Which is why in the US for instance the old conservatives used to argue for small government, and the founders tried to limit the federal government.
Meh, all you did was trade tyranny by the government for tyranny by corporations and the economic oligarchy. Worse, at least in the case of the former, you have some resemblance of recourse: elections. But if a corporation decides to poison your groundwater, or feed you steroid-laced milk, you have essentially no recourse (unless, of course, the big-government socialists manage to pass laws regulating industry while providing citizens with legal recourse... but that is, of course, evil pinko communism).
Who said anything about closing the gap? Continuing to develop and support MySQL doesn't mean turning it into a powerhouse database like Oracle.
The simple fact is, MySQL and Oracle do not, and have never, played in the same league, and I believe it would be a mistake to try and turn MySQL into a shitty Oracle. MySQL has a niche... keep it there.
If we look at MySQL for example: here's a company that produces half way decent database engine that that make open source. They play the open source game "properly" producing code that a mortal can compile to get a working database. While the company is giving the community what they want everything is hunky dory and there is peace.
Enter Sun who buy MySQL and suddenly the community isn't happy and it's fork fork fork.
Congratulations! With your very example you actually managed to disprove your original assertion. See, your original claim was this:
"As the owner of a software development company I think your would have to be stark raving nuts to open source your main product."
But, the very first paragraph in that quoted text demonstrates that isn't actually the case. The community was very happy with and supportive of MySQL corporate.
The problem, as you pointed out, was the purchase by Sun. In that case, the customers didn't feel Sun would necessarily have their interests at heart, and so there was dissatisfaction. This is only increased by the fact that Sun has now been purchased by Oracle, a company that actually markets a product in the same general space (I would argue they aren't actually in the same market, and so MySQL has little to fear, but... people aren't exactly rational).
So the key to running a company on an open codebase seems simple: keep your customers happy, and don't give them the impression that their interested are being threatened. But, of course, that's a good general rule to follow regardless of the license your code falls under. The only real difference between open and closed source, in this case, is that if the source is closed, you may have achieved vendor lock-in, which gives you more freedom to buttfuck your customers, as they won't have a clear avenue for recourse... but if that's your strategy, well, frankly, fuck you.
Are you talking about generic employer/employee relationships, or the specific relationship you (and maybe a handful of other highly qualified and independent people) have with your employer?
Well, it's certainly not unique to me. It's simply the approach my employer takes with all their employees.
Nevertheless, while the flexibility I have in my job may be an exception, it doesn't change the fact that the employer-employee relationship is an entirely voluntary one. When I apply for, and subequently take a job I make a choice knowing, at least in broad terms, what that job is likely to entail. If, at some point, I no longer wish to do the job I've been hired for, I may terminate the agreement at my leisure. But the point is the choice is entirely mine.
A child has no such luxury, hence why I say the employer-employee relationship is not patriarchal. The child is beheld to their parents by the simple virtue that they would be incapable of surviving without them. They can't simply go out into the world and find another set of parents that better fit their expectations. An adult, however, can most certainly do that when it comes to employers.
but if you're employer wants it done you either do it or the relationship ends. You don't get to pick and chose what you do if you want to stay.
And that depends a great deal on the employer. In my position, thanks to my relatively broad skillset, I have pretty wide latitude on what I choose to work on. And it *is* a choice. a) my employer asks my input before assigning me a task, because they understand that my job satisfaction is an important consideration, and b) again, if I don't like the work I'm doing, I can always find somewhere else to work.
You mistake is in believing that quitting is somehow an extreme decision. It's not, any more than an employer forcing me to do work I don't want to do is extreme. It's simply a choice. The employer can choose to keep me happy, or I can choose to leave. Where the power is is really a matter of perspective, IMHO.
Of course, the equation changes a bit during a recession, but even now, the high skill jobs are still out there for those who're qualified.
At any rate the employer is in charge if you want to maintain the relationship, not you.
And I'm in charge if the employer wants to maintain the relationship and I don't. The recourse on both sides is the same: termination of the agreement.
A parternship is more equal, where both parties discuss things up front prior to making a decision.
Well, I pity you and your crappy job. Believe it or not, my employer asks me if I want to work on something before throwing it at me. See, 'round here, there are lots of different projects, and so they actually give the employee a choice on what to work on, because they realize that a happy, interested employee is more useful than a pissed off, bored employee.
And even if you choose to view that as an unequal relationship, it's still not patriarchal. The company isn't an irresistible force that I'm beheld to. It's merely an entity with which I've entered an agreement. That's it, that's all. And if I don't like the way the arrangement is working out, I can simply choose to terminate the agreement.
My point is that if your employer tells you to do something, you largely due it. It's not a parternship, it's a hierarchy.
No, that's simply part of the contract. The employer pays me, and in exchange I do the job I've agreed to do. Of course, if what they ask is unethical or doesn't make sense, I absolutely tell them so. After all, they hired me for my experience and expertise, not because I'm a brainless flunky who unquestioningly does what they're told. And if they persist in doing something silly, and I can't bring myself to do the job they ask of me, then I'll find another employer.
And while you can say "I'll quit!" all you want, realistically you're stuck there until you find another job
That's only true if you're dumb enough to place yourself in a situation where the sudden loss of your job followed by a short period of unemployment would be problematic. You haven't done that, have you?
So if your boss says you need to start filling out timesheets, you think that's an area of discussion, or do you just do it?
Uh, how do timesheet requirements imply a parent-child relationship? That's a rather simplistic point of view. It may simply be a mechanism for the employer to use to ensure that I'm holding up my end of the bargain (after all, I can easily see if they're holding up theirs by examining my pay stubs). If that's the case, I certainly don't like it, as it betrays a lack of trust (and would certainly bias me toward finding another employer), but that hardly implies a patriarchal attitude.
Of course, in reality, timesheets are typically needed for the purpose of billing customers, and/or to satisfy accounting/auditing requirements, in which case I couldn't care less.
If your employer saying they are changing your healthcare plan, is he asking your opinion, or making a decision without your input?
If my employer changes my benefit plan (I say benefits because, as a Canadian, my employer doesn't pay for my healthcare, but they do subsidize suplimental insurance for things like drugs, dental, etc) in a way that I don't like, of course, I'll quit. Benefits are another form of compensation, and just like my salary, if said compensation changes in a way that I don't approve of, I'll find a job that will compensate me appropriately.
How about injecting dairy cows with chemical crap to maximize production, at the expense of the animal's health and resulting in milk that belongs in a "bio-hazard" container as opposed to a milk jug?
Meh, for that you can blame the US government. Neither, Canada, nor a good part of Europe, have approved those synthetic hormones you speak of for use in milk production. Pity your "regulators" don't actually regulate anything...
It's a lot more similar to the relationship of an adult to their employer than their relationship to a spouse.
Good lord, I hope not. The minute my employer starts thinking of me as their child is the day I quit.
I *choose* to work where I work. The relationship between myself and my employer is, and should be, a partnership. They pay me for my services, and in exchange, I perform work for them. There's nothing parental about it.
Of course, your point remains. The parent-child relationship is a unique one, and IMHO, can't really be compared to any other. And its most *certainly* not comparable to the spousal relationship.
Uh... Aren't they forgetting the inconvenient slowness of the speed of light?
Yes, because a member of the SETI institute never thought of that.
Honestly, Slashdotters really think *way* too highly of themselves... or way too little of the average scientist.
So if you are going to explore some far away place, telepresence will still require you to ship some human to the general vicinity.
No, because the idea isn't interactive exploration, in the sense that you remotely control the robotic probe in real time. The idea is that you collect massive amounts of data about a world, transmit it back, and then use that data to build a virtual model that you can then explore at your leisure.
Of course, such an approach will have limitations (if you decide you want to see what's under a rock, unless you knew ahead of time to turn it over, you'd have to then send instructions to a probe and then wait for the new data to come back). But its certainly an interesting idea, IMHO.
Watch it, dude, that's socialism! Don't you see? Your township is now on the slippery slope to becoming a pinko commune filled with evil godless heathens hell bent on destroying the American way of life! Soon enough, you'll be French, and then what'll you do??
I understand the difference between money and currency, you chucklefuck.
The OP claimed that banks create "currency" when they issue loans:
Ah, so you were picking nits. Gotcha.
The money supply gets bigger. That's the ultimate effect, and that's the whole fucking point. The fact that new physical dollars aren't printed doesn't matter one whit. The point is more money enters the system, and it's specifically created by the banks at the time the loan is issued.
a bank does not create new currency out of thin air.
No. It creates *money* out of thin air. Shit, it's in the *very first fucking sentence in that section*:
Modern central banking allows multiple banks to practice fractional reserve banking with inter-bank business transactions without risking bankruptcy. The process of fractional-reserve banking has a cumulative effect of money creation by banks, essentially expanding the money supply of the economy.[4]
And further in the article, it describes the mechanism:
The process begins when an initial $100 deposit of central bank money is made into Bank A. Bank A then takes 20 percent of it, or $20, and sets it aside as reserves and then loans out the remaining 80 percent, or $80. At this point there is actually a total of $180 in the system, not $100; because the bank has loaned out $80 of the central bank money, kept $20 of central bank money in reserve, and substituted a newly created $80 IOU claim for the depositor that acts equivalent to and can be implicitly redeemed for central bank money (the depositor can transfer it to another account, write a check on it, etc.).
So, yes, money is created every time a bank issues a loan on fractional reserves. Is new currency printed? No, of course not. But the money supply most definitely expands.
Once again, it seems you're confusing currency with money. Money is the real medium of exchange in the economy. Currency is just a physical representation of it. And its the money supply that matters when examining the effect of fractional reserve banking on the economy.
There appears to be more money in the system but there actually isn't at all. Only the initial $100 exists - it's just been lent to multiple people.
Uh, no this *specifically* creates money. As in, the money supply increases. I mean, what do you think happens to that money that was "lent to multiple people"? Each one of those people spends it. It goes to builders, who use it to pay employees, etc, etc. ie, that money enters circulation. It exists.
Something tells me you're actually getting money and currency confused. And if that's the case, you should perhaps reconsider speaking so authoritatively on this topic.
Where this system falls down is where someone in that chain suddenly decides they can't pay it back.
Correct. At that point, that money which was in the system essentially evaporates. It disappears. Voila, economic contraction. Which, of course, explains why the fed is so spectacularly paranoid about deflation, and why they're doing everything they can to print new cash in order to keep inflation positive.
In my case (and I'm mind-numbingly average in most of my daily routine), if I can't watch a show online I won't watch it on cable/tv. The simple reason is that the timings of the broadcast never line up with my schedule.
And the mind-numbingly average would either purchase a PVR, use a DVD-RW recorder, a good 'ol VCR, or they just won't watch the show.
You, however, are not average. The very fact that you regularly watch streaming TV on your computer as a replacement for regular broadcast television demonstrates that fact.
You're not the only one. My T61 has gone from 7.04 -> 7.10 -> 8.04 -> 8.10 quite easily. Heck, that's one of the very reasons I use a Debian-based distro: I get upgrades that actually work.
Oh, I understand Keynesian theory. There's a reason it was considered discredited for decades - it doesn't work. Never has.
Bullshit. The great depression was shortened specifically because of Roosevelt's spending plans. Of course, some conservatives would try to rewrite history and actually (laughably) claim the opposite, that Roosevelt's work extended the depression. But that's nothing more than revisionist history at its worst.
Of course, as we all know, it was WWII that finally kicked the US out of the depression. But guess what? The government spending as part of supporting WWII was *Kensian economic stimulus*. Quite literally, the government spent its way out of recession, injecting massive amounts of dollars into the economy, creating manufacturing jobs and so forth in order to support the war effort. And no one can credibly deny that (although I'm sure you'll try).
Japan stimulated the hell out of their economy in the '90s and all they have to show for it is an enormous public debt and a bunch of infrastructure they can't afford to maintain properly.
Oh please. Japan had its lost decade specifically because they attempted to keep their zombie banks alive (and, alas, Geitner, et al, appears to be attempting the same... a massive mistake, in the opinion of many)... that has nothing to do with Keynsianism and everything to do with an unwillingness to tear down those insolvent financial institutions.
Obama isn't even spending money on the sorts of things Keynes would have advised like the Japanese did, you know, roads and dams and such.
Huh? What part of "shovel ready projects" don't you understand? Obama's plans run the gamut, from education to healthcare, and yes, to infrastructure development as well.
But your comment betrays a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of Keynesian economics. As WWII proved, it *doesn't matter* what you spend the money on. The US government could, for example, just start building tanks and tossing them in the ocean. But if the government is going to spend, it might as well spend on things that are worth while. Infrastructure certainly fits the bill, but there's on reason on to spend that money on other programs, as well.
ROFL, and how, pray tell, do those articles qualify as "30 years" of temperature data that "correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period." Oh, wait, they don't.
Hell, the Jupiter article isn't about planetary warming at all. And as for Mars, "Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming." (source).
See how I provided a citation for my quote? And how the article linked contains references for its claims? Neat, eh?
There isn't any current history of temperature trends on Venus.
However, there are of Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto.
As the most mind-boggling coincidence EVAR, all five show global warming over the last 30 years that correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period.
And I suppose you have sources for this data you claim exists? You know, so we can all examine it?
In ten weeks Obama has managed to create an ongoing trillion dollar yearly deficit. Yes, he inherited a bad situation. And then he made it 10x worse.
Only if you don't understand Keynsian economics. See, it works like this:
1) During years of economic growth, you endeavour to run a balanced budget while paying down debt. 2) During years of recession, you run a deficit in order to stimulate economic activity.
Yes, it's true! You can, in fact, spend your way out of a recession. And once out, you then work to pay off the debt you accumulated.
The problem is, most people look at government budgets as akin to their household budget. Well, guess what? They're not the same. And you can't always use the same principles when evaluating them.
The *real* problem is that Bush, in his infinite wisdom, ran a massive deficit while the US was experiencing a boom, in addition to keeping interest rates artificially low. The result is that now, with the US in recession, the current president has no ammo. Interest rates are already as low as they'll go, and now he's forced to make an already massive deficit worse in order to stimulate the economy.
I disagree. I thought Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the purest piece of sci-fi in the movie series.
Yeah. Unfortunately they did it by recycling the TOS episode "Changling"... honestly, you'd think, for such a big budget movie, they'd at least come up with an original script, or hell, steal an idea from *another* show.
Slashdot Mirror
Which is why in the US for instance the old conservatives used to argue for small government, and the founders tried to limit the federal government.
Meh, all you did was trade tyranny by the government for tyranny by corporations and the economic oligarchy. Worse, at least in the case of the former, you have some resemblance of recourse: elections. But if a corporation decides to poison your groundwater, or feed you steroid-laced milk, you have essentially no recourse (unless, of course, the big-government socialists manage to pass laws regulating industry while providing citizens with legal recourse... but that is, of course, evil pinko communism).
Who said anything about closing the gap? Continuing to develop and support MySQL doesn't mean turning it into a powerhouse database like Oracle.
The simple fact is, MySQL and Oracle do not, and have never, played in the same league, and I believe it would be a mistake to try and turn MySQL into a shitty Oracle. MySQL has a niche... keep it there.
Congratulations! With your very example you actually managed to disprove your original assertion. See, your original claim was this:
"As the owner of a software development company I think your would have to be stark raving nuts to open source your main product."
But, the very first paragraph in that quoted text demonstrates that isn't actually the case. The community was very happy with and supportive of MySQL corporate.
The problem, as you pointed out, was the purchase by Sun. In that case, the customers didn't feel Sun would necessarily have their interests at heart, and so there was dissatisfaction. This is only increased by the fact that Sun has now been purchased by Oracle, a company that actually markets a product in the same general space (I would argue they aren't actually in the same market, and so MySQL has little to fear, but... people aren't exactly rational).
So the key to running a company on an open codebase seems simple: keep your customers happy, and don't give them the impression that their interested are being threatened. But, of course, that's a good general rule to follow regardless of the license your code falls under. The only real difference between open and closed source, in this case, is that if the source is closed, you may have achieved vendor lock-in, which gives you more freedom to buttfuck your customers, as they won't have a clear avenue for recourse... but if that's your strategy, well, frankly, fuck you.
Are you talking about generic employer/employee relationships, or the specific relationship you (and maybe a handful of other highly qualified and independent people) have with your employer?
Well, it's certainly not unique to me. It's simply the approach my employer takes with all their employees.
Nevertheless, while the flexibility I have in my job may be an exception, it doesn't change the fact that the employer-employee relationship is an entirely voluntary one. When I apply for, and subequently take a job I make a choice knowing, at least in broad terms, what that job is likely to entail. If, at some point, I no longer wish to do the job I've been hired for, I may terminate the agreement at my leisure. But the point is the choice is entirely mine.
A child has no such luxury, hence why I say the employer-employee relationship is not patriarchal. The child is beheld to their parents by the simple virtue that they would be incapable of surviving without them. They can't simply go out into the world and find another set of parents that better fit their expectations. An adult, however, can most certainly do that when it comes to employers.
but if you're employer wants it done you either do it or the relationship ends. You don't get to pick and chose what you do if you want to stay.
And that depends a great deal on the employer. In my position, thanks to my relatively broad skillset, I have pretty wide latitude on what I choose to work on. And it *is* a choice. a) my employer asks my input before assigning me a task, because they understand that my job satisfaction is an important consideration, and b) again, if I don't like the work I'm doing, I can always find somewhere else to work.
You mistake is in believing that quitting is somehow an extreme decision. It's not, any more than an employer forcing me to do work I don't want to do is extreme. It's simply a choice. The employer can choose to keep me happy, or I can choose to leave. Where the power is is really a matter of perspective, IMHO.
Of course, the equation changes a bit during a recession, but even now, the high skill jobs are still out there for those who're qualified.
At any rate the employer is in charge if you want to maintain the relationship, not you.
And I'm in charge if the employer wants to maintain the relationship and I don't. The recourse on both sides is the same: termination of the agreement.
A parternship is more equal, where both parties discuss things up front prior to making a decision.
Well, I pity you and your crappy job. Believe it or not, my employer asks me if I want to work on something before throwing it at me. See, 'round here, there are lots of different projects, and so they actually give the employee a choice on what to work on, because they realize that a happy, interested employee is more useful than a pissed off, bored employee.
And even if you choose to view that as an unequal relationship, it's still not patriarchal. The company isn't an irresistible force that I'm beheld to. It's merely an entity with which I've entered an agreement. That's it, that's all. And if I don't like the way the arrangement is working out, I can simply choose to terminate the agreement.
My point is that if your employer tells you to do something, you largely due it. It's not a parternship, it's a hierarchy.
No, that's simply part of the contract. The employer pays me, and in exchange I do the job I've agreed to do. Of course, if what they ask is unethical or doesn't make sense, I absolutely tell them so. After all, they hired me for my experience and expertise, not because I'm a brainless flunky who unquestioningly does what they're told. And if they persist in doing something silly, and I can't bring myself to do the job they ask of me, then I'll find another employer.
And while you can say "I'll quit!" all you want, realistically you're stuck there until you find another job
That's only true if you're dumb enough to place yourself in a situation where the sudden loss of your job followed by a short period of unemployment would be problematic. You haven't done that, have you?
So if your boss says you need to start filling out timesheets, you think that's an area of discussion, or do you just do it?
Uh, how do timesheet requirements imply a parent-child relationship? That's a rather simplistic point of view. It may simply be a mechanism for the employer to use to ensure that I'm holding up my end of the bargain (after all, I can easily see if they're holding up theirs by examining my pay stubs). If that's the case, I certainly don't like it, as it betrays a lack of trust (and would certainly bias me toward finding another employer), but that hardly implies a patriarchal attitude.
Of course, in reality, timesheets are typically needed for the purpose of billing customers, and/or to satisfy accounting/auditing requirements, in which case I couldn't care less.
If your employer saying they are changing your healthcare plan, is he asking your opinion, or making a decision without your input?
If my employer changes my benefit plan (I say benefits because, as a Canadian, my employer doesn't pay for my healthcare, but they do subsidize suplimental insurance for things like drugs, dental, etc) in a way that I don't like, of course, I'll quit. Benefits are another form of compensation, and just like my salary, if said compensation changes in a way that I don't approve of, I'll find a job that will compensate me appropriately.
How about injecting dairy cows with chemical crap to maximize production, at the expense of the animal's health and resulting in milk that belongs in a "bio-hazard" container as opposed to a milk jug?
Meh, for that you can blame the US government. Neither, Canada, nor a good part of Europe, have approved those synthetic hormones you speak of for use in milk production. Pity your "regulators" don't actually regulate anything...
It's a lot more similar to the relationship of an adult to their employer than their relationship to a spouse.
Good lord, I hope not. The minute my employer starts thinking of me as their child is the day I quit.
I *choose* to work where I work. The relationship between myself and my employer is, and should be, a partnership. They pay me for my services, and in exchange, I perform work for them. There's nothing parental about it.
Of course, your point remains. The parent-child relationship is a unique one, and IMHO, can't really be compared to any other. And its most *certainly* not comparable to the spousal relationship.
Personally my home LAN is outgrowing GigE
Uhh... seriously, *WTF*. What do you have, a dozen teenage boys streaming HD porn 24 hours a day from a central server or something?
Never thought of carrying along a dictaphone? Or a notepad for when you're stuck at a light or in stop-and-go traffic?
Uh... Aren't they forgetting the inconvenient slowness of the speed of light?
Yes, because a member of the SETI institute never thought of that.
Honestly, Slashdotters really think *way* too highly of themselves... or way too little of the average scientist.
So if you are going to explore some far away place, telepresence will still require you to ship some human to the general vicinity.
No, because the idea isn't interactive exploration, in the sense that you remotely control the robotic probe in real time. The idea is that you collect massive amounts of data about a world, transmit it back, and then use that data to build a virtual model that you can then explore at your leisure.
Of course, such an approach will have limitations (if you decide you want to see what's under a rock, unless you knew ahead of time to turn it over, you'd have to then send instructions to a probe and then wait for the new data to come back). But its certainly an interesting idea, IMHO.
Watch it, dude, that's socialism! Don't you see? Your township is now on the slippery slope to becoming a pinko commune filled with evil godless heathens hell bent on destroying the American way of life! Soon enough, you'll be French, and then what'll you do??
I understand the difference between money and currency, you chucklefuck.
The OP claimed that banks create "currency" when they issue loans:
Ah, so you were picking nits. Gotcha.
The money supply gets bigger. That's the ultimate effect, and that's the whole fucking point. The fact that new physical dollars aren't printed doesn't matter one whit. The point is more money enters the system, and it's specifically created by the banks at the time the loan is issued.
If you want to be taken seriously, avoid descriptions like "a shadow world sitting in a higher dimension."
So I take it you ignore relativity because, within its framework, depict gravity as the deformation of a rubber sheet?
It's called an analogy. They can be useful explanatory devices.
a bank does not create new currency out of thin air.
No. It creates *money* out of thin air. Shit, it's in the *very first fucking sentence in that section*:
And further in the article, it describes the mechanism:
So, yes, money is created every time a bank issues a loan on fractional reserves. Is new currency printed? No, of course not. But the money supply most definitely expands.
Once again, it seems you're confusing currency with money. Money is the real medium of exchange in the economy. Currency is just a physical representation of it. And its the money supply that matters when examining the effect of fractional reserve banking on the economy.
I've never heard that one before, is it some kind of racist comment?
It's an English idiom, but a less common one. See here.
There appears to be more money in the system but there actually isn't at all. Only the initial $100 exists - it's just been lent to multiple people.
Uh, no this *specifically* creates money. As in, the money supply increases. I mean, what do you think happens to that money that was "lent to multiple people"? Each one of those people spends it. It goes to builders, who use it to pay employees, etc, etc. ie, that money enters circulation. It exists.
Something tells me you're actually getting money and currency confused. And if that's the case, you should perhaps reconsider speaking so authoritatively on this topic.
Where this system falls down is where someone in that chain suddenly decides they can't pay it back.
Correct. At that point, that money which was in the system essentially evaporates. It disappears. Voila, economic contraction. Which, of course, explains why the fed is so spectacularly paranoid about deflation, and why they're doing everything they can to print new cash in order to keep inflation positive.
In my case (and I'm mind-numbingly average in most of my daily routine), if I can't watch a show online I won't watch it on cable/tv. The simple reason is that the timings of the broadcast never line up with my schedule.
And the mind-numbingly average would either purchase a PVR, use a DVD-RW recorder, a good 'ol VCR, or they just won't watch the show.
You, however, are not average. The very fact that you regularly watch streaming TV on your computer as a replacement for regular broadcast television demonstrates that fact.
You're not the only one. My T61 has gone from 7.04 -> 7.10 -> 8.04 -> 8.10 quite easily. Heck, that's one of the very reasons I use a Debian-based distro: I get upgrades that actually work.
Oh, I understand Keynesian theory. There's a reason it was considered discredited for decades - it doesn't work. Never has.
Bullshit. The great depression was shortened specifically because of Roosevelt's spending plans. Of course, some conservatives would try to rewrite history and actually (laughably) claim the opposite, that Roosevelt's work extended the depression. But that's nothing more than revisionist history at its worst.
Of course, as we all know, it was WWII that finally kicked the US out of the depression. But guess what? The government spending as part of supporting WWII was *Kensian economic stimulus*. Quite literally, the government spent its way out of recession, injecting massive amounts of dollars into the economy, creating manufacturing jobs and so forth in order to support the war effort. And no one can credibly deny that (although I'm sure you'll try).
Japan stimulated the hell out of their economy in the '90s and all they have to show for it is an enormous public debt and a bunch of infrastructure they can't afford to maintain properly.
Oh please. Japan had its lost decade specifically because they attempted to keep their zombie banks alive (and, alas, Geitner, et al, appears to be attempting the same... a massive mistake, in the opinion of many)... that has nothing to do with Keynsianism and everything to do with an unwillingness to tear down those insolvent financial institutions.
Obama isn't even spending money on the sorts of things Keynes would have advised like the Japanese did, you know, roads and dams and such.
Huh? What part of "shovel ready projects" don't you understand? Obama's plans run the gamut, from education to healthcare, and yes, to infrastructure development as well.
But your comment betrays a deep misunderstanding of the purpose of Keynesian economics. As WWII proved, it *doesn't matter* what you spend the money on. The US government could, for example, just start building tanks and tossing them in the ocean. But if the government is going to spend, it might as well spend on things that are worth while. Infrastructure certainly fits the bill, but there's on reason on to spend that money on other programs, as well.
ROFL, and how, pray tell, do those articles qualify as "30 years" of temperature data that "correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period." Oh, wait, they don't.
Hell, the Jupiter article isn't about planetary warming at all. And as for Mars, "Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming." (source).
See how I provided a citation for my quote? And how the article linked contains references for its claims? Neat, eh?
There isn't any current history of temperature trends on Venus.
However, there are of Mars, Jupiter, Triton, Neptune, and Pluto.
As the most mind-boggling coincidence EVAR, all five show global warming over the last 30 years that correlate with the rising temperature trends on Earth in that period.
And I suppose you have sources for this data you claim exists? You know, so we can all examine it?
In ten weeks Obama has managed to create an ongoing trillion dollar yearly deficit. Yes, he inherited a bad situation. And then he made it 10x worse.
Only if you don't understand Keynsian economics. See, it works like this:
1) During years of economic growth, you endeavour to run a balanced budget while paying down debt.
2) During years of recession, you run a deficit in order to stimulate economic activity.
Yes, it's true! You can, in fact, spend your way out of a recession. And once out, you then work to pay off the debt you accumulated.
The problem is, most people look at government budgets as akin to their household budget. Well, guess what? They're not the same. And you can't always use the same principles when evaluating them.
The *real* problem is that Bush, in his infinite wisdom, ran a massive deficit while the US was experiencing a boom, in addition to keeping interest rates artificially low. The result is that now, with the US in recession, the current president has no ammo. Interest rates are already as low as they'll go, and now he's forced to make an already massive deficit worse in order to stimulate the economy.
I disagree. I thought Star Trek: The Motion Picture was the purest piece of sci-fi in the movie series.
Yeah. Unfortunately they did it by recycling the TOS episode "Changling"... honestly, you'd think, for such a big budget movie, they'd at least come up with an original script, or hell, steal an idea from *another* show.