Oh, everyone would attempt to do something, just not so radical as Ron. Lucky for us, not everyone is so fringe, so his ideas wouldn't pass Congress.
For all the libertarians out there, if you want to try something like Ron Paul's grand libertarian experiment, you're going to need to point to some evidence that it'll work. So pick some things you want (e.g.: no public education, no income tax, abortion illegal, etc) and then check around the world and see where countries match up to your ideal policy. When I do that with the Paul policies, the closer the match, the worse the result. I would not want to live anywhere that implements his policies as a whole. I do give him credit for being against the Bush invasions though, and living in a country that didn't kill foreigners so much would be nice.
BUT can anyone point out a single other candidate that has a plan in plain, simple terms like his to actually do something?
I take that to mean do something about the deficit. Barack Obama has an even simpler plan - get more people working with his jobs bill, raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, reduce spending on wars and cut oil subsidies.
The current deficit comes from 3 main reasons:
- massive unemployment and recession caused by unregulated and unaccountable bankers
- the Bush tax cuts (now the Obama tax cuts, since he renewed them)
- very expensive wars
My solution to each in turn would be:
- stimulus (to help the current situation) and return of glass steagall (to prevent the next banking crisis)
- return to '90s income tax rates
- get out of Iraq and Afghanistan I'd add:
- treat capital gains as regular income (why do we value *having* money more than *working*?)
- breaking up the large banks
- serious invesitgation and indictment of fraudulent bankers
- option for all to buy into medicare and allow medicare to be able to negotiate prices
- publicly funded elections (if it costs us $1Billion or even $10Billion, does anyone think that's more than what we lose to corruption caused by beholden politicians?)
What do you mean by that? If you're just pointing out that you need more than a majority in the Senate, then yeah, absolutely right. The Republicans block just about any bill introduced by a Democrat. It would take 60 reliable (and that word is key) Democrats to overcome that obstruction, or a change in Senate rules.
Pick a topic - wall street regulation, consumer protections or stimulus versus austerity. You'll find one party is unified against the regulations and the consumer protections and wants austerity (i.e. anti-stimulus). The other party is split, so even with them having a majority there is at most weak improvement, but at least it can block much of the bad changes the former party would enact. So I reject the idea that they're both equally bad. Work to improve the half-good party and fight against the almost-all-bad party.
Agreed on the 1%. Many of the 99% do understand what they're opposing. It's just that they're a spontaneous, leaderless group. If it does gain a figurehead, that will likely focus the message. It does seem that the tea party was funded and co-opted by the 1%, and that could happen to this group as well.
How about people who don't think things through shouldn't post, even anonymously?
The small text is already at overwhelming levels, and I seriously doubt there is a person in this thread that read every word of a mobile contract before signing. And even if we did waste hours reading (or days understanding) the contract, carriers could just keep adding to it until it's impenetrable again.
If they're changing the terms in the middle of my 2 year contract, I think I could cancel service without penalty. I bought the phone and signed up for 2 years when I was offered an unlimited hotspot plan. Yes, I've been paying $30/month for the hotspot, since the day I switched to Sprint.
Maybe you didn't think it through, but if you meant your subject to suggest that death threats to climate scientists is fair play, that's really twisted.
Turnabout is fair play only if you ignore the human beings (scientists) that are the targets and are just rooting for your "team". You might want to give some thought to how your "team" came to be on their side of the issue.
Another weatherman who thinks what he's doing is climatology. He's a little like a 2D character in Flatland that doesn't understand 3D. I hope someone takes him up on his wager, as long as there's a disinterested 3rd party to judge the result and hold the cash.
"Eating someone's lunch" is a rather ambiguous phrase, so I don't know why you're being so contrary. Hell, I even qualified it with "starting to". If all you're saying is that Android's rise has hurt MS & RIM more than Apple, well then we have no disagreement. But I suggest that most of those lost Windows Phone and Blackberry users would have gotten an iPhone if Android hadn't come on so strong. Which of these trend lines do you think Apple would prefer to have? Android has not leveled off. In fact, Nielsen shows it increasing.
Google is starting to eat Apple's lunch on mobile phones and will do so on the desktop/laptop/tablet if they try to exert such tight control over what their users do on their larger devices. They got away with it on the mobile phones because their interface was so far ahead of anyone else when they got started.
I'm not saying some people prefer strictly passive TV, but there are lots of examples of on demand content, in wide use and growing - Netflix, Hulu, cable STBs, TiVo, etc. I don't know why you think that's unproven. I'm sure YouTube will start looking more and more like what you describe, as an option on GoogleTV.
I really don't think using GoogleTV (at least for simple things like using Netflix) is any tougher than using the STB from the cable company to get programming on demand.
Considering that it'll have third party apps on it, it's very close to that "plain old computer" you're asking about, though it's a bit limited for now. But since it has the power to do 1080p video output, it's probably good enough for most things for as long as the 1080p TV is not obsolete. What it won't do in its current implementation is keep up with the PS3 and the like on gaming. Maybe there'll be a PS4 w/GoogleTV though.
Google must be considering making it look like any Chrome browser out there. If they don't do that, it's probably come down to either:
- it's hard to do. maybe they'd need Adobe cooperation to disguise the Flash plugin for GoogleTV. Adobe may not want to upset content providers. - they're afraid of confronting content providers, who may retaliate by blocking all Chrome browsers or switch to Silverlight, or...?
Hopefully some hacking will resolve the issues. I like the interface. A big plus with GoogleTV compared to others is the elegant interface that comes up on top of the normal TV picture. It doesn't require switching to another TV input. It's always a quick single button click away.
I seem to remember discussion about a big problem with the Android Market being that each app seller had to work out the international tax issues for each country they were selling to. If so, that's a huge problem and maybe Amazon has an opening if they take care of all those messy details like Apple does.
Note that this has nothing to do with either Nokia or Motorola phones themselves, but the network infrastructure business. There are a lot of pieces between the handsets such as antennas, switches, media gateways, routers, etc. That's the part that's being acquired by Nokia Siemens Networks (not Nokia proper, the handset manufacturer).
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, everyone would attempt to do something, just not so radical as Ron. Lucky for us, not everyone is so fringe, so his ideas wouldn't pass Congress.
For all the libertarians out there, if you want to try something like Ron Paul's grand libertarian experiment, you're going to need to point to some evidence that it'll work. So pick some things you want (e.g.: no public education, no income tax, abortion illegal, etc) and then check around the world and see where countries match up to your ideal policy. When I do that with the Paul policies, the closer the match, the worse the result. I would not want to live anywhere that implements his policies as a whole. I do give him credit for being against the Bush invasions though, and living in a country that didn't kill foreigners so much would be nice.
BUT can anyone point out a single other candidate that has a plan in plain, simple terms like his to actually do something?
I take that to mean do something about the deficit. Barack Obama has an even simpler plan - get more people working with his jobs bill, raise taxes slightly on the wealthy, reduce spending on wars and cut oil subsidies.
The current deficit comes from 3 main reasons:
- massive unemployment and recession caused by unregulated and unaccountable bankers
- the Bush tax cuts (now the Obama tax cuts, since he renewed them)
- very expensive wars
My solution to each in turn would be:
- stimulus (to help the current situation) and return of glass steagall (to prevent the next banking crisis)
- return to '90s income tax rates
- get out of Iraq and Afghanistan
I'd add:
- treat capital gains as regular income (why do we value *having* money more than *working*?)
- breaking up the large banks
- serious invesitgation and indictment of fraudulent bankers
- option for all to buy into medicare and allow medicare to be able to negotiate prices
- publicly funded elections (if it costs us $1Billion or even $10Billion, does anyone think that's more than what we lose to corruption caused by beholden politicians?)
What do you mean by that? If you're just pointing out that you need more than a majority in the Senate, then yeah, absolutely right. The Republicans block just about any bill introduced by a Democrat. It would take 60 reliable (and that word is key) Democrats to overcome that obstruction, or a change in Senate rules.
Pick a topic - wall street regulation, consumer protections or stimulus versus austerity. You'll find one party is unified against the regulations and the consumer protections and wants austerity (i.e. anti-stimulus). The other party is split, so even with them having a majority there is at most weak improvement, but at least it can block much of the bad changes the former party would enact. So I reject the idea that they're both equally bad. Work to improve the half-good party and fight against the almost-all-bad party.
Agreed on the 1%. Many of the 99% do understand what they're opposing. It's just that they're a spontaneous, leaderless group. If it does gain a figurehead, that will likely focus the message. It does seem that the tea party was funded and co-opted by the 1%, and that could happen to this group as well.
How about people who don't think things through shouldn't post, even anonymously?
The small text is already at overwhelming levels, and I seriously doubt there is a person in this thread that read every word of a mobile contract before signing. And even if we did waste hours reading (or days understanding) the contract, carriers could just keep adding to it until it's impenetrable again.
If they're changing the terms in the middle of my 2 year contract, I think I could cancel service without penalty. I bought the phone and signed up for 2 years when I was offered an unlimited hotspot plan. Yes, I've been paying $30/month for the hotspot, since the day I switched to Sprint.
You've both written about forced sterilization. You want me to believe you're "not pushing for it", but don't give Mr. Holdren the same courtesy.
That's odd...most atheists I know don't react violently to mentions of god...they relish a good debate on the god hypothesis.
And since you just mentioned it, does that mean you're "pushing" it too. And that you should be an unemployed pariah?
Specifically the little bits of money that go to science grants, not the piles of money of the energy companies? Does that really make sense to you?
Maybe you didn't think it through, but if you meant your subject to suggest that death threats to climate scientists is fair play, that's really twisted.
Turnabout is fair play only if you ignore the human beings (scientists) that are the targets and are just rooting for your "team". You might want to give some thought to how your "team" came to be on their side of the issue.
I can flip that coin over and over, and with each flip my confidence in the assessment grows stronger.
Another weatherman who thinks what he's doing is climatology. He's a little like a 2D character in Flatland that doesn't understand 3D. I hope someone takes him up on his wager, as long as there's a disinterested 3rd party to judge the result and hold the cash.
"Eating someone's lunch" is a rather ambiguous phrase, so I don't know why you're being so contrary. Hell, I even qualified it with "starting to". If all you're saying is that Android's rise has hurt MS & RIM more than Apple, well then we have no disagreement. But I suggest that most of those lost Windows Phone and Blackberry users would have gotten an iPhone if Android hadn't come on so strong. Which of these trend lines do you think Apple would prefer to have? Android has not leveled off. In fact, Nielsen shows it increasing.
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/04/iphone-continues-to-hold-off-android-in-u-s-smartphone-market-share/
Google is starting to eat Apple's lunch on mobile phones and will do so on the desktop/laptop/tablet if they try to exert such tight control over what their users do on their larger devices. They got away with it on the mobile phones because their interface was so far ahead of anyone else when they got started.
I'm not saying some people prefer strictly passive TV, but there are lots of examples of on demand content, in wide use and growing - Netflix, Hulu, cable STBs, TiVo, etc. I don't know why you think that's unproven. I'm sure YouTube will start looking more and more like what you describe, as an option on GoogleTV.
So are all the reports of blocking despite user agent changes wrong? Aren't the sites looking at the Flash version now? I'd be glad to be corrected.
I really don't think using GoogleTV (at least for simple things like using Netflix) is any tougher than using the STB from the cable company to get programming on demand.
Just buy a used one...they'll have those old ports. Lots of people sell older TVs to upgrade to get the biggest and best. Check craigslist.
Considering that it'll have third party apps on it, it's very close to that "plain old computer" you're asking about, though it's a bit limited for now. But since it has the power to do 1080p video output, it's probably good enough for most things for as long as the 1080p TV is not obsolete. What it won't do in its current implementation is keep up with the PS3 and the like on gaming. Maybe there'll be a PS4 w/GoogleTV though.
Google must be considering making it look like any Chrome browser out there. If they don't do that, it's probably come down to either:
- it's hard to do. maybe they'd need Adobe cooperation to disguise the Flash plugin for GoogleTV. Adobe may not want to upset content providers.
- they're afraid of confronting content providers, who may retaliate by blocking all Chrome browsers or switch to Silverlight, or...?
Hopefully some hacking will resolve the issues. I like the interface. A big plus with GoogleTV compared to others is the elegant interface that comes up on top of the normal TV picture. It doesn't require switching to another TV input. It's always a quick single button click away.
I seem to remember discussion about a big problem with the Android Market being that each app seller had to work out the international tax issues for each country they were selling to. If so, that's a huge problem and maybe Amazon has an opening if they take care of all those messy details like Apple does.
This deal is only about network infrastructure, not handsets.
Note that this has nothing to do with either Nokia or Motorola phones themselves, but the network infrastructure business. There are a lot of pieces between the handsets such as antennas, switches, media gateways, routers, etc. That's the part that's being acquired by Nokia Siemens Networks (not Nokia proper, the handset manufacturer).