with Romney...I think his fiscal ideas might help, or at least won't be as hurtful as O's....
If I may ask you -- what fiscal ideas would those be? I think even a Romney's supporter would have to admit that he hasn't actually given many details about his fiscal plan
So far what we have is
1. Reduce taxes by 20%
2. Increase military spending (beyond what they are asking, apparently)
3. Cut some exemptions/loopholes to compensate the lost benefits, but he hasn't named any
3.a. He doesn't want to raise capital gains tax (as it is fair)
3.b. I believe he wants to repeal estate tax
3.c. He wants to repeal Health Care Act, but keep the things that everyone likes (pre-existing conditions, children covered, etc) -- i.e. basically keep things that cost money, but repeal things that are supposed to balance it off.
3.d. He currently says that he is not going to make any fundamental changes to Social Security (Medicare too, I think, at least for people 55+ so any changes would take longer than decade)
And if someone promises to reduce taxes, keep or increase spending AND balance the budget (at least eventually) do you see the algebraic problem here?
We can debate who's plan is better, I am not taking a stance on that necessarily, but without further details we are comparing Obama's plans to what looks like a fairy tale plan.
Mitt Romney was the governor of my state. He fucked us over and then quit to run for the presidency in 2008 in an attempt to FUCK OVER the whole country.
Why did you (as a state) elect him?
It's a serious question - did he renege on his promises or has he screwed up the implementation of what you actually wanted him to do or what?
When I was a mathematics graduate student, I too spent a LOT of time thinking about mathematics -- a lot of it was for fun. Did I spend 80 hours a week thinking about mathematics? Probably not, but likely close.
Ignoring the whole "knee deep in snow, up-hill both ways" ye olden day mentality:
I, too, remember logging something in the vicinity of 80 hours or more before a deadline. No problem. But you seem to have forgotten the part where you spend at least a couple of days or more AFTER the deadline just winding down. Hitting or exceeding 80 hours in grad school was easy enough, but no one did sustained 80 hours a week for a long period of time. Human beings do not function that way.
It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote.
Voting is a very delayed response mechanism. By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.
We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence. So that X people sign a petition/vote and then the politician gets recalled and banned from running for a year
Then those bastards would step carefully, at least on things that are universally hated.
Now Osama Bin Laden is Dead and the cold war with Russia is over, they need a new enemy. Without an enemy, people might actually look at the state of the economy, freedom and other inconvenient things.
I don't know what you mean
It's hard to even count in how many places US is waging a war now. So these are not even our enemies?
So let me get this straight...it's impossible to say with certainty who's behind the attacks...but it is possible to say with certainty who downloaded a song or movie?.
Of course it's impossible to say who's behind the attacks. Even if you could pinpoint the source with absolute certaintly, there is no way to tell that a country had sanctioned it. That's the best kind of attacks - you can blame a cyber-attack on anyone you want!
And, unlike with "weapons of mass destruction", you can't ever disprove it, no matter what you do.
No one's banning anything. The only thing being limited it the size of a single container. You can buy a hundred 16-oz containers of any sugary drink if you wanted to.
Oh, who cares about the soda?
They are setting a precedent. If they promised to stop at soda and not continue thinking up other things they can ban/restrict/control next, I would not give it a second thought.
But they will. It's just a question of what might be targeted next.
call me an old fart but i think.info proved good and goddamned well we dont need anymore TLD's.
Also, no one uses domain names as envisioned earlier. If the last website I found through [google or other search engine] had an.info domain, I didn't even notice. How much traffic do mis-typed domain owners get nowdays?
It's bookmarks or search engine to find any domain now
Romney's promised to repeal Obamacare, but I don't think he actually wants to.
Romney has an even better plan!
He promised to repeal the Health Care Act, but keep just the good parts that everyone likes (preexisting conditions/covering children/etc). Consistent with his general budget plan of cutting taxes for everyone 20%, increasing military spending and remaining revenue neutral or even positive.
a man who claimed to hate Gitmo yet leaves it open
He tried to close it, Congress wouldn't let him.
How does "moving Gitmo to US territory" count as "trying to close it"? Congress wouldn't let him relocate Gitmo to a different place. He never tried to close it.
claimed to hate war yet doubles down on drone strikes and issues a surge in Afghanistan
The Iraq war (which he opposed) is over, Afghanistan is winding down because the surge worked and we'll be out of there in two years.
I notice that you ignored the "double down on drone strikes" part. How someone who has wildly (and single-handedly) expanded an unmanned drone strike program has not been stripped of the Nobel Peace Prize, I will never know.
Two things should be pointed out: Obama voted for this bill, and all of the "nay" votes were democrats.
Thank you for the correction, I got the dates mixed up
But that makes it even worse. Voting "nay" would let Obama make a statement for free (i.e. without actually delaying or stopping the bill as veto would have). And he couldn't even be bothered to do that and PRETEND to stand by his promise.
We need more parties in the debates, the questions need to be tougher, and the debates should be on three times a week for a month so they can get into the nitty-gritty details of their policies.
Haha, have you seen Romney/Ryan interviews? They refuse to answer any specific questions because their plan is to cut taxes, increase military spending, keep all other spending (except PBS). Oh, and repeal the health care bill, keep just the popular parts (i.e. the ones that cost money), while tossing out unpopular parts.
If the opposing candidate promised justice in this case, that would be a really REALLY good sign.
How would that be a good sign?
Obama swore (pre-election) that he would veto any bill that gave retroactive immunity to telcoms. The fact that he lied was a big disappointment.
With Romney, I KNOW he won't hold to that promise even if he makes it.
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
Right. Even if someone brought it up, they don't have to wiggle out because they are both in agreement. While there are some differences (and not minor ones) between those two, the list of agreements is even longer
If we are lucky we might hear debate on the disagreements. Why debate stuff they agree on?
Without a 3rd (or a 4th) party candidate that can actually call them on that?
The article indicates that there were no trades at all, just large numbers of orders.
I misspoke. Not "orders", but "activity". Still, this activity is clearly visible and accessible to players thus potentially gaming the market.
Why would anyone on the market need to know the "activity" before it actually happens? Are those the HFT traders watching the transactions before they occur, hoping to skim some profit off the top? Could it be that a new kind of market predator had evolved and the newcomers are now trying to game the HFT traders?
Try the article. This kind of gaming the system _does_ happen all the time. It's just this event seemed particularly large.
Eh, no one reads the TFA -- I come here for the comments:)
Of all the stock market defenders hyping the vital need for liquidity in the market, not one had ever mentioned that a significant fraction of that liquidity could be phantom trades.
Does the article mention why the "fake" traders aren't fined and permanently banned from stock market? Stock market is not an anonymous place.
The game was interrupted when the boss arrived (what he called "first thing in the morning").
So it is possible to create a large volume of "trades" without actually ever buying or selling anything? I am surprised that isn't gamed on regular basis - shaking up the stock market with minimal investment
Something similar to penny stock spiking by spam...
Perhaps somebody was running some unit test on production here?
Or Skynet is gradually acquiring conscience
It could probably do the most damage and take us to the post-apocalyptic future by totally crashing the stock market.
I had a friend who could routinely make $100 an hour playing on the street. Not massive cash, but for a kid of 18, better than flipping burgers.
You are seriously uninformed about the going salaries for flipping burgers. I believe $100 an hour is a rough equivalent of $200,000 a year salary
What strata of society do you live in, where such money is not massive cash? Even if you meant "a day", that's still much more than you could ever make flipping burgers ($12.50/hour after taxes).
The main thing we do is stick to DVDs rather than live TV to limit exposure to all those adverts.
And how is that working out for you? Between the "Don't steal that DVD" and about 10-20 minutes of un-skippable previews and sometimes even commercials, I feel that I get at least a decent dose of ads from most DVDs.
And don't get me started on the increasingly common ads (not previews - ads!) in movie theaters.
I don't know where I can get commercial-free (and legal) content nowdays (netflix?).
Yeah, there is a big, intelligently-designed random number generator
Actually even if he isn't elected, it is quite likely he is accurately representing the majority of the voters from his area/district.
Everyone in Congress is elected (and by a large number of people at that), and they still say a lot of unbelievable things (e.g., the whole "legitimate rape" thing, etc.).
There were plans that were misleadingly labelled as "unlimited", but what they really were, was plans where the ISP simply let people use up bandwidth in a first-come-first-served fashion. Whenever the demand reached or surpassed the infrastructures capacity, the de-facto limits of the hardware kicked in, regardless of what the sales droids had promised in the brochure.
We are not talking about BANDWIDTH. We are actually talking about THROUGHPUT (monthly data cap)
The throughput was, in fact, unlimited. If you left your connection on 24-7, you could download quite a bit per month (subject to available speed). They want to get rid of the unlimited throughput now.
The only good news is that now they wont have any reason to advertise their service as unlimited! It was deceptive before, it will be outright false now.
Or at least decoupled from the monopolized infrastructure so that other providers (that do not own an exclusive and non-negotiable cable hookup to your house) can compete.
Slashdot Mirror
with Romney...I think his fiscal ideas might help, or at least won't be as hurtful as O's....
If I may ask you -- what fiscal ideas would those be? I think even a Romney's supporter would have to admit that he hasn't actually given many details about his fiscal plan
So far what we have is
1. Reduce taxes by 20%
2. Increase military spending (beyond what they are asking, apparently)
3. Cut some exemptions/loopholes to compensate the lost benefits, but he hasn't named any
3.a. He doesn't want to raise capital gains tax (as it is fair)
3.b. I believe he wants to repeal estate tax
3.c. He wants to repeal Health Care Act, but keep the things that everyone likes (pre-existing conditions, children covered, etc) -- i.e. basically keep things that cost money, but repeal things that are supposed to balance it off.
3.d. He currently says that he is not going to make any fundamental changes to Social Security (Medicare too, I think, at least for people 55+ so any changes would take longer than decade)
And if someone promises to reduce taxes, keep or increase spending AND balance the budget (at least eventually) do you see the algebraic problem here?
We can debate who's plan is better, I am not taking a stance on that necessarily, but without further details we are comparing Obama's plans to what looks like a fairy tale plan.
Mitt Romney was the governor of my state. He fucked us over and then quit to run for the presidency in 2008 in an attempt to FUCK OVER the whole country.
Why did you (as a state) elect him?
It's a serious question - did he renege on his promises or has he screwed up the implementation of what you actually wanted him to do or what?
When I was a mathematics graduate student, I too spent a LOT of time thinking about mathematics -- a lot of it was for fun. Did I spend 80 hours a week thinking about mathematics? Probably not, but likely close.
Ignoring the whole "knee deep in snow, up-hill both ways" ye olden day mentality:
I, too, remember logging something in the vicinity of 80 hours or more before a deadline. No problem. But you seem to have forgotten the part where you spend at least a couple of days or more AFTER the deadline just winding down. Hitting or exceeding 80 hours in grad school was easy enough, but no one did sustained 80 hours a week for a long period of time. Human beings do not function that way.
It is called "voting," at least for those of us who can vote.
Voting is a very delayed response mechanism. By the time election round comes -- a) you forgot about the issues, b) the official got a cushy new job and will leave anyway and c) the competitor is even worse.
We desperately need an easy-to-initiate vote of no confidence. So that X people sign a petition/vote and then the politician gets recalled and banned from running for a year
Then those bastards would step carefully, at least on things that are universally hated.
no other government or authority has made a similar claim for such a record
Other governments, that may be sued for doing this, are just not advertising their databases.
Now Osama Bin Laden is Dead and the cold war with Russia is over, they need a new enemy. Without an enemy, people might actually look at the state of the economy, freedom and other inconvenient things.
I don't know what you mean
It's hard to even count in how many places US is waging a war now. So these are not even our enemies?
Afganistan, Pakisant, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, ...
So let me get this straight...it's impossible to say with certainty who's behind the attacks...but it is possible to say with certainty who downloaded a song or movie?.
Of course it's impossible to say who's behind the attacks. Even if you could pinpoint the source with absolute certaintly, there is no way to tell that a country had sanctioned it. That's the best kind of attacks - you can blame a cyber-attack on anyone you want!
And, unlike with "weapons of mass destruction", you can't ever disprove it, no matter what you do.
No one's banning anything. The only thing being limited it the size of a single container. You can buy a hundred 16-oz containers of any sugary drink if you wanted to.
Oh, who cares about the soda?
They are setting a precedent. If they promised to stop at soda and not continue thinking up other things they can ban/restrict/control next, I would not give it a second thought.
But they will. It's just a question of what might be targeted next.
call me an old fart but i think .info proved good and goddamned well we dont need anymore TLD's.
Also, no one uses domain names as envisioned earlier. If the last website I found through [google or other search engine] had an .info domain, I didn't even notice. How much traffic do mis-typed domain owners get nowdays?
It's bookmarks or search engine to find any domain now
Romney's promised to repeal Obamacare, but I don't think he actually wants to.
Romney has an even better plan!
He promised to repeal the Health Care Act, but keep just the good parts that everyone likes (preexisting conditions/covering children/etc).
Consistent with his general budget plan of cutting taxes for everyone 20%, increasing military spending and remaining revenue neutral or even positive.
Magic.
a man who claimed to hate Gitmo yet leaves it open
He tried to close it, Congress wouldn't let him.
How does "moving Gitmo to US territory" count as "trying to close it"? Congress wouldn't let him relocate Gitmo to a different place. He never tried to close it.
claimed to hate war yet doubles down on drone strikes and issues a surge in Afghanistan
The Iraq war (which he opposed) is over, Afghanistan is winding down because the surge worked and we'll be out of there in two years.
I notice that you ignored the "double down on drone strikes" part. How someone who has wildly (and single-handedly) expanded an unmanned drone strike program has not been stripped of the Nobel Peace Prize, I will never know.
You have a point in your other responses.
Two things should be pointed out: Obama voted for this bill, and all of the "nay" votes were democrats.
Thank you for the correction, I got the dates mixed up
But that makes it even worse. Voting "nay" would let Obama make a statement for free (i.e. without actually delaying or stopping the bill as veto would have). And he couldn't even be bothered to do that and PRETEND to stand by his promise.
We need more parties in the debates, the questions need to be tougher, and the debates should be on three times a week for a month so they can get into the nitty-gritty details of their policies.
Haha, have you seen Romney/Ryan interviews? They refuse to answer any specific questions because their plan is to cut taxes, increase military spending, keep all other spending (except PBS). Oh, and repeal the health care bill, keep just the popular parts (i.e. the ones that cost money), while tossing out unpopular parts.
If the opposing candidate promised justice in this case, that would be a really REALLY good sign.
How would that be a good sign?
Obama swore (pre-election) that he would veto any bill that gave retroactive immunity to telcoms. The fact that he lied was a big disappointment.
With Romney, I KNOW he won't hold to that promise even if he makes it.
Seriously - I'd love to see both candidates try and wriggle out of owning that one in the upcoming debates, since both are (by now) equally culpable.
Right. Even if someone brought it up, they don't have to wiggle out because they are both in agreement. While there are some differences (and not minor ones) between those two, the list of agreements is even longer
If we are lucky we might hear debate on the disagreements. Why debate stuff they agree on? Without a 3rd (or a 4th) party candidate that can actually call them on that?
The article indicates that there were no trades at all, just large numbers of orders.
I misspoke. Not "orders", but "activity". Still, this activity is clearly visible and accessible to players thus potentially gaming the market.
Why would anyone on the market need to know the "activity" before it actually happens? Are those the HFT traders watching the transactions before they occur, hoping to skim some profit off the top? Could it be that a new kind of market predator had evolved and the newcomers are now trying to game the HFT traders?
Try the article. This kind of gaming the system _does_ happen all the time. It's just this event seemed particularly large.
Eh, no one reads the TFA -- I come here for the comments :)
Of all the stock market defenders hyping the vital need for liquidity in the market, not one had ever mentioned that a significant fraction of that liquidity could be phantom trades.
Does the article mention why the "fake" traders aren't fined and permanently banned from stock market? Stock market is not an anonymous place.
The game was interrupted when the boss arrived (what he called "first thing in the morning").
So it is possible to create a large volume of "trades" without actually ever buying or selling anything? I am surprised that isn't gamed on regular basis - shaking up the stock market with minimal investment
Something similar to penny stock spiking by spam...
Perhaps somebody was running some unit test on production here?
Or Skynet is gradually acquiring conscience
It could probably do the most damage and take us to the post-apocalyptic future by totally crashing the stock market.
I had a friend who could routinely make $100 an hour playing on the street. Not massive cash, but for a kid of 18, better than flipping burgers.
You are seriously uninformed about the going salaries for flipping burgers. I believe $100 an hour is a rough equivalent of $200,000 a year salary
What strata of society do you live in, where such money is not massive cash?
Even if you meant "a day", that's still much more than you could ever make flipping burgers ($12.50/hour after taxes).
The main thing we do is stick to DVDs rather than live TV to limit exposure to all those adverts.
And how is that working out for you? Between the "Don't steal that DVD" and about 10-20 minutes of un-skippable previews and sometimes even commercials, I feel that I get at least a decent dose of ads from most DVDs.
And don't get me started on the increasingly common ads (not previews - ads!) in movie theaters.
I don't know where I can get commercial-free (and legal) content nowdays (netflix?).
Why are people like him and Akin get on these committees?
Because the majority of the local constituents (probably) agree with him.
Next question?
Are they elected? Or just randomly assigned?
Yeah, there is a big, intelligently-designed random number generator
Actually even if he isn't elected, it is quite likely he is accurately representing the majority of the voters from his area/district.
Everyone in Congress is elected (and by a large number of people at that), and they still say a lot of unbelievable things (e.g., the whole "legitimate rape" thing, etc.).
There were plans that were misleadingly labelled as "unlimited", but what they really were, was plans where the ISP simply let people use up bandwidth in a first-come-first-served fashion. Whenever the demand reached or surpassed the infrastructures capacity, the de-facto limits of the hardware kicked in, regardless of what the sales droids had promised in the brochure.
We are not talking about BANDWIDTH. We are actually talking about THROUGHPUT (monthly data cap)
The throughput was, in fact, unlimited. If you left your connection on 24-7, you could download quite a bit per month (subject to available speed). They want to get rid of the unlimited throughput now.
The only good news is that now they wont have any reason to advertise their service as unlimited! It was deceptive before, it will be outright false now.
It needs to be regulated like a public utility.
Or at least decoupled from the monopolized infrastructure so that other providers (that do not own an exclusive and non-negotiable cable hookup to your house) can compete.