"easy" money (legal and tax incentives to take certain risks, for a "small campaign donation" of course) causes the price of the limited assets that money is directed towards to increase, and it gets spent on things with higher risk - i.e. more houses and more house than one can afford if the income stream is lessened - eventually, all markets correct - the question is either one of time or quantity - by putting taxpayers on the hook to bail out anything, the government creates false interest in that particular market - and then it corrects, painfully
One of the funny things, Unions, if you want to be a member, well, you are free to sign up for it.
Ever tried to work in a location and profession that is heavily unionized and exercise your supposed freedom to not belong? Did you leave with all your body parts?
ALL transportation is subsidized and that's a necessary thing because it's a public good.
subsidies create false economies where inefficiencies are so buried in the noise that they are allowed to grow into depression-quality bubbles... exactly where is the "public good" in such things?
I got a drive in a (rich) friend's Tesla this weekend when it was delivered and have a test report.
Executive summary: Oh. My. God.
Items missing: Three point harness. Leg restraints. Sufficient handholds for passenger. AI software to maintain directional control during GLOC. Erica Lane's voice saying "pull up, pull up."
This whole proposition seems like flawed logic to me. It's like saying "air is odorless, so let's wrap a fart in a small bubble of air, so it won't stink up the room".
If your choices were McCain or Obama... and they were... and your preference would have been McCain between those two, but you voted for a third party for some make-yourself-feel-good-for-bitching-in-public purpose, then your vote is as responsible for the result as someone who voted for Obama. This is what our current voting system gives us. I don't like it... but I don't like going to the dentist either.
IMO, I think we always need to select the candidate likely to tax and spend and regulate liberty the least, and for now, caveat-ed with likely to be elected - in our government we've never had a problem of too little taxation - we certainly have problems with misappropriation and misdirection. We need to encourage liberty-seeking candidates to make that a centerpiece of their campaigns, but not being a member of one of the two parties is a waste of effort until we can change our voting system. We need to get enough candidates into office who have shown in their actions that they would risk their very lives to promote liberty. Anyone willing and desiring to *take* the effort of another to promote their own agenda, good agenda though it may be, rather than for the intentionally and greatly limited purposes the Constitution gave us, is the lesser candidate, because he is taking the ability to choose away from the people.
Re:If you didn't vote libertarian, you ASKED FOR T
on
Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Anonymous Bob - if you did vote libertarian all you did was help elect Obama. As long as we practice one-man-one-vote the system will swing to a two-party system. You only get to choose from a menu of two - and while it may look like a choice of rice and chicken versus chicken and rice, until you can get the menu to expand you pick one of the two or you don't eat.
their business motto was "screw the customer"... we will see a whole lot more businesses die in the water this year simply because they have the same attitude
unless they bring enough to the table to influence a congressman
This would be the most honest approach - everyone could apply their own estimate of improvement over that. However, marketing demands a, shall we say, more nuanced description of capability.
Slashdot Mirror
rather than risking some technological masterwork and the colossal ego behind the stick over hostile territory
what sort of ego would you recommend for flying a fighter over hostile territory?
"easy" money (legal and tax incentives to take certain risks, for a "small campaign donation" of course) causes the price of the limited assets that money is directed towards to increase, and it gets spent on things with higher risk - i.e. more houses and more house than one can afford if the income stream is lessened - eventually, all markets correct - the question is either one of time or quantity - by putting taxpayers on the hook to bail out anything, the government creates false interest in that particular market - and then it corrects, painfully
One of the funny things, Unions, if you want to be a member, well, you are free to sign up for it.
Ever tried to work in a location and profession that is heavily unionized and exercise your supposed freedom to not belong? Did you leave with all your body parts?
ALL transportation is subsidized and that's a necessary thing because it's a public good.
... exactly where is the "public good" in such things?
subsidies create false economies where inefficiencies are so buried in the noise that they are allowed to grow into depression-quality bubbles
prop up auto manufacturers. Then it's "capitalism".
subsidizing union employment with taxpayer money to gain votes is not capitalism
That must be why the percentage of doctors who decline to take patients who have Medicare is growing ... because it's so good
I love four-masted schooners, but I'm not pushing a government program for them to replace container ships
... with the spending mindset in effect right now you could probably get a few billion dollars just to "study the problem".
too bad
I heard the US version of pirate-stopping dolphins will have ... wait for it ... lasers!
I got a drive in a (rich) friend's Tesla this weekend when it was delivered and have a test report.
Executive summary: Oh. My. God.
Items missing: Three point harness. Leg restraints. Sufficient handholds for passenger. AI software to maintain directional control during GLOC. Erica Lane's voice saying "pull up, pull up."
This whole proposition seems like flawed logic to me. It's like saying "air is odorless, so let's wrap a fart in a small bubble of air, so it won't stink up the room".
doesn't pass the sniff test, eh?
oh, that's the cat's meow
If your choices were McCain or Obama ... and they were ... and your preference would have been McCain between those two, but you voted for a third party for some make-yourself-feel-good-for-bitching-in-public purpose, then your vote is as responsible for the result as someone who voted for Obama. This is what our current voting system gives us. I don't like it ... but I don't like going to the dentist either.
Identical is worse when better was an option.
How can you get rid of corruption if people rather vote for who they think will win rather than what they believe in?
By voting for the liberty-seeking candidate of the likely to win choices.
Do us a favor and vote for one of the two candidates most likely to promote liberty.
I just slap refuse to vote in the affirmative for either of those bogus alleged choices.
...)
"The Americans are not there. They're not in Baghdad. There are no troops there. Never. They're not at all." (... some other Bob
Reality sucks, doesn't it.
Did you ever follow the Occam language? It seemed to have parallelization intrinsic, but it never went anywhere.
IMO, I think we always need to select the candidate likely to tax and spend and regulate liberty the least, and for now, caveat-ed with likely to be elected - in our government we've never had a problem of too little taxation - we certainly have problems with misappropriation and misdirection. We need to encourage liberty-seeking candidates to make that a centerpiece of their campaigns, but not being a member of one of the two parties is a waste of effort until we can change our voting system. We need to get enough candidates into office who have shown in their actions that they would risk their very lives to promote liberty. Anyone willing and desiring to *take* the effort of another to promote their own agenda, good agenda though it may be, rather than for the intentionally and greatly limited purposes the Constitution gave us, is the lesser candidate, because he is taking the ability to choose away from the people.
Anonymous Bob - if you did vote libertarian all you did was help elect Obama. As long as we practice one-man-one-vote the system will swing to a two-party system. You only get to choose from a menu of two - and while it may look like a choice of rice and chicken versus chicken and rice, until you can get the menu to expand you pick one of the two or you don't eat.
their business motto was "screw the customer" ... we will see a whole lot more businesses die in the water this year simply because they have the same attitude
unless they bring enough to the table to influence a congressman
I find them very depressing stores full of shoddy crap
one man's shoddy crap is another's affordable dinner
and around and around you go ...
Caution ... do not look into mosquito killing device with remaining eye.
They should include proper buttons for skipping tracks and and changing albums.
... why do people who design interfaces to mobile devices not try to make the onscreen controls AS BIG AS POSSIBLE?
The Blackberry Storm is worse
This would be the most honest approach - everyone could apply their own estimate of improvement over that. However, marketing demands a, shall we say, more nuanced description of capability.