They didn't ask us taxpayers whether or not we wanted to "invest", they just take our money and give it to worthless losers instead. So I agree with your sentiment in principle, but unfortunately things are rarely that simple here in the real world.
The Red Cross is also a neutral organization. They have to be careful that their activities, particularly those which take place in combat zones, do not endanger that neutrality. It's mostly academic anyway because the United States is unlikely to overtly attack Iran.
How bad does it have to get before Joe Sixpack wakes up and takes notice?
Do you think it's possible that he's seen the same things that you've seen and has simply reached a different decision? If you want to "do something" then by all means go ahead, but many of us here have lots to lose and little to gain by "doing something". The occupy people complain of police brutality and compare themselves to the Arab Spring, without realizing how good they have it here in the United States. In Syria and Iran they disappear you or they shoot you down in the street. However bad you think it is here, just remember that it could be much, much worse. Am I the only one who sees the occupy people as being vainglorious and maybe just a tad bit ungrateful by way of comparison?
In the end the 'godless commies' had one thing going for them in the world peace issues of the Cold War. They wanted to rule the world but they didn't really want to 'win' by being the last survivor in a post apocolypse scenario, the party leaders liked the good life and wanted to keep living it, especially since they didn't much believe in an afterlife to be rewarded in for wiping out the enemy in this one for.
In other words, they (the Soviets and now the Russians) cared about their childrens' futures. Contrast that with images of Hamas and Hizbollah dressing their babies as suicide bombers.
It doesn't matter where [Country] gets its oil from as everyone pays market price, which is highly influenced by world events.
That's not entirely accurate. There many other factors, including shipping and transportation costs, currency fluctuations and politics which can all influence the price of a barrel of crude. For example, consider the spread that has developed in recent years between Brent Crude which is mostly delivered in the EU and West Texas Intermediate which is delivered and stored in Cushing Oklahoma and used mostly in the United States. If a foreign buyer, in Italy say, wanted to refine West Texas Intermediate it would have to pay to have that barrel shipped all the way from the United States by pipeline, truck or rail and then finally by ship across the Atlantic Ocean, plus the European refineries are not set up to handle American crude so it would probably cause some refining problems. Why do all of that when Libyan crude is much closer and the refineries in Southern Europe are already set up to handle it? In summary, location and weight matters in oil and the farther that oil has to travel to get to market the more expensive it gets to use.
No, that's exactly backwards. Iran would never be able to develop a credible nuclear deterrent compared to that fielded by a declared nuclear power, such as the United States. In fact, a handful of crude warheads or even a single warhead, makes Iran substantially less secure; not more. As others have already said, nobody would be interested in attacking Iran if it weren't for their nuclear weapons program.
For the record, most weapons in the US arsenal are not of the "clean" (clean is used in a relative sense here) variety because a warhead with a fissionable (Uranium 238) tamper greatly enhances the overall yield of the bomb for a given size and produces more fallout. A weapon of the exact same design without a fissionable tamper, which would not benefit from added fast fission of the tamper itself, would have to be substantially larger and heavier to achieve the same yield. Obviously, a lighter and more powerful bomb is militarily desirable, so most of the world's deployed weapons, including thermonuclear warheads, are of the "dirty" variety.
They don't need to destroy the entire facility, simply bombing all of the air vents and sealing off the exits would kill everyone inside the facility and render it effectively inoperable for months and probably years. Additionally, it would not be difficult, especially with air superiority, to ensure that no repair or rescue effort proceeds until such time as we allow it to.
what will everybody do now they've been obsoleted?
Well, we could convert the government to communism, crank up the production of military units in all of our cities, draft the citizens and then attack all of our neighbors. I mean, it works in most games of Civilization. What could possibly go wrong? Of course, since we have the United Nations wonder here in America we could just declare war as a democracy 50% of the time anyway, "Hawk party derails attempted Senate interference, action confirmed!"
and visiting all those ad servers incidentally just slows down my web browsing for no good reason.
You don't use AdBlock? You'd be crazy to browse the web these days without AdBlock, NoScript, Flashblock and Ghostery. Unblock sites that you really care about if you must, but browsing without any protection is just nuts.
High-quality QA is in demand, but many companies don't even realize it.
I would agree with the parent completely. However for an even more complete skill set, consider investing some time in learning a build scripting language, continuous integration or unit testing framework. You may also need to learn a bit of programming (think jack of all trades here, knowing many languages well enough to get by), but generally not as much or as varied as the devs writing the software that you are testing. Someone who has these skills, even if they don't have a CS degree or lots of programming experience, would definitely be a valuable addition to any programming shop. There are too many marginal devs these days and not enough skilled QA people and testers. There is definitely an under supply of capable workers and pent up demand in that market. Finally, if you can build up enough skill and experience to become a consultant in those areas then you will have really hit the big time with six figure annual pay not being out of the question, provided that you can manage the travel, remote work and dealing with clients.
Perhaps not, but in reality there are three very practical consequences of spurning the United States:
1st: Loss of access to the US banking and financial system and freezing of all US bank accounts and assets held in the United States or any other cooperating country (which is just about everyone given the global reach of the dollar and the US financial system).
2nd: Trade and other economic sanctions. For example, the Iranians are enduring this economic misery right now and by all accounts the economy in Iran is absolutely terrible (the average person is definitely suffering the consequences). This sort of economic pressure would lead to intense political pressure to cave in all but the most repressive and insulated regimes and even they endure hardships for their defiance.
3d and finally there is the massive global power of the United States military. The US doesn't often have to resort to the stick to get what it wants, but when it does the results speak for themselves. If they can get to Bin Laden and Sadaam, they can get to anyone.
So as you can see, most countries relent and give the US what it wants because holding out is painful, unproductive and ultimately futile. Like it or not, that's the world that we live in.
No fucking proof they are creating weapons grade fissile material or even want to do that
The Iranian government has released or allowed to be released photos of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touring enrichment plants with many rows of centrifuges. The numbers on the floors below the centrifuges seem to indicate that there are hundreds or even thousands of centrifuges. Now, I'm no expert, but from what I've read the most likely explanation is that the centrifuges are being used in a cascade fashion to enrich substantial quantities of Uranium well beyond what is required for power plant operation (between three and five percent enrichment is required for use in commercial reactors depending upon whom you ask). Why would the Iranians want to do that if not to enrich enough material to construct a bomb? Natural uranium, properly enriched in sufficient quantities, can be used to construct a bomb of the "gun-type" design which, although crude, will be almost guaranteed to work even without extensive testing or experience with fission weapon design. There's really no other plausible explanation for the behavior of the Iranians in this matter, or at least none that I can see. Everyone knows what they (the Iranians) are doing. The Americans know it, the Europeans know it, the Russians know it and yes the Israelis know it too. Anyone who cares to look can see this. Why can't you?
There's a difference between acting aggressively and acting carelessly. Surely there are Iranian spies or other intelligence assets in Israeli or US custody that Iran would be willing to trade for. If they have something we want and we have something they want then it's in the best interests of both sides to make a deal. The exchange of captured spies has long been the custom among civilized nations, even mortal enemies. There's no dishonor in it. The Iranians will not kill their hostage because they need him alive and unharmed to make a deal.
The people most directly responsible for creating the conditions necessary to inflate the bubble were, in my opinion, the former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, and certain legislators, namely Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), who co-sponsored the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. This was critical because it exposed the fractional reserve fiat money system that we're currently using (which btw I also disfavor) to new and unlimited sources of risk within the finance markets. There were of course other contributing factors, but a combination of deregulation of traditional banking combined with nearly 10 years (and counting) of loose monetary policy on the part of the Fed reacted to initiate the largest financial meltdown in the history of mankind. Meanwhile, the heart of the problem, namely our fundamentally flawed monetary system, remains unaddressed. The government ultimately controls monetary policy and thus is ultimately responsible for what happened. Was there fraud in the private sector too? Of course there was, but the entire affair was enabled and to a certain extent encouraged by the actions of government officials who abdicated their responsibility to protect the integrity of the monetary system in misguided pursuit of bullshit public policy goals. Why don't I blame Wall Street you might ask? Do you blame expert blackjack players for intelligent play that costs the house money? There was some fraud and those people should be punished accordingly, but plenty of people on Wall Street made money simply because the Federal Government is full of dishonest politicians and stupid bureaucrats who thought that they could pull a few levers, turn a few dials and push a few buttons on fantastically complex machine, the economy, and get a result that benefited everyone and hurt nobody. They should have thought twice before attempting to operate the Machine of the Lum the Mad (the D&D geeks out there will get the reference).
Health care extended to millions of people who wouldn't otherwise have it
Which is bullshit. Anyone who believes that ObamaCare will lower prices and make health care more accessible is either a fool or a liar. The truth will become clear to all within 10 years or less, but by then it will be much worse than it is now and people will wish (too late) that Obama had never meddled with health care. Even now, was healthcare cheaper for you today than before Obama was elected? If your like most Americans, the answer is almost certainly, "no".
Honesty about how much the War on Terror is costing by putting it in the budget, rather than hiding it as Bush did
Almost nothing about the Federal Government is honest. The only prudent course then is to reduce the size and scope of government so as to limit the deleterious effects of its gross dishonesty and incompetent bungling of everything it touches.
Laws stopping credit card companies from abusing their customers through short notice due date changes and excessive default rates
Which would be most properly understood as a law that reads, "foolish people shall receive no credit." Perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing after all. You see, something that we can agree on something after all.
Limitations on outrageous fees charged to retailers by the card companies
The government should intervene in a private contract between two businesses why exactly? If you're a merchant, nobody is forcing you to accept credit cards. Indeed plenty of small businesses refuse to accept some or all of them precisely because the fees are too high. Cash is king, despite what the credit card companies and their advertisers would have you believe.
A Network Neutrality law (albeit not on mobile networks, but there are good technical reasons why wireless networks can't be as unfettered as wired ones)
Translation: the government should force a private business to offer me unlimited services at whatever price I feel like paying.
An end to the stop loss program wherein soldiers were forced to stay beyond what they signed up for
I agree with this one. Offering bonuses or other incentives to remain is fine, but unless the United States formally declares war and activates the selective service system, nobody ought to be compelled to provide more military service than they were contractually bound to when they enlisted.
Fixes to the abortion that was No Child Left Behind (e.g. funding it, helping low scoring school instead of punishing them, etc.)
Two words: education vouchers.
The Ledbetter Law, pushing back against a conservative SCOTUS ruling that made it virtually impossible for women and minorities to sue over pay discrimination
Again, this will be most properly understood as a law stating that women and minorities shall not be hired unless as a last resort. Don't you realize that aggressive anti-discrimination laws, like minimum wage laws, very often hurt the very people whom they're supposed to help? You don't do women or minorities any favors by making them "lawsuit risks" to companies that might otherwise choose to hire them.
An end to torture and extraordinary rendition
I agree with this too. Instead, we ought to be recruiting agents in terrorist networks and places of interest and using that information to simply eliminate the targets in place. The use of the drones and CIA run networks is what we should have been doing all along, not occupying countries full of guerrilla fighters with our regular armed forces. Unfortunately, we're also undermining our efforts by destroying opium poppies and making enemies among the farmers who might otherwise be helping us. Instead, we should be buying up their opium and ensuring tha
So how dare you discredit the hard work we did getting to that point.
Your missing the point here. You took a risk with an investment that, had it paid off, would have accrued entirely to yourselves. The fact that it didn't pay off isn't my problem. Why should us taxpayers, who prudently decided NOT to make foolish bets in the housing market, be forced to make you whole? Investors, like you, must NOT be bailed out from the downside of risks that they willingly took . Otherwise, it's not really an investment but charity and the rest of us cannot afford to be that generous. The GP is right. You made a bet on the housing market and you lost. You should take your losses and move on. Why should the rest of us bail your ass out? We didn't share in the potential rewards of a successful real estate investment so why should we share in the loss or is this just another case of privatized profits and socialized loses?
After 2001-9/11 it wasn't just the banks screwing people over.
You weren't the only ones who had a rough go of it last decade. Many of us decided not to buy overpriced homes or moved back to live with family elsewhere in the country to save money and live within our now reduced means. You'll get no sympathy from me for your underwater mortgage.
Guys like countrywide home loans really set up a lot of hardworking folks to fail. We were with countrywide in the beginning.
Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to sign the papers. What about the rest of us who cut back and endured hardships and deprivations to save money and live within our means? You want to live in society and be treated like an adult while at the same time blaming your foolish financial decisions on bankers in nice suits who saw you coming? The fool and his money are soon parted or would be if the rest of us weren't being forced to bail your ass out.
I'm not the only one in this boat. I am the 99%.
No, your part of the 5-10% of foolish first time "home buyers" who should never have received a loan in the first place . You didn't honestly believe that the banks would loan a peon like you $400,000+ unless the government was turning around and immediately buying the mortgage from them did you? Not a chance.
Unless you're working for some hip startup or the project is a secret "skunkworks" type that management cannot interfere with because they don't know about it, you're not likely to get open source frameworks past the bureaucracy for approval. The managers, who've never heard of Django, Joomla, Drupal or any number of other frameworks immediately refuse such requests or intervene to force integration with Microsoft, Oracle or IBM products that theycompany has already paid for with support. Now, before you start complaining that open source is neither obscure nor expensive, I'll just stop you short by saying that it doesn't matter. Management perceives anything not backed by an approved vendor, complete with paid annual support, as being expensive and difficult to support. Those perceptions are reality at many US companies.
Finally, I've yet to see a full-service web dev framework that I really like anyway. I don't want to waste time fighting someone's idea of "helpful" abstractions that are actually poorly thought out, leak all over the place, put me in coding straight-jackets and generally cost me more time than they save. Good framework design is a hard thing to do well and frankly, most people suck at it. IMHO, better to curate your own library of "good" solutions to neat little problems rather than accept some Framework, warts and all, written by some else. The best frameworks provide support and choices, but don't impose themselves where they aren't wanted and get out of the way when you need them too. In my experience, such frameworks are few and far between. Plus, much of the open source code out there is really of average to shit quality anyway, to which the excuse is generally, "don't complain, it's free". No thanks.
Anyone who has actually worked for a time in web development will tell you that tight schedules, shoestring budgets and large sites, with many moving parts, all conspire to ensure that security holes exist in just about every non-trivial web app of any meaningful size. It's not that we're unaware of SQL injection, validation of inputs or even cross site scripting, we just don't have time to check and test everything and all possible interactions before we have to move on to something else (thank you MBAs). The people who write the checks don't care about security as much as they care about new features, being buzzword compliant or getting everything "into the cloud" and most of all: being on time and within budget. Under these circumstances, something has to give and that something is usually security because few clients care enough to pay, in both time and money, for what good security really costs. Until companies are held liable instead of just saying, "whoops" and advising people to check their credit reports for the next N years, this will continue. One good example where increased liability is leading to better security is in electronic medical records and related healthcare software due to the penalties imposed by HIPAA for breaches of protected health information. As soon as breaches go straight to the bottom line companies start caring.
AA has always favored accurate simulation over pure entertainment because it was originally conceived as a recruitment tool first and foremost. It's often criticized for this by gamers but they forget that AA was not designed primarily for entertainment. It doesn't really compete with the entertainment-oriented and consumer-focused "tactical" shooter games like Battlefield and Call of Duty. Instead, it tries to present a semi-accurate representation of what it might be like to become a soldier. Of course, even AA leaves out all sorts of things that might serve to discourage potential recruits, but hey it's advertising and advertising never tells the whole truth.
Get a clue - fossil fuels are the most heavily subsidized product on the market. The subsidies are not as direct, but they're pretty fucking obvious from an economic standpoint.
Oil pumped out of the ground and refined is so cheap and energy dense compared to any known alternatives that it would likely remain the number one choice, especially for transportation, even if there were no subsidies supporting its continued use.
We know it is not our policy to make you support/fix this. However, your boss is requiring you to make an exception this time
On the other hand, this can also be a good time to ask for reciprocal favors, when you have something to use as leverage. It needn't be overt, simply mentioning a need or politely phrasing a reciprocal request may be enough to get it done or at the very least you can remind them that they're receiving a favor from you. It never hurts to have favors and credits that can be cashed in for the office political games.
it's a very successful and proven method of acquiring and maintaining wealth.
Yes, but the politicians, while often millionaires in their own rights, are still clients of the billionaires who command the multinational conglomerate corporations. The millionaire politicians and their clients may do the dirty work, but the billionaires are the real power behind the thrones so to speak and they rarely involve themselves directly and publicly in the day to day political operations, probably because they consider such mud wrestling to be beneath them. My point was that politicians largely operate in service of their patrons, the billionaires, and so it's them and not really the politicians who wield true power.
Slashdot Mirror
As for investors, don't invest. Problem solved.
They didn't ask us taxpayers whether or not we wanted to "invest", they just take our money and give it to worthless losers instead. So I agree with your sentiment in principle, but unfortunately things are rarely that simple here in the real world.
The Red Cross is also a neutral organization. They have to be careful that their activities, particularly those which take place in combat zones, do not endanger that neutrality. It's mostly academic anyway because the United States is unlikely to overtly attack Iran.
Obama's brand of lesser evil is so fucking evil it makes me want to spit.
It's well then that the rest of us remain safely out of range...
How bad does it have to get before Joe Sixpack wakes up and takes notice?
Do you think it's possible that he's seen the same things that you've seen and has simply reached a different decision? If you want to "do something" then by all means go ahead, but many of us here have lots to lose and little to gain by "doing something". The occupy people complain of police brutality and compare themselves to the Arab Spring, without realizing how good they have it here in the United States. In Syria and Iran they disappear you or they shoot you down in the street. However bad you think it is here, just remember that it could be much, much worse. Am I the only one who sees the occupy people as being vainglorious and maybe just a tad bit ungrateful by way of comparison?
In the end the 'godless commies' had one thing going for them in the world peace issues of the Cold War. They wanted to rule the world but they didn't really want to 'win' by being the last survivor in a post apocolypse scenario, the party leaders liked the good life and wanted to keep living it, especially since they didn't much believe in an afterlife to be rewarded in for wiping out the enemy in this one for.
In other words, they (the Soviets and now the Russians) cared about their childrens' futures. Contrast that with images of Hamas and Hizbollah dressing their babies as suicide bombers.
It doesn't matter where [Country] gets its oil from as everyone pays market price, which is highly influenced by world events.
That's not entirely accurate. There many other factors, including shipping and transportation costs, currency fluctuations and politics which can all influence the price of a barrel of crude. For example, consider the spread that has developed in recent years between Brent Crude which is mostly delivered in the EU and West Texas Intermediate which is delivered and stored in Cushing Oklahoma and used mostly in the United States. If a foreign buyer, in Italy say, wanted to refine West Texas Intermediate it would have to pay to have that barrel shipped all the way from the United States by pipeline, truck or rail and then finally by ship across the Atlantic Ocean, plus the European refineries are not set up to handle American crude so it would probably cause some refining problems. Why do all of that when Libyan crude is much closer and the refineries in Southern Europe are already set up to handle it? In summary, location and weight matters in oil and the farther that oil has to travel to get to market the more expensive it gets to use.
it would be insane for Iran not to want nukes.
No, that's exactly backwards. Iran would never be able to develop a credible nuclear deterrent compared to that fielded by a declared nuclear power, such as the United States. In fact, a handful of crude warheads or even a single warhead, makes Iran substantially less secure; not more. As others have already said, nobody would be interested in attacking Iran if it weren't for their nuclear weapons program.
For the record, most weapons in the US arsenal are not of the "clean" (clean is used in a relative sense here) variety because a warhead with a fissionable (Uranium 238) tamper greatly enhances the overall yield of the bomb for a given size and produces more fallout. A weapon of the exact same design without a fissionable tamper, which would not benefit from added fast fission of the tamper itself, would have to be substantially larger and heavier to achieve the same yield. Obviously, a lighter and more powerful bomb is militarily desirable, so most of the world's deployed weapons, including thermonuclear warheads, are of the "dirty" variety.
Department of Defense which should be renamed to the Department of Wasting Tax Dollars..
We already have that one, it's called the Department of Housing and Urban Development
They don't need to destroy the entire facility, simply bombing all of the air vents and sealing off the exits would kill everyone inside the facility and render it effectively inoperable for months and probably years. Additionally, it would not be difficult, especially with air superiority, to ensure that no repair or rescue effort proceeds until such time as we allow it to.
what will everybody do now they've been obsoleted?
Well, we could convert the government to communism, crank up the production of military units in all of our cities, draft the citizens and then attack all of our neighbors. I mean, it works in most games of Civilization. What could possibly go wrong? Of course, since we have the United Nations wonder here in America we could just declare war as a democracy 50% of the time anyway, "Hawk party derails attempted Senate interference, action confirmed!"
and visiting all those ad servers incidentally just slows down my web browsing for no good reason.
You don't use AdBlock? You'd be crazy to browse the web these days without AdBlock, NoScript, Flashblock and Ghostery. Unblock sites that you really care about if you must, but browsing without any protection is just nuts.
High-quality QA is in demand, but many companies don't even realize it.
I would agree with the parent completely. However for an even more complete skill set, consider investing some time in learning a build scripting language, continuous integration or unit testing framework. You may also need to learn a bit of programming (think jack of all trades here, knowing many languages well enough to get by), but generally not as much or as varied as the devs writing the software that you are testing. Someone who has these skills, even if they don't have a CS degree or lots of programming experience, would definitely be a valuable addition to any programming shop. There are too many marginal devs these days and not enough skilled QA people and testers. There is definitely an under supply of capable workers and pent up demand in that market. Finally, if you can build up enough skill and experience to become a consultant in those areas then you will have really hit the big time with six figure annual pay not being out of the question, provided that you can manage the travel, remote work and dealing with clients.
Perhaps not, but in reality there are three very practical consequences of spurning the United States:
1st: Loss of access to the US banking and financial system and freezing of all US bank accounts and assets held in the United States or any other cooperating country (which is just about everyone given the global reach of the dollar and the US financial system).
2nd: Trade and other economic sanctions. For example, the Iranians are enduring this economic misery right now and by all accounts the economy in Iran is absolutely terrible (the average person is definitely suffering the consequences). This sort of economic pressure would lead to intense political pressure to cave in all but the most repressive and insulated regimes and even they endure hardships for their defiance.
3d and finally there is the massive global power of the United States military. The US doesn't often have to resort to the stick to get what it wants, but when it does the results speak for themselves. If they can get to Bin Laden and Sadaam, they can get to anyone.
So as you can see, most countries relent and give the US what it wants because holding out is painful, unproductive and ultimately futile. Like it or not, that's the world that we live in.
No fucking proof they are creating weapons grade fissile material or even want to do that
The Iranian government has released or allowed to be released photos of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad touring enrichment plants with many rows of centrifuges. The numbers on the floors below the centrifuges seem to indicate that there are hundreds or even thousands of centrifuges. Now, I'm no expert, but from what I've read the most likely explanation is that the centrifuges are being used in a cascade fashion to enrich substantial quantities of Uranium well beyond what is required for power plant operation (between three and five percent enrichment is required for use in commercial reactors depending upon whom you ask). Why would the Iranians want to do that if not to enrich enough material to construct a bomb? Natural uranium, properly enriched in sufficient quantities, can be used to construct a bomb of the "gun-type" design which, although crude, will be almost guaranteed to work even without extensive testing or experience with fission weapon design. There's really no other plausible explanation for the behavior of the Iranians in this matter, or at least none that I can see. Everyone knows what they (the Iranians) are doing. The Americans know it, the Europeans know it, the Russians know it and yes the Israelis know it too. Anyone who cares to look can see this. Why can't you?
There's a difference between acting aggressively and acting carelessly. Surely there are Iranian spies or other intelligence assets in Israeli or US custody that Iran would be willing to trade for. If they have something we want and we have something they want then it's in the best interests of both sides to make a deal. The exchange of captured spies has long been the custom among civilized nations, even mortal enemies. There's no dishonor in it. The Iranians will not kill their hostage because they need him alive and unharmed to make a deal.
The people most directly responsible for creating the conditions necessary to inflate the bubble were, in my opinion, the former chairman of the United States Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, and certain legislators, namely Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Rep. Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), who co-sponsored the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which allowed commercial banks, investment banks, securities firms, and insurance companies to consolidate. This was critical because it exposed the fractional reserve fiat money system that we're currently using (which btw I also disfavor) to new and unlimited sources of risk within the finance markets. There were of course other contributing factors, but a combination of deregulation of traditional banking combined with nearly 10 years (and counting) of loose monetary policy on the part of the Fed reacted to initiate the largest financial meltdown in the history of mankind. Meanwhile, the heart of the problem, namely our fundamentally flawed monetary system, remains unaddressed. The government ultimately controls monetary policy and thus is ultimately responsible for what happened. Was there fraud in the private sector too? Of course there was, but the entire affair was enabled and to a certain extent encouraged by the actions of government officials who abdicated their responsibility to protect the integrity of the monetary system in misguided pursuit of bullshit public policy goals. Why don't I blame Wall Street you might ask? Do you blame expert blackjack players for intelligent play that costs the house money? There was some fraud and those people should be punished accordingly, but plenty of people on Wall Street made money simply because the Federal Government is full of dishonest politicians and stupid bureaucrats who thought that they could pull a few levers, turn a few dials and push a few buttons on fantastically complex machine, the economy, and get a result that benefited everyone and hurt nobody. They should have thought twice before attempting to operate the Machine of the Lum the Mad (the D&D geeks out there will get the reference).
Health care extended to millions of people who wouldn't otherwise have it
Which is bullshit. Anyone who believes that ObamaCare will lower prices and make health care more accessible is either a fool or a liar. The truth will become clear to all within 10 years or less, but by then it will be much worse than it is now and people will wish (too late) that Obama had never meddled with health care. Even now, was healthcare cheaper for you today than before Obama was elected? If your like most Americans, the answer is almost certainly, "no".
Honesty about how much the War on Terror is costing by putting it in the budget, rather than hiding it as Bush did
Almost nothing about the Federal Government is honest. The only prudent course then is to reduce the size and scope of government so as to limit the deleterious effects of its gross dishonesty and incompetent bungling of everything it touches.
Laws stopping credit card companies from abusing their customers through short notice due date changes and excessive default rates
Which would be most properly understood as a law that reads, "foolish people shall receive no credit." Perhaps that wouldn't be such a bad thing after all. You see, something that we can agree on something after all.
Limitations on outrageous fees charged to retailers by the card companies
The government should intervene in a private contract between two businesses why exactly? If you're a merchant, nobody is forcing you to accept credit cards. Indeed plenty of small businesses refuse to accept some or all of them precisely because the fees are too high. Cash is king, despite what the credit card companies and their advertisers would have you believe.
A Network Neutrality law (albeit not on mobile networks, but there are good technical reasons why wireless networks can't be as unfettered as wired ones)
Translation: the government should force a private business to offer me unlimited services at whatever price I feel like paying.
An end to the stop loss program wherein soldiers were forced to stay beyond what they signed up for
I agree with this one. Offering bonuses or other incentives to remain is fine, but unless the United States formally declares war and activates the selective service system, nobody ought to be compelled to provide more military service than they were contractually bound to when they enlisted.
Fixes to the abortion that was No Child Left Behind (e.g. funding it, helping low scoring school instead of punishing them, etc.)
Two words: education vouchers .
The Ledbetter Law, pushing back against a conservative SCOTUS ruling that made it virtually impossible for women and minorities to sue over pay discrimination
Again, this will be most properly understood as a law stating that women and minorities shall not be hired unless as a last resort. Don't you realize that aggressive anti-discrimination laws, like minimum wage laws, very often hurt the very people whom they're supposed to help? You don't do women or minorities any favors by making them "lawsuit risks" to companies that might otherwise choose to hire them.
An end to torture and extraordinary rendition
I agree with this too. Instead, we ought to be recruiting agents in terrorist networks and places of interest and using that information to simply eliminate the targets in place. The use of the drones and CIA run networks is what we should have been doing all along, not occupying countries full of guerrilla fighters with our regular armed forces. Unfortunately, we're also undermining our efforts by destroying opium poppies and making enemies among the farmers who might otherwise be helping us. Instead, we should be buying up their opium and ensuring tha
So how dare you discredit the hard work we did getting to that point.
Your missing the point here. You took a risk with an investment that, had it paid off, would have accrued entirely to yourselves. The fact that it didn't pay off isn't my problem. Why should us taxpayers, who prudently decided NOT to make foolish bets in the housing market, be forced to make you whole? Investors, like you, must NOT be bailed out from the downside of risks that they willingly took . Otherwise, it's not really an investment but charity and the rest of us cannot afford to be that generous. The GP is right. You made a bet on the housing market and you lost. You should take your losses and move on. Why should the rest of us bail your ass out? We didn't share in the potential rewards of a successful real estate investment so why should we share in the loss or is this just another case of privatized profits and socialized loses?
After 2001-9/11 it wasn't just the banks screwing people over.
You weren't the only ones who had a rough go of it last decade. Many of us decided not to buy overpriced homes or moved back to live with family elsewhere in the country to save money and live within our now reduced means. You'll get no sympathy from me for your underwater mortgage.
Guys like countrywide home loans really set up a lot of hardworking folks to fail. We were with countrywide in the beginning.
Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to sign the papers. What about the rest of us who cut back and endured hardships and deprivations to save money and live within our means? You want to live in society and be treated like an adult while at the same time blaming your foolish financial decisions on bankers in nice suits who saw you coming? The fool and his money are soon parted or would be if the rest of us weren't being forced to bail your ass out.
I'm not the only one in this boat. I am the 99%.
No, your part of the 5-10% of foolish first time "home buyers" who should never have received a loan in the first place . You didn't honestly believe that the banks would loan a peon like you $400,000+ unless the government was turning around and immediately buying the mortgage from them did you? Not a chance.
Unless you're working for some hip startup or the project is a secret "skunkworks" type that management cannot interfere with because they don't know about it, you're not likely to get open source frameworks past the bureaucracy for approval. The managers, who've never heard of Django, Joomla, Drupal or any number of other frameworks immediately refuse such requests or intervene to force integration with Microsoft, Oracle or IBM products that theycompany has already paid for with support. Now, before you start complaining that open source is neither obscure nor expensive, I'll just stop you short by saying that it doesn't matter. Management perceives anything not backed by an approved vendor, complete with paid annual support, as being expensive and difficult to support. Those perceptions are reality at many US companies.
Finally, I've yet to see a full-service web dev framework that I really like anyway. I don't want to waste time fighting someone's idea of "helpful" abstractions that are actually poorly thought out, leak all over the place, put me in coding straight-jackets and generally cost me more time than they save. Good framework design is a hard thing to do well and frankly, most people suck at it. IMHO, better to curate your own library of "good" solutions to neat little problems rather than accept some Framework, warts and all, written by some else. The best frameworks provide support and choices, but don't impose themselves where they aren't wanted and get out of the way when you need them too. In my experience, such frameworks are few and far between. Plus, much of the open source code out there is really of average to shit quality anyway, to which the excuse is generally, "don't complain, it's free". No thanks.
Anyone who has actually worked for a time in web development will tell you that tight schedules, shoestring budgets and large sites, with many moving parts, all conspire to ensure that security holes exist in just about every non-trivial web app of any meaningful size. It's not that we're unaware of SQL injection, validation of inputs or even cross site scripting, we just don't have time to check and test everything and all possible interactions before we have to move on to something else (thank you MBAs). The people who write the checks don't care about security as much as they care about new features, being buzzword compliant or getting everything "into the cloud" and most of all: being on time and within budget . Under these circumstances, something has to give and that something is usually security because few clients care enough to pay, in both time and money, for what good security really costs. Until companies are held liable instead of just saying, "whoops" and advising people to check their credit reports for the next N years, this will continue. One good example where increased liability is leading to better security is in electronic medical records and related healthcare software due to the penalties imposed by HIPAA for breaches of protected health information. As soon as breaches go straight to the bottom line companies start caring.
AA has always favored accurate simulation over pure entertainment because it was originally conceived as a recruitment tool first and foremost. It's often criticized for this by gamers but they forget that AA was not designed primarily for entertainment. It doesn't really compete with the entertainment-oriented and consumer-focused "tactical" shooter games like Battlefield and Call of Duty. Instead, it tries to present a semi-accurate representation of what it might be like to become a soldier. Of course, even AA leaves out all sorts of things that might serve to discourage potential recruits, but hey it's advertising and advertising never tells the whole truth.
Get a clue - fossil fuels are the most heavily subsidized product on the market. The subsidies are not as direct, but they're pretty fucking obvious from an economic standpoint.
Oil pumped out of the ground and refined is so cheap and energy dense compared to any known alternatives that it would likely remain the number one choice, especially for transportation, even if there were no subsidies supporting its continued use.
We know it is not our policy to make you support/fix this. However, your boss is requiring you to make an exception this time
On the other hand, this can also be a good time to ask for reciprocal favors, when you have something to use as leverage. It needn't be overt, simply mentioning a need or politely phrasing a reciprocal request may be enough to get it done or at the very least you can remind them that they're receiving a favor from you. It never hurts to have favors and credits that can be cashed in for the office political games.
it's a very successful and proven method of acquiring and maintaining wealth.
Yes, but the politicians, while often millionaires in their own rights, are still clients of the billionaires who command the multinational conglomerate corporations. The millionaire politicians and their clients may do the dirty work, but the billionaires are the real power behind the thrones so to speak and they rarely involve themselves directly and publicly in the day to day political operations, probably because they consider such mud wrestling to be beneath them. My point was that politicians largely operate in service of their patrons, the billionaires, and so it's them and not really the politicians who wield true power.