Those in the US on student visas - like my GF - can't get SSNs, so they can't get phones. Of course, they can get the pre-paid ones that terists prefer...
That's like saying, "I have a cancer cure pill that works 100% percent of the time and costs mere pennies per pill, with no patents! Oh, one minor hitch, my revolutionary "cyanide pill" tends to kill the host, but we're optimistic on a workaround!"
Sounds like something you'd say to investors to raise capital, not to peer scientists, or know-it-all/.'ers for that matter.
If you had a brilliant, absolutely airtight argument that we should do something -- indict President Bush (or Barack Obama), or send foreign investment to Chechnya, or let kids vote.
Those are all singularly stupid ideas, not brilliant.
I think Ann is funny, and in an era of political correctness, one of the bravest commentators out there. She's a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them. I'm disappointed that ad hominem attacks have made it to article submissions now.
I guess I am just one of those dumb Fox News drones, one with a doctorate. But I consider Ann Coulter a guilty pleasure, the political equivalent of cheesecake.
Interesting thing about those who just dismiss Ann. I read a commentator in the UK saying that in America, you can just call someone a moonbat or netroot and that's the end of it. But in the UK, you'd actually have to address what she says with debate and criticism beyond the mere ad hominem.
People voluntarily associate with business as consumers, as employees, and most importantly, as investors. Greenpeace, OTOH, injects its officious nose into businesses uninvited. As an Apple stockholder, I say, go away, who appointed you as my keeper?
The sad thing about the greenies is that they would be the first to tell the Religious Right, "stay out of my life!" on abortion or gay marriage or sex on TV or the Internet, but they are the first to tell others how to run their lives in a green way, whether anyone asked them or not.
Nice trick doing this to a laptop mobo, but LN2 cooling is hardly novel. Xtreme Systems has had a forum dedicated to LN2 cooling for years, and guys there are doing it everyday.
That forum will answer all of your questions.
Frankly, LN2 suicide runs are fun, but I am more impressed with phase change systems that can run 24/7 like mine.:D
All this shows is that Atom is clock limited by design. A 700MHz speed up - less than 50% in this case - from using liquid nitrogen? And all to get a CPU that's about as powerful as a 1.5GHz Pentium M or a 1.2GHz Core 2 Duo...
The motherboard could be limiting the FSB, since it isn't designed for overclocking. You have no way of knowing that this is a processor limitation.
And these Atoms put a mere 4W at stock - while a Pentium M puts out 27W at load.
I think it's clear that Obama is doing the best he can to not be a criminal, excluding lobbyists from his administration for example
Obama the One, the Messiah whom we can never criticize (how absurd), has had lobbyists working for him and he took millions from lobbyists during the election, including over $7 million from TV/Movies/Music, and you know they will be expecting tougher IP laws for their bucks. Had Obama kept his pledge to take public funds as he promised McCain, there would have been a hell of a lot less lobbyist money in the campaign, and the election might have been closer. So it's fair to say that lobbyists had a significant impact on Obama getting into the White House.
So now he's Mr. Clean? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I'd prefer to hear him reject lobbyist money for the 2012 election cycle, and ban his staffers from talking to lobbyists, not the token, meaningless ban on employing them in his administration.
This whole "Obama is above criticism" meme is fucking scary in a constitutional democratic republic.
And your open admission that you would abuse your mod points to punish someone for having the temerity to do so makes me hope you never get any.
Newport Beach, California has had video recorders on its police units since at least 1997, and it's great. It helps cops prove their cases, and has a huge effect on keeping officers out of abuse complaints, both real and false accusations.
The reality is, most police are actually in favor of this once they realize how it helps them do their job and keeps them out of trouble.
I've actually seen a case made by one of these tapes. I've sat in a DA's conference room watching as a DUI investigation a defense attorney claimed that his client was not drunk - until she fell over, ha ha. Boy did he change his tune quick.
But this does have a positive effect on officer behavior. Obviously, if you know you are being taped, you are going to be more careful doing your job.
One downside of live streaming: Not all of the people police encounter are criminals. There are crying victims, accident scenes, etc. I know if I were laying bleeding on the street and a cop was the first responder to my accident, I wouldn't want it broadcast as I cried like a baby. And what about rape victims? Yes, not likely to be encountered in a traffic stop, but surely there will be cases where victims of crime are broadcast for the world to see.
BTW, even for those departments that don't have video, many cops these days carry mobile audio recorders and they push "record" when they talk to suspects.
Mark was a minor stockholder (6.3%) and didn't meet any of the other legal standards (fiduciary responsibility to the company) to be considered a traditional insider.
This case had nothing to do with Cuban being an insider. It is about Cuban (the Tippee) trading on a tip from the CEO (the Tipper).
Anyone - no matter how much or how little stock he owns - may not trade on insider information, you, me, Rob Malda. This is known as "tippee" liability. And it's exactly what got Martha Stewart in trouble (actually, lying to the feds about it and obstructing justice is what really got her in trouble).
IAALBNYLSDNROTAA (I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer, so do not rely on this as advice).
And in any event Joe asked a reasonable question and got a reasonable answer.
Don't forget, "and savaged JtP for his temerity in challenging the One." I know more about Joe's background after the media pounced on him than I do Obama's background. The media reflexively and viciously attacked JtP with irrelevant (and often untrue, when they reported that he claimed he made $25K/yr, rather than he had hoped to after purchasing his boss's business) ad hominem attacks, as if the status of his plumber's license or his tax bills are relevant to a pointed question a candidate's stated policies.
More people learned about Obamas tax and he probably got more votes as a result.
Right, the "95% of working families tax cut." Uh huh. Too bad nowhere near that amount of "working families" even pay taxes (many already pay no net taxes, or make a net profit on tax day, known as the Earned Income Tax Credit). But yes, appealing to class warfare and offering people ice cream that others will pay for is very popular.
"The government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul."
Because there is no due process. Decisions can be arbitrary, uninformed, and ultimately unjust.
Well that is the risk you run in any human interaction, business or social. Are you suggesting that all human conduct be governed by law, a la 1984? The simple truth is that life is not always going to be fair and just; sometimes it's arbitrary. We just strive to ensure that our government and laws are not.
The only way to restrict someone from doing something should be through the law.
Nonsense. There is also shame, honor, morality, ethics, social norms. By this logic, Rosa Parks should have been thrown in jail and stigmatized, as well should all of the "screw the DRM, software should be free" down/uploaders. And those activities are/were technically illegal. Should we give more deference to private conduct that is illegal (e.g., civil disobedience in the civil rights movement) than private conduct which seeks to uphold the law?
If you saw a little girl being strangled, would you intervene, or just call the police and wait? OK, I can guess your answer. So there are situations when "vigilantism" is permissible? Or will your dogma run over your karma?
Besides there is a tort system which regulates private conduct that steps over the line.
By your logic, what's to prevent the spammers in this case from targeting their opponents for disconnection from the internet?
The law, which you so value. Spamming is regulated and DDOS attacks are criminal.
The law often allows what honor forbids. - Bernard Joseph Saurin
I don't really understand, especially on a Web forum that decries most law enforcement actions as invasive to privacy and liberty, why private conduct aimed at correcting undesired private conduct is just assumed to be bad.
Does this "only the government shall administer law" doctrine apply to the civil rights movement? Greenpeace? Software piracy? Or just things we don't like?
One person's vigilantism is another's social activism.
That would explain why college education is less expensive per capita, and of comparable quality, and free across much of Europe. Oh, wait...
Not sure what your point is here. Mine is that when the government tinkers with a market in a capitalist economy, bad results often happen. Social democracies in Europe are different. We actually have a pretense of a free market in the US, or at least we did until recently. Lead weights are good for diving but not hot air balloons.
Any economist worth his salt will also tell you that giving out government loans to private institutions that exist purely to make a profit will always lead to price increases, while service industries like education, health care, local utilities, etc, are almost always better served by a single entity, regionally operated, that has no profit motive.
Nonsense, you mean leftist economists believe this. K-12 public school education costs twice as much as private schools per pupil in the US, and private schools do a lot better. If anything, the US needs more competition in K-12, like Belgium has done. The cost of healthcare in the US involves a lot of factors that are not present in social democracies (no rationing, lawsuits, among others), and for those covered have much better healthcare than in other countries. I wouldn't switch my healthcare for any country's. We have the best mortality rates for cancer and heart disease. UK has among the worst.
The only problem is when the false idea - that free markets solve all problems efficiently - is run up the flag pole, again and again, despite evidence to the contrary.
I never said free markets did solve all problems, but they solve most better than government does.
It's much easier to have an open government institution providing common necessities than it is to try and regulate private institutions that have no public interest, yet receive massive public funds. If you're serious about finding a solution, all you have to do is look around, and see what other countries have been doing successfully for years.
Last time I checked, the US has the most college graduates of any country. Our worst college-educated state, West Virginia, has more college graduates than any country in Western Europe.
Everyone here laughed and laughed that the European governments charged a 100% tax on fuel, until about a year ago. Since those countries foresaw the inevitable, that tax reduced consumption, funded mass transit construction, and made them less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia for their daily transportation needs. Here it would be called socialism; elsewhere, it's just common sense.
I laugh at a 100% gas tax. In America, we have this thing called freedom, and we like freedom in our daily lives, which includes driving. Freedom, economic, political, and personal, has allowed us in roughly 200 years to build an economy that dwarfs any other. In fact, if California were a country, it would be the fifth biggest economy by some measures. Americans simply want a free lifestyle, not one dictated by central bureaucrats. Our oil dependence has not been utopian, but I don't believe in utopia. You certainly have your own problems in Europe, and most Americans wouldn't trade yours for ours.
Frankly, anyone who would quote a nut like Chomsky is hard to appeal to. But I would submit to you that America did not quickly become the largest economy in the world by employing his ideas - and most Americans really like our country. Even our current "bad" economy tends to be better than most countries' economies on their best day. And frankly, it seems a lot of people are literally dying to come here.
Far from being the solution, the government is the problem, yet again. While government-guaranteed student loans have expanded college access, any economist worth his salt will tell you that by flooding the college market with loans that anyone can get and that are guaranteed by the government has led to tuition well outpacing inflation. What else could have caused this?
If this sounds really familiar, it should. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a similar effect on the housing bubble. So you'll have to excuse me if I get frightened when I hear "government to the rescue" for a problem it helped create.
Do the research. Agrarian economies have the lowest per-capita income. Then comes manufacturing. And the highest per-capita incomes are in countries with service-based jobs dominating.
Perhaps Obama resonated with Americans because the media portrayed him so positively? The fact that you don't see a problem is exactly the problem. Liberals look at CNN ABC CBS NBC NPR Wash Post NY Times LA Times and don't see anything wrong because those outlets reflect their worldview. Conservatives get exasperated because the other side is not presented. Moderates don't notice the difference because they aren't really political people.
And in a country that even in this down year for Republicans identifies itself as 22 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative, and 44 percent moderate, when 85% of the "journalists" voted for Obama (a fair estimate, since those numbers voted for Gore in 2000), there is a problem. Liberal reporters see a liberal worldview, and don't see anything wrong. Conservatives see bias.
For the record, for a guy like Obama with a short resume with no real accomplishments running for leader of the free world, his associations are relevant, especially when said candidate tries to constantly associate McCain with Bush.
And McCain was proposing a tax credit for healthcare for the vast majority of Americans, something I have been wanting for years and Democrats have fought (because they think it should be a government-run entitlement). Only small amount of people would see their benefits get a net tax. I guess your fair media didn't mention that.
And for you Euros out there dying to tell we Americans that US liberals aren't really left, that is irrelevant. We are talking American politics here, where the center is obviously to the right of Europe.
We do not have anyone in the US "starving." We have these government programs called WIC and Food Stamps and welfare. You know, the ones used by people in front of you at the supermarket yacking into cellphones that are nicer than yours?
Quite the contrary, the real problem with the poor in America is obesity, not starvation.
I'm disappointed that anyone would want a half-witted religious bumpkin to be "a heartbeat away" from the presidency.
As opposed to a half-witted pretend Catholic like Joe Biden, who thought FDR was president in the 1929 market crash? At least Palin has run a state (with an 80% approval rating) and a city. What has Obama ever run but his mouth?
PS. I'm also disappointed that this political shit is considered "News for Nerds", even if it is "Stuff that Matters".
Slashdot Mirror
The papers belonged to the dead uncle of a 26-year-old man living in Kolkata; he is suspected of being a collaborator of the terrorists
I gotta hand it to him; if that dead uncle can be a collaborator when he is dead, he must really be committed to his nutty cause.
Those in the US on student visas - like my GF - can't get SSNs, so they can't get phones. Of course, they can get the pre-paid ones that terists prefer...
Minor detail indeed.
/.'ers for that matter.
That's like saying, "I have a cancer cure pill that works 100% percent of the time and costs mere pennies per pill, with no patents! Oh, one minor hitch, my revolutionary "cyanide pill" tends to kill the host, but we're optimistic on a workaround!"
Sounds like something you'd say to investors to raise capital, not to peer scientists, or know-it-all
If you had a brilliant, absolutely airtight argument that we should do something -- indict President Bush (or Barack Obama), or send foreign investment to Chechnya, or let kids vote.
Those are all singularly stupid ideas, not brilliant.
I think Ann is funny, and in an era of political correctness, one of the bravest commentators out there. She's a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them. I'm disappointed that ad hominem attacks have made it to article submissions now.
I guess I am just one of those dumb Fox News drones, one with a doctorate. But I consider Ann Coulter a guilty pleasure, the political equivalent of cheesecake.
Interesting thing about those who just dismiss Ann. I read a commentator in the UK saying that in America, you can just call someone a moonbat or netroot and that's the end of it. But in the UK, you'd actually have to address what she says with debate and criticism beyond the mere ad hominem.
Didn't Slashdot just post an article about the horrors of private, unregulated actors taking matters into their own hands?
Shouldn't the tag "vigilantism" be used with submissions about Greenpeace?
As I have said before, one person's social activism is another's vigilantism.
People voluntarily associate with business as consumers, as employees, and most importantly, as investors. Greenpeace, OTOH, injects its officious nose into businesses uninvited. As an Apple stockholder, I say, go away, who appointed you as my keeper?
The sad thing about the greenies is that they would be the first to tell the Religious Right, "stay out of my life!" on abortion or gay marriage or sex on TV or the Internet, but they are the first to tell others how to run their lives in a green way, whether anyone asked them or not.
Nice trick doing this to a laptop mobo, but LN2 cooling is hardly novel. Xtreme Systems has had a forum dedicated to LN2 cooling for years, and guys there are doing it everyday.
:D
Interestingly, the site owner did an overclocking demo for Intel. I guess Intel can't say they are anti-overclocking anymore.
That forum will answer all of your questions. Frankly, LN2 suicide runs are fun, but I am more impressed with phase change systems that can run 24/7 like mine.
All this shows is that Atom is clock limited by design. A 700MHz speed up - less than 50% in this case - from using liquid nitrogen? And all to get a CPU that's about as powerful as a 1.5GHz Pentium M or a 1.2GHz Core 2 Duo ...
The motherboard could be limiting the FSB, since it isn't designed for overclocking. You have no way of knowing that this is a processor limitation.
And these Atoms put a mere 4W at stock - while a Pentium M puts out 27W at load.
I think it's clear that Obama is doing the best he can to not be a criminal, excluding lobbyists from his administration for example
Obama the One, the Messiah whom we can never criticize (how absurd), has had lobbyists working for him and he took millions from lobbyists during the election, including over $7 million from TV/Movies/Music, and you know they will be expecting tougher IP laws for their bucks. Had Obama kept his pledge to take public funds as he promised McCain, there would have been a hell of a lot less lobbyist money in the campaign, and the election might have been closer. So it's fair to say that lobbyists had a significant impact on Obama getting into the White House.
So now he's Mr. Clean? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. I'd prefer to hear him reject lobbyist money for the 2012 election cycle, and ban his staffers from talking to lobbyists, not the token, meaningless ban on employing them in his administration.
This whole "Obama is above criticism" meme is fucking scary in a constitutional democratic republic.
And your open admission that you would abuse your mod points to punish someone for having the temerity to do so makes me hope you never get any.
Newport Beach, California has had video recorders on its police units since at least 1997, and it's great. It helps cops prove their cases, and has a huge effect on keeping officers out of abuse complaints, both real and false accusations.
The reality is, most police are actually in favor of this once they realize how it helps them do their job and keeps them out of trouble.
I've actually seen a case made by one of these tapes. I've sat in a DA's conference room watching as a DUI investigation a defense attorney claimed that his client was not drunk - until she fell over, ha ha. Boy did he change his tune quick.
But this does have a positive effect on officer behavior. Obviously, if you know you are being taped, you are going to be more careful doing your job.
One downside of live streaming: Not all of the people police encounter are criminals. There are crying victims, accident scenes, etc. I know if I were laying bleeding on the street and a cop was the first responder to my accident, I wouldn't want it broadcast as I cried like a baby. And what about rape victims? Yes, not likely to be encountered in a traffic stop, but surely there will be cases where victims of crime are broadcast for the world to see.
BTW, even for those departments that don't have video, many cops these days carry mobile audio recorders and they push "record" when they talk to suspects.
Mark was a minor stockholder (6.3%) and didn't meet any of the other legal standards (fiduciary responsibility to the company) to be considered a traditional insider.
This case had nothing to do with Cuban being an insider. It is about Cuban (the Tippee) trading on a tip from the CEO (the Tipper).
Anyone - no matter how much or how little stock he owns - may not trade on insider information, you, me, Rob Malda. This is known as "tippee" liability. And it's exactly what got Martha Stewart in trouble (actually, lying to the feds about it and obstructing justice is what really got her in trouble).
IAALBNYLSDNROTAA (I am a lawyer, but not your lawyer, so do not rely on this as advice).
And in any event Joe asked a reasonable question and got a reasonable answer.
Don't forget, "and savaged JtP for his temerity in challenging the One." I know more about Joe's background after the media pounced on him than I do Obama's background. The media reflexively and viciously attacked JtP with irrelevant (and often untrue, when they reported that he claimed he made $25K/yr, rather than he had hoped to after purchasing his boss's business) ad hominem attacks, as if the status of his plumber's license or his tax bills are relevant to a pointed question a candidate's stated policies.
More people learned about Obamas tax and he probably got more votes as a result.
Right, the "95% of working families tax cut." Uh huh. Too bad nowhere near that amount of "working families" even pay taxes (many already pay no net taxes, or make a net profit on tax day, known as the Earned Income Tax Credit). But yes, appealing to class warfare and offering people ice cream that others will pay for is very popular.
"The government that robs Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul."
Because there is no due process. Decisions can be arbitrary, uninformed, and ultimately unjust.
Well that is the risk you run in any human interaction, business or social. Are you suggesting that all human conduct be governed by law, a la 1984? The simple truth is that life is not always going to be fair and just; sometimes it's arbitrary. We just strive to ensure that our government and laws are not.
The only way to restrict someone from doing something should be through the law.
Nonsense. There is also shame, honor, morality, ethics, social norms. By this logic, Rosa Parks should have been thrown in jail and stigmatized, as well should all of the "screw the DRM, software should be free" down/uploaders. And those activities are/were technically illegal. Should we give more deference to private conduct that is illegal (e.g., civil disobedience in the civil rights movement) than private conduct which seeks to uphold the law?
If you saw a little girl being strangled, would you intervene, or just call the police and wait? OK, I can guess your answer. So there are situations when "vigilantism" is permissible? Or will your dogma run over your karma?
Besides there is a tort system which regulates private conduct that steps over the line.
By your logic, what's to prevent the spammers in this case from targeting their opponents for disconnection from the internet?
The law, which you so value. Spamming is regulated and DDOS attacks are criminal.
The law often allows what honor forbids. - Bernard Joseph Saurin
I don't really understand, especially on a Web forum that decries most law enforcement actions as invasive to privacy and liberty, why private conduct aimed at correcting undesired private conduct is just assumed to be bad.
Does this "only the government shall administer law" doctrine apply to the civil rights movement? Greenpeace? Software piracy? Or just things we don't like?
One person's vigilantism is another's social activism.
Should the FBI not pursue the thief? Valve pays taxes, too.
I love how so many Slashdotters are absolutists about following the law - until someone they disagree with is protected by it.
Don't let your dogma run over your karma.
Obviously I meant per capita, the rate of college grads. But nice "gotcha" moment. You should work in cable news.
That would explain why college education is less expensive per capita, and of comparable quality, and free across much of Europe. Oh, wait...
Not sure what your point is here. Mine is that when the government tinkers with a market in a capitalist economy, bad results often happen. Social democracies in Europe are different. We actually have a pretense of a free market in the US, or at least we did until recently. Lead weights are good for diving but not hot air balloons.
Any economist worth his salt will also tell you that giving out government loans to private institutions that exist purely to make a profit will always lead to price increases, while service industries like education, health care, local utilities, etc, are almost always better served by a single entity, regionally operated, that has no profit motive.
Nonsense, you mean leftist economists believe this. K-12 public school education costs twice as much as private schools per pupil in the US, and private schools do a lot better. If anything, the US needs more competition in K-12, like Belgium has done. The cost of healthcare in the US involves a lot of factors that are not present in social democracies (no rationing, lawsuits, among others), and for those covered have much better healthcare than in other countries. I wouldn't switch my healthcare for any country's. We have the best mortality rates for cancer and heart disease. UK has among the worst.
The only problem is when the false idea - that free markets solve all problems efficiently - is run up the flag pole, again and again, despite evidence to the contrary.
I never said free markets did solve all problems, but they solve most better than government does.
It's much easier to have an open government institution providing common necessities than it is to try and regulate private institutions that have no public interest, yet receive massive public funds. If you're serious about finding a solution, all you have to do is look around, and see what other countries have been doing successfully for years.
Last time I checked, the US has the most college graduates of any country. Our worst college-educated state, West Virginia, has more college graduates than any country in Western Europe.
Everyone here laughed and laughed that the European governments charged a 100% tax on fuel, until about a year ago. Since those countries foresaw the inevitable, that tax reduced consumption, funded mass transit construction, and made them less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia for their daily transportation needs. Here it would be called socialism; elsewhere, it's just common sense.
I laugh at a 100% gas tax. In America, we have this thing called freedom, and we like freedom in our daily lives, which includes driving. Freedom, economic, political, and personal, has allowed us in roughly 200 years to build an economy that dwarfs any other. In fact, if California were a country, it would be the fifth biggest economy by some measures. Americans simply want a free lifestyle, not one dictated by central bureaucrats. Our oil dependence has not been utopian, but I don't believe in utopia. You certainly have your own problems in Europe, and most Americans wouldn't trade yours for ours.
Frankly, anyone who would quote a nut like Chomsky is hard to appeal to. But I would submit to you that America did not quickly become the largest economy in the world by employing his ideas - and most Americans really like our country. Even our current "bad" economy tends to be better than most countries' economies on their best day. And frankly, it seems a lot of people are literally dying to come here.
Far from being the solution, the government is the problem, yet again. While government-guaranteed student loans have expanded college access, any economist worth his salt will tell you that by flooding the college market with loans that anyone can get and that are guaranteed by the government has led to tuition well outpacing inflation. What else could have caused this?
If this sounds really familiar, it should. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had a similar effect on the housing bubble. So you'll have to excuse me if I get frightened when I hear "government to the rescue" for a problem it helped create.
Do the research. Agrarian economies have the lowest per-capita income. Then comes manufacturing. And the highest per-capita incomes are in countries with service-based jobs dominating.
Why would we want to go backwards?
Perhaps Obama resonated with Americans because the media portrayed him so positively? The fact that you don't see a problem is exactly the problem. Liberals look at CNN ABC CBS NBC NPR Wash Post NY Times LA Times and don't see anything wrong because those outlets reflect their worldview. Conservatives get exasperated because the other side is not presented. Moderates don't notice the difference because they aren't really political people.
And in a country that even in this down year for Republicans identifies itself as 22 percent liberal, 34 percent conservative, and 44 percent moderate, when 85% of the "journalists" voted for Obama (a fair estimate, since those numbers voted for Gore in 2000), there is a problem. Liberal reporters see a liberal worldview, and don't see anything wrong. Conservatives see bias.
For the record, for a guy like Obama with a short resume with no real accomplishments running for leader of the free world, his associations are relevant, especially when said candidate tries to constantly associate McCain with Bush.
And McCain was proposing a tax credit for healthcare for the vast majority of Americans, something I have been wanting for years and Democrats have fought (because they think it should be a government-run entitlement). Only small amount of people would see their benefits get a net tax. I guess your fair media didn't mention that.
And for you Euros out there dying to tell we Americans that US liberals aren't really left, that is irrelevant. We are talking American politics here, where the center is obviously to the right of Europe.
but for the most part, they all fall somewhere around the center and try to keep it there.
Not according to this UCLA prof's research.
The idea that NY Times LA Times NBC CBS ABC Wash Post NPR AP are in the American center is laughable.
I'm going to patent getting a patent on patent trolling.
We do not have anyone in the US "starving." We have these government programs called WIC and Food Stamps and welfare. You know, the ones used by people in front of you at the supermarket yacking into cellphones that are nicer than yours?
Quite the contrary, the real problem with the poor in America is obesity, not starvation.
I'm disappointed that anyone would want a half-witted religious bumpkin to be "a heartbeat away" from the presidency.
As opposed to a half-witted pretend Catholic like Joe Biden, who thought FDR was president in the 1929 market crash? At least Palin has run a state (with an 80% approval rating) and a city. What has Obama ever run but his mouth?
PS. I'm also disappointed that this political shit is considered "News for Nerds", even if it is "Stuff that Matters".
We agree on something.