Fuck that. I'll buy from the vendors offering the products I want at prices I agree to. This "buy local" horseshit is nothing but guilt-tripping. Customers aren't property, and if local retailers can't compete, then they shouldn't be in business.
You need to take an economics class. Its not purely a guilt trip, there is also actual science and math behind spending locally. Sales and marketing people don't have to lie on those rare occasions when the truth is actually on their side. This is one of those. Spending locally can benefit you, or divert harm from you.
Where you spend your money has a multiplier effect on the community you are spending in. You can benefit your community or you can benefit someone else's. Which of the two do you think is more likely to return some benefit to you? Which of the two is more likely impact you when they have to raise property and other taxes as business revenues decline? Communities are a highly complex set of interdependencies. In the 1970s and 80s people didn't think it mattered where they shopped or where things were made. History proves them mistaken.
Reading isn't your strong suit, and I know perfectly well what "Semite" and "anti-Semite" mean. Nor have I said GP (now GGP) has said anything different.
Or perhaps writing is not your strong suit. Your post absolutely gave the impression that you were disagreeing with the previous post and suggesting that it was racist.
To which you just provided an example, namely Arafat.
Arafat described himself as being anti-zionist, claiming that as a semite himself his is not anti-semite. One could also reasonably describe him as anti-Israeli or anti-jewish. You are hanging your argument on an obviously flawed definition, a definition that embeds a certain amount of imprecision into itself. When using the word in the context of a European or a Persian then the imprecision is somewhat tolerable, but unworkable in the context of a fellow semitic.
You can also look up "anti-Semitic" in dictionary.com or any other standard reference and see that in the word specifically denotes hostility or hatred of Jews. A lot of people are genuinely confused by this terminology,...
In particular you and the GGP. The palestinian terrorist and murderer of Israeli civilians Yasser Arafat famous corrected someone who tried to label him an anti-semite, pointing out that Palestinians are also semites.
... but you can be pretty sure that when someone argues that "anti-Seimtism" is a meaningless term,...
Straw man. The GP did not do so, all he said was that the wrong adjective was used. That fact remains that palestinians consider themselves semites.
... even after having been shown a the dictionary definition and history of the term, it is pretty good evidence that he or she is an anti-Semite.
Obviously someone who points out that palestinians are also semites must be a nazi. Your logic is breathtaking... as in people are laughing at you so hard that they can not breathe.
Working in Amazon's fulfillment center is probably the worst job I've ever had. (I quit after two days and still had pain a week later).
And a veteran recently returned to civilian life would probably have thought that an easy day.
Our (great-)grandmothers who had assembly line jobs and our (great-)grandfathers who had factory jobs would probably laugh at you. A lots of blue collar workers in the 40s, 50s and 60s had muscles and it was not from going to the gym. It was from going to work.
Seriously, I know Bezos isn't a fan of the war but it'd be more humane to give them a new job in Afghanistan than put them in a warehouse that people regularly heat stroke out of, are berated all day, and fired for not keeping up with untenable quotas.
Heatstroke.
Pressured to perform all day.
Untenable quotas.
Sounds like a typical day in the Navy.
On a more serious note. Perhaps veterans are used to pretty hard work, and I'm not talking combat. Training, maintenance, logistics, etc... I don't think many people posting around here have a clue what a normal workday in the military can be like. When a vet says he is sore after working at Amazon I'll be more concerned than when a keyboard jockey says he is sore after working at Amazon.
"It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint"
You mean like them blocking Nazi videos (including Downfall parodies) from being viewed in Germany?
Nazi videos are illegal in Germany. Google is merely complying with German law.
Yes, new items will increase waste (old items), increase production of new items (emissions), and cause problems for the consumer (multiple cables). So... unless you have some magical idea that will remove all of this, it will harm the environment.
And what Android devices do not come with a cable, expecting you to reuse your old cable. So an iOS device comes with a cable and an Android devices comes with a cable. Same waste (old items), same increased production (emissions). It seems the only real criticism is needing multiple cables for people who own both platforms.
what you bought actually only has a 2 year shelf life, I don't care what their marketing department tells you.
The supplier's website says that with mild, dry storage conditions, the food is good for up to 25 years. My guess is their estimate is closer to the truth than yours.
How long has that supplier been in business? How long has the manufacturer of the goods they carry been in business? I'd be a little concerned about some company just jumping on the Y2K, Mayan 2012, etc bandwagon and not planning on being around for very long (in the fly-by-night business sense, not the apocalypse sense). I'd want to know a little more about who is making that 25 year claim.
Plus a supplier's claim is more suspicious than a manufacturer's claim. I saw some sort of food hoarder on TV with a similar cache. I recognize one of the brand names, "Mountain House" a quite respectable company making food for backpackers and such. The hoarder claimed something around 25 years too. Strange, the "Mountain House" freeze dried dehydrated vacuum sealed food packets I recently purchased for a backpacking trip had a use by 2017 date, a 5 year shelf life.
Yes, some regulations are bad. This is a revelation.
To some people, including some around here, yes this would be a revelation for them. Some people blindly support anything Congress suggests that is well intended. For some, only intentions seem to matter, not results.
Some regulations are bad. How often do we geeks criticize regulations/law/policies addressing the internet, computers, or other tech areas? What makes you think the US Congress does a better job in the domain of banking and finance than they do in the domain of technology?
There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to reform regulations. The problem is that reforming regulations can be done as poorly as creating and implementing regulations.
Somehow "Screw You if You're Over 55!" doesn't have the ring if an effective campaign slogan to me.
Its not a campaign slogan. Its a campaign lie from the Dems. Ryan has always said that nothing changes for the over 55. Its only for the younger that he *proposes* radical changes. Note "proposal". You always propose more than you actually want so you have something to negotiate away.
As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders.
All politicians are brown nosers, even Obama. Witness the years of sitting through Rev Wright's sermons even though he severely disagreed, sitting there merely because Wright was the local "king maker" and getting elected to the Illinois legislature without the Rev's support would be impossible.
... you'd realize that the GP was talking about George Romney running for President DESPITE being born in Mexico...
US Citizenship is not simply based on where you were born, it also depends on the citizenship of the parents. If your parents were US citizens it does not matter where the child is born. Basically its being the child of US citizens OR being born on US soil.
Similarly, even if it were true that Obama was born outside the US - which he was not, his mother was a US citizen so he would have been born a US citizen.
Bush Junior inherited a budget surplus from Clinton's term. Obama inherited the mess of a deficit from Bush Junior
Actually Jr inherited the fake prosperity of the Internet Bubble and its popping, a popping that began under Clinton. Jr was then immediately hit with 9/11. Clearly the economy took hits that were not Jr's doing.
And despite this Jr managed a recovery of sorts within a few years. Something Obama seems incapable of. However then the Housing Bubble popped. And who authorized those Credit Default Swaps so critical to the current economic crisis? It was Clinton. Clinton not only authorized these financial WMDs but he also made it illegal for states to enact state-level laws that would regulate them.
It seems Clinton had far more of a role in the current economic crisis than Jr. Jr did not help with his spending however Obama is going far beyond Jr in terms of spending and that is also contributing to the ongoing crisis.
1. We spent 804 billion dollars in Iraq and didn't even get a "thank you card"..or a drop of oil 2. We spent 90 billion dollars on reconstruction in Afghanistan to "win hearts and minds"...and they hate us
And Obama continued Jr's war policy and exited Iraq on Jr's timetable.
3. We spent 2.5 billion dollars sending CURIOSITY to MARS, a technological feat that set space exploration ahead 50 years, sent a message to the world that the US is still the leader in technology.... and will provide us with a wealth of scientific data for years to come.
And the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity mission began and hardware and software mostly completed under Jr's term.
Fine message to send. "My Party is an obsolete old rustbucket that went aground so hard it was laid up for years as they patched it together again. Oh by the way, it uses so much oil to get anywhere we can't afford to run it anymore." On the other hand, maybe it is an appropriate message after all. And I say this as a Navy veteran and former resident of Wisconsin.
Actually they are not so rusty. The battleships are quite useful in one of their historic roles and some of these "museum" ships are required by law to be maintained at a level that would permit them to be recommissioned should the need arise.
The role is shore bombardment. There is nothing like those big 16-inch guns for bombardment. Battleships basically own anything within 25 miles of the coast. Ask any U.S. Marine contemplating an amphibious assault on a contested beach, or who needs artillery support. Or consider a Syrian General in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley that made the mistake of firing on U.S. aircraft. A U.S. battleship put 16-inch shells into his command post. The Syrian officers who replaced this general and his staff moved the command post farther inland.
Regarding vulnerability. Consider that these ships were designed to slug it out with other ships of their class. Modern weapons were designed for ships with much thinner armor. After an Exocet missile took out a British ship during the Falkland Islands war the commander of a U.S. battleship was asked about his ship's vulnerability to the Exocet, Silkworm and other similar anti-ship missiles. The commander pointed out that the ship has 12 inches of steel armor and would take about 30 minutes to repaint the dent from an Exocet hit.
In her niche of shore bombardment the battleship still rules.
Corzine. Hundreds of millions in 'segregated' funds. Currently enjoying new multi-million dollar offices on Wall St.
It helps to be a friend of the President of the United States and a leading member of the Democratic party.
“Jon Corzine one of the best colleagues I had in the Senate and one of the best partners I have in the White House.”
President Barack Obama, Oct 21, 2009.
Steam is a store / distribution channel. They may very well benefit. However it is some benefit to the developers, not a store, that is the key to Linux gaming.
The Linux market is at least a few million of generally above average intelligence and income users as proved by the Humble Bundle stats.
The Linux game market is not the number of Linux gamers. Many Linux gamers are dual booting or running WINE, they are already buyers of the games on Steam. The Linux game market is really those gamers who refuse to dual boot or run WINE. That is a group far smaller than you suggest. The current Steam customers don't really count since the Linux version would simply cannibalize sales of the Windows version and generate no new revenue for the developer. Replacing a Windows sale with a Linux sale does not pay for development or support.
It is hard and no amount of hand-waving is going to change that. A politician is going to have to make decisions on a wide spectrum of issues, and some of those they're going to vote conscience, some they're going to consider the electorate, some they're going to consider their corporate sponsors, and sometimes they're going to vote to compromise to get something rather than nothing.
No. It is not hard. As I said... legitimate, well reasoned and rational differences on a topic should not disqualify a candidate for one's support. On any of the scenarios you mention, if the candidate can articulate a well reasoned rational explanation for their vote then they are doing their job properly.
But even if the system was changed, you are always voting for the lesser of evil, because there is no perfect candidate who is going to behave to your criteria consistently, and other voters have different criteria.
Again. It is not about agreeing with the candidates decisions. Its about whether the candidates decisions are rationally in the public interest.
More importantly, in the short term the point is to communicate to politicians that those not making rational votes, not offering defendable positions, are going to be voted out, that they have no loyal base who will overlook indefensible votes. In other words the politicians need to re-learn that the true currency of politics is votes and that no amount of campaign contributions will save them. Once candidates are in such a frame of mind then picking the candidate based upon one's preference for their positions is fine. However this is the long term goal. Applying this long term strategy now merely preserves the status quo of 2/3rds of voters being irrelevant.
You can not escape the fact that loyalty to a platform makes 2/3rds of voters irrelevant. Ignored by their party because their vote is safe, ignored by the other party because their vote is unobtainable.
In summary. We need to do something radical to regain control. Once we have regained control we can give proper attention to specific positions on issues. However letting such positions dominate *now* merely perpetuates the current failed system.
Slashdot Mirror
Fuck that. I'll buy from the vendors offering the products I want at prices I agree to. This "buy local" horseshit is nothing but guilt-tripping. Customers aren't property, and if local retailers can't compete, then they shouldn't be in business.
You need to take an economics class. Its not purely a guilt trip, there is also actual science and math behind spending locally. Sales and marketing people don't have to lie on those rare occasions when the truth is actually on their side. This is one of those. Spending locally can benefit you, or divert harm from you.
Where you spend your money has a multiplier effect on the community you are spending in. You can benefit your community or you can benefit someone else's. Which of the two do you think is more likely to return some benefit to you? Which of the two is more likely impact you when they have to raise property and other taxes as business revenues decline? Communities are a highly complex set of interdependencies. In the 1970s and 80s people didn't think it mattered where they shopped or where things were made. History proves them mistaken.
Reading isn't your strong suit, and I know perfectly well what "Semite" and "anti-Semite" mean. Nor have I said GP (now GGP) has said anything different.
Or perhaps writing is not your strong suit. Your post absolutely gave the impression that you were disagreeing with the previous post and suggesting that it was racist.
To which you just provided an example, namely Arafat.
Arafat described himself as being anti-zionist, claiming that as a semite himself his is not anti-semite. One could also reasonably describe him as anti-Israeli or anti-jewish. You are hanging your argument on an obviously flawed definition, a definition that embeds a certain amount of imprecision into itself. When using the word in the context of a European or a Persian then the imprecision is somewhat tolerable, but unworkable in the context of a fellow semitic.
You can also look up "anti-Semitic" in dictionary.com or any other standard reference and see that in the word specifically denotes hostility or hatred of Jews. A lot of people are genuinely confused by this terminology, ...
In particular you and the GGP. The palestinian terrorist and murderer of Israeli civilians Yasser Arafat famous corrected someone who tried to label him an anti-semite, pointing out that Palestinians are also semites.
... but you can be pretty sure that when someone argues that "anti-Seimtism" is a meaningless term, ...
Straw man. The GP did not do so, all he said was that the wrong adjective was used. That fact remains that palestinians consider themselves semites.
... even after having been shown a the dictionary definition and history of the term, it is pretty good evidence that he or she is an anti-Semite.
Obviously someone who points out that palestinians are also semites must be a nazi. Your logic is breathtaking ... as in people are laughing at you so hard that they can not breathe.
Working in Amazon's fulfillment center is probably the worst job I've ever had. (I quit after two days and still had pain a week later).
And a veteran recently returned to civilian life would probably have thought that an easy day.
Our (great-)grandmothers who had assembly line jobs and our (great-)grandfathers who had factory jobs would probably laugh at you. A lots of blue collar workers in the 40s, 50s and 60s had muscles and it was not from going to the gym. It was from going to work.
Seriously, I know Bezos isn't a fan of the war but it'd be more humane to give them a new job in Afghanistan than put them in a warehouse that people regularly heat stroke out of, are berated all day, and fired for not keeping up with untenable quotas.
Heatstroke.
... I don't think many people posting around here have a clue what a normal workday in the military can be like. When a vet says he is sore after working at Amazon I'll be more concerned than when a keyboard jockey says he is sore after working at Amazon.
Pressured to perform all day.
Untenable quotas.
Sounds like a typical day in the Navy.
On a more serious note. Perhaps veterans are used to pretty hard work, and I'm not talking combat. Training, maintenance, logistics, etc
Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts
Nope, the libs just put up photos of the people they actually consider their heroes, the soviets. ;-)
"It is extremely unusual for YouTube to block a video in any country without it being a violation of their terms of service or in response to a valid legal complaint"
You mean like them blocking Nazi videos (including Downfall parodies) from being viewed in Germany?
Nazi videos are illegal in Germany. Google is merely complying with German law.
Yes, new items will increase waste (old items), increase production of new items (emissions), and cause problems for the consumer (multiple cables). So... unless you have some magical idea that will remove all of this, it will harm the environment.
And what Android devices do not come with a cable, expecting you to reuse your old cable. So an iOS device comes with a cable and an Android devices comes with a cable. Same waste (old items), same increased production (emissions). It seems the only real criticism is needing multiple cables for people who own both platforms.
what you bought actually only has a 2 year shelf life, I don't care what their marketing department tells you.
The supplier's website says that with mild, dry storage conditions, the food is good for up to 25 years. My guess is their estimate is closer to the truth than yours.
How long has that supplier been in business? How long has the manufacturer of the goods they carry been in business? I'd be a little concerned about some company just jumping on the Y2K, Mayan 2012, etc bandwagon and not planning on being around for very long (in the fly-by-night business sense, not the apocalypse sense). I'd want to know a little more about who is making that 25 year claim.
Plus a supplier's claim is more suspicious than a manufacturer's claim. I saw some sort of food hoarder on TV with a similar cache. I recognize one of the brand names, "Mountain House" a quite respectable company making food for backpackers and such. The hoarder claimed something around 25 years too. Strange, the "Mountain House" freeze dried dehydrated vacuum sealed food packets I recently purchased for a backpacking trip had a use by 2017 date, a 5 year shelf life.
Yes, some regulations are bad. This is a revelation.
To some people, including some around here, yes this would be a revelation for them. Some people blindly support anything Congress suggests that is well intended. For some, only intentions seem to matter, not results.
I would believe he would have attended a king makers church for a couple of years. Three tops. But 20 years?
Wright was key to Obama's entire political career prior to running for the Presidency. Community positions, state positions and US Senate.
But regulations are bad!
Some regulations are bad. How often do we geeks criticize regulations/law/policies addressing the internet, computers, or other tech areas? What makes you think the US Congress does a better job in the domain of banking and finance than they do in the domain of technology?
There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to reform regulations. The problem is that reforming regulations can be done as poorly as creating and implementing regulations.
... if Obama was in fact born born outside the country, he is not eligible ...
Wrong. He would be a natural born US Citizen because his mother was a US Citizen, regardless of where the birth took place.
Somehow "Screw You if You're Over 55!" doesn't have the ring if an effective campaign slogan to me.
Its not a campaign slogan. Its a campaign lie from the Dems. Ryan has always said that nothing changes for the over 55. Its only for the younger that he *proposes* radical changes. Note "proposal". You always propose more than you actually want so you have something to negotiate away.
As for the usefulness of Ryan's brown-noser status: Well it's not particularly important except that Americans like to know the personality of their prospective leaders.
All politicians are brown nosers, even Obama. Witness the years of sitting through Rev Wright's sermons even though he severely disagreed, sitting there merely because Wright was the local "king maker" and getting elected to the Illinois legislature without the Rev's support would be impossible.
... you'd realize that the GP was talking about George Romney running for President DESPITE being born in Mexico ...
US Citizenship is not simply based on where you were born, it also depends on the citizenship of the parents. If your parents were US citizens it does not matter where the child is born. Basically its being the child of US citizens OR being born on US soil.
Similarly, even if it were true that Obama was born outside the US - which he was not, his mother was a US citizen so he would have been born a US citizen.
You're actually defending that clown JR??? Gimme a break!!
Nope. Just stating the historical facts.
I don't think he could have picked a less likable running mate.
Both Bush Jr and Obama are quite likable guys. How has electing guys for likability been working out?
Bush Junior inherited a budget surplus from Clinton's term. Obama inherited the mess of a deficit from Bush Junior
Actually Jr inherited the fake prosperity of the Internet Bubble and its popping, a popping that began under Clinton. Jr was then immediately hit with 9/11. Clearly the economy took hits that were not Jr's doing.
And despite this Jr managed a recovery of sorts within a few years. Something Obama seems incapable of. However then the Housing Bubble popped. And who authorized those Credit Default Swaps so critical to the current economic crisis? It was Clinton. Clinton not only authorized these financial WMDs but he also made it illegal for states to enact state-level laws that would regulate them.
It seems Clinton had far more of a role in the current economic crisis than Jr. Jr did not help with his spending however Obama is going far beyond Jr in terms of spending and that is also contributing to the ongoing crisis.
1. We spent 804 billion dollars in Iraq and didn't even get a "thank you card"..or a drop of oil 2. We spent 90 billion dollars on reconstruction in Afghanistan to "win hearts and minds"...and they hate us
And Obama continued Jr's war policy and exited Iraq on Jr's timetable.
3. We spent 2.5 billion dollars sending CURIOSITY to MARS, a technological feat that set space exploration ahead 50 years, sent a message to the world that the US is still the leader in technology.... and will provide us with a wealth of scientific data for years to come.
And the Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity mission began and hardware and software mostly completed under Jr's term.
Fine message to send. "My Party is an obsolete old rustbucket that went aground so hard it was laid up for years as they patched it together again. Oh by the way, it uses so much oil to get anywhere we can't afford to run it anymore." On the other hand, maybe it is an appropriate message after all. And I say this as a Navy veteran and former resident of Wisconsin.
Actually they are not so rusty. The battleships are quite useful in one of their historic roles and some of these "museum" ships are required by law to be maintained at a level that would permit them to be recommissioned should the need arise.
The role is shore bombardment. There is nothing like those big 16-inch guns for bombardment. Battleships basically own anything within 25 miles of the coast. Ask any U.S. Marine contemplating an amphibious assault on a contested beach, or who needs artillery support. Or consider a Syrian General in Lebanon's Bekaa Valley that made the mistake of firing on U.S. aircraft. A U.S. battleship put 16-inch shells into his command post. The Syrian officers who replaced this general and his staff moved the command post farther inland.
Regarding vulnerability. Consider that these ships were designed to slug it out with other ships of their class. Modern weapons were designed for ships with much thinner armor. After an Exocet missile took out a British ship during the Falkland Islands war the commander of a U.S. battleship was asked about his ship's vulnerability to the Exocet, Silkworm and other similar anti-ship missiles. The commander pointed out that the ship has 12 inches of steel armor and would take about 30 minutes to repaint the dent from an Exocet hit.
In her niche of shore bombardment the battleship still rules.
Obama did the same thing when he announced Biden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4QCcwJjk54
Really, I don't remember the media mentioning that. :-)
Corzine. Hundreds of millions in 'segregated' funds. Currently enjoying new multi-million dollar offices on Wall St.
It helps to be a friend of the President of the United States and a leading member of the Democratic party.
“Jon Corzine one of the best colleagues I had in the Senate and one of the best partners I have in the White House.”
President Barack Obama, Oct 21, 2009.
Steam is a store / distribution channel. They may very well benefit. However it is some benefit to the developers, not a store, that is the key to Linux gaming.
The Linux market is at least a few million of generally above average intelligence and income users as proved by the Humble Bundle stats.
The Linux game market is not the number of Linux gamers. Many Linux gamers are dual booting or running WINE, they are already buyers of the games on Steam. The Linux game market is really those gamers who refuse to dual boot or run WINE. That is a group far smaller than you suggest. The current Steam customers don't really count since the Linux version would simply cannibalize sales of the Windows version and generate no new revenue for the developer. Replacing a Windows sale with a Linux sale does not pay for development or support.
Actually its not so hard.
It is hard and no amount of hand-waving is going to change that. A politician is going to have to make decisions on a wide spectrum of issues, and some of those they're going to vote conscience, some they're going to consider the electorate, some they're going to consider their corporate sponsors, and sometimes they're going to vote to compromise to get something rather than nothing.
No. It is not hard. As I said ... legitimate, well reasoned and rational differences on a topic should not disqualify a candidate for one's support. On any of the scenarios you mention, if the candidate can articulate a well reasoned rational explanation for their vote then they are doing their job properly.
But even if the system was changed, you are always voting for the lesser of evil, because there is no perfect candidate who is going to behave to your criteria consistently, and other voters have different criteria.
Again. It is not about agreeing with the candidates decisions. Its about whether the candidates decisions are rationally in the public interest.
More importantly, in the short term the point is to communicate to politicians that those not making rational votes, not offering defendable positions, are going to be voted out, that they have no loyal base who will overlook indefensible votes. In other words the politicians need to re-learn that the true currency of politics is votes and that no amount of campaign contributions will save them. Once candidates are in such a frame of mind then picking the candidate based upon one's preference for their positions is fine. However this is the long term goal. Applying this long term strategy now merely preserves the status quo of 2/3rds of voters being irrelevant.
You can not escape the fact that loyalty to a platform makes 2/3rds of voters irrelevant. Ignored by their party because their vote is safe, ignored by the other party because their vote is unobtainable.
In summary. We need to do something radical to regain control. Once we have regained control we can give proper attention to specific positions on issues. However letting such positions dominate *now* merely perpetuates the current failed system.