Is that 2U 1M IOPS unit racked right next to your 1U, 64K core, 1024 TeraHertz system?
FYI, a loaded HDS 9990V (i.e. hundreds of spindles and multiple gigabytes of cache) manages to provide 200,000 IOPS (SPC-1). Even Texas Memory Systems RamSAN 400 (i.e. SDRAM) can only make 400,000 IOPS. Hell, it was only a couple of weeks ago that TMS was announcing that they sold a RamSAN-5000, which is the only storage device I've ever seen specced to 1,000,000 IOPS. And it's 10 different RAM cached, flash backed units.
You're right. 1) At most they only have to provide this to the people that they've sold machines to. Anyone else can go roger a knothole. 2) Aggregation, as you note, doesn't lead to licensing infection.
I'm curious... if I wanted to go out and buy a car, could I do that or do I have to ask your permission first? If I want to plant a garden, is that up to me or do I need to pass that by central planning before I go out and hoe some furrows?
I guess what I'm getting at is, if someone wants to go to the moon and they find like minded individuals and they all pool their resources and off they go, do they have to get ciderVisor's benediction before they can do it?
I'm a bit confused here. At what point did your value system become the only one allowed?
I'm not talking about evidence in a court case. I'm talking about the fact that 4chan, and slate and other media outlets that took the time to look through her email account don't have any examples.
He had no effect on this decision. If he had, there would be examples of official emails from her account at yahoo. However there aren't any. All this punk managed to do was violate her privacy and demonstrate what low ethics he has, presumably, learned from his father.
All this decision does is say, "Don't delete your external email." It doesn't say that any of it is actually official email that is subject to FOIA. It just says hold on to it in case it is. What will eventually be found, I think, is that she did exactly what the law required of her: separate her private and political email from her official email and keep it off publicly funded systems.
Given that numerous individuals -- who have enough ill will towards her that they were willing to break the law in order to influence the election process -- did not find a single example to present makes it seem likely that nothing wrong was done here.
Yeah. I'm just grovelling for karma. It's not like people haven't done the research and found that phantom shares are created and traded. That loop holes are used to keep from fulfilling trades way beyond the T+3 settlement time. That multiple regulators have admitted that it occurs. Sheesh, it only takes a simple "naked short" on google to find lots of information about the practice. Even wikipedia has mention of how phantom shares can go around and around.
What actually happens to shares that fail to deliver? Well, that question can best be answered by folks actually doing the cypherin', Perhaps there are different means that can be used. But the best explanation is the "window call flip", which basically is stock kiting. Simply put, I sell to you. In the prescribed period of time, I owe you real shares. Instead, I show you a "confirm" that I bought shares from another participant. Imagine, say, five or fifty five participants, all in a circle. As you can imagine, a tremendous number of shares can float between participants without ever landing in one spot.
Now, motivation. Why does it happen? Why aren't there "buy ins" as referenced for these Brokerage firms? The answer is rather simple. Money. The procedure stipulates that, if Broker X fails to deliver 100,000 shares in the prescribed period of time to Broker Y, "Y" can go into the market place and buy those shares, AND THEN SEND THE BILL TO X!!!!! The trader would go to the representative offer, and indicate he wants certificates. That offer would probably move away, making the trader to go to the next offer, and so on. The market for the stock, especially if it's a small issue (they usually are), would explode until the order is filled. At the same time, trading desks all over the country would be screaming "XXXX buy in coming", and the demand would sky rocket. As the reader can see, this becomes a very expensive proposition. And once 'X', sees the bill, he would most likely retaliate, and buy in "Y' on another issue.
Selling something, at least representing something as for sale, taking money for said item, and then, just pocketing the money is serious enough. But the damage done to the issuing company is at least as severe. Think of this failure as a secondary offering never approved by the company's Board of Directors, signed off on by the SEC, or benefiting the company.
Admittedly that comes from Patrick Byrne's web site.
FTDs can be caused in several ways, but they commonly result from short sales in which the seller does not borrow or even locate the stock he sells (the infamous "naked" short sales). Regardless of how an FTD occurs, for each share not delivered the system creates a "phantom" entitlement the market treats as a real share. These "phantom shares" are supposed to be temporary in duration and few in number. Loopholes, however, are exploited on such a scale, and phantom shares are so persistent, they are corrupting the U.S. equity markets in three ways.
The phrase "short positions at the clearing corporation" refers to "failures to deliver" (FTDS), which effectively increase the net supply of an issue in circulation and, by definition, depress price. This price depression is, of course, more significant for small and medium cap companies than for large cap companies with greater liquidity. ...
Unfortunately, the drama associated with this clash has drawn attention away from the uncomfortable fact that illegal, unsettled trades are a large and growing problem in U.S. equity markets. Those unsettled trades threaten the corporate voting system, the viability of small companies, and market integrity as a whole. Large unsettled trades persist because of loopholes in stock market institutions and apathy on the part of those charged with enforcing existing regulations.
A traditional short stock sale requires that you find someone who will loan you their shares in a stock you believe to be over valued. You then sell those shares to someone. When it comes time to return the shares you borrowed, you buy at the lower price that you expected and return them to the person you borrowed from. You get to keep the difference in price.
A naked short means you never borrowed the shares in the first place. You agreed to sell someone some shares and you have a certain amount of time to actually deliver the shares. The idea is that you will find someone to borrow from in the period during which you have to settle the transaction.
Problems arise when the settlement never occurs because the short seller can't find anyone willing to lend the stock and they are faced with buying on the open market at the current price. So they just don't bother to follow through because the cost will end up being, theoritically, infinite. When Broker B finds that Broker A hasn't delivered the stock, they can technically go out and buy on the market and have the bill sent to Broker A. But they rarely do this because what goes around comes around and they will eventually find themselves in the situation where one of their customers initiated the naked short. Whenever the shares aren't settled it's called a failure-to-deliver (FTD) and on any given day the value of the sales that aren't delivered is measured in the tens of billions of dollars.
Because of the FTD, buyers end up thinking they own stock that they don't. And brokers list the stock in the buyer's portfolio and tell the companies that the buyer is an owner of the stock. Companies can end up with more people thinking they own shares than actual shares exist. Leading to devaluation of the stock, limiting the ability of the company to raise funds by selling more stock, and affecting corporate voting.
Another problem is that companies with a small amount of stock in circulation and a fairly low market cap can find that on a daily basis there are more shares offered for sale than actually exist because short sellers are selling without ever finding a person to loan them the shares in the first place. Due to the massive amount of sales being offered the price plummets, defrauding honest investors of value.
One thing to keep in mind is that naked shorts are not the cause or even the proximate cause of the financial mess we're in. Failure-to-Deliver of shorts should always involve prison time and de-licensing of the broker involved. But the financial crisis has roots all over the economy. Everything from ridiculously low interest rates from the fed to exotic mortgages to big money poker / speculative credit default swaps to a failure to enforce regulations to the US negative savings rate to an over reliance on debt for almost all business transactions, they are all contributors to the problem. But naked shorts have little to do with the problems in the financial industry.
In fact there were a number of emails of a political nature which would be flat out illegal to do over her official email system.
Ah you mean the kind of e-mails she would otherwise be subpoenaed over. And exactly that is the reason why she should be using the official system for political correspondence only.
I think you misunderstand the concept of political. Political is about getting elected. It's about being a member of a particular party, such as a Democrat or Independent. Doing her job as Gov. of Alaska is not political, it's public service. If she uses publicly funded equipment to do political work (ie. Alaska Republican Party work) then she's committed a crime. If she uses Yahoo for that purpose then she hasn't.
Your argument is like saying "It's legal to break into your own home and smash dishes. It's illegal to break into your neighbor's home and smash dishes. So you'd better break into your neighbor's home." Sorry, but it makes no sense.
The emails are about state business. How can that possibly be considered not of official nature?
But they weren't about state business. They were about politics and those aren't state business and it would be illegal for her to use tax payer funded systems to advance political activities.
I have yet to see anyone ask Cheney or Palin if they feel they are above the law.
While they may both feel that way, Gov. Palin's use of yahoo email provides zero insight regarding that mentality. No one has identified a single email from her yahoo account that was of an official nature. Yes, there were plenty of emails to officials, but merely talking to a public office holder doesn't make the communication official and a matter of public record. In fact there were a number of emails of a political nature which would be flat out illegal to do over her official email system.
This is why, outside of partisan bloggers and ignorant commenters, no one anywhere is talking about Gov. Palin doing anything wrong.
Can these three guys actually convince anyone that they are about openness? It doesn't look like Mr. Kafasis' software is open. Why doesn't he butch the fuck up and make his software open source so that the consumer benefits from the competition? Why doesn't Mr. Gruber open up his blog so that anyone can change the main postings and collect some of the ad revenue? Is he afraid of competition? I don't see the public control of Mr. Winer's blog either. Nor do I see the public API that would make his blog a platform. Why is that? Afraid of putting some investment into it and then having the GNAAers come along and trashing his efforts?
Why is Apple's investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, engineering, and negotiations less than the investments that these "pundits" have made in building their brands, products and reputations. Until they can show why they should be allowed to be closed and Apple isn't, I think I'll skip the righteousness.
Somebody call me when Daring Fireball becomes community controlled, Rogue Amoeba is open source and revenue sharing, and Scripting News is anything except a third rate political blog.
From this link Although the protesters say they won't take the first swing, they vow to protect themselves The were preparing for self-defense only.
Yeah. Also from that link:
Will anarchists and anti-authoritarians attempting to disrupt the convention use violence as a tactic? The answer: Maybe.
"As the Welcoming Committee, we refuse to condemn the defense of individuals, communities, and the Earth.
...
"What is your stance on violence and property destruction? Destruction bad. Property bad. The concept of property is used to deprive people of the basic necessities of life.
...
In a press conference in late August, Welcoming Committee spokester Bea Bridges said, "The State asks that we only resist in ways it finds convenient and easy to contain, promising repression of those who act outside the parameters it sets. This is a threat -- a violent threat with which the State hopes to terrorize us into submission. Therefore, there exists no 'peaceful' option. Some among us may choose to resist State violence using pacifist tactics, while others use whatever methods they deem necessary and appropriate. But, no matter how we respond to it, violence is already present at the protests through no fault of our own."
Yeah. Too bad The State (oooh! the scary scary state) expects people to act civilly and respect the rights and property of others. And check out that "defense of communities, and the Earth." Yeah! Defend the Earth! That guy over there works in a lumber yard! Kill him! That woman there, she's curing diseases using strict protocols to minimize the pain and suffering of something furry. Get her! Defend the Earth.
But wow. You've discovered an excellent new defense in so many criminal cases: "Your honor, it was self defense. I had to shoot the clerk of the liquor store I was robbing, because the police repress me by trying to prevent my taking the fruit of other people's labors." Oh, wait. You almost had me convinced. Alas no, everyone with a smidgen of sense understands that it's not self defense when you initiate the conflict. And that's exactly what they were planning.
I didn't bother to read your link to the 'search warrants' because TFA reported that these warrants were not served when the police searched the house. Sure they can whip up a warrant AFTER the fact, but that's not how the law works. To search a residence you need probable cause AND you have to serve the warrant when you go.
They had warrants. It was one of the warrants that I linked to. There is only mention of one location where they didn't have a warrant and the police stood around outside while a warrant was issued.
As far as making up facts ("Sure they can whip up a warrant AFTER the fact"), we can both do that but what purpose does it serve? Stick to the facts in evidence, don't make shit up and we can have a discussion.
They were planning civil disobedience. Same asRosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on the bus.
Nice that you link to a definition of the phrase and yet don't manage to understand it at all. What unjust law is being defied by violating the civil rights of another? Are they trying to get that pesky First Amendment done away with? "We don't want private individuals to have the right of association, free speech or assembly. And freedom of religion? That's next!" Nice.
The most impressive part of all this is how outraged people are at the actions of the police. Act with hypocrisy much? Think of it this way: All the police did was do exactly what the NORNC people had planned. So what's with all the uproar? A little disruption of a meeting. A little blockade. And wow, everybody is shocked. The only people in this conversation who even have a world view that incorporates free speech are the ones who think that what the police did was legal. The other side, your side, apparently thinks it's OK to violate other's civil rights.
Well, if you're not going to do anything those atrocities must not be very atrocious. Come back when you have something more to tell us than the police didn't beat you with a rubber hose, rape your wife, tear out your fingernails with pliers. I mean, it's fucking terrifying that the police won't throw flash-bang grenades through your windows and bust down your door because they've not got the correct warrant. That's some kind of police state.
Go spend some time in Darfur or Georgia and gain some perspective.
What got in your boxers? This is the second post of mine where you post a useless comment. Don't like the fact that I actually have facts to backup my arguments? Why not make an effort to engage in debate, you might change some minds. All you're accomplishing with your snide bullshit is just getting applause from people who already agree with you.
You can even get creative and use sarcasm and ridicule. But it really only works when you actually have a point that you can defend with rational thoughts.
BTW - similar events occurred at the DNC in Denver last week. So don't think it's purely a Republican thing.
Good response. But please keep in mind that I'm not judging "anarchists". I'm judging these specific people and I'm talking about a specific plan. They describe themselves as anarchists. They advocate violence and suppression of free speech.
No, but the police, FBI, sheriff, etc. ARE part of the government. I didn't mention the RNC once in my post.
Their protests were not planned against the police, the FBI, the sheriff or any other representative of the government. Their goal was to disrupt the Republican National Convention and prevent free speech and political discourse.
So what? Being an anarchist is not a crime. If you read TFA, you'd note that no search warrants were given, and that they were charged with 'conspiracy to riot.' I said they were not violent anarchists, in the sense that they were NOT planning violence or rioting.
... [ snip ]...
I know that's not in TFA. Please cite a source. If you do not, then, well...
Maybe you should spend more than a fraction of a second glancing at TFA? I mean if you'd tried at all you would have seen this page:
Those plugging into this strategy will be free to shape their actions as they see fit, using the tactics they consider appropriate. As the specific blockade sites are established, there may be a system of delegating some sites as "red zones" (prepared for self-defense), "yellow zones" (peaceful but assertive), and "green zones" (aiming to avoid any risk of arrest) so as to accommodate a wide variety of creative tactics and involve individuals with differing needs and talents.
Or you could have found this page titled "Anarchy and the RNC: Protesters Won't Rule Out 2008 Violence". Sounds peaceful.
And if you tried at all you'd be able to locate one of the warrants.
Well, I showed mine. Now you show yours indicating (quoting from your original post) "these people aren't violent anarchists, they are citizens protesting the government." I mean, their website is titled "NORNC" and they have page after page detailing how they intend to disrupt the Republican National Convention. But maybe I misunderstood and they aren't actually intending to disrupt peaceful political assembly or to interfere with the representatives of millions of Americans getting together. Please, show me where I'm wrong and you're right. Otherwise acknowledge that you were wrong and speaking completely without basis.
We should demand media coverage of these obvious civil rights violations, these people aren't violent anarchists, they are citizens protesting the government.
What? First, the RNC isn't "the government." Second, yes they are anarchists. From their website:
The RNC Welcoming Committee is an anarchist / anti-authoritarian organizing body preparing for the 2008 Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota.
They intend to block the bridges into and out of the city. The blockades are going to be categorized as "red zones" (prepared for "self-defense"), "yellow zones" (peaceful but assertive), and "green zones" (aiming to avoid risk of arrest.) I don't see how holding public property by force is at all non-violent.
I agree however, people should protest. They should protest these hooligans who don't believe in the core basis of the USoA: that ideas will not be propagated by violence. Differing opinions will be discussed and if your opinion isn't the most popular you don't get to enact your ideas. Perpetrating acts of violence, intimidation and seizing property for long term use (a goal described on their website) aren't something any civilized country should be getting behind.
For the sake of the country, the people responsible for these raids must be fired (and very possibly sent to prison) for this. This is utterly unacceptable.
Yeah! Who the fuck do the RNC think they are? Fucking think that the first amendment applies to them? Worthless losers. I mean for fuck sake! Thinking that they can get together and talk about politics and the upcoming presidential campaign. God damned turds! Stinking pigs! Interfering with out fucking right to go out and trash neighborhoods and businesses because they happen to be in the area where other people want to assemble and talk. The only people who deserve first amendment protection are us! We hang out in our communal houses and live the free life. The fucking proles who go to work everyday and try and build a life are just slaves. They have no right to talk. Their voices aren't entitled to protection. Just ours! And fuck the losers who think that they have the right to earn a living. They should have fucking thought harder before they signed those leases five years ago. They should have known the Republicans would eventually come along and hold a convention in this city and they should have chosen to go live somewhere else. This is our place. We are the only ones who have a right to speak. Do they think that they somehow are entitled to property? They should know that living a hard working life puts them below us. We are the only fucking ones who matter and everybody else, those people who act civilly, who work for the common good, who pay their taxes that build our infrastructure and provide society with good roads, electricity, clean water and the rule of law... those losers should just accept that they don't matter. That they don't count. That their desire to live a happy life isn't fucking relevant. The only opinions that matter are ours! The only lifestyle acceptable is our smash and grab, live in squalor, parasitic way of living.
Oh? You want to cherry pick your markets? How about these: Merced, CA down 46% from peak. Vallejo, CA down 29%. Salinas, CA down 34%. Modesto, CA down 39.5%. Stockton, CA down 40%. San Francisco down 15%.
Could you please use your brain a little bit? Not a lot. Not so much that it actually hurts, but just a little tiny bit.
Here's a fact for you: Regardless of whether the BMGF invested in those companies or not, Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, etc. would all still be there sucking oil out of the ground. Do you know why? Because you want it. You and your family. Your country men. Even Dick Stallman wants that oil so bad it gets him all fuzzy inside.
If you think it's so terrible, then convince all your friends to stop using oil. Sure your quality of life will rapidly fall off the bottom of the graph, but at least all those EVIL!!!! corporations wouldn't be selling you their product any longer.
How about you grow up a little and stop flinging poo like a monkey. Exxon has a market cap of $466 billion dollars. Chevron is $204 billion. Royal Dutch Shell $100 billion. Those three alone come in at three quarters of a trillion dollars. Which gives BMGF's investment a whole 0.07% (i.e. 7/100ths of a percent) ownership stake. With that kind of control of those companies it totally makes sense to blame them for everything bad that happens.
At least the BMGF is taking some portion of the profits from those companies and doing direct good with it. What are you doing? Beyond bitching on slashdot I mean.
No it's not about image (well for some it may be, but the same can be said about anything.) I'm saying it's about more than just getting energy. For some people, they know that their grid is supplied primarily via coal power. Which, even with all the technology available to us, is still quite dirty. I know it may come as a surprise to you, but some people prefer not to shit in their drinking water, both literally and analogously. Maybe they're willing to pay a little extra to reduce their impact.
I'm not sure what you are saying in your second paragraph. I don't think it has anything to do with Don's article. You might want to take the time to read it before you start blathering about what assume it says. (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't make the claim that it takes more energy to build a solar PV system than you get from that same system. Because, you know, that's not true either.)
The point of the linked analysis was that for a given number of dollars you can generate more power via other mechanisms than you can with solar PV. Then concludes that therefore it is a net energy loss because less is generated than could have been for the same money. Which is false. A person buying a $10,000 solar PV system isn't cutting down their energy usage because it costs more for them, they're using the same amount of energy, just paying more.
He's right in that, for a lot of people, it's not economically sensible. But he's wrong in making any kind of connection between the generating costs of various sources and a gain or loss of actual energy.
They're not energy sinks. They're financial sinks.
The analysis makes the premise that every penny spent on energy will be spent on energy regardless of source. This is false. Some people are willing to pay extra for energy from a specific source that they value more. Think of it as a sunglasses budget: someone might spend $300 for a pair of hand made Italian sunglasses, but if they couldn't get those specific hand made Italian glasses, they won't go and buy 100 pair of the $3.00 special on the counter at Seven Eleven.
Slashdot Mirror
Is that 2U 1M IOPS unit racked right next to your 1U, 64K core, 1024 TeraHertz system?
FYI, a loaded HDS 9990V (i.e. hundreds of spindles and multiple gigabytes of cache) manages to provide 200,000 IOPS (SPC-1). Even Texas Memory Systems RamSAN 400 (i.e. SDRAM) can only make 400,000 IOPS. Hell, it was only a couple of weeks ago that TMS was announcing that they sold a RamSAN-5000, which is the only storage device I've ever seen specced to 1,000,000 IOPS. And it's 10 different RAM cached, flash backed units.
You're right. 1) At most they only have to provide this to the people that they've sold machines to. Anyone else can go roger a knothole. 2) Aggregation, as you note, doesn't lead to licensing infection.
I'm curious... if I wanted to go out and buy a car, could I do that or do I have to ask your permission first? If I want to plant a garden, is that up to me or do I need to pass that by central planning before I go out and hoe some furrows?
I guess what I'm getting at is, if someone wants to go to the moon and they find like minded individuals and they all pool their resources and off they go, do they have to get ciderVisor's benediction before they can do it?
I'm a bit confused here. At what point did your value system become the only one allowed?
I'm not talking about evidence in a court case. I'm talking about the fact that 4chan, and slate and other media outlets that took the time to look through her email account don't have any examples.
He had no effect on this decision. If he had, there would be examples of official emails from her account at yahoo. However there aren't any. All this punk managed to do was violate her privacy and demonstrate what low ethics he has, presumably, learned from his father.
All this decision does is say, "Don't delete your external email." It doesn't say that any of it is actually official email that is subject to FOIA. It just says hold on to it in case it is. What will eventually be found, I think, is that she did exactly what the law required of her: separate her private and political email from her official email and keep it off publicly funded systems.
Given that numerous individuals -- who have enough ill will towards her that they were willing to break the law in order to influence the election process -- did not find a single example to present makes it seem likely that nothing wrong was done here.
Yeah. I'm just grovelling for karma. It's not like people haven't done the research and found that phantom shares are created and traded. That loop holes are used to keep from fulfilling trades way beyond the T+3 settlement time. That multiple regulators have admitted that it occurs. Sheesh, it only takes a simple "naked short" on google to find lots of information about the practice. Even wikipedia has mention of how phantom shares can go around and around.
Yes, it is illegal. And I've not exactly done the research myself, just took what I've read and tried to summarize it. I posted a bunch of links here.
Admittedly that comes from Patrick Byrne's web site.
An excerpt from here.
And from here:
Also a paper (PDF) from the Cato Institute.
And back to Byrne.
I personally don't think naked shorts represent the cause or even a cause of the current situation,
A traditional short stock sale requires that you find someone who will loan you their shares in a stock you believe to be over valued. You then sell those shares to someone. When it comes time to return the shares you borrowed, you buy at the lower price that you expected and return them to the person you borrowed from. You get to keep the difference in price.
A naked short means you never borrowed the shares in the first place. You agreed to sell someone some shares and you have a certain amount of time to actually deliver the shares. The idea is that you will find someone to borrow from in the period during which you have to settle the transaction.
Problems arise when the settlement never occurs because the short seller can't find anyone willing to lend the stock and they are faced with buying on the open market at the current price. So they just don't bother to follow through because the cost will end up being, theoritically, infinite. When Broker B finds that Broker A hasn't delivered the stock, they can technically go out and buy on the market and have the bill sent to Broker A. But they rarely do this because what goes around comes around and they will eventually find themselves in the situation where one of their customers initiated the naked short. Whenever the shares aren't settled it's called a failure-to-deliver (FTD) and on any given day the value of the sales that aren't delivered is measured in the tens of billions of dollars.
Because of the FTD, buyers end up thinking they own stock that they don't. And brokers list the stock in the buyer's portfolio and tell the companies that the buyer is an owner of the stock. Companies can end up with more people thinking they own shares than actual shares exist. Leading to devaluation of the stock, limiting the ability of the company to raise funds by selling more stock, and affecting corporate voting.
Another problem is that companies with a small amount of stock in circulation and a fairly low market cap can find that on a daily basis there are more shares offered for sale than actually exist because short sellers are selling without ever finding a person to loan them the shares in the first place. Due to the massive amount of sales being offered the price plummets, defrauding honest investors of value.
One thing to keep in mind is that naked shorts are not the cause or even the proximate cause of the financial mess we're in. Failure-to-Deliver of shorts should always involve prison time and de-licensing of the broker involved. But the financial crisis has roots all over the economy. Everything from ridiculously low interest rates from the fed to exotic mortgages to big money poker / speculative credit default swaps to a failure to enforce regulations to the US negative savings rate to an over reliance on debt for almost all business transactions, they are all contributors to the problem. But naked shorts have little to do with the problems in the financial industry.
I think you misunderstand the concept of political. Political is about getting elected. It's about being a member of a particular party, such as a Democrat or Independent. Doing her job as Gov. of Alaska is not political, it's public service. If she uses publicly funded equipment to do political work (ie. Alaska Republican Party work) then she's committed a crime. If she uses Yahoo for that purpose then she hasn't.
Your argument is like saying "It's legal to break into your own home and smash dishes. It's illegal to break into your neighbor's home and smash dishes. So you'd better break into your neighbor's home." Sorry, but it makes no sense.
But they weren't about state business. They were about politics and those aren't state business and it would be illegal for her to use tax payer funded systems to advance political activities.
While they may both feel that way, Gov. Palin's use of yahoo email provides zero insight regarding that mentality. No one has identified a single email from her yahoo account that was of an official nature. Yes, there were plenty of emails to officials, but merely talking to a public office holder doesn't make the communication official and a matter of public record. In fact there were a number of emails of a political nature which would be flat out illegal to do over her official email system.
This is why, outside of partisan bloggers and ignorant commenters, no one anywhere is talking about Gov. Palin doing anything wrong.
Can these three guys actually convince anyone that they are about openness? It doesn't look like Mr. Kafasis' software is open. Why doesn't he butch the fuck up and make his software open source so that the consumer benefits from the competition? Why doesn't Mr. Gruber open up his blog so that anyone can change the main postings and collect some of the ad revenue? Is he afraid of competition? I don't see the public control of Mr. Winer's blog either. Nor do I see the public API that would make his blog a platform. Why is that? Afraid of putting some investment into it and then having the GNAAers come along and trashing his efforts?
Why is Apple's investment of hundreds of millions of dollars, engineering, and negotiations less than the investments that these "pundits" have made in building their brands, products and reputations. Until they can show why they should be allowed to be closed and Apple isn't, I think I'll skip the righteousness.
Somebody call me when Daring Fireball becomes community controlled, Rogue Amoeba is open source and revenue sharing, and Scripting News is anything except a third rate political blog.
Yeah. Also from that link:
Yeah. Too bad The State (oooh! the scary scary state) expects people to act civilly and respect the rights and property of others. And check out that "defense of communities, and the Earth." Yeah! Defend the Earth! That guy over there works in a lumber yard! Kill him! That woman there, she's curing diseases using strict protocols to minimize the pain and suffering of something furry. Get her! Defend the Earth.
But wow. You've discovered an excellent new defense in so many criminal cases: "Your honor, it was self defense. I had to shoot the clerk of the liquor store I was robbing, because the police repress me by trying to prevent my taking the fruit of other people's labors." Oh, wait. You almost had me convinced. Alas no, everyone with a smidgen of sense understands that it's not self defense when you initiate the conflict. And that's exactly what they were planning.
They had warrants. It was one of the warrants that I linked to. There is only mention of one location where they didn't have a warrant and the police stood around outside while a warrant was issued.
As far as making up facts ("Sure they can whip up a warrant AFTER the fact"), we can both do that but what purpose does it serve? Stick to the facts in evidence, don't make shit up and we can have a discussion.
Nice that you link to a definition of the phrase and yet don't manage to understand it at all. What unjust law is being defied by violating the civil rights of another? Are they trying to get that pesky First Amendment done away with? "We don't want private individuals to have the right of association, free speech or assembly. And freedom of religion? That's next!" Nice.
The most impressive part of all this is how outraged people are at the actions of the police. Act with hypocrisy much? Think of it this way: All the police did was do exactly what the NORNC people had planned. So what's with all the uproar? A little disruption of a meeting. A little blockade. And wow, everybody is shocked. The only people in this conversation who even have a world view that incorporates free speech are the ones who think that what the police did was legal. The other side, your side, apparently thinks it's OK to violate other's civil rights.
Well, if you're not going to do anything those atrocities must not be very atrocious. Come back when you have something more to tell us than the police didn't beat you with a rubber hose, rape your wife, tear out your fingernails with pliers. I mean, it's fucking terrifying that the police won't throw flash-bang grenades through your windows and bust down your door because they've not got the correct warrant. That's some kind of police state.
Go spend some time in Darfur or Georgia and gain some perspective.
What got in your boxers? This is the second post of mine where you post a useless comment. Don't like the fact that I actually have facts to backup my arguments? Why not make an effort to engage in debate, you might change some minds. All you're accomplishing with your snide bullshit is just getting applause from people who already agree with you.
You can even get creative and use sarcasm and ridicule. But it really only works when you actually have a point that you can defend with rational thoughts.
BTW - similar events occurred at the DNC in Denver last week. So don't think it's purely a Republican thing.
Good response. But please keep in mind that I'm not judging "anarchists". I'm judging these specific people and I'm talking about a specific plan. They describe themselves as anarchists. They advocate violence and suppression of free speech.
Their protests were not planned against the police, the FBI, the sheriff or any other representative of the government. Their goal was to disrupt the Republican National Convention and prevent free speech and political discourse.
Maybe you should spend more than a fraction of a second glancing at TFA? I mean if you'd tried at all you would have seen this page:
Or you could have found this page titled "Anarchy and the RNC: Protesters Won't Rule Out 2008 Violence". Sounds peaceful.
And if you tried at all you'd be able to locate one of the warrants.
Well, I showed mine. Now you show yours indicating (quoting from your original post) "these people aren't violent anarchists, they are citizens protesting the government." I mean, their website is titled "NORNC" and they have page after page detailing how they intend to disrupt the Republican National Convention. But maybe I misunderstood and they aren't actually intending to disrupt peaceful political assembly or to interfere with the representatives of millions of Americans getting together. Please, show me where I'm wrong and you're right. Otherwise acknowledge that you were wrong and speaking completely without basis.
What? First, the RNC isn't "the government." Second, yes they are anarchists. From their website:
They intend to block the bridges into and out of the city. The blockades are going to be categorized as "red zones" (prepared for "self-defense"), "yellow zones" (peaceful but assertive), and "green zones" (aiming to avoid risk of arrest.) I don't see how holding public property by force is at all non-violent.
I agree however, people should protest. They should protest these hooligans who don't believe in the core basis of the USoA: that ideas will not be propagated by violence. Differing opinions will be discussed and if your opinion isn't the most popular you don't get to enact your ideas. Perpetrating acts of violence, intimidation and seizing property for long term use (a goal described on their website) aren't something any civilized country should be getting behind.
Yeah! Who the fuck do the RNC think they are? Fucking think that the first amendment applies to them? Worthless losers. I mean for fuck sake! Thinking that they can get together and talk about politics and the upcoming presidential campaign. God damned turds! Stinking pigs! Interfering with out fucking right to go out and trash neighborhoods and businesses because they happen to be in the area where other people want to assemble and talk. The only people who deserve first amendment protection are us! We hang out in our communal houses and live the free life. The fucking proles who go to work everyday and try and build a life are just slaves. They have no right to talk. Their voices aren't entitled to protection. Just ours! And fuck the losers who think that they have the right to earn a living. They should have fucking thought harder before they signed those leases five years ago. They should have known the Republicans would eventually come along and hold a convention in this city and they should have chosen to go live somewhere else. This is our place. We are the only ones who have a right to speak. Do they think that they somehow are entitled to property? They should know that living a hard working life puts them below us. We are the only fucking ones who matter and everybody else, those people who act civilly, who work for the common good, who pay their taxes that build our infrastructure and provide society with good roads, electricity, clean water and the rule of law... those losers should just accept that they don't matter. That they don't count. That their desire to live a happy life isn't fucking relevant. The only opinions that matter are ours! The only lifestyle acceptable is our smash and grab, live in squalor, parasitic way of living.
Nobody thought you were serious because, well:
Oh? You want to cherry pick your markets? How about these: Merced, CA down 46% from peak. Vallejo, CA down 29%. Salinas, CA down 34%. Modesto, CA down 39.5%. Stockton, CA down 40%. San Francisco down 15%.
To compare a cherry picked market: New York, average price downtown up 10% from last year. Median price in the Village up 63% from last year. Also, NYC Home Prices Outpace Rest of Country as Avg Prices Continue to Rise.
How about you compare the number of businesses leaving the various states. That might be a good idea. Then again, maybe not.
Could you please use your brain a little bit? Not a lot. Not so much that it actually hurts, but just a little tiny bit.
Here's a fact for you: Regardless of whether the BMGF invested in those companies or not, Eni, Royal Dutch Shell, etc. would all still be there sucking oil out of the ground. Do you know why? Because you want it. You and your family. Your country men. Even Dick Stallman wants that oil so bad it gets him all fuzzy inside.
If you think it's so terrible, then convince all your friends to stop using oil. Sure your quality of life will rapidly fall off the bottom of the graph, but at least all those EVIL!!!! corporations wouldn't be selling you their product any longer.
How about you grow up a little and stop flinging poo like a monkey. Exxon has a market cap of $466 billion dollars. Chevron is $204 billion. Royal Dutch Shell $100 billion. Those three alone come in at three quarters of a trillion dollars. Which gives BMGF's investment a whole 0.07% (i.e. 7/100ths of a percent) ownership stake. With that kind of control of those companies it totally makes sense to blame them for everything bad that happens.
At least the BMGF is taking some portion of the profits from those companies and doing direct good with it. What are you doing? Beyond bitching on slashdot I mean.
No it's not about image (well for some it may be, but the same can be said about anything.) I'm saying it's about more than just getting energy. For some people, they know that their grid is supplied primarily via coal power. Which, even with all the technology available to us, is still quite dirty. I know it may come as a surprise to you, but some people prefer not to shit in their drinking water, both literally and analogously. Maybe they're willing to pay a little extra to reduce their impact.
I'm not sure what you are saying in your second paragraph. I don't think it has anything to do with Don's article. You might want to take the time to read it before you start blathering about what assume it says. (I'll give you a hint: it doesn't make the claim that it takes more energy to build a solar PV system than you get from that same system. Because, you know, that's not true either.)
The point of the linked analysis was that for a given number of dollars you can generate more power via other mechanisms than you can with solar PV. Then concludes that therefore it is a net energy loss because less is generated than could have been for the same money. Which is false. A person buying a $10,000 solar PV system isn't cutting down their energy usage because it costs more for them, they're using the same amount of energy, just paying more.
He's right in that, for a lot of people, it's not economically sensible. But he's wrong in making any kind of connection between the generating costs of various sources and a gain or loss of actual energy.
They're not energy sinks. They're financial sinks.
The analysis makes the premise that every penny spent on energy will be spent on energy regardless of source. This is false. Some people are willing to pay extra for energy from a specific source that they value more. Think of it as a sunglasses budget: someone might spend $300 for a pair of hand made Italian sunglasses, but if they couldn't get those specific hand made Italian glasses, they won't go and buy 100 pair of the $3.00 special on the counter at Seven Eleven.