Ever since the world ended up going hell bent on terrorism laws (New World Order), all wire-tapping is legal with or without a warrant and you do not require any special permissions anymore if you work in law enforcement and a telecoms company need not know either.
The erosion of liberties guaranteed to you in the US Constitution as a result of the War on Terrorism simply pales in comparison to what you've surrendered due to the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.
And you don't have to be a pot-smoking liberal to be worried about the ones in Washington. I'm as libertarian/conservative as they come, and it is painfully clear where the dangers of oppression are coming from.
That's just it. You have something to worry about.
There are enough laws to make everyone a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty? Yeah, right, you'll be innocent while you sit in jail for a couple years waiting trial as the lawyers are not-so-slowly sucking away anything resembling wealth you've ever owned.
Laws are not longer created to protect innocents. They are created for control.
I worked for AT&T at a small manufacturing plant in Whitsett, NC for several years in the early to mid 90's. We were a union shop in a right-to-work state, so the management was struggling to find projects that had enough margin to keep the plant open. It was probably about '93 when we picked up a project that was an "encryptor".
It was about the size of a pack of playing cards, with two phone plugs in the back. You'd plug your handset into one side and connect the other to the phone. You'd call the other party, then press a button. The device would negotiate with the other party's device, and all a third party would here is static.
The project was going like gangbusters, and then all of a sudden it just stopped dead in its tracks. The government came in, shut the project down, and bought all the inventory. I never saw one again.
If the government doesn't have a way in, you won't find the product on the open market.
To bad you're Anonymous, because this answer is spot on.
I've recently become more jealous of my time. I used to enjoy tearing a broken thing apart and welding in some sort of fix, just for the joy of saying, "LOOK! I save twenty-five BUCKS!!" Now, I'd rather have my three hours back.
I'd mod the claim of flamebait away for you if I had points, massysett. You sound just like my father scolding me when I was acting like a child. He was right and so are you. HBO has absolutely nothing that is necessary for survival, or even for a decent quality of life. They offer a distraction. The fact that yeshuawatso is willing to compromise his honor for a bauble says all that is necessary about his/her maturity.
You do know that it is a Democratic President that just sent bombs over to kill brown people without bothering to get permission from Congress first, right? Of course you did. But, I guess that is ok, because those brown people were threatening FRANCE's energy industry.
Talk about hypocrisy! The Democrats had control of BOTH Houses, AND the Presidency, and yet did nothing to reduce the subsidies or cut military spending. In fact, they didn't consider a budget AT ALL.
I would go even simpler. Requiring that yearly energy expenditures be taken into account when estimating the value of a home would do more to drive energy efficiency than anything else. My wife was a real-estate agent for several years. A comparative analysis consisted of adding up the square footage then mutiplying that by a dollar price per square foot, which was an average of three houses that were sold recently in the same area. Small adjustments were made for exceptional amenities, but mostly the price was based almost exclusively on square footage.
Modify the analysis so that the R rating and power generation capacity had a direct driving influence on the home value, and you can bet your bottom dollar that builders would start including something beyond the minimum insulation required by code.
Speculative stock boom. Major capital equipment replacements investments due to purchases to avoid year-2000 bugs. Huge reductions in military spending due to the ending of the Cold War. Massive reductions in social spending due to welfare reforms pushed through by a REPUBLICAN Congress (remember New Gingrich and that Contract with America the Democrats hated so much?)
And even then, the budget wasn't balanced. There wasn't a surplus. There was a PROJECTED surplus, based on the assumption that the economy would continue to grow based on a curved influenced by two disruptive technological changes.
Please take your Clinton worshiping back to your Democratic Church of Other People's Money until you learn a little history.
Would a for profit insurance company even bother to insure elderly people? They cost the most, so why bother, better to insure healthy people for the bottom line right? Even if they did, obviously the costs would be very high. Free markets don't work when you have to cover 'everybody'. Same reason Fedex doesn't ship everywhere but the Post Office does. Companies will drop unprofitable clients - which sucks when it's Grandma.
So instead of grandma and rural people bearing their own cost, they get to externalize those costs to the rest of us in the same way that BP gets to externalize the cost of an oil spill to the rest of us? The same way that a coal plant gets to externalize their pollution costs to the rest of us?
Maybe if the US government wasn't taking 27% of the GDP, people would have the money to pay their doctor directly, and we could save all of the friction of paperwork necessary to have the government pay my doctor when I get the sniffles.
What would we do then, when France, Britain and the other NATO members came crying when "the US is not doing enough" in places like Libya, Bosnia, Rawanda and any other place where THEY have a national interest that they want us to protect?
You'll never see them admit we don't have any money to spend on the military because we're broke.
Complete and utter bullshit. The people who've have seriously talked about making significant cuts (think Rand, not Ryan), have absolutely and unequivocally called for serious reductions in military spending, including, but not limited to, closing foreign bases. They're called nutjobs for putting forth a reasonable argument, ie. we should mind our own damn business.
Meanwhile, the man-child-in-chief, is sending $1,000,000 cruise missiles to blow up $100,000 tanks in a civil war that does not affect us, as the Republocrats cheer from the sidelines. And here we go with people asking why we're not getting involved with Syria.
Africa is back-water poor, exactly because of what the GP said. Investing in most of the countries there is a gamble of if you can win the race between positive ROI vs "nationalization". I put that in quotes, because the nationalization usually amounts to being taken over by whoever happens to be in control of the military at the time. The GP was talking about market uncertainty due to government meddling.
Just like in the late 90's, developers did not want to start a project in an area that Microsoft might be looking to get into. They knew that they'd get plowed under regardless of the merit of their solutions. People don't want to risk making a large investment with the prospect of having it ripped away from them.
The US government already runs the highway system, and has a huge fund to bankroll it. The fund comes from taxes place on motor fuels (gasoline and diesel). Can you explain why we have bridges literally falling down? There are no shareholders to answer to.
Would you consider that your hypothesis needs revision?
Better than "let's stop EVERYTHING we're doing and move everything we have onto the other track." Only to discover in 300 yrs that the train was actually on that track, and you would have been safe if you'd only stay put.
Damn, I'm glad you interventionist were there to save us from the copper shortages in the 50's. They were going to bring modern civilization to a screeching halt. But ya'll jumped right in there and saved us all with your government programs. What would we have done without you?
Umm? Could you tell us how liberal policies have been a benefit to anyone not willing to live with a plantation mentality? But maybe you're just one of that large number of moochers who are too stupid to recognize an unmaintainable system.
Was his gearboxes burning gasoline which produces H20 and sulfur compounds as part of the combustion process?
That acid buildup in the oil is the reason to change it. The car manufacturers say don't change your oil, because the federal government requires them to say that as part of the CAFE standards. They made the sumps larger to meet the CAFE standards, and the owner manual also includes some language about "unless driven under harsh conditions."
You'll want to pay attention to what they call "harsh conditions", because their definition almost certainly describes how you drive your car unless you drive cross-country on a daily basis. The idea is that if you get the oil hot and keep it there long enough, you will boil off any water content. Normal 30minute trips don't keep the oil hot long enough and minute amounts of acid start to build up.
Ask most sports fans (inside the USA) soccer is not even a sport.
Why would I ask opinionated outsiders such a question. And why would I pay attention when they said something stupid like "NASCAR isn't racing"?
Granted, I'd like to see NASCAR changed. Instead of the stupid restrictor plates, they should have limited the amount of fuel that each team can have, but it is still a race. You have cars starting at the same time, and the winner is the first to cross the finish line. How is that anything BUT a race?
Slashdot Mirror
Ever since the world ended up going hell bent on terrorism laws (New World Order), all wire-tapping is legal with or without a warrant and you do not require any special permissions anymore if you work in law enforcement and a telecoms company need not know either.
The erosion of liberties guaranteed to you in the US Constitution as a result of the War on Terrorism simply pales in comparison to what you've surrendered due to the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.
And you don't have to be a pot-smoking liberal to be worried about the ones in Washington. I'm as libertarian/conservative as they come, and it is painfully clear where the dangers of oppression are coming from.
They have a name for that employee. It's "CEO".
That's just it. You have something to worry about.
There are enough laws to make everyone a criminal. Innocent until proven guilty? Yeah, right, you'll be innocent while you sit in jail for a couple years waiting trial as the lawyers are not-so-slowly sucking away anything resembling wealth you've ever owned.
Laws are not longer created to protect innocents. They are created for control.
I worked for AT&T at a small manufacturing plant in Whitsett, NC for several years in the early to mid 90's. We were a union shop in a right-to-work state, so the management was struggling to find projects that had enough margin to keep the plant open. It was probably about '93 when we picked up a project that was an "encryptor".
It was about the size of a pack of playing cards, with two phone plugs in the back. You'd plug your handset into one side and connect the other to the phone. You'd call the other party, then press a button. The device would negotiate with the other party's device, and all a third party would here is static.
The project was going like gangbusters, and then all of a sudden it just stopped dead in its tracks. The government came in, shut the project down, and bought all the inventory. I never saw one again.
If the government doesn't have a way in, you won't find the product on the open market.
You're looking for a business like TechShop. http://techshoprdu.com/
To bad you're Anonymous, because this answer is spot on.
I've recently become more jealous of my time. I used to enjoy tearing a broken thing apart and welding in some sort of fix, just for the joy of saying, "LOOK! I save twenty-five BUCKS!!" Now, I'd rather have my three hours back.
What happens when the trucking company shuts down? You don't think the liquidator gets the truckload of cigarettes, do you?
What happens when the local gym shuts down? You don't think the liquidator gets all the leased treadmills, do you?
The liquidator gets what the company OWNS. The cloud provider doesn't OWN your data.
*snivel*...but...but....I WANT IT!! *wimper*
I'd mod the claim of flamebait away for you if I had points, massysett. You sound just like my father scolding me when I was acting like a child. He was right and so are you. HBO has absolutely nothing that is necessary for survival, or even for a decent quality of life. They offer a distraction. The fact that yeshuawatso is willing to compromise his honor for a bauble says all that is necessary about his/her maturity.
You do know that it is a Democratic President that just sent bombs over to kill brown people without bothering to get permission from Congress first, right? Of course you did.
But, I guess that is ok, because those brown people were threatening FRANCE's energy industry.
Talk about hypocrisy! The Democrats had control of BOTH Houses, AND the Presidency, and yet did nothing to reduce the subsidies or cut military spending. In fact, they didn't consider a budget AT ALL.
I would go even simpler. Requiring that yearly energy expenditures be taken into account when estimating the value of a home would do more to drive energy efficiency than anything else. My wife was a real-estate agent for several years. A comparative analysis consisted of adding up the square footage then mutiplying that by a dollar price per square foot, which was an average of three houses that were sold recently in the same area. Small adjustments were made for exceptional amenities, but mostly the price was based almost exclusively on square footage.
Modify the analysis so that the R rating and power generation capacity had a direct driving influence on the home value, and you can bet your bottom dollar that builders would start including something beyond the minimum insulation required by code.
Speculative stock boom.
Major capital equipment replacements investments due to purchases to avoid year-2000 bugs.
Huge reductions in military spending due to the ending of the Cold War.
Massive reductions in social spending due to welfare reforms pushed through by a REPUBLICAN Congress (remember New Gingrich and that Contract with America the Democrats hated so much?)
And even then, the budget wasn't balanced. There wasn't a surplus. There was a PROJECTED surplus, based on the assumption that the economy would continue to grow based on a curved influenced by two disruptive technological changes.
Please take your Clinton worshiping back to your Democratic Church of Other People's Money until you learn a little history.
More questions for you:
Would a for profit insurance company even bother to insure elderly people? They cost the most, so why bother, better to insure healthy people for the bottom line right? Even if they did, obviously the costs would be very high. Free markets don't work when you have to cover 'everybody'. Same reason Fedex doesn't ship everywhere but the Post Office does. Companies will drop unprofitable clients - which sucks when it's Grandma.
So instead of grandma and rural people bearing their own cost, they get to externalize those costs to the rest of us in the same way that BP gets to externalize the cost of an oil spill to the rest of us? The same way that a coal plant gets to externalize their pollution costs to the rest of us?
Maybe if the US government wasn't taking 27% of the GDP, people would have the money to pay their doctor directly, and we could save all of the friction of paperwork necessary to have the government pay my doctor when I get the sniffles.
What would we do then, when France, Britain and the other NATO members came crying when "the US is not doing enough" in places like Libya, Bosnia, Rawanda and any other place where THEY have a national interest that they want us to protect?
You'll never see them admit we don't have any money to spend on the military because we're broke.
Complete and utter bullshit.
The people who've have seriously talked about making significant cuts (think Rand, not Ryan), have absolutely and unequivocally called for serious reductions in military spending, including, but not limited to, closing foreign bases. They're called nutjobs for putting forth a reasonable argument, ie. we should mind our own damn business.
Meanwhile, the man-child-in-chief, is sending $1,000,000 cruise missiles to blow up $100,000 tanks in a civil war that does not affect us, as the Republocrats cheer from the sidelines. And here we go with people asking why we're not getting involved with Syria.
Africa is back-water poor, exactly because of what the GP said. Investing in most of the countries there is a gamble of if you can win the race between positive ROI vs "nationalization". I put that in quotes, because the nationalization usually amounts to being taken over by whoever happens to be in control of the military at the time. The GP was talking about market uncertainty due to government meddling.
Just like in the late 90's, developers did not want to start a project in an area that Microsoft might be looking to get into. They knew that they'd get plowed under regardless of the merit of their solutions. People don't want to risk making a large investment with the prospect of having it ripped away from them.
Minnesota bridges collapsing? A corporations was responsible for that little piece of public safety. Right?
The US government already runs the highway system, and has a huge fund to bankroll it. The fund comes from taxes place on motor fuels (gasoline and diesel). Can you explain why we have bridges literally falling down? There are no shareholders to answer to.
Would you consider that your hypothesis needs revision?
Better than "let's stop EVERYTHING we're doing and move everything we have onto the other track." Only to discover in 300 yrs that the train was actually on that track, and you would have been safe if you'd only stay put.
Damn, I'm glad you interventionist were there to save us from the copper shortages in the 50's. They were going to bring modern civilization to a screeching halt. But ya'll jumped right in there and saved us all with your government programs. What would we have done without you?
Umm? Could you tell us how liberal policies have been a benefit to anyone not willing to live with a plantation mentality? But maybe you're just one of that large number of moochers who are too stupid to recognize an unmaintainable system.
Was his gearboxes burning gasoline which produces H20 and sulfur compounds as part of the combustion process?
That acid buildup in the oil is the reason to change it. The car manufacturers say don't change your oil, because the federal government requires them to say that as part of the CAFE standards. They made the sumps larger to meet the CAFE standards, and the owner manual also includes some language about "unless driven under harsh conditions."
You'll want to pay attention to what they call "harsh conditions", because their definition almost certainly describes how you drive your car unless you drive cross-country on a daily basis. The idea is that if you get the oil hot and keep it there long enough, you will boil off any water content. Normal 30minute trips don't keep the oil hot long enough and minute amounts of acid start to build up.
Ask most sports fans (inside the USA) soccer is not even a sport.
Why would I ask opinionated outsiders such a question. And why would I pay attention when they said something stupid like "NASCAR isn't racing"?
Granted, I'd like to see NASCAR changed. Instead of the stupid restrictor plates, they should have limited the amount of fuel that each team can have, but it is still a race. You have cars starting at the same time, and the winner is the first to cross the finish line. How is that anything BUT a race?
CEOs are massively overrated. What matters is to have an effective, co-operating management structure
You do understand what the CEO is primarily responsible for, no?