If you care to know more, you might start by reading this article. There's been a lot of talk recently about how Murdoch has been abusing his power since Margaret Thatcher's time in office.
If that's the case, then the U.K. needs legal reform. After all, you shouldn't be able to escape the repercussions of your actions by pretending to be someone else and talking about them. That'd be a huge legal loophole.
According to this article at least part of the reason Scotland Yard has tried to sweep this under the rug is due to the bribes and blackmail from News Corp.
What about: 1) Hacking the phones of the police officers investigating the phone hacking case? 2) Bribing police officers for information on those same officers. 3) Blackmailing some of those officers with information obtained by 1) and 2). 4) Bribing the officers they couldn't blackmail in 3 to drop the case. 5) Hacking the phones of politicians. 6) Bribing police (and doctors?) for information on politicians. 7) Using the information gained in 5) and 6) to dictate favorable legislation. 8) Using his control of diverse news media to interfere with elections. 9) Using the threat of interference to influence politicians
There's a lot more to this case than just the phone hacking. Picking on "regular people" is what outraged a lot of people, but now they might actually pay attention to the other, more important, stuff.
Maybe they can do so legally. However, it's still terrible customer service and blatantly unethical. It's just one more reason I'm going to delete my Facebook account and move to Google+ at the first chance. It has everything I really want.
The smart Libertarian will save up for a shopping trip to General Dynamics. Of course, any Libertarian who can't afford their own Abram just needs to work harder or maybe smarter, or maybe in a zig-zag pattern that's hard to target.
In addition, the feedback of the increased cost of inefficiency is poor due to the conflating of the energy cost of the product with all other energy costs.
If electricity bills could breakdown costs so that they had a line item for "lighting", people would be much more likely to see and understand the difference between efficient and inefficient lighting.
Furthermore, when the ban was enacted, in order to produce CFLs at a price people wanted them at, light bulb companies simply moved their factories to China [heartland.org].
Yes, because those nice people at GE needed the government to tell them how to make more money. It's not as if they would have ever thought to move their factories to China if the government hadn't passed this law. As the last incandescent factory in North America, I think that factory was doomed regardless of what the government did.
Well increasing efficiency standards does contribute towards all four of those categories: 1) Financial stability (lowering power usage lowers the long term cost to provide power, thus increasing American Industry competitiveness) 2) Commerce (efficiency standards are part of protecting the consumer, you will save money in the long run) 3) Nation defense (higher efficiency means you send less money to the people who support terrorists in Saudi Arabia and Iran) 4) Nation parks (higher efficiency means less pollution poisoning the parks)
That would certainly fix the problem in the short term. Mind you, the people with the incandescent bulbs might be a little annoyed that they're lights only work for a few hours a day because of the power rationing. Of course, that could be rather effective at getting people to stop using incandescents. When a homeowner is getting less than 3 hours of light and their neighbor has electricity 24/7 because he spent the money to install LED lights, that might convince people that efficiency is a good thing.
Of course, this is the Unites States we're talking about, so it's more likely the the homeowner will either report the neighbor to the police for "stealing" electricity or just shoot him and secretly run the power back to his house.
If News Corp was accused of going after Dick Cheney or George W. Bush's email and telephone records, few people would be complaining. It's the target, not the perpetrator that's important. This is an old scandal, it's been known for years that they were hacking celebrity voice mails. What turned the story into an albatross was the revelation that they were hacking the voice mail of the victims and their families. Celebrities are famous, they give up some privacy for that fame. However, when you target the victims of crime, you've gone too far. Hacking a celebrities voice mail is at least a little grey, hacking the voice mail of a murdered girl is darkest black.
We tend to be more understanding when reporters go after people with power, but when they go after people with no power it's just despicable.
I don't think that's particularly fair. How would the readers know that the Newspaper was breaking the law to get it's stories? And, of course, if you're going that way what about the advertisers who paid the News of the World to commit the crimes and entice the readers? After all, the readers are mere witnesses, the advertisers aided and abetted the crimes by providing the money for them...
No, the responsibility for the crimes lies with the people who did them, and the people who ordered them done.
I can buy for example Greek bonds at far below the face value. How is that not a "bank run on bonds"? It's people dumping them because the perceived risk of default has changed for the worse. The market value is far below par. Same is happening to Italian bonds just now.
He's technically correct, that's a "crash" not a "bank run". A "bank run" causes a bank to run out of money so they can't pay back their debts which can cause the bank to fail. A "bank run" on the United States would involve creditors demanding their money immediately, something you probably can't do with most U.S. bonds. A crash involves the perceived value of the item decreasing significantly.
I know it's a small point that might not matter much to your argument, but using the right terms can help make the argument clearer.
From everything I've seen and heard about the Tea Party, the vast majority of the Tea Party people are angry over the recession and have been told by that "nice man on the TV" that their problems are all caused by the government. Many of them figure that it must be true, after all they wouldn't let him say that on television if it wasn't. They're mostly not quite sure why it's the government fault, but they've been assured that there's too much government and too much taxes. So if they get rid of the government and taxes, everything has to get better.
I've seen many of the leaders of the Tea Party movement in interviews, along with various studies and polls of them. Often the Tea Party leaders are unable to present a coherent argument for their positions. The polls and surveys show that the vast majority of Tea Party people are like the angry senior who yelled "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". They are confused and either afraid or angry.
I would suspect that the majority of militia types probably have joined the Tea Party, because the Tea Party manifesto seems to dovetail nicely with the militia manifesto. But I have no basis for that other than it seems reasonable. Of course, even if they did, they'd still be a small minority in the Tea Party.
You don't seem to understand the point, the music labels are predators. They trap musicians who aren't smart enough to avoid them. You have to remember 50% of people are of below average intelligence, allowing the practice of slavery because someone was stupid enough to sign a contract allowing it, is unethical. Some RIAA contracts have been voided because, after the fact, the victim proved that it was literally impossible for them to actually earn a wage. The terms required them to actually pay the label for the privilege of working.
Like I said, the RIAA preys upon a segment of the population not known for brains and rips them off. No one is proposing any legislation. So you should stop worrying about phantoms and pay attention to reality.
Actually they are. It's their choice to write contracts that result in virtual slavery for the artists they claim to support and love. The people who signed those contracts are merely the suckers who fell for the lies. The issue is that if you lie to enough people, some of them are bound to believe you. The RIAA are nothing more than amoral con artists. They are fully to blame for their actions. There is nothing good about taking advantage of people's trust.
2) If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them? I sympathize if the contracts are simply not being honored, but if it continues to happen and people continue to sign the contracts, my sympathy begins to wane.
1) The labels hook them young and stupid to get them on treadmill. 2) The musicians that the labels bamboozle aren't known more for drugs and booze than math skills. 3) Music agents are really good at lying to musicians.
I do NOT want to get into a situation where contracts are no longer enforceable because of legislation protect people from sneaky contracts; people DO bear responsibility for contracts that they sign if they are upheld to the letter of the contract.
Articles like this make me really nervous because they may have a valid point, but I am terribly worried about the results of overambitious and overreacting legislation.
I think you should be less worried about the potential evil of legislation which might be written to fix an unjust system than you should be about the fact there is an unjust system in the first place. The RIAA, in particular, abuses it's talent, abuses it's customer, abuses the legal process and abuses the political process. It's much better to focus on the problem rather than to spend your time worrying about a hypothetical solution that no one is offering.
The problem with Fox it's not really bias, but whatever view point that will get the blood flowing.
From what I've been hearing, that's not the only problem. In addition to sensationalizing the news for ratings, Rupert is also perfectly willing to use his media power to extract favors from governments. They were talking about steps his papers actually took to target politicians who wouldn't play ball with him on CBC radio this morning. The more I learn about Rupert Murdoch the more, the less I like. It seems like Murdoch views his media assets as his own personal bullhorn and is perfectly willing to force his views to be echoed throughout his network. It's enough to make me wonder if the Republican party isn't so insistent on tax cuts because they are dependent on Fox News now for their election and his price for supporting them is tax cuts for billionaires.
I used to think Noam Chomsky was a bit crazy, but Rupert Murdoch makes him look visionary instead.
Sorry, bub, I'm a neutral observer. I don't like in your screwed up country. I have my preference for rational, intelligent policies, but other than that I have no affiliation or loyalty to your political groups. I'm not repeating dishonest talking points, but rather pointing out that the health care act was largely based on proposals floated by previous Republican presidential candidates.
My impression is that the goal was to quickly and painless end the problem of uninsured Americans. Obviously that didn't happen. Perhaps you should take a closer look at what you believe and see if you've been suckered by "obscene or dishonest" "talking points". Your post is rife with factual errors, incorrect conclusions, and not a little bit of hostility and disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with you. You, sir, are another example of what is wrong with America.
I think you're mostly right, but there are some other points to consider:
Conservatives tend to be more amenable to hierarchies.
Conservatives tend to be believe in individual responsibility.
Fundamentalist religions tend to teach that everyone who is not part of the religion is literally evil (not necessarily deliberately).
Evangelical religions teach that people have to be converted to the religion for their own benefit.
Combining these factors together you get an organization that is very resistance to change, except from the top. The people involved tend to believe the system is good, that God favors them, and that it is their duty to force people into obeying their rules for their own benefit. They also tend to see anyone who disagrees with them as promoting evil, either because they don't know better, or because they have chosen evil over good. When things go wrong, they blame the individuals and when they go right, they praise the system or it's leaders.
Now this is all generalization, but it's a strange little bundle that can be extremely effective or extremely dysfunctional depending on what the leaders believe or profess to believe. So, yes, I don't think it's a conscious attempt to combat extremist Islam, rather I think these groups are drawn into opposing one another because they see each other as threats. Attacking every else is merely part of the war between them.
Actually, I think you're proving the point you are trying to disagree with, even though Obama has continued many Republican policies, the Republican right still hates him. What this has shown is that every time the Democrats move a little to the right, the Republicans also move further to the right. Obama implements a Republican health care act, and suddenly it's the worst thing ever. Obama continues Bush's policies on the war on terror and suddenly that's "weak on defence". It goes on and on, as soon as Obama or the Democrats publicly like something, the Republicans publicly hate it.
The Republican should love Obama, but they don't because it's more important to score political points than to do something good for the country. That, right there, is what is wrong with America.
Actually, this would effectively be "lack of regulation". If there were no tax rate (ie. no regulation), CEO salaries would be even higher. There some evidence to show that economic activity is increased by moderate tax rates. Tax rates create subsidies for business investment as an unintended consequence because expenses are deductible from taxes.
The thousands of years is the estimate time it takes for the carbon to become re-sequestered or no longer part of the carbon cycle. As noted by others, plants and trees are part of the cycle. Eventually they die and release their carbon back into the system. Lakes and see beds are the primary method for removing carbon from the cycle, plant and animal material gets caught in sediment, buried and thus removed from the cycle.
Slashdot Mirror
If you care to know more, you might start by reading this article. There's been a lot of talk recently about how Murdoch has been abusing his power since Margaret Thatcher's time in office.
If that's the case, then the U.K. needs legal reform. After all, you shouldn't be able to escape the repercussions of your actions by pretending to be someone else and talking about them. That'd be a huge legal loophole.
According to this article at least part of the reason Scotland Yard has tried to sweep this under the rug is due to the bribes and blackmail from News Corp.
What about:
1) Hacking the phones of the police officers investigating the phone hacking case?
2) Bribing police officers for information on those same officers.
3) Blackmailing some of those officers with information obtained by 1) and 2).
4) Bribing the officers they couldn't blackmail in 3 to drop the case.
5) Hacking the phones of politicians.
6) Bribing police (and doctors?) for information on politicians.
7) Using the information gained in 5) and 6) to dictate favorable legislation.
8) Using his control of diverse news media to interfere with elections.
9) Using the threat of interference to influence politicians
There's a lot more to this case than just the phone hacking. Picking on "regular people" is what outraged a lot of people, but now they might actually pay attention to the other, more important, stuff.
Maybe they can do so legally. However, it's still terrible customer service and blatantly unethical. It's just one more reason I'm going to delete my Facebook account and move to Google+ at the first chance. It has everything I really want.
If doing his own taxes increases his tax burden increases from $10 to $16 then I think he'll be ok.
He's right, the rage over the price increase is overblown. If the service isn't worth it, cancel it. If it is worth it, pay it.
The smart Libertarian will save up for a shopping trip to General Dynamics. Of course, any Libertarian who can't afford their own Abram just needs to work harder or maybe smarter, or maybe in a zig-zag pattern that's hard to target.
In addition, the feedback of the increased cost of inefficiency is poor due to the conflating of the energy cost of the product with all other energy costs.
If electricity bills could breakdown costs so that they had a line item for "lighting", people would be much more likely to see and understand the difference between efficient and inefficient lighting.
Furthermore, when the ban was enacted, in order to produce CFLs at a price people wanted them at, light bulb companies simply moved their factories to China [heartland.org].
Yes, because those nice people at GE needed the government to tell them how to make more money. It's not as if they would have ever thought to move their factories to China if the government hadn't passed this law. As the last incandescent factory in North America, I think that factory was doomed regardless of what the government did.
Well increasing efficiency standards does contribute towards all four of those categories:
1) Financial stability (lowering power usage lowers the long term cost to provide power, thus increasing American Industry competitiveness)
2) Commerce (efficiency standards are part of protecting the consumer, you will save money in the long run)
3) Nation defense (higher efficiency means you send less money to the people who support terrorists in Saudi Arabia and Iran)
4) Nation parks (higher efficiency means less pollution poisoning the parks)
That would certainly fix the problem in the short term. Mind you, the people with the incandescent bulbs might be a little annoyed that they're lights only work for a few hours a day because of the power rationing. Of course, that could be rather effective at getting people to stop using incandescents. When a homeowner is getting less than 3 hours of light and their neighbor has electricity 24/7 because he spent the money to install LED lights, that might convince people that efficiency is a good thing.
Of course, this is the Unites States we're talking about, so it's more likely the the homeowner will either report the neighbor to the police for "stealing" electricity or just shoot him and secretly run the power back to his house.
If News Corp was accused of going after Dick Cheney or George W. Bush's email and telephone records, few people would be complaining. It's the target, not the perpetrator that's important. This is an old scandal, it's been known for years that they were hacking celebrity voice mails. What turned the story into an albatross was the revelation that they were hacking the voice mail of the victims and their families. Celebrities are famous, they give up some privacy for that fame. However, when you target the victims of crime, you've gone too far. Hacking a celebrities voice mail is at least a little grey, hacking the voice mail of a murdered girl is darkest black.
We tend to be more understanding when reporters go after people with power, but when they go after people with no power it's just despicable.
I don't think that's particularly fair. How would the readers know that the Newspaper was breaking the law to get it's stories? And, of course, if you're going that way what about the advertisers who paid the News of the World to commit the crimes and entice the readers? After all, the readers are mere witnesses, the advertisers aided and abetted the crimes by providing the money for them...
No, the responsibility for the crimes lies with the people who did them, and the people who ordered them done.
I can buy for example Greek bonds at far below the face value. How is that not a "bank run on bonds"? It's people dumping them because the perceived risk of default has changed for the worse. The market value is far below par. Same is happening to Italian bonds just now.
He's technically correct, that's a "crash" not a "bank run". A "bank run" causes a bank to run out of money so they can't pay back their debts which can cause the bank to fail. A "bank run" on the United States would involve creditors demanding their money immediately, something you probably can't do with most U.S. bonds. A crash involves the perceived value of the item decreasing significantly.
I know it's a small point that might not matter much to your argument, but using the right terms can help make the argument clearer.
Actually, I don't think that's factually correct.
From everything I've seen and heard about the Tea Party, the vast majority of the Tea Party people are angry over the recession and have been told by that "nice man on the TV" that their problems are all caused by the government. Many of them figure that it must be true, after all they wouldn't let him say that on television if it wasn't. They're mostly not quite sure why it's the government fault, but they've been assured that there's too much government and too much taxes. So if they get rid of the government and taxes, everything has to get better.
I've seen many of the leaders of the Tea Party movement in interviews, along with various studies and polls of them. Often the Tea Party leaders are unable to present a coherent argument for their positions. The polls and surveys show that the vast majority of Tea Party people are like the angry senior who yelled "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". They are confused and either afraid or angry.
I would suspect that the majority of militia types probably have joined the Tea Party, because the Tea Party manifesto seems to dovetail nicely with the militia manifesto. But I have no basis for that other than it seems reasonable. Of course, even if they did, they'd still be a small minority in the Tea Party.
You don't seem to understand the point, the music labels are predators. They trap musicians who aren't smart enough to avoid them. You have to remember 50% of people are of below average intelligence, allowing the practice of slavery because someone was stupid enough to sign a contract allowing it, is unethical. Some RIAA contracts have been voided because, after the fact, the victim proved that it was literally impossible for them to actually earn a wage. The terms required them to actually pay the label for the privilege of working.
Like I said, the RIAA preys upon a segment of the population not known for brains and rips them off. No one is proposing any legislation. So you should stop worrying about phantoms and pay attention to reality.
Actually they are. It's their choice to write contracts that result in virtual slavery for the artists they claim to support and love. The people who signed those contracts are merely the suckers who fell for the lies. The issue is that if you lie to enough people, some of them are bound to believe you. The RIAA are nothing more than amoral con artists. They are fully to blame for their actions. There is nothing good about taking advantage of people's trust.
2) If these contracts are known for being so bad, why do people continue to sign them? I sympathize if the contracts are simply not being honored, but if it continues to happen and people continue to sign the contracts, my sympathy begins to wane.
1) The labels hook them young and stupid to get them on treadmill.
2) The musicians that the labels bamboozle aren't known more for drugs and booze than math skills.
3) Music agents are really good at lying to musicians.
I do NOT want to get into a situation where contracts are no longer enforceable because of legislation protect people from sneaky contracts; people DO bear responsibility for contracts that they sign if they are upheld to the letter of the contract.
Articles like this make me really nervous because they may have a valid point, but I am terribly worried about the results of overambitious and overreacting legislation.
I think you should be less worried about the potential evil of legislation which might be written to fix an unjust system than you should be about the fact there is an unjust system in the first place. The RIAA, in particular, abuses it's talent, abuses it's customer, abuses the legal process and abuses the political process. It's much better to focus on the problem rather than to spend your time worrying about a hypothetical solution that no one is offering.
The problem with Fox it's not really bias, but whatever view point that will get the blood flowing.
From what I've been hearing, that's not the only problem. In addition to sensationalizing the news for ratings, Rupert is also perfectly willing to use his media power to extract favors from governments. They were talking about steps his papers actually took to target politicians who wouldn't play ball with him on CBC radio this morning. The more I learn about Rupert Murdoch the more, the less I like. It seems like Murdoch views his media assets as his own personal bullhorn and is perfectly willing to force his views to be echoed throughout his network. It's enough to make me wonder if the Republican party isn't so insistent on tax cuts because they are dependent on Fox News now for their election and his price for supporting them is tax cuts for billionaires.
I used to think Noam Chomsky was a bit crazy, but Rupert Murdoch makes him look visionary instead.
Sorry, bub, I'm a neutral observer. I don't like in your screwed up country. I have my preference for rational, intelligent policies, but other than that I have no affiliation or loyalty to your political groups. I'm not repeating dishonest talking points, but rather pointing out that the health care act was largely based on proposals floated by previous Republican presidential candidates.
My impression is that the goal was to quickly and painless end the problem of uninsured Americans. Obviously that didn't happen. Perhaps you should take a closer look at what you believe and see if you've been suckered by "obscene or dishonest" "talking points". Your post is rife with factual errors, incorrect conclusions, and not a little bit of hostility and disdain for anyone who dares to disagree with you. You, sir, are another example of what is wrong with America.
I think you're mostly right, but there are some other points to consider:
Combining these factors together you get an organization that is very resistance to change, except from the top. The people involved tend to believe the system is good, that God favors them, and that it is their duty to force people into obeying their rules for their own benefit. They also tend to see anyone who disagrees with them as promoting evil, either because they don't know better, or because they have chosen evil over good. When things go wrong, they blame the individuals and when they go right, they praise the system or it's leaders.
Now this is all generalization, but it's a strange little bundle that can be extremely effective or extremely dysfunctional depending on what the leaders believe or profess to believe. So, yes, I don't think it's a conscious attempt to combat extremist Islam, rather I think these groups are drawn into opposing one another because they see each other as threats. Attacking every else is merely part of the war between them.
Actually, I think you're proving the point you are trying to disagree with, even though Obama has continued many Republican policies, the Republican right still hates him. What this has shown is that every time the Democrats move a little to the right, the Republicans also move further to the right. Obama implements a Republican health care act, and suddenly it's the worst thing ever. Obama continues Bush's policies on the war on terror and suddenly that's "weak on defence". It goes on and on, as soon as Obama or the Democrats publicly like something, the Republicans publicly hate it.
The Republican should love Obama, but they don't because it's more important to score political points than to do something good for the country. That, right there, is what is wrong with America.
Actually, this would effectively be "lack of regulation". If there were no tax rate (ie. no regulation), CEO salaries would be even higher. There some evidence to show that economic activity is increased by moderate tax rates. Tax rates create subsidies for business investment as an unintended consequence because expenses are deductible from taxes.
Climate change isn't a geological problem. It's an ecology and societal problem. The time scales are different.
The thousands of years is the estimate time it takes for the carbon to become re-sequestered or no longer part of the carbon cycle. As noted by others, plants and trees are part of the cycle. Eventually they die and release their carbon back into the system. Lakes and see beds are the primary method for removing carbon from the cycle, plant and animal material gets caught in sediment, buried and thus removed from the cycle.