"What Bush can take credit for is how unemployment numbers have changed in response to his economic programs -- and those numbers, which you can view here have dropped at a faster rate over the last six months than they have over any six month period since 1993."
There are still over a MILLION fewer jobs now.
That "rate" is what I debunked earlier. Pure statistics.
It is easy to get a high RATE of increase after a decline.
But there are STILL over a MILLION jobs that are gone.
"So projections of debt, based on assumptions that the economy will remain static, form the entire basis of your argument, but if the same figures are revised based on the fact that the economy is not, in fact, remaining static, they become `just statistics' and aren't relevant any more? That's pretty funny."
No, the facts form the basis of my position.
There are fewer jobs now then there were in 1999. FACT
More people are unemployed now than in 1999. FACT
The deficit is larger now than it was in 1999. FACT
"And as for your weird insistance on counting tax cuts as `spending', this clearly can only hold if you believe that this money is rightly the government's to decide what to do with."
I did not say that. YOU said that. "But on spending, you're only correct if you count tax cuts as spending (as the Democratic party candidates do, oddly enough)."
I said that Bush was spending too much money.
Then you said that the deficit was a prediction. No, it is real. NEXT year's deficit is a prediction. THIS year's deficit is a fact (unless something changes in the next 20 days).
I said that your "growth" was only amazing because it happened after such a steep decline. The real numbers still show more people out of work.
Now you're trying to loop this back and claim that I said tax cuts are spending.
I did not say that. You did.
Now you're trying to setup strawmen about whether or not the government owns my money. I didn't say that either.
You still don't see how the government can be spending too much money if you're getting a tax cut and you think the deficit isn't real?
The deficit is real - this year. FACT
More people are out of work than in 1999. FACT
There are fewer jobs than in 1999. FACT
You can skip the strawmen. They're easy to recognize.
"And that's even before we consider the obvious fact that these dollars do a lot more for the economy and everyone else as well if they are left to the individual to spend and invest instead of grabbed and hauled off to Washington in ever increasing amounts, as you (and Dean) would do."
I'd cut spending.
Again, do you understand the concept of "credit card"?
Do you understand that someone can go "bankrupt" from SPENDING too much money with "credit cards"?
It's easy to show massive growth after a massive decline.
The key factor is that there are fewer jobs now and more unemployed people than there were in 1999.
"But, more to the point, I'd rather watch you try to explain why the government taking away less of my hard earned money counts, in your view, as `spending' on their part."
Because their running up the debt.
Are you old enough to have a credit card? Do you understand what a credit card is?
The money is still being spent, but it will be up to future administrations to deal with it.
But the media portrayal of the 'geek' is usually the guy who can't get a date and such. He spends his weekends with other dateless geeks copying software and arguing about Alien vs Predator.:)
But the car geeks have girlfriends and spend their weekends with other car geeks and their girlfriends racing their cars.
We have lots and lots of parties. But they don't get much press or many votes. We only have two MAJOR parties.
I see this differently. I see this as allowing different people in different geographical areas to coordinate their efforts to push their agendas.
Decentralized Democracy.
Instead of having lots of parties with lots of candidates, we'll end up with a few candiadates talking to a lot of people who are the leaders of their groups.
Say I can can fix an engine or plumbing, but I don't know how to set up a LAN?
I think the biggest points are applicable knowledge and the dedication required to attain that knowledge.
The more useless your knowledge (you have memorized all the Magic cards) and the more of your life spent learning it, the less "cool" you are.
Spending years learning medicine is cool. Doctors are cool.
Spending years re-reading old Dragon Magazines and memorizing all the D&D rules is not cool.
Wasting one afternoon a month reading Spiderman when you were a kid is okay. Wasting one afternoon and watching Spiderman in the theatre as an adult is okay.
Memorizing all the different artists and writers and what issues they were involved in and how the villian's superpower wasn't consistent between writers, is not okay.
Computer geeks/nerds/dorks/whatever are okay now because computers are common now.
Linux is still nerdy or geeky because it isn't common yet.
$50 million seems like an awful lot of money to gamble that way on. Particularly when any amount of research would have shown that SCO was unlikely to even have a case.
The SCO execs have been dumping stock ever since the price went up. That doesn't sound like people who really think they have a chance of winning this case.
SCO has made a number of really bizarre claims that it never followed through with. SCO also has problems naming companies that it claims purchased licenses.
When you buy a lottery ticket, you know that there is money that is earmarked for that payoff.
With this case, you don't even know that.
Auto-correct for fun and profit
on
PC Annoyances
·
· Score: 1
When an unsuspecting co-worker leaves their machine unattended and logged in, add their boss' name to their auto-correct list and have it "correct" it to "my butt-headed boss".
Even if some of the people are antagonistic towards others, the CODE is still Open.
So what if the two leaders hate each other. That just leaves room for a third leader to step in and combine the other two projects. All that matters is that someone is interested enough to continue the work.
IANAL - Just a quick google search to find past instances.
http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/ctapp/990223/970083 9. html
"The Mississippi Supreme Court remanded this appeal to the trial court of Pike County which denied the request finding that it was "nothing more than a fishing expedition.""
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tca/PDF/993/ st einker.pdf
"Such discovery requests amount to nothing more than an out and out fishing expedition."
It seems that you can REQUEST to discover anything you want to.
But it also seems that the judge can determine whether such a request is a "fishing expedition" and deny it.
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't say say it did not have an ECONOMIC IMPACT. I asked what it had to do with the UNEMPLOYMENT numbers you claimed.
Nice attempt at a strawman.
If anything, it should have reduced unemployment because 3,000+ people were taken out of the workforce.
If you can't answer the question, admit it. Don't try to blame me because you can't answer it.
You seem to have lots of rhetoric, but not much in the way of facts.
Lots of claims, no substantiation.
"I think that's quite enough information for those reading this thread to decide how seriously to take his position. Don't you?"
Ah, the fabled "Argumentum ad Hominem".
You haven't answered the question:
What did blowing up two buildings have to do with massive unemployment?
You seem to take every possible opportunity (even inventing strawmen) to evade direct questions.
Now that should be a good story.
What did blowing up two buildings have to do with massive unemployment?
He only has the "talking points" that he gets from shows like Rush. He can't handle any actual facts.
Statistics can be played any way you want.
What really matters is how many people have jobs that they can support their families with and how many people do not.
And how those numbers are changing.
With Bush, there are fewer people with jobs and more people in poverty.
I don't know whether you knew that or had to research it, but either way, excellent work.
You don't like my post? Are you saying that there aren't a million fewer jobs?
So Bush took over in 2001.
:)
e mocrats/stat ejobsformatted.pdf
You still don't want to use the data from 2000?
Ooooh, what's this? A reference?
http://www.house.gov/appropriations_d
Damn there's a lot of red there.
Face the facts. Bush is bad for jobs.
The results will be the same.
I used 1999 because Bush took over in 2000.
"What Bush can take credit for is how unemployment numbers have changed in response to his economic programs -- and those numbers, which you can view here have dropped at a faster rate over the last six months than they have over any six month period since 1993."
There are still over a MILLION fewer jobs now.
That "rate" is what I debunked earlier. Pure statistics.
It is easy to get a high RATE of increase after a decline.
But there are STILL over a MILLION jobs that are gone.
"So projections of debt, based on assumptions that the economy will remain static, form the entire basis of your argument, but if the same figures are revised based on the fact that the economy is not, in fact, remaining static, they become `just statistics' and aren't relevant any more? That's pretty funny."
No, the facts form the basis of my position.
There are fewer jobs now then there were in 1999. FACT
More people are unemployed now than in 1999. FACT
The deficit is larger now than it was in 1999. FACT
"And as for your weird insistance on counting tax cuts as `spending', this clearly can only hold if you believe that this money is rightly the government's to decide what to do with."
I did not say that. YOU said that.
"But on spending, you're only correct if you count tax cuts as spending (as the Democratic party candidates do, oddly enough)."
I said that Bush was spending too much money.
Then you said that the deficit was a prediction. No, it is real. NEXT year's deficit is a prediction. THIS year's deficit is a fact (unless something changes in the next 20 days).
I said that your "growth" was only amazing because it happened after such a steep decline. The real numbers still show more people out of work.
Now you're trying to loop this back and claim that I said tax cuts are spending.
I did not say that. You did.
Now you're trying to setup strawmen about whether or not the government owns my money. I didn't say that either.
You still don't see how the government can be spending too much money if you're getting a tax cut and you think the deficit isn't real?
The deficit is real - this year. FACT
More people are out of work than in 1999. FACT
There are fewer jobs than in 1999. FACT
You can skip the strawmen. They're easy to recognize.
"And that's even before we consider the obvious fact that these dollars do a lot more for the economy and everyone else as well if they are left to the individual to spend and invest instead of grabbed and hauled off to Washington in ever increasing amounts, as you (and Dean) would do."
I'd cut spending.
Again, do you understand the concept of "credit card"?
Do you understand that someone can go "bankrupt" from SPENDING too much money with "credit cards"?
Or did I lose you already?
It's easy to show massive growth after a massive decline.
The key factor is that there are fewer jobs now and more unemployed people than there were in 1999.
"But, more to the point, I'd rather watch you try to explain why the government taking away less of my hard earned money counts, in your view, as `spending' on their part."
Because their running up the debt.
Are you old enough to have a credit card? Do you understand what a credit card is?
The money is still being spent, but it will be up to future administrations to deal with it.
And the INTEREST on that debt.
Take a look at the national debt.
Take a look at the deficit.
Bush is spending too much money.
But the media portrayal of the 'geek' is usually the guy who can't get a date and such. He spends his weekends with other dateless geeks copying software and arguing about Alien vs Predator. :)
But the car geeks have girlfriends and spend their weekends with other car geeks and their girlfriends racing their cars.
We have lots and lots of parties. But they don't get much press or many votes. We only have two MAJOR parties.
I see this differently. I see this as allowing different people in different geographical areas to coordinate their efforts to push their agendas.
Decentralized Democracy.
Instead of having lots of parties with lots of candidates, we'll end up with a few candiadates talking to a lot of people who are the leaders of their groups.
Say I can can fix an engine or plumbing, but I don't know how to set up a LAN?
I think the biggest points are applicable knowledge and the dedication required to attain that knowledge.
The more useless your knowledge (you have memorized all the Magic cards) and the more of your life spent learning it, the less "cool" you are.
Spending years learning medicine is cool. Doctors are cool.
Spending years re-reading old Dragon Magazines and memorizing all the D&D rules is not cool.
Wasting one afternoon a month reading Spiderman when you were a kid is okay. Wasting one afternoon and watching Spiderman in the theatre as an adult is okay.
Memorizing all the different artists and writers and what issues they were involved in and how the villian's superpower wasn't consistent between writers, is not okay.
Computer geeks/nerds/dorks/whatever are okay now because computers are common now.
Linux is still nerdy or geeky because it isn't common yet.
The correct answer to that would have been "I don't wear a pair of Dr. spock ears".
/.
That would have established your credentials as a non-geek or non-nerd who reads
I think that's where they got that idea from.
Check out the story and see if you think so, too.
Burton was the only one capable of putting the goth in Gotham City.
Not to mention Danny Elfman's music.
I'd have high hopes if Burton had made Battlestar.
I can see your example if it is only $1.
$50 million seems like an awful lot of money to gamble that way on. Particularly when any amount of research would have shown that SCO was unlikely to even have a case.
The SCO execs have been dumping stock ever since the price went up. That doesn't sound like people who really think they have a chance of winning this case.
SCO has made a number of really bizarre claims that it never followed through with. SCO also has problems naming companies that it claims purchased licenses.
When you buy a lottery ticket, you know that there is money that is earmarked for that payoff.
With this case, you don't even know that.
When an unsuspecting co-worker leaves their machine unattended and logged in, add their boss' name to their auto-correct list and have it "correct" it to "my butt-headed boss".
See how long it takes them to notice.
Even if some of the people are antagonistic towards others, the CODE is still Open.
So what if the two leaders hate each other. That just leaves room for a third leader to step in and combine the other two projects. All that matters is that someone is interested enough to continue the work.
Suppose that www.groklaw.net did NOT file a trademark for Groklaw.
PJ becomes very popular.
I see that and file a trakemark for Groklaw and then send PJ a cease and desist letter.
Which way do you think the courts would lean?
The problem is that COURTS COST MONEY.
SSC has more money than a volunteer organization.
It looks like I might have to cancel my subscription to Linux Journal if SSC doesn't start behaving like reasonable adults.
Since 2.4 won't be getting anything other than bug fixes, you won't have to contend with other people making other changes.
You just grab a copy of tree and start your own development.
You get your stuff stable AND TESTED and then you talk to the maintainer about adding it.
If they are determined to be trade secrets AND it is determined that IBM violated the contract by including them
-then-
IBM owes SCO a LOT of money.
Sealing the records won't mean anything.
SCO's going to be worthless soon.
When IBM gets the judgement against SCO, all that will be left are the legal contracts with other companies.
It wouldn't hurt IBM to have all those license agreements. That way they could pretty much ensure that nothing like this would ever happen again.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200312051 43009441
The judge granted both of IBM's motions to compel and suspended further discovery.
IANAL - Just a quick google search to find past instances.
3 9. html
/ st einker.pdf
http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/ctapp/990223/97008
"The Mississippi Supreme Court remanded this appeal to the trial court of Pike County which denied the request finding that it was "nothing more than a fishing expedition.""
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/opinions/tca/PDF/993
"Such discovery requests amount to nothing more than an out and out fishing expedition."
It seems that you can REQUEST to discover anything you want to.
But it also seems that the judge can determine whether such a request is a "fishing expedition" and deny it.