Face it, businesses do not promote something unless they will make money from it. The stated purpose of the telcos is to charge services of higher value more money. This increases their revenues while providing nothing more of value to the customer. "Ahh" you say, "but they need to provide better service to enable these high value services to work well, and they need more money to invest in the infrastructure!" Well guess what, higher bandwidth in "dumb" pipes costs less to implement than "smart pipes". So the telcos' scheme not only increases revenue, it also increases cost. Both will be born by all of us. A neutral Net is the most economical way to run the Internet that is known at this time. It is important for commerce just neutral phone lines and roadways are. Abandoning Net neutrally will increase the friction of Net commerce as economists would say.
And for the "free" market idealogues, capital intensive infrastructure does poorly when run like a competitive market. Who is going to run two lines down your street? That just doubled the cost of the service to provide a duopoly. Generally the guy with the infrastructure there first wins, the cost of entering an established market is too high for competitors to enter. So in a "free" market, these services naturally gravitate to a monopoly.
Flat out wrong. Don't forget that Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden with a cruise missile.
Also, and this is well documented, the Clinton administration told Bush that Bin Laden was the most serious threat to the US at the time. http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,6 12309,00.html It was Bush who ignored Bin Laden until September 11. Bush was and has always been too preoccupied with Iraq.
Clinton did not do a good enough job here, but Bush can not take his eye off of Iraq, even for more pressing matters.
FWIW I majored in hardware, analog and digital (this is harder to do now). I also picked up as much software as I could.
The result, and I have seen this with many people, is that you can get a job in either hardware or software. I have had jobs in both fields.
Much hardware is now designed with software using HDLs (Hardware Description Languages), and software is embedded in most hardware now. So you do it both ways anyway with a hardware degree.
You can get a much broader view of systems with a hardware degree.
What you're saying is that the public is too stupid to find out the best candidate to vote for and vote for him or her; that the public needs to have billions of dollars spent shoving campaign ads in their faces.
Well, no. Intelligence of the public doesn't matter if they never hear about all of the candidates.
And no, they don't need to have billions of dollars spent shoving campaign ads in their faces in order to decide whom to vote for. The campaign adds are distractions that are designed to prevent intelligent decisions.
It would also trample all over the freedom of speech. I'm sure it sucks from your point of view, but the freedom of speech isn't limited only to individuals. It extends to groups as well.
A tidal wave of well funded speech will drown out the ripples of individual and not so well funded speech. Money is not speech. Radio, TV, and newspapers are not speech, access to these outlets is. Monopolies on speech are dangerous, why do you think that non-democratic governments have them?
I believe in one person, one vote, one dollar (so to speak). Corporations aren't supposed to vote. Don't let corporations fund political parties.
I am of the opinion that free enterprise can always provide a service cheper than a government bureaucracy.
B.S. Especially for basic infrastructure stuff. I have lived in or seen community power and broadband, it is always cheaper.
Government providing services is as much a market response as any other method. Non-government groups of people, corporations included, are just as efficient or inefficient, honest or corrupt, etc.
Living and other survival costs for the elderly will be paid from the economy at the time. Big picture wise, it does not matter if the money comes from tax collections, or from returns on investments. It is still a tax on the economy to support people who are not working. No ideology can change that. The trick is to use the best tool for the job. The current Social Security system appears to have the least cost to the economy in many ways. It is very efficient, scalable, keeps the elderly healthier and off the streets, and does not require hoards of people guessing what investments make with the money.
and with the process of developing medicines, therapies, and diagnostics in general, is that only patentable (or more accurately 'monopolizable') methods are sought, developed, and promoted. Natural or inexpensive compounds and methods are not investigated, are not promoted, or are suppressed. There is no happy medium here. An 'open source' method of investigating medical treatments and diagnostics without patents would make available a whole range of more economical treatments and therapies. Once again, there has to be a happy medium, because you wouldn't want to pull the rug out from under expensive methods that do have a benefit. Until this happens, we are stuck with a system that guarantees that costs will increase and restricts benefits to those who are in the money chain.
The regulatory authorities are very schizophrenic (no pun intended)
about mercury. We are warned not to eat too much fish and mercury is
being eliminated from many products, but dental fillings are not a
problem. Do the math. You can get as much mercury from a mouth full
of fillings (10 - 20 micro-grams per day) as you can from eating fish.
It is in a different form, but it is still toxic nonetheless.
And dentists do have a higher incidence of depression and other
symptoms of mercury poisoning than the general population.
This is a tough problem to prove because the symptoms are so
variable and a large proportion of the population has a natural
ability to physically deal with mercury ingestion.
Blood and urine tests are often not reliable indicators of total body burden of a substance. Blood or urine levels can be low while significant (possibly toxic) amounts may be stored in various organs and visa versa.
Also, due to health and genes, different people can tolerate vastly different amounts of a toxic substance before showing symptoms or being disadvantaged.
Remember that the risks of cigarette smoking and factors contributing to heart disease have been researched for decades and are still not fully understood. To just as accurately assess the risks of all of these chemicals, or even just the chemicals that should be assessed is a massive undertaking that our society is not willing to take on. Pronouncements of levels of safety and risk are just guesses.
The bottom line is, we are all guinea pigs. Some of us will get sick and die early from some pollutants, and the rest of us won't notice.
Slashdot Mirror
Face it, businesses do not promote something unless they will make money from it. The stated purpose of the telcos is to charge services of higher value more money. This increases their revenues while providing nothing more of value to the customer. "Ahh" you say, "but they need to provide better service to enable these high value services to work well, and they need more money to invest in the infrastructure!" Well guess what, higher bandwidth in "dumb" pipes costs less to implement than "smart pipes". So the telcos' scheme not only increases revenue, it also increases cost. Both will be born by all of us. A neutral Net is the most economical way to run the Internet that is known at this time. It is important for commerce just neutral phone lines and roadways are. Abandoning Net neutrally will increase the friction of Net commerce as economists would say.
And for the "free" market idealogues, capital intensive infrastructure does poorly when run like a competitive market. Who is going to run two lines down your street? That just doubled the cost of the service to provide a duopoly. Generally the guy with the infrastructure there first wins, the cost of entering an established market is too high for competitors to enter. So in a "free" market, these services naturally gravitate to a monopoly.
Apparently he had second thoughts about this.
Take this for what it's worth.
Set the rules, anyone who violates them gets fired (maybe three strikes or something for minor things).
Or, you fix your own mess. IT will get to it when they have time.
I've been employed in different companies where one or the other method was practiced, they both work.
Flat out wrong. Don't forget that Clinton tried to kill Bin Laden with a cruise missile.
Also, and this is well documented, the Clinton administration told Bush that Bin Laden was the most serious threat to the US at the time. http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,6 12309,00.html It was Bush who ignored Bin Laden until September 11. Bush was and has always been too preoccupied with Iraq.
Clinton did not do a good enough job here, but Bush can not take his eye off of Iraq, even for more pressing matters.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/hila ry-rosen/the-supreme-wisdom-of-not_3221.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/featuredpost s.html#a003259
Probably more accurate, and definitely more entertaining, is The "Inquirer" at http://www.theinquirer.net/.
Former Register employees.
FWIW I majored in hardware, analog and digital (this is harder to do now). I also picked up as much software as I could.
The result, and I have seen this with many people, is that you can get a job in either hardware or software. I have had jobs in both fields.
Much hardware is now designed with software using HDLs (Hardware Description Languages), and software is embedded in most hardware now. So you do it both ways anyway with a hardware degree.
You can get a much broader view of systems with a hardware degree.
Typical CRT glass contains 23% lead by weight to shield the viewer from X-Rays.
Well, no. Intelligence of the public doesn't matter if they never hear about all of the candidates.
And no, they don't need to have billions of dollars spent shoving campaign ads in their faces in order to decide whom to vote for. The campaign adds are distractions that are designed to prevent intelligent decisions.
A tidal wave of well funded speech will drown out the ripples of individual and not so well funded speech. Money is not speech. Radio, TV, and newspapers are not speech, access to these outlets is. Monopolies on speech are dangerous, why do you think that non-democratic governments have them?
I believe in one person, one vote, one dollar (so to speak). Corporations aren't supposed to vote. Don't let corporations fund political parties.
B.S. Especially for basic infrastructure stuff. I have lived in or seen community power and broadband, it is always cheaper.
Government providing services is as much a market response as any other method. Non-government groups of people, corporations included, are just as efficient or inefficient, honest or corrupt, etc.
Living and other survival costs for the elderly will be paid from the economy at the time. Big picture wise, it does not matter if the money comes from tax collections, or from returns on investments. It is still a tax on the economy to support people who are not working. No ideology can change that. The trick is to use the best tool for the job. The current Social Security system appears to have the least cost to the economy in many ways. It is very efficient, scalable, keeps the elderly healthier and off the streets, and does not require hoards of people guessing what investments make with the money.
Did you sue them for the false accusation?
and with the process of developing medicines, therapies, and diagnostics in general, is that only patentable (or more accurately 'monopolizable') methods are sought, developed, and promoted. Natural or inexpensive compounds and methods are not investigated, are not promoted, or are suppressed. There is no happy medium here. An 'open source' method of investigating medical treatments and diagnostics without patents would make available a whole range of more economical treatments and therapies. Once again, there has to be a happy medium, because you wouldn't want to pull the rug out from under expensive methods that do have a benefit. Until this happens, we are stuck with a system that guarantees that costs will increase and restricts benefits to those who are in the money chain.
A friend of mine always said "When you go too far to the left or the right, you end up in the back". Same place, same difference.
He saw the political spectrum as a circle.
It makes sense to me.
Toxic Exposure Study Trust Foundation
Consumers for Dental Choice
IAOMT
Mercury consumption from Fish Calculator
Amalgam-Related Illness FAQ
There are many other sites.
The regulatory authorities are very schizophrenic (no pun intended) about mercury. We are warned not to eat too much fish and mercury is being eliminated from many products, but dental fillings are not a problem. Do the math. You can get as much mercury from a mouth full of fillings (10 - 20 micro-grams per day) as you can from eating fish. It is in a different form, but it is still toxic nonetheless.
And dentists do have a higher incidence of depression and other symptoms of mercury poisoning than the general population.
This is a tough problem to prove because the symptoms are so variable and a large proportion of the population has a natural ability to physically deal with mercury ingestion.
Blood and urine tests are often not reliable indicators of total body burden of a substance. Blood or urine levels can be low while significant (possibly toxic) amounts may be stored in various organs and visa versa.
Also, due to health and genes, different people can tolerate vastly different amounts of a toxic substance before showing symptoms or being disadvantaged.
Remember that the risks of cigarette smoking and factors contributing to heart disease have been researched for decades and are still not fully understood. To just as accurately assess the risks of all of these chemicals, or even just the chemicals that should be assessed is a massive undertaking that our society is not willing to take on. Pronouncements of levels of safety and risk are just guesses.
The bottom line is, we are all guinea pigs. Some of us will get sick and die early from some pollutants, and the rest of us won't notice.