Air shows are not necessarily adrenaline free. The air shows I attended tended to have various demonstrations. High speed fly by, simulated close air support and shows by the Air Force Thunderbirds or Navy Blue Angels. The later is risky, though perhaps not quite at the air race level.
I understand that air races have an inherent danger. The presence of danger can be fun, that however does not mean that people want that danger to manifest. I think sky divers, scuba divers visiting sharks, etc can attest to that. While I do not seek out sharks I do scuba dive, I understand that there is an inherent risk. However I don't really think that risk is part of the enjoyment. Rather it is the price I've accepted to find the enjoyment of visiting an aquatic environment. I would argue that folks going to an air race are not seeking out the danger, rather accepting the very low likelihood of personal danger to be the price of seeing the planes go by really fast.
Of course, but that's your subjective intellect talking. I suspect you logically don't want wrecks (you don't wish any ill on the pilots or planes), but at some sub level, you would be excited and entertained if you witnessed a good crash. I'm not afraid to admit it. I'd love to see a big crash - explosion - fire.
Given no injuries to people...
As someone who has blown things up, *legally*, I understand the argument you are making. When a MIG-29 crashes that can be interesting. A MIG-29 is new and replaceable. However when a P-51 Mustang crashes the loss of the aircraft is an inherent tragedy. It is a rare and important piece of history, it is irreplaceable.
If I watch a MIG-29 fly it is technical and engineering marvel. However if I watch a P-51 fly there is an emotional element that is lacking in the case of modern jets. This emotional element changes that lower level interpretation of what was witnessed.
NASCAR is a poor analogy. There is nothing historic about a NASCAR car, they are new and replaceable. WW2 aircraft are of great historical and cultural value. When these aircraft are lost in situations where no people are hurt it is still a tragedy. These aircraft are rare and irreplaceable. Perhaps they have become rare enough that owners should exercise some discretion and turn them into museum pieces.
Thought the potential of crashes was the point or do I just not understand air shows?
As someone who attended quite a few air shows growing up I feel it is safe to say that people go to see the airplanes. Hell I would have gone to see a P-51 sitting on the tarmac let alone fly. Seeing one crash and be destroyed is not something that an aviation or history enthusiast wants to see, nor does anyone want to see people get hurt.
On a personal note I know some guys who used to shape surf boards. Very small scale shop but respected by locals and profitable for years. They had to give it up due to ever increasing regulations.
Have fun learning the hard way why nobody else is running a software company in South Carolina or whatever.
I don't think US customers know or care where a software company is located, except possibly that it is a US operation. And with the increasing popularity of the digital supply chain -- developer to online store to consumer, no packaged goods or distributors -- this is becoming even more so.
You have to admit the California legislature is out of control and making California a less friendly place to do business than a few decades ago.
It is not simply the low cost of labor. For a trivial commodity good then perhaps labor is a major factor. However for most goods labor is only a small fraction of the costs. What gives a country like China a huge advantage is not cheap labor, it is the artificially devalued currency. Some estimates are that China's currency is 40% undervalued. If so then *everything* in China is at a 40% discount, not just the labor. If it were simply labor then the overhead and inconvenience of shipping great distances, of managing an operation (communicating and verifying specs and requirements) many time zones away, dealing with a local environment that is not always run according to the rule of law,... then fewer things would see an overall cost advantage.
Given that the owner of the account is aware of the copyright infringement and not doing anything to stop it there probably is a legal argument that he is authorizing that conduct in some de facto sense.
That kind of attitude is EXACTLY what lets them get away with this intimidation and harassment bullshit.
If you don't want to stand up for your own rights, at least get the hell out of the way and let other people do it.
Absolutely. Take your name off the ISP contract/account and let the copyright infringer put their name on the ISP contract/account. That is what you are advocating isn't it?
You are taking things a bit too literal. Keynes was compared to Einstein, I thought Newton a better characterization with the monetarists being more comparable to Einstein in this context. I'm sort of reluctant to bring in other schools of thought in the dismal science since I really don't want have to start assigning these to ancient greek philosophers.:-)
The failure is not the surplus / smoothing out issue that you mention. Keynesian policies completely fail to produce results at all under some circumstance, for example those of the 1970s. Regarding today's crisis, I don't think we know yet. I'm mainly bringing all this up to counter the notion that Keynesian policies are some sort of magic bullet that makes economies better in the short term.
Qualifying Krugman as a "prominent Keynesian economist" is like calling Stephen Hawking a "prominent Einsteinian physicist".
I call shenanigans.
That analogy would make sense only if the theories of John Maynard Keynes were as universally accepted as those of Einstein. Economics never has been and probably never will be as testable a science (if it's a science at all) as physics.
Actually Keynesian theory would be more akin to Newton's. Sometimes useful, but it can fail under some circumstances. As Newton's followers went on to refine things with Einstein's theories, some of Keynes' followers went on to refine things and came up with Monetarism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism
History also shows that Keynesian policies can fail to address an economic crisis. This led some Keynesian advocates to rethink things, including the often ignored "future" costs and unintended consequences of "today's" Keynesian stimulus, and develop the approach of Monetarism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism
Is Keynesian theory wrong, not quite, just incomplete. Not a universal solution. Its like physicists moving from Newton to Einstein. Its not that Newton was "wrong", he just had an incomplete understanding and methods that were often useful but universally applicable.
Given that the GP was referring to Bush's election and you are referring to something that happened years later, are you sure you are not the one being misleading?
No, because he asserted that 9/11 "changed that plan." How was Bush Jr. forced into changing his plans if one of his moves was to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Why couldn't he have spent a lot of that money that went to Iraq on education reform?
OK, sorry, "GP" was too inaccurate of a label to identify the appropriate post. The original post by swordgeek suggested that people expected Bush to be a warmonger. My response pointed out that Bush's original plan involved education and trade reform, and that this plan was changed by the unexpected 9/11 attack. You then suggested I was being misleading because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. OK, now that this chronology is cleared up...
Again, the original post and my response were referring to election era knowledge and expectations. So no I was not being misleading. You however were talking about events that occurred years later. Do you now see how you are going off topic and misleading in that respect?
Much of the western world was hoping that he could get through four years without destroying the global economy too badly
The current economic crisis is quite the bipartisan screw up. Democrat Bill Clinton deregulated the banks with respect to the creation of the notorious credit default swaps and similar financial instruments. As a matter of fact Clinton not only deregulated with respect to federal regulation but the legislation he signed preempted/nullified any state attempts to regulate these financial instruments. He effectively nullified state laws that prevented parties from buying insurance for things they had no financial interest in, such state regulations would inherently be incompatible with credit default swaps.
Democratic congressmen Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were champions of various government entities involved in the home mortgage industry. Claiming that these entities were healthy nearly up to the timeframe where their collapse was imminent and a bailout needed. They often attacked those who had claimed these entities were unhealthy in the past and who wanted to have a financial audit of these entities.
I am only mentioning the Democrats since you apparently already accept that Republican's involvement. Both parties are deeply involved in the current mess and both parties are at fault.
So keep in mind that I'm speaking as an outsider looking in.
That does not excuse speaking on a topic when uninformed.
First of all, there was the fact that Bush's backers were mostly part of PNAC, and before he was elected, had publicly stated that their goal was to establish a permanent presence in several middle-eastern countries, waiting for a galvanizing event - "a new Pearl Harbor" was I believe what they called it.
Both republicans and democrats wanted to make some changes in the middle east. In particular President Bill Clinton had stated that it was the policy of the U.S. government to seek regime change in Iraq. Clinton had ordered a number of military strikes against Iraq during his presidency. You are being quite selective in your portrayal of events. You can cherry pick democrats who wanted to take Saddam out immediately and you can cherry pick republicans who wanted no foreign interventions at all, virtually any position can find supporters in either party.
Since you are an outsider here is a clue: The media and the opposing party often want to portray one party as a monolithic like minded block. That is not the case, that is just an attempt at framing, an attempt at manipulating public perception. Both sides do this.
War was not an issue in the 2000 election. Bush Jr.'s plan was to focus on eduction reform, trade reform (in particular with China), etc. 9/11/2001 changed that plan.
You're being intentionally misleading. Few people blamed Bush for war in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Given that the GP was referring to Bush's election and you are referring to something that happened years later, are you sure you are not the one being misleading?
The neocon think tank crowd had been slavering to go to war with Iraq for years, and they just used that as an excuse.
You are viewing history quite selectively. Both republicans and democrats wanted to remove Saddam. For example before Bush was elected President Bill Clinton had stated that it was the policy of the United States to bring regime change to Iraq.
Many of Bush's inner circle are members of Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank that promotes an ideology of total U.S. world domination through the use of force. Back in 1998, PNAC sent an open letter to President Clinton urging his administration to implement a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power.
In that time frame Saddam was occasionally shooting at US aircraft patrolling the no fly zone, playing cat and mouse with UN weapons inspectors, supporting an attempted assassination of a former US president, etc. Of course there were people, both republicans and democrats, who advocated taking him out. Clinton had to occasionally order a military strike against Iraq for one thing or the other. Clinton stated that it was US policy to remove Saddam, to have regime change in Iraq. Of course the military would have a plan for invading Iraq, they would have been negligent not to have such a plan. Given that Gulf War 1 was a relatively recent event at that time having an invasion plan may have been a minor effort.
To be honest at that time it would have been a surprise to have people in any administration, republican or democrat, who did *not* advocate regime change in Iraq.
Nobody expected Bush jr. to be anything but the incompetent warmongering buffoon he proved himself.
Wow, that is amazingly uninformed. War was not an issue in the 2000 election. Bush Jr.'s plan was to focus on eduction reform, trade reform (in particular with China), etc. 9/11/2001 changed that plan. Are you so uninformed that I need to point out that 9/11 was not Bush's idea?
Teabaggers don't care about lower taxes any more than anyone else does. While Bush/Cheney and their Republican Congress were busy running up $TRILLIONS in debt and destroying the economy that could pay it off, Teabaggers were busy voting for them.
That's delusional. As a matter of fact you seem as delusional as you claim the tea party is. You are precisely what you criticize, you merely are of the opposite polarity.
In reality the origin of the tea party lies with those conservatives who were quite critical of the spending of Bush and the 2000-2006 Congress.
Also the current economic crisis is quite the bipartisan screw up. For example Clinton and a Democratic Congress deregulated wall street. Democratic Congressmen Frank and Dodds defended Fanny/Freddie (gov't backed lenders) as healthy institutions when in reality they soon needed gov't bailouts.
Seems like when they find that the electronic crimes are not perpetrated by a lone individual, then they ought to be able to target them appropriately.
I worry, however, that this sort of thing would be used to justify ruining the life of some poor dumb kid whose knowledge was larger than his wisdom.
Given the preference for using underage kids in the drug trade since they can't be prosecuted as an adult, I'd say that underage hackers will not be under the sort of risk you suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you saw some experimental stuff. IIRC they were researching ejection seats during WW2.
Air shows are not necessarily adrenaline free. The air shows I attended tended to have various demonstrations. High speed fly by, simulated close air support and shows by the Air Force Thunderbirds or Navy Blue Angels. The later is risky, though perhaps not quite at the air race level.
I understand that air races have an inherent danger. The presence of danger can be fun, that however does not mean that people want that danger to manifest. I think sky divers, scuba divers visiting sharks, etc can attest to that. While I do not seek out sharks I do scuba dive, I understand that there is an inherent risk. However I don't really think that risk is part of the enjoyment. Rather it is the price I've accepted to find the enjoyment of visiting an aquatic environment. I would argue that folks going to an air race are not seeking out the danger, rather accepting the very low likelihood of personal danger to be the price of seeing the planes go by really fast.
Of course, but that's your subjective intellect talking. I suspect you logically don't want wrecks (you don't wish any ill on the pilots or planes), but at some sub level, you would be excited and entertained if you witnessed a good crash. I'm not afraid to admit it. I'd love to see a big crash - explosion - fire.
Given no injuries to people ...
As someone who has blown things up, *legally*, I understand the argument you are making. When a MIG-29 crashes that can be interesting. A MIG-29 is new and replaceable. However when a P-51 Mustang crashes the loss of the aircraft is an inherent tragedy. It is a rare and important piece of history, it is irreplaceable.
If I watch a MIG-29 fly it is technical and engineering marvel. However if I watch a P-51 fly there is an emotional element that is lacking in the case of modern jets. This emotional element changes that lower level interpretation of what was witnessed.
and the pilot knew he was going to die.
He could have ejected to save his own life, but he elected to die.
WW2 aircraft do not have ejection seats. Pilots have to unstrap, climb out and exit in a manner to minimize the chance of getting hit by the tail.
Ignoring the human tragedy of crashes ...
NASCAR is a poor analogy. There is nothing historic about a NASCAR car, they are new and replaceable. WW2 aircraft are of great historical and cultural value. When these aircraft are lost in situations where no people are hurt it is still a tragedy. These aircraft are rare and irreplaceable. Perhaps they have become rare enough that owners should exercise some discretion and turn them into museum pieces.
Thought the potential of crashes was the point or do I just not understand air shows?
As someone who attended quite a few air shows growing up I feel it is safe to say that people go to see the airplanes. Hell I would have gone to see a P-51 sitting on the tarmac let alone fly. Seeing one crash and be destroyed is not something that an aviation or history enthusiast wants to see, nor does anyone want to see people get hurt.
Look, California is one of the largest economies in the world for a reason.
Yes, the policies we had decades ago. Be careful, you are looking backwards, and the GP is looking forwards.
If you don't want to give back to the state that you do business in, bye bye. You won't be missed.
Yes, but up to a point. Both you and the GP may be a little overdramatic but the GP does have a point. For example how much of the economic success you refer to is from the aerospace industry? Bad news on that front:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/examiner-opinion-zone/aerospace-exodus-california
And what of the emerging private space industry that has its roots in Mohave? More bad new:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2011/apr/14/competitors-are-wooing-california-space-industry/
On a personal note I know some guys who used to shape surf boards. Very small scale shop but respected by locals and profitable for years. They had to give it up due to ever increasing regulations.
Have fun learning the hard way why nobody else is running a software company in South Carolina or whatever.
I don't think US customers know or care where a software company is located, except possibly that it is a US operation. And with the increasing popularity of the digital supply chain -- developer to online store to consumer, no packaged goods or distributors -- this is becoming even more so.
You have to admit the California legislature is out of control and making California a less friendly place to do business than a few decades ago.
Amber was quite surprised at the finding.
I'd wager Amber stopped being surprised a long time ago.
It is not simply the low cost of labor. For a trivial commodity good then perhaps labor is a major factor. However for most goods labor is only a small fraction of the costs. What gives a country like China a huge advantage is not cheap labor, it is the artificially devalued currency. Some estimates are that China's currency is 40% undervalued. If so then *everything* in China is at a 40% discount, not just the labor. If it were simply labor then the overhead and inconvenience of shipping great distances, of managing an operation (communicating and verifying specs and requirements) many time zones away, dealing with a local environment that is not always run according to the rule of law, ... then fewer things would see an overall cost advantage.
As a 49 yo grandmother, feminist and C programmer of 20+ years ...
I know what to get grandma for Christmas: The C++ Programming Language by Bjarne Stroustrup. :-)
You glaringly left out: authorized use.
Given that the owner of the account is aware of the copyright infringement and not doing anything to stop it there probably is a legal argument that he is authorizing that conduct in some de facto sense.
That kind of attitude is EXACTLY what lets them get away with this intimidation and harassment bullshit. If you don't want to stand up for your own rights, at least get the hell out of the way and let other people do it.
Absolutely. Take your name off the ISP contract/account and let the copyright infringer put their name on the ISP contract/account. That is what you are advocating isn't it?
You are taking things a bit too literal. Keynes was compared to Einstein, I thought Newton a better characterization with the monetarists being more comparable to Einstein in this context. I'm sort of reluctant to bring in other schools of thought in the dismal science since I really don't want have to start assigning these to ancient greek philosophers. :-)
I think that argument is debunked in previous posts, no need to repeat them here. You have a quite novel perspective on "reasonably expected".
The failure is not the surplus / smoothing out issue that you mention. Keynesian policies completely fail to produce results at all under some circumstance, for example those of the 1970s. Regarding today's crisis, I don't think we know yet. I'm mainly bringing all this up to counter the notion that Keynesian policies are some sort of magic bullet that makes economies better in the short term.
Qualifying Krugman as a "prominent Keynesian economist" is like calling Stephen Hawking a "prominent Einsteinian physicist".
I call shenanigans.
That analogy would make sense only if the theories of John Maynard Keynes were as universally accepted as those of Einstein. Economics never has been and probably never will be as testable a science (if it's a science at all) as physics.
Actually Keynesian theory would be more akin to Newton's. Sometimes useful, but it can fail under some circumstances. As Newton's followers went on to refine things with Einstein's theories, some of Keynes' followers went on to refine things and came up with Monetarism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism
History also shows that Keynesian policies can fail to address an economic crisis. This led some Keynesian advocates to rethink things, including the often ignored "future" costs and unintended consequences of "today's" Keynesian stimulus, and develop the approach of Monetarism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monetarism
Is Keynesian theory wrong, not quite, just incomplete. Not a universal solution. Its like physicists moving from Newton to Einstein. Its not that Newton was "wrong", he just had an incomplete understanding and methods that were often useful but universally applicable.
Given that the GP was referring to Bush's election and you are referring to something that happened years later, are you sure you are not the one being misleading?
No, because he asserted that 9/11 "changed that plan." How was Bush Jr. forced into changing his plans if one of his moves was to invade a country that had nothing to do with 9/11? Why couldn't he have spent a lot of that money that went to Iraq on education reform?
OK, sorry, "GP" was too inaccurate of a label to identify the appropriate post. The original post by swordgeek suggested that people expected Bush to be a warmonger. My response pointed out that Bush's original plan involved education and trade reform, and that this plan was changed by the unexpected 9/11 attack. You then suggested I was being misleading because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. OK, now that this chronology is cleared up ...
Again, the original post and my response were referring to election era knowledge and expectations. So no I was not being misleading. You however were talking about events that occurred years later. Do you now see how you are going off topic and misleading in that respect?
Much of the western world was hoping that he could get through four years without destroying the global economy too badly
The current economic crisis is quite the bipartisan screw up. Democrat Bill Clinton deregulated the banks with respect to the creation of the notorious credit default swaps and similar financial instruments. As a matter of fact Clinton not only deregulated with respect to federal regulation but the legislation he signed preempted/nullified any state attempts to regulate these financial instruments. He effectively nullified state laws that prevented parties from buying insurance for things they had no financial interest in, such state regulations would inherently be incompatible with credit default swaps.
Democratic congressmen Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were champions of various government entities involved in the home mortgage industry. Claiming that these entities were healthy nearly up to the timeframe where their collapse was imminent and a bailout needed. They often attacked those who had claimed these entities were unhealthy in the past and who wanted to have a financial audit of these entities.
I am only mentioning the Democrats since you apparently already accept that Republican's involvement. Both parties are deeply involved in the current mess and both parties are at fault.
So keep in mind that I'm speaking as an outsider looking in.
That does not excuse speaking on a topic when uninformed.
First of all, there was the fact that Bush's backers were mostly part of PNAC, and before he was elected, had publicly stated that their goal was to establish a permanent presence in several middle-eastern countries, waiting for a galvanizing event - "a new Pearl Harbor" was I believe what they called it.
Both republicans and democrats wanted to make some changes in the middle east. In particular President Bill Clinton had stated that it was the policy of the U.S. government to seek regime change in Iraq. Clinton had ordered a number of military strikes against Iraq during his presidency. You are being quite selective in your portrayal of events. You can cherry pick democrats who wanted to take Saddam out immediately and you can cherry pick republicans who wanted no foreign interventions at all, virtually any position can find supporters in either party.
Since you are an outsider here is a clue: The media and the opposing party often want to portray one party as a monolithic like minded block. That is not the case, that is just an attempt at framing, an attempt at manipulating public perception. Both sides do this.
War was not an issue in the 2000 election. Bush Jr.'s plan was to focus on eduction reform, trade reform (in particular with China), etc. 9/11/2001 changed that plan.
You're being intentionally misleading. Few people blamed Bush for war in Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
Given that the GP was referring to Bush's election and you are referring to something that happened years later, are you sure you are not the one being misleading?
The neocon think tank crowd had been slavering to go to war with Iraq for years, and they just used that as an excuse.
You are viewing history quite selectively. Both republicans and democrats wanted to remove Saddam. For example before Bush was elected President Bill Clinton had stated that it was the policy of the United States to bring regime change to Iraq.
Many of Bush's inner circle are members of Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank that promotes an ideology of total U.S. world domination through the use of force. Back in 1998, PNAC sent an open letter to President Clinton urging his administration to implement a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power.
In that time frame Saddam was occasionally shooting at US aircraft patrolling the no fly zone, playing cat and mouse with UN weapons inspectors, supporting an attempted assassination of a former US president, etc. Of course there were people, both republicans and democrats, who advocated taking him out. Clinton had to occasionally order a military strike against Iraq for one thing or the other. Clinton stated that it was US policy to remove Saddam, to have regime change in Iraq. Of course the military would have a plan for invading Iraq, they would have been negligent not to have such a plan. Given that Gulf War 1 was a relatively recent event at that time having an invasion plan may have been a minor effort.
To be honest at that time it would have been a surprise to have people in any administration, republican or democrat, who did *not* advocate regime change in Iraq.
Nobody expected Bush jr. to be anything but the incompetent warmongering buffoon he proved himself.
Wow, that is amazingly uninformed. War was not an issue in the 2000 election. Bush Jr.'s plan was to focus on eduction reform, trade reform (in particular with China), etc. 9/11/2001 changed that plan. Are you so uninformed that I need to point out that 9/11 was not Bush's idea?
Teabaggers don't care about lower taxes any more than anyone else does. While Bush/Cheney and their Republican Congress were busy running up $TRILLIONS in debt and destroying the economy that could pay it off, Teabaggers were busy voting for them.
That's delusional. As a matter of fact you seem as delusional as you claim the tea party is. You are precisely what you criticize, you merely are of the opposite polarity.
In reality the origin of the tea party lies with those conservatives who were quite critical of the spending of Bush and the 2000-2006 Congress.
Also the current economic crisis is quite the bipartisan screw up. For example Clinton and a Democratic Congress deregulated wall street. Democratic Congressmen Frank and Dodds defended Fanny/Freddie (gov't backed lenders) as healthy institutions when in reality they soon needed gov't bailouts.
Seems like when they find that the electronic crimes are not perpetrated by a lone individual, then they ought to be able to target them appropriately.
Note that the RICO act also requires the crime to be of a certain nature. For example extortion, theft, fraud, counterfeiting, money laundering, and obstruction of justice seem to be the relevant ones.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
I worry, however, that this sort of thing would be used to justify ruining the life of some poor dumb kid whose knowledge was larger than his wisdom.
Given the preference for using underage kids in the drug trade since they can't be prosecuted as an adult, I'd say that underage hackers will not be under the sort of risk you suggest.