What I'm wondering is, are they going to have some sort of compatibility testing done, to ensure that the app will actually run on the phone? Rovio's going to develop a lightweight version of Angry Birds for slower phones; will there be some way of automatically testing the phone to see if it's compatible, or will there just be a whole load of programs that you'll never know if you can run or not? If it's the later, I can't see this venture being very successful.
Sure, then all they need to do is find a friendly judge that will rubber-stamp these types of requests. I'm sure there are plenty of federal judges who have bought the **AA's propaganda enough to agree to shut down any website they're asked to in the name of protecting copyright.
Or just want to get some extra money for their district. I remember reading an article about how one court district in east Texas is making millions off of lawyers and lobbyists by being more amenable to copyright/patent litigation.
Now imagine [Comcast after having vertically integrated with NBC] are [throttling] ABC.com, Google, Yahoo, etc., etc. If they can get this practice federally labeled legal
Then they'd be smarter than the average antitrust lawyer.
As long as the Republicans have any members in the US Senate, let alone actual control any branch of government, you will never again see anything so pro-consumer like the Sherman Act being invoked.
Why [have an FTP over VOIP protocol]? FTP doesn't need low latency. It'll hardly be affected.
Because to the telcoms "high latency" means "disconnect whatever transfers we don't like/aren't paid enough for" or "impersonate both sides of the connection and send RST packets".
Bobcat might eventually; right now I think they're aiming at the ULV notebook and nettop segment with Ontario and Zacate, in the hope that the bump down to bulk 28 nm in the next year to year-and-a-half will make it suitable for netbooks and tablets.
Phones are probably not in the picture for AMD; as a late third competitor to ARM and Intel's Atom (which should be in phones by 2012-2013) the market just won't be there for them, unless AMD really pulls a miracle out of their hats and somehow makes Krishna on 28 nm bulk better than whatever Intel will be fabbing Atom on in 2012. But frankly that's just about impossible; Intel's strategy for Atom has been basically to outspend everyone on process tech, and they're doing quite well with it.
"Quite simply, it was a mistake. In 2006 an engineer working on an experimental WiFi project wrote a piece of code that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast WiFi data. A year later, when our mobile team started a project to collect basic WiFi network data like SSID information and MAC addresses using Google’s Street View cars, they included that code in their software—although the project leaders did not want, and had no intention of using, payload data. "
In other words, they did what every other software engineer does: they reused old code to get a job done. This time the code happened to have a bug in it, or rather an unintended consequence, that collected snippets of people's personal information as the vans drove by people's unencrypted wifi connections, which they've since publicly admitted and gone on to delete, or at least they would have deleted it except now they can't because all the lawyers have gotten involved and want to extract money/publicity to themselves by suing Google.
The whole thing is a giant tempest in a teapot. Even worse, it's a major distraction from real, more important, privacy issues.
..embracing color. Children's books and cookbooks? That's it? Really? What about textbooks? I can see significant increase in e-reader use for textbooks if they had color capability. Not every HS and college student is going to have the luxury of having a pad/slate device. Color provides an extra dimension of information without physical space, pretty useful IMO!
It's because the color is washed out and doesn't look good. You may as well just build an IPad knock-off and have vibrant colors instead. Color eInk just isn't ready for the consumer market yet; it will be, but not this year.
I agree, it is hyperbole to say that 4.7 percent unemployment means that all college graduates have the job that they want. At the same time, it's even more hyperbolic to say that the 50,000 or so people granted H-1B visas a year are responsible for 2,000,000 college graduates being out of work.
The parent seems to be under the impression that H-1Bs are putting highly educated people out of work, and that's simply not true: not only are college graduates not out of work, but three years ago they actually had too much work. So yeah, I'll accept that maybe this year H-1B visas aren't the greatest things, but three years ago--and likely three years from now--the program should be greatly expanded until we can get enough highly educated Americans to fill those jobs.
Feeling dumb....but 2% being lower than 5% is a good thing, no?
Well, yeah, nobody's denying that the Great Recession hasn't increased unemployment across the board, even among those with college degrees. And it's a bad thing when people are out of work.
The thing is, you can't have 100% employment, all the time. That means there is no growth in the workforce, that there is nobody looking for a job who doesn't already have one. The "natural" floor for unemployment is around 3-4%, which is what you get with a healthy mix of people entering and leaving the workforce. The point is that 2% unemployment, which is what we had three years ago, is far too low for any demographic, meaning that we had too many job openings for college graduates and not enough people who were qualified for them.
America's economy was literally starving for people with degrees three years ago; it was a lead weight preventing our economy from growing any further. It's not right now, but this recession is going to be over in time, and we'll be back to being constrained by the lack of educated workers. We can fix this with education, which is by far the best long-term plan, but in the short term we need to import labor, especially H-1B labor, and give those people a path to becoming American citizens.
It's pretty ironic that the "populist" tea party movement probably has a lot of people who would be well served by the kind of Progressive movement that existed 100 years ago. Instead, they're voting for more Corporatism.
It's the widespread adoption of socialist... sorry, 'progressive'... policies which has got us into this mess: imposing more of them is hardly going to fix it.
Which "Socialist" policies? Deregulation of the banking sector? Pushing liar loans onto poor people and betting against them with derivatives? Lowering the tax rates on the rich so much that Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary? Awarding no-bid contracts to private security firms so they can loot other countries and abuse their people? Lowering estate taxes on the wealthy so we can have a permanent wealthy aristocracy?
Face it: we're living in a Republican utopia, the world as they wanted it: the rich are getting richer (and secretly siphoning a small part of that wealth gain into anonymous shill organizations to re-elect Republicans under the astroturfing "Tea Party" umbrella), and the poor can't complain because they're all starving to death or being thrown in jail for being druggies/illegals/terrorists. This is exactly the world the Republicans have been trying to build for thirty years, and it's ignorant people ranting about "socialism" who are letting them.
I am not even going to entertain the idea that raising taxes is a smart thing to do, only a idiot want's to give more hard earned money to a wasteful organization like our government. The govt does not create jobs, it does not create wealth it only consumes other peoples hard earned money. When I am in a financial bind I quickly work to reduce my financial burden by making cuts to non essential items, why should the govt be any different?
"The govt does not create jobs, it does not create wealth it only consumes other peoples hard earned money." What an idiotic idea. Is this what our college graduates are producing? No wonder we're losing all our jobs overseas.
The US government's "wasteful spending" created the national highway system, the Internet, the space program (which started the basic science that would become the computer). The Great Depression would have been demonstrably shorter if the Republicans hadn't gotten debt-crazy and drastically cut government spending in 1930 and again in 1937.
Look, I know it's popular to blame the government for everything that's wrong in this country, but just because it's a popular idea doesn't mean it's in any way factually correct.
You lost me at "tax and spend". We should get past bumper-sticker assertions, especially when they're not even right. I guess "tax less but spend more" isn't as catchy, but it seems to work for the Republicans.
Fine. How about "borrow and spend"? Because that's what he's doing. Is that an improvement over "tax and spend"? The reality is he's doing both.
"He" who? George Bush? George H. W. Bush? Ronald Reagan? Each of these Presidents tripled, doubled, and quadrupled the national debt while in office, and each pretended to run on a platform of fiscal responsibility. The only one who hasn't in the past thirty years is Clinton and, to be fair, that really only happened because he got lucky with the economy.
Right now Obama is running up the debt because that's what you do in a recession. Now, will he turn around in two years or so and put the brakes on spending? Maybe he'll try, but I doubt the "fiscally responsible" Republicans will let him, unless the Tea Partiers break ranks and actually let taxes rise and spending fall like they were elected to.
The problem is it isn't just manufacturers looking for cheaper labor and then shipping their product right back to us. It's companies exporting to other countries who need a local presence.
That part's fine, though, because in return you have foreign companies building plants in America for a local presence here. Honda, Toyota, etc. all have manufacturing plants in the US, creating jobs for American workers.
The problem we're having these days is that companies are shipping jobs overseas to avoid taxes here. We need to change tax laws so companies can't dodge taxes simply by shipping the jobs elsewhere.
I think the strategy we're working on now is to lower tarrifs to nothing and wait for transportation costs to skyrocket.
There's a new push to have international cargo screened as thoroughly (and expensively) as humans, as a result of two lettterbombs from Lebanon. This'll make shipping to/from China and India horrifically more expensive, which'll be great for the insourcing crowd..
The H1-b fraud is what kills it for most Americans that stumble upon offshoring's negative qualities.
You don't go to India for US jobs, especially when you're millions of US jobs in the hole.
Yeah, you might think that, but you'd be completely wrong.
The unemployment rate for college graduates is 4.7 percent this year. That essentially means that, for college graduates, there is no recession: 5 percent unemployment is the national rate you see during boom years.
What's more, three years ago the unemployment rate for college graduates was two percent, which is far too low to be sustainable. In other words, the lack of college graduates--people with the qualifications to work the jobs this country was producing--was stifling growth in those areas.
The conclusion is clear: we need more highly educated college graduates in this country, and we need them three years ago. Long term that means education reform, which the President got done by putting it on a rider on the healthcare bill, but short term what it means is importing qualified workers from overseas, until we can legitimately produce them here. The idea that H-1B is robbing Americans of jobs is a myth: the data-driven facts say that we don't have enough highly educated Americans to do the jobs our economy is currently producing, and until we can legitimately make up the gap the H-1B visa program is a barely passable stopgap.
But just like with the iPad, we've got real innovation here that came out of a closed environment.
I don't see any innovation here. Kinect and iPad are both just evolutionary steps. None of the concepts of these devices are in any form new. To have companies with infinite resources make products out of ideas and concepts that have been researched and prototyped for decades by public institutions as well as the private sector is not innovation.
String enough evolutions together and you get a revolution. Like the Wiimote, which put Bluetooth-enabled accelerometers and infrared cameras into a small handheld device at a price that anyone can afford, this Kinect camera device has the potential to seriously change how the do-it-yourself community interacts with their computers. Think of all the new applications the open source community came up with for the Wiimote, many of which were featured here on/.; now imagine what they'll be able to come up with for this device.
I can't wait to see what comes around when someone builds usable open drivers for this baby. I don't own a 360, but the prospect of plugging this into my computer or HTPC and getting voice controls, facial recognition, and arbitrary movement recognition for use as input are giving me chills. I mean, just look at what you get for $150: two cameras, an IR projector, four microphones, all mounted on a motorized base with hardware/software that can generate a 3D image in approximately realtime. I can't wait to be able to sign my name in midair to use as my password.
The only they could do was keep it from getting even worse with the stimulus money.
That's absolute bullshit. They could have closed the bankrupt TBTF institutions and prosecuted every single responsible individual under RICO, releasing non-violent pot heads to make room in the prisons for all the white collar thugs.
Instead the rest of the economy is being bled dry to prop them up and cover for their theft.
In other words, while Rome is burning, you have a sudden hankering to fiddle.
Tea Party guys, I really am halfway with you. I like the beginnings of a lot of your speeches. But somehow it always goes psycho. I'll believe you guys are sincere when you tell the Republicans to fuck off. Until then, you're the enemy that you're preaching against.
The Tea party is just the Republican party's bait-and-switch tactics all over again. Look, they tried this after Nixon ruined the party too: they pretended to care about a whole host of things that real Americans care about (less government intrusion, more fiscal responsibility, economic stability, following the Constitution), but somehow when they get elected all those promises take a back seat to increased debt, lower taxes for the very rich, and big business-friendly/small business unfriendly laws.
I eagerly wait the exception, but I again have little faith that, this time, maybe the Republicans really mean to follow up on what they say they want.
It's a recession. The only times we concentrated on the deficit during a recession was under President Hoover (in other words, it was the reason we went into a Great Depression instead of a recession) and when the Republicans retook Congress in 1936-7 (which is why the Great Depression lasted so long).
You want to concentrate on deficits during a recession again? Be prepared to pay the consequences.
Given America's immense air power, you don't need two small, embattled armies surrounding Iran; you'd be far better off with one great big one inside Afghanistan, keeping the population totally pacified. If we had moved all 150,000 some-odd troops into just the one country, with all the money and resources we had spent on the two wars only on that one single war, we could have steamrolled Al-Qeuda, prevented Al-Queda in Iraq from gaining a toehold (Hussein didn't like them either), and maintained out moral righteousness in the Middle East. (Yes, I realize how it's a bit hypocritical to talk about moral righteousness when allowing a cruel dictator like Hussein to continue to rule in Iraq, but he's not even the worst dictator on the planet, and it's simply not possible to walk around and curb-stomp every evil dictator on the planet.)
Instead we sacrificed all that because Bush didn't think just one war would be enough to keep ahold of the House in 2002.
It is a mod that says the response is inappropriate, The GP's post is formulated as a personal attack, rather than a considered rebuttal of his parent's philosophy. It can be interpreted in other ways, but the post was obviously written to be offensive and combative rather than constructive.
Without government regulation, there is nothing stopping corporations and other powerful players from using extra-market forces to skew the market in their favor.
Yeah, that's why insurance companies fought so hard against "Health Care Reform". Oh wait, they didn't. They were some of Obama's biggest supporters. The government powerful enough to give you anything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.
Oh, that's such a cop-out answer. The health insurance companies signed onto Obama's health care reform for two reasons:
1) To stop the bleeding, as young people discontinued coverage in record numbers during the recession,
2) To prevent the Democrats from pushing universal health care, which was overwhelmingly popular with the base and even with the majority of Americans before the great Fox News smear campaign last year.
Slashdot Mirror
What I'm wondering is, are they going to have some sort of compatibility testing done, to ensure that the app will actually run on the phone? Rovio's going to develop a lightweight version of Angry Birds for slower phones; will there be some way of automatically testing the phone to see if it's compatible, or will there just be a whole load of programs that you'll never know if you can run or not? If it's the later, I can't see this venture being very successful.
Sure, then all they need to do is find a friendly judge that will rubber-stamp these types of requests. I'm sure there are plenty of federal judges who have bought the **AA's propaganda enough to agree to shut down any website they're asked to in the name of protecting copyright.
Or just want to get some extra money for their district. I remember reading an article about how one court district in east Texas is making millions off of lawyers and lobbyists by being more amenable to copyright/patent litigation.
Now imagine [Comcast after having vertically integrated with NBC] are [throttling] ABC.com, Google, Yahoo, etc., etc. If they can get this practice federally labeled legal
Then they'd be smarter than the average antitrust lawyer.
As long as the Republicans have any members in the US Senate, let alone actual control any branch of government, you will never again see anything so pro-consumer like the Sherman Act being invoked.
Why [have an FTP over VOIP protocol]? FTP doesn't need low latency. It'll hardly be affected.
Because to the telcoms "high latency" means "disconnect whatever transfers we don't like/aren't paid enough for" or "impersonate both sides of the connection and send RST packets".
Bobcat might eventually; right now I think they're aiming at the ULV notebook and nettop segment with Ontario and Zacate, in the hope that the bump down to bulk 28 nm in the next year to year-and-a-half will make it suitable for netbooks and tablets.
Phones are probably not in the picture for AMD; as a late third competitor to ARM and Intel's Atom (which should be in phones by 2012-2013) the market just won't be there for them, unless AMD really pulls a miracle out of their hats and somehow makes Krishna on 28 nm bulk better than whatever Intel will be fabbing Atom on in 2012. But frankly that's just about impossible; Intel's strategy for Atom has been basically to outspend everyone on process tech, and they're doing quite well with it.
They didn't do it on purpose.
"Quite simply, it was a mistake. In 2006 an engineer working on an experimental WiFi project wrote a piece of code that sampled all categories of publicly broadcast WiFi data. A year later, when our mobile team started a project to collect basic WiFi network data like SSID information and MAC addresses using Google’s Street View cars, they included that code in their software—although the project leaders did not want, and had no intention of using, payload data. "
In other words, they did what every other software engineer does: they reused old code to get a job done. This time the code happened to have a bug in it, or rather an unintended consequence, that collected snippets of people's personal information as the vans drove by people's unencrypted wifi connections, which they've since publicly admitted and gone on to delete, or at least they would have deleted it except now they can't because all the lawyers have gotten involved and want to extract money/publicity to themselves by suing Google.
The whole thing is a giant tempest in a teapot. Even worse, it's a major distraction from real, more important, privacy issues.
Maybe in the ARM vs Atom championships?
When it comes to Atom, AMD is making a bid with their upcoming Ontario lineup for netbook/nettop dominance.
..embracing color. Children's books and cookbooks? That's it? Really? What about textbooks? I can see significant increase in e-reader use for textbooks if they had color capability. Not every HS and college student is going to have the luxury of having a pad/slate device. Color provides an extra dimension of information without physical space, pretty useful IMO!
It's because the color is washed out and doesn't look good. You may as well just build an IPad knock-off and have vibrant colors instead. Color eInk just isn't ready for the consumer market yet; it will be, but not this year.
I agree, it is hyperbole to say that 4.7 percent unemployment means that all college graduates have the job that they want. At the same time, it's even more hyperbolic to say that the 50,000 or so people granted H-1B visas a year are responsible for 2,000,000 college graduates being out of work.
The parent seems to be under the impression that H-1Bs are putting highly educated people out of work, and that's simply not true: not only are college graduates not out of work, but three years ago they actually had too much work. So yeah, I'll accept that maybe this year H-1B visas aren't the greatest things, but three years ago--and likely three years from now--the program should be greatly expanded until we can get enough highly educated Americans to fill those jobs.
Feeling dumb....but 2% being lower than 5% is a good thing, no?
Well, yeah, nobody's denying that the Great Recession hasn't increased unemployment across the board, even among those with college degrees. And it's a bad thing when people are out of work.
The thing is, you can't have 100% employment, all the time. That means there is no growth in the workforce, that there is nobody looking for a job who doesn't already have one. The "natural" floor for unemployment is around 3-4%, which is what you get with a healthy mix of people entering and leaving the workforce. The point is that 2% unemployment, which is what we had three years ago, is far too low for any demographic, meaning that we had too many job openings for college graduates and not enough people who were qualified for them.
America's economy was literally starving for people with degrees three years ago; it was a lead weight preventing our economy from growing any further. It's not right now, but this recession is going to be over in time, and we'll be back to being constrained by the lack of educated workers. We can fix this with education, which is by far the best long-term plan, but in the short term we need to import labor, especially H-1B labor, and give those people a path to becoming American citizens.
It's pretty ironic that the "populist" tea party movement probably has a lot
of people who would be well served by the kind of Progressive movement that existed
100 years ago. Instead, they're voting for more Corporatism.
It's the widespread adoption of socialist... sorry, 'progressive'... policies which has got us into this mess: imposing more of them is hardly going to fix it.
Which "Socialist" policies? Deregulation of the banking sector? Pushing liar loans onto poor people and betting against them with derivatives? Lowering the tax rates on the rich so much that Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary? Awarding no-bid contracts to private security firms so they can loot other countries and abuse their people? Lowering estate taxes on the wealthy so we can have a permanent wealthy aristocracy?
Face it: we're living in a Republican utopia, the world as they wanted it: the rich are getting richer (and secretly siphoning a small part of that wealth gain into anonymous shill organizations to re-elect Republicans under the astroturfing "Tea Party" umbrella), and the poor can't complain because they're all starving to death or being thrown in jail for being druggies/illegals/terrorists. This is exactly the world the Republicans have been trying to build for thirty years, and it's ignorant people ranting about "socialism" who are letting them.
I am not even going to entertain the idea that raising taxes is a smart thing to do, only a idiot want's to give more hard earned money to a wasteful organization like our government. The govt does not create jobs, it does not create wealth it only consumes other peoples hard earned money. When I am in a financial bind I quickly work to reduce my financial burden by making cuts to non essential items, why should the govt be any different?
"The govt does not create jobs, it does not create wealth it only consumes other peoples hard earned money." What an idiotic idea. Is this what our college graduates are producing? No wonder we're losing all our jobs overseas.
The US government's "wasteful spending" created the national highway system, the Internet, the space program (which started the basic science that would become the computer). The Great Depression would have been demonstrably shorter if the Republicans hadn't gotten debt-crazy and drastically cut government spending in 1930 and again in 1937.
Look, I know it's popular to blame the government for everything that's wrong in this country, but just because it's a popular idea doesn't mean it's in any way factually correct.
You lost me at "tax and spend". We should get past bumper-sticker assertions, especially when they're not even right. I guess "tax less but spend more" isn't as catchy, but it seems to work for the Republicans.
Fine. How about "borrow and spend"? Because that's what he's doing. Is that an improvement over "tax and spend"? The reality is he's doing both.
"He" who? George Bush? George H. W. Bush? Ronald Reagan? Each of these Presidents tripled, doubled, and quadrupled the national debt while in office, and each pretended to run on a platform of fiscal responsibility. The only one who hasn't in the past thirty years is Clinton and, to be fair, that really only happened because he got lucky with the economy.
Right now Obama is running up the debt because that's what you do in a recession. Now, will he turn around in two years or so and put the brakes on spending? Maybe he'll try, but I doubt the "fiscally responsible" Republicans will let him, unless the Tea Partiers break ranks and actually let taxes rise and spending fall like they were elected to.
The problem is it isn't just manufacturers looking for cheaper labor and then shipping their product right back to us. It's companies exporting to other countries who need a local presence.
That part's fine, though, because in return you have foreign companies building plants in America for a local presence here. Honda, Toyota, etc. all have manufacturing plants in the US, creating jobs for American workers.
The problem we're having these days is that companies are shipping jobs overseas to avoid taxes here. We need to change tax laws so companies can't dodge taxes simply by shipping the jobs elsewhere.
I think the strategy we're working on now is to lower tarrifs to nothing and wait for transportation costs to skyrocket.
There's a new push to have international cargo screened as thoroughly (and expensively) as humans, as a result of two lettterbombs from Lebanon. This'll make shipping to/from China and India horrifically more expensive, which'll be great for the insourcing crowd..
The H1-b fraud is what kills it for most Americans that stumble upon offshoring's negative qualities.
You don't go to India for US jobs, especially when you're millions of US jobs in the hole.
Yeah, you might think that, but you'd be completely wrong.
The unemployment rate for college graduates is 4.7 percent this year. That essentially means that, for college graduates, there is no recession: 5 percent unemployment is the national rate you see during boom years.
What's more, three years ago the unemployment rate for college graduates was two percent, which is far too low to be sustainable. In other words, the lack of college graduates--people with the qualifications to work the jobs this country was producing--was stifling growth in those areas.
The conclusion is clear: we need more highly educated college graduates in this country, and we need them three years ago. Long term that means education reform, which the President got done by putting it on a rider on the healthcare bill, but short term what it means is importing qualified workers from overseas, until we can legitimately produce them here. The idea that H-1B is robbing Americans of jobs is a myth: the data-driven facts say that we don't have enough highly educated Americans to do the jobs our economy is currently producing, and until we can legitimately make up the gap the H-1B visa program is a barely passable stopgap.
I don't see any innovation here. Kinect and iPad are both just evolutionary steps. None of the concepts of these devices are in any form new. To have companies with infinite resources make products out of ideas and concepts that have been researched and prototyped for decades by public institutions as well as the private sector is not innovation.
String enough evolutions together and you get a revolution. Like the Wiimote, which put Bluetooth-enabled accelerometers and infrared cameras into a small handheld device at a price that anyone can afford, this Kinect camera device has the potential to seriously change how the do-it-yourself community interacts with their computers. Think of all the new applications the open source community came up with for the Wiimote, many of which were featured here on /.; now imagine what they'll be able to come up with for this device.
I can't wait to see what comes around when someone builds usable open drivers for this baby. I don't own a 360, but the prospect of plugging this into my computer or HTPC and getting voice controls, facial recognition, and arbitrary movement recognition for use as input are giving me chills. I mean, just look at what you get for $150: two cameras, an IR projector, four microphones, all mounted on a motorized base with hardware/software that can generate a 3D image in approximately realtime. I can't wait to be able to sign my name in midair to use as my password.
"Computer, open Firefox; website: slashdot.org."
That's absolute bullshit. They could have closed the bankrupt TBTF institutions and prosecuted every single responsible individual under RICO, releasing non-violent pot heads to make room in the prisons for all the white collar thugs.
Instead the rest of the economy is being bled dry to prop them up and cover for their theft.
In other words, while Rome is burning, you have a sudden hankering to fiddle.
The Tea party is just the Republican party's bait-and-switch tactics all over again. Look, they tried this after Nixon ruined the party too: they pretended to care about a whole host of things that real Americans care about (less government intrusion, more fiscal responsibility, economic stability, following the Constitution), but somehow when they get elected all those promises take a back seat to increased debt, lower taxes for the very rich, and big business-friendly/small business unfriendly laws.
I eagerly wait the exception, but I again have little faith that, this time, maybe the Republicans really mean to follow up on what they say they want.
It's a recession. The only times we concentrated on the deficit during a recession was under President Hoover (in other words, it was the reason we went into a Great Depression instead of a recession) and when the Republicans retook Congress in 1936-7 (which is why the Great Depression lasted so long).
You want to concentrate on deficits during a recession again? Be prepared to pay the consequences.
Given America's immense air power, you don't need two small, embattled armies surrounding Iran; you'd be far better off with one great big one inside Afghanistan, keeping the population totally pacified. If we had moved all 150,000 some-odd troops into just the one country, with all the money and resources we had spent on the two wars only on that one single war, we could have steamrolled Al-Qeuda, prevented Al-Queda in Iraq from gaining a toehold (Hussein didn't like them either), and maintained out moral righteousness in the Middle East. (Yes, I realize how it's a bit hypocritical to talk about moral righteousness when allowing a cruel dictator like Hussein to continue to rule in Iraq, but he's not even the worst dictator on the planet, and it's simply not possible to walk around and curb-stomp every evil dictator on the planet.)
Instead we sacrificed all that because Bush didn't think just one war would be enough to keep ahold of the House in 2002.
"Troll" is not a disagree mod.
It is a mod that says the response is inappropriate, The GP's post is formulated as a personal attack, rather than a considered rebuttal of his parent's philosophy. It can be interpreted in other ways, but the post was obviously written to be offensive and combative rather than constructive.
Oh please. Do you really think Gore would have invaded Iraq just because his poll numbers dipped for a few months before a midterm election?
Without government regulation, there is nothing stopping corporations and other powerful players from using extra-market forces to skew the market in their favor.
Yeah, that's why insurance companies fought so hard against "Health Care Reform". Oh wait, they didn't. They were some of Obama's biggest supporters. The government powerful enough to give you anything you want is also powerful enough to take away everything you have.
Oh, that's such a cop-out answer. The health insurance companies signed onto Obama's health care reform for two reasons:
1) To stop the bleeding, as young people discontinued coverage in record numbers during the recession,
2) To prevent the Democrats from pushing universal health care, which was overwhelmingly popular with the base and even with the majority of Americans before the great Fox News smear campaign last year.
Can we please go back to car analogies?