"Point to the most anti-western, pro-Islam, fundamentalist we can find who has a large base of followers, but is generally not a terrorist so much as an honest freedom fighter for Iraq, the way I hope GW would be if the US were occupied by a foreign force. Someone who won't just bomb the crap out the Kurds and set up his own rape rooms, but everyone knows isn't going to be our friend."
Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Saddam was probably the best stabalizing force in Iraq we could have ever hoped for. He wouldn't play ball with terrorists, because he'd be risking his own security. He ditched all territorial aspirations. His extra-military forces were in a shambles, but his local autonomy was uncontested. He wasn't a radical fundamentalist, but a pragmatic secularist.
We should hope to get someone as stabailizing as Saddam ever again. And hell, if we're supposed to be giving them "free elections," there's no reason he can't run. Even in this country, we have people convicted of crimes running for office all the time.
Or just import the PDF directly into Photoshop. The image posturization doesn't affect Photoshop versions prior to CS. I just printed one off that looks fine -- of course, a higher-res scan would be necessary to really be sure.
Funny how they haven't put a 50 MB scan online. I guess they're not that certain.
While true, I am curious as to how much the X-15 program cost the U.S. to develop. Scaled does have an advantage in that the technology is more advanced, and computer controls far cheaper, but $20 million! That's very cheap.
the combination of the lower orbit and the very thin atmosphere on Mars means there are estimates that the MRO cameras could resolve objects as small as 150 millimeters across in the visual light spectrum
I think you need to learn the constitution (or at least some basic reading comprehension) if you're going to argue about it. Just because the words "fair trial" don't appear directly doesn't mean the foundations for fair trials are not established by the constitution.
This is exactly my point. Please re-read the above thread if you are having memory difficulties. The fact that "separation of church and state" is not specifically mentioned in the constitution does not mean it isn't a fundemental concept of our nation. Similarly, just because the words "fair trial" don't appear does not mean the meaning isn't there.
It's called an analogy. And this just cracks me up:
Just admit it...you are an angry, reactionary conservative curmudgeon that does not want a single dime of his money to go to social programs that might actually help another human being.
Can you please point out where in any founding document where there is a seperation of church and state the way you define it?
Can you please point out where the words "fair trial" appear in any founding document? Oh, you can't. Know why? Because it's not mentioned anywhere. Does that matter? Not a bit.
Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents.
So, let the market decide, then? The almighty dollar is once again the force from which all good will spring forth?
Not under NCLB. Good try.
Have you READ the NCLB? Title IX: Equity -- Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. Notice something missing? Religious preference and gender. Now, I don't know what public schools are like in your neck of the woods, but in every state I've ever lived in, Muslim children and Christian children are permitted to learn together. Boys and girls, too. But nice try.
how does this prevent children frpom going to another school?
It doesn't, provided another school is an available option. Oh right, the market will decide whether a non-religious school should exist in Salt Lake City. Right. Well, I guess those few families that are affected can just move.
Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math.
Amazing. You sound consevative, yet what you advocate is essentially a giant welfare program for private schools. Can you please explain why want to replace one central plan with another central plan?
How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand.
Sure it can. Just like private universities. And look at how fair and equal they are. Oh, but that's different, right?
And none of this addresses the main solution vouchers aim to satisfy -- specifically, what about the students? Many see vouchers as a magical salve that will cure whatever ills are creating poor students, yet studies show that there are no achievement gains between children attending private schools under voucher programs versus staying in public schools.
"Based on three years of data from New York and Washington, D.C., and two years from Dayton, the authors find no evidence of an overall achievement difference between the public and the private schools either in the aggregate or for any of the individual cities. This finding that the private schools are no better at raising the performance of low-income students than are the public schools flies in the face of well-known claims made by pro-voucher researchers such as John Chubb and Terry Moe that the autonomy of private schools will make them more productive than the more bureaucratic private schools." -- Helen Ladd, Duke University
Please defend how school vouchers keep a population constantly stupid?
Basically, because they drain much-needed funds that could go to the public school system itself. The "stupid" part comes from the fact that most (not all, but most) private schools are religious, and spend a good portion of their time indoctrinating young people as to why their Invisible Boogie-Man is better than the others. Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state.
Don't get me wrong -- if the only thing that school vouchers did was make the public schools get their act together, that'd be fine in my book. Unfortunately, there are unintended side-effects that are more socially ruinous than the benefits.
The (main) problems I have with vouchers are:
Private schools have less accountability
Private schools are allowed to discriminate (particularly religious schools)
The distribution of vouchers is unequal (for example, in D.C. the income cut-off is $35k -- what happens to the middle-class families forced to use the public schools that are now underfunded?)
As with any economic system, an increase in students with vouchers will likely result in a rise in tuition rates for said schools, which means you're right back to square one. Unless you don't mind raising taxes to increase the money we give to students in vouchers to afford the increased school costs (etc. ad. infinitum)
You do realize that you are suggesting that a model democracy WOULD have broken into civil war over a close election. That is absurd.
Can you guess where this quote comes from?
"When a government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."
I realize this may make no sense to liberals, but when a tax cut comes, the people that actually PAY taxes will get something, while those that do NOT pay taxes will be left with the same situation.
And let's just ignore for a minute the numerous ways for people who have money to shelter it from taxation.
Currently, I am middle class (programmer) and I received a nice return from the tax cuts and I honestly feel I can spend my money a heck of a lot more wisely than the government can for me.
And yet you utterly fail to address the problem. Tax cuts for the middle class? Sure, why not? At least they'll spend the money. A tax cut of $1000 to someone making $35,000 a year is most likely all going to be spent. That's great for th economy. A tax cut of $100,000 for someone making $3.5 million is likely not going to be spent at the local Wal-Mart.
If you answered C), as opposed to A) and B), then there is your problem.
First off, the government is one of the largest employers in the country. The increased "threat" of terrorism has created a bunch of new jobs. But you're right -- this is the completely wrong way to go about doing things.
with the largest burden falling on the wealthy and larger businesses
No, sorry. The burden most definately falls on those in the middle to lower income bracket.
Maybe you pansy liberals are, but I am willing to fight for my country.
You fear betrays you. You're all hell-bent on a fight, but where, exactly, is the enemy? Why so angry?
Interesting, trying to give people a better education and then GUARANTEEING it is stupid.
Clearly an education major. If you have done the slightest bit of reading you'd know that No Child Left Behind is an utter failure because the federal government is unwilling to fund any of the initiatives they put forth.
That other stuff you mentioned is a social issue and simply has to do with the interests of the week.
No, the other stuff is simply indicitive of a society that has been conned into believing true happiness only comes when YOU WIN (boo-ya!) and someone else LOSES (boo-ya!) because you have MORE STUFF than the other guy (boo-ya!) and they're all just a bunch of LAZY, CRY-BABIES (boo-ya!).
Survival of the fittest, right? Well, in your profession, the fittest are a few thousand miles to the east. Hope you've been saving your duckets.
Oh I know, we could turn around and take all of the money from the wealthy and give it to teachers!!
Oh, THAT'S what we're doing with all that money. I was WONDERING where it all went! It's the damned teachers, with their damned million-dollar salaries.
Please tell me that you are not a programmer or in a position that can influence software architecture.
Don't you know anything about capitalism? I'm a consumer. That influences software architecture a hell of a lot more than some code-monkey churning out lines of code under the heavy yolk of his masters (mostly accountants). Don't worry, you'll have plenty of opportunities to try out different careers once your job is relocated to India.
The fact that the country did not break into civil war is because we ARE a model democracy.
How absurd. The fact that the country did not break into civil war is because we ARE a bunch of lazy, scared, ineffectual morons.
One of the best ways to prevent uprising is to make sure your population is either constantly hungry, constantly scared, or constantly stupid.
Just to spell out the obvious:
Constantly hungry: Tax cuts for the wealthy, abolition of the estate tax, tax breaks for corporations, the near-elimination of Section 8 -- all to promote the centralization of wealth
Constantly scared: Terrorism. Weapons of Mass Destruction. Anthrax. Guns in Our Schools. The Evils of Drug Abuse, etc.
Constantly Stupid: "No Child Left Behind", school vouchers, "reality television", most advertising, etc.
There's a good book you might want to read up on that pretty much explains it all. Unfortunately, said book has become almost a cliche and therefor inadmissable in rational discussion.
I'd say that a difference of 543,895 votes, or one half percent, is statistically significant.
Yes, it's significant, but you are overlooking the most important point, which is that nearly half of the country still voted for the idiot. There's your problem.
I mean, look at the current polls: one says Kerry is up, another says Bush is up. Basically, it's still going to be a close vote. That's insane! But don't forget, this is the same country that not only elected, but re-elected Ronald Reagan. It's filled with people more concerned about The Gays than their own civil liberties, their own pocketbooks, their own personal safety!
Digital Cameras would really benefit from this technology. Particularly high-end digital SLR's. If you're trying to check focus on a sports shot, it'd be nice to actually see right away whether or not you got it sharp instead of thinking you got a sharp shot and checking it off your list... only to discover later on the big 21" screen that it's trash.
I could never understand this, either. Take laptops. You can get a decent laptop for under $1,000, some with gi-normous LCD's on them. If you figure out the cost of the CPU/RAM/DVD drive/etc., you're left with maybe a hundred for the screen. That's what a 14-15" screen should cost -- max. Yet if I were to break said screen, I'd have to put down half a grand for a new one.
Wealthy philanthropists would pay for scholarships and endow schools.
So we're left at the beneficence and charity of others? If you'll pardon the pun -- God help us.
Companies would pay for their employees' children's schooling, just as today they pay for health insurance and sometimes housing.
Please. I don't know what magical land you live in, but in bear times like these, it's amazing for a company to even offer basic health. Housing?! Perhaps for some select few, but the vast majority of this country pays for their own housing from their own paychecks.
Wait, wait, let me guess! In a free and open society, companies would be forced to compete for the best talent, and thus would offer these wonderful incentives to employees to get them to work for them, right? Just like what's happening now all over America, where good jobs with good benefits are given to the talented and hard working.
Of course, if there are similar hard working, talented people in more dire situations, they'll probably accept a lot less, and as our friend Mr. Badnarik so clearly explains, a company is going to go for the cheapest option that's available -- you can't fight it. Would these same companies pay for their employees' education if said employees were located in, say, Africa or India?
As a thought experiment, it's actually quite fun to look at something near the opposite end of the political spectrum now and again and try to see past your ideology and work out where they're coming from.
You're right, and there are a lot of aspects of the Libertarian platform that appeal to me, particularly election reform and decriminalization of victimless crimes. But their economic platform will only lead to a further concentration of wealth. Particularly their ideas on land ownership.
"The Emperor had been told that war could not be won as early as February 1942. In 1943, the [Japanese] navy had reached the conclusion that defeat was inevitable. In 1944 Tojo had been thrown out by a navy putsch. None of this made any difference. The fear of assassination was too great. In May 1945 Russia was asked to mediate. But Stalin sat on the offer, since in January at Yalta he had been promised substantial territorial rewards to enter the Japanese war in August.
On 6 June the Japanese Supreme Council approved a document, 'Fundamental Policy to be Followed hensceforth in the Conduct of the War,' which asserted 'we shall... prosecute the war to the bitter end'. The final plan for the defense of Japan itself, 'Operation Decision', provided for 10,000 suicide planes (most converted trainers), fifty-three infantry divisions and twenty-five brigades: 2,350,000 trained troops would fight on the beaches, backed by 4 million army and navy civil employees and a civilian militia of 28 million.
They were to have weapons which included muzzle-loaders, bamboo spears and bows and arrows. The Allied commanders assumed that their own forces must expect up to a million casualties if an invasion of Japan became necessary. How many Japanese would lives would be lost? Assuming comparable ratios to those already experienced, it would be in the range of 10-20 million.
The Allied aim was to break Japanese resistance before an invasion became unavoidable. On 1 August, 820 B29's unloaded 6,600 tons of explosive on five towns in North Kyushu. Five days later America's one, untested uranium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan's eighth largest city, headquarters of the 2nd General Army and an important embarkation port. Some 720,000 leaflets warning that the city would be 'obliterated' had been dropped two days before. No notice was taken..."
The tech industry crash might not have been caused by Clinton, but it started on his watch.
I'll agree with you on this point. But there are smart things you can do, as president, to minimize the impact of such a crash, and then therearedumbthingsyoucando that will only exacerbate the situation.
Well, since it's a display panel, you could add animation of some kind that spanned the displays -- a boat floating by the water outside, for example. This doesn't fix the problems that will occur with parallax, however. The only way to do that would be to push the panels back a couple of feet (and use enormous panels), then put some glass in the windows. That way, when you walk past the windows, new parts of the image are revealed.
Anybody else reminded of that scene in Total Recall when they saw this?
Next step: get a big enough matrix of LCD panels that, when put seamlessly next to each other, can mount on a wall and project famous works of art.
Further, you can specify precisely what extensions are to be trusted -- useful if you frequently email database files or other "forbidden" files to co-workers. While you can also do this with a registry hack, having it as an option panel in Outlook is nice.
BUT WAIT, THAT'S NOT ALL! It also allows you to minimize Outlook to your system tray when you minimize the window -- nice if you like to keep Outlook open all the time, but don't like it taking up valueable space.
It's also free, though it's so damned useful I suggest you donate some cash to the guy. Disclaimer: I don't work for the guy, I don't know the guy, but I love the software and have installed it on every networked machine at my office. It rules.
"...it just means the rules are the same for everyone"
Except that they're not. I'm not concerned as much about the better access wealthy people have -- who you know and the benefits that incur is pretty arbitrary and the "bitch" part about "life". No, I'm more worried about perfectly legal policies that bend the rules for those with money to make it easier for them to make more money.
Take, for instance, the example I gave about loans. A person who has plenty of equity -- through no act of their own but being born in the right family tree -- will have lower interest rates on a business or home loan than someone who's been renting all their life. My point is, even if I want to be a good capitalist, I'm still running up against roadblocks that my wealthy breathren will saunter right past.
I don't have any easy solution to problems like this; if there were one, it would have been done long ago. But what this translates to in everyday terms is something like this: if I live in New York City and want to start a business, but have mediocre credit and practically no equity, I'm seen as a liability. Which means I probably won't get a loan, which means no business, no employees, no built capital that benefits everyone.
But if I'm a Rockefeller, I can get a loan for a couple million bucks without a problem, my interest rates will be rock-bottom, then I take that money and buy some rental property, and have some poor shmucks pay off the mortgage for me.
In the first case, you have created something from nothing, and everyone benefits. New jobs are created, potentially new markets are created, all good. In the second example, you've created nothing. The only person to benefit is yourself.
I don't believe in a zero-sum system in general -- but when small-time players aren't allowed into the market, you only serve to consolodate capital into fewer and fewer hands. Instead of creating wealth, you're concentrating it. This is generally a Bad Thing for society in general, whatever political beliefs you hold.
...and then not passing on any benefits to the rest of the consumers.
What's worse is, while a small minority benefit from these policies, not only do they not pass the savings on to consumers, but society in general. The systems that were put in place after the turn of the century (and to a greater extent, FDR) to force beneficence from those who are lucky enough to fall into privilege is slowly being eroded by lower taxation on the wealthy and the elimination of the estate tax -- effectively, we're creating a hereditary oligarchy of extremely rich people that will only become more concentrated as the years progress.
And tho those who hold the erroneous notion that we live in a "fair" society, thus "If I make the money, I should keep the money," I ask you to consider the phrase "It takes money to make money." There is an inherit advantage to having money already, at the starting gate if you will. Lower interest rates on loans, (hell, loans in general), an easier supply of capital to pursue your dreams, better access to quality education -- the list goes on and on.
What cracks me up are Conservatives who think we should reduce programs aimed at all those "lazy poor people" because they haven't done anything to deserve them, yet see no contradiction in the "lazy rich people" who can survive on inherited wealth and never do a lick of work.
What's often overlooked in Maslow's heirarchy of needs is the fact that it is a heirarchy. In other words, it's all well and good to be self-actualized, but you need to have your rent and food bills covered first. You can't just skip from "poor starving genius huddled in an alley scrawling your brilliance in feces on the walls" to "self-actualized."
Slashdot Mirror
"Point to the most anti-western, pro-Islam, fundamentalist we can find who has a large base of followers, but is generally not a terrorist so much as an honest freedom fighter for Iraq, the way I hope GW would be if the US were occupied by a foreign force. Someone who won't just bomb the crap out the Kurds and set up his own rape rooms, but everyone knows isn't going to be our friend."
Sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it, too. Saddam was probably the best stabalizing force in Iraq we could have ever hoped for. He wouldn't play ball with terrorists, because he'd be risking his own security. He ditched all territorial aspirations. His extra-military forces were in a shambles, but his local autonomy was uncontested. He wasn't a radical fundamentalist, but a pragmatic secularist.
We should hope to get someone as stabailizing as Saddam ever again. And hell, if we're supposed to be giving them "free elections," there's no reason he can't run. Even in this country, we have people convicted of crimes running for office all the time.
Or just import the PDF directly into Photoshop. The image posturization doesn't affect Photoshop versions prior to CS. I just printed one off that looks fine -- of course, a higher-res scan would be necessary to really be sure.
Funny how they haven't put a 50 MB scan online. I guess they're not that certain.
While true, I am curious as to how much the X-15 program cost the U.S. to develop. Scaled does have an advantage in that the technology is more advanced, and computer controls far cheaper, but $20 million! That's very cheap.
the combination of the lower orbit and the very thin atmosphere on Mars means there are estimates that the MRO cameras could resolve objects as small as 150 millimeters across in the visual light spectrum
I think I just shat myself.
Absolutely. It would also create a public relations nightmare for Microsoft, and force them to take security a little more seriously.
I think you need to learn the constitution (or at least some basic reading comprehension) if you're going to argue about it. Just because the words "fair trial" don't appear directly doesn't mean the foundations for fair trials are not established by the constitution.
This is exactly my point. Please re-read the above thread if you are having memory difficulties. The fact that "separation of church and state" is not specifically mentioned in the constitution does not mean it isn't a fundemental concept of our nation. Similarly, just because the words "fair trial" don't appear does not mean the meaning isn't there.
It's called an analogy. And this just cracks me up:
Just admit it...you are an angry, reactionary conservative curmudgeon that does not want a single dime of his money to go to social programs that might actually help another human being.
It is obvious that you have not read the comments that spurred this thread. If you had, you would not have insulted me by calling me a conservative.
Can you please point out where the words "fair trial" appear in any founding document? Oh, you can't. Know why? Because it's not mentioned anywhere. Does that matter? Not a bit.
Correct there is no formal accountability in the big government sense, but they are responsible to the children and the parents.
So, let the market decide, then? The almighty dollar is once again the force from which all good will spring forth?
Not under NCLB. Good try.
Have you READ the NCLB? Title IX: Equity -- Prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, or national origin. Notice something missing? Religious preference and gender. Now, I don't know what public schools are like in your neck of the woods, but in every state I've ever lived in, Muslim children and Christian children are permitted to learn together. Boys and girls, too. But nice try.
how does this prevent children frpom going to another school?
It doesn't, provided another school is an available option. Oh right, the market will decide whether a non-religious school should exist in Salt Lake City. Right. Well, I guess those few families that are affected can just move.
Assuming that the schols is underfunded is a gross inaccuracy, I;ll let you in on a little math.
Amazing. You sound consevative, yet what you advocate is essentially a giant welfare program for private schools. Can you please explain why want to replace one central plan with another central plan?
How is this in line with any economic system? The number of schools is not fixed, and it can grow with demand.
Sure it can. Just like private universities. And look at how fair and equal they are. Oh, but that's different, right?
And none of this addresses the main solution vouchers aim to satisfy -- specifically, what about the students? Many see vouchers as a magical salve that will cure whatever ills are creating poor students, yet studies show that there are no achievement gains between children attending private schools under voucher programs versus staying in public schools.
Basically, because they drain much-needed funds that could go to the public school system itself. The "stupid" part comes from the fact that most (not all, but most) private schools are religious, and spend a good portion of their time indoctrinating young people as to why their Invisible Boogie-Man is better than the others. Public funds taken through federal taxation should not be used to put forward religious agendas. See: separation of church and state.
Don't get me wrong -- if the only thing that school vouchers did was make the public schools get their act together, that'd be fine in my book. Unfortunately, there are unintended side-effects that are more socially ruinous than the benefits.
The (main) problems I have with vouchers are:
You do realize that you are suggesting that a model democracy WOULD have broken into civil war over a close election. That is absurd.
Can you guess where this quote comes from?
"When a government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."
I realize this may make no sense to liberals, but when a tax cut comes, the people that actually PAY taxes will get something, while those that do NOT pay taxes will be left with the same situation.
And let's just ignore for a minute the numerous ways for people who have money to shelter it from taxation.
Currently, I am middle class (programmer) and I received a nice return from the tax cuts and I honestly feel I can spend my money a heck of a lot more wisely than the government can for me.
And yet you utterly fail to address the problem. Tax cuts for the middle class? Sure, why not? At least they'll spend the money. A tax cut of $1000 to someone making $35,000 a year is most likely all going to be spent. That's great for th economy. A tax cut of $100,000 for someone making $3.5 million is likely not going to be spent at the local Wal-Mart.
If you answered C), as opposed to A) and B), then there is your problem.
First off, the government is one of the largest employers in the country. The increased "threat" of terrorism has created a bunch of new jobs. But you're right -- this is the completely wrong way to go about doing things.
with the largest burden falling on the wealthy and larger businesses
No, sorry. The burden most definately falls on those in the middle to lower income bracket.
Maybe you pansy liberals are, but I am willing to fight for my country.
You fear betrays you. You're all hell-bent on a fight, but where, exactly, is the enemy? Why so angry?
Interesting, trying to give people a better education and then GUARANTEEING it is stupid.
Clearly an education major. If you have done the slightest bit of reading you'd know that No Child Left Behind is an utter failure because the federal government is unwilling to fund any of the initiatives they put forth.
That other stuff you mentioned is a social issue and simply has to do with the interests of the week.
No, the other stuff is simply indicitive of a society that has been conned into believing true happiness only comes when YOU WIN (boo-ya!) and someone else LOSES (boo-ya!) because you have MORE STUFF than the other guy (boo-ya!) and they're all just a bunch of LAZY, CRY-BABIES (boo-ya!).
Survival of the fittest, right? Well, in your profession, the fittest are a few thousand miles to the east. Hope you've been saving your duckets.
Oh I know, we could turn around and take all of the money from the wealthy and give it to teachers!!
Oh, THAT'S what we're doing with all that money. I was WONDERING where it all went! It's the damned teachers, with their damned million-dollar salaries.
Please tell me that you are not a programmer or in a position that can influence software architecture.
Don't you know anything about capitalism? I'm a consumer. That influences software architecture a hell of a lot more than some code-monkey churning out lines of code under the heavy yolk of his masters (mostly accountants). Don't worry, you'll have plenty of opportunities to try out different careers once your job is relocated to India.
How absurd. The fact that the country did not break into civil war is because we ARE a bunch of lazy, scared, ineffectual morons.
One of the best ways to prevent uprising is to make sure your population is either constantly hungry, constantly scared, or constantly stupid.
Just to spell out the obvious:
There's a good book you might want to read up on that pretty much explains it all. Unfortunately, said book has become almost a cliche and therefor inadmissable in rational discussion.
I'd say that a difference of 543,895 votes, or one half percent, is statistically significant.
Yes, it's significant, but you are overlooking the most important point, which is that nearly half of the country still voted for the idiot. There's your problem.
I mean, look at the current polls: one says Kerry is up, another says Bush is up. Basically, it's still going to be a close vote. That's insane! But don't forget, this is the same country that not only elected, but re-elected Ronald Reagan. It's filled with people more concerned about The Gays than their own civil liberties, their own pocketbooks, their own personal safety!
Digital Cameras would really benefit from this technology. Particularly high-end digital SLR's. If you're trying to check focus on a sports shot, it'd be nice to actually see right away whether or not you got it sharp instead of thinking you got a sharp shot and checking it off your list... only to discover later on the big 21" screen that it's trash.
I could never understand this, either. Take laptops. You can get a decent laptop for under $1,000, some with gi-normous LCD's on them. If you figure out the cost of the CPU/RAM/DVD drive/etc., you're left with maybe a hundred for the screen. That's what a 14-15" screen should cost -- max. Yet if I were to break said screen, I'd have to put down half a grand for a new one.
Wealthy philanthropists would pay for scholarships and endow schools.
So we're left at the beneficence and charity of others? If you'll pardon the pun -- God help us.
Companies would pay for their employees' children's schooling, just as today they pay for health insurance and sometimes housing.
Please. I don't know what magical land you live in, but in bear times like these, it's amazing for a company to even offer basic health. Housing?! Perhaps for some select few, but the vast majority of this country pays for their own housing from their own paychecks.
Wait, wait, let me guess! In a free and open society, companies would be forced to compete for the best talent, and thus would offer these wonderful incentives to employees to get them to work for them, right? Just like what's happening now all over America, where good jobs with good benefits are given to the talented and hard working.
Of course, if there are similar hard working, talented people in more dire situations, they'll probably accept a lot less, and as our friend Mr. Badnarik so clearly explains, a company is going to go for the cheapest option that's available -- you can't fight it. Would these same companies pay for their employees' education if said employees were located in, say, Africa or India?
As a thought experiment, it's actually quite fun to look at something near the opposite end of the political spectrum now and again and try to see past your ideology and work out where they're coming from.
You're right, and there are a lot of aspects of the Libertarian platform that appeal to me, particularly election reform and decriminalization of victimless crimes. But their economic platform will only lead to a further concentration of wealth. Particularly their ideas on land ownership.
"The Emperor had been told that war could not be won as early as February 1942. In 1943, the [Japanese] navy had reached the conclusion that defeat was inevitable. In 1944 Tojo had been thrown out by a navy putsch. None of this made any difference. The fear of assassination was too great. In May 1945 Russia was asked to mediate. But Stalin sat on the offer, since in January at Yalta he had been promised substantial territorial rewards to enter the Japanese war in August.
... prosecute the war to the bitter end'. The final plan for the defense of Japan itself, 'Operation Decision', provided for 10,000 suicide planes (most converted trainers), fifty-three infantry divisions and twenty-five brigades: 2,350,000 trained troops would fight on the beaches, backed by 4 million army and navy civil employees and a civilian militia of 28 million .
On 6 June the Japanese Supreme Council approved a document, 'Fundamental Policy to be Followed hensceforth in the Conduct of the War,' which asserted 'we shall
They were to have weapons which included muzzle-loaders, bamboo spears and bows and arrows. The Allied commanders assumed that their own forces must expect up to a million casualties if an invasion of Japan became necessary. How many Japanese would lives would be lost? Assuming comparable ratios to those already experienced, it would be in the range of 10-20 million.
The Allied aim was to break Japanese resistance before an invasion became unavoidable. On 1 August, 820 B29's unloaded 6,600 tons of explosive on five towns in North Kyushu. Five days later America's one, untested uranium bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan's eighth largest city, headquarters of the 2nd General Army and an important embarkation port. Some 720,000 leaflets warning that the city would be 'obliterated' had been dropped two days before . No notice was taken..."
-- Johnson, Paul: Modern Times
Read your history.
Damn, wish I had some mod points for you. That's all I wanted to say.
Assa Abloy is a Swedish company that manufactures some of the hardest locks in the world to pick.
The tech industry crash might not have been caused by Clinton, but it started on his watch.
I'll agree with you on this point. But there are smart things you can do, as president, to minimize the impact of such a crash, and then there are dumb things you can do that will only exacerbate the situation.
Well, since it's a display panel, you could add animation of some kind that spanned the displays -- a boat floating by the water outside, for example. This doesn't fix the problems that will occur with parallax, however. The only way to do that would be to push the panels back a couple of feet (and use enormous panels), then put some glass in the windows. That way, when you walk past the windows, new parts of the image are revealed.
Anybody else reminded of that scene in Total Recall when they saw this?
Next step: get a big enough matrix of LCD panels that, when put seamlessly next to each other, can mount on a wall and project famous works of art.
Just FYI, this is one of the greatest add-ons for Outlook. It allows you to completely disable HTML for incoming messages (which, in turn, lets you turn back on the PREVIEW pane!).
Further, you can specify precisely what extensions are to be trusted -- useful if you frequently email database files or other "forbidden" files to co-workers. While you can also do this with a registry hack, having it as an option panel in Outlook is nice.
BUT WAIT, THAT'S NOT ALL! It also allows you to minimize Outlook to your system tray when you minimize the window -- nice if you like to keep Outlook open all the time, but don't like it taking up valueable space.
It's also free, though it's so damned useful I suggest you donate some cash to the guy. Disclaimer: I don't work for the guy, I don't know the guy, but I love the software and have installed it on every networked machine at my office. It rules.
Once again, download it here.
"...it just means the rules are the same for everyone"
Except that they're not. I'm not concerned as much about the better access wealthy people have -- who you know and the benefits that incur is pretty arbitrary and the "bitch" part about "life". No, I'm more worried about perfectly legal policies that bend the rules for those with money to make it easier for them to make more money.
Take, for instance, the example I gave about loans. A person who has plenty of equity -- through no act of their own but being born in the right family tree -- will have lower interest rates on a business or home loan than someone who's been renting all their life. My point is, even if I want to be a good capitalist, I'm still running up against roadblocks that my wealthy breathren will saunter right past.
I don't have any easy solution to problems like this; if there were one, it would have been done long ago. But what this translates to in everyday terms is something like this: if I live in New York City and want to start a business, but have mediocre credit and practically no equity, I'm seen as a liability. Which means I probably won't get a loan, which means no business, no employees, no built capital that benefits everyone.
But if I'm a Rockefeller, I can get a loan for a couple million bucks without a problem, my interest rates will be rock-bottom, then I take that money and buy some rental property, and have some poor shmucks pay off the mortgage for me.
In the first case, you have created something from nothing, and everyone benefits. New jobs are created, potentially new markets are created, all good. In the second example, you've created nothing. The only person to benefit is yourself.
I don't believe in a zero-sum system in general -- but when small-time players aren't allowed into the market, you only serve to consolodate capital into fewer and fewer hands. Instead of creating wealth, you're concentrating it. This is generally a Bad Thing for society in general, whatever political beliefs you hold.
...and then not passing on any benefits to the rest of the consumers.
What's worse is, while a small minority benefit from these policies, not only do they not pass the savings on to consumers, but society in general. The systems that were put in place after the turn of the century (and to a greater extent, FDR) to force beneficence from those who are lucky enough to fall into privilege is slowly being eroded by lower taxation on the wealthy and the elimination of the estate tax -- effectively, we're creating a hereditary oligarchy of extremely rich people that will only become more concentrated as the years progress.
And tho those who hold the erroneous notion that we live in a "fair" society, thus "If I make the money, I should keep the money," I ask you to consider the phrase "It takes money to make money." There is an inherit advantage to having money already, at the starting gate if you will. Lower interest rates on loans, (hell, loans in general), an easier supply of capital to pursue your dreams, better access to quality education -- the list goes on and on.
What cracks me up are Conservatives who think we should reduce programs aimed at all those "lazy poor people" because they haven't done anything to deserve them, yet see no contradiction in the "lazy rich people" who can survive on inherited wealth and never do a lick of work.
What's often overlooked in Maslow's heirarchy of needs is the fact that it is a heirarchy. In other words, it's all well and good to be self-actualized, but you need to have your rent and food bills covered first . You can't just skip from "poor starving genius huddled in an alley scrawling your brilliance in feces on the walls" to "self-actualized."
The good news: you can d/l at a blazing 20 megs/sec.
The bad news: at that rate, you will be exceeding your alloted bandwidth for the month in 25 seconds.
Please deposit $0.50 for additional bandwidth.
6. Google is free.