Are the writers for the current ad-supported media working for free? I don't think so. It's not at all simple to know which will work out more profitable - ad-supported sites or paid for sites.
I would say that it depends on the content. How many people still buy O'Reilly books by good writers, versus going to a bunch of questionable free sites with one sentence per page?
The issue really, is making content worth paying for.
Where, if you make a joke of killing thousands of people, that's ok, but god help you if you call somebody a chink or a honkey or a nigger, that's really the threat to society.
1. Something is unprofitable (or is made to seem unprofitable for ideological "the government shouldn't own $FOO" reasons).
2. Sell it cheaply and rent it back at a yearly cost close to what it was sold for (or we simply get rid of it completely if it's minor enough and no politician stands to gain anything from the sale).
Unfortunately, for this right winger, that is exactly what the right wing politicians do in the USA. My beloved Republican Parties rode into power in 1994 promising reduced government and balanced budgets and I would have thought with Bush in 2000 we could have cut the gov't a lot, but instead, defense budgets skyrocketed largely because the Republicans got rid of government jobs and doled them out to subcontractors. And, in fact, with some education, you can see that they have been doing this for the last 50 years, which is why the US Navy doesn't make its own ships any more and even the Army doesn't make rifles.
Honestly, if you are ideological, you can't vote for any particular party, and have to pick the candidate and cause.
Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then. I will read www.bbc.co.uk or www.telegraph.co.uk or theregister.co.uk or www.zeit.de or cnn.com or slashdot.org or www.dailymail.co.uk or and the list goes on.
If the NYT and WSJ can go and stay non-free, it will be a matter of time before the BBC and the Telegraph and the Register and CNN go non-free as well. Eventually, everyone will have a news site they subscribe too, and probably what will happen is that there will be a micro-payments service between the media that lets you have a single point of subscription.
I mean, its pretty simple. If you are a good writer, you can either work for free, or work for a site that can charge people and survive. Which do you choose. Eventually, the non-free guys will win out.
You do know the Ford isn't actually fusion powered, I hope.
Weak! Weak! Weak!
Unobtanium is also fiction, just so you know.
Yes, but the National Ignition Facility is most certainly not. Everyone laughed at Apollo, and the USA put a man on the moon. Everyone laughed at Star Wars, and now we can shoot down missiles of all shapes and sizes with ease. Everyone laughed at the Surge, and it worked, and everyone laughed at the National Ignition Facility, and this year, hundreds of laser beams are going to blast a little piece of deuterium into a miniature star and, coupled with emerging free electron laser technology, will lay the groundwork for practical fusion.
And I've got daily blowjobs from Kirsten Dunst on the drawing board. Say hi to the Russians, Indians, Europeans and Chinese for me if you ever actually get there. Unless, of course, you're just hitching a ride with them.
You don't and couldn't grow enough cane sugar for your own consumption, even counting the more plentiful sugar beet.
Oh bother! We already do grow more than enough sugar for ourselves. We have steep tariffs and subsidies for sugar imports, creating a vibrant domestic sugar industry. In fact, sugar is a great model (as was the whole American industrial expansion), for how protectionism actually works, and how it should be expanded.
But the larger point is thus: You argue that the United States needs the world, but that the world does not need the United States. I honestly don't care about what the world thinks of or if it needs the USA, but your thesis rests on the world possessing some quality or attribute that is absolutely indispensable for USA to continue to exist. The best you have offered up are some rare earth metals, and sugar, and that's really all you've got? The USA needs the world for some raw materials, and some sweeteners for its desert dishes.... sounds to me like even if you were right on those two points, you don't have much of an argument at all.
In terms of land, resources, and culture, the USA does not need a single thing the world has to offer, and we certainly do not need you.
Have fun running your economy on that, even without the extra demand restarting manufacturing would impose.
If you haven't noticed lately, the USA imports of natural gas have already dropped to 0 because we are now getting it from our own reserves. Oil is next. Next year.
Also, manufacturing requires imports other than oil. Remember why you invaded the Philippines? Where do you intend to get rare earth metals?
Space.
You need the world. The world doesn't really need you.
Do you lot make anything anymore? You don't have any oil.
We have about 50% of our oil needs from domestic production, and a number of options for closing that gap through domestic resources. We could increase CAFE standards, produce more biofuels, go with coal to liquids (and we have plenty of coal), figure out how to drill the Bakken, and so on. We don't need middle eastern oil at all, its just a tad cheaper.
Do you lot make anything anymore
No, we don't, but there's a lot of people that know how to do it, and we could relearn pretty quick.
By the same token, you could redo the stories of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and have them cast as a white skinhead with swastikas on his arm. I'm guessing that it'll detract from the canon of the story.
I like classic actors and classic films as much as anyone, but, if the United States is to continue, we need to have the arts be alive and stories be retold through new actors, directors and minds. Like, I'm glad Trek got a new crew, but I think we could go even beyond that. We need to break out of racial typecasting. Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth? Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people? Or why couldn't a white guy play a role as a slave? Acting is -acting-. Screw computers bringing back dead people. Let's use computers to make it possible for anyone to be Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, let every high school play have great special effects. Let's mix high art and low, TV and theater, toss it all into the pot, mix things up, and do something new.
Keep on being a prick, and keep wondering why people are pissed at the US....
I'm pissed off at the world and I don't care.
People will be pissed off at the US no matter what we do. The thing to do is finish the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and pretty much quit all these trading and military alliances, and let the world go fuck itself.
No more NATO, no more US bases in Europe or Korea or Japan or the mideast. No more trade with Asia. Fuck all of them.
I just don't care. I don't want a big military budget any more, just 100,000 nuclear weapons, for if anyone attacks us, and a little budget. I hear about accepting the world, and I see no reason to have to do so.
I'm not sure your argument can be classed as consistent.
Well it is. First you lower the number of people the system has to deal with by letting people kill invaders. Then, you give robbers that live and are caught the option of corporal punishment versus doing time.
Don't presume to know anything about what I'd do. You barely count as human in my book, but even you don't deserve torture,
I really don't care about what you think of me. You are just completely wrong to think that five minutes of pain is somehow worse than ten years of prison. I guarantee if you asked any con if they could get waterboarded for ten minutes and be set free, they would. I bet that you were one of the people that ruined it so a kid could just get a paddle swat and move on, rather than deal with a suspension for a week or something. You are just really weak, what can I say.
Except that I'm not leftist, not even a little.
Sorry, I thought that because you are so tyranical and weak at the same time.
The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled
I guess my question would be, why were you running Windows as an admin account that would even let you, as a user, have permissions to do any of this stuff. I mean, you can tout Linux as much as you want, but in this case, the real culprit is your shoddy use of Windows security tools. I mean, would you run FireFox as root in Linux? Don't think so. So why did you do it to IE?
Slashdot Mirror
It's not like ASP.NET is the most efficient way to sling web pages to being with.
Are the writers for the current ad-supported media working for free? I don't think so. It's not at all simple to know which will work out more profitable - ad-supported sites or paid for sites.
I would say that it depends on the content. How many people still buy O'Reilly books by good writers, versus going to a bunch of questionable free sites with one sentence per page?
The issue really, is making content worth paying for.
Where, if you make a joke of killing thousands of people, that's ok, but god help you if you call somebody a chink or a honkey or a nigger, that's really the threat to society.
BBC - and the equivalents, such as SVT in Sweden, NHK in Japan, and so on - are public broadcasters.
Let's see, what's the budget deficits of all the western democracies these days?
1. Something is unprofitable (or is made to seem unprofitable for ideological "the government shouldn't own $FOO" reasons).
2. Sell it cheaply and rent it back at a yearly cost close to what it was sold for (or we simply get rid of it completely if it's minor enough and no politician stands to gain anything from the sale).
Unfortunately, for this right winger, that is exactly what the right wing politicians do in the USA. My beloved Republican Parties rode into power in 1994 promising reduced government and balanced budgets and I would have thought with Bush in 2000 we could have cut the gov't a lot, but instead, defense budgets skyrocketed largely because the Republicans got rid of government jobs and doled them out to subcontractors. And, in fact, with some education, you can see that they have been doing this for the last 50 years, which is why the US Navy doesn't make its own ships any more and even the Army doesn't make rifles.
Honestly, if you are ideological, you can't vote for any particular party, and have to pick the candidate and cause.
Oh well, I just won't bother reading it then. I will read www.bbc.co.uk or www.telegraph.co.uk or theregister.co.uk or www.zeit.de or cnn.com or slashdot.org or www.dailymail.co.uk or and the list goes on.
If the NYT and WSJ can go and stay non-free, it will be a matter of time before the BBC and the Telegraph and the Register and CNN go non-free as well. Eventually, everyone will have a news site they subscribe too, and probably what will happen is that there will be a micro-payments service between the media that lets you have a single point of subscription.
I mean, its pretty simple. If you are a good writer, you can either work for free, or work for a site that can charge people and survive. Which do you choose. Eventually, the non-free guys will win out.
not the US. USX, barely makes steel, they do more chemical work than
You would be, as I, very pleased to know that
a) USX renamed itself to its original US Steel. They had a moment of sanity and sorta undid all the non-steel crap and focused on steel.
b) US Steel is very committed to making steel, and is still one of the largest producers in the USA, holding around 10% of the USA steel market.
Your funny little missile program hasn't actually managed to shoot anything down on it's own. Which is why you cancelled it.
LOL. Except, that, it hasn't been cancelled. I laugh at your dumbness.
Did the surge find Bin Laden? I hadn't heard that.
Nah we didn't, but we sure killed a fuckload of muzzies.
You do know the Ford isn't actually fusion powered, I hope.
Weak! Weak! Weak!
Unobtanium is also fiction, just so you know.
Yes, but the National Ignition Facility is most certainly not. Everyone laughed at Apollo, and the USA put a man on the moon. Everyone laughed at Star Wars, and now we can shoot down missiles of all shapes and sizes with ease. Everyone laughed at the Surge, and it worked, and everyone laughed at the National Ignition Facility, and this year, hundreds of laser beams are going to blast a little piece of deuterium into a miniature star and, coupled with emerging free electron laser technology, will lay the groundwork for practical fusion.
What is your country doing?
And I've got daily blowjobs from Kirsten Dunst on the drawing board. Say hi to the Russians, Indians, Europeans and Chinese for me if you ever actually get there. Unless, of course, you're just hitching a ride with them.
Looks like an American flag on the moon to me
You don't and couldn't grow enough cane sugar for your own consumption, even counting the more plentiful sugar beet.
Oh bother! We already do grow more than enough sugar for ourselves. We have steep tariffs and subsidies for sugar imports, creating a vibrant domestic sugar industry. In fact, sugar is a great model (as was the whole American industrial expansion), for how protectionism actually works, and how it should be expanded.
But the larger point is thus: You argue that the United States needs the world, but that the world does not need the United States. I honestly don't care about what the world thinks of or if it needs the USA, but your thesis rests on the world possessing some quality or attribute that is absolutely indispensable for USA to continue to exist. The best you have offered up are some rare earth metals, and sugar, and that's really all you've got? The USA needs the world for some raw materials, and some sweeteners for its desert dishes.... sounds to me like even if you were right on those two points, you don't have much of an argument at all.
In terms of land, resources, and culture, the USA does not need a single thing the world has to offer, and we certainly do not need you.
We're going to have nuclear fusion on the board this year...
Ah, energy indepence. Fleets of Chevy Volts and Ford Fusions driven by a fusion powered grid.
Forgotten that you're cancelling your manned space program this year?
1. The Shuttle is not the sole manned flight program. Manned missions to asteroids using Orion are on the drawing board.
2. Robots are pretty effective for space missions.
I'm not terribly fond of corn fructose. You can keep it.
We grow cane sugar in Hawaii, Florida and Louisiana just fine. It's fun having a continent at your disposal.
Have fun running your economy on that, even without the extra demand restarting manufacturing would impose.
If you haven't noticed lately, the USA imports of natural gas have already dropped to 0 because we are now getting it from our own reserves. Oil is next. Next year.
Also, manufacturing requires imports other than oil. Remember why you invaded the Philippines? Where do you intend to get rare earth metals?
Space.
You need the world. The world doesn't really need you.
No, not at all. PS, we have all the food.
Do you lot make anything anymore? You don't have any oil.
We have about 50% of our oil needs from domestic production, and a number of options for closing that gap through domestic resources. We could increase CAFE standards, produce more biofuels, go with coal to liquids (and we have plenty of coal), figure out how to drill the Bakken, and so on. We don't need middle eastern oil at all, its just a tad cheaper.
Do you lot make anything anymore
No, we don't, but there's a lot of people that know how to do it, and we could relearn pretty quick.
For example, there was a 1937 U.S. theater production of Macbeth in which the whole cast was black, and the setting was Haiti rather than Scotland.
But why did they have to be in Haiti? Why couldn't a black actor play a scottish king, or a white guy play someone in Haiti.
That's kind of the point. You have to let race go.
I mean regular buy and hold investor should get money back somehow from a successful company, right?
Then don't invest in Apple.
Nokia is not an American company. Apple is. I'm sick of foreign companies stomping all over the USA. Kick Nokia out.
By the same token, you could redo the stories of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, and have them cast as a white skinhead with swastikas on his arm. I'm guessing that it'll detract from the canon of the story.
In the case of Malcom X, would it?
You seem to be under the impression that the world in general wants the US to continue. Interesting.
You seem to be impression that I care about what the rest of the world thinks. If you ask me, I would:
a) Stop all imports from mercantile countries to the USA
b) Withdraw the USA from NATO, and maybe even the UN as well.
The world can do what it wants, so long as the USA is not a part of it.
I like classic actors and classic films as much as anyone, but, if the United States is to continue, we need to have the arts be alive and stories be retold through new actors, directors and minds. Like, I'm glad Trek got a new crew, but I think we could go even beyond that. We need to break out of racial typecasting. Like, why can't a black or asian guy play the lead in MacBeth? Are greedy kings somehow relevant only to white people? Or why couldn't a white guy play a role as a slave? Acting is -acting-. Screw computers bringing back dead people. Let's use computers to make it possible for anyone to be Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, let every high school play have great special effects. Let's mix high art and low, TV and theater, toss it all into the pot, mix things up, and do something new.
Keep on being a prick, and keep wondering why people are pissed at the US....
I'm pissed off at the world and I don't care.
People will be pissed off at the US no matter what we do. The thing to do is finish the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and pretty much quit all these trading and military alliances, and let the world go fuck itself.
No more NATO, no more US bases in Europe or Korea or Japan or the mideast. No more trade with Asia. Fuck all of them.
I just don't care. I don't want a big military budget any more, just 100,000 nuclear weapons, for if anyone attacks us, and a little budget. I hear about accepting the world, and I see no reason to have to do so.
The opinions of the world is not worth it.
I'm not sure your argument can be classed as consistent.
Well it is. First you lower the number of people the system has to deal with by letting people kill invaders. Then, you give robbers that live and are caught the option of corporal punishment versus doing time.
Don't presume to know anything about what I'd do. You barely count as human in my book, but even you don't deserve torture,
I really don't care about what you think of me. You are just completely wrong to think that five minutes of pain is somehow worse than ten years of prison. I guarantee if you asked any con if they could get waterboarded for ten minutes and be set free, they would. I bet that you were one of the people that ruined it so a kid could just get a paddle swat and move on, rather than deal with a suspension for a week or something. You are just really weak, what can I say.
Except that I'm not leftist, not even a little.
Sorry, I thought that because you are so tyranical and weak at the same time.
I've programmed in proportional fonts. It's ok, but I prefer fixed width for alignment.
The page loaded a PDF and simply by visiting I was infected with one of the worst malware problems I ever had; task manager shut off, antivirus disabled, locked out of registry editor, windows was completely crippled
I guess my question would be, why were you running Windows as an admin account that would even let you, as a user, have permissions to do any of this stuff. I mean, you can tout Linux as much as you want, but in this case, the real culprit is your shoddy use of Windows security tools. I mean, would you run FireFox as root in Linux? Don't think so. So why did you do it to IE?