I'm merely reporting some updated facts (the mayor issued a denial). Whether it's true, believable, plausible, or whatever, I leave as an exercise to the reader.
Update: A spokesperson for Oakland Mayor Jean Quan has emailed to deny that Quan "coordinated" Oakland's response to Occupy protesters with other mayors. "Mayor Quan never said that cities with occupy encampments were coordinating their removal efforts," Susan Piper wrote in an email. "The mayor has talked with other mayors to share experiences." In a subsequent email, I asked Piper if Quan received advice from either the DHS or the FBI on how to respond to protesters, as reported was by Rick Ellis of Examiner.com. Piper's response: "Not true."
Canada has had privatized airport security since... the mid 1990s if memory serves. As you know, the result has been weekly bombings and anal cavity searches.
Oh, wait, no, it's the complete opposite. Quick, efficient and effective scanning.
What, exactly, do you eat then? All food (save perhaps wild meat) has been genetically manipulated since humans settled down and started farming about 10000 years ago.
One TRILLION dollars is the value, according to this nutcase. Sorry, he's wrong.
As far as I can tell, that figure was pulled out of the author's ass. Equally your rebuttal. A little bit of googling reveals it is at least on the order of hundreds of billions.
One TV station in LA buys all the TV channels, he owns them FOR LIFE. No give-backs. Leave all but one sitting idle/empty. No take-backs.
In order to get into that position, that one station must have out competed the others to attain more money. The people voted with their wallets (well, eyeballs). If you, as a concerned citizen, see someone buying up the spectrum in a way you don't like, then you should pony up your own dough and make a bid. Or you could start broadcasting on the web, or some other hitherto unknown technology, and render all that TV spectrum they purchased worthless, and they'd be bankrupt. Capitalism is a harsh mistress.
Somebody buys channel A in one area, someone else channel A in another area, and they interfere with each other.
That was addressed in the link:
Huber proposes that the government sell off standard units of spectrum--... -- using existing geographical contours for each type of frequency.
Hell, there isn't even anyone who can define the STANDARDS that apply
Standards only come about via government dictat? USB, HDMI, 33 1/3 rpm records... ? If a bureaucrat doesn't think of it, it can't exist?
The local cops buy a channel for their use. I start using it, too.
I'd say that is akin to trespassing. The link may say lawsuits only, but I can see a criminal case similar to trespass.
A buys the channels for public safety in an area. B buys the channels for cellular.
Sounds like someone fucked up the auction, then.
The FCC still has a purpose.
Even if that were true, I'd like to see where among the enumerated powers Congress gets the authority for even creating or continuing the FCC.
By the way, who "sells" the bandwidth for frequencies and uses that are worldwide in nature?
Abolishing the FCC does not mean airwave anarchy.
What it means is returning to bottom-up law rather than the top-down process that has characterized telecommunications for the last 80 years.
you need to have money to BUY those print supplies. if you dont, you wont have them.
The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.
What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder?
What utter rubbish.
How many people do you think your moronic message will reach? How much did it cost you?
How many people have WikiLeaks reached on a very shoestring budget? Sure, a lot of talk about silencing them, but it hasn't been very successful now, has it?
How much do you suppose it cost Thomas Paine to publish Common Sense, whose message helped create America, and has been read by millions?
In short, your theory that your rights are commensurate with your wealth in the US is absolutely crap.
Racial profiling, on the other hand, is a completely different matter, IMHO.
But informing people we're going to do racial profile before they buy the ticket makes it A-OK, right? I mean, it's A-OK to get a full-body scan (or whatever... like a cavity search?) if you look wrong, so long as we let you know ahead of time, right?
The simple fact of the matter is that spending and tax reduction during economic downturn has been shown to be ineffective at best (the Hoover presidency shows how bad it can be).
In 1994 government debt was 68 percent of Canada's GDP. By 2008 that number was down to 29 percent. Finance Minister Paul Martin Jr. and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, both of the Liberal Party, are the two unlikely stars in this heroic tale of fiscal discipline.
By Keynsian logic, during that time Canada should have descended into chaos and civil war with 90% unemployment. Well, that didn't happen.
I eat organic for 2 reasons, one is I don't want my body filled with the left over amounts of pesticides (in the case of fruit and veg)
You are deluding yourself if you think organic == no pesticides, or if you think pesticides == cancer:
Scientists are unable to test these chemicals directly on humans, so they use rats instead. To establish the maximum dose considered to be safe for humans, they find a dose that's completely safe for rats. Then they divide it by 100. Testing by Australia's national regulator, Food Standards Australia New Zealand, shows that pesticide levels measured in food are either well below the recommended maximum dose or are completely undetectable.
People live about 80 years longer than rats: that's 80 years longer for pesticide cocktails to accumulate and wreak havoc. Even so, it turns out that a lifetime's consumption of synthetic pesticides is a drop in the ocean compared to the natural pesticides we consume from the plants we eat. Plants have evolved a vast pharmacopeia of chemical weapons, and we consume many of these 'weapons' daily: caffeine in coffee, solanine in potatoes and psoralens in celery, to name just three.
From a very lengthy article that probably won't be read or dismissed as casually as this current study.
I'm explaining why there are ratioanal reasons in the UK to favour UK organic farmers.
Read the entire article I linked to, as well as here. There is no rational basis to support organic farming anywhere.
(although they do get higher export prices for export crops)
Which highlights another problem, one in common with the FairTrade line of thinking. Higher export prices means more farmers in poor areas will switch to those crops and export more, leaving local people priced out and hungry.
IF CHEMICAL PESTICIDES ARE hazardous to health, then farm workers should be most affected. The results of a 13-year study of nearly 90,000 farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina -- the Agricultural Health Study - suggests we really don't have much to worry about. These people were exposed to higher doses of agricultural chemicals because of their proximity to spraying, and 65 per cent of them had personally spent more than 10 years applying pesticides. If any group of people were going to show a link between pesticide use and cancer, it would be them. They didn't.
A preliminary report published in 2004 showed that, compared to the normal population, their rates of cancer were actually lower. And they did not show any increased rate of brain-damaging diseases like Parkinson's. There was one exception: prostate cancer. This seemed to be linked to farmers using a particular fungicide called methyl bromide, which is now in the process of being phased out. According to James Felton, of the Biosciences Directorate of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, who also chairs the study, "The bottom line is the results are coming out surprisingly negative. It's telling us that most of the chemicals we use today are not causing cancer or other disease."
...many agricultural scientists estimate that if the world were to go completely organic, not only would the remaining forests have to be cleared to provide the organic manure needed for farming, the world's current population would likely starve.
The report specifically doesn't look into the main reasons why I tend to buy organic - which aren't do to with health issues primarily, but to do with environmental and animal husbandry factors
Do human beings ever come into play while considering these "animal husbandry" factors?
As the Cambridge chemist John Emsley recently concluded, "The greatest catastrophe that the human race could face this century is not global warming but a global conversion to 'organic farming'--an estimated 2 billion people would perish."
Because private firms are under pressure to make money NOW, and always turn a profit. No private enterprise would ever go for this type of long term investment with zero profits in the foreseeable future. Government, however, can wait. It really doesn't matter if it takes ten years for the money to return.
Hmmm... this recent bit of news seems to against that thinking:
Dr Ray Stantz: You know, it just occurred to me that we really haven't had a successful test of this equipment.
Dr. Egon Spengler: I blame myself.
Dr. Peter Venkman: So do I.
Dr Ray Stantz: Well, no sense in worrying about it now.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why worry? Each one of us is carrying an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm merely reporting some updated facts (the mayor issued a denial). Whether it's true, believable, plausible, or whatever, I leave as an exercise to the reader.
Canada has had privatized airport security since... the mid 1990s if memory serves. As you know, the result has been weekly bombings and anal cavity searches. Oh, wait, no, it's the complete opposite. Quick, efficient and effective scanning.
Privatized airport security works just fine in Canada.
You forgot Yemen.
(Read the above in Bush's voice)
What, exactly, do you eat then? All food (save perhaps wild meat) has been genetically manipulated since humans settled down and started farming about 10000 years ago.
As far as I can tell, that figure was pulled out of the author's ass. Equally your rebuttal. A little bit of googling reveals it is at least on the order of hundreds of billions.
In order to get into that position, that one station must have out competed the others to attain more money. The people voted with their wallets (well, eyeballs). If you, as a concerned citizen, see someone buying up the spectrum in a way you don't like, then you should pony up your own dough and make a bid. Or you could start broadcasting on the web, or some other hitherto unknown technology, and render all that TV spectrum they purchased worthless, and they'd be bankrupt. Capitalism is a harsh mistress.
That was addressed in the link:
Standards only come about via government dictat? USB, HDMI, 33 1/3 rpm records... ? If a bureaucrat doesn't think of it, it can't exist?
I'd say that is akin to trespassing. The link may say lawsuits only, but I can see a criminal case similar to trespass.
Sounds like someone fucked up the auction, then.
Even if that were true, I'd like to see where among the enumerated powers Congress gets the authority for even creating or continuing the FCC.
Good question! Who regulates it now?
More details in the link.
Simply put, the FCC should not exist.
Oh wait, you were serious. Let me laugh even harder.
The costs are very modest and well within the means of the vast majority of the population in the US.
What, you think the means of publication should be free for all? Perhaps controlled, say, by a central bureaucracy? Who gets to decide who receives this limited resource? And where does that lead, I wonder?
Socialist nitwits are walking contradictions.
What utter rubbish. How many people do you think your moronic message will reach? How much did it cost you? How many people have WikiLeaks reached on a very shoestring budget? Sure, a lot of talk about silencing them, but it hasn't been very successful now, has it? How much do you suppose it cost Thomas Paine to publish Common Sense, whose message helped create America, and has been read by millions? In short, your theory that your rights are commensurate with your wealth in the US is absolutely crap.
But informing people we're going to do racial profile before they buy the ticket makes it A-OK, right? I mean, it's A-OK to get a full-body scan (or whatever... like a cavity search?) if you look wrong, so long as we let you know ahead of time, right?
Please DIAF.
Post-war USA, Canada, and New Zealand all disagree with you. For example:
By Keynsian logic, during that time Canada should have descended into chaos and civil war with 90% unemployment. Well, that didn't happen.
You are deluding yourself if you think organic == no pesticides, or if you think pesticides == cancer:
From a very lengthy article that probably won't be read or dismissed as casually as this current study.
Read the entire article I linked to, as well as here. There is no rational basis to support organic farming anywhere.
Which highlights another problem, one in common with the FairTrade line of thinking. Higher export prices means more farmers in poor areas will switch to those crops and export more, leaving local people priced out and hungry.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/1567/organic-food-exposed?page=0%2C2
Wrong.
Organic Food Exposed
How can that be counted as better?
Do human beings ever come into play while considering these "animal husbandry" factors?
Organic Alchemy
I'd rather ask about stuff that matters. Where did I get that from ... ?
Hmmm... this recent bit of news seems to against that thinking:
CIBC to use $1B Cerberus cash to stop mortgage writedowns
I think you're confusing private firms, who don't have to report, with public firms that have stockholders etc.
Then let private firms buy it up and make that money... why the panic?
Dr Ray Stantz: You know, it just occurred to me that we really haven't had a successful test of this equipment. Dr. Egon Spengler: I blame myself. Dr. Peter Venkman: So do I. Dr Ray Stantz: Well, no sense in worrying about it now. Dr. Peter Venkman: Why worry? Each one of us is carrying an unlicensed nuclear accelerator on his back.
Throes, dude, throes. http://dictionary.die.net/death%20throe
How about... Compuglobalhypermegatelescope?