In fact there is a different type of treatment that takes advantage of that very fact, accelerating the rate of mutation so much that the virus is unable to remain viable. This approach to anti-retroviral therapy is called error catastrophe and a promising enzyme, KP-1461, is currently being investigated for its ability to cause this chain reaction with HIV.
I am also highly skeptical of the vaccine approach with HIV. Although I am not a medical doctor, it seems to me that the error catastrophe approach to prevention of retrovirus production is much more promising. In particular, the KP1461 enzyme (described in the linked article) shows particular promise in clearing active HIV infection. Basically, it accelerates the mutation rate of the virus so much that the virons are no longer capable of reproducing (i.e. it mutates itself to death). This is actually a very clever approach; taking advantage of the error-prone reverse transcriptase which the virus uses to replicate itself and turning its greatest strength into its Achilles' heel.
This will be a chance for them to bring back Godzilla for another round, but this time in IMAX-3D for the ultimate monster effects film with absolute minimalist plot.
Yes, one way or the other we will finally have proof.
The evidence has been patently clear for any reasonable person who cared to look into the matter since the Apollo 11 crew landed back on earth on July 24, 1969. The people who support the lunar landing hoax conspiracy are the sort of people who would not be satisfied with any "proof" no matter how convincing or carefully collected the evidence was. They will probably argue, for example, that any new images sent back by the probe have been doctored or edited to include the Apollo artifacts in order to "perpetuate the hoax" as part of the conspiracy theory. The people who deny that the lunar landings took place are either crackpots or just looking to stir the pot and be fringe.
the social clubs are just brimming with gossip about the scandal.
You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence? Somehow, I cannot say that I am sorry to have missed this one. Perhaps this Gladwell fellow can turn his attentions next to Perez Hilton? If ever there was someone who needed to be taken down a notch or two it is him.
This feels a lot like history repeating itself - It's Napster all over again...
It is reminiscent yes, but with Napster it was possible to keep the name and logo intact because neither of them overtly suggested that copyright infringement was the way to go other than the formative history of the brand, which fades as people move on. However, this case is different. How are they going to operate "The Pirate Bay", which has a pirate ship logo and cassette tape and crossed bones from the "home taping is killing the music business" campaign, without the perpetually reminding people of the pirate connection?
A lot of the problem is that large companies have a disproportionate amount of influence with politicians and thus get laws passed for their benefit which usually negatively affect people
Do you always do what you're told? The government can pass any number of laws, but actually enforcing them is another thing entirely. Why play by their rules when they don't?
and there's nothing Vineet Nayar can say or do about it
Vineet Nayar and other CEOs of Indian outsourcing companies are hardly disinterested parties when it comes to knocking American developers and IT workers. People have to know that these CEOs are in cahoots with MPs and other high-ups in the Indian Government as part of concerted effort to increase outsourcing no matter what it takes to get that done (truthful and honest or not). If their credibility is not already completely wrecked then in another 10 years it probably will be. If IT is an important part of the business then why put your trust in people like Vineet Nayar? To paraphrase the parent, draw your own conclusions, but don't say that we didn't warn you.
That's what certain executive-types are trying to do to technology.
Perhaps someone should point out that executives are vulnerable to the same sort of "competition". We have all seen the stories in the news of CEOs getting million dollar bonuses while losing billions of dollars. I may not have an MBA from Wharton, but I don't need a fancy degree in order to be paid millions so that I can lose billions. Hire back the engineers to run these companies; we know how to design, build, and run the most complex systems ever put together by man and we could hardly do worse than those knuckle draggers currently inhabiting those executive suites and boardrooms.
What this guy doesn't answer is why is it that when I have to review code coming from India it is full of bugs, short cuts, and shit that doesn't make a damn bit of sense even to the Indian staff that's stateside?
I believe that I can answer that one for you; They cut and pasted or adapted sections of code found in unrelated projects or on the Internet, mostly without understanding what they were cutting and pasting, and then ran the debugger until the code satisfied exactly the test case that you specified and NO others (i.e. the code explodes of the input is not exactly as specified). In my experience, Indian outsourced programmers are very good at following precise directions, provided that they have seen the problem before and memorized the solution, but if they run into snags or must use a bit of creativity to adapt the solution then all bets are (mostly) off. Also, If you ask them to architect the solution rather than simply filling in the blanks then you are really asking for trouble.
It is none of our business unless they attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
Which they absolutely will do. Anyone who believes that Iran will not develop the bomb after completing the necessary infrastructure for nuclear power is being naïve in the extreme.
We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.
Which will then be rebuilt in such a way that nothing short of a nuclear penetrator will suffice to destroy them, assuming that they were not constructed that way in the first place, and what then? Would you call their bluff? Would you use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from having them? That is a tough question, no doubt about it.
The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
It is perhaps more correct to say that we should condemn their government. Of course, that would take political courage and a steely nerve that I don't think we have seen in America since Ronald Reagan called out the Soviets in his "evil empire" speech. The Obama Administration was slow to criticize the Iranian regime for the election fallout and was not tough enough when they finally did speak up. If we are going to defeat the Iranian regime then we must defeat them in the court of world opinion and in the battle of ideas between the harsh brand of Islamic theocracy practiced by the Ayatollahs and the Western Democratic systems that have brought freedom, dignity, and prosperity wherever they have taken root.
It is hard to distinguish between the administration not hearing and the administration willfully pretending they did not hear anything, but at least on the marijuana issue it is pretty likely to be the latter.
I must say that I lost a lot of respect for Obama after he basically blew off a top three (3) issue question in the Internet town hall meeting simply because the subject was sensitive or "political poison". A free society cannot permit sensitive subjects or questions, especially on valid issues and questions like drug legalization and the "war on drugs", to be beyond honest debate without losing the very freedoms that we claim to value and protect. Obama put himself in a position where the people were going to select the agenda for the meeting and his staff knew or should have known that something like this would come up. Obama said that he does not support legalization, but I do not believe that he answered honestly. I believe that he answered as he did to satisfy the "war on drugs" hardliners in the Federal Government and preserve his political capital for issues that he feels are more important. Now, while that may be understandable it is still regrettable because it demonstrates that Obama is willing to sacrifice principle for political advantage when it suits him. In fact, the whole affair reminded me of Richard Nixon; another politician who was notorious for his willingness to publicly hold or change positions, despite his personal beliefs, if he thought that doing so would give him a political advantage. In the end, he lost respect and so will Obama if he continues to dodge tough questions or refuses to take principled stands on issues that matter to the American people.
Truly, that is the only way. However, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction here in the United States towards even more spending, more regulation, and ever larger government. The bureaucracy is expanding; to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
But will they be able to change US' customers mindset?
Absolutely not. Nobody is going to put their family in this inflatable go kart deathtrap; it would be humiliating to drive such a crappy little car. Americans prefer a larger, heavier, and safer vehicle (preferably stylish too although that is not always possible) above fuel economy. Do we complain about higher fuel prices? Sure we do. Is it enough to get us out of our SUV family haulers or large sedans? Of course not. The problem with the small-car people is that all of their arguments are bunko for the typical American family. Advanced safety features can be part of any car in any size category so, all other things being equal, a larger and more massive vehicle is safer. If people want to drive their families around in econo-box death traps then that is their choice I suppose, but they will pry the keys to my Mercedes S class from my cold dead hands. I don't care if the gas mileage is only ~20mpg; I want safety, luxury, and performance not some clove-smoking birkenstock wearing hippie's idea of what I should be permitted to drive (not a very American concept telling people what they can and cannot drive). That is why GM will fail in the green econo box market; many Americans wouldn't even consider a car in that class under any circumstances and those who would probably select the Toyota Prius or Honda Insight instead.
Don't listen to the crap you might see from the libertarians on/.
In defense of us Libertarians here on Slashdot I feel that I must point out that we are all about freedom and against violence and coercion. In fact, we have always held the United States Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights in very high esteem and wish that our Federal Government would conform more closely to the limited role outlined in those documents instead of experimenting with socialism as Obama seems determined to do. However, as Bush and others have demonstrated, there is really only so much damage that one President can do and in the long run the United States has some pretty well engineered self correcting mechanisms (our founding fathers saw to that when they set the whole thing up). In response to the emigrating author, I would definitely recommend the United States in general and the Free State Project states (New Hampshire and Wyoming) in particular if he is looking to maximize his freedoms. Although, compared to what we see and hear coming out of the UK these days, just about anywhere in the United States is going to be a breath of fresh air by way of comparison. The United States also has the advantage that the residency requirements and path to citizenship are easier when coming from the UK which enjoys the "special relationship" with the United States. So he really should take a second look at the United States; we really do have a lot to offer as a free country.
New York is sort of a special case because it is the home state of the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange) which would probably come under pressure from the famously aggressive New York Attorney General's office to "encourage" Amazon to pay the tax...or else. While the leverage of the State of New York is not unlimited, it probably is more powerful than what North Carolina can threaten Amazon with for non-compliance.
James Barrett, how many letters did you sent to your representatives demanding they strike down this unconstitutional tax?
The tax would be applied to business affiliates operating within the State of North Carolina so it is probably not unconstitutional as long as the goods are not being shipped to somewhere outside of North Carolina which would make it an inter-state commerce issue and within the domain of the Federal Government. Now, the tax probably is a bad idea, especially during a recession, but that is another matter.
The complaints against this bill have nothing to do with the spirit of it and everything to do with the structure of it.
It is the structure and results of the policy which matter, not its intentions. One of the greatest mistakes people make in public policy is to judge based upon intentions rather than actual results. This is analogous to the, "If it saved even one life then billions of dollars were well spent", arguments that one hears from time to time among the "true believers" of a particular cause or issue. Many of us here on Slashdot can foresee the unintended (or perhaps intended if we are talking about malicious special interests) consequences of this legislation, but we are being shouted down by the global warming orthodoxy that is taking hold in our government and society. I predict that Americans will tire of paying more for everything while doing nothing appreciable for the environment. However, I must admit that I am a bit surprised that Obama would back such a foolish policy. One would think that he had learned a thing or two from Jimmy Carter about "fine ideas" combined with poor execution and government bungling.
Please mod the parent up; this is precisely the right response to the peak-oil mongering. Not only will there be adjustments to a gradual and smooth decline in oil production, but at least some production of natural oil sources will be replaced by artificial crude oil production. In fact there are biotech companies working right now on bacteria which can produce crude oil, LS9 for example. Will this replace current production and consumption at current prices? Almost certainly not, but it will ensure that technologies which are vital to modern civilization, such as air travel, will remain available even if they do become more expensive in the future than they have been in the past. Oil will never go away entirely, but it will gradually become relegated to niches where it is absolutely necessary, like aircraft, instead of powering most of our transportation needs as it does now.
Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day, that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one.
Which was done to address negative externalities which were occurring on a regional and national basis. The regulation of point-source local pollutants has been successful largely because other private interests in the surrounding areas were suffering obvious and provable damages from the externalities. Thus it was private interests, availing themselves of the courts, in many cases who successfully shut down onerous point source polluters. The government merely facilitated the redress of these damages.
Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple. They hate markets and they hate property rights.
That is not true. They are simply against paying what amounts to an additional tax without appreciable public benefits.
Creating property rights in the atmospheric commons for the purpose of capturing externalities has been the preferred approach to pollution abatement amongst proponents of free markets for decades.
That is true, but here is the big difference: the atmosphere extends over national borders and property rights are not recognized beyond those borders except by treaties which, as Kyoto has demonstrated, are often not worth the paper that they are printed upon. The emissions that the bill is seeking to control are a global problem and the solutions that worked for point source regional pollutants such as lead, sulfur, PCBs and other local pollutants will not work for gases which remain in the atmosphere for centuries and transcend national borders.
Now that that dream is becoming a reality the anti-capitalist oligarchs of existing industries, which have built their businesses around dumping in the commons, are up in arms about it.
Vested interests always oppose change, that is nothing new, but at least this time they do have a point. If we cut back and pay higher prices for energy then the Chinese and the Indians will be happy to pick up the slack. This means that not only will emissions of global greenhouse gases not be reduced, but the growth of oil hungry economies in India and China will be fueled by extra oil freed up by self-imposed austerity in the United States. We should not forget that one of the main reasons why people in the United States enjoyed lower prices for gasoline in the 1980s and 1990s was the self-imposed European gasoline taxes which made more gasoline available to Americans at cheaper prices.
But don't kid yourself for a moment: cap and trade is a market-based solution to the problem.
Market-inspired is perhaps a more accurate description, but make no mistake that the government is still behind the scheme and the bucket will have tons of leaks. If manufacturers and others cannot emit in the United States then there are any number of developing countries, India and China prominent among them, who would be happy to allow them to burn as much coal as they like as long as they locate the factory in their country. The people who will be most hurt by this tax, and that is what it is really...a tax, will be the American consumers while the Chinese, Indians, and Russians laugh all the way to the bank.
But if you hate cap and trade, you hate capitalism.
Again, that is simplistic. If we are going to do something, then lets do something which actually improves the situation instead of wasting time and resources on "solutions" which will basically achieve nothing of consequence.
The problem isn't carbon emissions, the problem is folks like you who think they're infinately wiser than their fellow man and the free market, and see no problem with grasping all the money and power they can in order to force their good intentions on the rest of us.
Who no doubt see themselves as the heirs of the "philosopher kings" of Plato's Republic and yet too proud and arrogant to observe and recognize their own flaws and limitations.
Now we've got arrogant do-gooders on a mission with nothing good to do, and we'll all suffer for their hubris if not stopped.
Who have always in the past served as the deluded foot-soldiers of the special interests pulling their strings from behind the scenes. The Libertarians amongst us here on Slashdot are frequently ridiculed by the do-gooders who see nothing wrong with doing a little evil (i.e. using the power of government which ultimately is the power of violence and coercion to beat the evil free market into submission) so that some good may come of it. I have long predicted that we will not like what we see when the bandages come off and the result of their "change" is revealed for all Americans to see, but somehow the privilege of saying, "we told you so" when that happens brings me little comfort.
I agree. I was definitely in that later generation which grew up with Guns & Roses and while Michael Jackson was still producing new material and was known to us, I don't think that he had quite the same impact on that later generation, the so-called Pepsi generation (remember their, "choice of a new generation" campaigns?), as he did on the generation which grew up ten years earlier during the 1970s and followed him from the motown years and into the mid 1980s (when the gun's and roses generation was mostly still in grade school). In fact I would say that by the time "black or white" and "remember the time" came out in the early 1990s Michael Jackson was still popular but NOT as cutting edge as he was in the mid 1980s or as influential on the bands, like Nirvana, that would come to define the 1990s. The peak of Michael Jackson's musical achievement and career were really in the first part of the 1980s, especially 1982-1985, and he did not maintain that level into the 1990s; although he was still quite good compared to many of his contemporaries who even 10 years on had not equaled his dance and vocal performances in the pop genre IMHO.
Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?
In many states the prosecutor or district attorney is an elected position which tends to get re-elected more easily when the candidate or the incumbent is seen as being "tough on crime". The public has largely been brainwashed into equating criminals with the monsters living under the bed when they were younger instead of realizing that many of them are simply adults like them who were in the wrong place at the wrong time or made an unfortunate decision in a tough situation (i.e. a mistake). Few people would categorize themselves as a "bad person", but we would all of us do well to remember that given the right circumstances every person has their breaking point and we are all capable of making mistakes.
Slashdot Mirror
HIV mutates at an astonishing rate
In fact there is a different type of treatment that takes advantage of that very fact, accelerating the rate of mutation so much that the virus is unable to remain viable. This approach to anti-retroviral therapy is called error catastrophe and a promising enzyme, KP-1461, is currently being investigated for its ability to cause this chain reaction with HIV.
I am also highly skeptical of the vaccine approach with HIV. Although I am not a medical doctor, it seems to me that the error catastrophe approach to prevention of retrovirus production is much more promising. In particular, the KP1461 enzyme (described in the linked article) shows particular promise in clearing active HIV infection. Basically, it accelerates the mutation rate of the virus so much that the virons are no longer capable of reproducing (i.e. it mutates itself to death). This is actually a very clever approach; taking advantage of the error-prone reverse transcriptase which the virus uses to replicate itself and turning its greatest strength into its Achilles' heel.
This will be a chance for them to bring back Godzilla for another round, but this time in IMAX-3D for the ultimate monster effects film with absolute minimalist plot.
Yes, one way or the other we will finally have proof.
The evidence has been patently clear for any reasonable person who cared to look into the matter since the Apollo 11 crew landed back on earth on July 24, 1969. The people who support the lunar landing hoax conspiracy are the sort of people who would not be satisfied with any "proof" no matter how convincing or carefully collected the evidence was. They will probably argue, for example, that any new images sent back by the probe have been doctored or edited to include the Apollo artifacts in order to "perpetuate the hoax" as part of the conspiracy theory. The people who deny that the lunar landings took place are either crackpots or just looking to stir the pot and be fringe.
the social clubs are just brimming with gossip about the scandal.
You mean those fancy clubs that would never allow Cretans like us to bask in the glowing light of their intellectual presence? Somehow, I cannot say that I am sorry to have missed this one. Perhaps this Gladwell fellow can turn his attentions next to Perez Hilton? If ever there was someone who needed to be taken down a notch or two it is him.
This feels a lot like history repeating itself - It's Napster all over again...
It is reminiscent yes, but with Napster it was possible to keep the name and logo intact because neither of them overtly suggested that copyright infringement was the way to go other than the formative history of the brand, which fades as people move on. However, this case is different. How are they going to operate "The Pirate Bay", which has a pirate ship logo and cassette tape and crossed bones from the "home taping is killing the music business" campaign, without the perpetually reminding people of the pirate connection?
A lot of the problem is that large companies have a disproportionate amount of influence with politicians and thus get laws passed for their benefit which usually negatively affect people
Do you always do what you're told? The government can pass any number of laws, but actually enforcing them is another thing entirely. Why play by their rules when they don't?
and there's nothing Vineet Nayar can say or do about it
Vineet Nayar and other CEOs of Indian outsourcing companies are hardly disinterested parties when it comes to knocking American developers and IT workers. People have to know that these CEOs are in cahoots with MPs and other high-ups in the Indian Government as part of concerted effort to increase outsourcing no matter what it takes to get that done (truthful and honest or not). If their credibility is not already completely wrecked then in another 10 years it probably will be. If IT is an important part of the business then why put your trust in people like Vineet Nayar? To paraphrase the parent, draw your own conclusions, but don't say that we didn't warn you.
That's what certain executive-types are trying to do to technology.
Perhaps someone should point out that executives are vulnerable to the same sort of "competition". We have all seen the stories in the news of CEOs getting million dollar bonuses while losing billions of dollars. I may not have an MBA from Wharton, but I don't need a fancy degree in order to be paid millions so that I can lose billions. Hire back the engineers to run these companies; we know how to design, build, and run the most complex systems ever put together by man and we could hardly do worse than those knuckle draggers currently inhabiting those executive suites and boardrooms.
What this guy doesn't answer is why is it that when I have to review code coming from India it is full of bugs, short cuts, and shit that doesn't make a damn bit of sense even to the Indian staff that's stateside?
I believe that I can answer that one for you; They cut and pasted or adapted sections of code found in unrelated projects or on the Internet, mostly without understanding what they were cutting and pasting, and then ran the debugger until the code satisfied exactly the test case that you specified and NO others (i.e. the code explodes of the input is not exactly as specified). In my experience, Indian outsourced programmers are very good at following precise directions, provided that they have seen the problem before and memorized the solution, but if they run into snags or must use a bit of creativity to adapt the solution then all bets are (mostly) off. Also, If you ask them to architect the solution rather than simply filling in the blanks then you are really asking for trouble.
They'd be less likely to want nuclear weapons were they not being threatened by at least two nuclear armed states.
Which does not make the statement any less true. Iran wants the bomb and they are apparently unconcerned with the consequences.
It is none of our business unless they attempt to develop nuclear weapons.
Which they absolutely will do. Anyone who believes that Iran will not develop the bomb after completing the necessary infrastructure for nuclear power is being naïve in the extreme.
We in the West are morally justified in destroying the nuclear-weapons facilities.
Which will then be rebuilt in such a way that nothing short of a nuclear penetrator will suffice to destroy them, assuming that they were not constructed that way in the first place, and what then? Would you call their bluff? Would you use nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from having them? That is a tough question, no doubt about it.
The Iranians bear 100% of the blame for the existence of a tyrannical government in Iran. We should condemn Iranian culture and its people.
It is perhaps more correct to say that we should condemn their government. Of course, that would take political courage and a steely nerve that I don't think we have seen in America since Ronald Reagan called out the Soviets in his "evil empire" speech. The Obama Administration was slow to criticize the Iranian regime for the election fallout and was not tough enough when they finally did speak up. If we are going to defeat the Iranian regime then we must defeat them in the court of world opinion and in the battle of ideas between the harsh brand of Islamic theocracy practiced by the Ayatollahs and the Western Democratic systems that have brought freedom, dignity, and prosperity wherever they have taken root.
It is hard to distinguish between the administration not hearing and the administration willfully pretending they did not hear anything, but at least on the marijuana issue it is pretty likely to be the latter.
I must say that I lost a lot of respect for Obama after he basically blew off a top three (3) issue question in the Internet town hall meeting simply because the subject was sensitive or "political poison". A free society cannot permit sensitive subjects or questions, especially on valid issues and questions like drug legalization and the "war on drugs", to be beyond honest debate without losing the very freedoms that we claim to value and protect. Obama put himself in a position where the people were going to select the agenda for the meeting and his staff knew or should have known that something like this would come up. Obama said that he does not support legalization, but I do not believe that he answered honestly. I believe that he answered as he did to satisfy the "war on drugs" hardliners in the Federal Government and preserve his political capital for issues that he feels are more important. Now, while that may be understandable it is still regrettable because it demonstrates that Obama is willing to sacrifice principle for political advantage when it suits him. In fact, the whole affair reminded me of Richard Nixon; another politician who was notorious for his willingness to publicly hold or change positions, despite his personal beliefs, if he thought that doing so would give him a political advantage. In the end, he lost respect and so will Obama if he continues to dodge tough questions or refuses to take principled stands on issues that matter to the American people.
Truly, that is the only way. However, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction here in the United States towards even more spending, more regulation, and ever larger government. The bureaucracy is expanding; to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
But will they be able to change US' customers mindset?
Absolutely not. Nobody is going to put their family in this inflatable go kart deathtrap; it would be humiliating to drive such a crappy little car. Americans prefer a larger, heavier, and safer vehicle (preferably stylish too although that is not always possible) above fuel economy. Do we complain about higher fuel prices? Sure we do. Is it enough to get us out of our SUV family haulers or large sedans? Of course not. The problem with the small-car people is that all of their arguments are bunko for the typical American family. Advanced safety features can be part of any car in any size category so, all other things being equal, a larger and more massive vehicle is safer. If people want to drive their families around in econo-box death traps then that is their choice I suppose, but they will pry the keys to my Mercedes S class from my cold dead hands. I don't care if the gas mileage is only ~20mpg; I want safety, luxury, and performance not some clove-smoking birkenstock wearing hippie's idea of what I should be permitted to drive (not a very American concept telling people what they can and cannot drive). That is why GM will fail in the green econo box market; many Americans wouldn't even consider a car in that class under any circumstances and those who would probably select the Toyota Prius or Honda Insight instead.
Don't listen to the crap you might see from the libertarians on /.
In defense of us Libertarians here on Slashdot I feel that I must point out that we are all about freedom and against violence and coercion. In fact, we have always held the United States Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights in very high esteem and wish that our Federal Government would conform more closely to the limited role outlined in those documents instead of experimenting with socialism as Obama seems determined to do. However, as Bush and others have demonstrated, there is really only so much damage that one President can do and in the long run the United States has some pretty well engineered self correcting mechanisms (our founding fathers saw to that when they set the whole thing up). In response to the emigrating author, I would definitely recommend the United States in general and the Free State Project states (New Hampshire and Wyoming) in particular if he is looking to maximize his freedoms. Although, compared to what we see and hear coming out of the UK these days, just about anywhere in the United States is going to be a breath of fresh air by way of comparison. The United States also has the advantage that the residency requirements and path to citizenship are easier when coming from the UK which enjoys the "special relationship" with the United States. So he really should take a second look at the United States; we really do have a lot to offer as a free country.
New York is sort of a special case because it is the home state of the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange) which would probably come under pressure from the famously aggressive New York Attorney General's office to "encourage" Amazon to pay the tax...or else. While the leverage of the State of New York is not unlimited, it probably is more powerful than what North Carolina can threaten Amazon with for non-compliance.
James Barrett, how many letters did you sent to your representatives demanding they strike down this unconstitutional tax?
The tax would be applied to business affiliates operating within the State of North Carolina so it is probably not unconstitutional as long as the goods are not being shipped to somewhere outside of North Carolina which would make it an inter-state commerce issue and within the domain of the Federal Government. Now, the tax probably is a bad idea, especially during a recession, but that is another matter.
The complaints against this bill have nothing to do with the spirit of it and everything to do with the structure of it.
It is the structure and results of the policy which matter, not its intentions. One of the greatest mistakes people make in public policy is to judge based upon intentions rather than actual results. This is analogous to the, "If it saved even one life then billions of dollars were well spent", arguments that one hears from time to time among the "true believers" of a particular cause or issue. Many of us here on Slashdot can foresee the unintended (or perhaps intended if we are talking about malicious special interests) consequences of this legislation, but we are being shouted down by the global warming orthodoxy that is taking hold in our government and society. I predict that Americans will tire of paying more for everything while doing nothing appreciable for the environment. However, I must admit that I am a bit surprised that Obama would back such a foolish policy. One would think that he had learned a thing or two from Jimmy Carter about "fine ideas" combined with poor execution and government bungling.
Please mod the parent up; this is precisely the right response to the peak-oil mongering. Not only will there be adjustments to a gradual and smooth decline in oil production, but at least some production of natural oil sources will be replaced by artificial crude oil production. In fact there are biotech companies working right now on bacteria which can produce crude oil, LS9 for example. Will this replace current production and consumption at current prices? Almost certainly not, but it will ensure that technologies which are vital to modern civilization, such as air travel, will remain available even if they do become more expensive in the future than they have been in the past. Oil will never go away entirely, but it will gradually become relegated to niches where it is absolutely necessary, like aircraft, instead of powering most of our transportation needs as it does now.
Just like the market in sulphur emissions that GHW Bush helped create back in the day, that took acid rain from a big problem to a minor one.
Which was done to address negative externalities which were occurring on a regional and national basis. The regulation of point-source local pollutants has been successful largely because other private interests in the surrounding areas were suffering obvious and provable damages from the externalities. Thus it was private interests, availing themselves of the courts, in many cases who successfully shut down onerous point source polluters. The government merely facilitated the redress of these damages.
Opponents of this bill hate capitalism, pure and simple. They hate markets and they hate property rights.
That is not true. They are simply against paying what amounts to an additional tax without appreciable public benefits.
Creating property rights in the atmospheric commons for the purpose of capturing externalities has been the preferred approach to pollution abatement amongst proponents of free markets for decades.
That is true, but here is the big difference: the atmosphere extends over national borders and property rights are not recognized beyond those borders except by treaties which, as Kyoto has demonstrated, are often not worth the paper that they are printed upon. The emissions that the bill is seeking to control are a global problem and the solutions that worked for point source regional pollutants such as lead, sulfur, PCBs and other local pollutants will not work for gases which remain in the atmosphere for centuries and transcend national borders.
Now that that dream is becoming a reality the anti-capitalist oligarchs of existing industries, which have built their businesses around dumping in the commons, are up in arms about it.
Vested interests always oppose change, that is nothing new, but at least this time they do have a point. If we cut back and pay higher prices for energy then the Chinese and the Indians will be happy to pick up the slack. This means that not only will emissions of global greenhouse gases not be reduced, but the growth of oil hungry economies in India and China will be fueled by extra oil freed up by self-imposed austerity in the United States. We should not forget that one of the main reasons why people in the United States enjoyed lower prices for gasoline in the 1980s and 1990s was the self-imposed European gasoline taxes which made more gasoline available to Americans at cheaper prices.
But don't kid yourself for a moment: cap and trade is a market-based solution to the problem.
Market-inspired is perhaps a more accurate description, but make no mistake that the government is still behind the scheme and the bucket will have tons of leaks. If manufacturers and others cannot emit in the United States then there are any number of developing countries, India and China prominent among them, who would be happy to allow them to burn as much coal as they like as long as they locate the factory in their country. The people who will be most hurt by this tax, and that is what it is really...a tax, will be the American consumers while the Chinese, Indians, and Russians laugh all the way to the bank.
But if you hate cap and trade, you hate capitalism.
Again, that is simplistic. If we are going to do something, then lets do something which actually improves the situation instead of wasting time and resources on "solutions" which will basically achieve nothing of consequence.
The problem isn't carbon emissions, the problem is folks like you who think they're infinately wiser than their fellow man and the free market, and see no problem with grasping all the money and power they can in order to force their good intentions on the rest of us.
Who no doubt see themselves as the heirs of the "philosopher kings" of Plato's Republic and yet too proud and arrogant to observe and recognize their own flaws and limitations.
Now we've got arrogant do-gooders on a mission with nothing good to do, and we'll all suffer for their hubris if not stopped.
Who have always in the past served as the deluded foot-soldiers of the special interests pulling their strings from behind the scenes. The Libertarians amongst us here on Slashdot are frequently ridiculed by the do-gooders who see nothing wrong with doing a little evil (i.e. using the power of government which ultimately is the power of violence and coercion to beat the evil free market into submission) so that some good may come of it. I have long predicted that we will not like what we see when the bandages come off and the result of their "change" is revealed for all Americans to see, but somehow the privilege of saying, "we told you so" when that happens brings me little comfort.
I agree. I was definitely in that later generation which grew up with Guns & Roses and while Michael Jackson was still producing new material and was known to us, I don't think that he had quite the same impact on that later generation, the so-called Pepsi generation (remember their, "choice of a new generation" campaigns?), as he did on the generation which grew up ten years earlier during the 1970s and followed him from the motown years and into the mid 1980s (when the gun's and roses generation was mostly still in grade school). In fact I would say that by the time "black or white" and "remember the time" came out in the early 1990s Michael Jackson was still popular but NOT as cutting edge as he was in the mid 1980s or as influential on the bands, like Nirvana, that would come to define the 1990s. The peak of Michael Jackson's musical achievement and career were really in the first part of the 1980s, especially 1982-1985, and he did not maintain that level into the 1990s; although he was still quite good compared to many of his contemporaries who even 10 years on had not equaled his dance and vocal performances in the pop genre IMHO.
Get yourself a $2 pair of gas station sun glasses instead of paying Toyota $400 to fix something which will inevitably break again.
Don't prosecutors have anything better to do, then pretend to be a nanny to some adult?
In many states the prosecutor or district attorney is an elected position which tends to get re-elected more easily when the candidate or the incumbent is seen as being "tough on crime". The public has largely been brainwashed into equating criminals with the monsters living under the bed when they were younger instead of realizing that many of them are simply adults like them who were in the wrong place at the wrong time or made an unfortunate decision in a tough situation (i.e. a mistake). Few people would categorize themselves as a "bad person", but we would all of us do well to remember that given the right circumstances every person has their breaking point and we are all capable of making mistakes.