It will be interesting to see if there is any real "predictive" value behind this hypothesis. There's only one way to find out, and that's waiting to see if FUTURE (not past) data correlates with the model. Then there's the whole argument about the model itself changing the way insurgents are dealt with (since I assume the security forces aren't going to sit around and wait for people to die if the model predicts a "high" probability) and thus changing the expected results. And what about people being identified as "terrorists" on circumstantial evidence strictly because of the "higher probability" of an imminent attack?
We may never know if this model is true. As a day trader, however, I can shake my head at people who exclaim they have a new theory to predict the future based on the past. Yeah, er, good luck with that. There's something called "insufficient data". Just wait.
There is no bias in my assessment. I am merely looking at a YES/NO comparison of military success by the US. What you're trying to do is twist your way out of it by redefining "success". The US didn't try to win a land war in Vietnam? Oh, that makes it a successful army then, to go and get shot at without TRYING to win. Somalia - turn it into a bad movie and ignore the reality. I guess the US still occupies Somalia then. All those Somali pirates are just made up. Maybe they just weren't "trying" again. As for "toppling" the Iraqi government in the first gulf war - I seem to remember Saddam retaining power until the SECOND gulf war. I like your definition of "topple". Oh and Afghanistan - you hide behind "the Russians lost too!". Perhaps the Russians weren't trying either?
So, all in all, I don't see a counter to my argument, just pathetic excuses from a weaker minded fool who doesn't want to believe that his perception of his country's "might" is built on countless lies. The US has been eroded from within. Government is corrupt. Leadership goes no further than looking to the next election. No one has the guts to effect a real change in the current foreign policy. The country is not only broke - it owes money on all levels - consumer, municipality, state and federal government. The US politicians have no idea how to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US population are too weak to stomach the thought of breaking the Arab people, while most Arabs would be all too willing to dance the graves of America and Europe and see the world united under Islam. War is won by violence, not by sending soldiers to pretend to be pacifists. You can hand out as much money and chocolates as you want, but until the spirit of the people is broken, those same people who wave and smile at the troops immediately go back to plotting against them the minute they leave.
But now Iran has just invaded part of Iraq. Iran is China's main oil supplier. The plot thickens. If the US army is so god-almighty powerful, they are in an ideal situation, with bases on the east and west sides of Iran. They could crush it in a two-front attack. Or not. This should be fun to watch. Sadly I think it will just prove my point to you.
Moviegoers were offered to get a refund or view an analogue 2D showing instead.
And only because it would be illegal if they didn't offer the customer any form of compensation. It's not as if they care enough about their business to make sure things are done right.
When you go to the cinema, this is exactly the sort of crap you are supporting.
The proof is in the pudding, friend. A stalemate in N. Korea. A loss in Vietnam. The loss in Somalia. The current fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh yeah, on the victory side, the first gulf war (admittedly the US had a LOT of help), Grenada, Panama and I dunno, any other tiny little countries I forgot?
You think the capability of an army is based on how big its guns are? How "organized" it is? How many neat weapons it has? Where are the Roman Legions today? Technological gadgetry does NOT win wars. At the end of the day, it's all about bashing your opponent's head in with a rock.
You're talking about the most advanced and capable military in the history of the planet.
I fail to see how Napoleon's "Grande Armée" has anything to do with this.
Oh, were you meaning all the gadgets US soldiers are equipped with? Night vision, and armor/air support, etc? Ah, well yes, the Americans have more toys. However I don't judge the capability of a military by the trinkets it carries. It's been what, 8 years now? No, I don't think the US military is that much more capable than any other military on this planet. It's just the most hyped one. Usually by Americans.
Defeating them would be gaining control of the drones (a really scary proposition)
If the outgoing stream wasn't encrypted, what makes you think the control stream was? It probably wasn't encrypted either - apart from the fact that the commands themselves are a form of substitution cypher.
Why did nobody slap AES or blowfish block ciphers around the video packets?
You marvel because (yet again) government is shown to be incompetent and inefficient?
Not only that, but I'm sure the US government will now pay millions more than it actually costs to "secure" these feeds. And then they will probably lose the encryption keys and work out some sort of hack as a compromise that will be far less secure than the original - only no one will know about it.
Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt.
There, I'm in for another $12.5 million from quoting you. This is fun! Perhaps Ted. A Klaudt (oops, 13 million) thinks that lawsuits are like making the government print more money. However I'm sure that Ted. A Klaudt (oh dear) prefers to be called Ted. A Klaudt (14?) and not Ted. A. KLUTZ (that one's a parody, and covered by fair use).
we humans would destroy the earth lot before by global warming
Apparently we're going to have to work a lot harder to do that because the Earth has been through (and shrugged off) far worse changes than the current one.
Now consider that along with the fact that recently Dr. Maslowski confirmed that Al Gore was misusing and misquoting data supplied by him to support his political agenda. Consider the mere fact that the push for the idea of "global warming" is coming from the POLITICAL, not the scientific, end of society. Consider the fact that "global warming" has opened up a multi-billion dollar a year "carbon offset" market, and new taxation revenue streams for government.
There is a motive to convince you that the world is going to end. People are willing to believe the world will end for any reason, from the arrival of comets, to planetary alignments and eclipses, to the "return" of "the son of man" (who is coming soon - any day now...). If politicians start clamoring for it, and misuse scientific data to "back up" their claims, there are any number of sheep who will bleat to that tune. To the point where people are already turning violent at "protests" - which can only represent a certain degree of fanaticism about the subject. But simply believing something to be true DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
Still, don't worry. The oil won't last forever. In fact, once we reach peak oil, its availability will diminish dramatically due to exorbitant prices (look what happened when oil reached a mere $150/bbl, now imagine it at $1500/bbl) as countries compete for the last drops of oil and society has NO CHOICE but to switch to alternative energy. Since the Earth has already demonstrated that it has returned from far worse temperatures/CO2 levels than today, even if global warming was "man-made", the Earth will purge itself of "our pollution" in a few hundred years once we stop "polluting the atmosphere with our CO2".
However if it's not man-made, well, temperatures are going to rise even when the oil is gone. That will have a lot of people scratching their heads and wondering why they're paying all those carbon taxes in 100 years or so, when oil production/consumption is diminished or negligible. And they will stay at their peak for a hundred years or so. I can imagine some politicians in the far future patting themselves on the back when temperatures return to normal...
Last time I checked we haven't discovered any Dyson Sphere built around any of the stars in the Milky Way.
Sorry to nitpick but - kind of by definition, if someone managed to build a Dyson sphere around their star to harvest all of it's solar output, we wouldn't see that star. Just like you can't see a match when it's in a box. Possibly the only way to detect it would be via its gravity.
If you've ever worked with such off-shore developers, you'll immediately understand why Reader is such a shitty piece of software.
Yes because it's ok to buy something and not to bother making sure you're getting your money's worth.
Responsibility lies with management for not implementing some sort of quality control - ESPECIALLY when dealing with offshore outfits. It's called due diligence. But since a lot of managers only care about their paycheck and not the brand's reputation, etc., well, this crap happens. If the board are too busy figuring out how much to pay themselves on top of that, well, that's the corporate world in a nutshell.
and is continuing with the prosecution just to save face,'
So, what do taxpayers think about their public funds being thrown away just to "save face"? This charade will end soon. Maybe another generation or so.
Who are YOU to judge what is worth some bucks for OTHER people
Oh I can judge alright. What I can't do, in a "free" society, is try to stop them. But I can judge. Who said living in a democracy meant abandoning sanity?
You are free to spend your money on whatever you want. I will manage mine as I see fit. And I will ALWAYS shake my head when some slightly pretty girl manages to make in a summer what it took my grandfather and his brothers 40 years of hard work to do building stuff that obviously has far LESS value to society, like dams, highways and airports, instead of prancing about in front of a camera for 2 hours of film.
In case you're wondering, I'm not the least bit jealous. I have, and my children have, and my grandchildren will have more than we need. I'm just puzzled at where society puts its values. Glitter and purchased thrills are obviously the most important things for the insensate.
your 'ownership' of limited resources and demanding a return on investment is what increases scarcity
I would hardly call seven month's supply of houses on the market as "scarce". What created scarcity was the perception by the middle and lower classes (those who couldn't afford homes but were given loans anyway) that home ownership was a golden ticket to riches. It's certainly not my modest investments that have impacted the US economy. As it is, were I to sell today I would lose money - not because the face value of my investments is lower, but because the US dollar has lost so much value.
The current US government is engaged in fooling said middle and lower classes into thinking they can keep their homes. However by doing this they are throwing the fiat US dollar out of the window. This can only be a temporary measure, since inflation will soon bite everyone in the ass. Except of course for those of us that have hedged against inflation a long time ago.
The fact that just having money makes more money
This is patently false. Firstly I know a lot of formerly wealthy people who have failed to "make more money" - who lost all their money. In fact they are the majority. Hence the expression: "a fool and his money are soon parted". Secondly, making money in itself is not enough. You have to outpace inflation and the loss in purchasing power of your money over time. Fools think that both of these things are the same. Well if you do that soon you find yourself gradually getting poorer, thinking that you're making progress swimming against the current when actually you are being pushed backwards. The government lies about inflation and GDP. You cannot hide purchasing power.
Increase the separation between poor and rich.
Utterly false. This is jumped on by socialist media who try to prove the "evils" of capitalism. However I will give you a simple choice: Would you rather be "poor" in 2009, or "poor" in 1809? Today a "poor" person has food, shelter, clothing, probably a rustbucket of a car, a tv, etc. I am even talking about "poor" people in third world countries (where I live for - guess - convenient income tax laws). Most of them have tv's. Most of them have (tiny) shacks. Most of them have some form of government health assistance. In fact the only ones REALLY living in the street with absolutely nothing to eat are the addicts, consumed by their drug of choice. The poor in the US have a much better standard of living than in say, Panama.
Quality of life has improved. Yes today there may be multi-billionaires when yesterday there were only multi-millionaires, but you can't judge poverty by an absolute "dollar amount". You have to look at the standard of living.
There is a finite amount of money at any given time.
Untrue. With fiat currency, there is an infinite amount of money available. All you have to do is print it and add zeroes to the face value of the bills. Not true, however, of limited resources like gold - which is why smart men always keep part of their money there.
If you have more than you need at any one moment, it is likely someone doesn't have enough.
It does not follow. You'll have to show the link between your two statements. No one became poor when I was born, as a cause of my birth. No one lost their house because someone in my family died and left me some money that they already had. Also, define "enough".
Stop making excuses, and either give away your money,
Who are you - Jesus?
accept the fact that because you have a higher standard of living, someone can't.
So if I own a house and rent it out for a fair value (ie, what similar houses in the area are going f
The $10 billion number is gross revenue. It does not take into effect the costs
Cry me a fucking river. Next you're going to tell me that Lord of the Rings actually DID lose money, in fact it almost bankrupted New Line Cinema, and Peter Jackson shouldn't have been paid a penny.
Hollywood is all about make believe. It's unfortunate that they manage to convince so many people about the vast hardships involved in making movies, when just about any former actor or singer can become a successful director or producer (wait, what? I thought it involved a lifetime of study!?). I mean, I know it's a real drag to have to work for a few months to earn a few million dollars and all... perhaps if Hollywood stopped inflating the costs of movie production by giving away free cash, then movie production wouldn't be so expensive.
I really have no sympathy for them. The only reason Hollywood really survives is due to the masses who have no idea what a buck is worth, and are willing to part with a lot of them for a couple hours spent staring at a screen where the same plots are played out over and over again by different actors. This doesn't give Hollywood any sacred virtue, just because the uneducated are willing to worship large faces on a screen as gods. It certainly doesn't give them the right to dictate laws. Yet the current situation serves to underline how many morons are elected to office or hold positions in the judiciary.
Or could it be that poor people are fucking angry about being constantly screwed by dicks like you
I refrain from screwing poor people, on principle. It's just disgusting.
On the chance that you had attached a different meaning to the verb "to screw", I'm curious as to how, having inherited a large amount of money and having invested it wisely in gold at $500, real estate while it was cheap, etc, moreover, how buying and selling stock, "screws over" poor persons like yourself? Shareholders cannot bankrupt a company and put people out of work by buying or selling stock. However a company (cough - Lehman, Bear Sterns) that is badly managed, providing false information via manipulated financial statements, and relying solely on value of stock to secure liquidity, well, they get what they deserve. But that's hardly my fault.
If you're really poor, you don't own stock anyway. Perhaps you can argue that I am screwing you by failing to own a luxury car and living a life of modesty instead of spending all my money. I really can't understand you poor people sometimes.
Facebook might be the social network giant but it's a really pointless site. It's more about showing off how many friends you have who most of you probably haven't met.
I have noticed from personal experience that time spent on facebook is inversely proportional to how involved one is in a relationship with a human of the opposite sex. For some reason all those people that I know that spend 10+ hours a day on facebook, informing the world minute-by-minute what they are up to, have invariably been single or are in unhappy relationships.
I used to have a facebook account. I met my current girlfriend on that site, believe it or not. We've been living together 2 years and things have never been better. Oh, and I deleted my facebook account a long time ago... However I know a lot of my girlfriend's single female 40+ friends have their whole autobiographies on facebook...
Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?
Or could it be that lower class parents are more likely to blame anything but their poor parenting skills for their children's behavior and seek the "cure" in a pill?
Since when is a government in charge of proper parenting? Have we now delegated "common sense" to bureaucrats?
I certainly remember my parents warning me of the dangers of listening to loud music. I have warned my children. Because children rarely listen, I often have to reinforce this warning, and even take their iPods away when I catch them. This is called parenting. It's not 100% successful. My children are not drilled soldiers and so they don't always listen to me. That's normal. I didn't always listen to my parents, either. However it's my job to keep trying.
The possibilities for one human to harm himself or others are limitless. Are we going to have to legislate each one? Every single law a government makes takes away something from the people. Yes it's stupid to deafen yourself by listening to loud music. However PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO BE STUPID. Laws normally help prevent or settle dispute between citizens. It's not right that you play your music on your stereo at full volume in your crowded downtown neighborhood at 3am. Not everyone out of your 400 neighbors is in a partying mood. It's not right that you drive drunk and plow your car into another because of your intoxication. It's not right that everyone in the airplane has to put up with your stench if you haven't quit smoking yet. However who is harmed, apart from yourself, if you wear headphones and crank up the volume?
The real danger here, I believe, is that sort of legislation that is trying to accomplish one thing - perhaps some legislator is tired of listening to the tinny sounds of people's MP3 players cranked at full volume in public - under the guise of something else - "oh we're doing it to save people from themselves".
_Intent_ belongs to such fields as soothsaying, and sadly nowadays, law.
It has no business in a "scientific" article. If a "scientist" can't even check his work before posting them, he just failed peer review...
However if you note TFA it says "centimeters of rock". The error is on the part of the submitter/editors. Surprised? Of course the person who actually wrote TFA forgot that we don't live in a 1-D world, and an expression such as 40 cm of rock is useless. A volume, or even an area plus the 40cm data, so that we could calculate a volume, would be far more practical.
Who cares about mod points anyway - the modding system is for sheep. Reading at -1 makes for a far more interesting slashdot, even if you have to put up with the occasional GNAA or goatse crap. You can all play your little "karma" game. I'll decide for myself what's worth reading.
it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.
Come now. Of course in order to be able to read these messages, his staff will need new computers, blackberries, iPhones and high speed internet connections - both at the office and, because they're so hard-working, at home too. It's only logical that such an undertaking cost at least $10-15 million. But just think, this is money the government is spending to stimulate the private sector, which means that by doing this they will save Manuel and José's jobs (you know, the guys that sweep up at the Apple and Dell plants?). IT HAS TO BE WORTH IT!/sarcasm
Slashdot Mirror
It will be interesting to see if there is any real "predictive" value behind this hypothesis. There's only one way to find out, and that's waiting to see if FUTURE (not past) data correlates with the model. Then there's the whole argument about the model itself changing the way insurgents are dealt with (since I assume the security forces aren't going to sit around and wait for people to die if the model predicts a "high" probability) and thus changing the expected results. And what about people being identified as "terrorists" on circumstantial evidence strictly because of the "higher probability" of an imminent attack?
We may never know if this model is true. As a day trader, however, I can shake my head at people who exclaim they have a new theory to predict the future based on the past. Yeah, er, good luck with that. There's something called "insufficient data". Just wait.
Could have, would have...
There is no bias in my assessment. I am merely looking at a YES/NO comparison of military success by the US. What you're trying to do is twist your way out of it by redefining "success". The US didn't try to win a land war in Vietnam? Oh, that makes it a successful army then, to go and get shot at without TRYING to win. Somalia - turn it into a bad movie and ignore the reality. I guess the US still occupies Somalia then. All those Somali pirates are just made up. Maybe they just weren't "trying" again. As for "toppling" the Iraqi government in the first gulf war - I seem to remember Saddam retaining power until the SECOND gulf war. I like your definition of "topple". Oh and Afghanistan - you hide behind "the Russians lost too!". Perhaps the Russians weren't trying either?
So, all in all, I don't see a counter to my argument, just pathetic excuses from a weaker minded fool who doesn't want to believe that his perception of his country's "might" is built on countless lies. The US has been eroded from within. Government is corrupt. Leadership goes no further than looking to the next election. No one has the guts to effect a real change in the current foreign policy. The country is not only broke - it owes money on all levels - consumer, municipality, state and federal government. The US politicians have no idea how to succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US population are too weak to stomach the thought of breaking the Arab people, while most Arabs would be all too willing to dance the graves of America and Europe and see the world united under Islam. War is won by violence, not by sending soldiers to pretend to be pacifists. You can hand out as much money and chocolates as you want, but until the spirit of the people is broken, those same people who wave and smile at the troops immediately go back to plotting against them the minute they leave.
But now Iran has just invaded part of Iraq. Iran is China's main oil supplier. The plot thickens. If the US army is so god-almighty powerful, they are in an ideal situation, with bases on the east and west sides of Iran. They could crush it in a two-front attack. Or not. This should be fun to watch. Sadly I think it will just prove my point to you.
Moviegoers were offered to get a refund or view an analogue 2D showing instead.
And only because it would be illegal if they didn't offer the customer any form of compensation. It's not as if they care enough about their business to make sure things are done right.
When you go to the cinema, this is exactly the sort of crap you are supporting.
The proof is in the pudding, friend. A stalemate in N. Korea. A loss in Vietnam. The loss in Somalia. The current fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. Oh yeah, on the victory side, the first gulf war (admittedly the US had a LOT of help), Grenada, Panama and I dunno, any other tiny little countries I forgot?
You think the capability of an army is based on how big its guns are? How "organized" it is? How many neat weapons it has? Where are the Roman Legions today? Technological gadgetry does NOT win wars. At the end of the day, it's all about bashing your opponent's head in with a rock.
You're talking about the most advanced and capable military in the history of the planet.
I fail to see how Napoleon's "Grande Armée" has anything to do with this.
Oh, were you meaning all the gadgets US soldiers are equipped with? Night vision, and armor/air support, etc? Ah, well yes, the Americans have more toys. However I don't judge the capability of a military by the trinkets it carries. It's been what, 8 years now? No, I don't think the US military is that much more capable than any other military on this planet. It's just the most hyped one. Usually by Americans.
Defeating them would be gaining control of the drones (a really scary proposition)
If the outgoing stream wasn't encrypted, what makes you think the control stream was? It probably wasn't encrypted either - apart from the fact that the commands themselves are a form of substitution cypher.
Why did nobody slap AES or blowfish block ciphers around the video packets?
You marvel because (yet again) government is shown to be incompetent and inefficient?
Not only that, but I'm sure the US government will now pay millions more than it actually costs to "secure" these feeds. And then they will probably lose the encryption keys and work out some sort of hack as a compromise that will be far less secure than the original - only no one will know about it.
This is what you pay taxes for.
Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt Ted A. Klaudt.
There, I'm in for another $12.5 million from quoting you. This is fun! Perhaps Ted. A Klaudt (oops, 13 million) thinks that lawsuits are like making the government print more money. However I'm sure that Ted. A Klaudt (oh dear) prefers to be called Ted. A Klaudt (14?) and not Ted. A. KLUTZ (that one's a parody, and covered by fair use).
Anyway, enjoy.
we humans would destroy the earth lot before by global warming
Apparently we're going to have to work a lot harder to do that because the Earth has been through (and shrugged off) far worse changes than the current one.
Now consider that along with the fact that recently Dr. Maslowski confirmed that Al Gore was misusing and misquoting data supplied by him to support his political agenda. Consider the mere fact that the push for the idea of "global warming" is coming from the POLITICAL, not the scientific, end of society. Consider the fact that "global warming" has opened up a multi-billion dollar a year "carbon offset" market, and new taxation revenue streams for government.
There is a motive to convince you that the world is going to end. People are willing to believe the world will end for any reason, from the arrival of comets, to planetary alignments and eclipses, to the "return" of "the son of man" (who is coming soon - any day now...). If politicians start clamoring for it, and misuse scientific data to "back up" their claims, there are any number of sheep who will bleat to that tune. To the point where people are already turning violent at "protests" - which can only represent a certain degree of fanaticism about the subject. But simply believing something to be true DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.
Still, don't worry. The oil won't last forever. In fact, once we reach peak oil, its availability will diminish dramatically due to exorbitant prices (look what happened when oil reached a mere $150/bbl, now imagine it at $1500/bbl) as countries compete for the last drops of oil and society has NO CHOICE but to switch to alternative energy. Since the Earth has already demonstrated that it has returned from far worse temperatures/CO2 levels than today, even if global warming was "man-made", the Earth will purge itself of "our pollution" in a few hundred years once we stop "polluting the atmosphere with our CO2".
However if it's not man-made, well, temperatures are going to rise even when the oil is gone. That will have a lot of people scratching their heads and wondering why they're paying all those carbon taxes in 100 years or so, when oil production/consumption is diminished or negligible. And they will stay at their peak for a hundred years or so. I can imagine some politicians in the far future patting themselves on the back when temperatures return to normal...
Last time I checked we haven't discovered any Dyson Sphere built around any of the stars in the Milky Way.
Sorry to nitpick but - kind of by definition, if someone managed to build a Dyson sphere around their star to harvest all of it's solar output, we wouldn't see that star. Just like you can't see a match when it's in a box. Possibly the only way to detect it would be via its gravity.
Of course. Everyone knows that terrorists will do everything they can to draw attention to themselves while setting up a plot.
If you've ever worked with such off-shore developers, you'll immediately understand why Reader is such a shitty piece of software.
Yes because it's ok to buy something and not to bother making sure you're getting your money's worth.
Responsibility lies with management for not implementing some sort of quality control - ESPECIALLY when dealing with offshore outfits. It's called due diligence. But since a lot of managers only care about their paycheck and not the brand's reputation, etc., well, this crap happens. If the board are too busy figuring out how much to pay themselves on top of that, well, that's the corporate world in a nutshell.
Well you could always start a Nigerian company called bi.ng ?
and is continuing with the prosecution just to save face,'
So, what do taxpayers think about their public funds being thrown away just to "save face"? This charade will end soon. Maybe another generation or so.
Who are YOU to judge what is worth some bucks for OTHER people
Oh I can judge alright. What I can't do, in a "free" society, is try to stop them. But I can judge. Who said living in a democracy meant abandoning sanity?
You are free to spend your money on whatever you want. I will manage mine as I see fit. And I will ALWAYS shake my head when some slightly pretty girl manages to make in a summer what it took my grandfather and his brothers 40 years of hard work to do building stuff that obviously has far LESS value to society, like dams, highways and airports, instead of prancing about in front of a camera for 2 hours of film.
In case you're wondering, I'm not the least bit jealous. I have, and my children have, and my grandchildren will have more than we need. I'm just puzzled at where society puts its values. Glitter and purchased thrills are obviously the most important things for the insensate.
your 'ownership' of limited resources and demanding a return on investment is what increases scarcity
I would hardly call seven month's supply of houses on the market as "scarce". What created scarcity was the perception by the middle and lower classes (those who couldn't afford homes but were given loans anyway) that home ownership was a golden ticket to riches. It's certainly not my modest investments that have impacted the US economy. As it is, were I to sell today I would lose money - not because the face value of my investments is lower, but because the US dollar has lost so much value.
The current US government is engaged in fooling said middle and lower classes into thinking they can keep their homes. However by doing this they are throwing the fiat US dollar out of the window. This can only be a temporary measure, since inflation will soon bite everyone in the ass. Except of course for those of us that have hedged against inflation a long time ago.
The fact that just having money makes more money
This is patently false. Firstly I know a lot of formerly wealthy people who have failed to "make more money" - who lost all their money. In fact they are the majority. Hence the expression: "a fool and his money are soon parted". Secondly, making money in itself is not enough. You have to outpace inflation and the loss in purchasing power of your money over time. Fools think that both of these things are the same. Well if you do that soon you find yourself gradually getting poorer, thinking that you're making progress swimming against the current when actually you are being pushed backwards. The government lies about inflation and GDP. You cannot hide purchasing power.
Increase the separation between poor and rich.
Utterly false. This is jumped on by socialist media who try to prove the "evils" of capitalism. However I will give you a simple choice: Would you rather be "poor" in 2009, or "poor" in 1809? Today a "poor" person has food, shelter, clothing, probably a rustbucket of a car, a tv, etc. I am even talking about "poor" people in third world countries (where I live for - guess - convenient income tax laws). Most of them have tv's. Most of them have (tiny) shacks. Most of them have some form of government health assistance. In fact the only ones REALLY living in the street with absolutely nothing to eat are the addicts, consumed by their drug of choice. The poor in the US have a much better standard of living than in say, Panama.
Quality of life has improved. Yes today there may be multi-billionaires when yesterday there were only multi-millionaires, but you can't judge poverty by an absolute "dollar amount". You have to look at the standard of living.
There is a finite amount of money at any given time.
Untrue. With fiat currency, there is an infinite amount of money available. All you have to do is print it and add zeroes to the face value of the bills. Not true, however, of limited resources like gold - which is why smart men always keep part of their money there.
If you have more than you need at any one moment, it is likely someone doesn't have enough.
It does not follow. You'll have to show the link between your two statements. No one became poor when I was born, as a cause of my birth. No one lost their house because someone in my family died and left me some money that they already had. Also, define "enough".
Stop making excuses, and either give away your money,
Who are you - Jesus?
accept the fact that because you have a higher standard of living, someone can't.
So if I own a house and rent it out for a fair value (ie, what similar houses in the area are going f
The $10 billion number is gross revenue. It does not take into effect the costs
Cry me a fucking river. Next you're going to tell me that Lord of the Rings actually DID lose money, in fact it almost bankrupted New Line Cinema, and Peter Jackson shouldn't have been paid a penny.
Hollywood is all about make believe. It's unfortunate that they manage to convince so many people about the vast hardships involved in making movies, when just about any former actor or singer can become a successful director or producer (wait, what? I thought it involved a lifetime of study!?). I mean, I know it's a real drag to have to work for a few months to earn a few million dollars and all... perhaps if Hollywood stopped inflating the costs of movie production by giving away free cash, then movie production wouldn't be so expensive.
I really have no sympathy for them. The only reason Hollywood really survives is due to the masses who have no idea what a buck is worth, and are willing to part with a lot of them for a couple hours spent staring at a screen where the same plots are played out over and over again by different actors. This doesn't give Hollywood any sacred virtue, just because the uneducated are willing to worship large faces on a screen as gods. It certainly doesn't give them the right to dictate laws. Yet the current situation serves to underline how many morons are elected to office or hold positions in the judiciary.
Or could it be that poor people are fucking angry about being constantly screwed by dicks like you
I refrain from screwing poor people, on principle. It's just disgusting.
On the chance that you had attached a different meaning to the verb "to screw", I'm curious as to how, having inherited a large amount of money and having invested it wisely in gold at $500, real estate while it was cheap, etc, moreover, how buying and selling stock, "screws over" poor persons like yourself? Shareholders cannot bankrupt a company and put people out of work by buying or selling stock. However a company (cough - Lehman, Bear Sterns) that is badly managed, providing false information via manipulated financial statements, and relying solely on value of stock to secure liquidity, well, they get what they deserve. But that's hardly my fault.
If you're really poor, you don't own stock anyway. Perhaps you can argue that I am screwing you by failing to own a luxury car and living a life of modesty instead of spending all my money. I really can't understand you poor people sometimes.
Facebook might be the social network giant but it's a really pointless site. It's more about showing off how many friends you have who most of you probably haven't met.
I have noticed from personal experience that time spent on facebook is inversely proportional to how involved one is in a relationship with a human of the opposite sex. For some reason all those people that I know that spend 10+ hours a day on facebook, informing the world minute-by-minute what they are up to, have invariably been single or are in unhappy relationships.
I used to have a facebook account. I met my current girlfriend on that site, believe it or not. We've been living together 2 years and things have never been better. Oh, and I deleted my facebook account a long time ago... However I know a lot of my girlfriend's single female 40+ friends have their whole autobiographies on facebook...
Could it be because middle class parents are more likely to push back against drug recommendations?
Or could it be that lower class parents are more likely to blame anything but their poor parenting skills for their children's behavior and seek the "cure" in a pill?
yes, and of course the name "Neo" is similar to "Theo" the lead on the OpenBSD project.
Abd Theo actually means "God".... revelation!
Since when is a government in charge of proper parenting? Have we now delegated "common sense" to bureaucrats?
I certainly remember my parents warning me of the dangers of listening to loud music. I have warned my children. Because children rarely listen, I often have to reinforce this warning, and even take their iPods away when I catch them. This is called parenting. It's not 100% successful. My children are not drilled soldiers and so they don't always listen to me. That's normal. I didn't always listen to my parents, either. However it's my job to keep trying.
The possibilities for one human to harm himself or others are limitless. Are we going to have to legislate each one? Every single law a government makes takes away something from the people. Yes it's stupid to deafen yourself by listening to loud music. However PEOPLE ARE ALLOWED TO BE STUPID. Laws normally help prevent or settle dispute between citizens. It's not right that you play your music on your stereo at full volume in your crowded downtown neighborhood at 3am. Not everyone out of your 400 neighbors is in a partying mood. It's not right that you drive drunk and plow your car into another because of your intoxication. It's not right that everyone in the airplane has to put up with your stench if you haven't quit smoking yet. However who is harmed, apart from yourself, if you wear headphones and crank up the volume?
The real danger here, I believe, is that sort of legislation that is trying to accomplish one thing - perhaps some legislator is tired of listening to the tinny sounds of people's MP3 players cranked at full volume in public - under the guise of something else - "oh we're doing it to save people from themselves".
it struck me that the author intent was
_Intent_ belongs to such fields as soothsaying, and sadly nowadays, law.
It has no business in a "scientific" article. If a "scientist" can't even check his work before posting them, he just failed peer review...
However if you note TFA it says "centimeters of rock". The error is on the part of the submitter/editors. Surprised? Of course the person who actually wrote TFA forgot that we don't live in a 1-D world, and an expression such as 40 cm of rock is useless. A volume, or even an area plus the 40cm data, so that we could calculate a volume, would be far more practical.
Neither are interesting nor give insight.
While yours apparently is.
Who cares about mod points anyway - the modding system is for sheep. Reading at -1 makes for a far more interesting slashdot, even if you have to put up with the occasional GNAA or goatse crap. You can all play your little "karma" game. I'll decide for myself what's worth reading.
it is little wonder that US is facing a deficit in the small trillions.
Come now. Of course in order to be able to read these messages, his staff will need new computers, blackberries, iPhones and high speed internet connections - both at the office and, because they're so hard-working, at home too. It's only logical that such an undertaking cost at least $10-15 million. But just think, this is money the government is spending to stimulate the private sector, which means that by doing this they will save Manuel and José's jobs (you know, the guys that sweep up at the Apple and Dell plants?). IT HAS TO BE WORTH IT! /sarcasm