No, they choose not to because I could start up a company in a country next door and undercut them tomorrow. If I paid my workers more then you could do it to me. All capitalism is a race to the bottom in expenses and environmental oversight.
And consumers don't make that decision, consumers go onto new egg, sort by price and ratings and buy the bottom. Because as nice as your dreamland sounds consumers rarely spend on heartstrings.
I used WordPerfect and Lotus123 in middle/high school with an IBM color dot matrix printer that never seemed to work right. It let me learn how to type, set margins, etc, and I've used just about every other word processor you can imagine since with no reservations. Lotus showed me how spreadsheets work, and I found the transition to every other spreadsheet product easy.
I would say that becoming good with a software product that you need to do your job/education at the time is a very good thing. Every app borrows from the next, so transitioning is easier than learning from scratch, and it's easier than trying to learn 8 similar products at once.
For absolutely nothing? What if we sent microbes to another planet and they were able to survive, then earth was destroyed in a cosmic event. That would mean that humans achieved moving life from earth to another planet. Yea, maybe we would be toast, but evolution would have still succeeded.
It's not really any administration's fault they use proprietary formats either. I have one of the first DVD video cameras. The format it records into is awful, and it's almost impossible to convert to anything else other than playing the movie off the camera, then recording that stream into another format. It's very aggravating.
Actually Nixon's stance was that the president was above wrongdoing as long as he felt whatever he was doing was in the best interest of the nation. That may be the same thing Cheney thinks, but Nixon had no problem writing memo's and documenting everything because he felt that he was above the law.
Umm, McCain was the loudest critic of torture in the Senate. That's one of the reasons a lot of people DIDN'T like him as a candidate for president. He would have let thousands die rather than twist someones arm. Remember he was tortured, that changed his psyche.
McCain's problem was that he was a poor communicator of the ideas he had. For example, his health care reform was the best idea he had, but he didn't come out once and say why it was such a good idea. So unless you really wanted to research it, and understood the economics behind it then you would have just thought he was blowing smoke.
Oh come on, now the Bush Administration is evil because they are giving too much data to the archives? That's complete garbage.
Sure, Clinton only had 1 TB of data, but for the day that would have easily equaled 100TB now. I mean really, in 2008 I had like 10gb that more than held all of my entire world.
in `2008 the family desktop machine in my living room has 2 TB of storage with all of my family movies, photos, music etc, and that's just one machine in my house. That doesn't count my linux box, my laptops, or my work desktop in my office.
I wonder if the people that hated previous presidents complained that they turned over 100 times the shoe boxes of photos that previous presidents did.
I've thought Bush was a bad administrator since he was my governor, but give me a break this is just silly. Buy some hard drives, and download a codec pack.
This is why I believe that fraud should be treated as one of the worst offenses in our society. Why is it if I put on a mask and grab a gun and rob a bank without killing anyone is it punished more than someone who steals magnitudes more money, leading to suicides, bankruptcies, and a lack of trust in the markets.
I'm pretty conservative when it comes to business, and I'd like to see SarbOx repealed or at least have a ton of fixup done to it to reduce the huge burden it imposes, and would generally like to see government leave business to make us all wealthier, but there MUST BE RISK to crime to offset the benefits.
It's the same reason I support the castle doctrine. Stealing and looting should be a risky business, at least riskier than being employed in a job like ice crab fishing where the rewards are somewhat similar. If I put a sign on my door that says I shoot to kill intruders, and I won't do a bit of time in jail, then hopefully that will at least limit people to stealing stuff on the outside of my home. If we put a piece of paper in front of a hedge fund manager that says if they commit outright fraud then they will never see the light of day again maybe we would reduce fraud some.
Your exactly right, except that homes really don't go up in value at all, and never have. People just think they go up in value because they go up in price. What they really are is a hedge against inflation.
1. Take money out of the top of the economy that hires people to build yachts, fly private jets, etc. 2. Give money to people that once worked for someone that needed a yacht built, flew a private jet so they can buy things made in china from Wal-Mart. 3. Stagflation.
Carter was one of the worst presidents ever, and Clinton was just riding the wave (so was bush JR.).
The truth is that presidents have very little impact on an economy. Those of us investing income, and making, and consuming goods have a huge affect on the economy.
I don't know about you guys, but I yanked everything I had in the stock market into bonds when it looked like a dem would take office in December 07, and apparently everyone else did too. I'm also building as large of a cash security fund as I can right now instead of hiring someone to work in my business which I really need because I'm not sure what the hell the tax situation is going to be, but I know if it gets cranked up like Obama promised (and I'm thinking he might not now), then I want to have enough cash on hand to feed my 4 kids and wife on my single income. Not only that I don't want to buy things that I can use as write offs if the tax code goes comrade on me.
Right now if Obama would just come out and say he's putting a 2 year moratorium on increased taxes then it would have as large of a boost to investing as all this bailout crap. Granted, it wouldn't fix the economy, but at least maybe then we could focus on what matters. Investing, hiring, and buying stuff for our businesses. Maybe then the paralysis would subside a little.
Thing is they probably didn't have a meeting of the minds, and it's stupid for this to go to court because it helps neither. My business just accidentally ran afoul on Actuate licensing, and instead of them just letting us know, helping us get into compliance, and asking where to send the bill, they cut off support and upgrades from us for a month until they could audit our software. Because of their hamfisted way of treating us, they are going to probably get a few thousand dollars in back licensing, and lose a contract worth over 100K a year because our company won't keep using their product after they shit on us.
I have a small electronics business, and sometimes I get screwed by a customer because they think the trip out to their house was a freebie or whatever, but almost always I let it slide and give them their way. Why burn a good customer over one misunderstanding. In this scenario if sprint keeps messing with Cognant, then all cognant has to do is depeer with Sprint, and it will end up costing Sprint more than what Cognant may owe them. I remember this happening, and sprint customers were raving mad over it. I don't remember anyone getting mad at cognant, because sprint customers were trying to get at cognant's customers websites, not vica versa.
The simple fact is that Cognant has a great business model. They provide low cost bandwidth to people that provide content, then ask for free peering to other networks because those networks have people on them who want blazingly fast access to that content. It benefits both of them to have free peering, or Sprint wouldn't have tripped over their feet trying to get the links back up.
Carter was also the worst of all of them. People bitch and moan right now about the economy, but I don't hear anything called the "misery index" on the nightly news like during Carter.
Actually in most states yes the governor is a much more powerful force, however in states with low populations senators have more ability to influence the state via national government than governors. This is one of the reasons that the per capita national government spending is much greater for low population states. I personally think that even if you consider the good and the bad that can come of that, it is still a good thing. This keeps states like California and Texas from mandating that states like Wyoming and Alaska get dumped on.
I personally doubt that Palin would have appointed herself to be a senator. It's much easier and straightforward for her career wise to just wait for an election and take it handily. Remember she has one of the if not the most positive ratings among her constituents. That may change in a few years, but I doubt it.
(Read: While they still have oil.) Where are you people getting this from? We haven't gotten ANYTHING out of their oil, and I for one wish we had, we might not have such a fucked economy if we had. However, we are Americans, and as a whole we all try to do the right thing, and an OVERWHELMING majority of us thought we were doing the right thing when the confrontation started. The only reason Obama was against the war was because he was in one of the only places in America that that particular stance actually benefited him politically at the time.
If gas was still 5 bucks a gallon we still wouldn't steal Iraq's gas, because as a society we are honest, caring, and forthright no matter how evil a brush you paint us with. At the very most we might provide pressure that Iraq pay for it's secularizing forces with resources that they sell on the open market, but that hasn't happened either.
It was built on partisanship for better or worse. Washington saw it, and hated it. Washington wouldn't have been so adamantly opposed to it if it didn't exist.
I agree that the president can't change everything, but they can damn sure steer the country. Even though republicans were the main backers of the civil rights act in the houses, LBJ got the credit because he ramrodded the democrat party to pass it, and had the balls to enforce it.
I need to get back to work or I'd give you a laundry list of major turns the U.S. has made based on presidential steering. The bully pulpit of the U.S. Presidency is not to be under estimated. I would wager that the main problem Bush has had was his inability to use the bully pulpit to get things done because he is not a great communicator, and doesn't speak on a level with the populace.
It's easy to say ok, lets stop being partisan when your party is in control isn't it. That's the same thing every partisan says on both sides when they get in control. It's funny, because it's like punching someone in the face, and then saying, hey two wrongs don't make a right, so lets just stop the fight right now and agree that I'm right.
This country was built on partisanship, has run on partisanship, and hopefully will go another thousand years on partisanship. Partisanship = debate. Why is it so many people think that governance by consensus is a good thing, when we all know that management by consensus is a one way trip to bankruptcy for a company, and if I managed my family by consensus it would be pandemonium in the household, and rotten kids.
Sporaclean would have helped. I listen to a home improvement show on the weekends called Gary Sullivan, and he's gung ho on the stuff. It's an enzyme that kills the mold, and is safe to use on just about anything.
Slashdot Mirror
Quickbooks =(
Firefox+adblock will fix that.
No, they choose not to because I could start up a company in a country next door and undercut them tomorrow. If I paid my workers more then you could do it to me. All capitalism is a race to the bottom in expenses and environmental oversight.
And consumers don't make that decision, consumers go onto new egg, sort by price and ratings and buy the bottom. Because as nice as your dreamland sounds consumers rarely spend on heartstrings.
I just cut down the tree in my front yard because of your thoughtless post. Man is my wife going to be mad at you.
You cannot sue for discrimination because you are too young, or too white. Sorry, this is America, and we don't do equal rights.
I used WordPerfect and Lotus123 in middle/high school with an IBM color dot matrix printer that never seemed to work right. It let me learn how to type, set margins, etc, and I've used just about every other word processor you can imagine since with no reservations. Lotus showed me how spreadsheets work, and I found the transition to every other spreadsheet product easy.
I would say that becoming good with a software product that you need to do your job/education at the time is a very good thing. Every app borrows from the next, so transitioning is easier than learning from scratch, and it's easier than trying to learn 8 similar products at once.
If you don't like the built in editor, I've enjoyed the Easy Eclipse for Python distribution as well.
http://www.easyeclipse.org/site/distributions/python.html
For absolutely nothing? What if we sent microbes to another planet and they were able to survive, then earth was destroyed in a cosmic event. That would mean that humans achieved moving life from earth to another planet. Yea, maybe we would be toast, but evolution would have still succeeded.
Who would have thought it, the only entertaining show on NPR is also their most popular.
It's not really any administration's fault they use proprietary formats either. I have one of the first DVD video cameras. The format it records into is awful, and it's almost impossible to convert to anything else other than playing the movie off the camera, then recording that stream into another format. It's very aggravating.
Actually Nixon's stance was that the president was above wrongdoing as long as he felt whatever he was doing was in the best interest of the nation. That may be the same thing Cheney thinks, but Nixon had no problem writing memo's and documenting everything because he felt that he was above the law.
Umm, McCain was the loudest critic of torture in the Senate. That's one of the reasons a lot of people DIDN'T like him as a candidate for president. He would have let thousands die rather than twist someones arm. Remember he was tortured, that changed his psyche.
McCain's problem was that he was a poor communicator of the ideas he had. For example, his health care reform was the best idea he had, but he didn't come out once and say why it was such a good idea. So unless you really wanted to research it, and understood the economics behind it then you would have just thought he was blowing smoke.
Oh come on, now the Bush Administration is evil because they are giving too much data to the archives? That's complete garbage.
Sure, Clinton only had 1 TB of data, but for the day that would have easily equaled 100TB now. I mean really, in 2008 I had like 10gb that more than held all of my entire world.
in `2008 the family desktop machine in my living room has 2 TB of storage with all of my family movies, photos, music etc, and that's just one machine in my house. That doesn't count my linux box, my laptops, or my work desktop in my office.
I wonder if the people that hated previous presidents complained that they turned over 100 times the shoe boxes of photos that previous presidents did.
I've thought Bush was a bad administrator since he was my governor, but give me a break this is just silly. Buy some hard drives, and download a codec pack.
This is why I believe that fraud should be treated as one of the worst offenses in our society. Why is it if I put on a mask and grab a gun and rob a bank without killing anyone is it punished more than someone who steals magnitudes more money, leading to suicides, bankruptcies, and a lack of trust in the markets.
I'm pretty conservative when it comes to business, and I'd like to see SarbOx repealed or at least have a ton of fixup done to it to reduce the huge burden it imposes, and would generally like to see government leave business to make us all wealthier, but there MUST BE RISK to crime to offset the benefits.
It's the same reason I support the castle doctrine. Stealing and looting should be a risky business, at least riskier than being employed in a job like ice crab fishing where the rewards are somewhat similar. If I put a sign on my door that says I shoot to kill intruders, and I won't do a bit of time in jail, then hopefully that will at least limit people to stealing stuff on the outside of my home. If we put a piece of paper in front of a hedge fund manager that says if they commit outright fraud then they will never see the light of day again maybe we would reduce fraud some.
Your exactly right, except that homes really don't go up in value at all, and never have. People just think they go up in value because they go up in price. What they really are is a hedge against inflation.
1. Take money out of the top of the economy that hires people to build yachts, fly private jets, etc.
2. Give money to people that once worked for someone that needed a yacht built, flew a private jet so they can buy things made in china from Wal-Mart.
3. Stagflation.
Carter was one of the worst presidents ever, and Clinton was just riding the wave (so was bush JR.).
The truth is that presidents have very little impact on an economy. Those of us investing income, and making, and consuming goods have a huge affect on the economy.
I don't know about you guys, but I yanked everything I had in the stock market into bonds when it looked like a dem would take office in December 07, and apparently everyone else did too. I'm also building as large of a cash security fund as I can right now instead of hiring someone to work in my business which I really need because I'm not sure what the hell the tax situation is going to be, but I know if it gets cranked up like Obama promised (and I'm thinking he might not now), then I want to have enough cash on hand to feed my 4 kids and wife on my single income. Not only that I don't want to buy things that I can use as write offs if the tax code goes comrade on me.
Right now if Obama would just come out and say he's putting a 2 year moratorium on increased taxes then it would have as large of a boost to investing as all this bailout crap. Granted, it wouldn't fix the economy, but at least maybe then we could focus on what matters. Investing, hiring, and buying stuff for our businesses. Maybe then the paralysis would subside a little.
Thing is they probably didn't have a meeting of the minds, and it's stupid for this to go to court because it helps neither. My business just accidentally ran afoul on Actuate licensing, and instead of them just letting us know, helping us get into compliance, and asking where to send the bill, they cut off support and upgrades from us for a month until they could audit our software. Because of their hamfisted way of treating us, they are going to probably get a few thousand dollars in back licensing, and lose a contract worth over 100K a year because our company won't keep using their product after they shit on us.
I have a small electronics business, and sometimes I get screwed by a customer because they think the trip out to their house was a freebie or whatever, but almost always I let it slide and give them their way. Why burn a good customer over one misunderstanding. In this scenario if sprint keeps messing with Cognant, then all cognant has to do is depeer with Sprint, and it will end up costing Sprint more than what Cognant may owe them. I remember this happening, and sprint customers were raving mad over it. I don't remember anyone getting mad at cognant, because sprint customers were trying to get at cognant's customers websites, not vica versa.
The simple fact is that Cognant has a great business model. They provide low cost bandwidth to people that provide content, then ask for free peering to other networks because those networks have people on them who want blazingly fast access to that content. It benefits both of them to have free peering, or Sprint wouldn't have tripped over their feet trying to get the links back up.
Carter was also the worst of all of them. People bitch and moan right now about the economy, but I don't hear anything called the "misery index" on the nightly news like during Carter.
Actually in most states yes the governor is a much more powerful force, however in states with low populations senators have more ability to influence the state via national government than governors. This is one of the reasons that the per capita national government spending is much greater for low population states. I personally think that even if you consider the good and the bad that can come of that, it is still a good thing. This keeps states like California and Texas from mandating that states like Wyoming and Alaska get dumped on.
I personally doubt that Palin would have appointed herself to be a senator. It's much easier and straightforward for her career wise to just wait for an election and take it handily. Remember she has one of the if not the most positive ratings among her constituents. That may change in a few years, but I doubt it.
(Read: While they still have oil.) Where are you people getting this from? We haven't gotten ANYTHING out of their oil, and I for one wish we had, we might not have such a fucked economy if we had. However, we are Americans, and as a whole we all try to do the right thing, and an OVERWHELMING majority of us thought we were doing the right thing when the confrontation started. The only reason Obama was against the war was because he was in one of the only places in America that that particular stance actually benefited him politically at the time.
If gas was still 5 bucks a gallon we still wouldn't steal Iraq's gas, because as a society we are honest, caring, and forthright no matter how evil a brush you paint us with. At the very most we might provide pressure that Iraq pay for it's secularizing forces with resources that they sell on the open market, but that hasn't happened either.
Partisanship doesn't require being an ass.
More necon bible-thumpers should read their bibles more...
It doesn't require it, but it seems you have installed that module anyways :).
It was built on partisanship for better or worse. Washington saw it, and hated it. Washington wouldn't have been so adamantly opposed to it if it didn't exist.
I agree that the president can't change everything, but they can damn sure steer the country. Even though republicans were the main backers of the civil rights act in the houses, LBJ got the credit because he ramrodded the democrat party to pass it, and had the balls to enforce it.
I need to get back to work or I'd give you a laundry list of major turns the U.S. has made based on presidential steering. The bully pulpit of the U.S. Presidency is not to be under estimated. I would wager that the main problem Bush has had was his inability to use the bully pulpit to get things done because he is not a great communicator, and doesn't speak on a level with the populace.
It's easy to say ok, lets stop being partisan when your party is in control isn't it. That's the same thing every partisan says on both sides when they get in control. It's funny, because it's like punching someone in the face, and then saying, hey two wrongs don't make a right, so lets just stop the fight right now and agree that I'm right.
This country was built on partisanship, has run on partisanship, and hopefully will go another thousand years on partisanship. Partisanship = debate. Why is it so many people think that governance by consensus is a good thing, when we all know that management by consensus is a one way trip to bankruptcy for a company, and if I managed my family by consensus it would be pandemonium in the household, and rotten kids.
Sporaclean would have helped. I listen to a home improvement show on the weekends called Gary Sullivan, and he's gung ho on the stuff. It's an enzyme that kills the mold, and is safe to use on just about anything.