The reason the US lags behind these other nations in access to high speed internet is because more Americans don't want high speed internet access. The internet is more a part of the life of the average South Korean, so more South Koreans choose to buy high speed internet access.
The fact that more Americans don't want high speed internet access isn't a bad thing, it isn't a good thing either. It's just what makes the people of this country unique.
I always go to town with my boy Ben Franklin Spend four get an ounce of dank then Rich nigga gettin high and relaxin I bust a Ben Frank and get some Andrew Jacksons Five twenties for a hundred dollar bill You know the math, let's make a deal On a one dollar bill if you look on the front You'll find the face of George Washington Make money baby that's all I do That's how I know Thomas Jefferson is on the two Abraham Lincoln got shot and died Freed the slaves so they put him on the five And Hamilton my old time friend They put his face on the front of the ten These are the dead presidents From the hood and they represent The American Dream to the average minority Spend money get some weed and a 40
Comparing profit per share as a measure of profitability is ridiculous - you aren't taking into account the number of outstanding shares. Net profit = # of outstanding shares * profit per share.
Example: MSFT made $0.92 per share last year, BRKA made $4,134.48 per share!!! So Berkshire-Hathaway is way more profitable than Microsoft right? Wrong - Microsoft made about $9 billion last year vs about $4 billion for Berkshire-Hathaway.
The difference is that Microsoft has TEN BILLION outstanding shares and Berkshire-Hathaway has less than a million. Source for all data is yahoo finance.
If the generic version of a drug is very costly is probably has a lot to do with the production costs. Either the raw materials for the drug are scarse or expensive, or the market for the drug is very small and overhead production costs get distributed on a small number of buyers. Think about it, if a company was making a killing on a generic, wouldn't someone else step up and steal their lunch?
Drug patents expire in 20 years. 20 years from now you will be able to buy all the expensive drugs of today in generic versions for almost nothing. No need to invade drug companies with guns and steal their IP, just wait it out. Until then you can party like it's 1985.
Agree 100%, mod the parent up. There's a reason that most new drugs come out of the United States and not Cuba, North Korea or France. That reason is called capitalism. We provide a profit incentive for companies to produce new drugs, and without a doubt our system is the best in the world.
Everyone calling for free drugs or the government regulation of drug prices is a hippocrate. They want to get all the benifits of a capitalist health care system (new innovative drugs) without any of the costs (paying for them). I'd also like to point out that drug patents expire 20 years from the day they are filed. So in the worst case you can live a lifestyle exactly like they did in 1985 if you stay away from patented drugs. 1985 wasn't exactly the dark ages.
Agreed 100%. Most of the stuff in 2600 is crap, especially the political articles. If I want to read left wing propaganda I'd pick up the NY Times (or check politics.slashdot.org).
The articles in Phrack are a step above the few technical articles in 2600 these days.
If the elected state legislature determines that the stickers should go in the books then no court should be able to otherwise. Nobody could ever interpret the constitution to ban stickers such as these except for liberal activist judges.
So if you're a dictator then you can't be a terrorist?? Saddam gassed CIVILIANS, that's terrorism PERIOD END OF STORY. If you deny that Saddam was a terrorist then you either need a dictionary or a brain.
How many MILLIONS of children were starved by Saddam while he piled up his fortune by cheating the oil-for-food program?? That's right I said MILLIONS of children over about 10 years. You do the math.
What about the opportunity cost? How many people would have died in Iraq had we not liberated her, starved or tortured to death by the terrorist Saddam??
And what about the tens of millions of Iraqis who are now free? Is their freedom worth nothing??
Once Iraq is ruled by Iraqis and defended by Iraqis then our job is done. On January 30th, Iraqi rule will come back, accomplishing the first part. Every day more Iraqi patriots are volunteering to defend their country from terrorist insurgents. It won't be long before Iraq can protect herself.
If the US tried to liberate Sudan you'd probably complain too. "War for sand" or whatever Sudan's main natural resource is, the liberal left would cry.
The fact is the military is committed to Iraq right now. We don't have the man power to liberate Sudan at this moment. Once Iraq stabilizes then yes, Sudan will become a valid option.
Do you even understand what a trade deficit is? It has nothing to do with "bad trade agreements", it's about free market forces. But please don't let the truth get in the way of Bush bashing, carry on...
Ok buddy, if you really think that the Abu Ghraib scandal where suspected terrorists were forced to built naked pyramids and such is equivalent to the mass execution by gassing of hundreds of thousands of Kurds then you really have problems. And I'm sure George W. Bush personally ordered the mistreatment at Abu Ghraib right?
It was well known that there were no WMDs in Iraq for at least a year. Even if these findings were released on October 12th 2004 I doubt there would have been any effect on the election results. America knew who it was voting for so I disagree with your assessment of "the problem".
Judging from the election returns, the majority of Americans think WMD are a non-issue.
Just a few years ago the people of Iraq were being starved and gassed to death by an evil dictator. Now in less than three weeks there will be free Iraqi elections for the first time in over 30 years. You can continue to point to the lack of WMD in Iraq and claim the war is unjustified, or you can look at all the good that has come out of the liberation of Iraq - the fact that tens of millions of Iraqis are tasting freedom for the first time.
I know pretty much everyone on slashdot is/was against the war, but ask yourself this - if Clinton was president under the same set of circumstances would you still be anti-war? I don't think so. The irony of the whole situation is that the liberation if Iraq is the most liberal war in American history, yet it is the liberals who are against it. What could be a more liberal cause than removing terrorist dictators from power and bringing freedom to the world?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." -- Kennedy at inauguration.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
True, it will reduce our dependence on oil -- by holding a gun to our heads and saying "GET OFF THE OIL!!!" We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately. What do you think will happen if we cut our oil use by 20%?? Businesses WILL shut down, we'll have to stop oil usage somewhere.
The best way to cut oil consumption is through market forces. Oil is expensive because it's getting scarse?? Watch millions of people buy more efficiant cars like the Prius, so many people want the Prius now that there's a waiting list months long to pay MSRP for it. A few years from now there will be hybrids all over the road.
THAT's the way to cut oil consumption - through technological innovation, not through forced treaties. And the US paying third world countries for "pollution credits" is just absurd, it's 100% extortion.
Have you ever been to China?? Take a trip down to Shanghai and you'll find dirty beaches dangerous to swim in, factories indiscrimately polluting, cars using leaded fuel, etc... Would the Kyoto treaty force China to reform? No, since they are a "developing country" they can basically pollute as much as they want.
The US on the other hand has the highest environmental standards in the world. You want to build a factory somewhere? You have to get about a million environmental permits, and heaven forbid there's some endangered rat that lives on your proposed factory site, because then it's getting rejected. Look at all the restrictions on auto makers, their median car MUST reach a certain fuel economy, and their exhaust MUST meet a standard that's by far the highest in the world. Of course Kyoto would strap the US, forcing us to close down factories and destroy businesses, because we're a "first world nation". We'd be forced to buy "pollution credits" from barren third world countries with no industrial output like Mongolia just to maintain our economy!!
Here's the bottom line: This treaty is bad for America. We're already the best in the world in reducing pollution, and we're getting better every year. The only reason we have a semi-serious smog problem is because of our reliance on cars for everyone rather than public transportation. We are resolving this though -- see more efficiant, cleaner cars like the Prius.
Bush is only winning by 130,000 votes in Ohio, but this one Republican guy drove around to all the polls and voted 131,000 TIMES!! Also in the days before the election, police went around arresting Kerry voters!!! I heard that 140,000 KERRY VOTERS couldn't vote because the police locked them down in prison!!!!! Also I thinks that Bush was using EVIL MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY built by aliens at HALLIBURTON and ENRON to FORCE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR HIM!!!
To me it came down to the war on terror. On 9/11/01, the front line in the war on terror was in Manhattan and Washington, DC. Now, three years later, the front lines have been moved all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan -- there has not been a major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Bush has been keeping America safe, and he knows how to do it: by going into terrorist countries and removing their leaders, and letting the terrorists deal with our well-trained military rather than a bunch of civilians in their office skyscraper.
And yes, I do think Bush made some mistakes - his biggest mistake was linking Iraq to WMD and claiming that was his reason for liberating Iraq. Let's face it, that wasn't the reason, but Bush refuses to admit his mistake. But I believe the war was still justified without the WMD just based on the war on terror. We can't sit back and allow people like Saddam to plot against America. All we have to do for them to succeed is to do nothing like we did for eight years of Clinton and about a year of Bush. All terrorists need is time, and that's what Bush won't give them.
I think the voters made the right decision yesterday. It was a record turnout, more Americans went to the polls in this election than any election before, and they chose George W. Bush to lead them as their next president.
The reason the Democrats lost this election was that they nominated a complete idiot. Yes, let's face it, Kerry was not fit to be president -- he was a complete demagogue who told the people only what they wanted to hear, and refused to take a stand on anything. If someone like Howard Dean were nominated then I think we'd have a Democrat president right now. Yes, Dean is more liberal than most of America, but people can respect him because he's principled.
Anyway, I'm going to party like it's 1776, because a victory for Bush is a victory for America.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason the US lags behind these other nations in access to high speed internet is because more Americans don't want high speed internet access. The internet is more a part of the life of the average South Korean, so more South Koreans choose to buy high speed internet access.
The fact that more Americans don't want high speed internet access isn't a bad thing, it isn't a good thing either. It's just what makes the people of this country unique.
Great post
I always go to town with my boy Ben Franklin
Spend four get an ounce of dank then
Rich nigga gettin high and relaxin
I bust a Ben Frank and get some Andrew Jacksons Five twenties for a hundred dollar bill
You know the math, let's make a deal
On a one dollar bill if you look on the front
You'll find the face of George Washington
Make money baby that's all I do
That's how I know Thomas Jefferson is on the two
Abraham Lincoln got shot and died
Freed the slaves so they put him on the five
And Hamilton my old time friend
They put his face on the front of the ten
These are the dead presidents
From the hood and they represent
The American Dream to the average minority
Spend money get some weed and a 40
-- Too $hort
Comparing profit per share as a measure of profitability is ridiculous - you aren't taking into account the number of outstanding shares. Net profit = # of outstanding shares * profit per share.
Example: MSFT made $0.92 per share last year, BRKA made $4,134.48 per share!!! So Berkshire-Hathaway is way more profitable than Microsoft right? Wrong - Microsoft made about $9 billion last year vs about $4 billion for Berkshire-Hathaway.
The difference is that Microsoft has TEN BILLION outstanding shares and Berkshire-Hathaway has less than a million. Source for all data is yahoo finance.
If the generic version of a drug is very costly is probably has a lot to do with the production costs. Either the raw materials for the drug are scarse or expensive, or the market for the drug is very small and overhead production costs get distributed on a small number of buyers. Think about it, if a company was making a killing on a generic, wouldn't someone else step up and steal their lunch?
Drug patents expire in 20 years. 20 years from now you will be able to buy all the expensive drugs of today in generic versions for almost nothing. No need to invade drug companies with guns and steal their IP, just wait it out. Until then you can party like it's 1985.
Agree 100%, mod the parent up. There's a reason that most new drugs come out of the United States and not Cuba, North Korea or France. That reason is called capitalism. We provide a profit incentive for companies to produce new drugs, and without a doubt our system is the best in the world.
Everyone calling for free drugs or the government regulation of drug prices is a hippocrate. They want to get all the benifits of a capitalist health care system (new innovative drugs) without any of the costs (paying for them). I'd also like to point out that drug patents expire 20 years from the day they are filed. So in the worst case you can live a lifestyle exactly like they did in 1985 if you stay away from patented drugs. 1985 wasn't exactly the dark ages.
Agreed 100%. Most of the stuff in 2600 is crap, especially the political articles. If I want to read left wing propaganda I'd pick up the NY Times (or check politics.slashdot.org).
The articles in Phrack are a step above the few technical articles in 2600 these days.
If the elected state legislature determines that the stickers should go in the books then no court should be able to otherwise. Nobody could ever interpret the constitution to ban stickers such as these except for liberal activist judges.
So if you're a dictator then you can't be a terrorist?? Saddam gassed CIVILIANS, that's terrorism PERIOD END OF STORY. If you deny that Saddam was a terrorist then you either need a dictionary or a brain.
How many MILLIONS of children were starved by Saddam while he piled up his fortune by cheating the oil-for-food program?? That's right I said MILLIONS of children over about 10 years. You do the math.
What about the opportunity cost? How many people would have died in Iraq had we not liberated her, starved or tortured to death by the terrorist Saddam??
And what about the tens of millions of Iraqis who are now free? Is their freedom worth nothing??
Once Iraq is ruled by Iraqis and defended by Iraqis then our job is done. On January 30th, Iraqi rule will come back, accomplishing the first part. Every day more Iraqi patriots are volunteering to defend their country from terrorist insurgents. It won't be long before Iraq can protect herself.
If the US tried to liberate Sudan you'd probably complain too. "War for sand" or whatever Sudan's main natural resource is, the liberal left would cry.
The fact is the military is committed to Iraq right now. We don't have the man power to liberate Sudan at this moment. Once Iraq stabilizes then yes, Sudan will become a valid option.
Do you even understand what a trade deficit is? It has nothing to do with "bad trade agreements", it's about free market forces. But please don't let the truth get in the way of Bush bashing, carry on...
Ok buddy, if you really think that the Abu Ghraib scandal where suspected terrorists were forced to built naked pyramids and such is equivalent to the mass execution by gassing of hundreds of thousands of Kurds then you really have problems. And I'm sure George W. Bush personally ordered the mistreatment at Abu Ghraib right?
It was well known that there were no WMDs in Iraq for at least a year. Even if these findings were released on October 12th 2004 I doubt there would have been any effect on the election results. America knew who it was voting for so I disagree with your assessment of "the problem".
Judging from the election returns, the majority of Americans think WMD are a non-issue.
Just a few years ago the people of Iraq were being starved and gassed to death by an evil dictator. Now in less than three weeks there will be free Iraqi elections for the first time in over 30 years. You can continue to point to the lack of WMD in Iraq and claim the war is unjustified, or you can look at all the good that has come out of the liberation of Iraq - the fact that tens of millions of Iraqis are tasting freedom for the first time.
_ you_wont_see_in_the_news - if you haven't seen the pics on this page yet then you need to check them out.
I know pretty much everyone on slashdot is/was against the war, but ask yourself this - if Clinton was president under the same set of circumstances would you still be anti-war? I don't think so. The irony of the whole situation is that the liberation if Iraq is the most liberal war in American history, yet it is the liberals who are against it. What could be a more liberal cause than removing terrorist dictators from power and bringing freedom to the world?
"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." -- Kennedy at inauguration.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
http://www.pbase.com/kburch/the_picture_from_iraq
WTF if you disagree with the post then POST A REPLY WITH YOUR REASONING. The parent is not flamebait retarded mods!!!!!!!!!!!
MODERATORS CAN SUCK MY DICK. Now THAT'S FLAMEBAIT!!
True, it will reduce our dependence on oil -- by holding a gun to our heads and saying "GET OFF THE OIL!!!" We will be forced to cut oil consumption immediately. What do you think will happen if we cut our oil use by 20%?? Businesses WILL shut down, we'll have to stop oil usage somewhere.
The best way to cut oil consumption is through market forces. Oil is expensive because it's getting scarse?? Watch millions of people buy more efficiant cars like the Prius, so many people want the Prius now that there's a waiting list months long to pay MSRP for it. A few years from now there will be hybrids all over the road.
THAT's the way to cut oil consumption - through technological innovation, not through forced treaties. And the US paying third world countries for "pollution credits" is just absurd, it's 100% extortion.
Have you ever been to China?? Take a trip down to Shanghai and you'll find dirty beaches dangerous to swim in, factories indiscrimately polluting, cars using leaded fuel, etc... Would the Kyoto treaty force China to reform? No, since they are a "developing country" they can basically pollute as much as they want.
The US on the other hand has the highest environmental standards in the world. You want to build a factory somewhere? You have to get about a million environmental permits, and heaven forbid there's some endangered rat that lives on your proposed factory site, because then it's getting rejected. Look at all the restrictions on auto makers, their median car MUST reach a certain fuel economy, and their exhaust MUST meet a standard that's by far the highest in the world. Of course Kyoto would strap the US, forcing us to close down factories and destroy businesses, because we're a "first world nation". We'd be forced to buy "pollution credits" from barren third world countries with no industrial output like Mongolia just to maintain our economy!!
Here's the bottom line: This treaty is bad for America. We're already the best in the world in reducing pollution, and we're getting better every year. The only reason we have a semi-serious smog problem is because of our reliance on cars for everyone rather than public transportation. We are resolving this though -- see more efficiant, cleaner cars like the Prius.
Yes, that's right. And desolate countries with no industrial production would be allowed to sell their "pollution credits" to other countries.
Bottom line is that this treaty is BAD FOR AMERICA.
Bush is only winning by 130,000 votes in Ohio, but this one Republican guy drove around to all the polls and voted 131,000 TIMES!! Also in the days before the election, police went around arresting Kerry voters!!! I heard that 140,000 KERRY VOTERS couldn't vote because the police locked them down in prison!!!!! Also I thinks that Bush was using EVIL MIND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY built by aliens at HALLIBURTON and ENRON to FORCE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR HIM!!!
I DEMANDS A RECOUNT!!!!
To me it came down to the war on terror. On 9/11/01, the front line in the war on terror was in Manhattan and Washington, DC. Now, three years later, the front lines have been moved all the way to Iraq and Afghanistan -- there has not been a major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. Bush has been keeping America safe, and he knows how to do it: by going into terrorist countries and removing their leaders, and letting the terrorists deal with our well-trained military rather than a bunch of civilians in their office skyscraper.
And yes, I do think Bush made some mistakes - his biggest mistake was linking Iraq to WMD and claiming that was his reason for liberating Iraq. Let's face it, that wasn't the reason, but Bush refuses to admit his mistake. But I believe the war was still justified without the WMD just based on the war on terror. We can't sit back and allow people like Saddam to plot against America. All we have to do for them to succeed is to do nothing like we did for eight years of Clinton and about a year of Bush. All terrorists need is time, and that's what Bush won't give them.
Basically that's why I voted Bush.
The day Democracy died?? Because a record number of Americans turned out to vote?
Oh wait, they voted for Bush!!!! How could they!!! It must have been fraud, Democracy is dead!!!!
I think the voters made the right decision yesterday. It was a record turnout, more Americans went to the polls in this election than any election before, and they chose George W. Bush to lead them as their next president.
The reason the Democrats lost this election was that they nominated a complete idiot. Yes, let's face it, Kerry was not fit to be president -- he was a complete demagogue who told the people only what they wanted to hear, and refused to take a stand on anything. If someone like Howard Dean were nominated then I think we'd have a Democrat president right now. Yes, Dean is more liberal than most of America, but people can respect him because he's principled.
Anyway, I'm going to party like it's 1776, because a victory for Bush is a victory for America.