Let's see a state with an Amazon distribution center tax it, and then let's see Amazon.com close it down. That which happened to Ohio and Michigan, will happen again.
Take a look at the same web site that purports to show the deep influence of money on politicians. It turns out, that despite giving money to politicians, despite all of their public support for various laws, the vast majority of bills they support do not actually become law.
Have a look at teacher's unions. Classic special interest group and typically a democratic bastion...
I'm a Republican, a Bush and now McCain supporter, and have more troll points on slashdot to prove my right wing cred, and I don't find this offensive at all. Come on people, lighten up. This was -funny-. If I would have been first to the joke, I would have made the same crack going the other way. The more seriously we take our political affiliations, the more we are trapped into the political parties that really don't represent us!
After all, can't we say: "Christ, Bush is such a great oil man, that he goes and invades the world's largest untapped source of oil, and now gas is $5 / gallon."
If we took 10% of our defense budget and put it into education I believe we would solve a lot of our problems. The general population wouldn't be as xenophobic, thus less willing to go after the "evil doers" as our current leader labels them.
George Bush has actually increased federal educational spending by more than any US President since Lyndon Johnson.
And I wouldn't call Americans Xenophobic when the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of legal immigration. It's really only the unions and the cultural right wing that are against even illegal immigration.
I actually live in Delaware, and for those fools who aren't in the know, Delaware has some of the lowest property taxes in the area, good rail transit, and good gun laws.
Now, the windmill battle in Delaware was an EPIC battle. On one side, you had the utility that wanted to build a gas turbine, and on the other side, you had the windmill people.
The backdrop is that the utility already doubled rates because of rising fuel prices, and the state was already importing a great deal of energy at spot (read high) prices. To work around this, the state needed its own generation.
Now, the utility wanted to build a new gas turbine facility, because the capital costs were pretty cheap and they had enterprise experience with both operating and constructing them. The windmill people wanted a windmill farm, and, they probably would have lost on merits of costs, because the windmills are nearly twice as expensive as a cheap gas turbine station. However, I think what's happened is that, between everyone being so spooked by the perpetually rising fuel costs, and, a newly enacted state sustainability law, they more or less had to build the wind mill.
It will be cool if it works, but I'm cynically betting on rolling blackouts on calm, hot summer days.
That's impressive, except that, heart attacks are a pretty cheap way to die. Your heart clogs up, and boom, you die. There's no big hospital stay... maybe an ambulance ride and a trip to the morgue, but the whole thing is over pretty quick. Since you have heart attack, you likely aren't living to be 80, so, pretty much, everyone else gets your social security earnings and you never really receive any payback of premiums for medicare.
By contrast, you eat a healthy diet, live healthy, so, you'll live to be fairly old. That means you are going to be draining social security for a good long retirement. You'll also be draining medicare. Chances are, you'll live long enough to succumb to any of the gradual, wasting failures that accompany extreme old age. Mr. Fat Boy with chips won't live long enough to get Alzheimer's disease, but you will, and your care is going to be enormously expensive.
The moral of the story is that, if we are going to tax anyone, it ought to be healthy people. Smokers, chip eaters, drunks and fat boys won't live long enough to retire or need a nursing home, but all you healthy people are going to just drain social security and the federal budget.
While it may be unfair to target fat people (or smokers or drinkers or what-have-you), isn't it equally unfair to make healthy people pay a lot of extra money to support the unhealthy lifestyles of their neighbors?
So, what if I have good genes.... and you have bad? If we are willing to open up the can of worms of risk assignment, then why should we ignore science and not surcharge those people who have doomed genetics? What, exactly, entitles people with weaker genes to a health discount at the expense of someone else?
Everyone talks about corporate corruption, and yet, governments have way more money on average to spend on basic research. If its the money that corrupts, its governments that make the most corrupt science.
I mean, just look at Hansen.. Why does the government even pay this fool?
That, these guys are basically sending out junk mail too. They want to send out more messages like - "Oh give us money, and we will save you".. just like everyone else on the planet.
I swear, we could make a bunch of ELIZA - like bots that would replace 99% of the political activity web sites for all political persuasions...
So, if we sent a bunch of robot tractors to Mars and uncovered the dirty ice caps, wouldn't they all sublimate and all that water vapor would warm the planet? Are we looking at a cheap way to terraform the planet?
Why would he look good? He's the reason prices are high in the first place.
Actually, no. It's that, for every American now taking the train, there are 5 Chinese and Indian guys now buying cars.... Google for pictures of newly constructed superhighways in Shanghai and you'll get an idea that the USA is no longer the sole significant consumer of oil. Now we have to bid for it, against countries that have a significant amount of our own currency in their reserves.
Oil production hasn't gone up enough, and more people want it, therefor, prices are higher.
I will give you this though. Given that Dick Cheney spent the years before he was VP of the USA running around and telling everyone that we were headed towards a global energy crisis, I'd be willing to bet that such was the topic of his secret energy meetings, and that, ultimately, any mideast trouble would be used as a pre-text for securing the right to purchase American supplies.
Put them all in the same building? man they don't even allow all of Congress to meet when the POTUS gives his State of The Union Address for fear of everyone being wiped out.
multiple teams, multiple buildings, not a problem. Again, no need to overturn the need for the rule of law.
Do I hear other voices here in the wildness? We the great majority here in the middle that believe neither the far right nor the far left are working for the anything other than their special interest need to arise
It might even be better than that. You might have people of the far right and far left who are inventing a new middle altogether.
Do you know how many people could die in the time it takes to wake up some judge at 3AM? And what if he gets stuck in traffic
Every time I hear this argument about the judge stuck in traffic, the terrorists are on their way, and therefor, we have to get rid of the constitution, I just want to puke.
Why couldn't we just have a staff of FISA judges in the same damned building as the people who want the wiretaps? In fact, put them in the same room!
You don't have to give up your constitutional right to solve what's really a minor staff management problem. It's just stupid!
But if you think the Illinois state senator and constitutional lawyer is some kind of closet authoritarian, I dunno what to say. How many fascist heads-of-state started in the damn state senate with a law degree after a decade of community service?
Obama is obviously an authoritarian. The first hallmark is to demand the state act together, and he has that in spades.
American voters handed the US Congress to the Democrats because they believed that the Democrats would get the US out of the wars.
Americans handed the Congress to Democrats because Republicans did not exhibit any competency. The war was but one of many issues. Now, though, it looks like the USA may actually wind up winning this war, and the public is a lot less concerned about it, and in fact, a growing number at this point are more willing to see it through so long as casualties are low. Even some elements of the far left, which oppose the war from the get go, and would impeach Bush if they could, feel that the USA would be making a horrible mistake if it abandoned a country that it broke when it invaded.
Iraq just pumped 2.5 million barrels a day this month. If they continue to improve, they will be at 3 million a day by the end of the year and oil prices will be down, and Bush will wind up looking awfully good.
As the parent mentioned, the only group willing to stand up for freedom is a fraction of the Democratic party. The entire Republican party has arrayed themselves against the Constitution. Remember that on election day.
There are plenty of freedoms that Republicans have fought to protect that Democrats have sought to take away. It is the Democrats that put into place the massive fingerprinting program at DHS. It is the Democrats that shred the 2nd amendment and they have a sorry track record dating back to FDR to using the government to censor opposing points of view in the media.
The fact of the matter is that both parties are adept at pointing to the other side, and saying, "give us more power, before the other side takes your rights." The thing is, when you give the government power, you automatically take rights away from yourselves.
The only way to get rid of government abuses is to get rid of government.
You know what, I used to agree with you and I have argued very passionately that suing the telcos is just another way for the lawyers to get rich without accomplishing anything...
but...
I'm thinking that I want some accountability. I want names. I want search terms. I want to know who the government was searching for and why and we cannot trust that the government will tell the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
So, yeah, Bush is a hell of an oil man. He's done wonders for the industry
See now, if we would privatized social security, our retirement accounts would be flush with loads of XOM.
Let's see a state with an Amazon distribution center tax it, and then let's see Amazon.com close it down. That which happened to Ohio and Michigan, will happen again.
Ok, let's have a look at something interesting.
Take a look at the same web site that purports to show the deep influence of money on politicians. It turns out, that despite giving money to politicians, despite all of their public support for various laws, the vast majority of bills they support do not actually become law.
Have a look at teacher's unions. Classic special interest group and typically a democratic bastion...
http://www.maplight.org/map/us/interest/L1300
Out of all the bills they supported, only ONE became law.
Your estimate is high. Only 50.7% require it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_US_presidential_election [wikipedia.org]
I'm a Republican, a Bush and now McCain supporter, and have more troll points on slashdot to prove my right wing cred, and I don't find this offensive at all. Come on people, lighten up. This was -funny-. If I would have been first to the joke, I would have made the same crack going the other way. The more seriously we take our political affiliations, the more we are trapped into the political parties that really don't represent us!
After all, can't we say: "Christ, Bush is such a great oil man, that he goes and invades the world's largest untapped source of oil, and now gas is $5 / gallon."
You can't help your genes, but you *can* help being a fat, lazy lardass. There's a big difference.
My point is that the fat lazy guy won't live long enough to be a burden on the public safety net, but the healthy guy will.
If we took 10% of our defense budget and put it into education I believe we would solve a lot of our problems.
The general population wouldn't be as xenophobic, thus less willing to go after the "evil doers" as our current leader labels them.
George Bush has actually increased federal educational spending by more than any US President since Lyndon Johnson.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-04-02-federal-spending-inside_x.htm
And I wouldn't call Americans Xenophobic when the overwhelming majority of Americans are in favor of legal immigration. It's really only the unions and the cultural right wing that are against even illegal immigration.
Although it could potentially reduce the instances of road-rage.
Unless it was your partner in the porno.. then, you might get a little aggravated!
The legitimate bank is https://www.commerceonline.com/
I create my own domain and get my own certificate for https://www.mybankofcommerce.com./ I then proceed to look like Commerce Bank.
The problem is that the CA does not enforce trademarks, it only enforces that you say you are who your domain is.
When certificate vendors claim they protect ID, they can't make that claim, because they don't have trademark control over DNS or a web site.
I actually live in Delaware, and for those fools who aren't in the know, Delaware has some of the lowest property taxes in the area, good rail transit, and good gun laws.
Now, the windmill battle in Delaware was an EPIC battle. On one side, you had the utility that wanted to build a gas turbine, and on the other side, you had the windmill people.
The backdrop is that the utility already doubled rates because of rising fuel prices, and the state was already importing a great deal of energy at spot (read high) prices. To work around this, the state needed its own generation.
Now, the utility wanted to build a new gas turbine facility, because the capital costs were pretty cheap and they had enterprise experience with both operating and constructing them. The windmill people wanted a windmill farm, and, they probably would have lost on merits of costs, because the windmills are nearly twice as expensive as a cheap gas turbine station. However, I think what's happened is that, between everyone being so spooked by the perpetually rising fuel costs, and, a newly enacted state sustainability law, they more or less had to build the wind mill.
It will be cool if it works, but I'm cynically betting on rolling blackouts on calm, hot summer days.
That's impressive, except that, heart attacks are a pretty cheap way to die. Your heart clogs up, and boom, you die. There's no big hospital stay... maybe an ambulance ride and a trip to the morgue, but the whole thing is over pretty quick. Since you have heart attack, you likely aren't living to be 80, so, pretty much, everyone else gets your social security earnings and you never really receive any payback of premiums for medicare.
By contrast, you eat a healthy diet, live healthy, so, you'll live to be fairly old. That means you are going to be draining social security for a good long retirement. You'll also be draining medicare. Chances are, you'll live long enough to succumb to any of the gradual, wasting failures that accompany extreme old age. Mr. Fat Boy with chips won't live long enough to get Alzheimer's disease, but you will, and your care is going to be enormously expensive.
The moral of the story is that, if we are going to tax anyone, it ought to be healthy people. Smokers, chip eaters, drunks and fat boys won't live long enough to retire or need a nursing home, but all you healthy people are going to just drain social security and the federal budget.
While it may be unfair to target fat people (or smokers or drinkers or what-have-you), isn't it equally unfair to make healthy people pay a lot of extra money to support the unhealthy lifestyles of their neighbors?
So, what if I have good genes.... and you have bad? If we are willing to open up the can of worms of risk assignment, then why should we ignore science and not surcharge those people who have doomed genetics? What, exactly, entitles people with weaker genes to a health discount at the expense of someone else?
Everyone talks about corporate corruption, and yet, governments have way more money on average to spend on basic research. If its the money that corrupts, its governments that make the most corrupt science.
I mean, just look at Hansen.. Why does the government even pay this fool?
Is there some reason to pick this file system over any of the other 100 file systems you can get for Linux?
That, these guys are basically sending out junk mail too. They want to send out more messages like - "Oh give us money, and we will save you".. just like everyone else on the planet.
I swear, we could make a bunch of ELIZA - like bots that would replace 99% of the political activity web sites for all political persuasions...
So, if we sent a bunch of robot tractors to Mars and uncovered the dirty ice caps, wouldn't they all sublimate and all that water vapor would warm the planet? Are we looking at a cheap way to terraform the planet?
Why would he look good? He's the reason prices are high in the first place.
Actually, no. It's that, for every American now taking the train, there are 5 Chinese and Indian guys now buying cars.... Google for pictures of newly constructed superhighways in Shanghai and you'll get an idea that the USA is no longer the sole significant consumer of oil. Now we have to bid for it, against countries that have a significant amount of our own currency in their reserves.
Oil production hasn't gone up enough, and more people want it, therefor, prices are higher.
I will give you this though. Given that Dick Cheney spent the years before he was VP of the USA running around and telling everyone that we were headed towards a global energy crisis, I'd be willing to bet that such was the topic of his secret energy meetings, and that, ultimately, any mideast trouble would be used as a pre-text for securing the right to purchase American supplies.
Innovation is incremental and people are collaborative. Whenever you stifle that collaboration, the economy as a whole suffers...
Put them all in the same building? man they don't even allow all of Congress to meet when the POTUS gives his State of The Union Address for fear of everyone being wiped out.
multiple teams, multiple buildings, not a problem. Again, no need to overturn the need for the rule of law.
Do I hear other voices here in the wildness? We the great majority here in the middle that believe neither the far right nor the far left are working for the anything other than their special interest need to arise
It might even be better than that. You might have people of the far right and far left who are inventing a new middle altogether.
Do you know how many people could die in the time it takes to wake up some judge at 3AM? And what if he gets stuck in traffic
Every time I hear this argument about the judge stuck in traffic, the terrorists are on their way, and therefor, we have to get rid of the constitution, I just want to puke.
Why couldn't we just have a staff of FISA judges in the same damned building as the people who want the wiretaps? In fact, put them in the same room!
You don't have to give up your constitutional right to solve what's really a minor staff management problem. It's just stupid!
But if you think the Illinois state senator and constitutional lawyer is some kind of closet authoritarian, I dunno what to say. How many fascist heads-of-state started in the damn state senate with a law degree after a decade of community service?
Obama is obviously an authoritarian. The first hallmark is to demand the state act together, and he has that in spades.
American voters handed the US Congress to the Democrats because they believed that the Democrats would get the US out of the wars.
Americans handed the Congress to Democrats because Republicans did not exhibit any competency. The war was but one of many issues. Now, though, it looks like the USA may actually wind up winning this war, and the public is a lot less concerned about it, and in fact, a growing number at this point are more willing to see it through so long as casualties are low. Even some elements of the far left, which oppose the war from the get go, and would impeach Bush if they could, feel that the USA would be making a horrible mistake if it abandoned a country that it broke when it invaded.
Iraq just pumped 2.5 million barrels a day this month. If they continue to improve, they will be at 3 million a day by the end of the year and oil prices will be down, and Bush will wind up looking awfully good.
As the parent mentioned, the only group willing to stand up for freedom is a fraction of the Democratic party. The entire Republican party has arrayed themselves against the Constitution. Remember that on election day.
There are plenty of freedoms that Republicans have fought to protect that Democrats have sought to take away. It is the Democrats that put into place the massive fingerprinting program at DHS. It is the Democrats that shred the 2nd amendment and they have a sorry track record dating back to FDR to using the government to censor opposing points of view in the media.
The fact of the matter is that both parties are adept at pointing to the other side, and saying, "give us more power, before the other side takes your rights." The thing is, when you give the government power, you automatically take rights away from yourselves.
The only way to get rid of government abuses is to get rid of government.
You know what, I used to agree with you and I have argued very passionately that suing the telcos is just another way for the lawyers to get rich without accomplishing anything...
but...
I'm thinking that I want some accountability. I want names. I want search terms. I want to know who the government was searching for and why and we cannot trust that the government will tell the truth.