So the big question : Why do you feel the need for government-backed violence to implement an idea that you say would win on it's own ???
Because there is already government backed violence that would directly prevent it from ever happening, and there has to be specific work to abolish that. Since that work must be done anyway, then why not pass the obvious fix concurrently?
An astute reader would conclude that you did not answer the question.
IF you know better how to implement healthcare, there is nothing stopping you from doing it. Nothing stopping the democrats. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing so.
Given that, I conclude that the reason you want government backing is the only possible reason : that you want to use the government's violence (because that's what laws are) to force a substandard solution on everyone.
You have not answered this criticism.
Why do you want to harm so many people with sub-standard care?
Since my claim is, obviously, that the proposed government care is less efficient than what we have now (not at all a big claim), I have a question for you. Let's assume that I am evil and do indeed want to force substandard care on the, what, 1/8th of the country that is not currently covered (and is still not covered under the plan, but hey, let's forget that too). So my question to you is.
Yes, I want substandard care in some people, because they're here illegally, because they never cared about health, or preferred a bigger tv to healthcare (which I think could be a valid choice). In short, I find those people should only get the bare minimum care (care for any life-threatening condition, nothing else).
But why do you want to force substandard care on all Americans ?
Personally I think everyone should be forced to take care of a drug addict for a month in his/her life. It would make people realise just how bad the consequences are of trying to care for someone who doesn't want to be cared for.
First answer this question : why do you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you ?
And second question : why do you expect others to accept your claims without any references ? An interesting discussion would be : what does the US spend money on, what does Canada spend healthcare money on ? Which patients don't get treated & why, and do you agree with those options ? If so, why/why not ?
But there's one huge argument that I have...
IF you (or democrats, or...) TRULY have a better way to organise healthcare for all concerned. You are perfectly free to implement this in the form of a healthcare provider company per state.
IF your idea is indeed better, the market will steadily transfer ever more Americans as customers of that company. IF you truly have a better way, it won't take all that long until you indeed have all Americans covered.
And since you say this can be done for less money than is currently paid, this company can make a very, very nice profit (you say this company could earn half the American healthcare budget PER YEAR, dear God that's a LOT of money).
The only reason to want government into it, is for the ability to use physical force. The ability to use taxes for overspending. The ability to force yourself on everyone else.
So the big question : Why do you feel the need for government-backed violence to implement an idea that you say would win on it's own ???
I can think of only one reason : you don't have any good ideas, but you want to force others to live as you want them to, using government taxes, police, even guns if necessary. I am fervently against that, for obvious reasons.
If you're planning to use the word "conspiracy", don't even bother answering.
And btw : look at this post, not a single insult. You might want to try the same once in a while.
A wikipedia reference that you could very well have edited yourself. A page, where on the discussion page, users get scolded for holding political views (one might even say that makes that page racist). I'm impressed.
Btw : Mind if I introduce you to the miracle of html ? Google this for once : <a href="http://">. See ? It works like this. Makes life much easier for us "not only ignorant and wrong, but proud of it" normal people.
You must be a democrat, because not only do you scold people for holding political views, but you actually think that makes you a better, smarter and morally superior person. You actually delude yourself into thinking this is going to win the argument for you.
Perhaps some actual data is in order ? I mean it's a great claim you make:
They do more than twice as much with less. If we went with something closer to what every other civilized nation on the planet has, we'll cover more people with better care for a decrease in spending.
I hear the same about washing machines on tv. It has about the same amount of truth.
How do you figure it is inflated bigger than 2009? Are houses selling for more than they were in 2009? If you want me to believe an extreme assertion such as that, you are going to have to provide a citation. Or are you trying to say that the underlying value of real estate is actually declining over time? Again, cite would be needed.
So after we have a *crash* that was caused by wrongly assuming house values always raise, you're scolding me for not accepting that as an axiom ?
It is nicely disguised, smack in the middle of your argument, but as any astute reader will agree, your entire argument is a house of cards, and the (proven wrong by the very recession you're trying to fix) assumption that house prices always rise is the bottom card, now kicked out from under it. Of course you disguise this in a little sentence quickly passed by in the middle of a 3-page argument.
I'm sure Obambi could use you in his economists department. Why not go interview ? Or are you already gainfully employed by our "benevolent" "leader" ?
There are several weaknesses. Note how he says something about an external verifier, which is delay-sensitive. Note how for the first 2 steps he keeps repeating "malware may of course interfere but this doesn't matter because", and then he stops considering malware interference. That's because at those points, malware interference would be fatal.
Of course, malware could simply take over the entire procedure, computing the keyed hash itself (a process which can run in a lot less memory : it doesn't actually index memory, it just generates the pseudo-random bytes directly, then it sends back the correct keyed has).
Calculating the entire hash in the processor cache will let this method outperform the checksummer by a large margin, meaning it can send the data back after any chosen interval.
(and before you say "keyed", obviously the encryptor needs to know the key)
In practice you'll also find that large amounts of ram space cannot be swapped out : BIOS, some bits of the operating system,... There's even memory locations that aren't in the memory map, but are nevertheless backed by physical ram (in a pci card or...), and thus won't be included in any (sane) scan. Surely one can find some place where a virus could squeeze in.
So, we had two choices (as far as I can tell). We could have let everything fail, bunker up for 6 months, and hope there was a country left after everything readjusted itself.
The alternative is to re-inflate the bubble, or at least inflate another bubble and have a bigger crash a year later.
So are we now going to have a yearly bailout ? All Obambi did is reinflate the same housing bubble, only he inflated it bigger than it was in 2009.
So it's perfectly clear what is going to happen. Well, there is perhaps the small advantage that investers know now that however bad the US behaves, it is still fiscally (and I know how baffling and idiotic this sounds) the best behaved country around the world. But I seriously doubt that's going to make much of a difference, and I expect many will settle for China's securities.
We have no choice in the matter, re-inflating the bubble can only be done with an ever-bigger money infusion by the government. Since that money resource is limited (see zimbabwe), it's going to fail.
So we have actually *zero* choice in the matter, and we WILL end up here:
We could have let everything fail, bunker up for 6 months, and hope there was a country left after everything readjusted itself.
The only question is how deep the abyss is going to be. Everytime you "try to moderate" (ie. reinflate the bubble) the abyss gets deeper and deeper. And eventually we *will* fall in.
Obama's hope is simple : he hopes it's the next (preferably republican) president that see the country fall in. What's your excuse ?
Tell me what you would have done that would have magically allowed the bubble to deflate without any loss of production or jobs.
Is that what you expect government to do ? Can't have anyone have the least bit of inconvenience for even short periods of time ?
Besides, if you believe Obama's prediction. "Letting everything fall apart" would have lead to 9.5% joblessness. That sounds, today, like a pretty sweet deal ?
Or do you think Obambi's economic predictions are bullshit ?
That malware will not be able to -> decrypt your files, as the TPM will not release the key to non-whitelisted software (it can only delete them, neither reading nor modification would be possible on properly encrypted files) -> talk to your mailserver (which will ask your computer what software it's running, which your computer cannot lie about) -> compromise any software. At least not without that software losing the ability to read it's own files or talk over the network, which ought to be a pretty blatant tipoff, no ?
You ask, We provide. That's just about as failed as it gets.
Basically the democrats and obama said "give us $1000 billion or we'l have 9% unempoyment". So we gave the democrats their money, they gave it to bank executives, and now unemployment is at 9.5% and rising fast. Needless to say democrats already spent more than $1000 billion.
Obviously you're a democrat. So please explain how any of this money spending could possibly come as a surprise ?
Of course, there's no shortage of assholes lying about this. Note also how this ethnic cleansing happens everywhere you find muslims, and everywhere the same reason is given for racist genocides : islam.
It seems to me that the health care bill would double health care spending (medicare + social security) at least. Unfortunately that means it would rise to over 100% of the budget, leaving no room for anything else. Literally nothing. Obama wouldn't be able to wipe his ass without raising taxes.
Oh, is *that* why we didn't get involved until we were directly attacked? Huh. How about that.
There's a hell of a lot of historians that argue the US didn't react militarily to allies getting invaded because a "certain party" was rooting for the "champion of the poor*" in that war. For the socialists (to be exact the "national" socialists)
* yes it's a reference to adolf hitler, you try posting about WWII without mentioning him
So now we've bailed out the banks, we saw the economy crash into a depression, and worse news is coming every month. Yes the current government has done really, really well.
I don't think I should be asking this question but : what's next ?
You're like the intellectual denying that the world has refused to act according to plan. The banks were bailed out, and the situation did not rectify itself, despite predictions of "the best" economists. So we are in a bad situation, economists are now after the fact telling us the bailout worsened the situation and the government (obama) is preparing to follow their next suggestion. In the meantime, banks are still going broke, few recoveries are seen, joblessness is still increasing, and the situation is actually worse than what democrats predicted it would be without the bailout. In other words, if you believe democrat's predictions, they created this crisis.
And yet here you are, arguing that the tactic did work, because that's what economists said. That facts don't agree, doesn't seem to bother you at all. That's assuming you're not arguing that making another 100 billion trillion millionthousands dollars (let's not pretend the actual number matters when it's that huge) debt on future generations (health care) is a good idea. That's after democrats derided Bush for not fixing the deficit.
Let's not pretend you're in any way rational. Let's just see the situation for what it is.
Can't remember who said it but, "Liberals (Democrats) are tolerant of everything except intolerance".
Riiiiiiight. Do you seriously believe that ?
Let's see, don't even do this. Just imagine it. See what your own opinion is about the matter. You walk into a democrat on the street. Just any democrat activist. Anyone at all.
Now tell him that you don't believe in global warming.
So what is your imagination telling you happens next ?
Is it a reasoned discussion ? Didn't think so.
If democrats were truly "tolerant of everything except intolerance" they'd out-suicide-bomb the muslims.
You're assuming they want peace in the first place. Just as food for thought, here's a (currently quite popular) line from their "faith" :
"We will win, because you love life and we love death"
In their history you will find plenty of victories who embody this principle, where millions of people, muslims and their "enemies" alike (who often did no wrong at all, google "khaybar" for example), were exterminated merely for domination over a land that was immediately transformed, often by that very slaughter, into empty dead desolate ruins. Reading the records of muslim wars can bring one to tears, due to the tactics leading to constant exterminations of muslims and their "enemy" du jour. The mass-sacrifices and bullshit wars that transformed dozens of prosperous nations into the deserts they are today. Before islam, North Africa was the breadbasket of Europe, the middle east was the richest region of the world, with the very highest living standards, and India was a huge empire, that had known almost constant peace for millenia.
Today... muslims are constantly comitting ethnic cleansing against blacks in a north african sudan, and neighboring countries, countires so poor, even the rich have trouble feeding their babies. The middle east has only a singular richess : bullets and slavery and Pakistan and Bangladesh are known solely for hunger, disease and worse.
There's a reason the middle east is called the "graveyard of empires", and muslims are but the vermin attempting to live of a dead carcas, destroying everything that remains.
Scenario: TPM/DRM in full effect. Whitelists-only software allowed (let's assume for a nanosecond that somehow magically OSS will end up on that whitelist), whitelist held centrally to avoid tampering.
Just so you know, open source software WAS on the whitelist. And everybody who wanted could start his/her own whitelist.
There are NO usage restrictions resulting from palladium (except for software : lying, either to the user, or over the network (can be disabled, but obviously the remote side will know it's disabled), about which software you're running will no longer be possible. That's the ONLY restriction)
The entire thing is implemented in hardware, with keys inaccessible to all software, so what exactly would "usage restriction cracks" be able to do ? I'm pretty sure this sort of software cannot physically modify computer chips (actually we don't have any technology that can do that, only the top silicon layer can be somewhat modified in some cases with even the best electron microscopes).
Which sort of invalidates (mostly) your argument. Cracks wouldn't appear since they're theoretically impossible to create. And every site on the internet would be able to tell you your computer has been hacked, or not, for 100% sure.
We are not groups. We are individuals which means we ALL think differently, even if we do share the same label
Why do you think democrats hate you, and find it acceptable to have openly discriminatory behavior against you ?
The difference between republican groups and democrat groups is staggering. In any democrat meeting you get personally attacked for disagreeing on whether global warming should be capitalized or not.
In a republican meeting : you say "I don't believe in global warming" - and nobody doubts the marriage status of your parents. Instead "why not ?" and an interesting discussion ensues. you say "I believe nuclear power is the solution to global warming" - and yet nobody suggest you are paid by the evil industry. In fact, even if you ARE paid by the nuclear industry, they're still hearing you out you say "we can't drill out on california's coast" and they hear you out.
It really doesn't matter where you're coming from, even seemingly openly communist ideas are considered
Any standpoint can get reasoned discussion in a republican meeting. I have yet to visit a democratic meeting where even minor deviations from dogma are tolerated.
One thing I seriously wonder, is how democrats DARE to suggest they are somehow more tolerant than anyone else, on any point at all. It surely is not the case here.
Democrats tolerate exactly one singular opinion, always in flux, always with perfectly innocent victims (no matter how many and how constantly those victims hurt others) and ever-changing villains who copulate constantly with satan and are deserving of execution-on-the-spot.
Republicans live in a changing world, with changing understanding of the world, with many ideas, where everybody is trying to do his best for himself and his community, and where that behavior is perfectly okay.
Individual republicans regularly have quite strong opinions on all sorts of matters, especially matters that affect them. These ideas, unlike in the democrat camp, do not match. Which is, I guess, exactly why the republican party is so tolerant.
Which is why whitelists would go a long way towards solving most of these "problems". The problem isn't windows. the problem is that people keep using terrible strategies.
The last enforced whitelist model tried was palladium, or it's more general brother TPM. And that was rejected because application whitelists 1) don't work for open source software, which is fundamentally less capable of resisting treason 2) they are trivial to use for DRM enforcement (esp. if you're running hardware-assisted code whitelists) 3) if code whitelists guarantees are extended over the network (ie. remote attestation) you get... or rather you lose the right to read 4) same as 3, except with the government in charge of the keys, which is worse
In other words, almost nobody wants a working security model for content publishers, or software developers, or even enterprises (ie. leak protection type stuff).
Security, especially working security brings a lot of disadvantages.
I tried and tried to come up with a rotation routine. It took me years. Eventually I got hold of some math books that mentioned polar coordinates and so I calculated back and forth with immensely long trigonometric routines, not even using arctangent. I basically started with x = a cos t (equiv for y) and simply had forward and backward lookup tables (and fixed point math allowing direct indexing into an array) (if you have 256 values for sin and cos each in those tables it's more than accurate enough for 320x200 graphics. Even on 640x480 it was hardly noticeable). Need a massive speedup ? Change that lookup table into 64 entries.
Lookup tables were a solution for several problems. Taught me the value of symbolically isolating variables in mathematical expressions.
Oddly enough, the main problem was not speed, the main problem was long-term loss of accuracy (be re-using calculation results). I eventually got that solved : simply restart entirely from the initial model for every frame. Hardly any computational cost, and accuracy demands go down significantly.
I wrote a lot of games and quite a few demos too. Not as advanced as those I found on BBS'es because well, try understanding mandelbrot without knowing about complex numbers. I actually tried several values for i, obviously none worked. But I didn't know anyone who could explain me what was wrong. Heh, it's funny when I think back to it.
I've read parts of it. And it's basically a final surrender of all sovereignty of all European states in favor of the comission. As of the date the lisbon treaty went into effect there are no longer any European sovereign states.
Hell, even American states have more theoretical power than a European -supposedly sovereign- nation. In theory an American state could leave the union. That power was surrendered with the lisbon treaty.
Democratic legitimacy ? You've got to be kidding. Ever visited Brussels ? It will not take you long to see how blatantly abusive the "fonctionnaires" are to the local population. If they are democratic, they're surely managing to hide any lingering responsability feelings.
Perhaps I'm reading the treaty wrong. I sure hope so.
The way I read the treaty, I interpreted it's demands more along the lines that parliament *has* to know *beforehand* what the comission is doing.
And parliament gets to vote on it. And advise on it.
Advise on a law after voting on it ? Strange. You'd think the vote would be the end of it. Of course, that advise makes more sense once you read the full text, and find out there are still procedures for the comission to ignore any no vote from parliament.
Same goes for the budget. Parliament gets to see it. Parliament gets to vote on it. The comission gets to ignore the vote.
Same with the "reject a comissioner" power. Yes they can do so *once*. Then the member state has to "reconsider" the appointment, but it is entirely free to send the same person again. This time parliament can not refuse. This has actually happened already.
I still love delphi. Talk about simply starting a program and getting it running, Delphi was heaven on earth. Yes, it can't do everything (though it has winapi support that's good enough to write even things like filesystem drivers or firewalls in Delphi), but it was such a pleasure to get a small application running quickly.
I still don't understand why academics have such hate for that language. And the language they mostly replace it with - java - is not better, it's a lot worse.
The object pascal compiler was a pleasure to use compared to today's clunky and slow-as-hell compilers. People underestimate the advantages of a hugely fast compiler.
Slashdot Mirror
So the big question : Why do you feel the need for government-backed violence to implement an idea that you say would win on it's own ???
Because there is already government backed violence that would directly prevent it from ever happening, and there has to be specific work to abolish that. Since that work must be done anyway, then why not pass the obvious fix concurrently?
An astute reader would conclude that you did not answer the question.
IF you know better how to implement healthcare, there is nothing stopping you from doing it. Nothing stopping the democrats. There is nothing stopping anyone from doing so.
Given that, I conclude that the reason you want government backing is the only possible reason : that you want to use the government's violence (because that's what laws are) to force a substandard solution on everyone.
You have not answered this criticism.
Why do you want to harm so many people with sub-standard care?
Since my claim is, obviously, that the proposed government care is less efficient than what we have now (not at all a big claim), I have a question for you. Let's assume that I am evil and do indeed want to force substandard care on the, what, 1/8th of the country that is not currently covered (and is still not covered under the plan, but hey, let's forget that too). So my question to you is.
Yes, I want substandard care in some people, because they're here illegally, because they never cared about health, or preferred a bigger tv to healthcare (which I think could be a valid choice). In short, I find those people should only get the bare minimum care (care for any life-threatening condition, nothing else).
But why do you want to force substandard care on all Americans ?
Personally I think everyone should be forced to take care of a drug addict for a month in his/her life. It would make people realise just how bad the consequences are of trying to care for someone who doesn't want to be cared for.
First answer this question : why do you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you ?
And second question : why do you expect others to accept your claims without any references ? An interesting discussion would be : what does the US spend money on, what does Canada spend healthcare money on ? Which patients don't get treated & why, and do you agree with those options ? If so, why/why not ?
But there's one huge argument that I have ...
IF you (or democrats, or ...) TRULY have a better way to organise healthcare for all concerned. You are perfectly free to implement this in the form of a healthcare provider company per state.
IF your idea is indeed better, the market will steadily transfer ever more Americans as customers of that company. IF you truly have a better way, it won't take all that long until you indeed have all Americans covered.
And since you say this can be done for less money than is currently paid, this company can make a very, very nice profit (you say this company could earn half the American healthcare budget PER YEAR, dear God that's a LOT of money).
The only reason to want government into it, is for the ability to use physical force. The ability to use taxes for overspending. The ability to force yourself on everyone else.
So the big question : Why do you feel the need for government-backed violence to implement an idea that you say would win on it's own ???
I can think of only one reason : you don't have any good ideas, but you want to force others to live as you want them to, using government taxes, police, even guns if necessary. I am fervently against that, for obvious reasons.
If you're planning to use the word "conspiracy", don't even bother answering.
And btw : look at this post, not a single insult. You might want to try the same once in a while.
Oh wauw wow and mammy !
A wikipedia reference that you could very well have edited yourself. A page, where on the discussion page, users get scolded for holding political views (one might even say that makes that page racist). I'm impressed.
Btw : Mind if I introduce you to the miracle of html ? Google this for once : <a href="http://">. See ? It works like this. Makes life much easier for us "not only ignorant and wrong, but proud of it" normal people.
You must be a democrat, because not only do you scold people for holding political views, but you actually think that makes you a better, smarter and morally superior person. You actually delude yourself into thinking this is going to win the argument for you.
not really. 40%+ of new electric power is wind
And how much baseload power does it replace ? 0.1% ? 0.01% ?
Do tell.
Perhaps some actual data is in order ? I mean it's a great claim you make :
They do more than twice as much with less. If we went with something closer to what every other civilized nation on the planet has, we'll cover more people with better care for a decrease in spending.
I hear the same about washing machines on tv. It has about the same amount of truth.
*sigh*
How do you figure it is inflated bigger than 2009? Are houses selling for more than they were in 2009? If you want me to believe an extreme assertion such as that, you are going to have to provide a citation. Or are you trying to say that the underlying value of real estate is actually declining over time? Again, cite would be needed.
So after we have a *crash* that was caused by wrongly assuming house values always raise, you're scolding me for not accepting that as an axiom ?
It is nicely disguised, smack in the middle of your argument, but as any astute reader will agree, your entire argument is a house of cards, and the (proven wrong by the very recession you're trying to fix) assumption that house prices always rise is the bottom card, now kicked out from under it. Of course you disguise this in a little sentence quickly passed by in the middle of a 3-page argument.
I'm sure Obambi could use you in his economists department. Why not go interview ? Or are you already gainfully employed by our "benevolent" "leader" ?
There are several weaknesses. Note how he says something about an external verifier, which is delay-sensitive. Note how for the first 2 steps he keeps repeating "malware may of course interfere but this doesn't matter because", and then he stops considering malware interference. That's because at those points, malware interference would be fatal.
Of course, malware could simply take over the entire procedure, computing the keyed hash itself (a process which can run in a lot less memory : it doesn't actually index memory, it just generates the pseudo-random bytes directly, then it sends back the correct keyed has).
Calculating the entire hash in the processor cache will let this method outperform the checksummer by a large margin, meaning it can send the data back after any chosen interval.
(and before you say "keyed", obviously the encryptor needs to know the key)
In practice you'll also find that large amounts of ram space cannot be swapped out : BIOS, some bits of the operating system, ... There's even memory locations that aren't in the memory map, but are nevertheless backed by physical ram (in a pci card or ...), and thus won't be included in any (sane) scan. Surely one can find some place where a virus could squeeze in.
So, we had two choices (as far as I can tell). We could have let everything fail, bunker up for 6 months, and hope there was a country left after everything readjusted itself.
The alternative is to re-inflate the bubble, or at least inflate another bubble and have a bigger crash a year later.
So are we now going to have a yearly bailout ? All Obambi did is reinflate the same housing bubble, only he inflated it bigger than it was in 2009.
So it's perfectly clear what is going to happen. Well, there is perhaps the small advantage that investers know now that however bad the US behaves, it is still fiscally (and I know how baffling and idiotic this sounds) the best behaved country around the world. But I seriously doubt that's going to make much of a difference, and I expect many will settle for China's securities.
We have no choice in the matter, re-inflating the bubble can only be done with an ever-bigger money infusion by the government. Since that money resource is limited (see zimbabwe), it's going to fail.
So we have actually *zero* choice in the matter, and we WILL end up here :
We could have let everything fail, bunker up for 6 months, and hope there was a country left after everything readjusted itself.
The only question is how deep the abyss is going to be. Everytime you "try to moderate" (ie. reinflate the bubble) the abyss gets deeper and deeper. And eventually we *will* fall in.
Obama's hope is simple : he hopes it's the next (preferably republican) president that see the country fall in. What's your excuse ?
Tell me what you would have done that would have magically allowed the bubble to deflate without any loss of production or jobs.
Is that what you expect government to do ? Can't have anyone have the least bit of inconvenience for even short periods of time ?
Besides, if you believe Obama's prediction. "Letting everything fall apart" would have lead to 9.5% joblessness. That sounds, today, like a pretty sweet deal ?
Or do you think Obambi's economic predictions are bullshit ?
That malware will not be able to
-> decrypt your files, as the TPM will not release the key to non-whitelisted software (it can only delete them, neither reading nor modification would be possible on properly encrypted files)
-> talk to your mailserver (which will ask your computer what software it's running, which your computer cannot lie about)
-> compromise any software. At least not without that software losing the ability to read it's own files or talk over the network, which ought to be a pretty blatant tipoff, no ?
Could you please read up on what a TPM actually does before you start "arguing" ? Here's a good place to start.
You ask, We provide. That's just about as failed as it gets.
Basically the democrats and obama said "give us $1000 billion or we'l have 9% unempoyment". So we gave the democrats their money, they gave it to bank executives, and now unemployment is at 9.5% and rising fast. Needless to say democrats already spent more than $1000 billion.
Obviously you're a democrat. So please explain how any of this money spending could possibly come as a surprise ?
it
sure
is
Of course, there's no shortage of assholes lying about this. Note also how this ethnic cleansing happens everywhere you find muslims, and everywhere the same reason is given for racist genocides : islam.
Mod parent up
Let's see the numbers.
It seems to me that the health care bill would double health care spending (medicare + social security) at least. Unfortunately that means it would rise to over 100% of the budget, leaving no room for anything else. Literally nothing. Obama wouldn't be able to wipe his ass without raising taxes.
Oh, is *that* why we didn't get involved until we were directly attacked? Huh. How about that.
There's a hell of a lot of historians that argue the US didn't react militarily to allies getting invaded because a "certain party" was rooting for the "champion of the poor*" in that war. For the socialists (to be exact the "national" socialists)
* yes it's a reference to adolf hitler, you try posting about WWII without mentioning him
So now we've bailed out the banks, we saw the economy crash into a depression, and worse news is coming every month. Yes the current government has done really, really well.
I don't think I should be asking this question but : what's next ?
You're like the intellectual denying that the world has refused to act according to plan. The banks were bailed out, and the situation did not rectify itself, despite predictions of "the best" economists. So we are in a bad situation, economists are now after the fact telling us the bailout worsened the situation and the government (obama) is preparing to follow their next suggestion. In the meantime, banks are still going broke, few recoveries are seen, joblessness is still increasing, and the situation is actually worse than what democrats predicted it would be without the bailout . In other words, if you believe democrat's predictions, they created this crisis.
And yet here you are, arguing that the tactic did work, because that's what economists said. That facts don't agree, doesn't seem to bother you at all. That's assuming you're not arguing that making another 100 billion trillion millionthousands dollars (let's not pretend the actual number matters when it's that huge) debt on future generations (health care) is a good idea. That's after democrats derided Bush for not fixing the deficit.
Let's not pretend you're in any way rational. Let's just see the situation for what it is.
Can't remember who said it but, "Liberals (Democrats) are tolerant of everything except intolerance".
Riiiiiiight. Do you seriously believe that ?
Let's see, don't even do this. Just imagine it. See what your own opinion is about the matter. You walk into a democrat on the street. Just any democrat activist. Anyone at all.
Now tell him that you don't believe in global warming.
So what is your imagination telling you happens next ?
Is it a reasoned discussion ? Didn't think so.
If democrats were truly "tolerant of everything except intolerance" they'd out-suicide-bomb the muslims.
You're assuming they want peace in the first place. Just as food for thought, here's a (currently quite popular) line from their "faith" :
"We will win, because you love life and we love death"
In their history you will find plenty of victories who embody this principle, where millions of people, muslims and their "enemies" alike (who often did no wrong at all, google "khaybar" for example), were exterminated merely for domination over a land that was immediately transformed, often by that very slaughter, into empty dead desolate ruins. Reading the records of muslim wars can bring one to tears, due to the tactics leading to constant exterminations of muslims and their "enemy" du jour. The mass-sacrifices and bullshit wars that transformed dozens of prosperous nations into the deserts they are today. Before islam, North Africa was the breadbasket of Europe, the middle east was the richest region of the world, with the very highest living standards, and India was a huge empire, that had known almost constant peace for millenia.
Today ... muslims are constantly comitting ethnic cleansing against blacks in a north african sudan, and neighboring countries, countires so poor, even the rich have trouble feeding their babies. The middle east has only a singular richess : bullets and slavery and Pakistan and Bangladesh are known solely for hunger, disease and worse.
There's a reason the middle east is called the "graveyard of empires", and muslims are but the vermin attempting to live of a dead carcas, destroying everything that remains.
Scenario: TPM/DRM in full effect. Whitelists-only software allowed (let's assume for a nanosecond that somehow magically OSS will end up on that whitelist), whitelist held centrally to avoid tampering.
Just so you know, open source software WAS on the whitelist. And everybody who wanted could start his/her own whitelist.
There are NO usage restrictions resulting from palladium (except for software : lying, either to the user, or over the network (can be disabled, but obviously the remote side will know it's disabled), about which software you're running will no longer be possible. That's the ONLY restriction)
The entire thing is implemented in hardware, with keys inaccessible to all software, so what exactly would "usage restriction cracks" be able to do ? I'm pretty sure this sort of software cannot physically modify computer chips (actually we don't have any technology that can do that, only the top silicon layer can be somewhat modified in some cases with even the best electron microscopes).
Which sort of invalidates (mostly) your argument. Cracks wouldn't appear since they're theoretically impossible to create. And every site on the internet would be able to tell you your computer has been hacked, or not, for 100% sure.
We are not groups. We are individuals which means we ALL think differently, even if we do share the same label
Why do you think democrats hate you, and find it acceptable to have openly discriminatory behavior against you ?
The difference between republican groups and democrat groups is staggering. In any democrat meeting you get personally attacked for disagreeing on whether global warming should be capitalized or not.
In a republican meeting :
you say "I don't believe in global warming" - and nobody doubts the marriage status of your parents. Instead "why not ?" and an interesting discussion ensues.
you say "I believe nuclear power is the solution to global warming" - and yet nobody suggest you are paid by the evil industry. In fact, even if you ARE paid by the nuclear industry, they're still hearing you out
you say "we can't drill out on california's coast" and they hear you out.
It really doesn't matter where you're coming from, even seemingly openly communist ideas are considered
Any standpoint can get reasoned discussion in a republican meeting. I have yet to visit a democratic meeting where even minor deviations from dogma are tolerated.
One thing I seriously wonder, is how democrats DARE to suggest they are somehow more tolerant than anyone else, on any point at all. It surely is not the case here.
Democrats tolerate exactly one singular opinion, always in flux, always with perfectly innocent victims (no matter how many and how constantly those victims hurt others) and ever-changing villains who copulate constantly with satan and are deserving of execution-on-the-spot.
Republicans live in a changing world, with changing understanding of the world, with many ideas, where everybody is trying to do his best for himself and his community, and where that behavior is perfectly okay.
Individual republicans regularly have quite strong opinions on all sorts of matters, especially matters that affect them. These ideas, unlike in the democrat camp, do not match. Which is, I guess, exactly why the republican party is so tolerant.
Which is why whitelists would go a long way towards solving most of these "problems".
The problem isn't windows. the problem is that people keep using terrible strategies.
The last enforced whitelist model tried was palladium, or it's more general brother TPM. And that was rejected because application whitelists ... or rather you lose the right to read
1) don't work for open source software, which is fundamentally less capable of resisting treason
2) they are trivial to use for DRM enforcement (esp. if you're running hardware-assisted code whitelists)
3) if code whitelists guarantees are extended over the network (ie. remote attestation) you get
4) same as 3, except with the government in charge of the keys, which is worse
In other words, almost nobody wants a working security model for content publishers, or software developers, or even enterprises (ie. leak protection type stuff).
Security, especially working security brings a lot of disadvantages.
I tried and tried to come up with a rotation routine. It took me years. Eventually I got hold of some math books that mentioned polar coordinates and so I calculated back and forth with immensely long trigonometric routines, not even using arctangent. I basically started with x = a cos t (equiv for y) and simply had forward and backward lookup tables (and fixed point math allowing direct indexing into an array) (if you have 256 values for sin and cos each in those tables it's more than accurate enough for 320x200 graphics. Even on 640x480 it was hardly noticeable). Need a massive speedup ? Change that lookup table into 64 entries.
Lookup tables were a solution for several problems. Taught me the value of symbolically isolating variables in mathematical expressions.
Oddly enough, the main problem was not speed, the main problem was long-term loss of accuracy (be re-using calculation results). I eventually got that solved : simply restart entirely from the initial model for every frame. Hardly any computational cost, and accuracy demands go down significantly.
I wrote a lot of games and quite a few demos too. Not as advanced as those I found on BBS'es because well, try understanding mandelbrot without knowing about complex numbers. I actually tried several values for i, obviously none worked. But I didn't know anyone who could explain me what was wrong. Heh, it's funny when I think back to it.
I've read parts of it. And it's basically a final surrender of all sovereignty of all European states in favor of the comission. As of the date the lisbon treaty went into effect there are no longer any European sovereign states.
Hell, even American states have more theoretical power than a European -supposedly sovereign- nation. In theory an American state could leave the union. That power was surrendered with the lisbon treaty.
Democratic legitimacy ? You've got to be kidding. Ever visited Brussels ? It will not take you long to see how blatantly abusive the "fonctionnaires" are to the local population. If they are democratic, they're surely managing to hide any lingering responsability feelings.
Perhaps I'm reading the treaty wrong. I sure hope so.
The way I read the treaty, I interpreted it's demands more along the lines that parliament *has* to know *beforehand* what the comission is doing.
And parliament gets to vote on it. And advise on it.
Advise on a law after voting on it ? Strange. You'd think the vote would be the end of it. Of course, that advise makes more sense once you read the full text, and find out there are still procedures for the comission to ignore any no vote from parliament.
Same goes for the budget. Parliament gets to see it. Parliament gets to vote on it. The comission gets to ignore the vote.
Same with the "reject a comissioner" power. Yes they can do so *once*. Then the member state has to "reconsider" the appointment, but it is entirely free to send the same person again. This time parliament can not refuse. This has actually happened already.
I am the same boat as you. My father, of course, wouldn't pay for it so I ended up with Turbo pascal.
I did use an external polygon fill routine on a 286 for qbasic. And external line drawer. Even with that my engines were mostly wireframe.
Sad thing was, my sprite based games on c64 were far more advanced than the best thing I ever got going on a 286.
Man, the amount of time I could spend working to get a little 3d engine going.
Good times.
I still love delphi. Talk about simply starting a program and getting it running, Delphi was heaven on earth. Yes, it can't do everything (though it has winapi support that's good enough to write even things like filesystem drivers or firewalls in Delphi), but it was such a pleasure to get a small application running quickly.
I still don't understand why academics have such hate for that language. And the language they mostly replace it with - java - is not better, it's a lot worse.
The object pascal compiler was a pleasure to use compared to today's clunky and slow-as-hell compilers. People underestimate the advantages of a hugely fast compiler.