All this government has to do is use the word "terrorist" in a sentence and all of your civil liberties are thrown out a window.
I have no idea how you could reach that conclusion based on this story- it proves the exact opposite! Law enforcement was trying to overstep their authority in the name of anti-terrorism, but the oversight in place caught on and the FBI got nailed.
This is exactly how our system is supposed to work. This is good news.
A sad commentary on the state of freedom in this country.
It is absurd to treat the parent's post as anything other than the anonymous and hyperbolic ramblings that they are. The post is not a commentary on anything (well, a meaningful commentary at least).
It seems to me that you have a misunderstanding about what international law is. The United States does not have any banned weapons because the only way that a weapon becomes "banned" is if a country agrees that it is banned. International law is only binding as far as a country has agreed to it- that is called sovereignty.
Examples:
Iran has agreed to the NPT. The NPT requires non-nuclear signatories to agree to defined safeguards to ensure that their nuclear programs are peaceful. To satisfy this requirement, Iran adopted the Additional Protocol, so they are now bound by their status in the NPT to implement the safeguards (which, according to the IAEA, they have not).
Iraq is a member of the UN. UN Security Council resolution 687 explicitly banned them from having or developing a wide range of weapons. Because this resolution was passed under Chapter VII of the UN charter, and because Iraq had agreed to that charter, they were bound to implement the resolution (which, according to UNSCOM and UNMOVIC, they didn't).
Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons is understood to ban the use of White Phosphorus in most military applications. However, many states (including the United States) have not agreed to Protocol III of this treaty, so they are not bound in any way to abide by it. That means that some countries can legally use white phosphorus, and some countries cannot.
Most countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, neither the United States nor Australia have agreed to the treaty. No matter how much the rest of the world wants the US to abide by these restrictions, the US is not bound to them.
If you don't like what a counry is doing, you are left with a few options, ranging from bribery to violence. There is no "paperwork" or law enforcement to police these. That is the world that we live in.
Halliburton's (specifically Kellog, Brown, and Root) involvement in Iraq is a part of the multi-year LOGCAP contract that they won in 2001 after a competive bidding process. This was the second time that they had won the LOGCAP contract- the first time was during the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration also awarded several other contracts to Halliburton, such as the logistical support for the military action in the Balkans, and praised KBR for their work.
You can choose to see this as a conspiracy if you want, but it doesn't make you look very rational.
I suggest that instead of abandoning mainstream parties, or worse, voting for somebody based solely on their race or gender, you could affect more change by becoming more involved in the political process. Pick the party that is closest to your views, and get involved. If you are not satisfied with the candidates on the ballot, then work within your party to promote the candidates and ideas that are important to you. Volunteer for advocacy groups and donate money to these causes. I don't see how blindly voting for the longshot candidate helps with anything.
Calm down. Lets look at the entire statement that the President issued, okay? Here is the relevant paragraph:
The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of an item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection.
President Bush specifically stated that they only assert the right to search mail in ways that are "specifically authorized by law." How anybody could claim that this statement means that President Bush intends to break the law is beyond me.
Again, I think this is a pretty ineffective way to try to get a politician to cater to you.
Some better ways that I can think of: - Get involved in a political party so you can give your input into their platforms and what candidates they promote - Contact campaigns and candidates directly to give them feedback - Join non-profit organizations or political groups that can lobby for the causes that are important to you - Seek out other like-minded voters and start your own advocacy group
If you really don't like any of the candidates, then sure, don't vote for any them, but don't delude yourself into thinking that this is making some powerful "both of you can go to hell" statement that is going to make a difference. Its not.
The only real solution to this whole mess is to add a 'None of the above' to the list. I'd punch that as many times as registering a vote.
I fail to see how that is a solution to anything. Why go through all of that trouble just to not vote? If you are just trying to make a statement, that sure is a stupid way to do it.
Trying to drum up fear based on a meaningless number (total outstanding public debt) shows a complete lack of understanding of our current monetary system. The operator of that website should be ashamed if himself.
Okay- good point. I think we are a long way from seeing any blood in the streets, though. There are plenty of people in this country that can hardly be motivated to go to the voting booth, let alone join a revolution.
For the record, I don't see voter apathy as a bad thing. I think that people are motivated to vote the most when they want to change something, so to me the fact that 60% of the registered voters yesterday didn't feel like they needed to change anything is a probably good sign that things are going pretty well for them.
If I hear any more god damned grandstanding from the winners, I'm going to puke. Win with dignity, or this country is going to polarize it self so much further, only bloodshed will solve it.
It takes two sides to polarize. In the past 12 years, Republicans have done their share of grandstanding, and Democrats have responded by withdrawing and further embittering themselves. Winners will always gloat, and losers will always feel disappointed, but that doesn't mean that we will inevitably become more polarized.
As a conservative who supports the Bush Administration, I was hoping for different results yesterday. But strangely enough, I don't feel upset about the outcome. Things were too bitter and too polarized, and another Republican victory was not going to change that, but I believe that a change in the balance of power can change it.
My hope is that the results of this election will give the extreme Bush-hating left enough to be happy about and enough change in policy that they can tone down their bitterness, and hopefully the Republicans won't respond by embittering themselves in response.
The boston.com article also highlighted Rep. Christopher Shays' experience, where these tactics were used to misrepresent his stance on embryonic stem cell research.
Once again: What'd you expect? They're Republicans
This group that you show so much distain for represents about half of this country, and believe it or not, they want fair and honest elections just as much as you do.
GDP to Debt ratio in the US going down? I think you need to actually take a look at some statistics before making a claim like that.
The parent's claim was actually pretty close. The debt-to-GDP ratio increased pretty quickly from 2001-2003, largely because the economy was not growing very fast. But in late 2003 until about last week, economy growth took off and the economy was growing faster than the national debt, so the debt-to-GDP ratio was decreasing. That did change with the Q3 GDP numbers from the commerce department (released October 27) that showed that economic growth is slowing a bit. Now the debt-to-GDP ratio is slowing increasing again.
Wait a minute. You gave me a link which has a debt calculator that shows exactly the opposite of what you claim.
As I said, up until last week the debt calculator was counting backwards, indicating that the economy was growing faster than the debt. That changed when the commerce department released the 3rd quarter GDP statistics that showed that the economy is slowing. So for the past week or so, the debt calculator has been increasing. This isn't the opposite of what I claimed- it is exactly what I claimed...
Exactly how is it a surplus for the government to spend it on stuff, and then borrow the money from us in the form of bonds? This isn't extra money in our pockets in any way shape or form.
The government does not maintain a significant cash balance- it spends all of the money that it receives no matter where the money comes from (it must do this to keep the currency from becoming devalued). If that money comes from tax revenue, then the net result is that the money is redistributed from the tax payers to the workers (often the same group), and net public wealth is unchanged. If the money comes from deficit spending, then the net results are that the money is redistributed from the T-bond holders to the workers, and the T-bond holders now have an interest bearing asset. This is a net increase in public wealth.
Monetary policy and macroeconomics have fascinated me for a while now because many of the results like this go against conventional wisdom and are so counter-intuitive.
Your reasoning scares me. It's hard to believe anybody in this country is this fucking stupid.
Well, its good to see that people can still have a rational debate in this country...
Government spending does not increase the net wealth of the private sector.
Of course not. All goverment spending just redistributes money, no matter where the money came from. When the government gets the money from selling treasury securities, it redistributes the money and the public gains interest bearing assets that increase it's net wealth (in the form of T-bonds and the like). So the increase in wealth comes from the public buying these interest bearing securities, not from the government spending the money.
Yes, let's just ignore the Shia-Sunni war and the "insurgents."
I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it is relevant to your argument that Iraqis don't "want" democracy. They have already proved that they do want democracy regardless of the in-fighting and insurgency.
Deficit spending helps the economy in several important ways that have nothing to do with a Keyensian stimulus. I can honestly say that I hope that we NEVER run a surplus on the federal budget for several reasons:
In order for the economy to grow, the money supply must grow. Deficit spending allows us to increase the money supply without the inflationary pressures of printing more currency or borrowing from the Fed.
A government deficit is a surplus to the private sector (read: you and me). When we (the public) buy treasury securities, it increases our net worth.
The private sector is much more effective at investing this surplus into generating economic growth than the government is, provided the right infrastructure is in place.
The government can use the money generated by selling the securities to build up our infrastructure and defend us from external threats- these are the core responsibilities of the government.
Ideally, I think we need to keep our debt-to-GDP ratio constant. Right now we are around 65%. That is a lot less aggressive than many other industrialized nations, including much of Europe and Japan.
Whoa... Your beyond drinking the kool-aid. Your flat off in la la land. Paying off the debt would not drain the economy, rather quite the opposite. It would free up the $9 trillion plus interest payments for private economic development.
The government paying off our debt only accomplishes one thing: it transfers money from taxpayers to bond holders, and it dissolves the bond holders' interest bearing asset in the process. This is a huge drain on the economy.
Actually, starting in mid-2003 up until last week (when the Commerce Dept released the latest GDP growth statistics), the economy was in fact growing faster than the national debt, so the debt-to-GDP ratio was shrinking. (Source).
Fortunately, deficits affect a net surplus in the private sector
I have no idea what you talking about since you didn't say a surplus of what. It's a certainly not a surplus of investment as government spending completes with private investment.
The parent is correct- deficit spending by the government increases the net wealth of the private sector. Lets say the government is going to spend $x dollars on some project. To do this, it has 3 options:
Option #1- raise taxes. The government takes $x from the public, and spends $x on the project. The net result is that the government redistributes some money (takes from the taxpayers and gives to the people working on the project) and the public breaks even (although the public has less money in the short term for investing in growth).
Option #2- borrow money from the fed. This is rarely done because of the inflationary effects it has on the currency.
Option #3- borrow the money from the public by selling securities. The government sells $x in T-Bonds to the public. Now the government has $x, which it then returns to the public by spending it on the project, and the public has $x worth of interest bearing assets, which it can use to increase investment in economic growth.
Option #3 is clearly the best option for economic growth. The interest on the debt is inconsequential as long as the private sector invests this surplus in ways that grow the economy (which it has for the past 200 years).
The desire to control your own destiny is about as basic of a human ambition as you can get. The fact that 15 million Iraqis defiantly braved some very real threats to get out and vote clearly shows that they do want democracy. I don't see how you could argue it any other way.
Despite the loud headline, the article actually goes on to detail several candidates- both Republican and Democrat- that have been victims of these calls. I am wondering why the article is trying so hard to make this out to be an exclusively Republican tactic when it is clearly a universal problem.
How do you explain 15 million people voting in the last election in Iraq? It sounds very smug for you to assume that they are somehow not capable of democracy, especially considering what they have been through to show that they are!
In case you missed it, an overwhelming majority if Iraqi's do want democracy, and they have literally risked their lives several times now to show this. In the process, they elected a provisional government, ratified a democratic constitution, and elected a parliament. Don't be so quick to dismiss them.
The United States is not building democracy in Iraq, but rather they are removing the impediments that were preventing the Iraqi's from building their own democracy (namely, a murderous dictator that was killing and torturing any threats to his power).
This is not a new problem for AMD. They have always had problems keeping up with demand, and they have been capacity constrained for a few years now, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
That's the dirty little secret about the semiconductor industry- success depends just as much on manufacturing ability as the features of the chip. Intel didn't just get their 300mm wafers and 65nm process overnight- they invested 10s of billions of dollars in manufacturing R&D. The result is they have unparalleled capacity and a huge technological lead over competitors with manufacturing technology. When a large OEM comes asking for 5 million units in the next quarter with a defect rate of less than 500 per million, there are very few companies that can deliver.
Also, the situation you describe has a workaround; it's called holding the off switch for four seconds - after that point the motherboard cuts the power. Try it sometime.
There are several mechanisms that the system can use to enter the S5 (Soft-off) state. These include: - Software writing to a register in the chipset (example- initiating a shut down from the OS) - A catastrophic thermal event is detected - The user holds down the power button (which is an input signal to the chipset) for 4 seconds
From a power consumption standpoint, all of these are equivalent. The chipset must power some logic to enable wake events. This is distinguished from G3 (mechanical off) where the only power to the system comes from the RTC battery.
Slashdot Mirror
This is exactly how our system is supposed to work. This is good news.
It is absurd to treat the parent's post as anything other than the anonymous and hyperbolic ramblings that they are. The post is not a commentary on anything (well, a meaningful commentary at least).
Examples:
If you don't like what a counry is doing, you are left with a few options, ranging from bribery to violence. There is no "paperwork" or law enforcement to police these. That is the world that we live in.
Golly- I hope that all of the PhDs working on Intel's 45nm process are reading /. today. I bet they never thought about that.
Halliburton's (specifically Kellog, Brown, and Root) involvement in Iraq is a part of the multi-year LOGCAP contract that they won in 2001 after a competive bidding process. This was the second time that they had won the LOGCAP contract- the first time was during the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration also awarded several other contracts to Halliburton, such as the logistical support for the military action in the Balkans, and praised KBR for their work.
You can choose to see this as a conspiracy if you want, but it doesn't make you look very rational.
I suggest that instead of abandoning mainstream parties, or worse, voting for somebody based solely on their race or gender, you could affect more change by becoming more involved in the political process. Pick the party that is closest to your views, and get involved. If you are not satisfied with the candidates on the ballot, then work within your party to promote the candidates and ideas that are important to you. Volunteer for advocacy groups and donate money to these causes. I don't see how blindly voting for the longshot candidate helps with anything.
Again, I think this is a pretty ineffective way to try to get a politician to cater to you.
Some better ways that I can think of:
- Get involved in a political party so you can give your input into their platforms and what candidates they promote
- Contact campaigns and candidates directly to give them feedback
- Join non-profit organizations or political groups that can lobby for the causes that are important to you
- Seek out other like-minded voters and start your own advocacy group
If you really don't like any of the candidates, then sure, don't vote for any them, but don't delude yourself into thinking that this is making some powerful "both of you can go to hell" statement that is going to make a difference. Its not.
The only real solution to this whole mess is to add a 'None of the above' to the list. I'd punch that as many times as registering a vote.
I fail to see how that is a solution to anything. Why go through all of that trouble just to not vote? If you are just trying to make a statement, that sure is a stupid way to do it.
Trying to drum up fear based on a meaningless number (total outstanding public debt) shows a complete lack of understanding of our current monetary system. The operator of that website should be ashamed if himself.
Okay- good point. I think we are a long way from seeing any blood in the streets, though. There are plenty of people in this country that can hardly be motivated to go to the voting booth, let alone join a revolution.
For the record, I don't see voter apathy as a bad thing. I think that people are motivated to vote the most when they want to change something, so to me the fact that 60% of the registered voters yesterday didn't feel like they needed to change anything is a probably good sign that things are going pretty well for them.
If I hear any more god damned grandstanding from the winners, I'm going to puke. Win with dignity, or this country is going to polarize it self so much further, only bloodshed will solve it.
It takes two sides to polarize. In the past 12 years, Republicans have done their share of grandstanding, and Democrats have responded by withdrawing and further embittering themselves. Winners will always gloat, and losers will always feel disappointed, but that doesn't mean that we will inevitably become more polarized.
As a conservative who supports the Bush Administration, I was hoping for different results yesterday. But strangely enough, I don't feel upset about the outcome. Things were too bitter and too polarized, and another Republican victory was not going to change that, but I believe that a change in the balance of power can change it.
My hope is that the results of this election will give the extreme Bush-hating left enough to be happy about and enough change in policy that they can tone down their bitterness, and hopefully the Republicans won't respond by embittering themselves in response.
This group that you show so much distain for represents about half of this country, and believe it or not, they want fair and honest elections just as much as you do.
The government does not maintain a significant cash balance- it spends all of the money that it receives no matter where the money comes from (it must do this to keep the currency from becoming devalued). If that money comes from tax revenue, then the net result is that the money is redistributed from the tax payers to the workers (often the same group), and net public wealth is unchanged. If the money comes from deficit spending, then the net results are that the money is redistributed from the T-bond holders to the workers, and the T-bond holders now have an interest bearing asset. This is a net increase in public wealth.
Monetary policy and macroeconomics have fascinated me for a while now because many of the results like this go against conventional wisdom and are so counter-intuitive.
Well, its good to see that people can still have a rational debate in this country...
Yes, let's just ignore the Shia-Sunni war and the "insurgents."
I'm not ignoring it, I just don't think it is relevant to your argument that Iraqis don't "want" democracy. They have already proved that they do want democracy regardless of the in-fighting and insurgency.
- In order for the economy to grow, the money supply must grow. Deficit spending allows us to increase the money supply without the inflationary pressures of printing more currency or borrowing from the Fed.
- A government deficit is a surplus to the private sector (read: you and me). When we (the public) buy treasury securities, it increases our net worth.
- The private sector is much more effective at investing this surplus into generating economic growth than the government is, provided the right infrastructure is in place.
- The government can use the money generated by selling the securities to build up our infrastructure and defend us from external threats- these are the core responsibilities of the government.
Ideally, I think we need to keep our debt-to-GDP ratio constant. Right now we are around 65%. That is a lot less aggressive than many other industrialized nations, including much of Europe and Japan.The government paying off our debt only accomplishes one thing: it transfers money from taxpayers to bond holders, and it dissolves the bond holders' interest bearing asset in the process. This is a huge drain on the economy.
Actually, starting in mid-2003 up until last week (when the Commerce Dept released the latest GDP growth statistics), the economy was in fact growing faster than the national debt, so the debt-to-GDP ratio was shrinking. (Source).
- Option #1- raise taxes. The government takes $x from the public, and spends $x on the project. The net result is that the government redistributes some money (takes from the taxpayers and gives to the people working on the project) and the public breaks even (although the public has less money in the short term for investing in growth).
- Option #2- borrow money from the fed. This is rarely done because of the inflationary effects it has on the currency.
- Option #3- borrow the money from the public by selling securities. The government sells $x in T-Bonds to the public. Now the government has $x, which it then returns to the public by spending it on the project, and the public has $x worth of interest bearing assets, which it can use to increase investment in economic growth.
Option #3 is clearly the best option for economic growth. The interest on the debt is inconsequential as long as the private sector invests this surplus in ways that grow the economy (which it has for the past 200 years).The desire to control your own destiny is about as basic of a human ambition as you can get. The fact that 15 million Iraqis defiantly braved some very real threats to get out and vote clearly shows that they do want democracy. I don't see how you could argue it any other way.
Despite the loud headline, the article actually goes on to detail several candidates- both Republican and Democrat- that have been victims of these calls. I am wondering why the article is trying so hard to make this out to be an exclusively Republican tactic when it is clearly a universal problem.
How do you explain 15 million people voting in the last election in Iraq? It sounds very smug for you to assume that they are somehow not capable of democracy, especially considering what they have been through to show that they are!
In case you missed it, an overwhelming majority if Iraqi's do want democracy, and they have literally risked their lives several times now to show this. In the process, they elected a provisional government, ratified a democratic constitution, and elected a parliament. Don't be so quick to dismiss them.
The United States is not building democracy in Iraq, but rather they are removing the impediments that were preventing the Iraqi's from building their own democracy (namely, a murderous dictator that was killing and torturing any threats to his power).
This is not a new problem for AMD. They have always had problems keeping up with demand, and they have been capacity constrained for a few years now, and they have nobody to blame but themselves.
That's the dirty little secret about the semiconductor industry- success depends just as much on manufacturing ability as the features of the chip. Intel didn't just get their 300mm wafers and 65nm process overnight- they invested 10s of billions of dollars in manufacturing R&D. The result is they have unparalleled capacity and a huge technological lead over competitors with manufacturing technology. When a large OEM comes asking for 5 million units in the next quarter with a defect rate of less than 500 per million, there are very few companies that can deliver.
- Software writing to a register in the chipset (example- initiating a shut down from the OS)
- A catastrophic thermal event is detected
- The user holds down the power button (which is an input signal to the chipset) for 4 seconds
From a power consumption standpoint, all of these are equivalent. The chipset must power some logic to enable wake events. This is distinguished from G3 (mechanical off) where the only power to the system comes from the RTC battery.