+1 pedantic
Contextually, you are correct (generally "its" is primarily classified as a possessive pronoun, though in the case above you're right). Still, some would prefer the term "possessive determiner". http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/possdeterterm.htm
I worked for a fellow who'd previously done some work on power grids. He was aware of these problems in 2005 or earlier. I'm pretty sure these problems were also published in the 9/11 comission's report. But I don't think patching holes in power grid controls provides enough theater to keep people scared, so it hasn't been done.
... now hold your hands out 6" above your keyboard for 60 seconds. Next try 5 minutes. How uncomfortable will you be after physically gesturing with your hands for 8 hours? How about after a week of 8 hour days doing that? 6 months or a year?
What you're describing is quite similar to what an orchestra conductor does. And, in between periods of conducting, they often curse at the orchestra in anger because it didn't do what was intended. Maybe we'll see Windows 9 marketed with a "Conductor" UI?
That was my first thought as well, though I cynically suspect this new openness from NVidia suggests the Steam box will be AMD based, and NVidia is trying to control damage with this move.
If you believe they think it will work, then yes, I might agree. There's an argument to be made that they designed it to fail. In such a way they could claim that unless they are allowed to unilaterally implement a single-payer system, that the health care system is utterly doomed. And, at the same time, appease the mainstream Democrat voters by blaming the failure in part or in full on compromises made with the GOP.
Yes. It's called "Escalation of Commitment", and it happens in larger firms, too, and Government. Also with individuals. A good counter-example is HP ditching WebOS and now selling Android tablets.
I don't think it's the left/right axis. Communism is left. Communism is also authoritarian. It's the authoritarian/libertarian axis that you're interested in here.
I wasn't making any statements about that, or whether that's a good or bad thing. I was pointing out that a previous supposition in this thread - that the healthcare market is a free market - is false. Interesting that a basic factual assertion got modded down, though.:-)
The moment we gave everyone care via the ER by law we
yet again reduced the freedom of the market, a trend that started during WWII when the government's salary cap laws caused the market for healthcare to be aligned with employment, since employers started using non-pay benefits to entice labor.
Although this chart is the one that should really cause you to ask questions, like "so are they planning to default on all US debt?" and/or "So then the banks are being over-capitalized by the Fed because they know they're horribly over-leveraged in light of an asset crash they see coming?": http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS
Keep an eye on the excess reserves, of course. When that money, which is MYSTERIOUSLY equivalent to the QE printings by the Fed which have increased the monetary base to triple its size as of 2007, starts to be lent, inflation will be very bad indeed. You must of course differentiate between money supply and monetary base. Take a look at question 17: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/h3_technical_qa.htm
Exactly. As Rothbard stated, the purpose of the Fed is twofold: to enrich the large banking cartel, and to facilitate government deficits. In essence enriching the bankers is the payoff granted to the banking sector for financing government programs which purchase votes across the electoral spectrum.
Politically correctness is basically a set of acceptable behaviors to which any deviation is considered atrocious and punishable.
I slightly disagree -- political correctness is a set of attitudes and speech guidelines from which any deviation is considered atrocious and punishable. Behaviors, not so much.
You nailed it; non-productive people running a racket against productive people. Like the Mafia, but you can't legally shoot them in self-defense. Should we apply RICO to government?
roman_mir, I've seen your posts, and I think they are pretty insightful, but I seriously cannot comprehend how you have the energy to deal with the legion that comes down on you every time. Right or wrong, I don't care - I just don't know how/why you continue.
Libertarian socialism is something that was recently introduced to me by an adherent. It's effectively voluntarism, with the twist of communal property. I'm not interested in it, but when I reacted the same way, "That's an oxymoron", the person explained it to me.
Constitutional monarchy can look like a strong executive - NOT legislative - office carrying out the function of seeing the law as written implemented correctly, and acting in the interest of national security in case of invasion. I am somewhat strongly sympathetic to seeing it tried out again. Call me crazy...but one of the Indian guys I worked with pointed out that under the maharaja, only one guy needed to be bribed.
Or anarcho-capitalism, or minarchism, or libertarian socialism, or constitutional monarchy. There are many forms of government (or non-government, as my list belies). Heck, the Habsburgs* presided over a generally prosperous period as monarchs. And there's no inherent reason you can't have liberal policies under a monarch any more than under a democratically elected minister/parliament.
*The reason they fell was more due to external aggression than any internal problems. It is possible, for example, that had the Austro-Hungarians been victorious, that the world after WWI would have been better off. Impossible to prove, but fun to think about. I envision that world as being more steam-punk oriented, somehow.
Damn I wish I could edit. Meant to emphasize that the language around suspension clearly indicates only in case of rebellion and public safety. I can't buy for a minute that free speech being exercised qualifies either of those legal standards, hence, it was illegal (the argument in the Vance essay notwithstanding, which I think is needlessly complex, but IANACL).
Arguments abound for both views. At least one SCOTUS member disagreed with you. Given the obvious unethical nature, and the tenuous claim to legality, I'll stand by my assertion that purists believe Lincoln acted illegally. I doubt many people could convincingly argue that Bush II or Obama have not acted illegally.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance4.html
The use of it to imprison Copperhead Democrats, who were publicly protesting the war, and not otherwise a threat, except to Lincoln politically, pretty fairly casts doubt, at least, on the legality of his use of it in that case. Habeas Corpus cannot seriously be expected to be legally suspended to violate first amendment rights. What do you think?
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, among other actions, which were in violation of the Constution, and illegal. Therefore, my statement is factually sound. I did not make a value judgment, just a statement of fact - many purists do indeed cite Lincoln as one of the first presidents to grossly violate the rule of law. A better question would have been, "Why?", which is what I've tried to answer here. Your attitude is really uncalled for, unconstructive, and ignorant.
You importantly raised the issue of abandoning the rule of law, which has been happening here in the USA with alarming regularity (a purist would say Lincoln was the worst first example, though you could find more before him). I wish I knew the name of it but there was a wonderful 10 minute video that explained the difference between a republic (and its literal translation as the public thing, meaning the rule of law) and how democratic republics are at risk of becoming lawless mob ruled states, as you describe.
Slashdot Mirror
It's what I do. Eventually, everyone, including you, will either suffer trauma and/or get sick, and then die.
+1 pedantic
Contextually, you are correct (generally "its" is primarily classified as a possessive pronoun, though in the case above you're right). Still, some would prefer the term "possessive determiner". http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/possdeterterm.htm
Seriously? "Its" is a possessive pronoun. "It's" is a contraction of "it is".
I worked for a fellow who'd previously done some work on power grids. He was aware of these problems in 2005 or earlier. I'm pretty sure these problems were also published in the 9/11 comission's report. But I don't think patching holes in power grid controls provides enough theater to keep people scared, so it hasn't been done.
... now hold your hands out 6" above your keyboard for 60 seconds. Next try 5 minutes. How uncomfortable will you be after physically gesturing with your hands for 8 hours? How about after a week of 8 hour days doing that? 6 months or a year?
What you're describing is quite similar to what an orchestra conductor does. And, in between periods of conducting, they often curse at the orchestra in anger because it didn't do what was intended. Maybe we'll see Windows 9 marketed with a "Conductor" UI?
That was my first thought as well, though I cynically suspect this new openness from NVidia suggests the Steam box will be AMD based, and NVidia is trying to control damage with this move.
If you believe they think it will work, then yes, I might agree. There's an argument to be made that they designed it to fail. In such a way they could claim that unless they are allowed to unilaterally implement a single-payer system, that the health care system is utterly doomed. And, at the same time, appease the mainstream Democrat voters by blaming the failure in part or in full on compromises made with the GOP.
Yes. It's called "Escalation of Commitment", and it happens in larger firms, too, and Government. Also with individuals. A good counter-example is HP ditching WebOS and now selling Android tablets.
I don't think it's the left/right axis. Communism is left. Communism is also authoritarian. It's the authoritarian/libertarian axis that you're interested in here.
I wasn't making any statements about that, or whether that's a good or bad thing. I was pointing out that a previous supposition in this thread - that the healthcare market is a free market - is false. Interesting that a basic factual assertion got modded down, though. :-)
The moment we gave everyone care via the ER by law we
yet again reduced the freedom of the market, a trend that started during WWII when the government's salary cap laws caused the market for healthcare to be aligned with employment, since employers started using non-pay benefits to entice labor.
Lenders, and savers who deposited with those lenders, who are again, lenders themselves.
Although this chart is the one that should really cause you to ask questions, like "so are they planning to default on all US debt?" and/or "So then the banks are being over-capitalized by the Fed because they know they're horribly over-leveraged in light of an asset crash they see coming?": http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/EXCRESNS
Keep an eye on the excess reserves, of course. When that money, which is MYSTERIOUSLY equivalent to the QE printings by the Fed which have increased the monetary base to triple its size as of 2007, starts to be lent, inflation will be very bad indeed. You must of course differentiate between money supply and monetary base. Take a look at question 17: http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h3/h3_technical_qa.htm
Exactly. As Rothbard stated, the purpose of the Fed is twofold: to enrich the large banking cartel, and to facilitate government deficits. In essence enriching the bankers is the payoff granted to the banking sector for financing government programs which purchase votes across the electoral spectrum.
Politically correctness is basically a set of acceptable behaviors to which any deviation is considered atrocious and punishable.
I slightly disagree -- political correctness is a set of attitudes and speech guidelines from which any deviation is considered atrocious and punishable. Behaviors, not so much.
You nailed it; non-productive people running a racket against productive people. Like the Mafia, but you can't legally shoot them in self-defense. Should we apply RICO to government? roman_mir, I've seen your posts, and I think they are pretty insightful, but I seriously cannot comprehend how you have the energy to deal with the legion that comes down on you every time. Right or wrong, I don't care - I just don't know how/why you continue.
Constitutional monarchy can look like a strong executive - NOT legislative - office carrying out the function of seeing the law as written implemented correctly, and acting in the interest of national security in case of invasion. I am somewhat strongly sympathetic to seeing it tried out again. Call me crazy...but one of the Indian guys I worked with pointed out that under the maharaja, only one guy needed to be bribed.
*The reason they fell was more due to external aggression than any internal problems. It is possible, for example, that had the Austro-Hungarians been victorious, that the world after WWI would have been better off. Impossible to prove, but fun to think about. I envision that world as being more steam-punk oriented, somehow.
Damn I wish I could edit. Meant to emphasize that the language around suspension clearly indicates only in case of rebellion and public safety. I can't buy for a minute that free speech being exercised qualifies either of those legal standards, hence, it was illegal (the argument in the Vance essay notwithstanding, which I think is needlessly complex, but IANACL).
Arguments abound for both views. At least one SCOTUS member disagreed with you. Given the obvious unethical nature, and the tenuous claim to legality, I'll stand by my assertion that purists believe Lincoln acted illegally. I doubt many people could convincingly argue that Bush II or Obama have not acted illegally. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance4.html
The use of it to imprison Copperhead Democrats, who were publicly protesting the war, and not otherwise a threat, except to Lincoln politically, pretty fairly casts doubt, at least, on the legality of his use of it in that case. Habeas Corpus cannot seriously be expected to be legally suspended to violate first amendment rights. What do you think?
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, among other actions, which were in violation of the Constution, and illegal. Therefore, my statement is factually sound. I did not make a value judgment, just a statement of fact - many purists do indeed cite Lincoln as one of the first presidents to grossly violate the rule of law. A better question would have been, "Why?", which is what I've tried to answer here. Your attitude is really uncalled for, unconstructive, and ignorant.
You importantly raised the issue of abandoning the rule of law, which has been happening here in the USA with alarming regularity (a purist would say Lincoln was the worst first example, though you could find more before him). I wish I knew the name of it but there was a wonderful 10 minute video that explained the difference between a republic (and its literal translation as the public thing, meaning the rule of law) and how democratic republics are at risk of becoming lawless mob ruled states, as you describe.
You, sir, get it.