I'd say you're not a complete convert yet. No offense, but your analogy "Unregulated capitalism is like a race car without brakes. It can go really fast, but is prone to horrific crashes" is a pretty terrible way to understand what happens in a freer market. Regulation isn't about slowing a runaway train of good times and profits. It's about stopping corporations from cheating and lying. This is the conceptual hurdle that a lot of libertarians can't get over. It's not about government meddling in your business. It's about government putting into concrete law morality for corporate behavior.
For example, a Great Depression era law called Glass Steagall was partially repealed which opened up the way for banks to start behaving under risky brokerage laws. But, banks have FDIC protection and the intention of FDIC insurance is that the government will protect some of your deposits provided that you operate by conservative banking rules. So, as soon as the predictable (and repeat of history) collapse happened the government found itself on the tab for all that risky bank behavior.
During the election, to prove the point that the whole Barack Hussein thing was a part of the Republican's "he's a foreigner and maybe muslim don't elect thim" motif, I always asked Republicans what John McCain's middle name was. Not one of the "Barack Hussein is a muslim" crowd ever knew.
This is what 30 years of Reaganomics rantings have brought us to. People are so anti-government and pro-business now that we've largely swept away the important restraints on the market born from the first Great Depression and the boom and bust cycle our economy endured for our whole history. What scares me is that even after a return to pre-Great Depression boom and bust cycles, people are still crying for more of the free market that's opening the door for the corporate elite to shaft the industry. Obama even has them running his economic policies now.
People think that it's good for us to drop trade tariffs and force Americans working in safe conditions with benefits to compete against foreign indentured servants with no such protections. People also think it's a good thing that all of our industry has moved overseas under the control of foreign governments so that we can buy cheaper stuff that we increasingly can't afford. People are so brainwashed you've got old people on medicare screaming at their representatives in health care forums to stop socialized medicine! I hate to say it, but I think this is the last dance for us. Of course it wasn't a bomb that did it, we did it to ourselves.
I hope that news organizations start turning a profit on their web sites rather than giving the content away for free and depending on paultry ad revenue rates. I for one will subscribe to at least one on-line paper if this becomes the norm. I'm a big consumer of real news (beyond which celeb is bang who) and the horrible cash flow has lead to some major compromises in coverage. I'm willing to invest in journalism with their consumer dollar. I'm sure others will satisfy their news bug with TMZ or TSG, but you're not going to get the hard-hitting stuff elsewhere. Now, I do frequent their sites, but I'm tired of every legit news source thinking they have to cover Britney Spears to churn a buck.
So, maybe ad revenue will be down. But, I bet it'll be more than made up by online subscriptions. And, they can continue to make public all the AP boilerplate articles to bait readers into their custom content.
You're citing some of the bogus intel that Bush used. The "dual use" materials included the infamous "aluminum tubes" that they KNEW couldn't be used in centrifuges, yet they continued to pimp that argument because it benefited their story. Saddam had no WMD (that stuff has a shelf life) and had no weapons program. Same thing with the yellow cake claims from Nigeria. Just a bunch of poorly forged documents that even the Italians rejected. And, what "munitions" were being found? Are you talking about crap lying around in bombed out hangars that hadn't been touched in years? I actually watched the footage of the inspectors walking through bombed out facilities and finding unreported "materials" among the wreckage.
I don't get your "guy who is anti war" comment. Are you saying Hans Blix fabricated evidence because he's a pacifist?
And he did a terrible job of convincing. It was the Bush administration that did the real convincing with cooked up data. The pressure on Iraq was for him to open up to inspections and make him prove where his WMD stores were. On top of that, the shelf life of what he did have had expired long before the invasion. We had plenty of evidence to know he was full of it. The tip-off to me was when the inspectors found of crate of nerve gas artillery shells (empty) still sitting in their crate in a hangar that had been bombed back in '91. Now, I'm sure that crate was on the list of "stuff we know you have, Saddam."
Don't bother reading the article since you can obviously divine truth from the summary. But, excuse us mere mortals for thinking this is actually a case of theft since the victim hacked an account and stole login information.
I recall reading (back in the 80s) that NASA had payload space reserved for simple experiments that were attached to the sides of the payload bay. They had to be self-contained and require no interaction from the crew and cost about $3K at the time.
Can I keep knocking them for their lousy documentation, unsupported libraries, Dilbert-driven technical decisions, and unethical conduct? I used to never knock Microsoft when I was a Java developer. Now that I'm a native coder, I understand.
I watched an interview, on the Rachel Maddow show I think, with a guy who claimed that he could use social engineering and Google Maps to deduce a few locations where he could be. I think this is him.
I strongly believe he's dead. We don't get videos anymore, just audio tapes that the CIA conveniently certifies as legit. And, the candidate from Pakistan Bhutto stated shortly before her assassination he'd been killed by a warlord.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd say you're not a complete convert yet. No offense, but your analogy "Unregulated capitalism is like a race car without brakes. It can go really fast, but is prone to horrific crashes" is a pretty terrible way to understand what happens in a freer market. Regulation isn't about slowing a runaway train of good times and profits. It's about stopping corporations from cheating and lying. This is the conceptual hurdle that a lot of libertarians can't get over. It's not about government meddling in your business. It's about government putting into concrete law morality for corporate behavior.
For example, a Great Depression era law called Glass Steagall was partially repealed which opened up the way for banks to start behaving under risky brokerage laws. But, banks have FDIC protection and the intention of FDIC insurance is that the government will protect some of your deposits provided that you operate by conservative banking rules. So, as soon as the predictable (and repeat of history) collapse happened the government found itself on the tab for all that risky bank behavior.
During the election, to prove the point that the whole Barack Hussein thing was a part of the Republican's "he's a foreigner and maybe muslim don't elect thim" motif, I always asked Republicans what John McCain's middle name was. Not one of the "Barack Hussein is a muslim" crowd ever knew.
This is what 30 years of Reaganomics rantings have brought us to. People are so anti-government and pro-business now that we've largely swept away the important restraints on the market born from the first Great Depression and the boom and bust cycle our economy endured for our whole history. What scares me is that even after a return to pre-Great Depression boom and bust cycles, people are still crying for more of the free market that's opening the door for the corporate elite to shaft the industry. Obama even has them running his economic policies now.
People think that it's good for us to drop trade tariffs and force Americans working in safe conditions with benefits to compete against foreign indentured servants with no such protections. People also think it's a good thing that all of our industry has moved overseas under the control of foreign governments so that we can buy cheaper stuff that we increasingly can't afford. People are so brainwashed you've got old people on medicare screaming at their representatives in health care forums to stop socialized medicine! I hate to say it, but I think this is the last dance for us. Of course it wasn't a bomb that did it, we did it to ourselves.
I disagree. They created females naughty parts immune to HIV. Guilt free, lab grown poontang.
While I agree that Dubya is worthless little cretin, I doubt he has 200 times the amount of *anything* I do except accountability.
No need, there's a giant three-fingered robotic arm on board.
You've never seen how wedding planning goes, have you?
I hope that news organizations start turning a profit on their web sites rather than giving the content away for free and depending on paultry ad revenue rates. I for one will subscribe to at least one on-line paper if this becomes the norm. I'm a big consumer of real news (beyond which celeb is bang who) and the horrible cash flow has lead to some major compromises in coverage. I'm willing to invest in journalism with their consumer dollar. I'm sure others will satisfy their news bug with TMZ or TSG, but you're not going to get the hard-hitting stuff elsewhere. Now, I do frequent their sites, but I'm tired of every legit news source thinking they have to cover Britney Spears to churn a buck.
So, maybe ad revenue will be down. But, I bet it'll be more than made up by online subscriptions. And, they can continue to make public all the AP boilerplate articles to bait readers into their custom content.
In Soviet Korea, conventional people use old weapons.
You sound a lot like Glen Beck. In the past 60 years, the US has done a lot of overrunning Mongol villages.
You're citing some of the bogus intel that Bush used. The "dual use" materials included the infamous "aluminum tubes" that they KNEW couldn't be used in centrifuges, yet they continued to pimp that argument because it benefited their story. Saddam had no WMD (that stuff has a shelf life) and had no weapons program. Same thing with the yellow cake claims from Nigeria. Just a bunch of poorly forged documents that even the Italians rejected. And, what "munitions" were being found? Are you talking about crap lying around in bombed out hangars that hadn't been touched in years? I actually watched the footage of the inspectors walking through bombed out facilities and finding unreported "materials" among the wreckage.
I don't get your "guy who is anti war" comment. Are you saying Hans Blix fabricated evidence because he's a pacifist?
And he did a terrible job of convincing. It was the Bush administration that did the real convincing with cooked up data. The pressure on Iraq was for him to open up to inspections and make him prove where his WMD stores were. On top of that, the shelf life of what he did have had expired long before the invasion. We had plenty of evidence to know he was full of it. The tip-off to me was when the inspectors found of crate of nerve gas artillery shells (empty) still sitting in their crate in a hangar that had been bombed back in '91. Now, I'm sure that crate was on the list of "stuff we know you have, Saddam."
Is this really cutting-edge technology, or just a bigger circle?
Don't bother reading the article since you can obviously divine truth from the summary. But, excuse us mere mortals for thinking this is actually a case of theft since the victim hacked an account and stole login information.
Great idea, but way too late for Reiser.
I recall reading (back in the 80s) that NASA had payload space reserved for simple experiments that were attached to the sides of the payload bay. They had to be self-contained and require no interaction from the crew and cost about $3K at the time.
Odd==not eroded according to the geology and climate of Mars.
Remember, they wanted the aliens for their weapons division. Controlling them would be a huge financial windfall that would be worth the risk.
Can I keep knocking them for their lousy documentation, unsupported libraries, Dilbert-driven technical decisions, and unethical conduct? I used to never knock Microsoft when I was a Java developer. Now that I'm a native coder, I understand.
I watched an interview, on the Rachel Maddow show I think, with a guy who claimed that he could use social engineering and Google Maps to deduce a few locations where he could be. I think this is him.
I strongly believe he's dead. We don't get videos anymore, just audio tapes that the CIA conveniently certifies as legit. And, the candidate from Pakistan Bhutto stated shortly before her assassination he'd been killed by a warlord.
This guy wasn't a Russian mail order bride, was he? If so, we'd better start looking for plots of freshly turned earth.
Whenever I see figures like +99% used to describe an engineering solution, I assume the source is full of shit.
If you weren't already complaining about getting flamed, I would have flamed you for using operator overloading.
Would it kill you to add a few words to the summary to describe what you're talking about? Christ, you probably don't document your code either.