Where on the linked site does it advocate organized intimidation? You seem to be implying that publishing someone's name is the equivalent of publishing their name, a picture of them that looks like it's through a gun sight, their home address, their work address, their work hours, and other places where they can be found, and a call to stop them at any cost.
Going up to someone and asking them to explain their views is not intimidation. Neither is going up to someone and trying to convince them via argument that your view is correct. Unless a threat of force, loss of job, etc is involved, that's called grassroots politics.
put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website.
So you're telling me that you can sue someone for publicly telling everyone (via a website) something you publicly told everyone?
Look, mate, when you sign a petition, what you're doing is saying to anyone who cares to listen in the world that you endorse the views of the petition. If you aren't willing to attach your name to what the petition says, don't sign it.
Starting the campaign for Prop 1337: Human-Chicken Nuptual Fairness Act. I'm sure you could get enough signatures in California to at least get it on the ballot.
Actually, most subprime mortgages weren't issued by banks, but by relatively unregulated (and thus not subject to the CRA) mortgage brokerages such as Ditech and Countrywide.
CRA-regulated banks have actually done considerably better than the brokerages.
See, you don't have it fully down, it's not "bad guys" (because that sounds silly). You have to appeal to fears properly, like this: Not giving them unrestricted access to monitor everyone continuously would only help terrorists, child predators, and unwed teenage mothers.
Yeah, coverage like this really makes we want to go out and buy one for my own space ship.
Seriously, I think this might be getting coverage because this is potentially technology that could make a manned mission to MARS much more feasible and safer. Of course, getting back might still be challenging, but I for one would take the honor of being the first man on Mars away from Philip Fry if I could.
I think what you're actually demonstrating is that the theoretical knowledge and background is important to being able to do development quickly and easily. Unfortunately, what no one directed you to was a beginner text that explained things like "perlin noise".
That's not to say that what you're doing isn't nifty. I haven't seen it, but it sounds like you've put in a lot of time and effort into it and got a halfway decent result. It's a shame that you weren't able to get the sort of education to enable you to accomplish more with the time and effort you put in.
YOU SIGNED THE PAPERWORK, YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME, YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO A CHEAPER SCHOOL.
Not exactly. You can go to community college for the first two years (and many students are doing just that), but after that even your in-state public university is going to have sky-high prices. In other words, even with the most austere education available, a 4-year degree could easily leave you with $40-50K of debt. Better than $85K, for sure, but still not great.
Acuri (NY-27) $5000 from AT&T Baca (CA-43) $5000 from AT&T Barrow (GA-12) $5000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Assn S Bishop (GA-2) $2750 from AT&T T Bishop (NY-1) $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from AT&T, $1000 from Verizon Boren (OK-2) $5000 from AT&T Boswell (IA-3) $5000 from AT&T Boyd (FL-2) $2500 from Verizon, $2500 from Comcast Brady (PA-1) $5000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Assn Bright (AL-2) $4000 from AT&T Butterfield (NC-1) $5000 from AT&T Cardoza (CA-18) $4500 from AT&T Carnahan (MO-3) $6100 from Communications Workers of America Carny (PA-10) $5000 from L3 Communications Childers (MS-1) $5000 from AT&T Christensen (VI) No obvious contribution reported yet Clay (MO-1) $2500 from AT&T, $3000 from Verizon Cleaver (MO-5) $2500 from Communications Workers of America Costa (CA-20) $2000 from AT&T Crowley (NY-7) $5000 from Comcast, $2500 from Verizon, $2000 from L3 Communications Cuellar (TX-28) $1000 from Verizon Cummings (MD-7) $1000 from AT&T Dahlkemper (PA-3) $3000 from AT&T Davis (IL-7) $5000 from AT&T Davis (TN-4) $3000 from AT&T Driehaus (OH-1) $1000 from AT&T Fattah (PA-2) $1000 from AT&T, $1000 from Comcast Foster (IL-14) $2000 from Comcast Fudge (OH-11) $2000 from AT&T, $2500 from Communications Workers of America Gonzalez (TX-20) $2000 from AT&T, $2000 from Comcast Green (TX-9) $5000 from Communications Workers of America Green (TX-29) $5000 from Communications Workers of America, $2500 from AT&T, $2500 from Comcast Griffith (AL-5) $6500 from L3 Communications, $4500 from AT&T Halvorson (IL-11) $7000 from AT&T, $3500 from Comcast Hastings (FL-23) $5000 from AT&T Hill (IN-9) $5000 from AT&T, $2500 from National Cable and Telecommunications Association Holden (PA-17) $5000 from Communications Workers of America, $3000 from AT&T Jackson (TX-18) $5000 from AT&T Johnson (TX-30) $2000 from AT&T Johnson (GA-4) $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from Verizon, $1000 from Comcast Kosmas (FL-24) $4000 from Comcast Kratovil (MD-1) $3500 L3 Communications, $3000 from AT&T, $3000 from Comcast Larsen (WA-2) $1000 from Qwest, $1000 from Verizon Maffei (NY-25) $4800 from Data Key Communications, $3000 from Verizon, $2750 from Time Warner McMahon (NY-13) $4000 from AT&T, $2000 from Time Warner, $2000 from Verizon Meeks (NY-6) $5000 from AT&T, $1000 from Verizon Melancon (LA-3) $10000 from Comcast, $4000 from AT&T, $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from Time Warner Michaud (ME-2) $4000 from AT&T, $1000 from Time Warner, $1000 from Qualcomm Minnick (ID-1) $3500 from Comcast, $2000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon Moore (KS-3) $2000 from AT&T, $1000 from Comcast, $1000 from Verizon Nye (VA-2) $4800 from Cox Communications, $2000 from Verizon, $1500 from Communications Workers of America Ortiz (TX-27) $3500 from AT&T, $1250 from Communications Workers of America, $1000 from Comcast Pastor (AZ-4) $4000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon Perlmutter (CO-7) $4500 from Qwest, $1000 from AT&T, $1000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Association, $1000 from Verizon Polis (CO-2) No obvious contributions Rahall (WV-3) $2500 from AT&T Reyes (TX-16) $2000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon, $1000 from L3 Communications Ross (AR-4) $5000 from AT&T, $4000 from Verizon Sanchez (CA-47) $5000 from AT&T, $5000 from L3 Communications Schrader (OR-5) $3000 from AT&T, $2000 from Qwest Schwartz (PA-13) $2500 from National Cable and Telecommunications Association Scott (GA-13) $3000 from AT&T, $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from Verizon Shuler (NC-11) $4000 from AT&T, $1000 from Communications Workers of America Sires (NJ-13) $5000 from AT&T, $3000 from Verizon, $2500 from
The GP is just using the standard "CRA caused the economic meltdown" argument, shown repeatedly to be completely untrue but raised again and again for two reasons:
1. It allows conservatives to blame the recession on poor (and often implied to be black) people who lost a couple generations worth of savings on homes they couldn't afford rather than white Republican bankers who sold bad loans first to homeowners and then to investors and made millions of dollars.
2. It allows libertarians to blame the recession on government regulation, so they can continue believing their theory that government regulation is the source of all economic ills.
So to repeat the standard refutations of this:
* The companies who had issued the most subprime loans weren't CRA-regulated banks, but mortgage brokers that weren't subject to most banking regulations.
* The CRA specifically stipulated that CRA loans had to use the same lending standards as non-CRA loans. People who got CRA loans were just as qualified as any other borrower. The default / foreclosure rates on CRA loans are comparable to those of non-CRA loans issued by the banks subject to the CRA, suggesting that the lending standards were effective at screening unqualified borrowers.
* The real purpose of the CRA was to eliminate redlining, and in that it appears to have been at least partially successful. The upside is that a lot more loans are being made in predominantly black neighborhoods. The downside is that a lot of banks decided to shut down their operations in those neighborhoods instead, and check cashing and payday loan companies have set themselves up in their place.
In any unregulated market, natural monopolies will arise as bigger players buy out the smaller players, and they will go after smaller and smaller players as their marginal ability to increase their business is eroded by their own success in controlling the market.
Close. It depends on the market in question. For telcos and ISPs, absolutely, which is why I'm in favor of heavily regulated monopolies, similar to what you get with electricity and natural gas now. The reason is that the economies of scale outweigh the dis-economies of scale up to and beyond the point of serving the entire country.
In other markets, such as gourmet restaurants, the most efficient size of a company is much smaller, which is why Emeril (or some other well-known chef) doesn't own all the gourmet restaurants in the country.
When did they graduate? Working your way through college was very possible in the 1960's, and is extremely difficult today.
The reason for this is simple: the inflation-adjusted cost of a college education has approximately tripled since 1970, and doubled since 1990. So what was a manageable cost for a Baby Boomer is not a manageable cost for a Millenial.
Government may be the only way to organize some operations that are too costly/not profitable enough for a citizen or corporation to undertake, but unfortunately, it always causes a lot of waste and excessive cost.
So, as an example, a typical private insurance plan in the US has about 15-20% of the price going towards administration and profits, while a public insurance plan in the US (such as the VA) and similar plans in other countries have under 5% overhead. Oh, wait...
For instance, a case reported by the NYTimes in which a firm that does something useful is essentially looted by a private equity firm, who bought up the company's stock on debt, and then promptly assigned the debt that they used to buy up the company to the company they just bought.
Private equity firms get $750 million, Simmons Bedding Company gets bankruptcy. It makes the stuff Michael Milkin was pulling in the 1980's seem positively nice and friendly by comparison.
A key reason (in my book) as to why email is a superior communications mechanism than Facebook: Social networking sites are a polling mechanism in which the recipient of the message has to check a bunch of web pages for their information (that behavior ups the ad view count among other things). Email is a message queue system, with far less overhead on the recipient.
Some interesting writing on this very issue: Chapter 14 of this is an interesting few pages on the subject. The short version: having a gun made a street-smart kid from the Bronx ignore what he knew about how to keep himself safe in dangerous neighborhoods.
Slashdot Mirror
Where on the linked site does it advocate organized intimidation? You seem to be implying that publishing someone's name is the equivalent of publishing their name, a picture of them that looks like it's through a gun sight, their home address, their work address, their work hours, and other places where they can be found, and a call to stop them at any cost.
Going up to someone and asking them to explain their views is not intimidation. Neither is going up to someone and trying to convince them via argument that your view is correct. Unless a threat of force, loss of job, etc is involved, that's called grassroots politics.
put the names of all people who publicly endorsed R-71 on a public, SEO-optimized website.
So you're telling me that you can sue someone for publicly telling everyone (via a website) something you publicly told everyone?
Look, mate, when you sign a petition, what you're doing is saying to anyone who cares to listen in the world that you endorse the views of the petition. If you aren't willing to attach your name to what the petition says, don't sign it.
You're incorrectly assuming that trolls ever come in contact with sunlight.
I think you (and one of the mods) may have a faulty sarcasm detector.
Starting the campaign for Prop 1337: Human-Chicken Nuptual Fairness Act. I'm sure you could get enough signatures in California to at least get it on the ballot.
Actually, most subprime mortgages weren't issued by banks, but by relatively unregulated (and thus not subject to the CRA) mortgage brokerages such as Ditech and Countrywide.
CRA-regulated banks have actually done considerably better than the brokerages.
I say they simply skip a few steps and have each person marked on their forehead and right arm for easy identification.
See, you don't have it fully down, it's not "bad guys" (because that sounds silly). You have to appeal to fears properly, like this:
Not giving them unrestricted access to monitor everyone continuously would only help terrorists, child predators, and unwed teenage mothers.
Yeah, coverage like this really makes we want to go out and buy one for my own space ship.
Seriously, I think this might be getting coverage because this is potentially technology that could make a manned mission to MARS much more feasible and safer. Of course, getting back might still be challenging, but I for one would take the honor of being the first man on Mars away from Philip Fry if I could.
I think what you're actually demonstrating is that the theoretical knowledge and background is important to being able to do development quickly and easily. Unfortunately, what no one directed you to was a beginner text that explained things like "perlin noise".
That's not to say that what you're doing isn't nifty. I haven't seen it, but it sounds like you've put in a lot of time and effort into it and got a halfway decent result. It's a shame that you weren't able to get the sort of education to enable you to accomplish more with the time and effort you put in.
YOU SIGNED THE PAPERWORK, YOU HAVE NO ONE ELSE TO BLAME, YOU COULD HAVE GONE TO A CHEAPER SCHOOL.
Not exactly. You can go to community college for the first two years (and many students are doing just that), but after that even your in-state public university is going to have sky-high prices. In other words, even with the most austere education available, a 4-year degree could easily leave you with $40-50K of debt. Better than $85K, for sure, but still not great.
I should point out that's just contributions to campaign committees, not to PACs.
For more details, check out opensecrets.org.
Notice he didn't have a contribution like the others.
Acuri (NY-27) $5000 from AT&T
Baca (CA-43) $5000 from AT&T
Barrow (GA-12) $5000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Assn
S Bishop (GA-2) $2750 from AT&T
T Bishop (NY-1) $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from AT&T, $1000 from Verizon
Boren (OK-2) $5000 from AT&T
Boswell (IA-3) $5000 from AT&T
Boyd (FL-2) $2500 from Verizon, $2500 from Comcast
Brady (PA-1) $5000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Assn
Bright (AL-2) $4000 from AT&T
Butterfield (NC-1) $5000 from AT&T
Cardoza (CA-18) $4500 from AT&T
Carnahan (MO-3) $6100 from Communications Workers of America
Carny (PA-10) $5000 from L3 Communications
Childers (MS-1) $5000 from AT&T
Christensen (VI) No obvious contribution reported yet
Clay (MO-1) $2500 from AT&T, $3000 from Verizon
Cleaver (MO-5) $2500 from Communications Workers of America
Costa (CA-20) $2000 from AT&T
Crowley (NY-7) $5000 from Comcast, $2500 from Verizon, $2000 from L3 Communications
Cuellar (TX-28) $1000 from Verizon
Cummings (MD-7) $1000 from AT&T
Dahlkemper (PA-3) $3000 from AT&T
Davis (IL-7) $5000 from AT&T
Davis (TN-4) $3000 from AT&T
Driehaus (OH-1) $1000 from AT&T
Fattah (PA-2) $1000 from AT&T, $1000 from Comcast
Foster (IL-14) $2000 from Comcast
Fudge (OH-11) $2000 from AT&T, $2500 from Communications Workers of America
Gonzalez (TX-20) $2000 from AT&T, $2000 from Comcast
Green (TX-9) $5000 from Communications Workers of America
Green (TX-29) $5000 from Communications Workers of America, $2500 from AT&T, $2500 from Comcast
Griffith (AL-5) $6500 from L3 Communications, $4500 from AT&T
Halvorson (IL-11) $7000 from AT&T, $3500 from Comcast
Hastings (FL-23) $5000 from AT&T
Hill (IN-9) $5000 from AT&T, $2500 from National Cable and Telecommunications Association
Holden (PA-17) $5000 from Communications Workers of America, $3000 from AT&T
Jackson (TX-18) $5000 from AT&T
Johnson (TX-30) $2000 from AT&T
Johnson (GA-4) $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from Verizon, $1000 from Comcast
Kosmas (FL-24) $4000 from Comcast
Kratovil (MD-1) $3500 L3 Communications, $3000 from AT&T, $3000 from Comcast
Larsen (WA-2) $1000 from Qwest, $1000 from Verizon
Maffei (NY-25) $4800 from Data Key Communications, $3000 from Verizon, $2750 from Time Warner
McMahon (NY-13) $4000 from AT&T, $2000 from Time Warner, $2000 from Verizon
Meeks (NY-6) $5000 from AT&T, $1000 from Verizon
Melancon (LA-3) $10000 from Comcast, $4000 from AT&T, $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from Time Warner
Michaud (ME-2) $4000 from AT&T, $1000 from Time Warner, $1000 from Qualcomm
Minnick (ID-1) $3500 from Comcast, $2000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon
Moore (KS-3) $2000 from AT&T, $1000 from Comcast, $1000 from Verizon
Nye (VA-2) $4800 from Cox Communications, $2000 from Verizon, $1500 from Communications Workers of America
Ortiz (TX-27) $3500 from AT&T, $1250 from Communications Workers of America, $1000 from Comcast
Pastor (AZ-4) $4000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon
Perlmutter (CO-7) $4500 from Qwest, $1000 from AT&T, $1000 from National Cable & Telecommunications Association, $1000 from Verizon
Polis (CO-2) No obvious contributions
Rahall (WV-3) $2500 from AT&T
Reyes (TX-16) $2000 from AT&T, $2000 from Verizon, $1000 from L3 Communications
Ross (AR-4) $5000 from AT&T, $4000 from Verizon
Sanchez (CA-47) $5000 from AT&T, $5000 from L3 Communications
Schrader (OR-5) $3000 from AT&T, $2000 from Qwest
Schwartz (PA-13) $2500 from National Cable and Telecommunications Association
Scott (GA-13) $3000 from AT&T, $2500 from Communications Workers of America, $2000 from Verizon
Shuler (NC-11) $4000 from AT&T, $1000 from Communications Workers of America
Sires (NJ-13) $5000 from AT&T, $3000 from Verizon, $2500 from
It's easy to figure out which senators are in the pocket of big business: they are the ones with the word "Senator" in front of their name.
Ok, there are some exceptions (notably Bernie Sanders), but that's a good general rule to go by until proven otherwise.
The GP is just using the standard "CRA caused the economic meltdown" argument, shown repeatedly to be completely untrue but raised again and again for two reasons:
1. It allows conservatives to blame the recession on poor (and often implied to be black) people who lost a couple generations worth of savings on homes they couldn't afford rather than white Republican bankers who sold bad loans first to homeowners and then to investors and made millions of dollars.
2. It allows libertarians to blame the recession on government regulation, so they can continue believing their theory that government regulation is the source of all economic ills.
So to repeat the standard refutations of this:
* The companies who had issued the most subprime loans weren't CRA-regulated banks, but mortgage brokers that weren't subject to most banking regulations.
* The CRA specifically stipulated that CRA loans had to use the same lending standards as non-CRA loans. People who got CRA loans were just as qualified as any other borrower. The default / foreclosure rates on CRA loans are comparable to those of non-CRA loans issued by the banks subject to the CRA, suggesting that the lending standards were effective at screening unqualified borrowers.
* The real purpose of the CRA was to eliminate redlining, and in that it appears to have been at least partially successful. The upside is that a lot more loans are being made in predominantly black neighborhoods. The downside is that a lot of banks decided to shut down their operations in those neighborhoods instead, and check cashing and payday loan companies have set themselves up in their place.
In any unregulated market, natural monopolies will arise as bigger players buy out the smaller players, and they will go after smaller and smaller players as their marginal ability to increase their business is eroded by their own success in controlling the market.
Close. It depends on the market in question. For telcos and ISPs, absolutely, which is why I'm in favor of heavily regulated monopolies, similar to what you get with electricity and natural gas now. The reason is that the economies of scale outweigh the dis-economies of scale up to and beyond the point of serving the entire country.
In other markets, such as gourmet restaurants, the most efficient size of a company is much smaller, which is why Emeril (or some other well-known chef) doesn't own all the gourmet restaurants in the country.
I take it you're ignoring that little dust-up between the Hutus and Tutsis that got about a million people killed?
What about 2 ^ 2079460347? You know, the odds that you can get rescued while floating in outer space by a passing Heart of Gold.
When did they graduate? Working your way through college was very possible in the 1960's, and is extremely difficult today.
The reason for this is simple: the inflation-adjusted cost of a college education has approximately tripled since 1970, and doubled since 1990. So what was a manageable cost for a Baby Boomer is not a manageable cost for a Millenial.
Government may be the only way to organize some operations that are too costly/not profitable enough for a citizen or corporation to undertake, but unfortunately, it always causes a lot of waste and excessive cost.
So, as an example, a typical private insurance plan in the US has about 15-20% of the price going towards administration and profits, while a public insurance plan in the US (such as the VA) and similar plans in other countries have under 5% overhead. Oh, wait ...
For instance, a case reported by the NYTimes in which a firm that does something useful is essentially looted by a private equity firm, who bought up the company's stock on debt, and then promptly assigned the debt that they used to buy up the company to the company they just bought.
Private equity firms get $750 million, Simmons Bedding Company gets bankruptcy. It makes the stuff Michael Milkin was pulling in the 1980's seem positively nice and friendly by comparison.
A key reason (in my book) as to why email is a superior communications mechanism than Facebook: Social networking sites are a polling mechanism in which the recipient of the message has to check a bunch of web pages for their information (that behavior ups the ad view count among other things). Email is a message queue system, with far less overhead on the recipient.
The funny thing about that bit is that your father's brother's nephew is either you or one of your cousins.
Some interesting writing on this very issue: Chapter 14 of this is an interesting few pages on the subject. The short version: having a gun made a street-smart kid from the Bronx ignore what he knew about how to keep himself safe in dangerous neighborhoods.