband connection is terminated.
I'll tell you what it looks like.
In the former USSR there was no Internet, but people listened to radio. There was no 3-strike law, you only needed to be caught once. You were not allowed to get information from the rest of the 'free' (what used to be free) world, if you tried, you were obviously an outlaw.
This is what it looks like to me, not precisely, but close enough. There is Internet, and then there is the 'free' Internet and the UK citizens are losing their free Internet.
It looks even worse than what happened in the USSR. There, they just tried to prevent people from listening to BBC by interfering with the radio waves, but they could not really know who was listening, who tried to listen.
Here they will know, they will know who is listening, who is trying. Even worse, if your connection is encrypted, I am sure that there will be in the future an assumption you are braking the law, so you will be presumed guilty for having an encrypted connection, unless it is to an approved bank or to an approved store I suppose. Which, by the way, if you think about it, is a perfect next step: eliminate bank and store competition, by only allowing encryption to a very select few. You think that won't happen?
This is worse than the USSR in terms of ability to listen and to make assumptions about who is doing what. This is still not as bad as the USSR, probably you won't go to a far away place in Siberia. Not yet. Not until UK contracts Russia out to handle its prisoners. You watch, that'll happen to: contracting brutal places out to handle your prisoners, especially prisoners that happen to be anti-policy, so they are anti-corporation, anti-government.
Shit, long time ago I though Britain could have been quite an interesting place to live for a while, now, I think I'll avoid that place just as much as I avoid the US, though I must admit, I like Florida's climate.
Slashdot Mirror
whether you did or did not is irrelevant, you missed the point of what Carlin was saying.
Nigerians may disapprove, so would citizens of Niger, of-course only when someone misspelled their country names. On the other hand (just a guess) some people, who use this in their own conversations to address one another also may find this kind of 'funny'.
You should really listen to George Carlin's 7 dirty words. It is not the words that are 'evil', it is the context of the word usage.
Well, I am actually a Canadian, what we have in Canada is nothing like what I am using in Germany right now. Compared to German system, Canada doesn't even have health care, but never mind that.
In Canada it is supplementary insurance, you could have that to cover a more expensive drug or to cover extra cost for a separate room in a hospital or something to that order, but you don't have a fully functioning system of private health care. That's the stuff I am talking about.
We have porn about sex in public places now.
With the invisibility cloak on, what would that porn look like? !
Like this, I guess:
Except that just last week they were talking about the nuclear program in the US and that out of the 3 delivery systems that US has, eliminating any single one would immediately pay for the health care and education for everyone in the US.
Do you know the 3 systems that US has to deliver the thousands of nukes it amassed?
1. Bombers.
2. ICBMs fired from ground stations.
3. Nuclear missiles fired from submarines.
Get rid of Bombers only for example and pay for your health care and plenty of money would still be left over.
So to answer your question, no you do not need to pull everyone out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but may I ask you what the hell are you doing there? You have already 'won' those wars, when are you getting out? That was a rhetorical question.
The correct answer is never. You are never getting out of there because it is not a profitable proposition for your 'defense' contractors and the government.
Elective surgery is not something that should be insured against.
- 1. if someone is willing to provide insurance for a fee, then what is your objection?
I know dancers and sportsmen insure their body parts against damage, people insure their luggage, people insure whatever they want. It's between them and the insurance company and has nothing to do with anything except money.
--
2. who are you to say that it is an 'elective surgery'? Are you a doctor? Why can't someone have any coverage for any type of condition based on a contract? Why is the government interfering with this?
3.
On second thought, abortions might be cheaper than birth, in which case the government still has cause to intervene lest the country be depopulated due to a single industry's profit-motive.
- that's stupid. Government needs more bodies, more cannon fodder. More supposed tax payers.
What, do you have reading comprehension problems? Women who today have abortion coverage in their private insurance will not be able to have that anymore in their private insurance.
Except that in the rest of the world there are countries that are doing better than single payer. Germany even UK, I am not certain about France, they allow private insurance coverage if you can afford it. It's like a private option and a public option. Both.
US could have it with its 'public option' or with Medicare at cost buy in for all, but that's not going to happen, because that would introduce actual competition into the system. Can't have that.
This is not a 'health care reform'.
This is not even an 'insurance reform'.
What is going to pass is a few regulations that are supposedly going to make it not possible for an insurance company to drop coverage, to do rescission and a few more items. - This is good.
Here is what you are not going to get:
1. No optional public insurance against private insurance, the prices will not go down. Worse than that, what is happening is private insurance is raising prices to offset any of the new changes that will be coming with this 'reform'. Does not look good.
2. You probably are going to get a mandate, which is unfortunate given that you will have no public option. You will be forced to buy into expensive private insurance, there will be no choice or it looks like you will get some sort of a fine. Does not look good.
3. No cheaper drugs imported from other countries. The bill was introduced earlier this fall, but Obama actually killed it very very personally because he signed a deal with the manufacturers to do this: no competition from cheaper imported drugs AND the patents are to be extended from 5 years to something like 12 years. Does not look good.
4. Looks like US is one of the backwards countries that will try to limit women's access to health care they need. You going to get the 'reform' that will prevent any private insurance coverage for women that includes abortion. This is no joke, even for those who have coverage today, looks like they will actually lose it with this 'reform'. Does not look good.
The other part of it, the cost of it, that's a moot point. It was calculated that if Medicare was provided as a buy in for anyone at all, at cost (at cost - means whatever it costs, but no money is made for profit), or if there was a public option, then the reform could even save money. The way it is going to happen with no public negotiations with hospitals, no public negotiations with drug manufacturers, no import of cheaper drugs, no generics because the patents will be extended, well, I don't know if this will be cost neutral. It does not matter really, if US just cut its WAR cost, it's defense contractors costs they could probably fund the entire reform in health insurance and there would be enough money for the public education reform. Of-course that's not going to happen.
Anyway, Pelosi and Obama and the rest of them are lying sacks of shit. They do not want to take a vote on the public option, they will not take a vote on Grayson's proposal to just allow anyone to buy into Medicare at cost. This is not a health reform, this is just a little chunk of 'change' you were promised. Take it and be happy, cause you are not going to get anything better at all.
dumb ass. I will have a prediction success rate that is very close to a 100% based on many yes/no predictions because there is a possibility that a very remote third thing will happen that I may not even know about, but you missed the whole point.
I make 2 contradicting predictions, make sure that there is a proof of the date when I make the predictions and then based on the outcome of the event I select the prediction that actually happened.
Example: will a stock go up or down? I say it goes up in the envelope A, I say it goes down in the envelope B.
Why is it possible that none of the above things happen? Because a stock maybe blocked or delisted, a company can disappear, a terrorist may strike or a meteorite may take out a city with the company in it. Those are the remote 3rd possibility.
If the stock goes up, I show my prediction A, if the stock goes down, I show my prediction B.
If you predict the opposites you can be 99% correct.
If I write 2 opposite predictions for an event that could really only have 2 outcomes (with a very small chance of something else happening altogether) and then in the future I show everyone one of the two, the one that ended up happening, I'd be almost 100% successful at predicting 'the future'.
crap, pushed the submit button by mistake :)
---
7. ... create sister corporations to make terrible bets on purpose, buy really bad bets with the free money from the Fed.
8. Bet against the sister corporations, bet at derivatives that pay 1000:1 or better even, who cares right?
9. If possible even resell the bets, get other sucker to buy these bets but have an entity that bets against the corporations that hold the bad bets.
10. When shit hits the fan, well then. The sister corporations and other corporations that made terrible bets with government money, they will get 'bailed out', after all, those are government money 'at stake' of being destroyed by the bets, right? :)
11. Get paid from the bets made against the bad bets, get paid at the derivative prices from the bailout money. Now we are talking hundreds of billions.
12. Did I mention that while getting money from the Fed and becoming a monopoly based on bought politicians, make sure to move any actual production of shore to the cheapest possible locations? Oh yeah, do that. For a monopoly this makes perfect sense, this is economy of scale. The competition, the moms/pops, the got creamed by the excessive regulations and the unfair competition from the tax breaks etc. They would have kept the jobs local, they are not big enough to benefit from such a move. As a huge monopoly guaranteed by the government, well it just makes sense to move production to the cheapest locations.
13. Take the bailout money and pocket it, after all, those are well deserved bonuses on the well placed bets against bad bets (never mind I bet against bad bets that I bet myself on with the Feds money :)
14. Fuck the rest of them, plebes, move the fuck out before they understood what hit them and before the rest of the country falls apart and prevents the real capital from leaving.
The thing is, you are the free market guy, not the troll that you are replying to.
Also the thing is, free market has hardly ever been tried in this world, people don't want free market, people just want profit for themselves.
In reality we cannot have free market because there will always be at least 2 people, who do not care about such things and only want to get ahead in front of everybody else. In fact, it's not just 2 people, it's almost everybody, under those conditions the idea of the 'ideal free market' is moot and a non starter.
--
Here is how I would go about getting ahead:
1. Go Shindler style. Befriend some people in power by being nice and slick and paying for drinks and making people laugh and give people free stuff, they like that, and then make sure to participate in various extracurricular activities with these people, play golf, buy them drugs, get them access to hookers or something, you know, the works.
2. Become an invaluable asset to the people in power, also learn their secrets in the process, gain leverage.
3. Propose something that will help them do what they do. For example pay politicians by providing corporate donations and gifts. In exchange ask for some help with becoming a preferred corporation, some special tax breaks and such. Get some government contracts and make sure that money flows back nicely from the contracts too.
4. Get a guy or two, who are close to retirement in the local government to do something for you, not extremely significant BUT visible. Once they 'retire', pay them, make them your lobbyists, get their wives and such on some 'consulting' position that pays but does not require anything to do actually. This is good publicity for the rest of the politicians, they'll know you are a player, they'll take the bait of the implied bribe: work for me now, you'll get paid when you are out.
5. Now real work starts, make your case to other politicians, work on becoming big, really big. Good tax break, new regulations making it difficult for anyone new to get into the field, remove competition, create difficulties for others in the field by special regulations, the works.
6. Get bigger and bigger, become one of the really preferred corporations, those who get free money at no interest from the Fed. Get on that tit, it's wonderful.
7. Start the real magic here: get into derivative markets, create a separate set of corporations that will take on really really really bad bets on purpose.
I wonder what the ultimate result of this will be. I know that the US will always need mechanics, plumbers, electricians, retail clerks, warehouse people, office workers, etc, but none of these jobs pay very well
- your analysis is lacking the larger view.
I mean if that was really a question, here is how it goes: service sector does not create wealth in the sense that jobs in the service sector do not produce anything, that changes the trade balance of the country. Translation: service sector jobs do not produce anything that can be exchanged with foreign economies, it is nothing that foreign economies can use.
From this perspective, everything should become a little clearer, shouldn't it? Service sector jobs do not increase the value of the currency that is exchanged with other countries. When US prints its dollar and then foreign countries buy the dollar, what can they exchange it for? The only thing that is so far globally uses the dollar as the currency of exchange is oil. That happens for various reasons, probably the most valid reason at this point is the giant army standing behind the dollar, because it is certainly not anything of any value that the US can back the dollar with. It is not gold, it is not electronics, it is not cars, it is not new energy equipment, nothing that is produced in the States, except for weapons probably, can truly back the dollar up.
What you are observing with the economic collapse, which obviously not a recent invention, it was long in the making, for decades really, is that now the corporations are global, the politicians are bought, and corporations together with the politicians are looting a disaster area.
Remember the hurricane Catrina and some people looting food stores and other stores? Well, that happens when everything collapses, you have some looters. It's the same thing, only looters are much more evil than 'Tyron with some soggy twitters' (that's not mine, that's from a Maher's show). You see, your looters now are making away, out of the country with not millions, not billions, with hundreds of billions and even with trillions of these greenbacks, and they have moved the manufacturing away, they have moved everything of value away, they will be fine and the rest of the US population will suck it, right?
This has started a long long time ago, when the Fed was created and was allowed to 'issue' new money, whether it's dollars or treasury bills, any money at all that they print and distribute at almost no cost to large preferred corporations in return for political donations, contributions, so that the same people stay in power. This is corruption to the maximum. They have created wars under false pretenses, they have removed governments and installed banana republics, they have removed democratic governments and installed archaic despotic demonic rulers in many parts of the world. They have pulled a fast one on many people, including the US citizens, you know, 'the consumers'. They have rewritten the books on economics to say that 'consumption' is the base of economy, when in fact it is PRODUCTION. You have no production base left, forget about whatever the remaining stuff you are still producing. Texas government is changing what goes into your text-books, it will affect the rest of the country. You have no education system that is worth mentioning, no savings, everything is on credit and the credit is going to come to an abrupt ending.
China will have to stop giving you the money, it is almost at the point, where Chinese remove the artificial ratio set between their currency and the US dollar. This will be removed, reluctantly, because the Chinese own many dollars after all, in greenbacks, in treasuries. Well, that's too bad for them, but it is only delaying the inevitable, when they let go of the exchange rate and it will move to its market value and Oil will no longer trade in the USD.
What will happen to the US? I
Finally some stupid levy idea that does not cause me to pay for something I don't use.
MP3 players will have a levy on them? Go right ahead. Can we please get rid of the other levies though, like on hard drives and blank DVDs? I don't own an mp3 player, so it does not concern me, but I don't listen to music at all, and the other levies are definitely a discrimination against myself and the other people who do not download or listen to music but who do buy blank media and hard-drives.
Thanks, idiots in the government.
we just had this same discussion on /. concerning Flash vs HTML5, I said HTML5 was a clear winner, because it is not Flash, because it is not a proprietary tech.
Some disagreed. I still say it is the only right way to go, towards the open standards, to be just like the rest of the Internet, which could not have survived without the open standards. Don't care if Flash is 5 times faster and 10 times flashier. We need an open standard, so that nobody owns the only allowed implementation, so that nobody can control the Internet through proprietary means. Many people want to control the Internet, proprietary tech is the only way that they could, let's not lose our Internet to them.
you gotta love conspiracy theories surrounding the US moon landings.
For those, still not sure, check out these pics from the Harsh Mistress herself, look for example at Apollo 14 photos, there are footstep trails visible. Ain't it cool?
Mr. RAMMS+EIN (578166), that is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out objection.
(at this point you should say 'Thank you, sir'.)
Overruled.
Can you come up with your own points on why allowing UTF-8 on /. would be a disaster? I think you cannot. Stop parroting other people's thoughts, they are valid for certain types of problems are invalid for others. Allowing UTF-8 characters on this website can be done, some people just don't want to let other languages in.
no, definitely, you can buy 100,000,000 of them.
Then it's 3.83 years only. With a bulk discount will only cost maybe $10 per card, that's only 1000,000,000 a billion? Chump change for any government. Spend 100 times more money, get results in days.
Google Readying To Pull Out of China
- hopefully it will work out and China will not get pregnant. Imagine the litter? Little Choogle or maybe little Gooina.
They should have really used better contraception though, you never know what kind of a virus one may get going barebone like that!
Dmitriy Skliarov is the more correct phonetic spelling. /. still does not accept UTF-8, it's retarded.
On that one ATI board that get 103K passwords per second and only 4K on the latest quad-core intel (which by the way, is almost 26 and not 20 only times faster.)
So that's wonderful. How many passwords are there in 1024 bit SSL encryption? 1024 asymmetric is equivalent to 80 symmetric algorithm, so that's like 2^80 passwords, right?
Let's say 100,000 passwords per second, that's 10^5.
Google says this: (2^80 / 10^5 ) / (3600 *24 *365*1000) = 383 347 863
383.3 million years to go through every password in 2^80 possibilities.
In reality, of-course, not every combination is used, many passwords can be eliminated by heuristic and also it helps to have a good dictionary file handy, from which to generated most likely password combinations. That probably cuts down from 383 million years to something much more ATI friendly. Of-course we need to use stronger cypher.
As a final note: at last I understand why Hugh Jackman needed the 7 monitor setup, each one must have been used as an output device for the video card it was connected to. Obviously the video cards were the actual power behind all that hacking!
So why not completely eliminate the checks, leave the money orders/certified checks around for those who need them, this will eliminate the 'float' immediately?
It's an outdated technology, don't we know how to wire money at this point?
This bill contains 3-strikes and you are out law, which means that if someone is merely accused of copyright violation 3 times, their broadband connection is terminated.
I'll tell you what it looks like.
In the former USSR there was no Internet, but people listened to radio. There was no 3-strike law, you only needed to be caught once. You were not allowed to get information from the rest of the 'free' (what used to be free) world, if you tried, you were obviously an outlaw.
This is what it looks like to me, not precisely, but close enough. There is Internet, and then there is the 'free' Internet and the UK citizens are losing their free Internet.
It looks even worse than what happened in the USSR. There, they just tried to prevent people from listening to BBC by interfering with the radio waves, but they could not really know who was listening, who tried to listen.
Here they will know, they will know who is listening, who is trying. Even worse, if your connection is encrypted, I am sure that there will be in the future an assumption you are braking the law, so you will be presumed guilty for having an encrypted connection, unless it is to an approved bank or to an approved store I suppose. Which, by the way, if you think about it, is a perfect next step: eliminate bank and store competition, by only allowing encryption to a very select few. You think that won't happen?
This is worse than the USSR in terms of ability to listen and to make assumptions about who is doing what. This is still not as bad as the USSR, probably you won't go to a far away place in Siberia. Not yet. Not until UK contracts Russia out to handle its prisoners. You watch, that'll happen to: contracting brutal places out to handle your prisoners, especially prisoners that happen to be anti-policy, so they are anti-corporation, anti-government.
Shit, long time ago I though Britain could have been quite an interesting place to live for a while, now, I think I'll avoid that place just as much as I avoid the US, though I must admit, I like Florida's climate.