Most of those negative reviews are written by people who don't understand how the federal reserve works, and they probably didn't read the book. I'll summarize their complaints here
Take the complaint by David Blacklock from Waco Texas: "There is a strong consensus among economists - our author is not one of these - that business cycles are best managed by monetary policy."
The author isn't saying there shouldn't be monetary policy. The entire point of the book is that the Fed has NOT managed the monetary system properly, best evidenced by the fact the value of the US dollar has declined by 98% since the Fed was created.
Let's take an anonymous poster who said "The author has not worked in banking and has no comprehension of the basic money supply. I was a banker for over 28 years and have no love for the Federal Reserve. However, the book gives so much bad information, readers will lose sight of the real danger of the Fed. That danger is the ability to increase interest rates to a point our economy could collapse. The author blames the Fed for the expansion of the money supply. This is not correct. The money supply has been extended to over 5 trillion dollars by the Congress of the United States."
This is actually false. The money supply is increased by ONE WAY and ONE WAY ONLY! When a bank issues a loan, the loan itself is money "created" with the debt ultimately reported to the Fed. There are various mechanisms that restrict how many loans banks can create as a ratio of their liquid holdings, but the simple fact of the matter the US government is but one entity that takes out loans. Most debt creation is NOT to the US government. This poster may work in a bank, but as a teller or some low level position that really doesn't understand what it means to issue a loan. It's not like the bank had the money beforehand. In all actuality, anyone with a brain who sits down and thinks about this knows that it's true. There wasn't enough money in the world to lend trillions of dollars to every government entity in the country, as well as every homeowner. If tomorrow we banned money lending, the money supply could never increase. It's that simple.
A great one is from BooksEverywhereAtHome who said: "I've read a number of books on the Fed, including Greider's excellent book. I also like certain of the "conspiracy" works. This book, however, is juvenille in both respects. I knew I was in trouble when the author breaks the news that banks don't have money, they're lending out money from other people and making money on it. I thought everyone who saw It's A Wonderful Life knew that one already. I'd save your money, there's nothing earthshattering here for anyone who understands anything about the banking system."
Again, this is another poster who apparently doesn't even understand what they are saying. Banks issue loans by stealing part of the value of your money, then they collect interest on it. The author knows this, but doesn't seem to find anything wrong with it. It would be one thing if the government did this directly - a power the constitution clearly gives it - and returns the interest to the public coffers. Instead, it goes into the hands of a ruling elite. This is how they survive. They are parasites and this was at the heart of it all, the reason for World War II and for every major conflict since then. The conflict is not over. Yeah, the greatest war in human history. That's not earthshattering.
Then there is Ken Waters who stated "The Federal Reserve is a financial system manager, plain and simple. "
That is the most comical statement of all. Sure, all they do is "manage" the economy. Again, why then do they have to collect interest which does not accrue to the public's benefit? Another example of the sheeple who will be mystified when our economy collapses.
Sorry, there are no credible bad reviews on Amazon. Just
It appears the plan now is to inflate the hell out of our currency to make the debt less relevant. This typically doesn't work, but it doesn't mean Congress won't try.
The problem is we have no native industry for the vast majority of things Americans desire. We also are a net importer of food and energy.
Someday, countries like Canada with lots of wheat will want something besides debt instruments in exchange for their goods. So too will countries like Saudi Arabia want something of tangible value in exchange for their oil.
Rapidly rising prices of foreign goods may someday bring back American industry, but that is a generation away. We have too few engineers and no manufacturing infrastructure. We will have to train a whole new class of workers and build many new factories. This doesn't happen overnight.
No 12-year old in the world has the experience and judgment to effectively management that kind of money. I could care less how brilliant he is.
There is also the issue of how he has yet to reach the age of majority. Not only does he lack experience, he is not legally responsible for his actions.
Do you know anything about marketing? Exchange rates are meaningless for consumer goods, what matters is the ratio of said product to the average income of your target demographic. The british pound may be worth twice as much as the US dollar, but it doesn't mean people in the UK make half as much as Americans in actual numerical income.
The average income in the UK is approximately the same as in the US, if the two country's currency's had equal value. For someone living in the UK, the PS3 costs the same.
This is why British tourists infest so much of the world. Their excess income is worth much more when they travel in comparison with say, Americans.
Because of the difficulty of a massive takeover and the resistence and uprisings it would cause, freedom is almost never taken away all at once. Instead, it's eroded gradually, little bit by little tiny bit (always "for the children", "for your safety", "to stop terrorists", "to fight [some] drugs"), which suits the statists because it is never given back, making the resulting police state inevitable.
This theory probably sounds good when you read it out loud, but it is entirely unsupported by history.
Firstly, no one is "free". It is the oppressive state that first gave humans freedom from the constant vigilence and tedium of the primitive, hunter gatherer lifestyle. Before the first oppressive king decided to found a city and eventually an empire, humans knew nothing but the need to constantly fight off competitors/predators and to search for food. Safety and abundance is the direct result of "freedom" imposed by the will of a despot. The first men to submit to that rule did so willingly, as the harsh world outside the city walls was considered far more oppressive.
Freedom, as you know it, it is a product of the enlightenment. Even in antiquity most humans were not free. Even democratic Athens was populated by lots of slaves.
Your vision of freedom is a dream, a dream that has never really existed. Perhaps it existed in the early days of the American Republic for a few rich landowners of European decent. It wasn't true for the Native Americans, and it wasn't true for the poor indentured servants who arrived in English colonies with nothing at all. The French had a few notions about "freedom" as well. It turned into a bloodbath that could only be stopped by Napoleon.
Then there is the bastard child of the French Revolution, Haiti. Nearly 200 years of "freedom" has turned their island paradise into a living hell.
So, my point is just this: Freedom doesn't really exist. The benefits of civilized society change, and more frequently than not change radically in a short period of time. The scenario you mention where "freedoms" are slowly eroded to avoid civil unrest has never occurred in the history of mankind. There was no need.
1) In the United States, all churches are exempt from corporate taxes. Many other non-profit groups are also exempt from taxes. Church members who donate to churches DO pay taxes, as do employees of churches. Most "think tank" organizations as well as universities with economics departments have the same tax benefits as do the church. I'm sure you won't take such a hard stance towards the Brookings Institute and the Harvard School of Business.
2) Commercial real estate owned by churches that is not used for church purposes is taxed on the local level. In New York City, the catholic church is the largest landowner after the city itself. They do pay property taxes on quite a few parcels, many of which are subject to long term ground leases.
being women, are more interested in actual pleasurable sex.
Women and men have different opinions and needs regarding sex, but it is ridiculous to assume that men aren't interested in "pleasurable" sex. Of course men are interested in pleasurable sex. The issue is men and women somewhat differ on what the definition of "pleasure" is. This is wholly subjective value judgment, and neither is better or worse than the the other.
Yeah, I have an EE degree but dropped out of the field at 26 to pursue a finance related career. I wanted to stay in NYC to be with my family, plus, I like it here.
I was making $60K before I jumped ship. Now, I'm not even 30 and I make $250K a year.
$100K is plain old middle class, and still not enough given the work involved. Don't kid yourself.
PC Magazine lost my respect in this regard in 1995. The shamless plugging of that dogged OS was comical. Vista coverage has been nowhere near as bad since those days.
That said, the EIC's comments about Vista are in many cases either wrong, or unique to his configuration. I have 3 computers running Windows. One is my desktop machine that runs Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition, and the other is my personal laptop that runs Vista Home Premium 32-bit edition. I also have my work thinkpad that runs XP. I actually have more problems with the wireless connection not being restored upon resume with the XP machine than the Vista machine. This is not a problem unique to Vista. So far, I've been very impressed with Vista 64-bit edition. It is very stable, and has been running without a crash since it was installed in February.
I'm also perplexed with his comments regarding the Windows Media Server. I store all my digital media on my Vista 64-bit machine. I regularly stream audio I have that is mp3 or wma all the time to my PS3. I regularly peruse my digital photos and hi-def movies i've recored with my camcorder on the PS3 all the time as well. Windows Media Server isn't perfect, but losing connections isn't my problem. Overall, it works better than I thought it would and so far I'm happy.
I dunno, it all just seems a bit overstated to me.
Re:What about through traffic?
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
Dude, I live in Brooklyn. No one from Brooklyn refers to their residence as being on Long Island, and pretty much everyone who lives there is in the vast majority of cases is going to go through Staten Island which is closer to places like the Newark airport and the I-287 office district in Somerset County. And what is the Lower Manhattan Expressway? You mean the FDR drive? Umm, no there is no entrance ramp. Sheesh, look at a map. Maybe you're thinking of the BQE exit on Flatbush? I don't know - but that really does very little to help most people in the borough.
Re:What about through traffic?
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
Traffic between Long Island and New Jersey is irrelevant. The relatively few number of people making such a commute doesn't warrant any special consideration. If someone doesn't want to pay, they can move or find a new job. And, by the way, the Manhattan Bridge doesn't even have a highway connection. Me thinks your knowledge of the halted plan to build such a highway through Soho is not in tune with the modern reality of the situation. The only people taking the Manhattan Bridge to New Jersey live in Brooklyn, not Long Island.
Re:Oh the outcry - from a Manhattanite
on
Manhattan 1984
·
· Score: 1
The congestion pricing is going to be for peak hours - not 24 hours. The city wishes to encourage trucks to do their business off hours, particularly in the early morning hours.
Yeah, no kidding. So much "science" in the parent's post, yet there is a total rejection of the scientific method!
I go to live music all the time, play a lot of music myself, and typically only listen to mp3s and cds of bands I go to see live.
You know what? It all sounds the same to me.
The audiophile crowd just amazes me. Have they never played a musical instrument? Been to a live concert? Been to a church?
It's a unique phenomenon of self delusion I just find quite fascinating. Such people derive such a sense of POWER being one of the few to understand the "real" music. It's the mindset of a religious cult.
It is not democracy versus monarchy. You can have a system of government that still involves elections - it just would not be the population at large electing a leader from their respective, arbitrary geographic location. Rather than having the Representative from say, Chicago, you would have the representative of Doctors. The same could be true of construction workers, and a host of other trades and professions.
Ideally, rather than a gaggle of professional politicians all with specialties in nothing but law, you would have a meeting of the finest minds of the various specialties of our society.
Those members of society who lack expertise in any particular field or trade would have less political clout than they do today, but then again they would still have a voice - just one that is proportionate with their ability to make decisions regarding the future of society.
That's a problem with our political system, not the climatologists. The reality is there should BE no professional politicians. Lawyers don't know anything about making laws regarding much of anything, let alone climatology. They don't have a clue about economics and social sciences. They know nothing of geology nor the realities of peak oil. Civil engineering is far outside their expertise and it is no wonder our national infrastructure is collapsing.
Face it, the complexity of the modern world has made the political expert obsolete. The only sound course for the future is to reorient the electorate based upon professional expertise, rather than geography. Climatology experts in the country should be determining who should have authority on this matter - no one else can possibly determine whether or not a particular person is qualified to make decisions on that matter. We can do this for every profession, and finally, the right people with the right knowledge will be making decisions.
Of course, this won't happen, and that is why the world's democracies are doomed. Democracy does not and cannot work in the modern world as long as our planet's enormous population requires a high level of technological advancement and efficiency to function.
I don't think it will be a problem to incorporate support in a new update, no. Profile 1.1 is essentially a software thing - the physical media is not going to change. All the profile 1.1 does is support additional audio and video decoders and the ability to cache data to another storage medium, ie the PS3 hard drive. You're right, no players support this profile yet and that's because it's not mandatory until November 1, 2007.
Is it possible Sony is going to say fuck it and not include it? I suppose, but so far I have been very impressed with most of the firmware updates. Also, as the 1.1 spec allows for storage on a hard drive, the PS3 is, compared to most other players, uniquely suited to utilize this feature.
The BD-R discs have nothing to do with the 1.1 spec. Personally, the drives and media are way to expensive for me to consider at the moment so I haven't really looked into it.
- can the controller be used wirelessly to control the playing?
Yes
- does the ps3 have an IR receiver so I can program my existing remote to control it like a stand-alone blue-ray player?
No
- does the ps3 support blue-ray profile 1.1 (with dual decoding)?
This standard isn't required for months. It's trivial to include support in a future firmware release.
- how is the quality compared to a stand-alone player?
You know about a future standard but haven't read any reviews of the PS3, the most popular bluray player? The quality is superb, and is considered to have better quality than many standalone players.
- does the ps3 have a digital out to feed to my receiver? (coax? optical?)
Sheesh, reading the box would answer this question. Of course it has optical output. That is the only way to receive surround sound with a bluray player.
- the ps3 does NOT upscale dvd movies to 1080i/p
This is false. Support for upscaling DVDs, PS1 and PS2 games was added in the 1.8 system software release in May. The quality of the upscaling is superior to my Yamaha DVD player that came with my 5.1 setup.
- the ps3 supports 1080p/24 starting from firmware 1.9
The ps3 has always supported 1080p output. The 1.9 release was relatively minor, with the only major component being support for Chinese text.
I look forward to the day that the Neo-Cons become Neo-Convicts.
This is hardly the exclusive fault of the Neo-Cons. It was the democratic party that started virtually every war you mentioned, and a democratic congress and president that instituted the Federal Reserve. In the 40 years the democratic party controlled congress in the late 20th century, they did nothing to prevent this insidious system of usury that has allowed an elite to dominate this country by lending money they created out of thin air to a populace unwilling or unable to believe they have been so deceived.
Personally, the reason I don't get any nintendo machines these days is because of the endless Mario and Zelda remakes. The original NES came out when I was in first grade. Now, I'm almost 30 and have been playing these games virtually my entire life.
I might pick a Wii up someday, but so far not much has convinced me Nintendo is really trying to start a new mode of gaming. It looks promising, but it's just not there yet. Obviously, millions of people ARE giving Nintendo a chance, especially compared to the failed Gamecube. I look at the game releases, and most of it just hasn't lived up to everyone's expectations. I don't care how good the latest Zelda game is, or Paper Mario. I just can't bring myself to play these games anymore. It's time for Nintendo to not just reinvent the hardware, but to reinvent the entire story behind their games.
You may not know this, but banks don't lend money provided to them by depositors. They collect interest on money given to you that was created by the Federal Reserve, which derives its authority from Congress.
People don't have a "right" to borrow money, but the problem we have today is the prices for everything are radically inflated because of the huge quantities of money that have been injected into the economy through the creation of debt.
The real issue is this: Should someone who for whatever reason can't pay their debts be subject to a financial system that makes buying necessary assets like cars and houses impossible without a loan? 100 years ago, most people had no access to credit and were able to save to buy houses. Today, that is impossible for all but the wealthiest of individuals.
This is not 1900 when banks rarely granted loans for houses. The entire system of usury we have is nothing more than modern slavery, but it allows an elite class to live off the work of others. Fighting that system is going to be a long war, but insuring that everyone has access to this government created money is essential in the short term. It is the government delegates its authority to a private bank that creates the money that is lent to individuals. By that reason alone, we have the right to decide under what terms that money is lent.
If we return someday to a sound financial system where only money that is created through actual work and productive activity is lent to others, then perhaps you will have a point. Today however, your argument is baseless. No one, other than loansharks, lends their "own" money. It is all created out of thing air.
Here is a nice video that explains our monetary system:
I was always under the impression the Atlantic wall was largely built by the French. Even on D-day, Germans were a minority of the defenders who manned the wall.
We like to look back on WWII and believe the Germans acted alone - but the involvement of other axis countries was extensive. France in particular seems to have a real problem with this, even going so far as to not honor their dead who fought against the British and communists.
I think it's also important to note how well the PS3 handles PS2 games now with the latest firmware. They look great on a modern 1080p HDTV, considering they are at such a lower resolution. I think the upscaled PS2 content on the PS3 looks better than the Wii.
Slashdot Mirror
The author isn't saying there shouldn't be monetary policy. The entire point of the book is that the Fed has NOT managed the monetary system properly, best evidenced by the fact the value of the US dollar has declined by 98% since the Fed was created.
This is actually false. The money supply is increased by ONE WAY and ONE WAY ONLY! When a bank issues a loan, the loan itself is money "created" with the debt ultimately reported to the Fed. There are various mechanisms that restrict how many loans banks can create as a ratio of their liquid holdings, but the simple fact of the matter the US government is but one entity that takes out loans. Most debt creation is NOT to the US government. This poster may work in a bank, but as a teller or some low level position that really doesn't understand what it means to issue a loan. It's not like the bank had the money beforehand. In all actuality, anyone with a brain who sits down and thinks about this knows that it's true. There wasn't enough money in the world to lend trillions of dollars to every government entity in the country, as well as every homeowner. If tomorrow we banned money lending, the money supply could never increase. It's that simple.
Again, this is another poster who apparently doesn't even understand what they are saying. Banks issue loans by stealing part of the value of your money, then they collect interest on it. The author knows this, but doesn't seem to find anything wrong with it. It would be one thing if the government did this directly - a power the constitution clearly gives it - and returns the interest to the public coffers. Instead, it goes into the hands of a ruling elite. This is how they survive. They are parasites and this was at the heart of it all, the reason for World War II and for every major conflict since then. The conflict is not over. Yeah, the greatest war in human history. That's not earthshattering.
That is the most comical statement of all. Sure, all they do is "manage" the economy. Again, why then do they have to collect interest which does not accrue to the public's benefit? Another example of the sheeple who will be mystified when our economy collapses.
Sorry, there are no credible bad reviews on Amazon. Just
It appears the plan now is to inflate the hell out of our currency to make the debt less relevant. This typically doesn't work, but it doesn't mean Congress won't try.
The problem is we have no native industry for the vast majority of things Americans desire. We also are a net importer of food and energy.
Someday, countries like Canada with lots of wheat will want something besides debt instruments in exchange for their goods. So too will countries like Saudi Arabia want something of tangible value in exchange for their oil.
Rapidly rising prices of foreign goods may someday bring back American industry, but that is a generation away. We have too few engineers and no manufacturing infrastructure. We will have to train a whole new class of workers and build many new factories. This doesn't happen overnight.
No 12-year old in the world has the experience and judgment to effectively management that kind of money. I could care less how brilliant he is.
There is also the issue of how he has yet to reach the age of majority. Not only does he lack experience, he is not legally responsible for his actions.
Do you know anything about marketing? Exchange rates are meaningless for consumer goods, what matters is the ratio of said product to the average income of your target demographic. The british pound may be worth twice as much as the US dollar, but it doesn't mean people in the UK make half as much as Americans in actual numerical income.
The average income in the UK is approximately the same as in the US, if the two country's currency's had equal value. For someone living in the UK, the PS3 costs the same.
This is why British tourists infest so much of the world. Their excess income is worth much more when they travel in comparison with say, Americans.
Someone has been reading a it too much Ayn Rand.
Because of the difficulty of a massive takeover and the resistence and uprisings it would cause, freedom is almost never taken away all at once. Instead, it's eroded gradually, little bit by little tiny bit (always "for the children", "for your safety", "to stop terrorists", "to fight [some] drugs"), which suits the statists because it is never given back, making the resulting police state inevitable.
This theory probably sounds good when you read it out loud, but it is entirely unsupported by history.
Firstly, no one is "free". It is the oppressive state that first gave humans freedom from the constant vigilence and tedium of the primitive, hunter gatherer lifestyle. Before the first oppressive king decided to found a city and eventually an empire, humans knew nothing but the need to constantly fight off competitors/predators and to search for food. Safety and abundance is the direct result of "freedom" imposed by the will of a despot. The first men to submit to that rule did so willingly, as the harsh world outside the city walls was considered far more oppressive.
Freedom, as you know it, it is a product of the enlightenment. Even in antiquity most humans were not free. Even democratic Athens was populated by lots of slaves.
Your vision of freedom is a dream, a dream that has never really existed. Perhaps it existed in the early days of the American Republic for a few rich landowners of European decent. It wasn't true for the Native Americans, and it wasn't true for the poor indentured servants who arrived in English colonies with nothing at all. The French had a few notions about "freedom" as well. It turned into a bloodbath that could only be stopped by Napoleon.
Then there is the bastard child of the French Revolution, Haiti. Nearly 200 years of "freedom" has turned their island paradise into a living hell.
So, my point is just this: Freedom doesn't really exist. The benefits of civilized society change, and more frequently than not change radically in a short period of time. The scenario you mention where "freedoms" are slowly eroded to avoid civil unrest has never occurred in the history of mankind. There was no need.
1) In the United States, all churches are exempt from corporate taxes. Many other non-profit groups are also exempt from taxes. Church members who donate to churches DO pay taxes, as do employees of churches. Most "think tank" organizations as well as universities with economics departments have the same tax benefits as do the church. I'm sure you won't take such a hard stance towards the Brookings Institute and the Harvard School of Business.
2) Commercial real estate owned by churches that is not used for church purposes is taxed on the local level. In New York City, the catholic church is the largest landowner after the city itself. They do pay property taxes on quite a few parcels, many of which are subject to long term ground leases.
being women, are more interested in actual pleasurable sex.
Women and men have different opinions and needs regarding sex, but it is ridiculous to assume that men aren't interested in "pleasurable" sex. Of course men are interested in pleasurable sex. The issue is men and women somewhat differ on what the definition of "pleasure" is. This is wholly subjective value judgment, and neither is better or worse than the the other.
The east coast?
Yeah, I have an EE degree but dropped out of the field at 26 to pursue a finance related career. I wanted to stay in NYC to be with my family, plus, I like it here.
I was making $60K before I jumped ship. Now, I'm not even 30 and I make $250K a year.
$100K is plain old middle class, and still not enough given the work involved. Don't kid yourself.
Windows Media Player for Vista includes both the client and server functionality of Windows Media Connect.
Perhaps you are thinking of Windows Home Server, which is not set for public release until next week.
PC Magazine lost my respect in this regard in 1995. The shamless plugging of that dogged OS was comical. Vista coverage has been nowhere near as bad since those days.
That said, the EIC's comments about Vista are in many cases either wrong, or unique to his configuration. I have 3 computers running Windows. One is my desktop machine that runs Vista Ultimate 64-bit edition, and the other is my personal laptop that runs Vista Home Premium 32-bit edition. I also have my work thinkpad that runs XP. I actually have more problems with the wireless connection not being restored upon resume with the XP machine than the Vista machine. This is not a problem unique to Vista. So far, I've been very impressed with Vista 64-bit edition. It is very stable, and has been running without a crash since it was installed in February.
I'm also perplexed with his comments regarding the Windows Media Server. I store all my digital media on my Vista 64-bit machine. I regularly stream audio I have that is mp3 or wma all the time to my PS3. I regularly peruse my digital photos and hi-def movies i've recored with my camcorder on the PS3 all the time as well. Windows Media Server isn't perfect, but losing connections isn't my problem. Overall, it works better than I thought it would and so far I'm happy.
I dunno, it all just seems a bit overstated to me.
Dude, I live in Brooklyn. No one from Brooklyn refers to their residence as being on Long Island, and pretty much everyone who lives there is in the vast majority of cases is going to go through Staten Island which is closer to places like the Newark airport and the I-287 office district in Somerset County. And what is the Lower Manhattan Expressway? You mean the FDR drive? Umm, no there is no entrance ramp. Sheesh, look at a map. Maybe you're thinking of the BQE exit on Flatbush? I don't know - but that really does very little to help most people in the borough.
Traffic between Long Island and New Jersey is irrelevant. The relatively few number of people making such a commute doesn't warrant any special consideration. If someone doesn't want to pay, they can move or find a new job. And, by the way, the Manhattan Bridge doesn't even have a highway connection. Me thinks your knowledge of the halted plan to build such a highway through Soho is not in tune with the modern reality of the situation. The only people taking the Manhattan Bridge to New Jersey live in Brooklyn, not Long Island.
The congestion pricing is going to be for peak hours - not 24 hours. The city wishes to encourage trucks to do their business off hours, particularly in the early morning hours.
Yeah, no kidding. So much "science" in the parent's post, yet there is a total rejection of the scientific method!
I go to live music all the time, play a lot of music myself, and typically only listen to mp3s and cds of bands I go to see live.
You know what? It all sounds the same to me.
The audiophile crowd just amazes me. Have they never played a musical instrument? Been to a live concert? Been to a church?
It's a unique phenomenon of self delusion I just find quite fascinating. Such people derive such a sense of POWER being one of the few to understand the "real" music. It's the mindset of a religious cult.
It is not democracy versus monarchy. You can have a system of government that still involves elections - it just would not be the population at large electing a leader from their respective, arbitrary geographic location. Rather than having the Representative from say, Chicago, you would have the representative of Doctors. The same could be true of construction workers, and a host of other trades and professions.
Ideally, rather than a gaggle of professional politicians all with specialties in nothing but law, you would have a meeting of the finest minds of the various specialties of our society.
Those members of society who lack expertise in any particular field or trade would have less political clout than they do today, but then again they would still have a voice - just one that is proportionate with their ability to make decisions regarding the future of society.
That's a problem with our political system, not the climatologists. The reality is there should BE no professional politicians. Lawyers don't know anything about making laws regarding much of anything, let alone climatology. They don't have a clue about economics and social sciences. They know nothing of geology nor the realities of peak oil. Civil engineering is far outside their expertise and it is no wonder our national infrastructure is collapsing.
Face it, the complexity of the modern world has made the political expert obsolete. The only sound course for the future is to reorient the electorate based upon professional expertise, rather than geography. Climatology experts in the country should be determining who should have authority on this matter - no one else can possibly determine whether or not a particular person is qualified to make decisions on that matter. We can do this for every profession, and finally, the right people with the right knowledge will be making decisions.
Of course, this won't happen, and that is why the world's democracies are doomed. Democracy does not and cannot work in the modern world as long as our planet's enormous population requires a high level of technological advancement and efficiency to function.
I don't think it will be a problem to incorporate support in a new update, no. Profile 1.1 is essentially a software thing - the physical media is not going to change. All the profile 1.1 does is support additional audio and video decoders and the ability to cache data to another storage medium, ie the PS3 hard drive. You're right, no players support this profile yet and that's because it's not mandatory until November 1, 2007.
Is it possible Sony is going to say fuck it and not include it? I suppose, but so far I have been very impressed with most of the firmware updates. Also, as the 1.1 spec allows for storage on a hard drive, the PS3 is, compared to most other players, uniquely suited to utilize this feature.
The BD-R discs have nothing to do with the 1.1 spec. Personally, the drives and media are way to expensive for me to consider at the moment so I haven't really looked into it.
- can the controller be used wirelessly to control the playing?
Yes
- does the ps3 have an IR receiver so I can program my existing remote to control it like a stand-alone blue-ray player?
No
- does the ps3 support blue-ray profile 1.1 (with dual decoding)?
This standard isn't required for months. It's trivial to include support in a future firmware release.
- how is the quality compared to a stand-alone player?
You know about a future standard but haven't read any reviews of the PS3, the most popular bluray player? The quality is superb, and is considered to have better quality than many standalone players.
- does the ps3 have a digital out to feed to my receiver? (coax? optical?)
Sheesh, reading the box would answer this question. Of course it has optical output. That is the only way to receive surround sound with a bluray player.
- the ps3 does NOT upscale dvd movies to 1080i/p
This is false. Support for upscaling DVDs, PS1 and PS2 games was added in the 1.8 system software release in May. The quality of the upscaling is superior to my Yamaha DVD player that came with my 5.1 setup.
- the ps3 supports 1080p/24 starting from firmware 1.9
The ps3 has always supported 1080p output. The 1.9 release was relatively minor, with the only major component being support for Chinese text.
I look forward to the day that the Neo-Cons become Neo-Convicts.
This is hardly the exclusive fault of the Neo-Cons. It was the democratic party that started virtually every war you mentioned, and a democratic congress and president that instituted the Federal Reserve. In the 40 years the democratic party controlled congress in the late 20th century, they did nothing to prevent this insidious system of usury that has allowed an elite to dominate this country by lending money they created out of thin air to a populace unwilling or unable to believe they have been so deceived.
Personally, the reason I don't get any nintendo machines these days is because of the endless Mario and Zelda remakes. The original NES came out when I was in first grade. Now, I'm almost 30 and have been playing these games virtually my entire life.
I might pick a Wii up someday, but so far not much has convinced me Nintendo is really trying to start a new mode of gaming. It looks promising, but it's just not there yet. Obviously, millions of people ARE giving Nintendo a chance, especially compared to the failed Gamecube. I look at the game releases, and most of it just hasn't lived up to everyone's expectations. I don't care how good the latest Zelda game is, or Paper Mario. I just can't bring myself to play these games anymore. It's time for Nintendo to not just reinvent the hardware, but to reinvent the entire story behind their games.
You may not know this, but banks don't lend money provided to them by depositors. They collect interest on money given to you that was created by the Federal Reserve, which derives its authority from Congress.
6 2583451279&hl=en
People don't have a "right" to borrow money, but the problem we have today is the prices for everything are radically inflated because of the huge quantities of money that have been injected into the economy through the creation of debt.
The real issue is this: Should someone who for whatever reason can't pay their debts be subject to a financial system that makes buying necessary assets like cars and houses impossible without a loan? 100 years ago, most people had no access to credit and were able to save to buy houses. Today, that is impossible for all but the wealthiest of individuals.
This is not 1900 when banks rarely granted loans for houses. The entire system of usury we have is nothing more than modern slavery, but it allows an elite class to live off the work of others. Fighting that system is going to be a long war, but insuring that everyone has access to this government created money is essential in the short term. It is the government delegates its authority to a private bank that creates the money that is lent to individuals. By that reason alone, we have the right to decide under what terms that money is lent.
If we return someday to a sound financial system where only money that is created through actual work and productive activity is lent to others, then perhaps you will have a point. Today however, your argument is baseless. No one, other than loansharks, lends their "own" money. It is all created out of thing air.
Here is a nice video that explains our monetary system:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-90504743
I was always under the impression the Atlantic wall was largely built by the French. Even on D-day, Germans were a minority of the defenders who manned the wall.
We like to look back on WWII and believe the Germans acted alone - but the involvement of other axis countries was extensive. France in particular seems to have a real problem with this, even going so far as to not honor their dead who fought against the British and communists.
Bye Bye Sony. Hopefully, this will be one more nail in their coffin.
I think it's also important to note how well the PS3 handles PS2 games now with the latest firmware. They look great on a modern 1080p HDTV, considering they are at such a lower resolution. I think the upscaled PS2 content on the PS3 looks better than the Wii.