They were reduced after appeals (I think to arround half a mil) and then they later had a private settlement, so the public does not know how much they ended up paying. That is not the same as not paying them. But, they did not have to pay what the jury decided was just, but that just shows how broken the system is.
While true, Toyota probably has many firms on retainer. This will be a mark against this firm, so they will probably get less business from Toyota in the future until they can prove that they are competent.
People like you is the reason why there is a choice between two political parties - pro big business and liberal vs pro big business and conservative. You are also the reason why corporations are considered a person and therefore have a right to privacy and free speech. And yet, they can't go to jail when they break the laws. If we are sliding toward idiocracy, it is because we are letting corporations (who have no reason for or obligation to morality, besides public outrage when they do something immoral) more and more make our decisions for us and take control of our government. If you will recall, one of the big themes of the movie was "Brawndo" which was used for everything (including watering crops). I don't think it is in the corporate best interest to have educated consumers (a fool and his money are soon parted). Keeping business small forces innovation and forces people to be better rounded in their work experience (if you work for a company of 50 people or less, they cannot specialize so much that you spend day after day doing exactly the same thing. You will be forced to take on varied responsibilities). Also, if there are many companies, there are many choices as to what product you use, which requires the consumer to educate themselves about their choices. I will stop there, though I could probably go on for pages. I will wait for your next one-line response that will add nothing to the conversation beside "No, you are wrong" without actually making any assertions as to why that may be.
You are so wrong about the McDonalds thing. It is used as a propaganda tool (as you are by spouting it) by corporations who want to get liability limiting legislation passed by painting her as greedy. She just sued for her medical bills (tried to settle for 20k but McDonalds refused). The jury awarded her punitive damages when she won (I think she also got 200k for actual damages). The jury decided to PUNISH McDonalds (which is what punitive damages means) for flagrantly putting people at risk so that their bottom line would benefit. The amount of punitive damages was 2.7mil, which was 2 days worth of McDonald's coffee sales. I hope you are getting paid for being a corporate mouthpiece.
Cyberstalking? They were playing a prank on a woman at her friend's bequest. Bad taste? Yes. Effective? Probably not. I might think their marketing department is full of idiots (or Japanese people who don't understand other markets, it seems like something they would do). But, I don't think worse of Toyota. I think the woman is a complete idiot, though, and is just trying to make some easy money.
Well, in this case, the issue probably got a lot more publicity because of the fact that they tried to limit the publicity with an injunction. So, yes, idiot lawyers. This is not the first time that there has been a public response like this (I believe it is called the Streisand Effect). The lawyers should have considered this possibility before they decided to go down this path.
My guess is that you're not the guy who offers solutions, you're the guy who tries to make problems look smaller by pointing at others.
The original AC post (which could be you, could not be), said that Britain had this problem, and while intentionally or not, implied that other countries (your country?) did not. That is pointing at others. And, denying the existence of your own problems. All he did was defend your attack against his country by saying that you were calling the kettle black. While the fact that most of the world has the same problem as him may in some way belittle the problem, I do not think that was the point of his post at all. And the fact that you are reflexively lashing out at him for saying so implies that you prefer to live in ignorance of your own country's problems and instead point and laugh at other people for their own country's problems.
At least, that is my take on this thread. Though it is probably pointless. If you really wanted to have a serious discussion you wouldn't be posting as AC.
Because they are posting in a public forum (the internet). They could have set up their website so that the public can't see it. They didn't. Google is part of the public. It is widely accepted that if someting is publicly accessible on the internet, then you are allowed to link to it. Google is just using the rights that EVERYONE has to provide a service. Are you advocating changing and restricting the rights that a internet user has?
What about Pepsi coupon attached on Coca Cola can?
You don't understand the problem. You are allowed to have a monopoly in the US. You are just not allowed to use that monopoly (in OSs) to give you an unfair advantage in a different market (Internet Browsers)
So, the IE installed on the system is not out of date? It is the same tihng. You can include the EXEs and have browser search for its updates on the first startup, without actually going to an unsecure website. Or just provide an EXE that goes onto the web and downloads the most recent version. But, I don't think it is that big of a deal except for the security warnings.
The missile defense shield program was laughable. It cost a LOT of money and would not have worked against an all out attack from Russia. It was more of a symbolic move than anything else. And what does the US owe Poland? Do they feel that they are so important that the US should go against its best interests just to make them happy? They are just a pawn in the game between the US and Russia. If anyone thought otherwise then they are naive. And they should have realized that when the game moved forward, they might get left behind. Maybe they will have to grow up and be a real country now instead of relying on sucking on the US money teat.
As for Iran, governance is a gradual process. Governments usually started with a dictatorship of some sorts because that form of government tends to be very efficient (though not very fair). When you are worried about getting your next meal (for instance, Afghanistan), you will support the guy who can do that, not the guy who gives you civil liberties. Once a society reaches the point where they are not worried about their next meal, then the people become restless until they have a government that gives them the rights they want. You see this happening right now in Iran. It is a process that is not necessarily quick or bloodless, and the more gradual the process is the more bloodless it can be. The protesters started the process. The amazing thing is that it stayed peaceful (except for some protesters getting roughed up). The people of Iran are patient, so you should try to be too. Like I said, the next election in Iran should be interesting. I can almost guarantee you that it will either be honest (which would allow a bloodless transition) or there will be a bigger upwelling of protesters.
No matter what, people are going to get hurt. Freedom requires sacrifice. The people in power do not want to give it up, so the stakes will have to be high for them to give it up. I think the protesters are very brave, and I am sorry for the families of the ones who were killed or disappeared into the penal system, but what did they think were going to happen? They live in the country, deal with the government an a daily basis. Do you think they did not know that what happened to them was a possibility? I am sure they did. So, we should try to make their sacrifice worth something. If the US takes a hard stance on Iran about the protesters, then they can concentrate on an EXTERNAL threat. They can say that the US is trying to subvert their government (again), and claim the protesters are actually astroturf. They then have more of an excuse to detain and treat the protesters poorly (they tried to do this anyway, without the US taking a hard stance). If the US doesn't take a hard stance, then the government will be forced to deal with an INTERNAL threat, and all their posturing about the US inciting the protests will sound hollow to the people.
Even though they are Muslims, maybe you should think about the fact that Iranians are people just like you an me. They have a right to mold their country into the place they want it to be without outside interference. The US should let its disapproval be known (provide moral support to the protesters, which is what Obama has done) but let them do this their own way.
As far as Nukes are concerned, you do realize that the guy who people always quoted for taking a hard stance against Israel is the same one who the people probably voted out of office (if the election hadn't been rigged). He realizes that he is on very shaky political ground to begin with, he is not going to rock the boat like that. And the world IS keeping a close eye on Iran and its nuclear ambitions. If you believe that they should not have rights under the treaty, then you need to encourage our leaders to drop out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and try to form a new one (which says that countries have no right to nuclear power whatsoever, instead of saying that the nuclear countries will help you develop peaceful nuclear powe
If you feel that a sign of a good leader is that everyone is happy, then you should never go into politics, because you have no understanding of it. Whenever you are in a position of responsibility, people always have something to complain about. But, no one is afraid that we might abruptly go into WWIII (which was a big fear in a lot of the world about Bush).
Oh yes, because liberating 50 million people from theocratic tyranny is an example of a "bad president"
Are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? We went into both countries for selfish reasons (oil or terrorism). Afghanistan I am OK with, except for how royally we fucked it up so that we could go fight in Iraq. And how many people died while they were being "liberated"? Casualties happen when people fight for freedom, but it is only just if we don't force that freedom upon them without considering if they actually want it. Dictatorships tend to be very efficient forms of government. Efficiency matters when people in your country are starving to death.
and I suppose knocking down carbon gas emissions without getting ourselves stuck in the horrid Kyoto treaty is laughable.
How do you define "knocking down". Decreasing the rate a little bit. GHG emissions did not decrease in the US. We may be destroying our planet "a little" less quickly, but we basically made no progress under Bush.
And all the work Bush did to help stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, that's just another example of how bad a president he was.
Ok, you got me. One good thing. Can you name another?
But hey, now we have Obama! A good president apparently is one who sides with murderous regimes against their own people like Iran.
Oh yeah. Lets invade them as well. Waste more money and increase our deficit on people who don't want to be liberated. The people will change things when they are ready for it. Which seems to be around now (which I find exciting). The next election in Iran should be interesting. But, we need to give them moral support, but let them fight their own battles (which it looks like Obama might understand).
And I suppose he's a great president for siding with the Marxist wannabe dictator in Honduras against the Honduran constitution.
He was the democratically elected leader of that country, and was thrown out by the military. I don't quite see how that was constitutional, but I am not up to date with my Honduran law so I won't argue the point. But, this sets a bad precedent for the country (military doesn't like the current govn't, well just throw it out). The reason for a constitution is to provide rules for cases like this and allow for a peaceful and smooth transfer of power. And, IIRC, he was trying to have a popular vote to extend his term. Seems very democratic to me.
And we can't forget how wonderful he's been in slowing tackling our economy. After all, going from a deficit of $459 billion to 1.4 TRILLION sure is a good thing right?
We'll see how it turns out. The Repubs would just have cut taxes to try to do the same thing (we would still have a big deficit). The other option was to do nothing, which does not seem like a good option, but could have ended better. Its easy to scream at someone fixing a problem, but what would you have him do instead (and why do you think it would have worked better)?
If you are selfish, your opinions hold a lot less weight with others. You cannot be a mediator between other countries. If you ask someone to do something that is very good for you, and an inconvenience for them, they will not, because it is not in their best interest. But if you have done the same in the past, they might return the favor. If you are seen to be led by morality and not just by personal gain (which is why I don't want government to just be run like a business), then it can give you a lot of power and rewards in the long run.
I wasn't aware you got a nobel peace prize for screwing over Poland.
Are you Polish? How did he screw over Poland. We were claiming to put missiles in Poland for Iran anyway. The only way we screwed them is by not putting more money into their country by basing there. Unless you think that Russia is still a big threat.
Or perhaps the position change you are talking about, is bending over for Iran.
Iran has a RIGHT under international treaty to pursue nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Just not for weapons. You can't punish them unless they do something wrong. Unless you are president Bush. This secret enrichment facility (which was unfinished by the way) gives us a reason to rachet up pressure. Just because they don't like us (for good reason by the way. They became a democracy at the end of the 70s and tried to nationalize their oil, so we caused a revolution and put a monarch back into power) doesn't mean they give up rights under international treaty (to which we are signatories).
Actually looking at your definition, I feel even more strongly about post I made above. I will repost it for you...
When I heard this I thought it was a little premature too. But, he while he doesn't have bullet points, he has changed the US position a LOT in international politics. When Bush was in office, the US was pretty much reviled throughout the world. Well, maybe not reviled, but definitely not trusted or liked. Whenever the US tried to do something internationally, everyone's first thought was always "What is their real purpose", because that administration didn't do ANYTHING for the world, unless the US directly benefited somehow. But, Obama somehow changed that. The US is regaining trust and respect in the world at a rate that I would not have thought possible. A lot of people in countries other than the US "support" Obama. How many "heads-of-state" do you "support" that aren't in your own country? How many can you even name off the top of your head? He has brought the US back into a prominent position in the international community which allows it to be a mediating influence in world relations rather than a destabilizing one (Bush was usually ranked at the top of the list of destabilizing influences, even above North Korea or Iran, in international polls while he was president). I am still not sure that I think Obama deserved the prize, but I can see why he might have gotten it. I think it might have helped his case to follow such a bad example of what the President of the US can be.
He may not have the bullet points, but I think he has achieved a lot towards those goals in the short time he has been in office
I could be wrong, but I think that the committee is allowed to look beyond the date of nomination in making their decision. But, you could be right. I am sure he just paid them off or something to get this prize. It is all a big conspiracy to get a public option.
When I heard this I thought it was a little premature too. But, he while he doesn't have bullet points, he has changed the US position a LOT in international politics. When Bush was in office, the US was pretty much reviled throughout the world. Well, maybe not reviled, but definitely not trusted or liked. Whenever the US tried to do something internationally, everyone's first thought was always "What is their real purpose", because that administration didn't do ANYTHING for the world, unless the US directly benefited somehow. But, Obama somehow changed that. The US is regaining trust and respect in the world at a rate that I would not have thought possible. A lot of people in countries other than the US "support" Obama. How many "heads-of-state" do you "support" that aren't in your own country? How many can you even name off the top of your head? He has brought the US back into a prominent position in the international community which allows it to be a mediating influence in world relations rather than a destabilizing one (Bush was usually ranked at the top of the list of destabilizing influences, even above North Korea or Iran, in international polls while he was president). I am still not sure that I think Obama deserved the prize, but I can see why he might have gotten it. I think it might have helped his case to follow such a bad example of what the President of the US can be.
Actually, that means it is even more important that it is "backed". If it is short term, those businesses are going to want to know that when they go to exchange it (say, to buy more supplies from someone who doesn't accept your currency) that they will get the amount of money they expect. Paper money originally started with banks. People would deposit their money and the bank would essentially give them an IOU that said how much real money it represented. Instead of always going back to the bank to pull out the cash, people started exchanging these IOUs (which could hold value if it was a reputable bank). I think the FED was created because people realized this system was inefficient and prone to abuse (would each bank have its own "secret service" to prevent counterfeiters?). So, if you create your own currency, you are essentially creating a bank. And there has to be a way for people to know the value of the "money" they are holding, or they will just choose not to hold it.
The problem is that all currencies have to be backed by something. I can create my own currency and tell people to give me money for pieces of paper with my face on it, but who is going to accept it? The US currency is basically backed by the reputation of the US saying that it will be worth something in the future. Other countries may tied their currency to a mineral or to another currency. But, in the end it has to be backed by something, and it will then be at the whim of whatever backs it. Be that gold or a country's reputation.
I don't feel that my buying decisions are swayed by what an advertisement says. I don't really care about trying to be "cool" or look "hip", so anything that I buy I judge based upon what I know and want. An advertisement is just a source of information for me. I assume that they are biased, like I assume anything on the internet is biased.
How do you find out about new things? Do you read articles, look at tech reviews, ect? Do you assume those sources are unbiased? If you see something that has a good review, do you go out and buy it immediately? How are they different from an advertiser selling a product? At least with an advertiser, you know what their bias is. With reviewers it can be hard to tell.
So, lets say I am on a pilot's forum and see an advertisement on the side for a little RC helicopter for $20. It has piqued my interest so I click on the ad. I read what the website says, then google the product and see what I can find about it. The advertiser does not mention that the helicopter is very cheaply made and usually breaks in about a week (from hard landings), but I expected this on a $20 RC helicopter. I don't need the product. It is an impulse buy. But I make an informed decision and determine that the enjoyment that I get out of the product is worth the amount of money I pay for it. Now, after I buy it there might be an ad on the confirmation page for another website that sells a remote controlled dropper that you can use to drop things from the helicopter while it is flying. This is another $10. But, with visions of trying to drop popcorn in my passed out roommate's mouth with a helicopter dance through my head, so I buy this also. I am happy that I saw he ads. They informed me about products that I would otherwise have not known about, so would not have thought to look up.
If you see an ad and cannot think for a few seconds about whether the product is actually worth the price to you, and whether the things the ad claims are valid or not, then I have no pity for you. You are a fool. And, a fool and his money are soon parted. It is up to your parents to teach you, and up to yourself to learn, the self-control necessary to be a responsible member of society. Advertisements are an information source for me. I like to have as much relevant information as possible about everything I do. If the ad is targeted to me, that means it will be more relevant to my interests and therefore more useful. You seem to prefer ignorance and protection to knowledge and freedom (you must be an american). We will probably just have to agree to disagree.
From what I have been able to gather, it asked if people were OK with having information gathered on their surfing habits, not if they wanted ads to be targeted or not. I think that people prefer targeted ads (but its just my opinion), but they are not willing to sacrifice their privacy for it.
I don't know about you, but when I surf the internet, it is usually not with a specific purpose. I sometimes just stumble across wikipedia, following links that look interesting. If I am just surfing around on the internet, I will follow an ad if it looks interesting to me. For example, if I were reading about stirling engines and I saw an ad on the page for a cheap stirling engine kit, I would probably follow it and be happy it was there.
a) Make you buy a product you do not need or down right should not buy
or...
b) Make you choose a brand of a product you do need under false assumptions or wrong reasons.
That sometimes you actually need to buy the product and that at least one brand is actually the best for you does not make them more honest, they are biased and should not be advising you which things to buy.
Are you saying that spending money is bad? I check woot most days just so I can find random fun things that are reasonably priced to buy. Ads are a form of information. It tells you that a company sells a product. You don't have to buy it. But when I decide to buy something I usually shop around to see who offers the best product at the best price. If I don't know about a company, it is hard to compare their prices. (And no, google does not always show you everyone who could be of interest to you when you search. Especially if you want to actually go to a shop and not just buy it online.)
Slashdot Mirror
They were reduced after appeals (I think to arround half a mil) and then they later had a private settlement, so the public does not know how much they ended up paying. That is not the same as not paying them. But, they did not have to pay what the jury decided was just, but that just shows how broken the system is.
While true, Toyota probably has many firms on retainer. This will be a mark against this firm, so they will probably get less business from Toyota in the future until they can prove that they are competent.
People like you is the reason why there is a choice between two political parties - pro big business and liberal vs pro big business and conservative. You are also the reason why corporations are considered a person and therefore have a right to privacy and free speech. And yet, they can't go to jail when they break the laws. If we are sliding toward idiocracy, it is because we are letting corporations (who have no reason for or obligation to morality, besides public outrage when they do something immoral) more and more make our decisions for us and take control of our government. If you will recall, one of the big themes of the movie was "Brawndo" which was used for everything (including watering crops). I don't think it is in the corporate best interest to have educated consumers (a fool and his money are soon parted). Keeping business small forces innovation and forces people to be better rounded in their work experience (if you work for a company of 50 people or less, they cannot specialize so much that you spend day after day doing exactly the same thing. You will be forced to take on varied responsibilities). Also, if there are many companies, there are many choices as to what product you use, which requires the consumer to educate themselves about their choices. I will stop there, though I could probably go on for pages. I will wait for your next one-line response that will add nothing to the conversation beside "No, you are wrong" without actually making any assertions as to why that may be.
You are so wrong about the McDonalds thing. It is used as a propaganda tool (as you are by spouting it) by corporations who want to get liability limiting legislation passed by painting her as greedy. She just sued for her medical bills (tried to settle for 20k but McDonalds refused). The jury awarded her punitive damages when she won (I think she also got 200k for actual damages). The jury decided to PUNISH McDonalds (which is what punitive damages means) for flagrantly putting people at risk so that their bottom line would benefit. The amount of punitive damages was 2.7mil, which was 2 days worth of McDonald's coffee sales. I hope you are getting paid for being a corporate mouthpiece.
Cyberstalking? They were playing a prank on a woman at her friend's bequest. Bad taste? Yes. Effective? Probably not. I might think their marketing department is full of idiots (or Japanese people who don't understand other markets, it seems like something they would do). But, I don't think worse of Toyota. I think the woman is a complete idiot, though, and is just trying to make some easy money.
Well, in this case, the issue probably got a lot more publicity because of the fact that they tried to limit the publicity with an injunction. So, yes, idiot lawyers. This is not the first time that there has been a public response like this (I believe it is called the Streisand Effect). The lawyers should have considered this possibility before they decided to go down this path.
My guess is that you're not the guy who offers solutions, you're the guy who tries to make problems look smaller by pointing at others.
The original AC post (which could be you, could not be), said that Britain had this problem, and while intentionally or not, implied that other countries (your country?) did not. That is pointing at others. And, denying the existence of your own problems. All he did was defend your attack against his country by saying that you were calling the kettle black. While the fact that most of the world has the same problem as him may in some way belittle the problem, I do not think that was the point of his post at all. And the fact that you are reflexively lashing out at him for saying so implies that you prefer to live in ignorance of your own country's problems and instead point and laugh at other people for their own country's problems.
At least, that is my take on this thread. Though it is probably pointless. If you really wanted to have a serious discussion you wouldn't be posting as AC.
Because they are posting in a public forum (the internet). They could have set up their website so that the public can't see it. They didn't. Google is part of the public. It is widely accepted that if someting is publicly accessible on the internet, then you are allowed to link to it. Google is just using the rights that EVERYONE has to provide a service. Are you advocating changing and restricting the rights that a internet user has?
What about Pepsi coupon attached on Coca Cola can?
You don't understand the problem. You are allowed to have a monopoly in the US. You are just not allowed to use that monopoly (in OSs) to give you an unfair advantage in a different market (Internet Browsers)
So, the IE installed on the system is not out of date? It is the same tihng. You can include the EXEs and have browser search for its updates on the first startup, without actually going to an unsecure website. Or just provide an EXE that goes onto the web and downloads the most recent version. But, I don't think it is that big of a deal except for the security warnings.
The missile defense shield program was laughable. It cost a LOT of money and would not have worked against an all out attack from Russia. It was more of a symbolic move than anything else. And what does the US owe Poland? Do they feel that they are so important that the US should go against its best interests just to make them happy? They are just a pawn in the game between the US and Russia. If anyone thought otherwise then they are naive. And they should have realized that when the game moved forward, they might get left behind. Maybe they will have to grow up and be a real country now instead of relying on sucking on the US money teat.
As for Iran, governance is a gradual process. Governments usually started with a dictatorship of some sorts because that form of government tends to be very efficient (though not very fair). When you are worried about getting your next meal (for instance, Afghanistan), you will support the guy who can do that, not the guy who gives you civil liberties. Once a society reaches the point where they are not worried about their next meal, then the people become restless until they have a government that gives them the rights they want. You see this happening right now in Iran. It is a process that is not necessarily quick or bloodless, and the more gradual the process is the more bloodless it can be. The protesters started the process. The amazing thing is that it stayed peaceful (except for some protesters getting roughed up). The people of Iran are patient, so you should try to be too. Like I said, the next election in Iran should be interesting. I can almost guarantee you that it will either be honest (which would allow a bloodless transition) or there will be a bigger upwelling of protesters.
No matter what, people are going to get hurt. Freedom requires sacrifice. The people in power do not want to give it up, so the stakes will have to be high for them to give it up. I think the protesters are very brave, and I am sorry for the families of the ones who were killed or disappeared into the penal system, but what did they think were going to happen? They live in the country, deal with the government an a daily basis. Do you think they did not know that what happened to them was a possibility? I am sure they did. So, we should try to make their sacrifice worth something. If the US takes a hard stance on Iran about the protesters, then they can concentrate on an EXTERNAL threat. They can say that the US is trying to subvert their government (again), and claim the protesters are actually astroturf. They then have more of an excuse to detain and treat the protesters poorly (they tried to do this anyway, without the US taking a hard stance). If the US doesn't take a hard stance, then the government will be forced to deal with an INTERNAL threat, and all their posturing about the US inciting the protests will sound hollow to the people.
Even though they are Muslims, maybe you should think about the fact that Iranians are people just like you an me. They have a right to mold their country into the place they want it to be without outside interference. The US should let its disapproval be known (provide moral support to the protesters, which is what Obama has done) but let them do this their own way.
As far as Nukes are concerned, you do realize that the guy who people always quoted for taking a hard stance against Israel is the same one who the people probably voted out of office (if the election hadn't been rigged). He realizes that he is on very shaky political ground to begin with, he is not going to rock the boat like that. And the world IS keeping a close eye on Iran and its nuclear ambitions. If you believe that they should not have rights under the treaty, then you need to encourage our leaders to drop out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and try to form a new one (which says that countries have no right to nuclear power whatsoever, instead of saying that the nuclear countries will help you develop peaceful nuclear powe
If you feel that a sign of a good leader is that everyone is happy, then you should never go into politics, because you have no understanding of it. Whenever you are in a position of responsibility, people always have something to complain about. But, no one is afraid that we might abruptly go into WWIII (which was a big fear in a lot of the world about Bush).
Oh yes, because liberating 50 million people from theocratic tyranny is an example of a "bad president"
Are you talking about Iraq or Afghanistan? We went into both countries for selfish reasons (oil or terrorism). Afghanistan I am OK with, except for how royally we fucked it up so that we could go fight in Iraq. And how many people died while they were being "liberated"? Casualties happen when people fight for freedom, but it is only just if we don't force that freedom upon them without considering if they actually want it. Dictatorships tend to be very efficient forms of government. Efficiency matters when people in your country are starving to death.
and I suppose knocking down carbon gas emissions without getting ourselves stuck in the horrid Kyoto treaty is laughable.
How do you define "knocking down". Decreasing the rate a little bit. GHG emissions did not decrease in the US. We may be destroying our planet "a little" less quickly, but we basically made no progress under Bush.
And all the work Bush did to help stop the spread of AIDS in Africa, that's just another example of how bad a president he was.
Ok, you got me. One good thing. Can you name another?
But hey, now we have Obama! A good president apparently is one who sides with murderous regimes against their own people like Iran.
Oh yeah. Lets invade them as well. Waste more money and increase our deficit on people who don't want to be liberated. The people will change things when they are ready for it. Which seems to be around now (which I find exciting). The next election in Iran should be interesting. But, we need to give them moral support, but let them fight their own battles (which it looks like Obama might understand).
And I suppose he's a great president for siding with the Marxist wannabe dictator in Honduras against the Honduran constitution.
He was the democratically elected leader of that country, and was thrown out by the military. I don't quite see how that was constitutional, but I am not up to date with my Honduran law so I won't argue the point. But, this sets a bad precedent for the country (military doesn't like the current govn't, well just throw it out). The reason for a constitution is to provide rules for cases like this and allow for a peaceful and smooth transfer of power. And, IIRC, he was trying to have a popular vote to extend his term. Seems very democratic to me.
And we can't forget how wonderful he's been in slowing tackling our economy. After all, going from a deficit of $459 billion to 1.4 TRILLION sure is a good thing right?
We'll see how it turns out. The Repubs would just have cut taxes to try to do the same thing (we would still have a big deficit). The other option was to do nothing, which does not seem like a good option, but could have ended better. Its easy to scream at someone fixing a problem, but what would you have him do instead (and why do you think it would have worked better)?
If you are selfish, your opinions hold a lot less weight with others. You cannot be a mediator between other countries. If you ask someone to do something that is very good for you, and an inconvenience for them, they will not, because it is not in their best interest. But if you have done the same in the past, they might return the favor. If you are seen to be led by morality and not just by personal gain (which is why I don't want government to just be run like a business), then it can give you a lot of power and rewards in the long run.
I wasn't aware you got a nobel peace prize for screwing over Poland.
Are you Polish? How did he screw over Poland. We were claiming to put missiles in Poland for Iran anyway. The only way we screwed them is by not putting more money into their country by basing there. Unless you think that Russia is still a big threat.
Or perhaps the position change you are talking about, is bending over for Iran.
Iran has a RIGHT under international treaty to pursue nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Just not for weapons. You can't punish them unless they do something wrong. Unless you are president Bush. This secret enrichment facility (which was unfinished by the way) gives us a reason to rachet up pressure. Just because they don't like us (for good reason by the way. They became a democracy at the end of the 70s and tried to nationalize their oil, so we caused a revolution and put a monarch back into power) doesn't mean they give up rights under international treaty (to which we are signatories).
Sorry to be the one to inform you, but the BBC is probably the most respected news organization when related to international issues.
Actually looking at your definition, I feel even more strongly about post I made above. I will repost it for you...
When I heard this I thought it was a little premature too. But, he while he doesn't have bullet points, he has changed the US position a LOT in international politics. When Bush was in office, the US was pretty much reviled throughout the world. Well, maybe not reviled, but definitely not trusted or liked. Whenever the US tried to do something internationally, everyone's first thought was always "What is their real purpose", because that administration didn't do ANYTHING for the world, unless the US directly benefited somehow. But, Obama somehow changed that. The US is regaining trust and respect in the world at a rate that I would not have thought possible. A lot of people in countries other than the US "support" Obama. How many "heads-of-state" do you "support" that aren't in your own country? How many can you even name off the top of your head? He has brought the US back into a prominent position in the international community which allows it to be a mediating influence in world relations rather than a destabilizing one (Bush was usually ranked at the top of the list of destabilizing influences, even above North Korea or Iran, in international polls while he was president). I am still not sure that I think Obama deserved the prize, but I can see why he might have gotten it. I think it might have helped his case to follow such a bad example of what the President of the US can be.
He may not have the bullet points, but I think he has achieved a lot towards those goals in the short time he has been in office
I could be wrong, but I think that the committee is allowed to look beyond the date of nomination in making their decision. But, you could be right. I am sure he just paid them off or something to get this prize. It is all a big conspiracy to get a public option.
When I heard this I thought it was a little premature too. But, he while he doesn't have bullet points, he has changed the US position a LOT in international politics. When Bush was in office, the US was pretty much reviled throughout the world. Well, maybe not reviled, but definitely not trusted or liked. Whenever the US tried to do something internationally, everyone's first thought was always "What is their real purpose", because that administration didn't do ANYTHING for the world, unless the US directly benefited somehow. But, Obama somehow changed that. The US is regaining trust and respect in the world at a rate that I would not have thought possible. A lot of people in countries other than the US "support" Obama. How many "heads-of-state" do you "support" that aren't in your own country? How many can you even name off the top of your head? He has brought the US back into a prominent position in the international community which allows it to be a mediating influence in world relations rather than a destabilizing one (Bush was usually ranked at the top of the list of destabilizing influences, even above North Korea or Iran, in international polls while he was president). I am still not sure that I think Obama deserved the prize, but I can see why he might have gotten it. I think it might have helped his case to follow such a bad example of what the President of the US can be.
Actually, that means it is even more important that it is "backed". If it is short term, those businesses are going to want to know that when they go to exchange it (say, to buy more supplies from someone who doesn't accept your currency) that they will get the amount of money they expect. Paper money originally started with banks. People would deposit their money and the bank would essentially give them an IOU that said how much real money it represented. Instead of always going back to the bank to pull out the cash, people started exchanging these IOUs (which could hold value if it was a reputable bank). I think the FED was created because people realized this system was inefficient and prone to abuse (would each bank have its own "secret service" to prevent counterfeiters?). So, if you create your own currency, you are essentially creating a bank. And there has to be a way for people to know the value of the "money" they are holding, or they will just choose not to hold it.
The problem is that all currencies have to be backed by something. I can create my own currency and tell people to give me money for pieces of paper with my face on it, but who is going to accept it? The US currency is basically backed by the reputation of the US saying that it will be worth something in the future. Other countries may tied their currency to a mineral or to another currency. But, in the end it has to be backed by something, and it will then be at the whim of whatever backs it. Be that gold or a country's reputation.
I don't feel that my buying decisions are swayed by what an advertisement says. I don't really care about trying to be "cool" or look "hip", so anything that I buy I judge based upon what I know and want. An advertisement is just a source of information for me. I assume that they are biased, like I assume anything on the internet is biased.
How do you find out about new things? Do you read articles, look at tech reviews, ect? Do you assume those sources are unbiased? If you see something that has a good review, do you go out and buy it immediately? How are they different from an advertiser selling a product? At least with an advertiser, you know what their bias is. With reviewers it can be hard to tell.
So, lets say I am on a pilot's forum and see an advertisement on the side for a little RC helicopter for $20. It has piqued my interest so I click on the ad. I read what the website says, then google the product and see what I can find about it. The advertiser does not mention that the helicopter is very cheaply made and usually breaks in about a week (from hard landings), but I expected this on a $20 RC helicopter. I don't need the product. It is an impulse buy. But I make an informed decision and determine that the enjoyment that I get out of the product is worth the amount of money I pay for it. Now, after I buy it there might be an ad on the confirmation page for another website that sells a remote controlled dropper that you can use to drop things from the helicopter while it is flying. This is another $10. But, with visions of trying to drop popcorn in my passed out roommate's mouth with a helicopter dance through my head, so I buy this also. I am happy that I saw he ads. They informed me about products that I would otherwise have not known about, so would not have thought to look up.
If you see an ad and cannot think for a few seconds about whether the product is actually worth the price to you, and whether the things the ad claims are valid or not, then I have no pity for you. You are a fool. And, a fool and his money are soon parted. It is up to your parents to teach you, and up to yourself to learn, the self-control necessary to be a responsible member of society. Advertisements are an information source for me. I like to have as much relevant information as possible about everything I do. If the ad is targeted to me, that means it will be more relevant to my interests and therefore more useful. You seem to prefer ignorance and protection to knowledge and freedom (you must be an american). We will probably just have to agree to disagree.
From what I have been able to gather, it asked if people were OK with having information gathered on their surfing habits, not if they wanted ads to be targeted or not. I think that people prefer targeted ads (but its just my opinion), but they are not willing to sacrifice their privacy for it.
I don't know about you, but when I surf the internet, it is usually not with a specific purpose. I sometimes just stumble across wikipedia, following links that look interesting. If I am just surfing around on the internet, I will follow an ad if it looks interesting to me. For example, if I were reading about stirling engines and I saw an ad on the page for a cheap stirling engine kit, I would probably follow it and be happy it was there.
ads are meant to either
a) Make you buy a product you do not need or down right should not buy or... b) Make you choose a brand of a product you do need under false assumptions or wrong reasons.
That sometimes you actually need to buy the product and that at least one brand is actually the best for you does not make them more honest, they are biased and should not be advising you which things to buy.
Are you saying that spending money is bad? I check woot most days just so I can find random fun things that are reasonably priced to buy. Ads are a form of information. It tells you that a company sells a product. You don't have to buy it. But when I decide to buy something I usually shop around to see who offers the best product at the best price. If I don't know about a company, it is hard to compare their prices. (And no, google does not always show you everyone who could be of interest to you when you search. Especially if you want to actually go to a shop and not just buy it online.)