such a move could do nothing but improve her image.
I wouldn't say that.
"Slashdot Interviews Rosen"
CmdrTaco: It's nice to meet you, Miss Rosen. I'd like to start out with one question: 'Why are you against file sharing?'
Rosen: Because, it's impossible to control your lives unless we lock down the minor things first and slowly build up to bigger things.
CmdrTaco: I see. What bigger things?
Rosen: Well, the big plan is to implant RFID chips in your tires and skull. The tires one is obvious, but the skull one is there so that when you start thinking of a song, it'll be reported to the RIAA, and we'll debit the cost of the song play to your bank account. If you don't have a bank account, we'll send repo men to your house to take your CD's and computer to cover the costs.
CmdrTaco: Ooooookayy..and one more thing. What is your stance on freedom of speech?
Rosen: Two words for you, Taco-boy. "Penis Enlargement".
The point is that any government that has the power to control lives in nasty ways is, of course going to be efficient. I mean, Our government would get alot of stuff done, if we had one leader and he didn't have to worry about "that pesky constitution" every time he wanted to put a hippy on death row for advocating communism.
But the USians should get involved in whatever they like? Face it - if you don't like us to get involved in how things are at your end of the pond, then you should stay out of how we handle stuff.
Last time I checked, I didn't jump into European affairs and say that you guys are paranoid because you don't want an EU-wide version of the DMCA. I might express my outrage at the legislation, but I don't accuse people of being anything negative if they don't want their rights infringed upon.
BTW, the last time we decided to ignore the happenings in Europe, a guy with a bad haircut and mustache was killing Jews and rolling over Europe like it was a playground. I dunno, which is worse...? Our interest, or our isolationism?
You however, come across as some southerner who's sore about them damn federalists mucking around with the "South's' states rights. You lost the war. Get over it.
Congrats on successfully locating my place of birth! I was born in Georgia, however, as a child of a military family, I was not raised there. You get bonus points if you can locate where I was raised. (Hint: Not in the south).
This is once again why Europeans shouldn't get involved in privacy issues in the US. Of course you have a "national ID", because your countries might have counties or provinces, but when you go to any other country in Europe, and they ask where you are from, you'll probably say you're from whatever country from which you hail.
On the other hand, if I travel to Canada from the US, and someone asks where I from, I tell them which state I am from.
Why is this? Because people from the US, for the most part, identify their origin by their state. It's something steeped in American tradition from when we were under the Articles of Confederation and had an extremely weak federal government uniting the otherwise independent states.
Now, why is this important for the sake of the "National ID card" debate? Because, most of us, because we identify ourselves by states, fear even further encroachment of the federal government on what is currently the responsibility of the state.
I know, it's hard to understand, but since we have a large country, we generally don't feel the need of an excessively large bureaucratic federal government in charge of all aspects of our lives, and in the case of smaller states, totally unresponsive to their needs.
You are a Total Fucking Idiot of the First Order. Hawkings is a theoretical physicist, not an astronomer. I doubt he has ever used a telescope professionally. His theoretical work is on the physical properties of black holes, which you couldn't see anyway.
You are a Professional idiot of the First Order, because you missed the entire point of it. I was saying that I'd rather spend time ANYWHERE with a great man than nowhere with someone I've never heard of. For example, if he was alive, I'd rather be stuck in a desert with Thomas Jefferson than to be ANYWHERE with you're Anon Coward fucktard self.
I guess you knew your opinion was idiotic because you're hiding behind the Anon.
You really believe that? I think most ppl are getting on the web for AOL Instant Messanger
Of course you and the AOL buddy crowd do. But when you sit in a nice comfy chair in a house with working heat and air conditioning, it's very easy to forget that many people don't get something unless there's some form of economic benefit.
"this article is about collecting taxes already in place, not about government misuse of tax money"?
Then remind me again why you are rebutting me for sticking up for the same anti-tax stance?
What the fuck does a sales tax on purchased goods have to do with internet accessibility? Buying a $300 computer and spending $20/month on internet access isn't going to save you money by triming sales tax on a couple of books or CDs a year. And I hope that people are using library access points for something more educational than amazon.com.
Here's why: Do you own a car? Do you own it just to drive around town, see the sights and head home? Probably not, unless you're a rich prick with an expensive sports car.
Most lower-class Americans who own cars own them because they NEED it to provide a service to them. It's easier and faster to get to work and to the places that need to go, than it is to hoof it. So they buy a utilitarian car and use that for that purpose.
Similarly, unless you've got money to throw around, you're not going to invest $300 plus $20 per month to just "surf the web" in your "spare time". People in lower income brackets (I was there a while back) generally don't have too much spare time, unless they are the kind to milk government benefits. Most are busy working their ass off to get out the situation they are in.
One of the incentives to using the internet is that you can buy stuff for *Really fucking Cheap* compared to buying from a local place. Sure, S&H adds to it, but it still will cost less than getting it from your Wal-Mart most of the time. For guys who do alot of woodworking or mechanical stuff, this is especially key, because you can buy tools for nearly 40% off retail, if you're willing to pony up 20% on S&H.
Back to my point: People will be willing to invest in getting their asses on the web only if there's something that will save them money or make their lives simpler. Add taxes and you'll reduce the savings (and thus the incentive to get yourself a computer...in addition to spending the time to learn the computer. Oh, yeah, I guess you may have forgotten that not all people are born with computer skills).
There are also a few other issues, like states that might enact "punishment" taxes for purchasing items on the internet instead of buying them from local businesses.
... and can you show me exactly how you deduced that?
Well, I figured that if you believe that raising taxes that people pay will help people, that you'd believe that letting criminals go would lower the crime rate.
1. There is no evidence linking Hussein to Al Queada or Bin Laden. Hussein and Bin Laden are bitter enemies, they absolutely despise each other. That hasn't stopped Bush and gang from trying in vain to link Iraq to 9-11. However, any insinuation that is made, upon further scrutiny falls apart, because that's all it is, is insinuation. Our government knows that Iraq had nothing to do with it.
So, if someone kills people, seeks NBC weaponry for use against an undefined threat, denies any form of rule by the people, and consistently acts as a violator of human rights...then it's fine with you as long as he wasn't involved with 9/11? You mean to say that the only reason to stop evil is if it was tied to a single incident? EVERYTHING IN OUR LIVES MUST REVOLVE AROUND THAT ONE INCIDENT?! Holy shit. I can't brush my teeth, because there's no connection between plaque and 9/11. We can't prosecute criminals, because they aren't tied to 9/11. We can't fight the DMCA, because it's not tied to 9/11. Thanks for telling me. I was going to be for all that behavior. But I didn't know they were not tied to 9/11.
2. The country that did participate quite a bit in the funding of Al Queada is Saudi Arabia. So, why doesn't our government attack them? Because they are our allies of course. They give us all the oil we want.
Here's why: If we say we want to attack Saudi Arabia, various European countries will scream like they are now over Iraw. Even if we provide proof that they are tied to terror, they all have their own deals with Saudi Arabia in regards to oil (yeah, it may surprise you, but the US isn't the only buyer of Middle-East Oil).
3. Our government put Hussein in power. Our government also looked the other way when Hussein "gassed his own people". Three words are missing, "with our support". Before 1991, 10 US corporations participated in the sale of arms to Iraq, even after he gassed his own people. That's part of why the dossier is kept out of the mainstream media.
So...if we try to stem radicalism in another country by supporting someone and that someone commences doing bad stuff, we shouldn't stop him? Oh year, we can't. He's not tied to 9/11.
4. Our government talks about creating democracy in Iraq, and we are to understand that the first step towards democracy is having a military dictatorship, much in the same way that we are to understand that "right to trial" means rounding up hundreds of "suspected terrorists" into concentration camps where they will eventually be tried by a military tribunal
Well, those in the US who were taken away, most have been returned (watch the news closely. The liberal news media loves to avoid reporting things that make the military look decent, so they bury it below the fold on page A32), except the ones with shady backgrounds and connections (like traveling back and forth between the US and Iran several times a year on a $10,000 a year job while going to college without parental funding). And most of the people going on the "military tribunal" trials are guys who were found in the field with other fighters wielding AK's and shooting at US troops. I know, you hate the US military, even if the guys you join are people just like you, they have less of a right to live, because they decided to take a different path to achieve financial security and a strong educational background.
5. This war is about oil. That's all it is about. If we were out to have a "just war", there would be many other countries that have far worse human rights violations than Iraq.
It is? I'd think that if we were only after oil, we'd go take over Kuwait, which has more oil, and no military to speak of. In addition, you seem to have a laspe of intellegence here. If we were after oil (because having Bush in your name automagically makes you a war-mongering, oil-chugging beast), why would we put out the fires that Saddam set to the oil wells in Kuwait, then rebuild the oil fields...and turn them over to the Kuwaiti government. We were under no requirement to do so. We could've occupied those oil wells. Technically, they still belong to American companies, but they were stolen from those companies when these Middle-East monarchies nationalized all oil-related property. In addition, if Bush was going after helping his oil buddies, why would we want MORE oil? Technically, they'd want less oil, because in the US, texas oil fields are still a major part. We actually get alot more oil from Russia, Mexico, and a few other non-Middle East countries, in addition to our own oil supply (which, while not filling 100% of our oil needs, is nothing to balk at).
Logically, if Bush was looking to satisfy his American oil friends, what he'd do is lower the amount of imports, so the Texas Oil guys could jack up prices and increase profits.
NOTE: I AM AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ. I am simply tired of stupid reasons against the war, rather than the one simple reason why not: We shouldn't have one single soldier in the Middle East, unless he or she is on vacation. We have no business meddling in their affairs. End of story. It's not about oil, it's not about 9/11 (and noone has ever linked it to 9/11, except scattered media reports about Mohammed Atta), and it's not about democracy. It is about the globalism that the UN started. This is the road that the UN paved, interventionism at any cost. A future where national sovereignty and elections are a thing of the past. Just think about it. Have you ever voted on your UN Delegate? Didn't think so. Odd they have the power to do a ton of things to people's countries.
Iraq is a republic in name only. It's a military dictatorship. Many dictatorship use "Republic" in place of "State" or "Nation", because it sounds more humanitarian.
China and Soviet Union are similar. At ONE POINT, there was an election. Once they got into power, they used their power to create a system where the party in power hand-picks their successors in their equivalent of congress. And that congressional equivalent chooses a "president" to act in executive and head-of-state fashions.
I think it'd be funny to create a Internet Referendum system, where you can use a voter registration number (on voter registration card) with a password (confirmed by registered mail) is used for a non-legally binding referendum. So when the politicians go to vote, the people's voice has been heard. Then you can put the state-by-state, district-by-district, and national votes next to the congressmen and senatorial votes.
When elections roll around, it won't matter who is in what party, if everyone knows that the politician will not listen to the people if given the data on what they want.
Of course, it's impossible to create that system without loopholes and people fucking shit up and hacking it and junk, but it's nice to daydream about a society where the people are actually listened to.
Hell, those most likely to buy things over the internet are probably the ones who can most afford paying a tax.
Hey, and what better way to make the internet more accessible to those in lower-income brackets than to make it more expensive to do the things that drive people to the internet, like getting items for less?
I guess next you'll propose to decrease crime rates by letting convicts out of jail?
This may be hard to understand, but in America, common sense doesn't rule. Like the idea that if you take more money from the people who produce (negative reinforcement for working hard) and give it to people who don't produce (positive reinforcement for sitting at home and watching Jenny Jones), you'll create a booming economy. Or that lower-class people will get raises, if you cut the amount of money available to people at the top. People at the top who take home less will not be more likely to give raises.
But that's beside the point. It's just an example. I'm what is commonly referred to as a "moderate conservative". I'm against the war in Iraq. I'm against anything that puts our men and women in trouble for the purpose of meddling in the affairs of another hemisphere. Especially when our borders are so porous. Why should we deploy people to defend other people's borders when ours aren't?
I'm against the US support for Israel. Giving money to a state based on the globalist theivery of land from one people and handing it to another is not a smart thing. It's bullshit. We should pull ALL our troops out of the middle east and drop all financial and military aid to Israel. Tell them that we won't be funding their genocide any further.
I'm also tired of politicians that make laws like the cyberterrorism ones and the Patriot Act. I'm tired of politicians who have no compunction for raising our Social Security taxes and then telling us that we won't have any when we get old enough. I'm tired of them giving away our social security to citizens of other countries, when they have opted themselves out of our system so they can put their money in their own retirement fund.
But you know what? They don't care. They don't care what I think, they don't care what you think. They fabricate the public opinion every time an election comes around, them and the rest of the Madison Avenue boys, and then they walk back into the chambers in January and forget about for the next 6 years!
And slowly, they strip your rights on your computer, to restrict your free speech. They take your guns, to prevent the potential of someone fighting back for their rights when we all wake up in 15 years and find ourselves sitting in Nazi America, saluting to Fuhrer Bush.
It's probably cheaper to give them a bowl of ramen and a cup of coffee than to buy a patch or two to replace a meal. Think of it from military standpoint. Spend $10 million on food and $10 million on tanks, or spend $500,000 on ramen and $19,500,000 on tanks. Generals always go for the cool toys.
I don't know about you, but I prefer having backwards compatability with the PSX over having the ability to use the memory stick. (Long live CompactFlash!)
Check dictionary.com and you'll see that there are a couple of accepted definitions that are non-clothing and non-military. The one that comes first is...
"The laying out of money in the purchase of some species of property"
Doesn't say it has to be for financial gain. The parent poster was probably referring to this definition and you were going on the other definition dealing with financial gain. While some people like puns and other nonsense derived from the multiple definitions of several English words, most people like GOOD jokes. Again, while it was nice of you to toss in the "portfoliio of shampoo, razor blades, and odor-eaters!" joke there, you should stick to "All your base..."
As long as the stock is not in the hands of the company, the original money spent on the stock is there. And right now, many companies are taking the opportunity of their lower-than-average stock prices to buy back their shares in order to increase overall value. Your statement may be true right now, but in the upcoming months, it may not.
You know, this would probably get modded "Funny", if it didn't suck. You're trying to make fun of the concept of something non-stock-marked being considered an investment.
Unfortunately, it makes you look like a retard. And investment is generally considered anything that you put money into for use, the opportunity to use, or to give permission for others to use. When you buy a share of a company, you pretty much are putting money into the company for the purpose of exercising voting rights, or to use the share for financial gain. Pretty much the same with bonds, you give money to have the right to profit off of the bond.
When you buy DVD's, you are paying money for the right to watch the content. When you bought your DVD player, you were buying the right to use it for the purpose of watching media. By definition, they are investments.
By your definition, real estate is not an investment (even though the entire rest of the world considers it to be a VERY good investment MOST of the time).
I think you should stop making jokes about your ignorance and go back to "In Soviet Russia..." or "All Your Base..." while old, they are still funier than this last post of yours.
Yes, but when we get to Terminator 4, it'll be T-XP. And finally, in Terminator 5, Skynet switches to T-inux.
Skynet's open source Terminator will have a team of programmers finding bugs and won't crash. SourceForge will be single-handedly responsible for the downfall of humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
such a move could do nothing but improve her image.
I wouldn't say that.
"Slashdot Interviews Rosen"
CmdrTaco: It's nice to meet you, Miss Rosen. I'd like to start out with one question: 'Why are you against file sharing?'
Rosen: Because, it's impossible to control your lives unless we lock down the minor things first and slowly build up to bigger things.
CmdrTaco: I see. What bigger things?
Rosen: Well, the big plan is to implant RFID chips in your tires and skull. The tires one is obvious, but the skull one is there so that when you start thinking of a song, it'll be reported to the RIAA, and we'll debit the cost of the song play to your bank account. If you don't have a bank account, we'll send repo men to your house to take your CD's and computer to cover the costs.
CmdrTaco: Ooooookayy..and one more thing. What is your stance on freedom of speech?
Rosen: Two words for you, Taco-boy. "Penis Enlargement".
The point is that any government that has the power to control lives in nasty ways is, of course going to be efficient. I mean, Our government would get alot of stuff done, if we had one leader and he didn't have to worry about "that pesky constitution" every time he wanted to put a hippy on death row for advocating communism.
But the USians should get involved in whatever they like? Face it - if you don't like us to get involved in how things are at your end of the pond, then you should stay out of how we handle stuff.
Last time I checked, I didn't jump into European affairs and say that you guys are paranoid because you don't want an EU-wide version of the DMCA. I might express my outrage at the legislation, but I don't accuse people of being anything negative if they don't want their rights infringed upon.
BTW, the last time we decided to ignore the happenings in Europe, a guy with a bad haircut and mustache was killing Jews and rolling over Europe like it was a playground. I dunno, which is worse...? Our interest, or our isolationism?
No, not really. It's because we're so friggin' huge.
If Russia was divided up into fifty provinces that had about equal population, you can be sure that they'd refer to themselves by province.
Thanks for restating one of my earlier points.
Hardly. We just have paranoid privacy zealots who fear making government efficient.
Well, sure, but Nazi Germany's government was VERY efficient. Shit, they built the Autobahn in less than 10 years.
You however, come across as some southerner who's sore about them damn federalists mucking around with the "South's' states rights. You lost the war. Get over it.
Congrats on successfully locating my place of birth! I was born in Georgia, however, as a child of a military family, I was not raised there. You get bonus points if you can locate where I was raised. (Hint: Not in the south).
Extra bonus points if you STFU.
This is once again why Europeans shouldn't get involved in privacy issues in the US. Of course you have a "national ID", because your countries might have counties or provinces, but when you go to any other country in Europe, and they ask where you are from, you'll probably say you're from whatever country from which you hail.
On the other hand, if I travel to Canada from the US, and someone asks where I from, I tell them which state I am from.
Why is this? Because people from the US, for the most part, identify their origin by their state. It's something steeped in American tradition from when we were under the Articles of Confederation and had an extremely weak federal government uniting the otherwise independent states.
Now, why is this important for the sake of the "National ID card" debate? Because, most of us, because we identify ourselves by states, fear even further encroachment of the federal government on what is currently the responsibility of the state.
I know, it's hard to understand, but since we have a large country, we generally don't feel the need of an excessively large bureaucratic federal government in charge of all aspects of our lives, and in the case of smaller states, totally unresponsive to their needs.
You are a Total Fucking Idiot of the First Order. Hawkings is a theoretical physicist, not an astronomer. I doubt he has ever used a telescope professionally. His theoretical work is on the physical properties of black holes, which you couldn't see anyway.
You are a Professional idiot of the First Order, because you missed the entire point of it. I was saying that I'd rather spend time ANYWHERE with a great man than nowhere with someone I've never heard of. For example, if he was alive, I'd rather be stuck in a desert with Thomas Jefferson than to be ANYWHERE with you're Anon Coward fucktard self.
I guess you knew your opinion was idiotic because you're hiding behind the Anon.
...I wouldn't pay anything.
I'd rather spend time with Steven Hawking at the local high school's observatory than to hang out at Keck with any lesser scientist.
How can a 0 comment be overrated??
A post could be 0 and be overrated if it really sucks.
In Soviet China, government writes about blogs.
You really believe that? I think most ppl are getting on the web for AOL Instant Messanger
Of course you and the AOL buddy crowd do. But when you sit in a nice comfy chair in a house with working heat and air conditioning, it's very easy to forget that many people don't get something unless there's some form of economic benefit.
"this article is about collecting taxes already in place, not about government misuse of tax money"?
Then remind me again why you are rebutting me for sticking up for the same anti-tax stance?
What the fuck does a sales tax on purchased goods have to do with internet accessibility? Buying a $300 computer and spending $20/month on internet access isn't going to save you money by triming sales tax on a couple of books or CDs a year. And I hope that people are using library access points for something more educational than amazon.com.
... and can you show me exactly how you deduced that?
Here's why: Do you own a car? Do you own it just to drive around town, see the sights and head home? Probably not, unless you're a rich prick with an expensive sports car.
Most lower-class Americans who own cars own them because they NEED it to provide a service to them. It's easier and faster to get to work and to the places that need to go, than it is to hoof it. So they buy a utilitarian car and use that for that purpose.
Similarly, unless you've got money to throw around, you're not going to invest $300 plus $20 per month to just "surf the web" in your "spare time". People in lower income brackets (I was there a while back) generally don't have too much spare time, unless they are the kind to milk government benefits. Most are busy working their ass off to get out the situation they are in.
One of the incentives to using the internet is that you can buy stuff for *Really fucking Cheap* compared to buying from a local place. Sure, S&H adds to it, but it still will cost less than getting it from your Wal-Mart most of the time. For guys who do alot of woodworking or mechanical stuff, this is especially key, because you can buy tools for nearly 40% off retail, if you're willing to pony up 20% on S&H.
Back to my point: People will be willing to invest in getting their asses on the web only if there's something that will save them money or make their lives simpler. Add taxes and you'll reduce the savings (and thus the incentive to get yourself a computer...in addition to spending the time to learn the computer. Oh, yeah, I guess you may have forgotten that not all people are born with computer skills).
There are also a few other issues, like states that might enact "punishment" taxes for purchasing items on the internet instead of buying them from local businesses.
Well, I figured that if you believe that raising taxes that people pay will help people, that you'd believe that letting criminals go would lower the crime rate.
1. There is no evidence linking Hussein to Al Queada or Bin Laden. Hussein and Bin Laden are bitter enemies, they absolutely despise each other. That hasn't stopped Bush and gang from trying in vain to link Iraq to 9-11. However, any insinuation that is made, upon further scrutiny falls apart, because that's all it is, is insinuation. Our government knows that Iraq had nothing to do with it.
So, if someone kills people, seeks NBC weaponry for use against an undefined threat, denies any form of rule by the people, and consistently acts as a violator of human rights...then it's fine with you as long as he wasn't involved with 9/11? You mean to say that the only reason to stop evil is if it was tied to a single incident? EVERYTHING IN OUR LIVES MUST REVOLVE AROUND THAT ONE INCIDENT?! Holy shit. I can't brush my teeth, because there's no connection between plaque and 9/11. We can't prosecute criminals, because they aren't tied to 9/11. We can't fight the DMCA, because it's not tied to 9/11. Thanks for telling me. I was going to be for all that behavior. But I didn't know they were not tied to 9/11.
2. The country that did participate quite a bit in the funding of Al Queada is Saudi Arabia. So, why doesn't our government attack them? Because they are our allies of course. They give us all the oil we want.
Here's why: If we say we want to attack Saudi Arabia, various European countries will scream like they are now over Iraw. Even if we provide proof that they are tied to terror, they all have their own deals with Saudi Arabia in regards to oil (yeah, it may surprise you, but the US isn't the only buyer of Middle-East Oil).
3. Our government put Hussein in power. Our government also looked the other way when Hussein "gassed his own people". Three words are missing, "with our support". Before 1991, 10 US corporations participated in the sale of arms to Iraq, even after he gassed his own people. That's part of why the dossier is kept out of the mainstream media.
So...if we try to stem radicalism in another country by supporting someone and that someone commences doing bad stuff, we shouldn't stop him? Oh year, we can't. He's not tied to 9/11.
4. Our government talks about creating democracy in Iraq, and we are to understand that the first step towards democracy is having a military dictatorship, much in the same way that we are to understand that "right to trial" means rounding up hundreds of "suspected terrorists" into concentration camps where they will eventually be tried by a military tribunal
Well, those in the US who were taken away, most have been returned (watch the news closely. The liberal news media loves to avoid reporting things that make the military look decent, so they bury it below the fold on page A32), except the ones with shady backgrounds and connections (like traveling back and forth between the US and Iran several times a year on a $10,000 a year job while going to college without parental funding). And most of the people going on the "military tribunal" trials are guys who were found in the field with other fighters wielding AK's and shooting at US troops. I know, you hate the US military, even if the guys you join are people just like you, they have less of a right to live, because they decided to take a different path to achieve financial security and a strong educational background.
5. This war is about oil. That's all it is about. If we were out to have a "just war", there would be many other countries that have far worse human rights violations than Iraq.
It is? I'd think that if we were only after oil, we'd go take over Kuwait, which has more oil, and no military to speak of. In addition, you seem to have a laspe of intellegence here. If we were after oil (because having Bush in your name automagically makes you a war-mongering, oil-chugging beast), why would we put out the fires that Saddam set to the oil wells in Kuwait, then rebuild the oil fields...and turn them over to the Kuwaiti government. We were under no requirement to do so. We could've occupied those oil wells. Technically, they still belong to American companies, but they were stolen from those companies when these Middle-East monarchies nationalized all oil-related property. In addition, if Bush was going after helping his oil buddies, why would we want MORE oil? Technically, they'd want less oil, because in the US, texas oil fields are still a major part. We actually get alot more oil from Russia, Mexico, and a few other non-Middle East countries, in addition to our own oil supply (which, while not filling 100% of our oil needs, is nothing to balk at).
Logically, if Bush was looking to satisfy his American oil friends, what he'd do is lower the amount of imports, so the Texas Oil guys could jack up prices and increase profits.
NOTE: I AM AGAINST THE WAR IN IRAQ. I am simply tired of stupid reasons against the war, rather than the one simple reason why not: We shouldn't have one single soldier in the Middle East, unless he or she is on vacation. We have no business meddling in their affairs. End of story. It's not about oil, it's not about 9/11 (and noone has ever linked it to 9/11, except scattered media reports about Mohammed Atta), and it's not about democracy.
It is about the globalism that the UN started. This is the road that the UN paved, interventionism at any cost. A future where national sovereignty and elections are a thing of the past. Just think about it. Have you ever voted on your UN Delegate? Didn't think so. Odd they have the power to do a ton of things to people's countries.
Iraq is a republic in name only. It's a military dictatorship. Many dictatorship use "Republic" in place of "State" or "Nation", because it sounds more humanitarian.
China and Soviet Union are similar. At ONE POINT, there was an election. Once they got into power, they used their power to create a system where the party in power hand-picks their successors in their equivalent of congress. And that congressional equivalent chooses a "president" to act in executive and head-of-state fashions.
I think it'd be funny to create a Internet Referendum system, where you can use a voter registration number (on voter registration card) with a password (confirmed by registered mail) is used for a non-legally binding referendum. So when the politicians go to vote, the people's voice has been heard. Then you can put the state-by-state, district-by-district, and national votes next to the congressmen and senatorial votes.
When elections roll around, it won't matter who is in what party, if everyone knows that the politician will not listen to the people if given the data on what they want.
Of course, it's impossible to create that system without loopholes and people fucking shit up and hacking it and junk, but it's nice to daydream about a society where the people are actually listened to.
Hell, those most likely to buy things over the internet are probably the ones who can most afford paying a tax.
Hey, and what better way to make the internet more accessible to those in lower-income brackets than to make it more expensive to do the things that drive people to the internet, like getting items for less?
I guess next you'll propose to decrease crime rates by letting convicts out of jail?
This may be hard to understand, but in America, common sense doesn't rule. Like the idea that if you take more money from the people who produce (negative reinforcement for working hard) and give it to people who don't produce (positive reinforcement for sitting at home and watching Jenny Jones), you'll create a booming economy. Or that lower-class people will get raises, if you cut the amount of money available to people at the top. People at the top who take home less will not be more likely to give raises.
But that's beside the point. It's just an example. I'm what is commonly referred to as a "moderate conservative". I'm against the war in Iraq. I'm against anything that puts our men and women in trouble for the purpose of meddling in the affairs of another hemisphere. Especially when our borders are so porous. Why should we deploy people to defend other people's borders when ours aren't?
I'm against the US support for Israel. Giving money to a state based on the globalist theivery of land from one people and handing it to another is not a smart thing. It's bullshit. We should pull ALL our troops out of the middle east and drop all financial and military aid to Israel. Tell them that we won't be funding their genocide any further.
I'm also tired of politicians that make laws like the cyberterrorism ones and the Patriot Act. I'm tired of politicians who have no compunction for raising our Social Security taxes and then telling us that we won't have any when we get old enough. I'm tired of them giving away our social security to citizens of other countries, when they have opted themselves out of our system so they can put their money in their own retirement fund.
But you know what? They don't care. They don't care what I think, they don't care what you think. They fabricate the public opinion every time an election comes around, them and the rest of the Madison Avenue boys, and then they walk back into the chambers in January and forget about for the next 6 years!
And slowly, they strip your rights on your computer, to restrict your free speech. They take your guns, to prevent the potential of someone fighting back for their rights when we all wake up in 15 years and find ourselves sitting in Nazi America, saluting to Fuhrer Bush.
It's probably cheaper to give them a bowl of ramen and a cup of coffee than to buy a patch or two to replace a meal. Think of it from military standpoint. Spend $10 million on food and $10 million on tanks, or spend $500,000 on ramen and $19,500,000 on tanks. Generals always go for the cool toys.
I don't know about you, but I prefer having backwards compatability with the PSX over having the ability to use the memory stick. (Long live CompactFlash!)
Check dictionary.com and you'll see that there are a couple of accepted definitions that are non-clothing and non-military. The one that comes first is...
"The laying out of money in the purchase of some species of property"
Doesn't say it has to be for financial gain. The parent poster was probably referring to this definition and you were going on the other definition dealing with financial gain. While some people like puns and other nonsense derived from the multiple definitions of several English words, most people like GOOD jokes. Again, while it was nice of you to toss in the "portfoliio of shampoo, razor blades, and odor-eaters!" joke there, you should stick to "All your base..."
As long as the stock is not in the hands of the company, the original money spent on the stock is there. And right now, many companies are taking the opportunity of their lower-than-average stock prices to buy back their shares in order to increase overall value. Your statement may be true right now, but in the upcoming months, it may not.
You know, this would probably get modded "Funny", if it didn't suck. You're trying to make fun of the concept of something non-stock-marked being considered an investment.
Unfortunately, it makes you look like a retard. And investment is generally considered anything that you put money into for use, the opportunity to use, or to give permission for others to use. When you buy a share of a company, you pretty much are putting money into the company for the purpose of exercising voting rights, or to use the share for financial gain. Pretty much the same with bonds, you give money to have the right to profit off of the bond.
When you buy DVD's, you are paying money for the right to watch the content. When you bought your DVD player, you were buying the right to use it for the purpose of watching media. By definition, they are investments.
By your definition, real estate is not an investment (even though the entire rest of the world considers it to be a VERY good investment MOST of the time).
I think you should stop making jokes about your ignorance and go back to "In Soviet Russia..." or "All Your Base..." while old, they are still funier than this last post of yours.
the industry is never going to work for free
Oh, they will. In Soviet Russia, Hollywood work for consumers.
...someone posted here the other day that BSD was dead...I'm confused... :)
Yes, but when we get to Terminator 4, it'll be T-XP. And finally, in Terminator 5, Skynet switches to T-inux.
Skynet's open source Terminator will have a team of programmers finding bugs and won't crash. SourceForge will be single-handedly responsible for the downfall of humanity.