Then you need to follow plans B or C: Plan B - Own weapons and shoot the guy with the land and take it over. Plan C - Grovel before somebody who has the land and weapons and army, and hope to be taken on as one of his peasants.
And yes, a lot of people followed those plans in after the fall of Rome. That's how feudalism came about.
Who said they could manage renaming post offices? I mean, I'll grant you that Republicans are in the process of renaming anything they can for Ronald Reagan, but I don't think they can get that through the Senate.
And they wonder why the Congressional approval rating dropped below 12% this year (it's now bounced back to 17%).
That will never get support from the libertarians though. You need to instead replace it with the "Union Aerospace Corporation", with a mandate to build facilities on Deimos and Phobos. What could possibly go wrong?
No it isn't. For instance, in the waning days of the Roman Empire of 408 C.E., the city of Rome stripped all the gold they had against the invading Visigoths. That bought them 2 years before the Visigoths came in and sacked the place. What really matters in a serious crisis: 1. Having arable land, and stuff you can plant. 2. Having weapons, so you can hang onto the land and the crops. 3. Having people who will use those weapons on your behalf. Bonus: Have some defensive fortifications so it's harder for attackers to take your stuff.
Another way of thinking about it: Suppose you're in a city or suburb and the dollar has just collapsed. Do you think your 20 pounds of gold is really worth more in a situation where people are hungry and rioting and the police are utterly unable to control looting because nobody can afford a meal?
Well, in this case they're both apt: Both regimes relied on extensive surveillance.
It makes perfect sense, really. If you're going to oppress people, you need to know what they're up to so you make sure you oppress the people who might be opposing you. Otherwise, a popular movement might get started that opposes you, and then you might be overthrown.
If I ever was holding as much in assets as those guys probably are, I'd cash out too. That's because that way, no matter what happens to Facebook, I still don't have to work a day in my life ever again. $5 million invested at about 4% return (definitely not unreasonable) leaves you with an income of $200K without working, so you could live quite comfortably on $100K, reinvest the other $100K to make sure you keep up with inflation, and enjoy doing whatever else you want to do with your time.
Romney and Ryan want to increase Defense spending. Why? Do they want us to get us involved in more wars?
Possibly, but more likely it's about pork spending in districts where defense is a major industry, and kickbacks to their pals in the defense industry.
Tell the Republicans that if they want to lower the deficit they should cut back on the defense budget and stop getting us into wars.
If presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush are any indication, they don't really care about the deficit, despite all their protests to the contrary. Both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have put forward budget proposals that they claim lowers the deficit but according to independent analysis does the exact opposite.
You're right, they aren't. Wikipedia works best when: 1. There's established research on the subject. 2. There's not a lot of controversy on the basic stuff that should end up in an encyclopedia article. 3. There's a fair amount of interest in the topic.
So, for instance, the article on the planet Neptune is really really good, because it meets all these criteria. Articles on political issues suffer from both vandalism and attempts by partisans to slant the article towards their preferred viewpoint. Articles without established research suffer from nobody being able to write properly cited facts. Articles without interest either don't exist or get few edits, so if it exists at all it's typically what 1 editor writing the entire thing.
More to the point on Social Security, the only reason there'd be any problem with funding Social Security for several more decades is if the general US Treasury decided to default on its debt to the SSA. One of the common bits of budgetary flim-flam is to consider the US Treasuries owed to the SSA to be part of the national debt when demanding that we do something about deficits, and to ignore those same Treasuries (assets) when trying to claim that the SSA is going broke.
On the other side of the equation, it's worth noting that the much-vaunted budget surplus in 2000 was only a surplus if you counted the SSA, and not if you counted only the general treasury. The general treasury has been underfunded since 1981, as anybody who can read a graph can see.
Not all rape jokes are harmful though: George Carlin made some great rape jokes. The reason they worked, and weren't offensive, is that the butt of his jokes were the rapist, rather than the victim. He even explains his point in the middle of the routine:
They [men] think it's the woman's fault. They like to blame the rape on the woman. Say, "she had it coming, she was wearing a short skirt." These guys think women ought to go to prison for being cock teasers. Don't seem fair to me. Don't seem right, but you can joke about it.
2006, Ohio election for governor - the black Republican candidate lost handily 61-36%, drawing virtually no support from the black population in Ohio. 2012, Republican presidential primary - black voters did not overwhelmingly make the effort to support Herman Cain.
The example I tend to use to demonstrate the very real effects of racism are two election results, in Ohio, 2 years apart.
2006, governor of Ohio: Ken Blackwell (Republican, black) - 37% Ted Strickland (Democrat, white) 61% 2008, president of the US: John McCain (Republican, white) - 47% Barack Obama (Democrat, black) 51% (In both elections, the remaining 2% was mostly split between the Green and Libertarian candidates)
The reason this is quite noticeable is that Blackwell and McCain have similar policy proposals and governing philosophies, as do Strickland and Obama. There was no massive demographic shift that could explain a 10% difference in the results. That leaves the explanation that the candidates' race had a significant impact, probably about 10%.
Your points are quite accurate: People younger than about 35 are far less racist than people over 70, and the reason is that they grew up after the Civil Rights Movement. Lynchings are extremely rare, and when they do happen they earn condemnation rather than approval from the community and the country. Politicians don't get up and give speeches like this. The KKK is tiny compared to what it once was.
It's also not a completely won battle. For instance, mortgage brokers were recently convicted of giving white borrowers a good prime mortgage rate and equally qualified black borrowers a subprime rate, and one of the effects of this is that much of the black middle class lost their life savings in the financial crisis. There's still a measurable and documented pattern of not hiring black people.
I believe it, but only because I've read the work of highly educated experts on the subject, and first-hand confirmation of this idea. Obviously, if all I had to go on was the wisdom of ackthpt, I'd not believe it.
There are even more options, including "True but only if you make certain assumptions", "I reject the premise that this is a true/false question", "True right now but will be false if you ask it again", etc.
Alas, the Double Jeopardy Clause, which sure seems like it would apply here, does not because the conviction was overturned on appeal rather than acquitted by the trial court. Of course, the real point is clear enough: Mess with Goldman Sachs, and they will ruin your life.
And in other news, Goldman Sachs is not going to be investigated for further crimes, like, oh, I don't know, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of fraud.
In addition, once on board an aircraft, a reasonably creative terrorist could fairly easily improvise deadly weapons from materials readily available on the plane - any flat and thin piece of metal, even some varieties of plastic, any large blunt object such as a hard-shell suitcase, or of course well-trained hands and feet. There are 2 things that actually have made a difference: First is that they can't get into the cockpit through the reinforced door, and the second is that the doctrine for hijackings has changed to recommend that passengers and crew fight hijackers.
This increase in the relative growth of the financial sector was one of the predictions in Karl Marx's Das Kapital: He saw bond markets and stock markets as the natural and predictable outgrowth of the role of a capitalist, which in his view was somebody who made their living not by producing stuff but by buying the means of production and making other people produce stuff. Bonds in particular simply abstract the concept completely away from any actual work: The capitalist now doesn't even do the buying and managing himself, but buys bonds allowing somebody else to do that work and demands a portion of the proceeds of the firm in return. As the capitalist class gains more and more wealth, the trade in bonds and other financial instruments goes up as a percentage of the economy, while the industrial and agricultural production becomes less important.
(And no, I'm not arguing that workers of the world should unite and revolt, just that Marx was a serious economist who made some good points about how capitalism works.)
Slashdot Mirror
Bad example: Not even good poets should expect to earn a living as a poet.
Actually, it's a shark with a frikken' laser attached to its head.
I was thinking more the libertarian contingent on /.
Then you need to follow plans B or C:
Plan B - Own weapons and shoot the guy with the land and take it over.
Plan C - Grovel before somebody who has the land and weapons and army, and hope to be taken on as one of his peasants.
And yes, a lot of people followed those plans in after the fall of Rome. That's how feudalism came about.
Who said they could manage renaming post offices? I mean, I'll grant you that Republicans are in the process of renaming anything they can for Ronald Reagan, but I don't think they can get that through the Senate.
And they wonder why the Congressional approval rating dropped below 12% this year (it's now bounced back to 17%).
That will never get support from the libertarians though. You need to instead replace it with the "Union Aerospace Corporation", with a mandate to build facilities on Deimos and Phobos. What could possibly go wrong?
No it isn't. For instance, in the waning days of the Roman Empire of 408 C.E., the city of Rome stripped all the gold they had against the invading Visigoths. That bought them 2 years before the Visigoths came in and sacked the place. What really matters in a serious crisis: 1. Having arable land, and stuff you can plant. 2. Having weapons, so you can hang onto the land and the crops. 3. Having people who will use those weapons on your behalf. Bonus: Have some defensive fortifications so it's harder for attackers to take your stuff.
Another way of thinking about it: Suppose you're in a city or suburb and the dollar has just collapsed. Do you think your 20 pounds of gold is really worth more in a situation where people are hungry and rioting and the police are utterly unable to control looting because nobody can afford a meal?
Well, in this case they're both apt: Both regimes relied on extensive surveillance.
It makes perfect sense, really. If you're going to oppress people, you need to know what they're up to so you make sure you oppress the people who might be opposing you. Otherwise, a popular movement might get started that opposes you, and then you might be overthrown.
Don't worry, Godzilla will take care of Mothra, and everything will be fine (unless you live in Tokyo).
If I ever was holding as much in assets as those guys probably are, I'd cash out too. That's because that way, no matter what happens to Facebook, I still don't have to work a day in my life ever again. $5 million invested at about 4% return (definitely not unreasonable) leaves you with an income of $200K without working, so you could live quite comfortably on $100K, reinvest the other $100K to make sure you keep up with inflation, and enjoy doing whatever else you want to do with your time.
Well, they hired a CEO that certainly seems to know what she's doing. That's pretty extraordinary.
Romney and Ryan want to increase Defense spending. Why? Do they want us to get us involved in more wars?
Possibly, but more likely it's about pork spending in districts where defense is a major industry, and kickbacks to their pals in the defense industry.
Tell the Republicans that if they want to lower the deficit they should cut back on the defense budget and stop getting us into wars.
If presidents Reagan, Bush, and Bush are any indication, they don't really care about the deficit, despite all their protests to the contrary. Both Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have put forward budget proposals that they claim lowers the deficit but according to independent analysis does the exact opposite.
You're right, they aren't. Wikipedia works best when:
1. There's established research on the subject.
2. There's not a lot of controversy on the basic stuff that should end up in an encyclopedia article.
3. There's a fair amount of interest in the topic.
So, for instance, the article on the planet Neptune is really really good, because it meets all these criteria. Articles on political issues suffer from both vandalism and attempts by partisans to slant the article towards their preferred viewpoint. Articles without established research suffer from nobody being able to write properly cited facts. Articles without interest either don't exist or get few edits, so if it exists at all it's typically what 1 editor writing the entire thing.
More to the point on Social Security, the only reason there'd be any problem with funding Social Security for several more decades is if the general US Treasury decided to default on its debt to the SSA. One of the common bits of budgetary flim-flam is to consider the US Treasuries owed to the SSA to be part of the national debt when demanding that we do something about deficits, and to ignore those same Treasuries (assets) when trying to claim that the SSA is going broke.
On the other side of the equation, it's worth noting that the much-vaunted budget surplus in 2000 was only a surplus if you counted the SSA, and not if you counted only the general treasury. The general treasury has been underfunded since 1981, as anybody who can read a graph can see.
Not all rape jokes are harmful though: George Carlin made some great rape jokes. The reason they worked, and weren't offensive, is that the butt of his jokes were the rapist, rather than the victim. He even explains his point in the middle of the routine:
They [men] think it's the woman's fault. They like to blame the rape on the woman. Say, "she had it coming, she was wearing a short skirt." These guys think women ought to go to prison for being cock teasers. Don't seem fair to me. Don't seem right, but you can joke about it.
2006, Ohio election for governor - the black Republican candidate lost handily 61-36%, drawing virtually no support from the black population in Ohio.
2012, Republican presidential primary - black voters did not overwhelmingly make the effort to support Herman Cain.
The example I tend to use to demonstrate the very real effects of racism are two election results, in Ohio, 2 years apart.
2006, governor of Ohio: Ken Blackwell (Republican, black) - 37% Ted Strickland (Democrat, white) 61%
2008, president of the US: John McCain (Republican, white) - 47% Barack Obama (Democrat, black) 51%
(In both elections, the remaining 2% was mostly split between the Green and Libertarian candidates)
The reason this is quite noticeable is that Blackwell and McCain have similar policy proposals and governing philosophies, as do Strickland and Obama. There was no massive demographic shift that could explain a 10% difference in the results. That leaves the explanation that the candidates' race had a significant impact, probably about 10%.
Your points are quite accurate: People younger than about 35 are far less racist than people over 70, and the reason is that they grew up after the Civil Rights Movement. Lynchings are extremely rare, and when they do happen they earn condemnation rather than approval from the community and the country. Politicians don't get up and give speeches like this. The KKK is tiny compared to what it once was.
It's also not a completely won battle. For instance, mortgage brokers were recently convicted of giving white borrowers a good prime mortgage rate and equally qualified black borrowers a subprime rate, and one of the effects of this is that much of the black middle class lost their life savings in the financial crisis. There's still a measurable and documented pattern of not hiring black people.
I believe it, but only because I've read the work of highly educated experts on the subject, and first-hand confirmation of this idea. Obviously, if all I had to go on was the wisdom of ackthpt, I'd not believe it.
There are even more options, including "True but only if you make certain assumptions", "I reject the premise that this is a true/false question", "True right now but will be false if you ask it again", etc.
Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
It's right from the standard poll disclaimers.
Bernie Madoff's mistake was stealing from people who mattered. As long as you're stealing from poor people, it's A-ok.
Alas, the Double Jeopardy Clause, which sure seems like it would apply here, does not because the conviction was overturned on appeal rather than acquitted by the trial court. Of course, the real point is clear enough: Mess with Goldman Sachs, and they will ruin your life.
And in other news, Goldman Sachs is not going to be investigated for further crimes, like, oh, I don't know, hundreds of billions of dollars worth of fraud.
Which commentator has the most accurate view of Windows 8:
...
* Steve Ballmer
* Steve Wozniak
* CowboyNeal
In addition, once on board an aircraft, a reasonably creative terrorist could fairly easily improvise deadly weapons from materials readily available on the plane - any flat and thin piece of metal, even some varieties of plastic, any large blunt object such as a hard-shell suitcase, or of course well-trained hands and feet. There are 2 things that actually have made a difference: First is that they can't get into the cockpit through the reinforced door, and the second is that the doctrine for hijackings has changed to recommend that passengers and crew fight hijackers.
This increase in the relative growth of the financial sector was one of the predictions in Karl Marx's Das Kapital: He saw bond markets and stock markets as the natural and predictable outgrowth of the role of a capitalist, which in his view was somebody who made their living not by producing stuff but by buying the means of production and making other people produce stuff. Bonds in particular simply abstract the concept completely away from any actual work: The capitalist now doesn't even do the buying and managing himself, but buys bonds allowing somebody else to do that work and demands a portion of the proceeds of the firm in return. As the capitalist class gains more and more wealth, the trade in bonds and other financial instruments goes up as a percentage of the economy, while the industrial and agricultural production becomes less important.
(And no, I'm not arguing that workers of the world should unite and revolt, just that Marx was a serious economist who made some good points about how capitalism works.)