Any politico worth his salt knows that robocalls, no matter how many and who is talking, do nothing but piss the electorate off at you. They aren't even good at raising awareness because people tune out. It's a waste of time up until the summer before an election anyway, and then it's only any good if you're using volunteers and getting people to turn out. I've run call centers for campaigns before and it's incredible to me that somebody who was affiliated with statewide campaigns, that is someone who has experience winning elections, would be this stupid.
That's correct, the draw of the Wii U to me would be the neat things that could be done with 2+ of the controllers in a local setting, but since it seems that won't be the case I will go for the pretties of Battlefield 3, since I've always enjoyed that series and their refinements have continued to make the series more fun for me. I don't see any contradiction with that.
When they said only one player gets to use the fancy new controller at a time. I understand the limitation, but it just makes the whole thing seem half baked to me. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to spend my money on a PC to run Battlefield 3.
I think you overestimate how much people consider public transit when visiting metropolitan areas. The real barrier is the cost/hassle of flying from, say, Eugene to San Francisco. That's not to mention the kind of incentive to build up public transportation within cities that a more fluid population would provide. LA is another story, that shit needs work.
I could see that being really great, and certainly better than if it were just in the US, but I think a lot of the ski areas in Oregon would be more popular with the California crowd than it is now. Either way, it would be a boon to the region and I think we ought to invest in it.
I wish Oregon, Washington, California could get together and fund high speed rail from Seattle, down the I-5 corridor, to San Diego just to prove to the rest of the country how awesome modern public transportation could be in the US.
This has serious long term benefits to their state. For one, all that construction and maintenance will further add to their middle class and domestic consumption, not to mention tourism and trade from Europe. Consider what such access has done for Europeans when they opened their borders to each other and it makes perfect sense for the Chines to do the same. Plus, they're control freaks and I'm sure see incredible value in recording every word on one of their trams. True that it's expensive now, and they won't have a return on it for a long time, but it's nice to see that at least one country is forward looking in terms of their infrastructure, especially compared to the austerity and oil jerks in the US.
I'm sure that a significan portion of people who use Steam have their settings as such that they never see the store page or the "special deals" offered and not to mention the multitude of casual gamers who would probably be inclined to partake in such free to play offerings. Also, I hate free to play stuff:|
I'm not sure, though your point it certainly valid. I think it has more to do with the input college gets these days, because public school are essentially day-cares now. That's too bad because I think most people who teach are very capable, but they don't have the type of funding and a poor home life for kids does major damage to their education prospects. As for the importance of college, yeah, I think for a lot of areas we'd be much better served with trade schools, but with the economy as it is, you need a degree just to differentiate yourself from the hordes of unemployed looking for the same work. McDonald's might take you, but who wants that?
It's not a belief, it's a reaction to market forces, which demand college education. The baby boomers are going to be retiring en-mass in the next few years and that's going to open up a lot of work for people primarily with college education. It isn't that they necessarily think that an education will lead to higher paying jobs so much as will lead to any job at this point. This isn't a "bubble" because tuition increases as a direct result of government funding less and less for higher education and not 'speculation' that drives up the cost. Where I agree with you is that the classic liberal arts education is pretty antiquated and we would be much better served by an increase in trade schools.
It's more like you have a guarantee to be impoverished if you don't go, and are less likely to be impoverished if you do go. Speaking as someone who doesn't quite have their degree yet, and can't even get an interview for a job, I shudder to think what life would be like for those that are content to deal with the job market with a High School diploma. Not that you can't be successful, just it's incredibly unlikely. At least that stupid bachelors degree gives me a leg up over them, or ought to when it's done.
I'm not sure that's exactly the phrasing I would use for it. I think I'd call it unhealthy skepticism, where we've become so cynical to what we've been told that we automatically discount it and fall back on how we tend to see things. I suppose they're pretty similar but I don't think that's really how those types of people see themselves, and they probably deserve the benefit of the doubt. I notice it most when anything political or economic comes up and we hear about how we're going to turn into Zimbabwe because PRINTING MONEY, but I think it has more to do with the difficulty to find and digest real information when 90% of claims made are on their face bullshit, and another 7% seem legit but are actually bullshit.
So I guess, sure, some are anti-intellectual, but I think most of us just have a hard time sifting through the noise.
40 full time positions and 600 construction jobs would be nothing to sneeze at, even if the plant isn't really all that efficient. It should have a nice ripple effect, with some of those houses sitting empty getting new tenants, and, if they don't count it already, the construction that would need to be done for infrastructure. At least Harry Reid is effective for Nevada, if not the rest of the country.
Sure, a devalued dollar (and to be clear, I'm not talking the Weinmar republic here) makes our goods cheaper relative to our competitors. As investment picks up and jobs are created, demand goes up internally and at the end of the process the FED sees that they can raise interest rates to head off actual inflation (that is when both prices AND wages increase to combat one another, because it does have to be both) it moves the dollar back into a "stronger" position. Food stamps and unemployment insurance are, you're right, not very intuitive when the economy is at full employment, but we're nowhere near that position. Right now, these modest (and they're very modest) benefits keep people somewhat afloat until they can find work. The problem we face right now is this costs a lot of money, but it's actually less than the alternative. Consider the lost productivity over a lifetime if people like this are simply allowed to go under. They can't create demand when they're bankrupt. It's the same problem with the housing market: by kicking people out of their homes because they can't pay their mortgage (their fault, but adjustable rates are a bitch) and letting the bank own it, ZERO is being paid on that house. In the long term it would be much better to have the owner in it paying what they can than nothing.
Also lawl at the dude who said I watch Fox. FWIW I consider myself a pretty boilerplate Democrat with a hawkish (but not Rumsfeld stupid) take on foreign affairs. I didn't support Iraq, and I think we owe it to Afghanistan to leave something of an institution in place so that their army can manage at least the non-Pashtun dominated North of the country. I consider it useful as a point of leverage on Pakistan from continuing their quest to Islamisize the region to strengthen their hand against India, and ideally force their military to stop the active promotion of terrorism. We do need to reduce our footprint, but we've really only given the war the attention it deserved since Obama became President - but again my take is that if you break it, you own it and to not at least try to create some security space in the cities seems extremely irresponsible after you've taken the time to invade. I'm perfectly all right with disagreement, but please don't question my intelligence based on my OBVIOUS blindness to the military conspiracy that keeps us in perpetual wars.
Food stamps create growth (no, I didn't do the math myself): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3239#_ftnref8
I agree that there is little political appetite for more spending, I'm only suggesting that we'll have to pay the infrastructure piper eventually and with interest rates on long term debt at pretty historic lows, now would be a good time to do that.
"I think that I'd rather run the risk of the 1 in 20-30 million chance of dieing in a terrorist act than run the risk^Wcertainty that a government not bound by the law WILL eventually abuse its own populace."
And that, right there, is why your opinion will never matter. Because people have families and they aren't bothered by the government snooping at their traffic. I understand that laws violating the constitution are illegal. But the Patriot Act doesn't violate the constitution. If it did, it would have been ruled as such. And the idea that Bush, for all his bullshit, hauled people who disagreed with him to Guantanamo? You're hopeless.
We aren't printing money. The US isn't Zimbabwe, if it were why the fuck would our interest rates on our bonds be so low? If the "weakening" of our currency causes real growth in the short term with the expectation that in the long term our currency will strengthen to take advantage of a stronger economy is it really a problem? No, it's not.
Americans don't think about it, and they don't understand policy. Asking for their opinions is ridiculous. I suspect that the lack of a shit fit from Americans over it's renewal is a good indicator on where they stand. As I said, correlation isn't causation, but the law has teeth, if it didn't you wouldn't be bothered by it, and I reject the notion that the Government should share every damned detail about national security with people. I realize you can't probe a negative, but honestly do you think that the law hasn't contributed in some way to the apprehension of any terrorist or disruption of plot? I'm sure if it does work it's mostly used to stop people in other countries before they come here, in which case we wouldn't ever hear about it.
It's not going to get 'that bad' and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. It's not in danger of happening. It won't ever be. The Affordable Care Act is hardly a 'take over' of health care in this country and even if it were, what is so goddamned scary about that? Medicare is pretty popular and seems to keep a lot of people alive. The health system we have now denies coverage to and incredibly large portion of the public and cost twice as much as the next most expensive country. Don't be thick.
Look, I'm not saying it prevents every possible attack. I'm also not going to make a distinction between plots, attacks, deaths, cats, dogs, apples or oranges. The salient point is that the Patriot Act is useful for disruption such dogs and oranges. The Ft. Hood shooting is the type of thing it doesn't protect against, but it's also hardly different from a day in Ohio and our main concern should be with large scale attacks like 9/11 or worse.
What right, exactly, have you lost as a result of the Patriot Act? Because the Supreme Court says you didn't, and they, not you, determine that answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Any politico worth his salt knows that robocalls, no matter how many and who is talking, do nothing but piss the electorate off at you. They aren't even good at raising awareness because people tune out. It's a waste of time up until the summer before an election anyway, and then it's only any good if you're using volunteers and getting people to turn out. I've run call centers for campaigns before and it's incredible to me that somebody who was affiliated with statewide campaigns, that is someone who has experience winning elections, would be this stupid.
That's correct, the draw of the Wii U to me would be the neat things that could be done with 2+ of the controllers in a local setting, but since it seems that won't be the case I will go for the pretties of Battlefield 3, since I've always enjoyed that series and their refinements have continued to make the series more fun for me. I don't see any contradiction with that.
I think it was fairly clear in the article that 1 is the hard limit, and to me 3DS connectivity is about as useful as hooking a GBA up to a Cube.
http://www.slashgear.com/wii-u-to-support-only-one-controller-per-console-at-launch-10158774/
When they said only one player gets to use the fancy new controller at a time. I understand the limitation, but it just makes the whole thing seem half baked to me. Oh well, I guess I'll just have to spend my money on a PC to run Battlefield 3.
I think you overestimate how much people consider public transit when visiting metropolitan areas. The real barrier is the cost/hassle of flying from, say, Eugene to San Francisco. That's not to mention the kind of incentive to build up public transportation within cities that a more fluid population would provide. LA is another story, that shit needs work.
I could see that being really great, and certainly better than if it were just in the US, but I think a lot of the ski areas in Oregon would be more popular with the California crowd than it is now. Either way, it would be a boon to the region and I think we ought to invest in it.
You're mistaken in thinking any future conflict with a nuclear armed nation would take place inside that nation's borders.
I wish Oregon, Washington, California could get together and fund high speed rail from Seattle, down the I-5 corridor, to San Diego just to prove to the rest of the country how awesome modern public transportation could be in the US.
This has serious long term benefits to their state. For one, all that construction and maintenance will further add to their middle class and domestic consumption, not to mention tourism and trade from Europe. Consider what such access has done for Europeans when they opened their borders to each other and it makes perfect sense for the Chines to do the same. Plus, they're control freaks and I'm sure see incredible value in recording every word on one of their trams. True that it's expensive now, and they won't have a return on it for a long time, but it's nice to see that at least one country is forward looking in terms of their infrastructure, especially compared to the austerity and oil jerks in the US.
I'm sure that a significan portion of people who use Steam have their settings as such that they never see the store page or the "special deals" offered and not to mention the multitude of casual gamers who would probably be inclined to partake in such free to play offerings. Also, I hate free to play stuff :|
I'm not sure, though your point it certainly valid. I think it has more to do with the input college gets these days, because public school are essentially day-cares now. That's too bad because I think most people who teach are very capable, but they don't have the type of funding and a poor home life for kids does major damage to their education prospects. As for the importance of college, yeah, I think for a lot of areas we'd be much better served with trade schools, but with the economy as it is, you need a degree just to differentiate yourself from the hordes of unemployed looking for the same work. McDonald's might take you, but who wants that?
It's not a belief, it's a reaction to market forces, which demand college education. The baby boomers are going to be retiring en-mass in the next few years and that's going to open up a lot of work for people primarily with college education. It isn't that they necessarily think that an education will lead to higher paying jobs so much as will lead to any job at this point. This isn't a "bubble" because tuition increases as a direct result of government funding less and less for higher education and not 'speculation' that drives up the cost. Where I agree with you is that the classic liberal arts education is pretty antiquated and we would be much better served by an increase in trade schools.
It's more like you have a guarantee to be impoverished if you don't go, and are less likely to be impoverished if you do go. Speaking as someone who doesn't quite have their degree yet, and can't even get an interview for a job, I shudder to think what life would be like for those that are content to deal with the job market with a High School diploma. Not that you can't be successful, just it's incredibly unlikely. At least that stupid bachelors degree gives me a leg up over them, or ought to when it's done.
I'm not sure that's exactly the phrasing I would use for it. I think I'd call it unhealthy skepticism, where we've become so cynical to what we've been told that we automatically discount it and fall back on how we tend to see things. I suppose they're pretty similar but I don't think that's really how those types of people see themselves, and they probably deserve the benefit of the doubt. I notice it most when anything political or economic comes up and we hear about how we're going to turn into Zimbabwe because PRINTING MONEY, but I think it has more to do with the difficulty to find and digest real information when 90% of claims made are on their face bullshit, and another 7% seem legit but are actually bullshit.
So I guess, sure, some are anti-intellectual, but I think most of us just have a hard time sifting through the noise.
40 full time positions and 600 construction jobs would be nothing to sneeze at, even if the plant isn't really all that efficient. It should have a nice ripple effect, with some of those houses sitting empty getting new tenants, and, if they don't count it already, the construction that would need to be done for infrastructure. At least Harry Reid is effective for Nevada, if not the rest of the country.
Sure, a devalued dollar (and to be clear, I'm not talking the Weinmar republic here) makes our goods cheaper relative to our competitors. As investment picks up and jobs are created, demand goes up internally and at the end of the process the FED sees that they can raise interest rates to head off actual inflation (that is when both prices AND wages increase to combat one another, because it does have to be both) it moves the dollar back into a "stronger" position. Food stamps and unemployment insurance are, you're right, not very intuitive when the economy is at full employment, but we're nowhere near that position. Right now, these modest (and they're very modest) benefits keep people somewhat afloat until they can find work. The problem we face right now is this costs a lot of money, but it's actually less than the alternative. Consider the lost productivity over a lifetime if people like this are simply allowed to go under. They can't create demand when they're bankrupt. It's the same problem with the housing market: by kicking people out of their homes because they can't pay their mortgage (their fault, but adjustable rates are a bitch) and letting the bank own it, ZERO is being paid on that house. In the long term it would be much better to have the owner in it paying what they can than nothing.
Also lawl at the dude who said I watch Fox. FWIW I consider myself a pretty boilerplate Democrat with a hawkish (but not Rumsfeld stupid) take on foreign affairs. I didn't support Iraq, and I think we owe it to Afghanistan to leave something of an institution in place so that their army can manage at least the non-Pashtun dominated North of the country. I consider it useful as a point of leverage on Pakistan from continuing their quest to Islamisize the region to strengthen their hand against India, and ideally force their military to stop the active promotion of terrorism. We do need to reduce our footprint, but we've really only given the war the attention it deserved since Obama became President - but again my take is that if you break it, you own it and to not at least try to create some security space in the cities seems extremely irresponsible after you've taken the time to invade. I'm perfectly all right with disagreement, but please don't question my intelligence based on my OBVIOUS blindness to the military conspiracy that keeps us in perpetual wars.
Food stamps create growth (no, I didn't do the math myself): http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3239#_ftnref8
I agree that there is little political appetite for more spending, I'm only suggesting that we'll have to pay the infrastructure piper eventually and with interest rates on long term debt at pretty historic lows, now would be a good time to do that.
What I've learned: /. assumes metal gear solid is plausible.
"I think that I'd rather run the risk of the 1 in 20-30 million chance of dieing in a terrorist act than run the risk^Wcertainty that a government not bound by the law WILL eventually abuse its own populace." And that, right there, is why your opinion will never matter. Because people have families and they aren't bothered by the government snooping at their traffic. I understand that laws violating the constitution are illegal. But the Patriot Act doesn't violate the constitution. If it did, it would have been ruled as such. And the idea that Bush, for all his bullshit, hauled people who disagreed with him to Guantanamo? You're hopeless.
We aren't printing money. The US isn't Zimbabwe, if it were why the fuck would our interest rates on our bonds be so low? If the "weakening" of our currency causes real growth in the short term with the expectation that in the long term our currency will strengthen to take advantage of a stronger economy is it really a problem? No, it's not.
Americans don't think about it, and they don't understand policy. Asking for their opinions is ridiculous. I suspect that the lack of a shit fit from Americans over it's renewal is a good indicator on where they stand. As I said, correlation isn't causation, but the law has teeth, if it didn't you wouldn't be bothered by it, and I reject the notion that the Government should share every damned detail about national security with people. I realize you can't probe a negative, but honestly do you think that the law hasn't contributed in some way to the apprehension of any terrorist or disruption of plot? I'm sure if it does work it's mostly used to stop people in other countries before they come here, in which case we wouldn't ever hear about it.
8.1 billion isn't even a drop in the bucket. Are those scanners stupid? Yeah, but is it really the end of the world?
It's not going to get 'that bad' and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise. It's not in danger of happening. It won't ever be. The Affordable Care Act is hardly a 'take over' of health care in this country and even if it were, what is so goddamned scary about that? Medicare is pretty popular and seems to keep a lot of people alive. The health system we have now denies coverage to and incredibly large portion of the public and cost twice as much as the next most expensive country. Don't be thick.
Look, I'm not saying it prevents every possible attack. I'm also not going to make a distinction between plots, attacks, deaths, cats, dogs, apples or oranges. The salient point is that the Patriot Act is useful for disruption such dogs and oranges. The Ft. Hood shooting is the type of thing it doesn't protect against, but it's also hardly different from a day in Ohio and our main concern should be with large scale attacks like 9/11 or worse.
What right, exactly, have you lost as a result of the Patriot Act? Because the Supreme Court says you didn't, and they, not you, determine that answer.