We need to have financial incentives in place for people who defeat patents with prior art searches. Basically, you would put bounties on killing patents as a way of clearing the roles of nonsense patents. This would be the IP euivalent of selling-short (betting on stocks going down).
A challenge phase needs to be put in place so that our patent killers (as well as competitors) have a chance to savage a patent with prior art claims before it officially goes on the rolls.
Finally, we need new categories of IP that try to make things a little more clear. Copyright and Patent no longer covers the range of intellectual property out there.
Patent - Applies only to physical machines. Applies specifically to a problem and the machine that solves it.
Copyright - A written and performed work of art. Computer programs do NOT apply.
Software (4 years)- A very specific process for creating something new. Data structures may be involved, but only in conjunction with a related algorithm. Alternative methodoligies for using the same data formats (reverse engineering) is specifically allowed.
Method/Application Patents (4 years) - Protect a novel way of doing something. This may apply to a business method or a software application.
Pharma (15 years) - A chemical composition for curing a specific ailment or modifying a biological process. All Pharma patents must be vetted. That is, the research must be done showing that it actually does what it CLAIMS it does.
Pharma Use (non-exclusive 10 years) - A set of research that proves an additional use for an Pharma substance. This could apply to something as mundane as aspirin. A court could grant intellectual property rights proportional to the scope of a new use for that substance which would increase it's use. For example, proving that Aspirin helps prevent heart attacks increases the use of Aspirin.
This one sounds weird, but it encourages people to do more research on existing substances. Pharma research is EXPENSIVE. This research should be rewarded since it adds to the level of human knowledge and increases the use of EXISTING products making the whole process more effecient.
The IP would work as a royalty granted by IP courts levied on producers of that substance.
Research patents (non-exclusive 10 years) - Like Pharma patents, this would expensive basic research. It would be a royalty applied to products which profit from knowledge derived from expensive research.
The most obvious IP in this area would be human and animal genome. It's not an invention, it's an expensive process of discovery. Additional types of IP could relate to materials science, and even advanced physics (like the guys slowing light down, quantum entanglement methods (advanced communications)).
Engineered Organisms - A company that engineers an organism would have rights to re-produce and sell that organism. Any one else with access to that organism could breed it, but not for profit.
Re-production of the organism using unique methodologies would be allowable and would constitute a unique organism IP. Though, other IPs may apply.
New IP categories. The IP office would have staff and processes devoted to exploring new categories of IP and their associated rights, and fees. They could write legislation and submit it to congress for consideration and ultimate approval.
Tivo is effectively a hardware financing company. They sell discounted special purpose boxes and sell a "service" (free information) so that the hardware can work.
The hardware costs will eventually drop to the point where no one needs Tivo to finance their purchase. At that point, boxes can simply use free XML encoded program listings from a myriad of sources. At this point, there is no need to pay any fees to Tivo for ANYTHING!!!!!
The DVD/Hard Drive crowd are already starting to muscle into the market. Hauppauge and ATI already offer PC based alternatives that DON'T charge for the program guides (because the info is VERY lightweight). Also notable is that these alternatives don't need the Tivo logo as much as generic tissue manufacturers need a Kleenex logo.
Enter the cable companies who are now renting set top boxes from Motorola. Tivo doesn't provide advanced technology, they provide financing. When all is said and done, they will be completely unnecessary.
See "The Cat's Meow" for a good explanation of the whole Hearst thing. The actor, Edward Herrmann, is a dead on double for Hearst. Kirsten Dunst is also a VERY good likeness of Davies.
Another film, RKO 281, explores the making of "Citizen Kane". It looks into detail about how Hearst tried to crush the film. This film really brings Orson Welles to life in great depth.
Speaking of religion, let's talk about economics. Specifically, ALL market economists would claim that a diversified, competitive marketplace is GOOD.
In this case, multiple open source varieties compete to gain over the larger community. The poorer one's are abandoned. Other entrepenuers than take the superior source and innovate on it. It's a perfect market solution. Save one thing... no one is selling it.
Of course a Soviet Style software planner would choose the Microsoft model. All code is proprietary and must be approved by the bureau of global dominance.
I think this economist needs to revisit his messed up models and worship of corporate mega-dominance.
Planes are best for medium distances. This is what they are trying to accomplish with the Osprey. Nothing says that the Marines shouldn't be naval based. Rather, you create a capability for rapid medium/long distance arial deployment via troop ship.
This is exact capability would have been VERY handy in Afghanistan. It also comes in handy when one wants to move large numbers of Marines to an area RAPIDLY and make them less vulnerable on route. Speed is a great ally against missles. The less time in range, the less time to target and fire.
Futhermore, I think that most people would agree that planes have an inherently more stealth potential than helicopters. Especially the kind you would put 50 marines onto. The big Chinooks with two massive counter rotating blades. The need for a cargo version of such a plane is also VERY evident.
Don't get me wrong. I like helicopters. They are great short trips, but they have inherint speed and range issues.
The purpose of the Osprey is VERY evident. It's certainly debateable whether that purpose has merit. The miliatary as a whole has said YES.
Every effort at creating new aircraft has resulted in DEATH. In lamentable that some of the Osprey bugs were found in operational testing.
Typically it's just test pilots who bite it, not soldiers. But every tranport system for soldiers has killed ten times more. A squad of Marines were killed in an accident 10 time that number were killed on American highways the SAME day. Let's keep things in perspective.
Wow your creative. You don't think I've ever heard that one before.
You thought that up all by yourself? Do you think that I had a reason to point out that Kucinich was being black-balled by the "left wing" media?
Notice the sarcasm there. That is, if the media was so "left wing", or as you would say "far left nutballs" that they would be putting him front and center and talking all nice about him.
Instead, he's labled as a fringe element and a far left nutball.
This is taken from the Liberterian Party website. http://www.lp.org/issues/program/unemp.html
The free flow of goods and services is a major source of employment in a market economy. Anything which restricts trade, either within a country or between countries, contributes to unemployment. Democrats and Republicans may talk about eliminating subsidies, trade barriers, and tariffs, but they haven't done it. The current U.S. policy of subsidizing agriculture, limiting imports, and erecting countless other barriers to trade is the exact opposite of the free trade position that our government claims to support.
The Libertarian party is in a tough bind regarding free trade agreemants. On one hand, they directly support their platform. On the other hand, NAFTA and WTO are also super-governmental organizations that have the authority on paper to over-rule US sovereignty.
I respect the position, but disagree. Free trade amongst truly free nations is good. Free trade with tyrants is selling out American principles of equality and freedom.
Trade policy should be based on a graduated index of freedom and standards of living. Countries that have strong democracies would qualify for the top level with relatively little tariffs (G8 nations (not Russia)).
Next are countries with weak democracies and lower standards of living: Russia, Mexico, Central America, India, Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, Eastern Europe.
Next would be non-democratic nations with decent standards of living: China, Indo-China, Middle-East (oil nations).
Finally, the "bad guys" list. This would be a list of totalitarian terrorist or menacing states. Libya, Syria, Formerly Pakistan (if we didn't have the whole Afghanistan issue).
All tariff and trade policies would be directed toward a tier of nations. Nations that move towards overall peace and prosperity by adopting strong democracy would be moved up the chain. Countries devolving into authoritarian rule would be bumped down into more restrictive trade categories.
The ONLY country we should have free trade with is Canada. They are our cultural and economic partners on this continent.
Countries should trade according to NEED. Trade shouldn't be forced by artificial distinction in the value of one human being's labor over another.
All nations should be as self sufficient as possible. The nature of a growing international corporate tyranny is forcing an artificial dependency amongst nation. Our economy is becoming ever more dependent on totalitarian China.
Corporate honchos have no trouble associating with brutal regimes. However, free democratic peoples SHOULD have a lot of trouble with them. We are funding oppression and captive labor.
I will gladly build walls between free peoples and tyrants. To give them a single dollar is to re-affirm their brutality and dominance over the human spirit.
Switching to a non captive labor pool WILL no doubt cause inflation. But that money goes back into our communities instead of the coffers of third world tyrants. The prosperity of my neighbor is MY prosperity. It is democracy and strong rules against MEGA corporations that corrupt free markets.
I have no doubt that cotton is more expensive now than when slavery haunted the shores of America. It is a price we all gladly pay. The solution for prosperity in foreign nations is neither foreign investment nor trade. It is a strong democracy and robust, balanced markets. It is strong labor unions that keep resources in the hands of those who spend their flesh in creating it.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Keep your friends close. Keep you enemies closer". Outsourcing your lower managers breaks all the rules. It also breaks the "old boys club" that they depend on for their existence.
Also, I'll remind you that you can't play golf or have power lunches with managers in Bangalore. That would wreck the whole executive lifestyle.
An executive assistant in China???? Nope, Sorry, can't fuck her during an "executive session".
Forget the MBA shit, this is what upper management is REALLY about.
The need for a high speed vertical takeoff aircraft is real and has been real for a VERY long time.
The Osprey has had some problems. Most aircraft go through "problem" stages. The history of fixed wing aircraft has far more deaths on it's account than the Osprey.
The modern variety of larger slow rotating windmills don't kill birds.
BTW, environmentalists can't have it both ways. Society needs energy. There are polluting and non-polluting ways to derive it. Every energy source has an impact on natural habitats and wildlife.
Dams cause no pollution but impact the spawning of fish. There are ways to minimize that impact and thats what environmentalists should focus on. The alternative is nuclear power and thats about the worst of ALL worlds.
Obviously, other people disagree. Perhaps even the founders. If not, why didn't they simply write...
"The peopele have the right to carry firearms."
And leave it at that.
For example...
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't say...
The speech of the people, being necessary for pursuit of political discourse, and further being a necessity to reason, shall not be abridged. The press, being a natural forum for speech, printed or spoken, shall neither be restricted. etc...
The second amendment seems to have a curious format and it is ABSOLUETLY a matter of debate. It was so fucking obvious there would be no debate.
My personal take is that it is intentionally ambiguous. That is, people disagreed about the nature of that amendement. The existence of citizen militias was a HUGE bone of contention leading up to the Revolution. Some others likely believed that the right to bear ANY type of weaponry should not be infringed in any way.
We are left to reason to interpret the meaning of these phrases intertwined. Given the hideous nature of the text, a literal interpretation simply isn't possible.
The idea that this amendment deals specifically with guns is also ludicrous. It doesn't say guns. It says arms. Armaments at the time ranged from cannon, rifle, pistol and swords.
Arms of this day consist of shoulder fired missles, flame-throwers, land-mines, tanks, nuclear weaponry, biological agents, etc... A literal interpretation would require one to protect all the above as a protected right of a citizen.
Finally, go back to Mr. Brocki and ask him how HE would have written the sentence. Ask him if one of his students had written a sentence like that he would have corrected it. Watch him shut down.
The second amendment is a contrived ambiguity. The notion that these brilliant men of learning would write such a crappy sentence because of sloppines is naive.
If we reduce our demand for oil the Middle East and the whole issue in general becomes less relevant.
Increase CAFE standards. Get all cars over 30MPH. This creates jobs and stops money flowing to Saudi Arabis who in turn fund Al-Queada.
Of course the Bushies are pretty chummy with the Saudi royal family. They are also hold fortunes that are derived largely from oil. So they wouldn't ever want to decrease energy consumption.
And please, don't give me any of that rugged individualism crap about the Bushies. They made their oil fortunes by drilling in Washington, not Texas.
The Dutch currently have windfarms located out in the ocean. I know they don't have hurricanes there but they do experience some pretty brutal conditions.
One Somehow I think they could create mechanisms that would survive the pounding. The directionless variety wouldn't torque in side winds. The would simply spin faster.
White House officials do not deny that they craft elaborate events to showcase Bush, but they maintain that these events are designed to accurately dramatize his policies and to convey qualities about him that are real.
"This was effective, because it captured something about the president that people know is true, that he really cares about the soldiers and gets emotional when he sees them," Mary Matalin, a former administration official, said about the trip to Baghdad. "You have to figure out how to capture the Bush we know, even if it doesn't come through in a speech situation or a press conference. He regularly rejects anything that is not him."
I'll paraphrase. They stage events and make shit up to portray things the way they want you to see them. When Hitler and Stalin did that, they called it Propaganda. When Bush does it, it's just good PR. They have to overcome that "obvious" "liberal bias" in the media.
Isn't it so ironic that it was President Clinton who was so often accused of "Wagging the Dog". It's even more ironic that the "liberal media" were the one's accusing him.
You may be the only person who believes that Ann Coulter uses FACTS.
Personally, I love Ann Coulter. For me she is the poster child of all ultra-conservative thinking. A hysteric blonde bitch. You guys just keep putting Ann right up front.
As far as your assesment of the Democratic party... yes they are a train wreck. The reason is that they aren't Democrats anymore. They have become seduced by corporate money and are little different than Republicans.
The big problem for progressives is that the Democrats have been reduced to a party advocating gay marriage and fringier social issues AND supporting free trade and job destruction. There sole remaining GOOD issue is progressive taxation policies.
A shift in the economic spectrum is coming soon. NAFTA and WTO HAVE to go. The party that embraces it first will win over the people. If the Democratic leadership had any sense, THEY would universally call for ending NAFTA and WTO.
I don't agree with Libertarians on a lot of issues. But I do have a profound amount of respect for them because they practice what they preach.
Republicans claim to be Libertarians in nature, but they simply want liberal policies in certain areas where Democrats want them in another. Both sides are VERY strong on regulation. They simply wish to apply it to different things.
Same goes for true advocates of strict constructionism. That is, you should read the constitution very literally and not interpret. Although I disagree with it, I respect their position.
I do NOT respect the folks in the James Madison society. They pretend to be strict constructionist when it comes to abortion*On all other issues they will twist the constitution to their hearts content.
*...and "gun" control though it doesn't make sense as the amendment specifically cites militias, they are also against unlimited distribution of arms (the literal word) like missle launchers, tanks, cannons, and biowarfare agents.
Congress WITH HOLDS the purse. They allocate the money, they don't actually spend it. The spending is reserved for the various agencies headed by the administrative branch. So in some cases, Congress will allocate money for seomthing and the President will choose not to spend it.
Beyond that, the GOP congress has been pretty good about rubber stamping President Bush's budget proposals.
Yeah, because it's there I know. But mountains are typically climbed by loner wackos. When the mission fails, it's of little consequence to a nation.
If we spend 500 billion to go to Mars, it better be for a damn good reason. Thus far, I haven't seen a reason that outweigh issues of medicare, infrastructure, border security, bio-terrorism preparedness, etc...
One day I agree, it will be a great adventure. But that is something for a healthy, content, prosperous society to pursue. It's something for a peaceful united democratic world to pursue. We should sort out issues here on earth before we go off and try to mess up some other planet.
Beyond that, I'm still hooked on the Antarctica argument. Antarctica has vast resources and is habitable. It ain't that friendly, but it has air. No one has tried to colonize Antarctica. Why???? NO PROFIT, SHITTY standard of living.
The cost to colonize Antarctica would be a fraction of what it would cost to colonize the moon. Yeah, I know there are treaties against it. But why do you think they signed those treaties in the first place?????
Let the Chinese go and spend their gulag labor capital on a moon base. It is a total waste of resources. The only practical derivative will be better technology for ICBMs.
There is also a significant advantage in travelling to both Mars and the Moon for geological investigation. Mars has lost of erosion and possible life, but the Moon is a pure surface, recording the past right back to the earliest history.
Not only does this give you a lot of information on the Earth-Moon system, but it also means you could use the subsurface in the same way that the ice cores from Arctic are used to measure the atmosphere back into the past, to record the history of the Solar wind back billions of years.
If you want a moon rock, send a robot to get it. It's WAY WAY cheaper and puts no astronaut in harms way.
Slashdot Mirror
We need to have financial incentives in place for people who defeat patents with prior art searches. Basically, you would put bounties on killing patents as a way of clearing the roles of nonsense patents. This would be the IP euivalent of selling-short (betting on stocks going down).
A challenge phase needs to be put in place so that our patent killers (as well as competitors) have a chance to savage a patent with prior art claims before it officially goes on the rolls.
Finally, we need new categories of IP that try to make things a little more clear. Copyright and Patent no longer covers the range of intellectual property out there.
Patent - Applies only to physical machines. Applies specifically to a problem and the machine that solves it.
Copyright - A written and performed work of art. Computer programs do NOT apply.
Software (4 years)- A very specific process for creating something new. Data structures may be involved, but only in conjunction with a related algorithm. Alternative methodoligies for using the same data formats (reverse engineering) is specifically allowed.
Method/Application Patents (4 years) - Protect a novel way of doing something. This may apply to a business method or a software application.
Pharma (15 years) - A chemical composition for curing a specific ailment or modifying a biological process. All Pharma patents must be vetted. That is, the research must be done showing that it actually does what it CLAIMS it does.
Pharma Use (non-exclusive 10 years) - A set of research that proves an additional use for an Pharma substance. This could apply to something as mundane as aspirin. A court could grant intellectual property rights proportional to the scope of a new use for that substance which would increase it's use. For example, proving that Aspirin helps prevent heart attacks increases the use of Aspirin.
This one sounds weird, but it encourages people to do more research on existing substances. Pharma research is EXPENSIVE. This research should be rewarded since it adds to the level of human knowledge and increases the use of EXISTING products making the whole process more effecient.
The IP would work as a royalty granted by IP courts levied on producers of that substance.
Research patents (non-exclusive 10 years) - Like Pharma patents, this would expensive basic research. It would be a royalty applied to products which profit from knowledge derived from expensive research.
The most obvious IP in this area would be human and animal genome. It's not an invention, it's an expensive process of discovery. Additional types of IP could relate to materials science, and even advanced physics (like the guys slowing light down, quantum entanglement methods (advanced communications)).
Engineered Organisms - A company that engineers an organism would have rights to re-produce and sell that organism. Any one else with access to that organism could breed it, but not for profit.
Re-production of the organism using unique methodologies would be allowable and would constitute a unique organism IP. Though, other IPs may apply.
New IP categories. The IP office would have staff and processes devoted to exploring new categories of IP and their associated rights, and fees. They could write legislation and submit it to congress for consideration and ultimate approval.
Tivo is effectively a hardware financing company. They sell discounted special purpose boxes and sell a "service" (free information) so that the hardware can work.
The hardware costs will eventually drop to the point where no one needs Tivo to finance their purchase. At that point, boxes can simply use free XML encoded program listings from a myriad of sources. At this point, there is no need to pay any fees to Tivo for ANYTHING!!!!!
The DVD/Hard Drive crowd are already starting to muscle into the market. Hauppauge and ATI already offer PC based alternatives that DON'T charge for the program guides (because the info is VERY lightweight). Also notable is that these alternatives don't need the Tivo logo as much as generic tissue manufacturers need a Kleenex logo.
Enter the cable companies who are now renting set top boxes from Motorola. Tivo doesn't provide advanced technology, they provide financing. When all is said and done, they will be completely unnecessary.
Yeah,
I mean, that would be like sending the ultimate weapon into the enemies domain. The enemy would never suspect you'd put it right under his nose.
Oops, sorry already been done. It's called Lord of the Rings.
Not his wife ... his lover. Marion Davies.
See "The Cat's Meow" for a good explanation of the whole Hearst thing. The actor, Edward Herrmann, is a dead on double for Hearst. Kirsten Dunst is also a VERY good likeness of Davies.
Another film, RKO 281, explores the making of "Citizen Kane". It looks into detail about how Hearst tried to crush the film. This film really brings Orson Welles to life in great depth.
Adaptation to a new/changed environment leads to speciation.
Speciation is produced by mutation and the overall stochastic elimination of animals unsuited for their environment.
Speaking of religion, let's talk about economics. Specifically, ALL market economists would claim that a diversified, competitive marketplace is GOOD.
... no one is selling it.
In this case, multiple open source varieties compete to gain over the larger community. The poorer one's are abandoned. Other entrepenuers than take the superior source and innovate on it. It's a perfect market solution. Save one thing
Of course a Soviet Style software planner would choose the Microsoft model. All code is proprietary and must be approved by the bureau of global dominance.
I think this economist needs to revisit his messed up models and worship of corporate mega-dominance.
Planes are best for medium distances. This is what they are trying to accomplish with the Osprey. Nothing says that the Marines shouldn't be naval based. Rather, you create a capability for rapid medium/long distance arial deployment via troop ship.
This is exact capability would have been VERY handy in Afghanistan. It also comes in handy when one wants to move large numbers of Marines to an area RAPIDLY and make them less vulnerable on route. Speed is a great ally against missles. The less time in range, the less time to target and fire.
Futhermore, I think that most people would agree that planes have an inherently more stealth potential than helicopters. Especially the kind you would put 50 marines onto. The big Chinooks with two massive counter rotating blades. The need for a cargo version of such a plane is also VERY evident.
Don't get me wrong. I like helicopters. They are great short trips, but they have inherint speed and range issues.
The purpose of the Osprey is VERY evident. It's certainly debateable whether that purpose has merit. The miliatary as a whole has said YES.
Every effort at creating new aircraft has resulted in DEATH. In lamentable that some of the Osprey bugs were found in operational testing.
Typically it's just test pilots who bite it, not soldiers. But every tranport system for soldiers has killed ten times more. A squad of Marines were killed in an accident 10 time that number were killed on American highways the SAME day. Let's keep things in perspective.
Wow your creative. You don't think I've ever heard that one before.
You thought that up all by yourself? Do you think that I had a reason to point out that Kucinich was being black-balled by the "left wing" media?
Notice the sarcasm there. That is, if the media was so "left wing", or as you would say "far left nutballs" that they would be putting him front and center and talking all nice about him.
Instead, he's labled as a fringe element and a far left nutball.
This is taken from the Liberterian Party website. http://www.lp.org/issues/program/unemp.html
The free flow of goods and services is a major source of employment in a market economy. Anything which restricts trade, either within a country or between countries, contributes to unemployment. Democrats and Republicans may talk about eliminating subsidies, trade barriers, and tariffs, but they haven't done it. The current U.S. policy of subsidizing agriculture, limiting imports, and erecting countless other barriers to trade is the exact opposite of the free trade position that our government claims to support.
The Libertarian party is in a tough bind regarding free trade agreemants. On one hand, they directly support their platform. On the other hand, NAFTA and WTO are also super-governmental organizations that have the authority on paper to over-rule US sovereignty.
I respect the position, but disagree. Free trade amongst truly free nations is good. Free trade with tyrants is selling out American principles of equality and freedom.
Trade policy should be based on a graduated index of freedom and standards of living. Countries that have strong democracies would qualify for the top level with relatively little tariffs (G8 nations (not Russia)).
Next are countries with weak democracies and lower standards of living: Russia, Mexico, Central America, India, Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, Eastern Europe.
Next would be non-democratic nations with decent standards of living: China, Indo-China, Middle-East (oil nations).
Finally, the "bad guys" list. This would be a list of totalitarian terrorist or menacing states. Libya, Syria, Formerly Pakistan (if we didn't have the whole Afghanistan issue).
All tariff and trade policies would be directed toward a tier of nations. Nations that move towards overall peace and prosperity by adopting strong democracy would be moved up the chain. Countries devolving into authoritarian rule would be bumped down into more restrictive trade categories.
The ONLY country we should have free trade with is Canada. They are our cultural and economic partners on this continent.
Not isolation.
Countries should trade according to NEED. Trade shouldn't be forced by artificial distinction in the value of one human being's labor over another.
All nations should be as self sufficient as possible. The nature of a growing international corporate tyranny is forcing an artificial dependency amongst nation. Our economy is becoming ever more dependent on totalitarian China.
Corporate honchos have no trouble associating with brutal regimes. However, free democratic peoples SHOULD have a lot of trouble with them. We are funding oppression and captive labor.
I will gladly build walls between free peoples and tyrants. To give them a single dollar is to re-affirm their brutality and dominance over the human spirit.
Switching to a non captive labor pool WILL no doubt cause inflation. But that money goes back into our communities instead of the coffers of third world tyrants. The prosperity of my neighbor is MY prosperity. It is democracy and strong rules against MEGA corporations that corrupt free markets.
I have no doubt that cotton is more expensive now than when slavery haunted the shores of America. It is a price we all gladly pay. The solution for prosperity in foreign nations is neither foreign investment nor trade. It is a strong democracy and robust, balanced markets. It is strong labor unions that keep resources in the hands of those who spend their flesh in creating it.
FUCK, you're really in the dark aren't you.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Keep your friends close. Keep you enemies closer". Outsourcing your lower managers breaks all the rules. It also breaks the "old boys club" that they depend on for their existence.
Also, I'll remind you that you can't play golf or have power lunches with managers in Bangalore. That would wreck the whole executive lifestyle.
An executive assistant in China???? Nope, Sorry, can't fuck her during an "executive session".
Forget the MBA shit, this is what upper management is REALLY about.
The ONLY political presidential candidate who has stated he would end WTO AND NAFTA is ...
Dennis Kucinich
Dean has hinted as this, but will not commit.
It makes you wonder why the "left wing media" claims he has no chance. Kinda a self fullfilling prophecy by a self indulging ("left wing") media.
Rather he's a "market analyst". And if you've ever met a market analyst, you'd know that they as replaceable as any other whore.
Your right that it will do little in the war for terrorism. But money must be spent on SOME type of weapon system ;-)
It WILL allow marines to quickly deploy in large numbers and quickly evacuate.
The need for a high speed vertical takeoff aircraft is real and has been real for a VERY long time.
The Osprey has had some problems. Most aircraft go through "problem" stages. The history of fixed wing aircraft has far more deaths on it's account than the Osprey.
The modern variety of larger slow rotating windmills don't kill birds.
BTW, environmentalists can't have it both ways. Society needs energy. There are polluting and non-polluting ways to derive it. Every energy source has an impact on natural habitats and wildlife.
Dams cause no pollution but impact the spawning of fish. There are ways to minimize that impact and thats what environmentalists should focus on. The alternative is nuclear power and thats about the worst of ALL worlds.
Obviously, other people disagree. Perhaps even the founders. If not, why didn't they simply write ...
...
...
"The peopele have the right to carry firearms."
And leave it at that.
For example
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It doesn't say
The speech of the people, being necessary for pursuit of political discourse, and further being a necessity to reason, shall not be abridged. The press, being a natural forum for speech, printed or spoken, shall neither be restricted. etc...
The second amendment seems to have a curious format and it is ABSOLUETLY a matter of debate. It was so fucking obvious there would be no debate.
My personal take is that it is intentionally ambiguous. That is, people disagreed about the nature of that amendement. The existence of citizen militias was a HUGE bone of contention leading up to the Revolution. Some others likely believed that the right to bear ANY type of weaponry should not be infringed in any way.
We are left to reason to interpret the meaning of these phrases intertwined. Given the hideous nature of the text, a literal interpretation simply isn't possible.
The idea that this amendment deals specifically with guns is also ludicrous. It doesn't say guns. It says arms. Armaments at the time ranged from cannon, rifle, pistol and swords.
Arms of this day consist of shoulder fired missles, flame-throwers, land-mines, tanks, nuclear weaponry, biological agents, etc... A literal interpretation would require one to protect all the above as a protected right of a citizen.
Finally, go back to Mr. Brocki and ask him how HE would have written the sentence. Ask him if one of his students had written a sentence like that he would have corrected it. Watch him shut down.
The second amendment is a contrived ambiguity. The notion that these brilliant men of learning would write such a crappy sentence because of sloppines is naive.
Waste not, want not.
If we reduce our demand for oil the Middle East and the whole issue in general becomes less relevant.
Increase CAFE standards. Get all cars over 30MPH. This creates jobs and stops money flowing to Saudi Arabis who in turn fund Al-Queada.
Of course the Bushies are pretty chummy with the Saudi royal family. They are also hold fortunes that are derived largely from oil. So they wouldn't ever want to decrease energy consumption.
And please, don't give me any of that rugged individualism crap about the Bushies. They made their oil fortunes by drilling in Washington, not Texas.
The Dutch currently have windfarms located out in the ocean. I know they don't have hurricanes there but they do experience some pretty brutal conditions.
One Somehow I think they could create mechanisms that would survive the pounding. The directionless variety wouldn't torque in side winds. The would simply spin faster.
White House officials do not deny that they craft elaborate events to showcase Bush, but they maintain that these events are designed to accurately dramatize his policies and to convey qualities about him that are real.
"This was effective, because it captured something about the president that people know is true, that he really cares about the soldiers and gets emotional when he sees them," Mary Matalin, a former administration official, said about the trip to Baghdad. "You have to figure out how to capture the Bush we know, even if it doesn't come through in a speech situation or a press conference. He regularly rejects anything that is not him."
I'll paraphrase. They stage events and make shit up to portray things the way they want you to see them. When Hitler and Stalin did that, they called it Propaganda. When Bush does it, it's just good PR. They have to overcome that "obvious" "liberal bias" in the media.
Isn't it so ironic that it was President Clinton who was so often accused of "Wagging the Dog". It's even more ironic that the "liberal media" were the one's accusing him.
You may be the only person who believes that Ann Coulter uses FACTS.
... yes they are a train wreck. The reason is that they aren't Democrats anymore. They have become seduced by corporate money and are little different than Republicans.
Personally, I love Ann Coulter. For me she is the poster child of all ultra-conservative thinking. A hysteric blonde bitch. You guys just keep putting Ann right up front.
As far as your assesment of the Democratic party
The big problem for progressives is that the Democrats have been reduced to a party advocating gay marriage and fringier social issues AND supporting free trade and job destruction. There sole remaining GOOD issue is progressive taxation policies.
A shift in the economic spectrum is coming soon. NAFTA and WTO HAVE to go. The party that embraces it first will win over the people. If the Democratic leadership had any sense, THEY would universally call for ending NAFTA and WTO.
I don't agree with Libertarians on a lot of issues. But I do have a profound amount of respect for them because they practice what they preach.
...and "gun" control though it doesn't make sense as the amendment specifically cites militias, they are also against unlimited distribution of arms (the literal word) like missle launchers, tanks, cannons, and biowarfare agents.
Republicans claim to be Libertarians in nature, but they simply want liberal policies in certain areas where Democrats want them in another. Both sides are VERY strong on regulation. They simply wish to apply it to different things.
Same goes for true advocates of strict constructionism. That is, you should read the constitution very literally and not interpret. Although I disagree with it, I respect their position.
I do NOT respect the folks in the James Madison society. They pretend to be strict constructionist when it comes to abortion*On all other issues they will twist the constitution to their hearts content.
*
Congress WITH HOLDS the purse. They allocate the money, they don't actually spend it. The spending is reserved for the various agencies headed by the administrative branch. So in some cases, Congress will allocate money for seomthing and the President will choose not to spend it.
Beyond that, the GOP congress has been pretty good about rubber stamping President Bush's budget proposals.
WHY????
Yeah, because it's there I know. But mountains are typically climbed by loner wackos. When the mission fails, it's of little consequence to a nation.
If we spend 500 billion to go to Mars, it better be for a damn good reason. Thus far, I haven't seen a reason that outweigh issues of medicare, infrastructure, border security, bio-terrorism preparedness, etc...
One day I agree, it will be a great adventure. But that is something for a healthy, content, prosperous society to pursue. It's something for a peaceful united democratic world to pursue. We should sort out issues here on earth before we go off and try to mess up some other planet.
Beyond that, I'm still hooked on the Antarctica argument. Antarctica has vast resources and is habitable. It ain't that friendly, but it has air. No one has tried to colonize Antarctica. Why???? NO PROFIT, SHITTY standard of living.
The cost to colonize Antarctica would be a fraction of what it would cost to colonize the moon. Yeah, I know there are treaties against it. But why do you think they signed those treaties in the first place?????
Let the Chinese go and spend their gulag labor capital on a moon base. It is a total waste of resources. The only practical derivative will be better technology for ICBMs.
There is also a significant advantage in travelling to both Mars and the Moon for geological investigation. Mars has lost of erosion and possible life, but the Moon is a pure surface, recording the past right back to the earliest history.
Not only does this give you a lot of information on the Earth-Moon system, but it also means you could use the subsurface in the same way that the ice cores from Arctic are used to measure the atmosphere back into the past, to record the history of the Solar wind back billions of years.
If you want a moon rock, send a robot to get it. It's WAY WAY cheaper and puts no astronaut in harms way.