I'd say that pretty much all manned spaceflight from NASA is dead. I'd be very, very surprised if they get anything completed at all, considering their mandate seems to change every time you turn around.
I remember reading that IBM was planning to put Cell in mainframes and other high-end servers several years ago, supposedly to accrue the same benefits. I don't really know whether or not that was ever followed through with, I haven't kept track of the story.
This is not exactly a surprise. Oracle has a deep and abiding interest in Oracle's bottom line. How does Open Solaris contribute to that? It doesn't, hence Oracle losing interest fast.
As painful as it may be to acknowledge, this is actually a rational approach. Look no further than the fact that Oracle ended up eating Sun, not the other way around. I like Free Stuff as much as the next guy, but that doesn't change the fact that if you're in business to make money, you'd damn well better focus on things that make you money.
Maybe we didn't. What were the 20th century equivalents of Mozart and Rembrandt? The efforts of modern composers and artists are anemic by comparison. It's unfortunate we don't have enough data to consider the effect over the last several centuries, rather than just the last few decades.
Well, I don't really think the article tells us enough to come to any conclusions. Obviously, the population of America in 2010 is very different from the population in 1960. I'd like to see the demographics amplified. What is the socio-economic background of the creative? What parts of the country do they come from? Where and how have they been educated? What is the correlation to race/class? What kind of family relationships do they have? How does parental participation influence creativity?
I'm not getting the feeling there's a lot of helpful information here.
The reason this is largely being treated as a joke by the British people is that most of the unpopular laws are coming from Brussels, not London. There isn't much the British government can do about EU directives, besides withdraw from the EU. And that's not on the table.
The first thing companies will do is spin off "Offshore Labor, Inc" to a separate corporation headquartered in the Cayman Islands or wherever, then import the products for sale here. No offshored labor here!
Well, that wouldn't be that hard to get around. Instead of a tax on the parent company, institute a tariff on the imported goods or services. That way you put the penalty on the consumers of imported goods and services rather than the producers, who can always find a way around a tax. With a tariff, you don't care who manufactures it where, because it's the importer and the consumer who's going to be forced to cough up, as soon as soon as it crosses the border. It would make consumption of foreign produced goods a lot less attractive, and make it a lot harder for companies to play shell games with subsidiaries.
Reagan employed that approach to induce Japan to restrain auto exports to the US, and encourage the Japanese manufacturers to build manufacturing facilities in the US in the 1980's (google Voluntary Export Restraints).
I'm not really a big fan of protectionist policies, but if you really decided it was necessary (and there's certainly an argument for it), it's not really an insurmountable problem.
The difference here is that it's not the 1950's. Our only possible competitor, Europe, was recovering from the devastation of 2 world wars, Made in Japan was a synonym for cheap junk, and don't even think about China, India or Korea. You could get away with an 87% corporate tax in the 1950's, because corporations really had no where else to go.
Try that today, and the only result you're going to get is corporations fleeing overseas as fast as they could go.
I would invite other Slashdot readers to check out some of the articles on your website and decide for themselves. As much as I hate to see your site get any hits, I think it's important for everyone to know who's in our midst.
Well, that's one thing we can agree on. Let people have a look and decide for themselves.
Somehow, I don't find that prospect as worrisome as you seem to think that I should.
My answer to that is: "A black man, with a muslim name."
Pfffft! I was disgusted enough with the Republicans I nearly voted for Obama myself, and would have, if there hadn't been a third party to vote for (I voted for the Constitution party).
And, "Third Position", I never want to let a reply to you go buy without a mention that your name and your sig are links to a neo-Nazi organization - a foul outfit of nativists and racists, who believe we should be saving America "for the white race". You have to scratch a link beneath the scrubbed main page to get to the real disgusting stuff, but it doesn't appear that there's been any effort to hide the agenda of "Third Position".
Suit yourself. But if you're going to call it "neo-nazi" then I ask that you produce the proof of that assertion. There isn't any question the party advocates for the interests of white Americans. So what? Is that by definition "neo-nazi"? What does that make organizations like La Raza, the NAACP, or AIPAC? Why is it legitimate for other ethnic groups to advocate for their interests, but whites are neo-nazis when they advocate for theirs?
I don't see anyone advocating for gas chambers. If you can produce any such thing, please do.
You're problem is that, like most lefties, you're over-reading the mandate. The electorate voted Democratic mostly 1.) to punish Bush and the Republicans for being total fuck-ups, 2.) because the Republicans offered a weak, incompetent presidential candidate who repeatedly shot himself in the foot, and 3.) Obama presented himself as a moderate, not as a leftist.
Now that Obama and company have gone galloping off to the left, less than 2 years after their ascension the polls are strongly favoring the Republicans again. It's pretty well agreed by all pollsters that the Democrats are going to be taking a drubbing in the mid-terms, regardless whether the pollsters have a left or right bias.
You might also note that the Republicans that are winning primaries, ie Rand Paul, Sharon Angle and Mario Cuomo, are a lot farther to the right than the Republican party has been in years.
Seriously, if Obama is Hitler and Bush is Hitler, what does that make Hitler?
Wait, calling someone a fascist doesn't equal calling them Hitler. Yes, Hitler WAS a fascist, but he also was human, so does calling someone human equal calling them Hitler?
Actually, the Nazis never claimed to be Fascists, that was Mussolini. The Nazis were the National Socialists. Somehow, over time the distinctions have become blurred, and now one is considered a synonym for the other.
Khan's mother is from Calcutta; his father was a pediatrician from Bangladesh. His parents divorced when he was 3, and his father died when he was only 13. By high school, he was growing up in a New Orleans suburb with a hardworking single mother and a fiercely protective elder sister.
Well, that's what I'm saying - their IT products haven't done well because it's not a market they've put a lot of effort into pursuing. They've been a consumer electronics company, and they've oriented the Mac platform to that. However, if it no longer makes sense for them to pursue a consumer market in computers, they're quite capable of taking the Mac platform in another direction. Or spinning off a company to concentrate on that.
It's also possible they could split the company into a consumer electronics company and an IT company. Apple has a lot of opportunities to expand into servers and enterprise products, which they've largely forgone to concentrate on consumer electronics. If the Mac becomes superfluous to their consumer electronics business, I could see them spinning it off as a separate entity, and letting it concentrate on pursuing those opportunities.
California is becoming a place for the rich and the poor. The rich can afford it, and the state pays* for everything if you're poor. If you're middle class they bend you over and pound you in the ass. With sand.
* with borrowed money
Well, isn't that liberalism in a nut-shell? The rich and the poor teaming up to stick it to the middle class? I'd expect no less from any reliably Democratic voting state.
While it is certainly no crime to make a dollar, that dollar shouldn't be THE_MOTIVATING_FACTOR in health care.
Every time I see that sentiment expressed, I have to bust out laughing!
Seriously. Presumably idealists like you are gonna be signing up for the expense and commitment required to get through medical school to bring us all medical care at earnings no better than a union welder could make?
Why the fuck would anyone want to do that?! Where are we going to find such angels? Any volunteers out there?
Somehow, I never hear that sentiment expressed by anyone that actually has the wherewithal and the smarts and who actually did the work to become a doctor.
Dude, the profit motive is why I work at all. And if my occupation didn't pay better than any number of less stressful careers, I'd be in one of those less stressful careers. When was the last time you volunteered to practice your trade without getting paid?
If 16% of the populace broadly agree with a certain set of policies, then shouldn't those policies have 16% of the reputation? There are a lot of sets of policies, and lots of overlap between different candidates. But using a first past the post system means that all candidates may well be clones of the most popular candidate of a small minority. You lose any benefit of having multiple representatives.
Something tells me your tune would change pretty quickly if that 16% were Nazis rather than Hispanics.
Why should I want more democracy? There's nothing particularly sacred about democracy. That's the point of the Senate, the founders recognized that mobs can get carried away by stupid ideas, and that's why the Senate was intended to act as a buffer to the House of Representatives. Now, we effectively have two Houses of Representatives, and what's the point of that?
Further, consider the priorities of an elected official. He gets into office by whoring for votes. His priority is the next election, not how his actions will affect the country decades into the future.
The point is, elected officials and unelected officials have different incentives. That's why the government was designed to have components of both.
I actually think it was a mistake to allow direct election of the president. It causes people to concentrate on the election of one politician on whom they have little influence, rather than their local representatives where the views of a relatively few people actually can have significant influence.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say that pretty much all manned spaceflight from NASA is dead. I'd be very, very surprised if they get anything completed at all, considering their mandate seems to change every time you turn around.
I remember reading that IBM was planning to put Cell in mainframes and other high-end servers several years ago, supposedly to accrue the same benefits. I don't really know whether or not that was ever followed through with, I haven't kept track of the story.
This is not exactly a surprise. Oracle has a deep and abiding interest in Oracle's bottom line. How does Open Solaris contribute to that? It doesn't, hence Oracle losing interest fast.
As painful as it may be to acknowledge, this is actually a rational approach. Look no further than the fact that Oracle ended up eating Sun, not the other way around. I like Free Stuff as much as the next guy, but that doesn't change the fact that if you're in business to make money, you'd damn well better focus on things that make you money.
Maybe we didn't. What were the 20th century equivalents of Mozart and Rembrandt? The efforts of modern composers and artists are anemic by comparison. It's unfortunate we don't have enough data to consider the effect over the last several centuries, rather than just the last few decades.
Well, I don't really think the article tells us enough to come to any conclusions. Obviously, the population of America in 2010 is very different from the population in 1960. I'd like to see the demographics amplified. What is the socio-economic background of the creative? What parts of the country do they come from? Where and how have they been educated? What is the correlation to race/class? What kind of family relationships do they have? How does parental participation influence creativity?
I'm not getting the feeling there's a lot of helpful information here.
The reason this is largely being treated as a joke by the British people is that most of the unpopular laws are coming from Brussels, not London. There isn't much the British government can do about EU directives, besides withdraw from the EU. And that's not on the table.
Al Gore as seen from Taiwan
The first thing companies will do is spin off "Offshore Labor, Inc" to a separate corporation headquartered in the Cayman Islands or wherever, then import the products for sale here. No offshored labor here!
Well, that wouldn't be that hard to get around. Instead of a tax on the parent company, institute a tariff on the imported goods or services. That way you put the penalty on the consumers of imported goods and services rather than the producers, who can always find a way around a tax. With a tariff, you don't care who manufactures it where, because it's the importer and the consumer who's going to be forced to cough up, as soon as soon as it crosses the border. It would make consumption of foreign produced goods a lot less attractive, and make it a lot harder for companies to play shell games with subsidiaries.
Reagan employed that approach to induce Japan to restrain auto exports to the US, and encourage the Japanese manufacturers to build manufacturing facilities in the US in the 1980's (google Voluntary Export Restraints).
I'm not really a big fan of protectionist policies, but if you really decided it was necessary (and there's certainly an argument for it), it's not really an insurmountable problem.
The difference here is that it's not the 1950's. Our only possible competitor, Europe, was recovering from the devastation of 2 world wars, Made in Japan was a synonym for cheap junk, and don't even think about China, India or Korea. You could get away with an 87% corporate tax in the 1950's, because corporations really had no where else to go.
Try that today, and the only result you're going to get is corporations fleeing overseas as fast as they could go.
She's thinking like a Mafia defense lawyer, not a judge.
Indeed she is. Check this out.
I would invite other Slashdot readers to check out some of the articles on your website and decide for themselves. As much as I hate to see your site get any hits, I think it's important for everyone to know who's in our midst.
Well, that's one thing we can agree on. Let people have a look and decide for themselves.
Somehow, I don't find that prospect as worrisome as you seem to think that I should.
Competition got us Apollo. Cooperation got us ISS. You sure you don't want to rethink that?
My answer to that is: "A black man, with a muslim name."
Pfffft! I was disgusted enough with the Republicans I nearly voted for Obama myself, and would have, if there hadn't been a third party to vote for (I voted for the Constitution party).
And, "Third Position", I never want to let a reply to you go buy without a mention that your name and your sig are links to a neo-Nazi organization - a foul outfit of nativists and racists, who believe we should be saving America "for the white race". You have to scratch a link beneath the scrubbed main page to get to the real disgusting stuff, but it doesn't appear that there's been any effort to hide the agenda of "Third Position".
Suit yourself. But if you're going to call it "neo-nazi" then I ask that you produce the proof of that assertion. There isn't any question the party advocates for the interests of white Americans. So what? Is that by definition "neo-nazi"? What does that make organizations like La Raza, the NAACP, or AIPAC? Why is it legitimate for other ethnic groups to advocate for their interests, but whites are neo-nazis when they advocate for theirs?
I don't see anyone advocating for gas chambers. If you can produce any such thing, please do.
You're problem is that, like most lefties, you're over-reading the mandate. The electorate voted Democratic mostly 1.) to punish Bush and the Republicans for being total fuck-ups, 2.) because the Republicans offered a weak, incompetent presidential candidate who repeatedly shot himself in the foot, and 3.) Obama presented himself as a moderate, not as a leftist.
Now that Obama and company have gone galloping off to the left, less than 2 years after their ascension the polls are strongly favoring the Republicans again. It's pretty well agreed by all pollsters that the Democrats are going to be taking a drubbing in the mid-terms, regardless whether the pollsters have a left or right bias.
You might also note that the Republicans that are winning primaries, ie Rand Paul, Sharon Angle and Mario Cuomo, are a lot farther to the right than the Republican party has been in years.
Overwhelmingly to the left, my ass!
Seriously, if Obama is Hitler and Bush is Hitler, what does that make Hitler?
Wait, calling someone a fascist doesn't equal calling them Hitler. Yes, Hitler WAS a fascist, but he also was human, so does calling someone human equal calling them Hitler?
Actually, the Nazis never claimed to be Fascists, that was Mussolini. The Nazis were the National Socialists. Somehow, over time the distinctions have become blurred, and now one is considered a synonym for the other.
TFA says:
Well, that's what I'm saying - their IT products haven't done well because it's not a market they've put a lot of effort into pursuing. They've been a consumer electronics company, and they've oriented the Mac platform to that. However, if it no longer makes sense for them to pursue a consumer market in computers, they're quite capable of taking the Mac platform in another direction. Or spinning off a company to concentrate on that.
It's also possible they could split the company into a consumer electronics company and an IT company. Apple has a lot of opportunities to expand into servers and enterprise products, which they've largely forgone to concentrate on consumer electronics. If the Mac becomes superfluous to their consumer electronics business, I could see them spinning it off as a separate entity, and letting it concentrate on pursuing those opportunities.
California is becoming a place for the rich and the poor. The rich can afford it, and the state pays* for everything if you're poor. If you're middle class they bend you over and pound you in the ass. With sand.
* with borrowed money
Well, isn't that liberalism in a nut-shell? The rich and the poor teaming up to stick it to the middle class? I'd expect no less from any reliably Democratic voting state.
While it is certainly no crime to make a dollar, that dollar shouldn't be THE_MOTIVATING_FACTOR in health care.
Every time I see that sentiment expressed, I have to bust out laughing!
Seriously. Presumably idealists like you are gonna be signing up for the expense and commitment required to get through medical school to bring us all medical care at earnings no better than a union welder could make?
Why the fuck would anyone want to do that?! Where are we going to find such angels? Any volunteers out there?
Somehow, I never hear that sentiment expressed by anyone that actually has the wherewithal and the smarts and who actually did the work to become a doctor.
Dude, the profit motive is why I work at all. And if my occupation didn't pay better than any number of less stressful careers, I'd be in one of those less stressful careers. When was the last time you volunteered to practice your trade without getting paid?
If 16% of the populace broadly agree with a certain set of policies, then shouldn't those policies have 16% of the reputation? There are a lot of sets of policies, and lots of overlap between different candidates. But using a first past the post system means that all candidates may well be clones of the most popular candidate of a small minority. You lose any benefit of having multiple representatives.
Something tells me your tune would change pretty quickly if that 16% were Nazis rather than Hispanics.
Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
-- Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill
...said the Prime Minister of a constitutional monarchy.
Why should I want more democracy? There's nothing particularly sacred about democracy. That's the point of the Senate, the founders recognized that mobs can get carried away by stupid ideas, and that's why the Senate was intended to act as a buffer to the House of Representatives. Now, we effectively have two Houses of Representatives, and what's the point of that?
Further, consider the priorities of an elected official. He gets into office by whoring for votes. His priority is the next election, not how his actions will affect the country decades into the future.
The point is, elected officials and unelected officials have different incentives. That's why the government was designed to have components of both.
I actually think it was a mistake to allow direct election of the president. It causes people to concentrate on the election of one politician on whom they have little influence, rather than their local representatives where the views of a relatively few people actually can have significant influence.
Wasn't Nevada also proclaimed as the dumping ground for nuclear and toxic waste?
That would certainly go a long way in explaining Harry Reid.
Well their goes any respect I had for citizens of that state. That bitch is nutty.
But not as nutty as her opponent!