How can you multiply pi by anything at all? After all, not only does it have an infinite number of digits, we don't even know what they all are!
Well, we don't. We take it to a particular digit then round off because a computer would endlessly calculate it.
How can you multiply 1/3 by anything at all? 1/3 =.333...
Again, we round it at some point based on the level of accuracy we require..3333333 x 3 =/= 1
How can you multiply 1 by anything at all? After all, 1 = 1.000000... which is an infinite number of 0s.
Bad example. Infinite.000... still equals 0.
The point is that the proof is faulty in that the technique of multiplying both sides by 10 is assumed completed when, by virtue of being an infinite number, it simply can't. A completed operation of multiplying.999... by 10 assumes that at some point the operation ended at some unspecified point. You can't even plug this into a computer because someone would have to sit there for all eternity holding down the 9 key.
How can you multiply pi by anything at all? After all, not only does it have an infinite number of digits, we don't even know what they all are!
How can you multiply 1/3 by anything at all? 1/3 =.333...
How can you multiply 1 by anything at all? After all, 1 = 1.000000... which is an infinite number of 0s.
I'm not even close to a mathematician, so forgive this possibly very stupid question:
How can you multiply.999... by anything at all? If the sequence is infinity, then any application of task or step can never be completed as it would take infinite time to perform the calculation.
People are not labeling the tea party racist because it's made of 98% white people. They are labeling it racist because of the overtly racist signs and comments captured in the media coverage of the tea party events. This may be not be fair representation of the group, but that's the way it is.
My wife views the tea party as racist. We disagree, but the idea that that makes her a racist is laughable to me.
I think you're getting the order mixed up. (or maybe I am) But I saw/heard the label before I saw the media start looking for examples (IE, the gun-toting racist hicks comments while the black man carrying the weapon was edited out of the photos) Their very involvement against the health-care bill was called racist, they were called racist because of their supposed anti black-man-for-president attitude before Obama was even elected.
With all due respect to your wife (and I mean that), if she's never been to a rally herself, then her assumption that the tea-party is racist is based on one or two things (or both,): that it's racist because it's primarily white, and/or that it's racist because friends/media told her so and gave carefully chosen examples/pictures to prove it. Her assumptions are based on the same type of racist myth-perpetuation that makes all Italians into mobsters and all Mexicans into violent cartel members. I can only hope she researches more into it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge tea-party supporter - I'm pro gay-rights, non-christian, and pro-choice. But I do support some of what they stand for (just as I support things the Ds and Rs stand for) I also defend these parties from unfair characterizations and I think that this is one of those instances - and a particularly evil and malicious one at that.
Looks like you caught on to the point of my post, though you seem to see less malice in the characterization of the Tea Party as racist. I disagree regarding that.
I only know three, but every "tea partier" I personally know is an older white person who harbors what I would call..."ethnic animosity".
I don't think you're going to find an older person - white OR black - that doesn't harbor racial animosity on some level. In fact it has been said by many different people that we all harbor at least some prejudice against those that are different from us. The point is that just because there's a large group of predominately white people, it doesn't mean that group is racist.
Hell, even my Dad who is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive and participated in civil rights marches in the 1960's has expressed sentiments that can come across as "racist". It's doesn't mean he's racist. He's just an old white dude who suffers from the same fears as other older white people.
Absolutely. Another factor is experience and empathy - My father grew up and has lived in a 99% non-black area near the Canadian border in the midwest. His experience is different so he can't relate. I cringe when I hear some of the stuff he says, but its ignorance and he'll likely never be able to understand some things about white privilege. (But he can tell you all about the silly arguments and problems between the German, Swede, Finnish, and Norwegian cultures he grew up around)
But again, a group of mostly white people is not racist because it's a group of mostly white people, and though you call it a generalization, I stand by my first statement that people who claim otherwise are racist themselves.
Decided not to moderate and simply prove you wrong. One idiot making stupid comments doesn't mean the tea party are racists as a group no more than some leftist anarchist looting stores makes all liberals into whackjobs. Frankly, I call anyone who says otherwise a racist themselves.
Certain groups are terrified of what the Tea Party stands for, and they've played the race card in order to try and stop it. The fact that you believe it and espouse this shit means you're just a mindless patsy that can't think for yourself.
Anon sounds bitter. Teachers unions are diabolical because they use kids as their pawns.
Give us more money, or your kids will suffer. Hire more of us, and your kids will stop suffering in larger classes. Fire us, and your kids will be traumatized.
Give us more money, or we strike and you get to stay home from work and take care of the kids, etc.
And teachers get decent pay, but they do get great benefits. My grandmother got $40k/year and full medical until she died. My dad was also a teacher, but he's only getting $35k/year retired. Both of them teaching in small districts in Rural Midwest. And let's be honest, I've never seen ANY teacher complain about having a 3-month vacation in the summer.
As for taking homework home, I don't buy it. As someone who grew up with family inside the education system, the only teachers I saw taking work home were the ones who didn't manage their time well. The rest of the teachers got the stuff done during their open period.(and I'm not talking about their lunch)
As for discipline, in the 80's many Unions deliberately forced school-boards and administration to take responsibility for discipline because the teachers couldn't handle it, didn't want to, or were afraid of lawsuits.
Unions are also the ones, like in this article, that refuse to allow any objective testing of students. Instead the students' scores go down year after year, which the Union then claims means they need more money - again using your children as pawns. To them it's not "no child left behind" it's "no teacher revealed as incompetent."
"Equality for all races is still not fully achieved, a century and a half after people first began fighting about it."
People've been fighting about it for a lot longer than that. It's just that somehow the world has decided the US has to solve the world's ills in the mere 200 years they've been here - despite the rest of you lot having been around quite a bit longer.
The US has become the world's bloody soap-opera. I've had countless students from all over the world mention Obama (or Bush, a few years ago) but they don't even know the name of their own countries leader. Scary that they expect more from the president of a country that until now they've never been to, than the leaders of their own.
If you get arrested your name is released and printed in the newspapers. This is different in which way? I don't think you've got anything near a case unless you can prove that the police department was "heavily implying guilt" - which I think you'd have a hard time proving unless they SPECIFICALLY SAID YOU WERE GUILTY when you were not.
Regarding #2. I suppose there is some outside chance your jury pool could be tainted, but if publishing your name in a newspaper (as is done now) doesn't meet the litmus test, I doubt your mugshot on facebook will.
Let's look again, all your arguments are based on the fact that friends/family/business partners/society is going to shun you based upon the mere accusation of guilt. This is a cultural problem.
While I can't say I wouldn't support you if you were to try and make some changes to the public disclosure of arrests/charges, some sort of blanket policy of not disclosing anything to the public until convicted would be completely out of the question.
For good and for bad, getting arrested is a matter of the public record. (You wouldn't want to be arrested and held secretly, would you?) For some, the fact of public disclosure and "loss of face" is reason enough not to do bad things. For the innocent, it's our society's willingness to ostracize someone based merely on accusation that is the problem, not the posting of the picture.
Somewhat relatedly, recent studies have shown that 44% of men would be unwilling to help a lost child because of the ease of which false accusations could ruin their lives. Maybe it's our knee-jerk judgmental culture that needs to be fixed instead.
2000 factories closed by the power of the State. If we say there were 100 employees per factory (probably very very low) then that's 200,000 people left unemployed by a decision of the Government. It's probably closer to 500,000 people.
Hundreds of thousands of people left unemployed due to a decision made by an unelected ruling elite.
The government became involved in the early days of unionization, when groups (employers, union leaders, and in the 1920s,Communist agitators) were accused of strong-arming employees into voting whichever way. The secret-ballot and union card system were established as a way to create a valid process.
This is why many "average joes" are against the removal of the secret-ballot, as it will allow all groups to see how you voted - and act accordingly.
The definition of "Right": 1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval 2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.
Knowing now both the reasons, and that the secret-ballot has been established for decades, isn't it justified that an employee keep both the current system and his privacy?
Your argument was that things in the public arn't private. I pointed out that this relationship was not public, and now you're arguing that because it's private there's still no right to privacy? Case law disagrees with you in that direction. If your argument is that because it's private the government should have no say, I point out that people couldn't play nice and so the government was forced to get involved. (Blame Roosevelt) I agree with your seeming ideology that the government should not get involved, but a complete hands-off approach in this situation would have likely led to mass bloodshed.
Regarding the situation in your home. You have not, at any point, forced me to stop speaking unless you physically restrain me. If I am peacefully leaving and you hit me or otherwise force me, you yourself are committing the crime. I can remain speaking as I walk out, that is not disorderly in any way. You of course are welcome to scream and yell back at me, but beyond that and showing me the door you have no options.
Computers were a new emerging technology. Consider the concept and its market as its own self-expanding universe. There is no "competition" - for lack of a better term. The automobile industry was in the same situation in the early 20th century and continues as one of the largest industries in the world. Hybrid/smart/electric cars are not a new emerging technology. Instead they're just incremental refinements to existing technology - and much much less game-changing/innovative/holyshit.
Regarding electric vehicles, unfortunately there's still minimal gains in terms of pollution (batteries) and efficiency (energy-source costs + battery manufacture). It's more of a hocus-pocus ideal than anything - much like corn and ethanol. Don't get me wrong, I'd really like for the tech to work. But if the tech is that damn good and promising, then the government would be better served in getting bids for E-vehicles to replace the entire fleet rather than in open-ended subsidies (that we all know will just turn into a large entitlement program for another special group).
This brings me to a very important point. Customer =/= Subsidy. I feel there is a distinct difference to the government driving innovation through its own real demand, compared with an attempt to entice the population into adopting a new standard by dangling some carrots. FFS, we can't even get the population to accept metric. One can only assume subsidies as the cornerstone of a (obviously) long-term program to replace an entrenched industry will only breed waste and dependence whereas bidding, (or goal-setting, as in DARPA, X-prizes, and other programs) when done right, breeds innovation out of necessity.
Being a customer isn't the same as a government subsidy. Regardless, that was an emerging industry, not the attempt at wholesale replacement of an existing entrenched base. It doesn't seem different, it IS different.
I guess you missed the "did the crash hit you that hard or are you bored?" part - you know, the first sentence. Apparently you can read minds and don't need such information.
Really, did the crash hit you that hard or are you bored? I don't know if you understand the employment situation for programmers these days. You're going to be old in an industry noted for it's ageism, behind the curve technologically, and depending on where you do find a job, you're likely to be paid terribly for long hours and work under a clueless asshole boss.
I really hope you have other options, it's ugly out there these days.
Just curious, how much of that was government subsidized? This isn't against your post, but a number of posts above seem to think government subsidies for early-adopters are going to work regarding electric vehicles. Instead I think it's clearly a demand issue. As your post does point out, companies desperately needed storage space and the ability to transfer data from point to point quickly. They were willing to shell out $$$ for the tech to do it. This seems clearly different, as now we're trying to replace an old and established industry with a new one, whereas in your examples, these were emerging technologies from an emerging industry.
Are you seriously comparing eating lunch on your porch with deciding the fate of your money, life, and career? While you can tell me to shut up within your home, you have no power to actually force me to stop talking if I so choose, and therefore cannot actually infringe upon my right of free speech. You can only ask me to leave in which case I can stand on the sidewalk and continue to speak.
Your "in my house" argument doesn't apply anyway as we _are_ talking about the government - the issue at-hand is to change the LAW in order to forcibly remove the current secret-ballot system. It could be argued that the establishment of the secret-ballot system itself established the right of a private vote. Remember that the union is a 3rd party trying to insinuate itself into the relationship between the employee and employer. It has no power unless given so. Also the relationship between employee, employer, and/or the union are not public anyway.
I agree that some people misconstrue rights and privileges (driving is one example) but even Haliburton cannot restrict the rights of it's employees to practice religion.
2) Wikileaks leaked secret documents about the war in afghanistan in a reckless manner that possibly endangered lives of our allies
and soldiers on the battlefield.
Maybe. These were "secret" documents, which just about damn near anyone has clearance to see. Most of them are simply just stuff that they hear and pass up, the vast majority of these could be completely false.
3) A 3 hour border detention is less than someone would be detained for unpaid parking tickets. They did not arrest him. They could have easily arrested him as a material witness.
Bullshit.
4) Given that he was allowed to go on to his conference and he was not questioned further without his lawyer present...I just dont see the story here other than its geek-celebrity news.
He was detained, questioned, his receipts and laptop were inspected, and his 3 phones were confiscated. Didja miss that part?
5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do.
So your argument is that he was detained, searched, and some of his stuff was confiscated but since he got to leave none of his rights were violated? What fucking planet are you on?
Mr. Applebaum doesn't act like an innocent victim of human rights abuses. He acts like an uncooperative witness who flees at the first sign of oppurtunity.
It sounds like the FBI agents were genuinely trying to hear his side of the story about his rights being trampled
having been at the conference for other reasons.
He didn't flee shit, and we don't know if the FBI agents were being genuine or condescending.
I think you need to pull your head out of the sand. For me this isn't about Bush, war, oil, etc. It's about the government keeping too many secrets and abusing power, and to me this incident stands as another example of such. Don't get me wrong, the government is right to keep investigating this leak, but messing with this guy seems more like harassment and the continuation of a witch-hunt.
Since when do rights have to be naturally occurring or god-given? A right is something that one considers as properly justified. If one has a justified right to privacy, then we have justification to keep how we vote secret. This is seen in our government/political voting system. Therefore removing privacy and doing away with the secret ballot for Unionization votes is indeed taking away a right that currently exists.
Of course, then we have the 9th amendment which is supposed to protect all other rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but the people have forgotten about it and it's been irreparably trampled upon.
As a conservative, to me the problem isn't with private unions of workers of private companies. In truth there should be no bailouts for a company that signs labor contracts that bankrupt themselves, nor for labor unions that force such companies to go under, and themselves out of a job with ever-increasing demands - Free Market demands that both are responsible for their own demise, no matter how they shift the blame. Unions that partner with their companies for mutual benefit (or unions that take significant ownership) will always make sense for everyone.
The problem is with public unions (Police, Fire, Teachers, Social Workers) who both get to write their own contracts and then tell their bosses (elected politicians) to approve them, or else. Have you seen the union-dictated pay-rates for federal road-construction contracts? Have you seen the pensions for your city employees? Did you know it takes government workers only 5 years of employment to be eligible for a pension at age 62? http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligibility.asp
And one more thing: "Manufacturing in the US was healthiest when labor unions were healthiest." Correlation =\= Causation. Manufacturing and Labor were both healthy at the same time because of large postwar demand and no outside competition. Once the markets started getting tough in the 70's and 80's Labor refused to bow to the cuts Manufacturers needed to stay competitive, Manufacturers couldn't force the issue because of those meddlesome kids in congress (more public union interference in the free-market) and, in the end, both have crashed.
Bullshit. The inherent ballistic accuracy of a weapon is not changed because the weapon is held in a different manner. Instead (and the article says this) accuracy is a problem of the shooter, and that it's hard to use the top-mounted sight.
If you're gonna cite something make sure it actually supports your argument.:P
PS: whoever modded you is an idiot for not checking your source.
Slashdot Mirror
How can you multiply pi by anything at all? After all, not only does it have an infinite number of digits, we don't even know what they all are!
Well, we don't. We take it to a particular digit then round off because a computer would endlessly calculate it.
How can you multiply 1/3 by anything at all? 1/3 = .333...
Again, we round it at some point based on the level of accuracy we require. .3333333 x 3 =/= 1
How can you multiply 1 by anything at all? After all, 1 = 1.000000... which is an infinite number of 0s.
Bad example. Infinite .000... still equals 0.
The point is that the proof is faulty in that the technique of multiplying both sides by 10 is assumed completed when, by virtue of being an infinite number, it simply can't. A completed operation of multiplying .999... by 10 assumes that at some point the operation ended at some unspecified point. You can't even plug this into a computer because someone would have to sit there for all eternity holding down the 9 key.
How can you multiply pi by anything at all? After all, not only does it have an infinite number of digits, we don't even know what they all are! How can you multiply 1/3 by anything at all? 1/3 = .333...
How can you multiply 1 by anything at all? After all, 1 = 1.000000... which is an infinite number of 0s.
I'm not even close to a mathematician, so forgive this possibly very stupid question:
.999... by anything at all? If the sequence is infinity, then any application of task or step can never be completed as it would take infinite time to perform the calculation.
How can you multiply
People are not labeling the tea party racist because it's made of 98% white people. They are labeling it racist because of the overtly racist signs and comments captured in the media coverage of the tea party events. This may be not be fair representation of the group, but that's the way it is. My wife views the tea party as racist. We disagree, but the idea that that makes her a racist is laughable to me.
I think you're getting the order mixed up. (or maybe I am) But I saw/heard the label before I saw the media start looking for examples (IE, the gun-toting racist hicks comments while the black man carrying the weapon was edited out of the photos) Their very involvement against the health-care bill was called racist, they were called racist because of their supposed anti black-man-for-president attitude before Obama was even elected.
With all due respect to your wife (and I mean that), if she's never been to a rally herself, then her assumption that the tea-party is racist is based on one or two things (or both,): that it's racist because it's primarily white, and/or that it's racist because friends/media told her so and gave carefully chosen examples/pictures to prove it. Her assumptions are based on the same type of racist myth-perpetuation that makes all Italians into mobsters and all Mexicans into violent cartel members. I can only hope she researches more into it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a huge tea-party supporter - I'm pro gay-rights, non-christian, and pro-choice. But I do support some of what they stand for (just as I support things the Ds and Rs stand for) I also defend these parties from unfair characterizations and I think that this is one of those instances - and a particularly evil and malicious one at that.
I only know three, but every "tea partier" I personally know is an older white person who harbors what I would call..."ethnic animosity".
I don't think you're going to find an older person - white OR black - that doesn't harbor racial animosity on some level. In fact it has been said by many different people that we all harbor at least some prejudice against those that are different from us. The point is that just because there's a large group of predominately white people, it doesn't mean that group is racist.
Hell, even my Dad who is a dyed-in-the-wool progressive and participated in civil rights marches in the 1960's has expressed sentiments that can come across as "racist". It's doesn't mean he's racist. He's just an old white dude who suffers from the same fears as other older white people.
Absolutely. Another factor is experience and empathy - My father grew up and has lived in a 99% non-black area near the Canadian border in the midwest. His experience is different so he can't relate. I cringe when I hear some of the stuff he says, but its ignorance and he'll likely never be able to understand some things about white privilege. (But he can tell you all about the silly arguments and problems between the German, Swede, Finnish, and Norwegian cultures he grew up around)
But again, a group of mostly white people is not racist because it's a group of mostly white people, and though you call it a generalization, I stand by my first statement that people who claim otherwise are racist themselves.
Decided not to moderate and simply prove you wrong. One idiot making stupid comments doesn't mean the tea party are racists as a group no more than some leftist anarchist looting stores makes all liberals into whackjobs. Frankly, I call anyone who says otherwise a racist themselves.
http://www.bvblackspin.com/2010/04/15/black-tea-party-member/
http://www.theroot.com/views/black-tea-partiers-speak
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/black_tea_party_express_tour_t.html
http://www.theroot.com/views/should-black-folks-give-tea-party-second-look?page=0,1&hpid=topnews
http://www.theroot.com/views/who-you-callin-uncle-tom
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/17/20090817obama-scene.html (this is the article that MSNBC cut apart to show gun-toting crazies at tea party rallies - except that it was a black man carrying that weapon freely and nobody thought he was a danger, kinda shoots your theory down doesn't it?)
Certain groups are terrified of what the Tea Party stands for, and they've played the race card in order to try and stop it. The fact that you believe it and espouse this shit means you're just a mindless patsy that can't think for yourself.
Anon sounds bitter. Teachers unions are diabolical because they use kids as their pawns.
Give us more money, or your kids will suffer. Hire more of us, and your kids will stop suffering in larger classes. Fire us, and your kids will be traumatized.
Give us more money, or we strike and you get to stay home from work and take care of the kids, etc.
And teachers get decent pay, but they do get great benefits. My grandmother got $40k/year and full medical until she died. My dad was also a teacher, but he's only getting $35k/year retired. Both of them teaching in small districts in Rural Midwest. And let's be honest, I've never seen ANY teacher complain about having a 3-month vacation in the summer.
As for taking homework home, I don't buy it. As someone who grew up with family inside the education system, the only teachers I saw taking work home were the ones who didn't manage their time well. The rest of the teachers got the stuff done during their open period.(and I'm not talking about their lunch)
As for discipline, in the 80's many Unions deliberately forced school-boards and administration to take responsibility for discipline because the teachers couldn't handle it, didn't want to, or were afraid of lawsuits.
Unions are also the ones, like in this article, that refuse to allow any objective testing of students. Instead the students' scores go down year after year, which the Union then claims means they need more money - again using your children as pawns. To them it's not "no child left behind" it's "no teacher revealed as incompetent."
"Equality for all races is still not fully achieved, a century and a half after people first began fighting about it."
People've been fighting about it for a lot longer than that. It's just that somehow the world has decided the US has to solve the world's ills in the mere 200 years they've been here - despite the rest of you lot having been around quite a bit longer.
The US has become the world's bloody soap-opera. I've had countless students from all over the world mention Obama (or Bush, a few years ago) but they don't even know the name of their own countries leader. Scary that they expect more from the president of a country that until now they've never been to, than the leaders of their own.
To some people, YOU'RE Joe Blow.
Why dumb down and/or restrict information to society because Joe Blow can't make the connection?
If you get arrested your name is released and printed in the newspapers. This is different in which way? I don't think you've got anything near a case unless you can prove that the police department was "heavily implying guilt" - which I think you'd have a hard time proving unless they SPECIFICALLY SAID YOU WERE GUILTY when you were not.
Regarding #2. I suppose there is some outside chance your jury pool could be tainted, but if publishing your name in a newspaper (as is done now) doesn't meet the litmus test, I doubt your mugshot on facebook will.
Let's look again, all your arguments are based on the fact that friends/family/business partners/society is going to shun you based upon the mere accusation of guilt. This is a cultural problem.
While I can't say I wouldn't support you if you were to try and make some changes to the public disclosure of arrests/charges, some sort of blanket policy of not disclosing anything to the public until convicted would be completely out of the question.
For good and for bad, getting arrested is a matter of the public record. (You wouldn't want to be arrested and held secretly, would you?) For some, the fact of public disclosure and "loss of face" is reason enough not to do bad things. For the innocent, it's our society's willingness to ostracize someone based merely on accusation that is the problem, not the posting of the picture.
Somewhat relatedly, recent studies have shown that 44% of men would be unwilling to help a lost child because of the ease of which false accusations could ruin their lives. Maybe it's our knee-jerk judgmental culture that needs to be fixed instead.
2000 factories closed by the power of the State. If we say there were 100 employees per factory (probably very very low) then that's 200,000 people left unemployed by a decision of the Government. It's probably closer to 500,000 people.
Hundreds of thousands of people left unemployed due to a decision made by an unelected ruling elite.
The government became involved in the early days of unionization, when groups (employers, union leaders, and in the 1920s,Communist agitators) were accused of strong-arming employees into voting whichever way. The secret-ballot and union card system were established as a way to create a valid process.
This is why many "average joes" are against the removal of the secret-ballot, as it will allow all groups to see how you voted - and act accordingly.
The definition of "Right": 1 : qualities (as adherence to duty or obedience to lawful authority) that together constitute the ideal of moral propriety or merit moral approval 2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled.
Knowing now both the reasons, and that the secret-ballot has been established for decades, isn't it justified that an employee keep both the current system and his privacy?
Your argument was that things in the public arn't private. I pointed out that this relationship was not public, and now you're arguing that because it's private there's still no right to privacy? Case law disagrees with you in that direction. If your argument is that because it's private the government should have no say, I point out that people couldn't play nice and so the government was forced to get involved. (Blame Roosevelt) I agree with your seeming ideology that the government should not get involved, but a complete hands-off approach in this situation would have likely led to mass bloodshed.
Regarding the situation in your home. You have not, at any point, forced me to stop speaking unless you physically restrain me. If I am peacefully leaving and you hit me or otherwise force me, you yourself are committing the crime. I can remain speaking as I walk out, that is not disorderly in any way. You of course are welcome to scream and yell back at me, but beyond that and showing me the door you have no options.
As for your question, "why?":
Computers were a new emerging technology. Consider the concept and its market as its own self-expanding universe. There is no "competition" - for lack of a better term. The automobile industry was in the same situation in the early 20th century and continues as one of the largest industries in the world. Hybrid/smart/electric cars are not a new emerging technology. Instead they're just incremental refinements to existing technology - and much much less game-changing/innovative/holyshit.
Regarding electric vehicles, unfortunately there's still minimal gains in terms of pollution (batteries) and efficiency (energy-source costs + battery manufacture). It's more of a hocus-pocus ideal than anything - much like corn and ethanol. Don't get me wrong, I'd really like for the tech to work. But if the tech is that damn good and promising, then the government would be better served in getting bids for E-vehicles to replace the entire fleet rather than in open-ended subsidies (that we all know will just turn into a large entitlement program for another special group).
This brings me to a very important point. Customer =/= Subsidy. I feel there is a distinct difference to the government driving innovation through its own real demand, compared with an attempt to entice the population into adopting a new standard by dangling some carrots. FFS, we can't even get the population to accept metric. One can only assume subsidies as the cornerstone of a (obviously) long-term program to replace an entrenched industry will only breed waste and dependence whereas bidding, (or goal-setting, as in DARPA, X-prizes, and other programs) when done right, breeds innovation out of necessity.
Being a customer isn't the same as a government subsidy. Regardless, that was an emerging industry, not the attempt at wholesale replacement of an existing entrenched base. It doesn't seem different, it IS different.
I guess you missed the "did the crash hit you that hard or are you bored?" part - you know, the first sentence. Apparently you can read minds and don't need such information.
Really, did the crash hit you that hard or are you bored? I don't know if you understand the employment situation for programmers these days. You're going to be old in an industry noted for it's ageism, behind the curve technologically, and depending on where you do find a job, you're likely to be paid terribly for long hours and work under a clueless asshole boss.
I really hope you have other options, it's ugly out there these days.
Just curious, how much of that was government subsidized? This isn't against your post, but a number of posts above seem to think government subsidies for early-adopters are going to work regarding electric vehicles. Instead I think it's clearly a demand issue. As your post does point out, companies desperately needed storage space and the ability to transfer data from point to point quickly. They were willing to shell out $$$ for the tech to do it. This seems clearly different, as now we're trying to replace an old and established industry with a new one, whereas in your examples, these were emerging technologies from an emerging industry.
Are you seriously comparing eating lunch on your porch with deciding the fate of your money, life, and career? While you can tell me to shut up within your home, you have no power to actually force me to stop talking if I so choose, and therefore cannot actually infringe upon my right of free speech. You can only ask me to leave in which case I can stand on the sidewalk and continue to speak.
Your "in my house" argument doesn't apply anyway as we _are_ talking about the government - the issue at-hand is to change the LAW in order to forcibly remove the current secret-ballot system. It could be argued that the establishment of the secret-ballot system itself established the right of a private vote. Remember that the union is a 3rd party trying to insinuate itself into the relationship between the employee and employer. It has no power unless given so. Also the relationship between employee, employer, and/or the union are not public anyway.
I agree that some people misconstrue rights and privileges (driving is one example) but even Haliburton cannot restrict the rights of it's employees to practice religion.
So what if they sold it to him? If it's his, and they accessed it without permission (no matter what the password) then they broke the law.
1) The united states is at war in Afghanistan
Yes.
2) Wikileaks leaked secret documents about the war in afghanistan in a reckless manner that possibly endangered lives of our allies and soldiers on the battlefield.
Maybe. These were "secret" documents, which just about damn near anyone has clearance to see. Most of them are simply just stuff that they hear and pass up, the vast majority of these could be completely false.
3) A 3 hour border detention is less than someone would be detained for unpaid parking tickets. They did not arrest him. They could have easily arrested him as a material witness.
Bullshit.
4) Given that he was allowed to go on to his conference and he was not questioned further without his lawyer present...I just dont see the story here other than its geek-celebrity news.
He was detained, questioned, his receipts and laptop were inspected, and his 3 phones were confiscated. Didja miss that part?
5) He was allowed to leave the country after his conference, not exactly what police states do.
So your argument is that he was detained, searched, and some of his stuff was confiscated but since he got to leave none of his rights were violated? What fucking planet are you on?
Mr. Applebaum doesn't act like an innocent victim of human rights abuses. He acts like an uncooperative witness who flees at the first sign of oppurtunity. It sounds like the FBI agents were genuinely trying to hear his side of the story about his rights being trampled having been at the conference for other reasons.
He didn't flee shit, and we don't know if the FBI agents were being genuine or condescending.
I think you need to pull your head out of the sand. For me this isn't about Bush, war, oil, etc. It's about the government keeping too many secrets and abusing power, and to me this incident stands as another example of such. Don't get me wrong, the government is right to keep investigating this leak, but messing with this guy seems more like harassment and the continuation of a witch-hunt.
Since when do rights have to be naturally occurring or god-given? A right is something that one considers as properly justified. If one has a justified right to privacy, then we have justification to keep how we vote secret. This is seen in our government/political voting system. Therefore removing privacy and doing away with the secret ballot for Unionization votes is indeed taking away a right that currently exists.
Of course, then we have the 9th amendment which is supposed to protect all other rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution, but the people have forgotten about it and it's been irreparably trampled upon.
As a conservative, to me the problem isn't with private unions of workers of private companies. In truth there should be no bailouts for a company that signs labor contracts that bankrupt themselves, nor for labor unions that force such companies to go under, and themselves out of a job with ever-increasing demands - Free Market demands that both are responsible for their own demise, no matter how they shift the blame. Unions that partner with their companies for mutual benefit (or unions that take significant ownership) will always make sense for everyone.
The problem is with public unions (Police, Fire, Teachers, Social Workers) who both get to write their own contracts and then tell their bosses (elected politicians) to approve them, or else. Have you seen the union-dictated pay-rates for federal road-construction contracts? Have you seen the pensions for your city employees? Did you know it takes government workers only 5 years of employment to be eligible for a pension at age 62? http://www.opm.gov/retire/pre/fers/eligibility.asp
Even Roosevelt was wary of the power of the public union. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15445
And one more thing: "Manufacturing in the US was healthiest when labor unions were healthiest."
Correlation =\= Causation. Manufacturing and Labor were both healthy at the same time because of large postwar demand and no outside competition. Once the markets started getting tough in the 70's and 80's Labor refused to bow to the cuts Manufacturers needed to stay competitive, Manufacturers couldn't force the issue because of those meddlesome kids in congress (more public union interference in the free-market) and, in the end, both have crashed.
Bullshit. The inherent ballistic accuracy of a weapon is not changed because the weapon is held in a different manner. Instead (and the article says this) accuracy is a problem of the shooter, and that it's hard to use the top-mounted sight.
:P
If you're gonna cite something make sure it actually supports your argument.
PS: whoever modded you is an idiot for not checking your source.