At the heart of the Western liberal mindset are two basic assumptions: everyone has essentially the same beliefs as us, and it's all right to ignore all evidence to the contrary. This derives from an over optimistic reading of history combined with the propensity of modern theology to interpret all the difficult bits of the bible away.
Such people therefore assume that everyone else does the same to their scriptures and end up with core beliefs just like them. When they find they don't, they are forced to conclude that these must be a small minority - because the alternative is to challenge their deeply held beliefs. And lo - they rate your contribution as a troll. Funny that...
Now it can well be argued that conservatives are TOO pessimistic - but at least we don't get unpleasantly surprised...
In the early years of the expansion of the Islamic Empire, during the last years of its prophet's life, the empire used the technique of hit and run brigandage on the surrounding territories as a way to soften them up for subsequent invasion. The reality is that Islam can reasonably be argued to be a moral legitimation for an expansionist empire; that the Arabs got to FRANCE before being turned back is not usually known.
Of course there are some Muslims who are embarrassed by this history, and merely endorse Islam because that's what they grew up in. The problem is whether we should believe what they say, or realising that Islam regards itself at war with all outsiders, justifying deceiving them, treat all denials with great scepticism. And if so, do we argue that Islam is a criminal organisation? If not, why not?
One of the problems with economics is that it gets blamed when things go wrong - but it doesn't get the credit for the good things that are right. It's achievements in terms of steady generally economic growth since 1945 which is vastly better than the horrible cycles of boom and bust that markets the 150 years before that are forgotten when we hit what was a relatively mild bump in the road. Noone with small deposits lost their money in banks for example - a concept totally new to the world since economics became influential. Is it perfect? Of course not. But unlike medicine - which sometimes suffers the same problem as with anti-vaccers - its achievements are less immediately obvious.
The argument for this is that it enables relative prices to shift without running into the sticky price problem; workers are very unwilling to accept lower wages, but if inflation is 2% - which is the consensus target of our Central Banks overlords - firms in declining industries are less likely to have to get into a fight with their employees as their wages are slowly nibbled away.
A more complex issue is the degree to which some inflation means that the central banks have some room to crash interest rates down to when a crisis strikes. The current quantitative easing comedy is caused by the fact that it is very hard to set interest rates at less than 0%. So if interest rates are 2.5% - the historic average - plus 2% inflation - that gives 4.5% worth to cut when a crisis strikes. Our present crisis is being stretched out because it's been so hard to get central banks - especially the Germans - to accept the need for QE.
Try to do it covertly, get the qualification you are after and a new job, and then sue the individual and the institution on the basis of the evidence you've got. Should pay off the debts nicely. Ultimately hitting institutions in the wallet is the way that will make a real difference, and the technology now exists to ensure that decent evidence can be obtained.
Don't know why it's been modded down to zero. We all know the Scandi stereotypes; axe wielding alcoholic fuelled sea borne robbers - but you have the advantage that such events never happen these days... though the alcohol problems seem to be endemic.
The population there is overwhelmingly male, so it's obvious there is a serious gender bias in the criminal justice system. Release enough male prisoners until there's equality of numbers...
It's obvious that the criminal justice system is prejudiced against them. Therefore enough men should be released from the prisons until equality is achieved!
It's been interesting over the years watching the industry trying to establish qualifications and standards, and seeing them look very silly because technology advances overtake the rules that used to provide the basis for those rules. For example once upon a time there were very separate categories of programmers and systems designers. This was because programming screens and reports took a LONG time - so the designer drew pictures of what the screen or report should look like and left the programmer to produce them over the next month. These days that sort of thing takes minutes, so there's no point in separating the roles. Of course this does mean that unsociable geeks get to be expected to interact with clients - which may not be the best experience for either side; be nice to your uber-geek - they get you out of holes...
Yes, there are a few programmers who teach themselves. But for the most part I suspect it's like most skills - we develop as we go along, absorb good and bad habits. Enabling a few more to engage with being a programmer to the point where it's conceivable must be a good thing. We need 'ordinary' programmers, as well as the hobbyists who taught themselves and are self starters.
He's right that we need rounded people as programmers - but we are more likely to get them if the possibility of being a programmer is accessible to a wider range of people than at present. That's the virtue of this approach; it opens the prospect of programming as a career to a wider range beyond us geeks and nerds!
On the other hand it may make us unemployable as ordinary people nick our jobs...
At the time it was being proposed, there was a lot of doubt about its value, and it hasn't done much of value except look pretty and produce some fun pictures. The research would almost certainly have been done FAR cheaper on unattended satellites. The main motivation was political.
Of course if the Chinese threaten to launch one on their own, then Congress will suddenly find the money - but probably by raiding lots of other Science budgets. This probably would not be a good thing...
Simple solution; require VW to take ALL the cars in and repay the owners the full cost they paid for it. This arises because they can't fulfil the deal they were offering... That will bankrupt VW? Well - they're not American so who cares?
Read the Economist article linked in the original post before showing off your ignorance. The income is not created from nowhere, it's paid for by taxes, so prices won't have to happen to soak up the new money etc etc.
And it's better to keep the proles stupid, because otherwise they might work out how to challenge the elite. So whilst good schools in good areas may be useful, it's better not to bother too hard. And of course it's cheaper to import PhDs from India than train them ourselves...
However the use of it has burgeoned since WWII, and it's become more clearly used as a means for one state to put pressure on another whilst retaining plausible deniability. The pattern of the past didn't make that so attractive because if the neighbouring state was sponsoring a covert war against you, you'd just attack them. These days that option is no longer open in most circumstances; the aftermath of 9/11 being a relatively unique counterexample.
The actual productivity of the French per hour worked is significantly higher than America - they just work less hours. Maybe it's because Facebook is an American product, so it's boycotted in France;) (Don't bother to tell me it's not boycotted!)
Korea - clearly a draw. South Korea is a highly successful state in its own right
You left out Greece and Italy in the 1940s / 1950s, which were successfully kept in the US column till the end of the cold war.
Iran in the 1950s was subverted for the US cause - and kept under control until Khomeni came along
You've left out Grenada in the 1980s - Reagan's successful reversal of a Soviet backed coup.
Yugoslavia is mostly a success - and the Kosovo exercise of beating Serbia by air power is a textbook success. Of the 8 republics or bits, Slovenia and Croatia are stable and in the European Union. The rest are largely stable.
Libya's the fault of the Europeans; they forced the intervention - with less than stellar enthusiasm from the US. On the whole the Europeans were right - the alternative would have been a massacre. Instead we've got a divided country and a low level civil war.
So probably the fairest score since the founding of the CIA is of the order of 4-4. Not as good a record - but against far more problematic opponents. Up till WWII simple force was sufficient to win the day - now the joys of asymmetric warfare make it FAR harder. but that's leaving out the overall defeat of the USSR in the cold war; its final defeat released 10 countries from tyranny. So let's go for 14-4 shall we?
You claim ' the U.S. corporate tax rate doesn't affect 94% of American businesses because they're considered pass through entities'. So? The point is that it's relatively small number LARGE companies that hit by the corporate tax - which is nothing to do with the fact that vast number of poxy little companies aren't. You regard my comment as offensive? Your's is a function of ignorance or a failure to read the statistics meaningfully.
It is highly likely that the politicians who might vote for this sort of bill will have long since been nobbled; tracking their indiscretions by this means will have been... helpful.
Captain, mate, etc. In a closed environment like a ship, there has to be someone in charge. So it's got nothing to do with being military per se - it falls out of being a ship.
Slashdot Mirror
At the heart of the Western liberal mindset are two basic assumptions: everyone has essentially the same beliefs as us, and it's all right to ignore all evidence to the contrary. This derives from an over optimistic reading of history combined with the propensity of modern theology to interpret all the difficult bits of the bible away.
Such people therefore assume that everyone else does the same to their scriptures and end up with core beliefs just like them. When they find they don't, they are forced to conclude that these must be a small minority - because the alternative is to challenge their deeply held beliefs. And lo - they rate your contribution as a troll. Funny that...
Now it can well be argued that conservatives are TOO pessimistic - but at least we don't get unpleasantly surprised...
In the early years of the expansion of the Islamic Empire, during the last years of its prophet's life, the empire used the technique of hit and run brigandage on the surrounding territories as a way to soften them up for subsequent invasion. The reality is that Islam can reasonably be argued to be a moral legitimation for an expansionist empire; that the Arabs got to FRANCE before being turned back is not usually known.
Of course there are some Muslims who are embarrassed by this history, and merely endorse Islam because that's what they grew up in. The problem is whether we should believe what they say, or realising that Islam regards itself at war with all outsiders, justifying deceiving them, treat all denials with great scepticism. And if so, do we argue that Islam is a criminal organisation? If not, why not?
One of the problems with economics is that it gets blamed when things go wrong - but it doesn't get the credit for the good things that are right. It's achievements in terms of steady generally economic growth since 1945 which is vastly better than the horrible cycles of boom and bust that markets the 150 years before that are forgotten when we hit what was a relatively mild bump in the road. Noone with small deposits lost their money in banks for example - a concept totally new to the world since economics became influential. Is it perfect? Of course not. But unlike medicine - which sometimes suffers the same problem as with anti-vaccers - its achievements are less immediately obvious.
The argument for this is that it enables relative prices to shift without running into the sticky price problem; workers are very unwilling to accept lower wages, but if inflation is 2% - which is the consensus target of our Central Banks overlords - firms in declining industries are less likely to have to get into a fight with their employees as their wages are slowly nibbled away.
A more complex issue is the degree to which some inflation means that the central banks have some room to crash interest rates down to when a crisis strikes. The current quantitative easing comedy is caused by the fact that it is very hard to set interest rates at less than 0%. So if interest rates are 2.5% - the historic average - plus 2% inflation - that gives 4.5% worth to cut when a crisis strikes. Our present crisis is being stretched out because it's been so hard to get central banks - especially the Germans - to accept the need for QE.
Certainly English law accepts covert recordings as valid evidence.
Try to do it covertly, get the qualification you are after and a new job, and then sue the individual and the institution on the basis of the evidence you've got. Should pay off the debts nicely. Ultimately hitting institutions in the wallet is the way that will make a real difference, and the technology now exists to ensure that decent evidence can be obtained.
Don't know why it's been modded down to zero. We all know the Scandi stereotypes; axe wielding alcoholic fuelled sea borne robbers - but you have the advantage that such events never happen these days... though the alcohol problems seem to be endemic.
The population there is overwhelmingly male, so it's obvious there is a serious gender bias in the criminal justice system. Release enough male prisoners until there's equality of numbers...
It's obvious that the criminal justice system is prejudiced against them. Therefore enough men should be released from the prisons until equality is achieved!
One can only hope that the managers are now employed in posts more suitable to their level of skill, like road sweeping.
It's been interesting over the years watching the industry trying to establish qualifications and standards, and seeing them look very silly because technology advances overtake the rules that used to provide the basis for those rules. For example once upon a time there were very separate categories of programmers and systems designers. This was because programming screens and reports took a LONG time - so the designer drew pictures of what the screen or report should look like and left the programmer to produce them over the next month. These days that sort of thing takes minutes, so there's no point in separating the roles. Of course this does mean that unsociable geeks get to be expected to interact with clients - which may not be the best experience for either side; be nice to your uber-geek - they get you out of holes...
On the basis that you had holiday owing? That sort of organisation deserves to be given a VERY hard time by its slaves when they can get to revolt.
Yes, there are a few programmers who teach themselves. But for the most part I suspect it's like most skills - we develop as we go along, absorb good and bad habits. Enabling a few more to engage with being a programmer to the point where it's conceivable must be a good thing. We need 'ordinary' programmers, as well as the hobbyists who taught themselves and are self starters.
He's right that we need rounded people as programmers - but we are more likely to get them if the possibility of being a programmer is accessible to a wider range of people than at present. That's the virtue of this approach; it opens the prospect of programming as a career to a wider range beyond us geeks and nerds!
On the other hand it may make us unemployable as ordinary people nick our jobs...
At the time it was being proposed, there was a lot of doubt about its value, and it hasn't done much of value except look pretty and produce some fun pictures. The research would almost certainly have been done FAR cheaper on unattended satellites. The main motivation was political.
Of course if the Chinese threaten to launch one on their own, then Congress will suddenly find the money - but probably by raiding lots of other Science budgets. This probably would not be a good thing...
Simple solution; require VW to take ALL the cars in and repay the owners the full cost they paid for it. This arises because they can't fulfil the deal they were offering... That will bankrupt VW? Well - they're not American so who cares?
Read the Economist article linked in the original post before showing off your ignorance. The income is not created from nowhere, it's paid for by taxes, so prices won't have to happen to soak up the new money etc etc.
And it's better to keep the proles stupid, because otherwise they might work out how to challenge the elite. So whilst good schools in good areas may be useful, it's better not to bother too hard. And of course it's cheaper to import PhDs from India than train them ourselves...
However the use of it has burgeoned since WWII, and it's become more clearly used as a means for one state to put pressure on another whilst retaining plausible deniability. The pattern of the past didn't make that so attractive because if the neighbouring state was sponsoring a covert war against you, you'd just attack them. These days that option is no longer open in most circumstances; the aftermath of 9/11 being a relatively unique counterexample.
The actual productivity of the French per hour worked is significantly higher than America - they just work less hours. Maybe it's because Facebook is an American product, so it's boycotted in France ;) (Don't bother to tell me it's not boycotted!)
Korea - clearly a draw. South Korea is a highly successful state in its own right
You left out Greece and Italy in the 1940s / 1950s, which were successfully kept in the US column till the end of the cold war.
Iran in the 1950s was subverted for the US cause - and kept under control until Khomeni came along
You've left out Grenada in the 1980s - Reagan's successful reversal of a Soviet backed coup.
Yugoslavia is mostly a success - and the Kosovo exercise of beating Serbia by air power is a textbook success. Of the 8 republics or bits, Slovenia and Croatia are stable and in the European Union. The rest are largely stable.
Libya's the fault of the Europeans; they forced the intervention - with less than stellar enthusiasm from the US. On the whole the Europeans were right - the alternative would have been a massacre. Instead we've got a divided country and a low level civil war.
So probably the fairest score since the founding of the CIA is of the order of 4-4. Not as good a record - but against far more problematic opponents. Up till WWII simple force was sufficient to win the day - now the joys of asymmetric warfare make it FAR harder. but that's leaving out the overall defeat of the USSR in the cold war; its final defeat released 10 countries from tyranny. So let's go for 14-4 shall we?
I've no suggestions unfortunately - but I think it's good to commend imaginative uses of this forum
You claim ' the U.S. corporate tax rate doesn't affect 94% of American businesses because they're considered pass through entities'. So? The point is that it's relatively small number LARGE companies that hit by the corporate tax - which is nothing to do with the fact that vast number of poxy little companies aren't. You regard my comment as offensive? Your's is a function of ignorance or a failure to read the statistics meaningfully.
It is highly likely that the politicians who might vote for this sort of bill will have long since been nobbled; tracking their indiscretions by this means will have been... helpful.
Captain, mate, etc. In a closed environment like a ship, there has to be someone in charge. So it's got nothing to do with being military per se - it falls out of being a ship.