Science is good at explaining the world we live in. Science sucks at explaining why we're alive. Evolution may explain how we see things in this world, but it cannot explain spontaneous life, from inorganic to organic, to proteins that are folded that require RNA sequences to replicate the proteins that are needed to build RNA sequences (etc).
Science cannot explain WHY we are here, and that is the question Religion tries answers (often imperfectly). This is why there is disdain for religion by much of the world of "science" because science doesn't want to, and cannot know the answers to such questions. But that is the heart of what it is to be human (IMHO); to question one's existence.
The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness. ( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)
To be a terrorist doesn't require religion at all.
Plenty of terrorism is done for plenty of other reasons besides "religion". Just as Jews and Gypsies in Europe, and all those persecuted in Soviet Union and in China for wanting nothing except to be free. Going to an airport and having my bits inspected by some TSA moron (either way) is an assault (and battery) in any other jurisdiction, and is terrorism even if I choose NOT to use airports.
Face the problem, people are evil. They just find excuses for doing evil, whether it be religious, or governance, the result is the same. It is repugnant no matter who does it for whatever their reason is.
By limiting your definition to that of "religion" exposes your bias against all religions at the expense of truth. I'm not excusing religion mind you, just pointing out that terrorism isn't the sole bastion of religion, not by a long shot.
It really easy to spend money that isn't yours. Too danm easy actually, and that is a problem. And we're in debt up to our eyeballs on programs that don't do what they were supposed to do.
And instead of fixing the programs that are going bust, we just add onto the problem with another underfunded mandated fiasco waiting to happen. But as long as we get people hooked on government its all good, right??
If what you are saying is correct, you are saying that those regulations issued by law and the SEC are bogus and ineffective window dressing.
If that is the case, then we should remove all the restrictions and let it be a free for all.
However, if you're not right, then the SEC has all the power needed to carry market reforms I mentioned.
The question is, does SEC have power to enforce market rules and regulations or not? If not, then it would be much better to quit pretending that it does.
Of course I'm a left leaning person who believes that civic and social responsibility are important features of a functioning democracy.
I'll bet your idea of those two things are different than mine. And I wonder how you'd feel if the government mandated my version and not yours. That's the thing with freedom, is it requires the option of NOT doing the right thing.
I'm all for freedom, and responsibility, and consequences for poor choices, and not rescuing people from the same mistakes over and over again.
Wouldn't it behoove us to make damn sure that government doesn't become a burden to society, with all of its ills?
Of course, to cut government you'll have to cut some program that ostensibly helps some special interest group (children, disabled, seniors, minority, poor, etc). The problem is that too much of society has become dependent upon government (tax payer) that there aren't enough tax payers to pay for it all. Even if you taxed everyone currently paying taxes, 100% of their income, there isn't enough to go around for all the programs.
At some point, someone is going to have to do more with less.
The difference is that one can be "hostile" to one religion and not hostile to another, while at the same time saying that they are not "establishing" religion. Hostility is establishing just as promoting is.
Government shouldn't have any say in religion, pro or con.
Crying "racist" is the new boogie man of leftwingers. It is the "go to" card to play when one cannot find a good reason to refute something. It is the same as crying "terrorism" when there is no terrorism involved, which many on the right seem to do.
In fact, calling someone a "racist" is the pat answer to someone calling another a "terrorist"... and visa versa. It is this intellectual dishonesty in political discussions that drives me crazy. It is right up there with Godwins Law. It serves no purpose except end debate.
A) Require 1/2 hour averaging for all trades. This will stop most arbitraging on two accounts: 1) it stops exploiting split second inefficiencies that can only be spotted by computers, 2) creates doubt to which price one is actually paying.
B) Tax all automated computer trades at 1%. Takes the profit motive out of computerized trading.
C) Charge all revocations of unused (non-expired) puts and calls a flat fee. This is to prevent flooding the market with option trades that people have no expectation of completing.
D) Tax profits made by short term traders at a higher rate than long term holder. I propose having several rates for capital gains based on how long a person holds a stock. Example (illustrative only) Less than two weeks @ 50%, less than six months@35%, 1 year @ 33%, 5years @25%, 10 years @10%, greater than 10 years @0%.
The problem isn't liquidity. Never was. Market is plenty liquid at 1/2 hour intervals. Low volume stocks need lower liquidity than high volume stock. The problem is exploitation of timing at split second intervals which can only be accomplished by computers, and has no basis in fundamental market principles. The goal should be to limit trades to people who actually hold stocks as investments, not in people making money off market fluctuations.
Reverse Engineering is fairly simple. It takes TWO teams completely separated and isolated from each other.
Team one examines system, and describes all aspects (results) they can, without describing the mechanism for achieving those results.
Team two takes the results and engineers a system that mimics all aspects described by team one.
Whatever mechanisms team two creates to achieve are "reversed engineered". One cannot reverse engineer something that is patented, because the patent is supposed to describe the mechanisms. However Trade Secrets can be reversed engineered.
However, in a sufficiently complex mechanism, all one needs to do is patent a key middle piece of the mechanism, so that even if you can reverse engineer the whole thing, you are still unable to create a marketable variation, without licensing / buying the key component. The easiest away around this is to patent another key piece after you reverse engineer it. But then things like "prior art" take effect, and so on.
Reverse Engineering is easy to describe, but difficult to achieve. And reverse engineering a product of a litigious company is fraught with other perils. Doing so as a "bounty" for "open source" version is incredibly brilliant way around. No assets of a big company to go after, no way to stop it without looking like a complete and utter asshat, and even if you successfully sue whomever you can, the result is out in the open, much like DeCSS is. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is extremely difficult to put it back in.
THAT link, was not the "full video" as it (and you) claims. At 20:59 the video is edited to remove the "cheers" that are at the very heart of my statement.
The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same. Obama is just like Bush, Clinton, Bush before him. If you don't like the power of the Bush's but you like the power of Obama and Clinton (or visa versa) you're just a tool for those seeking more power.
The best defense we (the citizens) have is to limit power of ANYONE in office.
and the NAACP is not racist when the audience cheers a "white farmer" comment by Shirley Sherrod. It wasn't the comment that was racist, it was the response of the audience to her statement that was.
I feel sorry for Shirley Sherrod because she was caught in the middle. She had a "coming to Jesus" moment that was lost among those wanting to bedevil the other side (both sides are guilty).
Racism is a nasty nasty thing. There are racists on both sides of the isle. But then again, some people claim that all whites are racist, and no person of color can be, which makes the whole point impossible to discus. Might as well cry "child molester", it is about the same thing.
Gas stations selling gas that isn't what it claims, is fraud. PERIOD. If you go by gas that is NOT what is advertised then you've committed a crime.
In the case of gas, we had a REGULATION (here in CA) that required MTBE added to the fuel. MTBE is now in all sorts of ground water, permanently.
Regulation isn't the panacea that people want it to be. And for every regulation that tries to fix a problem, there's at one unanticipated consequence that more regulation is required to fix.
And all the regulation in the world didn't stop the subprime lending and derivative investment crap that caused the housing and mortgage fiasco that has lead to this slump. IMHO it was regulation that caused it.
Creating regulations to get people who are unqualified for houses into houses was a bad idea based on good intentions.
Actually, I believe he's talking about corporatism not even capitalism. And I might even agree with him about corporatism. However state owned and regulated industry is worse than well managed capitalistic free market.
Libertarians think that REGULATING an entire INDUSTRY because of POTENTIAL problems is tyranny. IT is no different than "security theater" in the airports. You don't like it when it applies to you, but you're so willing to apply it to everyone else as long as it doesn't apply to you (never mind that it eventually will).
Cable, Telephone are monopolies because people in government have no clue how to manage natural monopolies (utilities). City should own the INFRASTRUCTURE and auction the lease off to the utility company for 5, 10, 15, or 25 years (depending on type) and define the proper "service level agreement" they want for their citizens.
IF we did... say TELCO this way, I'd have Fiber to my house already, because it would be installed per city regulations and service would be give to the company that offered me the best service bits for my price range.
I don't know. Crying "racism" to every substantive issue seems to me "going after the stupid voters". You know, the left wing says "The Tea Party are racists" and it works, because stupid people think Marco Rubio and Tim Scott are white??? (both won).
Suffice it to say, there are STUPID people on BOTH sides of the isle. And it is anti intellectualism that denies that both sides are doing the same thing. They do it, because it works. BOTH SIDES.
You should vote, if only to vote for a write-in or third party candidate. This election is as much about the "Two Parties" screwing things for "Joe Sixpack" in favor of their corporate overlords. The problem is that we don't have much of a choice from the two major parties.
So, vote, but send a message. If third parties get more than 20% combined, there can be no call for "mandate" from either of the two parties.
Voting for the lessor of two evils is a logical fallacy. There are more than two evils running for most posts.
Slashdot Mirror
Science is good at explaining the world we live in. Science sucks at explaining why we're alive. Evolution may explain how we see things in this world, but it cannot explain spontaneous life, from inorganic to organic, to proteins that are folded that require RNA sequences to replicate the proteins that are needed to build RNA sequences (etc).
Science cannot explain WHY we are here, and that is the question Religion tries answers (often imperfectly). This is why there is disdain for religion by much of the world of "science" because science doesn't want to, and cannot know the answers to such questions. But that is the heart of what it is to be human (IMHO); to question one's existence.
To be a terrorist doesn't require religion at all.
Plenty of terrorism is done for plenty of other reasons besides "religion". Just as Jews and Gypsies in Europe, and all those persecuted in Soviet Union and in China for wanting nothing except to be free. Going to an airport and having my bits inspected by some TSA moron (either way) is an assault (and battery) in any other jurisdiction, and is terrorism even if I choose NOT to use airports.
Face the problem, people are evil. They just find excuses for doing evil, whether it be religious, or governance, the result is the same. It is repugnant no matter who does it for whatever their reason is.
By limiting your definition to that of "religion" exposes your bias against all religions at the expense of truth. I'm not excusing religion mind you, just pointing out that terrorism isn't the sole bastion of religion, not by a long shot.
http://www.harborfreight.com/100-piece-security-bit-set-91310.html
It is our money Damnit.
It really easy to spend money that isn't yours. Too danm easy actually, and that is a problem. And we're in debt up to our eyeballs on programs that don't do what they were supposed to do.
And instead of fixing the programs that are going bust, we just add onto the problem with another underfunded mandated fiasco waiting to happen. But as long as we get people hooked on government its all good, right??
SEC regulates the markets already.
If what you are saying is correct, you are saying that those regulations issued by law and the SEC are bogus and ineffective window dressing.
If that is the case, then we should remove all the restrictions and let it be a free for all.
However, if you're not right, then the SEC has all the power needed to carry market reforms I mentioned.
The question is, does SEC have power to enforce market rules and regulations or not? If not, then it would be much better to quit pretending that it does.
I'll bet your idea of those two things are different than mine. And I wonder how you'd feel if the government mandated my version and not yours. That's the thing with freedom, is it requires the option of NOT doing the right thing.
I'm all for freedom, and responsibility, and consequences for poor choices, and not rescuing people from the same mistakes over and over again.
Wouldn't it behoove us to make damn sure that government doesn't become a burden to society, with all of its ills?
Of course, to cut government you'll have to cut some program that ostensibly helps some special interest group (children, disabled, seniors, minority, poor, etc). The problem is that too much of society has become dependent upon government (tax payer) that there aren't enough tax payers to pay for it all. Even if you taxed everyone currently paying taxes, 100% of their income, there isn't enough to go around for all the programs.
At some point, someone is going to have to do more with less.
The difference is that one can be "hostile" to one religion and not hostile to another, while at the same time saying that they are not "establishing" religion. Hostility is establishing just as promoting is.
Government shouldn't have any say in religion, pro or con.
Crying "racist" is the new boogie man of leftwingers. It is the "go to" card to play when one cannot find a good reason to refute something. It is the same as crying "terrorism" when there is no terrorism involved, which many on the right seem to do.
In fact, calling someone a "racist" is the pat answer to someone calling another a "terrorist" ... and visa versa. It is this intellectual dishonesty in political discussions that drives me crazy. It is right up there with Godwins Law. It serves no purpose except end debate.
A) Require 1/2 hour averaging for all trades. This will stop most arbitraging on two accounts: 1) it stops exploiting split second inefficiencies that can only be spotted by computers, 2) creates doubt to which price one is actually paying.
B) Tax all automated computer trades at 1%. Takes the profit motive out of computerized trading.
C) Charge all revocations of unused (non-expired) puts and calls a flat fee. This is to prevent flooding the market with option trades that people have no expectation of completing.
D) Tax profits made by short term traders at a higher rate than long term holder. I propose having several rates for capital gains based on how long a person holds a stock. Example (illustrative only) Less than two weeks @ 50%, less than six months@35%, 1 year @ 33%, 5years @25%, 10 years @10%, greater than 10 years @0%.
The problem isn't liquidity. Never was. Market is plenty liquid at 1/2 hour intervals. Low volume stocks need lower liquidity than high volume stock. The problem is exploitation of timing at split second intervals which can only be accomplished by computers, and has no basis in fundamental market principles. The goal should be to limit trades to people who actually hold stocks as investments, not in people making money off market fluctuations.
Reverse Engineering is fairly simple. It takes TWO teams completely separated and isolated from each other.
Team one examines system, and describes all aspects (results) they can, without describing the mechanism for achieving those results.
Team two takes the results and engineers a system that mimics all aspects described by team one.
Whatever mechanisms team two creates to achieve are "reversed engineered". One cannot reverse engineer something that is patented, because the patent is supposed to describe the mechanisms. However Trade Secrets can be reversed engineered.
However, in a sufficiently complex mechanism, all one needs to do is patent a key middle piece of the mechanism, so that even if you can reverse engineer the whole thing, you are still unable to create a marketable variation, without licensing / buying the key component. The easiest away around this is to patent another key piece after you reverse engineer it. But then things like "prior art" take effect, and so on.
Reverse Engineering is easy to describe, but difficult to achieve. And reverse engineering a product of a litigious company is fraught with other perils. Doing so as a "bounty" for "open source" version is incredibly brilliant way around. No assets of a big company to go after, no way to stop it without looking like a complete and utter asshat, and even if you successfully sue whomever you can, the result is out in the open, much like DeCSS is. Once the cat is out of the bag, it is extremely difficult to put it back in.
ummm
THAT link, was not the "full video" as it (and you) claims. At 20:59 the video is edited to remove the "cheers" that are at the very heart of my statement.
Here's the missing piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GNArUTCo0Q&feature=related
Take a look at THAT video ... at about 50-60secs into it, you can hear the statement and the crowd cheering. The audio sucks but it is there.
Any sufficient level of incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. Don't know which one you are, I'll let you decide.
There is nothing worse than blind followers, except evil leaders of blind followers.
Two words .... Fairness Doctrine
Two more Words .... Political Correctness
The (R) and (D) don't care about civil liberties. They pay lip service, but when push comes to shove, both sides are the same. Obama is just like Bush, Clinton, Bush before him. If you don't like the power of the Bush's but you like the power of Obama and Clinton (or visa versa) you're just a tool for those seeking more power.
The best defense we (the citizens) have is to limit power of ANYONE in office.
and the NAACP is not racist when the audience cheers a "white farmer" comment by Shirley Sherrod. It wasn't the comment that was racist, it was the response of the audience to her statement that was.
I feel sorry for Shirley Sherrod because she was caught in the middle. She had a "coming to Jesus" moment that was lost among those wanting to bedevil the other side (both sides are guilty).
Racism is a nasty nasty thing. There are racists on both sides of the isle. But then again, some people claim that all whites are racist, and no person of color can be, which makes the whole point impossible to discus. Might as well cry "child molester", it is about the same thing.
Using your example ....
Gas stations selling gas that isn't what it claims, is fraud. PERIOD. If you go by gas that is NOT what is advertised then you've committed a crime.
In the case of gas, we had a REGULATION (here in CA) that required MTBE added to the fuel. MTBE is now in all sorts of ground water, permanently.
Regulation isn't the panacea that people want it to be. And for every regulation that tries to fix a problem, there's at one unanticipated consequence that more regulation is required to fix.
And all the regulation in the world didn't stop the subprime lending and derivative investment crap that caused the housing and mortgage fiasco that has lead to this slump. IMHO it was regulation that caused it.
Creating regulations to get people who are unqualified for houses into houses was a bad idea based on good intentions.
Actually, I believe he's talking about corporatism not even capitalism. And I might even agree with him about corporatism. However state owned and regulated industry is worse than well managed capitalistic free market.
No
Libertarians think that REGULATING an entire INDUSTRY because of POTENTIAL problems is tyranny. IT is no different than "security theater" in the airports. You don't like it when it applies to you, but you're so willing to apply it to everyone else as long as it doesn't apply to you (never mind that it eventually will).
Cable, Telephone are monopolies because people in government have no clue how to manage natural monopolies (utilities). City should own the INFRASTRUCTURE and auction the lease off to the utility company for 5, 10, 15, or 25 years (depending on type) and define the proper "service level agreement" they want for their citizens.
IF we did ... say TELCO this way, I'd have Fiber to my house already, because it would be installed per city regulations and service would be give to the company that offered me the best service bits for my price range.
I don't know. Crying "racism" to every substantive issue seems to me "going after the stupid voters". You know, the left wing says "The Tea Party are racists" and it works, because stupid people think Marco Rubio and Tim Scott are white??? (both won).
Suffice it to say, there are STUPID people on BOTH sides of the isle. And it is anti intellectualism that denies that both sides are doing the same thing. They do it, because it works. BOTH SIDES.
And it is done by both (D) and (R) types. It is nothing new. The question is, do you complain when people say the same thing about links to Fox News?
Because Lawyers need to eat.
You should vote, if only to vote for a write-in or third party candidate. This election is as much about the "Two Parties" screwing things for "Joe Sixpack" in favor of their corporate overlords. The problem is that we don't have much of a choice from the two major parties.
So, vote, but send a message. If third parties get more than 20% combined, there can be no call for "mandate" from either of the two parties.
Voting for the lessor of two evils is a logical fallacy. There are more than two evils running for most posts.
Apologies.
Second glance you're more like myself. ;)
You're more libertarian than I assumed.
Its Obvious!
Oracle wants to be the Brute Squad.
We're on /. we can only dream of having that problem.