Lets see he is going to give 95% of Americans a tax break. Keep spending under control. Try and provide socialized medicine. Continue to vote to bailout private organizations. Well only those that he feels should be bailed out.
What's 2 Billion dollars for NASA? Given the 1.7 TRILLION in Entitlement programs that the U.S.A currently has. Anyone want to take a bet that Entitlements will go up next year also? How about the debt?
Given the above situation I am sure he shouldn't have any issues getting an extra few Billion for a space program.
Actually not. The reason people flipped houses was because they were getting loans for 100% of a house with no money down. In some cases more than 100%, and they were backed by the government. If Fanny and Freddy were not government sponsored entities and just normal businesses then they would have NEVER have done what they did, and if by some idiotic measure they would then they would be out of business. That is capitalism, having them in the first place is a giant step toward socialism.
Again go to youtube and search for fanny and freddie. I believe it will be the first video.
If you are doing JDBC with a POJO then you would just build that object from the different data sources, but this becomes impossible (as far as I know) with Hibernate.
really? are you serious?? am I missing some subtle nuance of what you're saying.
I will try and explain a bit more (if you are reading this at all). You have 4 database tables that make up a customer. Table one is in MySQL on one system and table2 is in Oracle on another system and the Table3 is in Microsoft SQL Server. The fourth isn't really a table at all but a web service to some HR system. Parts of these tables make up your customer class in your new system. However, when you are done with the
Now to clarify, I am not some Hibernate GURU, but I believe you generally create a standard pojo class and then use hibernate and an XML mapping of that one class to one data source (database). However, doing what I mentioned above with plain old Java is easy. You would build your object and when done save it to the different systems accordingly.
If you know of a way with Hibernate to solve this problem I would love to hear it. I am by no means Gavin:-)
First Bill would make an excellent CTO for the country, but I agree with other posters that this position isn't needed. However, I would agree that RMS would fit more closely with Obamas political views. Bill is definitely smart and considers ethics with technology, although he is about as dry as you can get.
Now you point about the government staying out of business causing the financial mess we are in now. You do realize that this all started because the government wanted to secure loans for low (no) income people? You do know what a GSE is? Specifically lower income minorities that would otherwise never be able to afford a home, but because they couldn't specifically target minorities they also gave ridiculous loans to the middle and upper class people. This is EXACTLY the fault of the government and it was the President and the majority of Democrats who voted for the bailout. Don't try and twist history and blame this on "lack of government control" or the Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around, but the core issue is that the government went to secure loans and thus mucked around in the corporate world and then when those businesses started to fail they made a socialist decision to get more involved. Again a majority of Republicans voted against the bill.
Go to youtube and search for Fanny and Freddy. I believe the top search will show you a brief history of some brave people trying to put some "control" on this madness.
This isn't totally true. I can give lots of examples, but one would be to have an object that has attributes in two different databases. You might be asking why would someone want to do that?
Lets say you are in a large company and they have many systems that make up an actual "customer", some of the info is in one system and some in another. If you are doing JDBC with a POJO then you would just build that object from the different data sources, but this becomes impossible (as far as I know) with Hibernate.
There are other examples were you would want to use cursors and stuff, so the original poster is correct. He has a difficult decision and we can't really answer it. If he never used criteria classes and his objects are very simple AND he only has a few objects then a rewrite may be simple. However, if he has a ton of objects and used a ton of lazy loading then a rewrite will be a pain.
I stuck with Hibernate, JSF and Netbeans (Visual Web Pack) and it doesn't suck, but I completely understand were this guy is. We have migrated to EJB3 now and it has its own set of issues (yes I know it can use a Hibernate persistent mangager).
I have now done a few projects now with Hibernate, JSF Netbeans 5.x-6.1 and can feel your pain. I ran across some HUGE bugs and issues that if I would have just done it with JDBC it would never have shown up. Having said all that once I got through the bugs and did some workarounds (Sun support sucks), it is a lot better. I still wouldn't use Hibernate JSF and Netbeans for everything but it doesn't totally suck.
Here are some high level things that might help. 1. If you have a relationship between classes and it only needs to be a one way association do it. Avoid bi-directional associations at all cost. 2. Hibernate can use pure sql and it's own variant of SQL. Use them when you have to. We try hard to avoid every putting SQL in to our code but there are times when we had to do it. 3. Hibernate wasn't made for 40k objects in memory at one time. If you need that then it is possible but you will have to change some caching options. 4. Lazy instantiation. In theory it sounds great, in practice it doesn't. This may start a holy war on Slashdot, but I had to avoid this. 5. Working with Arrays of associated classes and having to make changes to them.
I kind of wonder why your comment wasn't marked as funny.
"Giving money away to private corporations has nothing at all to do with socialism."
Taking money from tax payers and funding business isn't exactly socialism per say but it is one GIANT step in that direction. Add to the problem with having government sponsored entities around to give loans to people who could never afford them and you are on your way from capitalism to socialism.
(Go to Youtube and search for Fanny and Freddie and you will see who really didn't want regulation on Fanny and Freddie.)
I guess we can understand why Obama voted for the bailout, and why the majority of Democrats voted for it, but it appears that the president and some republicans were also on the payroll.
"So you're happy for rich corporations or individuals to get tax rebates (I don't know much about the US tax system, or any tax system to be fair, so I just have to go by people whining about the rich being made even richer through political corruption), but you don't want poorer people to get any breaks? Nice."
I and many others who have worked their way up from very meager beginnings don't want a tax code that penalizes anyone. What part of PERCENT don't you understand? If someone who makes 251k a year will be taxed at a certain percent then someone who makes 2k a year should also be taxed that same amount. Don't they use the same roads? Same schools? Same fire department? This is class warfare at its finest. Also you make the HUGE assumption that the government will do "good" with the taxes it receives and be very efficient with it. Care to show me an example of a well run government program? How about an efficient one? Private charitable companies are considered bad if less than 90% of the income coming in doesn't go directly to those who need it. They take in a fraction of the >3 TRILLION in taxes that the government gets.
"Personally I think it's good to ease up on poorer people, and then perhaps a few of them will be able to afford to send their kids to college. Then everyone benefits through better average levels of education in the country, which can only be a positive thing IMO (though I live in the UK so we have a different tax system, and it seems to be a lot harsher than the US one, but there are all kinds of other taxes that perhaps balance everything out.. then again, perhaps not). A tax rebate isn't about giving more to those worse off, surely? It's just about taking less from them. That's a similar idea but it's not exactly the same thing. Is it possible to actually get more in rebates than you paid in tax?"
You make quite a few assumptions, but speaking as someone who came from a poor family that didn't take any government funding, it is quite the opposite. "If" you see your parents getting by on other peoples tax dollars and they seem ok, then you start to believe it is ok to live the same. Then you start t feel entitled to that money, and thus a welfare state is born. In my situation my father chose to go out and work 3 jobs to put food on the table, and to keep the table. This had a profound effect on my family and taught us that NOBODY bails you out and to make sure you can take care of yourself. Obviously this is radically different than many of the socialist views espoused here and on places like Digg.
"I used to think that higher taxes for higher levels of pay would really suck, but that was when I wasn't making that much money. Now I'm earning almost twice what I did when I was a student, so I don't feel like I'm struggling to get by anymore. The idea of more tax coming off my wages if I get a payrise doesn't worry me. I'm happy to pay a bit more tax (okay it's a lot more, it jumps from 20% to 40% on all earnings over £35k), and for those taxes to go back into running the country and even looking after those less fortunate than me."
Again, you make the assumption that the government knows what is best and can and will distribute that money correctly. You have faith in the government "cradle to grave" and I have faith in the citizens to do what is best with their money. Again, it bears in mind that you also assume the government is efficient. They are the opposite of efficiency because they
"My parents didn't have that much money when I was growing up either,"
Sorry to hear that, but again, that doesn't mean going more socialist is the answer. Quite the opposite is really true.
Excellent points. What I personally want is NO government sponsored entities. NONE. The government has shown that they can't do anything well except perhaps the military and that they don't really control. I don't advocate anarchy, in that I believe we need laws, but we don't need the government in business at all.
All I know is that when 90+% of America doesn't want a bailout and a vast majority of Democrats vote for it and some Republicans vote for it.... It is probably horrible for the U.S.A.
So when exactly was it that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin killed someone? Perhaps I missed it and you could link to it? I guess you could make an argument that they killed Air America, but that isn't the same as taking someones father away because you want to bomb a building. Killing police officers is now the same as being an outspoken talking head... I guess I missed the memo on that one.
Now saying that America caused 911 to help George W Bush and that whites invented AIDS to oppress the black people... (not taken out of context). I guess it is one thing to be a talking head on TV/Radio and quite another to be the pastier at your church. I guess it kind of makes some sense now when some people say that they are "just recently proud of America".
However you and I agree, if we could loose EVERYONE who voted to stop federal regulation on Fanny and Freddie and who voted for this bailout; we could definitely include Rush, Ann and Michelle. But we shouldn't stop there. We need to include the NY Times, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NBC... well almost all the print media and we could even include Fox News with that. I am sure most of America would consider that a "fair" trade:-)
I would think it would be great to send up the current Congress. How about just those that voted for this ridiculous bailout. That of course would doom Mars to be a liberal mecca though, and I wouldn't wish that on any planet or country. McCain can be included with this mess.
This is a similar discussion that people have about the "What if the top 20 cities in the world were gone the next day". The world would go into a financial mess for a short time but the average quality of the people remaining would be go up significantly:-)
I guess if I had to pick I would pick some real scary people to send up to Mars first like say Randy Ayres or Reverend Write. Just hanging around those types of people will definitely influence your life. Not that any sane person would hang around them, but you get my point.
You seem to forget who controlled the congress for a majority of that time.
Now for the current crisis, most of it can come to blame upon groups like the Acorn group and other liberals putting pressure on congress and banks to extend low income loans to people who could never afford one. An artifact of that is that a lot more people got loans in over their head and this mess started. It wasn't that long ago that you needed 20% down to get a house... Suddenly you could borrow 105% of a house.
I am sure we could agree that we need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. One that wouldn't allow the U.S.A. to ever go over its spending, even in war times. I personally would love to see tax day moved to two weeks before the election, not as far away as possible, and whenever congress wants to increase it, it would go before a vote of the American people.
Your post seems to think that Oracle and Sun teamed up to kill MySQL. You want proof that Sun has done something to help MySQL along since it bought it.
My "Proof" is comes from that of a Java developer, one that uses almost all Sun tools (Netbeans, Glassfish, EJB3, WebServices and would consider Sun hardware if we could). The freaking day Sun "bought" the company that sold support for MySQL they started to push it as "their" default database of choice. Within a few days they had tutorials up on how to integrate MySQL in to your project. That is definitely an act of a company that doesn't want to KILL a product.
Sun has appeared to leave MySQL alone and to be honest the people who stared it are generally the type of people who HATE large companies and wanted to get back in to a smaller starup type company.
So why did Sun buy MySQL? In my opinion they needed to add it to their software stack. Look at their competition and tell me who doesn't have all of the following (OS, Database, Application Server, Development Tools) Microsoft, IBM, Oracle.
So "if" Sun wanted to compete with those listed above they needed to do something. NONE of those companies were going to recommend Sun hardware any more. Specifically Oracle who now is in love with their own version of Linux.
Now Oracle buying Inodb to kill or hurt MySQL... We totally agree on that one. The thought of a company like Sun giving away software to sell hardware doesn't bode well for companies like Microsoft or Oracle.
I consider myself a true conservative and I can say without a doubt that nobody that want wants McCain elected really wants to see this guy go to jail. It is just bad PR all the way around.
Unfortunately the law is suppose to be blind... So he may be kind of screwed.
If it was me I would make him wear a McCain 08 shirt and get a haircut until the election.
Nobody wins if he goes to jail other than his new "friend" that he will be traded to for a pack of smokes.
Do a little more research. Obama was the #2 candidate of donations from Fannie.
So "Yes" It may be only.0000001% (exaggeration) of total funds, but when you look at it as he was the number two man "on the payroll" that is scary. It explains a lot about how he acted during this whole mess. By acted I mean his total lack of acting. It is painfully obvious to all but the most hardened Obama supporters that he is on the take. It is now apparent that McCain is also somehow involved in this mess as well. I am sure all the Obama supporters will be able to link us to the Fannie people that are McCains advisers...
In short we cannot EVER have another government supported entity again. This coupled with the fact that both parties wanted to give housing to people that couldn't afford it is what started this whole mess. No amount of regulation would EVER have solved this problem, Fannie and Freddie had and have too much power, and used that power to buy politicians. Obama was one of them and one can only assume that by "Change" he means more corporate buyouts.
The fact remains that this bill was mostly backed by Democrats. Most Republicans voted against it, so if you thought this bill was what was right for this issue then you have Democrats AND Bush to thank.
My personal feeling is that this one vote cost McCain the election. He "could" have come out against it and at best he could have said that some of the FF (Fanny and Freddie) members would do jail time. He could have brought up the fact that Obama has strong ties to FF and received a ton of money from them, and thus kind of explains some of Obamas actions after this came out, but McCain didn't and thus probably lost the election and by not doing so helps to validate others belief in fascism or at least corporate payoffs.
Most of America didn't want this bailout to happen, yet it did. I am a bit shocked that Democrats backed this and Bush signed it. So Republicans can be mad at Bush, and Democrats "should" be mad at congress. I do find it sad that most of the Democrats that voted against it are in tight races, and quite a few Republicans that voted for it are generally locks to win. That in and of itself is a bad sign... But the fact remains neither Democrats or Republicans alone can be blamed for this.
I do hope that we (The U.S.A.) have learned one thing and that is a government sponsored entity is a bad thing. No amount of oversight is ever going to fix the problems that will happen. That and government housing is a bad idea, but I thought we already knew that one:-(
You I hear this type of quote all the time: "Most people can't tell the difference between an up-scaled DVD and BluRay movie."
I don't know what movies these guys are watching but EVERYONE I show can tell a HUGE difference. I will definitely concede that the quality of the movie plays the largest part, but the movies are only getting better and better. I also can say that the difference between 720p and 1080p is significant and given my experience EVERYONE I show a game to in 720P VS 1080P chooses 1080P. I don't want to imply 720P is crap, but the people I show choose 1080P and most reluctantly say things like "Yeah I can tell a difference". I also know that there are better up-scalers...
So what is slowing adoption of BluRay in my opinion? 1. Cost. Not everyone wants a PS3 and in my opinion a $100 player is in order to win over the masses. $200 won't do it. 2. Cost of movies. Noted above, they need to come down to match DVD and what would help is to give both with a BluRay for now. 3. 1080P TV's need to become the standard and below $1k. This is the first year that is the norm. 720p is on the way out. 4. HD Camcorders need to truly support 1080P. I have a Sanyo Xacti and it does an ok job but not 1080P. 5. Burning should be a LOT cheaper. This media would be great for backing up on a computer but it needs to be below $100. Most would kill for a 50GB (or promised 200GB) burnable disc to backup movies. The disc needs to be less than $10. 6. HD content needs to be available on cable and satellite that isn't compressed to death and at 1080P. It appears that this is happening now. I believe it is DirectTV.
All of these will happen but not as fast as some would like. By next Christmas it will be difficult to find a 720P TV that is larger than 36" and the players should be down to $150 or less range.
The largest competitor BluRay has is downloadable content and with Comcast recent bandwidth cap that all but kills downloading 1080P movies for the next 5 to 10 years; well that and other issues getting 30-50GB of data to the home in a fair amount of time. That gives BluRay a LOT of time to address the above issues.
"Where is abortion mentioned in the bible?" Jesus said "I knew you before you were in your mothers womb".
If you want I can look up the exact place but that pretty much sums it up.
"And really if he was picking a church to get elected then surely he would have picked a slightly less controversial one?"
Actually not. He "probably" picked that church to have some degree of similarity to the other black voters in that area. Obviously most are not ivy league educated, multi-million dollar people. The question is still valid why he didn't leave. "IF" some white guy hung out with the KKK for 20 years, you can bet that he would be drug under the coals for that, yet Obama gets a free pass?
"I'm pretty sure Jesus would have tried to help teach these "racist" individuals the errors of their ways rather than avoiding them as you sugges" Yep, and it all starts with admission of sin and asking for forgiveness. Has Obama done either? I don't follow him to great detail, but every time I see him he defends his racist church and he CONSTANTLY votes in a pro abortion way. So yes Jesus would try and teach him, but it would be up to him to make the choice.
My questions for McCain still stand as well. Do you believe in the death penalty and if so when would you use it?
Lastly, I again don't think Obama is a horrible person, nor do I think McCain is. Both have their faults, but "if" one of them says they are a "INSERT GROUP HERE" and they vote against that groups foundation then it isn't unreasonable to say they are not really part of "INSERT GROUP HERE".
Great question. I would love to understand Obama, a supposed Christian explain when life begins. His first answers was something like "smarter people than me will have to understand that one", isn't good enough OR "if" that is his answer then he needs to answer some simpler questions like. Is partial birth abortion a sin in Gods eyes. When exactly does a person become an American citizen. Why have you constantly voted in a pro abortion way?
I am not trying to slam Obama here but I would love to hear honest answers from him and the way "most" people see it he is just saying he is a Christian and not really living the life of a Christian.
Another question would be "Where are laws derived from?" Again, this gets in to a moral and ethics discussion so it would be great to hear his response.
Lastly, I would love to understand why he chose to associate himself with known racists. He himself might not be one but his modern history has shown him to ally with them. That again goes against Christianity and some find it very concerning when his own wife writes something like "Blacks must unify against whites" in her thesis. This and his affiliation with a church that harbors hate speech and racist behavior, makes one wonder if Obama is actually a Christian or if he just chose a religion and church to get elected to office.
For McCain an honest question is if it is morally ethical to kill someone. What is his stance on the death penalty? Now both parties tend to flip flop on this issue a lot. When it is some unknown person that killed another unknown person (kid or adults) they tend to lean that we shouldn't use the death penalty, BUT once someone attacks a government office (Oklahoma city bomber), then that person is QUICKLY put to death. So a valid question would be "if" someone went in to a government agency and killed 100 or so people would you advocate putting that person to death?
Lastly, I will say that the country will be fine with Obama or McCain as president. I don't hate either person nor honestly like either one. I see major problems with Obama calling himself a Christian and I see major problems with McCain calling himself a conservative.
And think of all the kids that will be getting their "good" normal limbs ripped off of them to get bionic implants by countries like China and Russia. Your logic is very similar to Adolf Hitlers with regards to killing Jews to gain a better understanding of medicine. Yes large advances were made when Hitlers "doctors" tore people apart to see how they worked, but that still doesn't make it right and not a path that we as a society should go down.
A previous poster said it... It comes down to morals/ethics.
The testing will get better and to the grandparent poster. The guy for that originally won the Tour De France was a cheater. The amount of testosterone in his body was WAY over. There are now test (early) to detect HGH, so the playing field will get more and more level over time.
You know I was thinking him as a running mate for Obama.
Lets see Obama gets 95% of the black vote, and a very large part of the elitist crowd, and kids.
Ballmer could pull in the white working class vote and he would balance out the ticket nicely because he could just buy most peoples vote.
You would have one American hating racist and a crazy chair throwing white guy on one side and an old liberal republican on the other.
Crazy times we live in. I wouldn't be shocked if McCain picked Britney Spears or the American Idol winner as his running mate.:-)
I do find it funny that "if" some white guy was hanging around the KKK for say 20 years he wouldn't be treated exactly the same as say another candidate. Then again perhaps I am too busy missing the government infecting black people with AIDS.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Howard the Duck 2. Obviously this is a no brainer after the success of the first one.
Then the Archies (man I can't wait for that one in BluRay) :-)
and lastly, :-)
Stan Lee: "how Marvel has tried to screw me", (working title).
Lets see he is going to give 95% of Americans a tax break.
Keep spending under control.
Try and provide socialized medicine.
Continue to vote to bailout private organizations. Well only those that he feels should be bailed out.
What's 2 Billion dollars for NASA? Given the 1.7 TRILLION in Entitlement programs that the U.S.A currently has. Anyone want to take a bet that Entitlements will go up next year also? How about the debt?
Given the above situation I am sure he shouldn't have any issues getting an extra few Billion for a space program.
Go to youtube and search on freddy and fanny to see who resisted regulation.
Then feel free to show me a video where Republicans resisted regulation.
Actually not. The reason people flipped houses was because they were getting loans for 100% of a house with no money down. In some cases more than 100%, and they were backed by the government. If Fanny and Freddy were not government sponsored entities and just normal businesses then they would have NEVER have done what they did, and if by some idiotic measure they would then they would be out of business. That is capitalism, having them in the first place is a giant step toward socialism.
Again go to youtube and search for fanny and freddie. I believe it will be the first video.
If you are doing JDBC with a POJO then you would just build that object from the different data sources, but this becomes impossible (as far as I know) with Hibernate.
really? are you serious?? am I missing some subtle nuance of what you're saying.
I will try and explain a bit more (if you are reading this at all).
You have 4 database tables that make up a customer. Table one is in MySQL on one system and table2 is in Oracle on another system and the Table3 is in Microsoft SQL Server. The fourth isn't really a table at all but a web service to some HR system. Parts of these tables make up your customer class in your new system. However, when you are done with the
Now to clarify, I am not some Hibernate GURU, but I believe you generally create a standard pojo class and then use hibernate and an XML mapping of that one class to one data source (database). However, doing what I mentioned above with plain old Java is easy. You would build your object and when done save it to the different systems accordingly.
If you know of a way with Hibernate to solve this problem I would love to hear it. I am by no means Gavin :-)
First Bill would make an excellent CTO for the country, but I agree with other posters that this position isn't needed. However, I would agree that RMS would fit more closely with Obamas political views. Bill is definitely smart and considers ethics with technology, although he is about as dry as you can get.
Now you point about the government staying out of business causing the financial mess we are in now. You do realize that this all started because the government wanted to secure loans for low (no) income people? You do know what a GSE is? Specifically lower income minorities that would otherwise never be able to afford a home, but because they couldn't specifically target minorities they also gave ridiculous loans to the middle and upper class people. This is EXACTLY the fault of the government and it was the President and the majority of Democrats who voted for the bailout. Don't try and twist history and blame this on "lack of government control" or the Republicans. There is plenty of blame to go around, but the core issue is that the government went to secure loans and thus mucked around in the corporate world and then when those businesses started to fail they made a socialist decision to get more involved. Again a majority of Republicans voted against the bill.
Go to youtube and search for Fanny and Freddy. I believe the top search will show you a brief history of some brave people trying to put some "control" on this madness.
This isn't totally true. I can give lots of examples, but one would be to have an object that has attributes in two different databases. You might be asking why would someone want to do that?
Lets say you are in a large company and they have many systems that make up an actual "customer", some of the info is in one system and some in another. If you are doing JDBC with a POJO then you would just build that object from the different data sources, but this becomes impossible (as far as I know) with Hibernate.
There are other examples were you would want to use cursors and stuff, so the original poster is correct. He has a difficult decision and we can't really answer it. If he never used criteria classes and his objects are very simple AND he only has a few objects then a rewrite may be simple. However, if he has a ton of objects and used a ton of lazy loading then a rewrite will be a pain.
I stuck with Hibernate, JSF and Netbeans (Visual Web Pack) and it doesn't suck, but I completely understand were this guy is. We have migrated to EJB3 now and it has its own set of issues (yes I know it can use a Hibernate persistent mangager).
I have now done a few projects now with Hibernate, JSF Netbeans 5.x-6.1 and can feel your pain. I ran across some HUGE bugs and issues that if I would have just done it with JDBC it would never have shown up. Having said all that once I got through the bugs and did some workarounds (Sun support sucks), it is a lot better. I still wouldn't use Hibernate JSF and Netbeans for everything but it doesn't totally suck.
Here are some high level things that might help.
1. If you have a relationship between classes and it only needs to be a one way association do it. Avoid bi-directional associations at all cost.
2. Hibernate can use pure sql and it's own variant of SQL. Use them when you have to. We try hard to avoid every putting SQL in to our code but there are times when we had to do it.
3. Hibernate wasn't made for 40k objects in memory at one time. If you need that then it is possible but you will have to change some caching options.
4. Lazy instantiation. In theory it sounds great, in practice it doesn't. This may start a holy war on Slashdot, but I had to avoid this.
5. Working with Arrays of associated classes and having to make changes to them.
I kind of wonder why your comment wasn't marked as funny.
"Giving money away to private corporations has nothing at all to do with socialism."
Taking money from tax payers and funding business isn't exactly socialism per say but it is one GIANT step in that direction. Add to the problem with having government sponsored entities around to give loans to people who could never afford them and you are on your way from capitalism to socialism.
(Go to Youtube and search for Fanny and Freddie and you will see who really didn't want regulation on Fanny and Freddie.)
I guess we can understand why Obama voted for the bailout, and why the majority of Democrats voted for it, but it appears that the president and some republicans were also on the payroll.
"So you're happy for rich corporations or individuals to get tax rebates (I don't know much about the US tax system, or any tax system to be fair, so I just have to go by people whining about the rich being made even richer through political corruption), but you don't want poorer people to get any breaks? Nice."
I and many others who have worked their way up from very meager beginnings don't want a tax code that penalizes anyone. What part of PERCENT don't you understand? If someone who makes 251k a year will be taxed at a certain percent then someone who makes 2k a year should also be taxed that same amount. Don't they use the same roads? Same schools? Same fire department? This is class warfare at its finest. Also you make the HUGE assumption that the government will do "good" with the taxes it receives and be very efficient with it. Care to show me an example of a well run government program? How about an efficient one? Private charitable companies are considered bad if less than 90% of the income coming in doesn't go directly to those who need it. They take in a fraction of the >3 TRILLION in taxes that the government gets.
"Personally I think it's good to ease up on poorer people, and then perhaps a few of them will be able to afford to send their kids to college. Then everyone benefits through better average levels of education in the country, which can only be a positive thing IMO (though I live in the UK so we have a different tax system, and it seems to be a lot harsher than the US one, but there are all kinds of other taxes that perhaps balance everything out.. then again, perhaps not). A tax rebate isn't about giving more to those worse off, surely? It's just about taking less from them. That's a similar idea but it's not exactly the same thing. Is it possible to actually get more in rebates than you paid in tax?"
You make quite a few assumptions, but speaking as someone who came from a poor family that didn't take any government funding, it is quite the opposite. "If" you see your parents getting by on other peoples tax dollars and they seem ok, then you start to believe it is ok to live the same. Then you start t feel entitled to that money, and thus a welfare state is born. In my situation my father chose to go out and work 3 jobs to put food on the table, and to keep the table. This had a profound effect on my family and taught us that NOBODY bails you out and to make sure you can take care of yourself. Obviously this is radically different than many of the socialist views espoused here and on places like Digg.
"I used to think that higher taxes for higher levels of pay would really suck, but that was when I wasn't making that much money. Now I'm earning almost twice what I did when I was a student, so I don't feel like I'm struggling to get by anymore. The idea of more tax coming off my wages if I get a payrise doesn't worry me. I'm happy to pay a bit more tax (okay it's a lot more, it jumps from 20% to 40% on all earnings over £35k), and for those taxes to go back into running the country and even looking after those less fortunate than me."
Again, you make the assumption that the government knows what is best and can and will distribute that money correctly. You have faith in the government "cradle to grave" and I have faith in the citizens to do what is best with their money. Again, it bears in mind that you also assume the government is efficient. They are the opposite of efficiency because they
"My parents didn't have that much money when I was growing up either,"
Sorry to hear that, but again, that doesn't mean going more socialist is the answer. Quite the opposite is really true.
Is a dead ACLU representative... :-)
A better name would be the AACLU Anti American...
I jest of course...
Excellent points. What I personally want is NO government sponsored entities. NONE. The government has shown that they can't do anything well except perhaps the military and that they don't really control. I don't advocate anarchy, in that I believe we need laws, but we don't need the government in business at all.
All I know is that when 90+% of America doesn't want a bailout and a vast majority of Democrats vote for it and some Republicans vote for it.... It is probably horrible for the U.S.A.
So when exactly was it that Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin killed someone? Perhaps I missed it and you could link to it? I guess you could make an argument that they killed Air America, but that isn't the same as taking someones father away because you want to bomb a building. Killing police officers is now the same as being an outspoken talking head... I guess I missed the memo on that one.
Now saying that America caused 911 to help George W Bush and that whites invented AIDS to oppress the black people... (not taken out of context). I guess it is one thing to be a talking head on TV/Radio and quite another to be the pastier at your church. I guess it kind of makes some sense now when some people say that they are "just recently proud of America".
However you and I agree, if we could loose EVERYONE who voted to stop federal regulation on Fanny and Freddie and who voted for this bailout; we could definitely include Rush, Ann and Michelle. But we shouldn't stop there. We need to include the NY Times, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NBC... well almost all the print media and we could even include Fox News with that. I am sure most of America would consider that a "fair" trade :-)
I would think it would be great to send up the current Congress. How about just those that voted for this ridiculous bailout. That of course would doom Mars to be a liberal mecca though, and I wouldn't wish that on any planet or country. McCain can be included with this mess.
This is a similar discussion that people have about the "What if the top 20 cities in the world were gone the next day". The world would go into a financial mess for a short time but the average quality of the people remaining would be go up significantly :-)
I guess if I had to pick I would pick some real scary people to send up to Mars first like say Randy Ayres or Reverend Write. Just hanging around those types of people will definitely influence your life. Not that any sane person would hang around them, but you get my point.
You seem to forget who controlled the congress for a majority of that time.
Now for the current crisis, most of it can come to blame upon groups like the Acorn group and other liberals putting pressure on congress and banks to extend low income loans to people who could never afford one. An artifact of that is that a lot more people got loans in over their head and this mess started. It wasn't that long ago that you needed 20% down to get a house... Suddenly you could borrow 105% of a house.
I am sure we could agree that we need a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. One that wouldn't allow the U.S.A. to ever go over its spending, even in war times. I personally would love to see tax day moved to two weeks before the election, not as far away as possible, and whenever congress wants to increase it, it would go before a vote of the American people.
Your post seems to think that Oracle and Sun teamed up to kill MySQL. You want proof that Sun has done something to help MySQL along since it bought it.
My "Proof" is comes from that of a Java developer, one that uses almost all Sun tools (Netbeans, Glassfish, EJB3, WebServices and would consider Sun hardware if we could). The freaking day Sun "bought" the company that sold support for MySQL they started to push it as "their" default database of choice. Within a few days they had tutorials up on how to integrate MySQL in to your project. That is definitely an act of a company that doesn't want to KILL a product.
Sun has appeared to leave MySQL alone and to be honest the people who stared it are generally the type of people who HATE large companies and wanted to get back in to a smaller starup type company.
So why did Sun buy MySQL? In my opinion they needed to add it to their software stack. Look at their competition and tell me who doesn't have all of the following (OS, Database, Application Server, Development Tools)
Microsoft, IBM, Oracle.
So "if" Sun wanted to compete with those listed above they needed to do something. NONE of those companies were going to recommend Sun hardware any more. Specifically Oracle who now is in love with their own version of Linux.
Now Oracle buying Inodb to kill or hurt MySQL... We totally agree on that one. The thought of a company like Sun giving away software to sell hardware doesn't bode well for companies like Microsoft or Oracle.
I consider myself a true conservative and I can say without a doubt that nobody that want wants McCain elected really wants to see this guy go to jail. It is just bad PR all the way around.
Unfortunately the law is suppose to be blind... So he may be kind of screwed.
If it was me I would make him wear a McCain 08 shirt and get a haircut until the election.
Nobody wins if he goes to jail other than his new "friend" that he will be traded to for a pack of smokes.
It is painfully obvious to all but the most hardened Obama supporters that he is on the take.
I don't intend to vote for Obama, ergo you are wrong. Furthermore, your phrasing shows that you are simply a political tribalist.
First I NEVER said you were voting for Obama, and if you read that in to my sentence then I apologize.
Second, you are exactly correct in that I believe BOTH McCain and Obama were on the take.
Do a little more research. Obama was the #2 candidate of donations from Fannie.
So "Yes" It may be only .0000001% (exaggeration) of total funds, but when you look at it as he was the number two man "on the payroll" that is scary. It explains a lot about how he acted during this whole mess. By acted I mean his total lack of acting. It is painfully obvious to all but the most hardened Obama supporters that he is on the take. It is now apparent that McCain is also somehow involved in this mess as well. I am sure all the Obama supporters will be able to link us to the Fannie people that are McCains advisers...
In short we cannot EVER have another government supported entity again. This coupled with the fact that both parties wanted to give housing to people that couldn't afford it is what started this whole mess. No amount of regulation would EVER have solved this problem, Fannie and Freddie had and have too much power, and used that power to buy politicians. Obama was one of them and one can only assume that by "Change" he means more corporate buyouts.
The fact remains that this bill was mostly backed by Democrats. Most Republicans voted against it, so if you thought this bill was what was right for this issue then you have Democrats AND Bush to thank.
My personal feeling is that this one vote cost McCain the election. He "could" have come out against it and at best he could have said that some of the FF (Fanny and Freddie) members would do jail time. He could have brought up the fact that Obama has strong ties to FF and received a ton of money from them, and thus kind of explains some of Obamas actions after this came out, but McCain didn't and thus probably lost the election and by not doing so helps to validate others belief in fascism or at least corporate payoffs.
Most of America didn't want this bailout to happen, yet it did. I am a bit shocked that Democrats backed this and Bush signed it. So Republicans can be mad at Bush, and Democrats "should" be mad at congress. I do find it sad that most of the Democrats that voted against it are in tight races, and quite a few Republicans that voted for it are generally locks to win. That in and of itself is a bad sign... But the fact remains neither Democrats or Republicans alone can be blamed for this.
I do hope that we (The U.S.A.) have learned one thing and that is a government sponsored entity is a bad thing. No amount of oversight is ever going to fix the problems that will happen. That and government housing is a bad idea, but I thought we already knew that one :-(
You I hear this type of quote all the time:
"Most people can't tell the difference between an up-scaled DVD and BluRay movie."
I don't know what movies these guys are watching but EVERYONE I show can tell a HUGE difference. I will definitely concede that the quality of the movie plays the largest part, but the movies are only getting better and better. I also can say that the difference between 720p and 1080p is significant and given my experience EVERYONE I show a game to in 720P VS 1080P chooses 1080P. I don't want to imply 720P is crap, but the people I show choose 1080P and most reluctantly say things like "Yeah I can tell a difference". I also know that there are better up-scalers...
So what is slowing adoption of BluRay in my opinion?
1. Cost. Not everyone wants a PS3 and in my opinion a $100 player is in order to win over the masses. $200 won't do it.
2. Cost of movies. Noted above, they need to come down to match DVD and what would help is to give both with a BluRay for now.
3. 1080P TV's need to become the standard and below $1k. This is the first year that is the norm. 720p is on the way out.
4. HD Camcorders need to truly support 1080P. I have a Sanyo Xacti and it does an ok job but not 1080P.
5. Burning should be a LOT cheaper. This media would be great for backing up on a computer but it needs to be below $100. Most would kill for a 50GB (or promised 200GB) burnable disc to backup movies. The disc needs to be less than $10.
6. HD content needs to be available on cable and satellite that isn't compressed to death and at 1080P. It appears that this is happening now. I believe it is DirectTV.
All of these will happen but not as fast as some would like. By next Christmas it will be difficult to find a 720P TV that is larger than 36" and the players should be down to $150 or less range.
The largest competitor BluRay has is downloadable content and with Comcast recent bandwidth cap that all but kills downloading 1080P movies for the next 5 to 10 years; well that and other issues getting 30-50GB of data to the home in a fair amount of time. That gives BluRay a LOT of time to address the above issues.
"Where is abortion mentioned in the bible?"
Jesus said "I knew you before you were in your mothers womb".
If you want I can look up the exact place but that pretty much sums it up.
"And really if he was picking a church to get elected then surely he would have picked a slightly less controversial one?"
Actually not. He "probably" picked that church to have some degree of similarity to the other black voters in that area. Obviously most are not ivy league educated, multi-million dollar people. The question is still valid why he didn't leave. "IF" some white guy hung out with the KKK for 20 years, you can bet that he would be drug under the coals for that, yet Obama gets a free pass?
"I'm pretty sure Jesus would have tried to help teach these "racist" individuals the errors of their ways rather than avoiding them as you sugges"
Yep, and it all starts with admission of sin and asking for forgiveness. Has Obama done either? I don't follow him to great detail, but every time I see him he defends his racist church and he CONSTANTLY votes in a pro abortion way. So yes Jesus would try and teach him, but it would be up to him to make the choice.
My questions for McCain still stand as well. Do you believe in the death penalty and if so when would you use it?
Lastly, I again don't think Obama is a horrible person, nor do I think McCain is. Both have their faults, but "if" one of them says they are a "INSERT GROUP HERE" and they vote against that groups foundation then it isn't unreasonable to say they are not really part of "INSERT GROUP HERE".
Great question. I would love to understand Obama, a supposed Christian explain when life begins. His first answers was something like "smarter people than me will have to understand that one", isn't good enough OR "if" that is his answer then he needs to answer some simpler questions like. Is partial birth abortion a sin in Gods eyes. When exactly does a person become an American citizen. Why have you constantly voted in a pro abortion way?
I am not trying to slam Obama here but I would love to hear honest answers from him and the way "most" people see it he is just saying he is a Christian and not really living the life of a Christian.
Another question would be "Where are laws derived from?" Again, this gets in to a moral and ethics discussion so it would be great to hear his response.
Lastly, I would love to understand why he chose to associate himself with known racists. He himself might not be one but his modern history has shown him to ally with them. That again goes against Christianity and some find it very concerning when his own wife writes something like "Blacks must unify against whites" in her thesis. This and his affiliation with a church that harbors hate speech and racist behavior, makes one wonder if Obama is actually a Christian or if he just chose a religion and church to get elected to office.
For McCain an honest question is if it is morally ethical to kill someone. What is his stance on the death penalty? Now both parties tend to flip flop on this issue a lot. When it is some unknown person that killed another unknown person (kid or adults) they tend to lean that we shouldn't use the death penalty, BUT once someone attacks a government office (Oklahoma city bomber), then that person is QUICKLY put to death. So a valid question would be "if" someone went in to a government agency and killed 100 or so people would you advocate putting that person to death?
Lastly, I will say that the country will be fine with Obama or McCain as president. I don't hate either person nor honestly like either one. I see major problems with Obama calling himself a Christian and I see major problems with McCain calling himself a conservative.
And think of all the kids that will be getting their "good" normal limbs ripped off of them to get bionic implants by countries like China and Russia. Your logic is very similar to Adolf Hitlers with regards to killing Jews to gain a better understanding of medicine. Yes large advances were made when Hitlers "doctors" tore people apart to see how they worked, but that still doesn't make it right and not a path that we as a society should go down.
A previous poster said it... It comes down to morals/ethics.
The testing will get better and to the grandparent poster. The guy for that originally won the Tour De France was a cheater. The amount of testosterone in his body was WAY over. There are now test (early) to detect HGH, so the playing field will get more and more level over time.
You know I was thinking him as a running mate for Obama.
:-)
Lets see Obama gets 95% of the black vote, and a very large part of the elitist crowd, and kids.
Ballmer could pull in the white working class vote and he would balance out the ticket nicely because he could just buy most peoples vote.
You would have one American hating racist and a crazy chair throwing white guy on one side and an old liberal republican on the other.
Crazy times we live in. I wouldn't be shocked if McCain picked Britney Spears or the American Idol winner as his running mate.
I do find it funny that "if" some white guy was hanging around the KKK for say 20 years he wouldn't be treated exactly the same as say another candidate. Then again perhaps I am too busy missing the government infecting black people with AIDS.