Here's a comparison. If you look at the calories per serving line, you'll see why I skip Wine and Beer and go right to hard liquor (preferably straight up or on the rocks.
Please take a closer look at the link to the Education Budget I provided. I believe your statements are incorrect.
It doesn't include the direct aid to states
According to that link, the President is proposing at least $14 Billion in state education grants through the Deparment of Education. If you know of another state grant program that would be funded in another department, please feel free to provide a link.
nor (I Think) include the cost of student loans
According to that link, the President is proposing at least $4 billion in funding for the student loan program through the DOE budget.
It also doesn't include the 'cost' of tax deduction related to edu spending by private citizens
The AC never mentioned anything about the cost of tax deductions. They only referred to federal government spending. I was only replying to the comments that they made.
The feds shouldn't necessarily be spending anything on education
Note that I was not making any comment on whether or not this was a correct spending policies by the government. I was simply responding to a comment that an AC posted.
I could also start a flame war, asking how our distinguished President reconciles his talk about increasing federal spending on education through the No Child Left Behind Act with his belief in maintaining state and local control of education (talk about a flip/flop), but, I don't want to start a flame war.
Technically, The tax break you get on taxes paid to your local governments in support of education, is a case of federal money going to education (without going through the federal government).
Technically, yes. But the AC never mentioned that. They compared federal government spending on Educaction and Defense. I was just responding to their comment the way they worded it.
Note that the Anonymous Coward that I was replying to was referring to the Federal Government's spending on Education. They didn't mention anything about state or local government. So your discussion about state and local spending is irrelevant to the point the AC was trying to make.
Also note that I NEVER said anything about the US being a war-hungry country. In fact, I carefully stated that I was NOT making a comment about whether or not this policy was correct. Please do not put words in my mouth.
You do realise that since about 1970 or so the amount of money the federal government puts into education exceeds the amount of money put in to national defense? Can someone back me up with a link?
Well, this isn't a back up link. It does, however, contradict you (which is so much more fun for me). The feds spend vastly more maounts on defense than they do on education.
According to the President's Office of Management and Budget , the President of the United States has requested approximately $57 Billion for the Deparment of Education. He has also requested approximately $401 Billion for the Department of Defense. That does not include any money that has been appropriated for the War in Iraq. That appropriation is considered "off budget" and is not part of the main budget request.
A few notes: a) This is not what Congress has appropriated for the past 30 years, this is just what the President has requested for 2005. b) I am not making any political statement on whether or not this is a correct policy. I'm just wondering if the AC above has ever actually looked at the federal budget? Or, does he define Education and Defense differently than the rest of us?
You're suggesting that we should take caution before using wind power because it can change the local climate as opposed to fossil fuels?
It makes sense, if we burn coal, the acid rain tends to fall downwind. If we put in a wind farm down the road, we hurt ourselves, since our local climate dries up (and we all have to spend more money on skin moisturizer). Why should we put up windfarms that hurt ourselves when we could be using coal and causing problems to those folks 200 miles downwind?
Just goes to show that this thing was better built than a lot of stuff we use
Well, the body of Genesis appears to be rather soundly built. Of course, the parachute that was designed to slow it down was not soundly built. When you think of it that way, your statement can be interpreted this way:
"Hey, that's a well-built car! Except for the friggin' brakes!"
CNBC employees responsible for content are not allowed to own any stock
Clarification: I am not referring to CNBC employees. I am referring to how the stock analysts used to act back in the internet boom days:
CNBC would talk about an IPO and invite an analyst onto the TV to review the company that was "going public".
That analyst's firm would have a very close relationship with the company they were analyzing. With the close relationship, I mean the analyst and/or the firm would obtain shares of that company's stock to trade before the first day of trading.
The analyst would hype the IPO on CNBC.
The day of the IPO, the stock price would take off, thanks in no small part to the analyst hyping the IPO on CNBC.
The firm and the analyst would sell their stock, usually before the end of the first day of public trading.
???
Profit!
To CNBC's credit, at least today, they make the analysts publicly state if they have any financial relationship with the firm they are analyzing on the air.
I'm not sure about entitlement, but as for Pork-barrel spending and district vote-buying, they've pretty much been around since the day after the original Constitution was approved by all of the Colonies.
Interesting Idea, but I'm not sure it would work. Could a company truly make enough money and still provide the kind of service that the SEC provides? Those private SEC's would have to invest millions of dollars in the persons and systems necessary to regulate and audit the markets. And, what makes you think that there wouldn't be "sham" private SEC's that were just set up to hide future Enron's. Probably unlikely, but possible.
Honestly, it's not a good idea to have a multi-party system.
I think the US is the only democracy in the world that does not ahve a multi-party system. In most other democracies, if the winning party has less than a majority of the vote, they have to form a governing coalition in their Parliament.
I am not advocating the idea of switching the US to a parliamentary democracy, I'm just saying that most democracies appear to do well under a multi-party system.
I think the original poster was thinking more along these lines: Fraud may still be illegal, but under a "perfect" libertarian government, would an entity like the SEC even exist? After all, it is the job of the SEC to regulate the markets. Doesn't that very job contradict the libertarian ideals? If the there isn't an entity regulating the markets, how do you catch the Enron's, the WorldCom's, the CNBC talking heads that are hyping a company that they have money invested in, etc?
The judge isn't saying that. The Department of Justice filed an anti-trust case in court, saying that a combination of Oracle and PeopleSoft would be anti-competitive. In the opinion of the DOJ, such a combination would turn what is a three-company ERP software market (SAP, Oracle and PSoft) into a two-company market.
Oracle argued that there are other competitors that do get into the market occasionally. Lawson is one and MS is another.
The judge is saying that the DOJ is wrong and that Oracle is permitted to pursue the PeopleSoft takeover since there are other competitors beyond SAP.
Trust me, the rumors I hear regarind Oracle applications say that their apps all that much better than PeopleSoft. In fact, some people think they are worse. If these rumors are true, then this potential takeover would result in one poorly made software system replacing another poorly made software system.
there is plenty of competition around in the database market
This case not related to the database market. Oracle is trying to acquire PeopleSoft in order to improve their position in the applications market. This includes things like HR, Payroll, Accounting and Purchasing systems.
Actually, no. The main point of the article was that Tivo and Netflix isn't as great a combination as was originally thought. I just added Mr. Greenberg's comments as a side note on his opinion on Netflix in general. It is all of/. that focused on the phone call issue, when they ignored the main point of the article.
I apologize for actually summarizing the article for the people that chose not to read it.
As the person that submitted the article, note that it is Hank Greenberg from CBS Marketwatch that made the claim. I was just reiterating something that Mr. Greenberg claimed. I haven't subscribed to Netflix in over a year.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a comparison. If you look at the calories per serving line, you'll see why I skip Wine and Beer and go right to hard liquor (preferably straight up or on the rocks.
Well, the nazi base is just a few miles west of Kurt Russell's base. So, they can't be too far apart.
I apologize in advance for recycling an old joke, but here are some ideas for 'cooler words' (and phrases):
Untwinkly.
Non-Twinklifying.
Steady-State Stars.
De Tinky Winkied Star.
Sluggish Stars (antonym of 'vigorous').
Lethargtic star viewing.
Please see this comment and my response to said comment.
Please take a closer look at the link to the Education Budget I provided. I believe your statements are incorrect.
It doesn't include the direct aid to statesAccording to that link, the President is proposing at least $14 Billion in state education grants through the Deparment of Education. If you know of another state grant program that would be funded in another department, please feel free to provide a link.
nor (I Think) include the cost of student loansAccording to that link, the President is proposing at least $4 billion in funding for the student loan program through the DOE budget.
It also doesn't include the 'cost' of tax deduction related to edu spending by private citizensThe AC never mentioned anything about the cost of tax deductions. They only referred to federal government spending. I was only replying to the comments that they made.
Note that I was not making any comment on whether or not this was a correct spending policies by the government. I was simply responding to a comment that an AC posted.
I could also start a flame war, asking how our distinguished President reconciles his talk about increasing federal spending on education through the No Child Left Behind Act with his belief in maintaining state and local control of education (talk about a flip/flop), but, I don't want to start a flame war.
Technically, yes. But the AC never mentioned that. They compared federal government spending on Educaction and Defense. I was just responding to their comment the way they worded it.
Note that the Anonymous Coward that I was replying to was referring to the Federal Government's spending on Education. They didn't mention anything about state or local government. So your discussion about state and local spending is irrelevant to the point the AC was trying to make.
Also note that I NEVER said anything about the US being a war-hungry country. In fact, I carefully stated that I was NOT making a comment about whether or not this policy was correct. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Well, this isn't a back up link. It does, however, contradict you (which is so much more fun for me). The feds spend vastly more maounts on defense than they do on education.
According to the President's Office of Management and Budget , the President of the United States has requested approximately $57 Billion for the Deparment of Education. He has also requested approximately $401 Billion for the Department of Defense. That does not include any money that has been appropriated for the War in Iraq. That appropriation is considered "off budget" and is not part of the main budget request.
A few notes: a) This is not what Congress has appropriated for the past 30 years, this is just what the President has requested for 2005. b) I am not making any political statement on whether or not this is a correct policy. I'm just wondering if the AC above has ever actually looked at the federal budget? Or, does he define Education and Defense differently than the rest of us?
It makes sense, if we burn coal, the acid rain tends to fall downwind. If we put in a wind farm down the road, we hurt ourselves, since our local climate dries up (and we all have to spend more money on skin moisturizer). Why should we put up windfarms that hurt ourselves when we could be using coal and causing problems to those folks 200 miles downwind?
Well, the body of Genesis appears to be rather soundly built. Of course, the parachute that was designed to slow it down was not soundly built. When you think of it that way, your statement can be interpreted this way:
"Hey, that's a well-built car! Except for the friggin' brakes!"
Clarification: I am not referring to CNBC employees. I am referring to how the stock analysts used to act back in the internet boom days:
CNBC would talk about an IPO and invite an analyst onto the TV to review the company that was "going public".
That analyst's firm would have a very close relationship with the company they were analyzing. With the close relationship, I mean the analyst and/or the firm would obtain shares of that company's stock to trade before the first day of trading.
The analyst would hype the IPO on CNBC.
The day of the IPO, the stock price would take off, thanks in no small part to the analyst hyping the IPO on CNBC.
The firm and the analyst would sell their stock, usually before the end of the first day of public trading.
???
Profit!
To CNBC's credit, at least today, they make the analysts publicly state if they have any financial relationship with the firm they are analyzing on the air.
You are calling that post a Troll? Come on Moderators! Stop being silly.
I'm not sure about entitlement, but as for Pork-barrel spending and district vote-buying, they've pretty much been around since the day after the original Constitution was approved by all of the Colonies.
Interesting Idea, but I'm not sure it would work. Could a company truly make enough money and still provide the kind of service that the SEC provides? Those private SEC's would have to invest millions of dollars in the persons and systems necessary to regulate and audit the markets. And, what makes you think that there wouldn't be "sham" private SEC's that were just set up to hide future Enron's. Probably unlikely, but possible.
I think the US is the only democracy in the world that does not ahve a multi-party system. In most other democracies, if the winning party has less than a majority of the vote, they have to form a governing coalition in their Parliament.
I am not advocating the idea of switching the US to a parliamentary democracy, I'm just saying that most democracies appear to do well under a multi-party system.
I think the original poster was thinking more along these lines: Fraud may still be illegal, but under a "perfect" libertarian government, would an entity like the SEC even exist? After all, it is the job of the SEC to regulate the markets. Doesn't that very job contradict the libertarian ideals? If the there isn't an entity regulating the markets, how do you catch the Enron's, the WorldCom's, the CNBC talking heads that are hyping a company that they have money invested in, etc?
The judge isn't saying that. The Department of Justice filed an anti-trust case in court, saying that a combination of Oracle and PeopleSoft would be anti-competitive. In the opinion of the DOJ, such a combination would turn what is a three-company ERP software market (SAP, Oracle and PSoft) into a two-company market.
Oracle argued that there are other competitors that do get into the market occasionally. Lawson is one and MS is another.
The judge is saying that the DOJ is wrong and that Oracle is permitted to pursue the PeopleSoft takeover since there are other competitors beyond SAP.
BPCS still exists? Wow. You learn something new every day.
I don't think Baan exists anymore.
Ugh. And I did preview that before I submitted it. What I meant to say was:
Trust me, the rumors I hear regardinG Oracle applications say that their apps AREN'T all that much better than PeopleSoft'S.
Maybe I should go get another cup of coffee. It is obvious that I am not able to either type or proofread properly.
Trust me, the rumors I hear regarind Oracle applications say that their apps all that much better than PeopleSoft. In fact, some people think they are worse. If these rumors are true, then this potential takeover would result in one poorly made software system replacing another poorly made software system.
This case not related to the database market. Oracle is trying to acquire PeopleSoft in order to improve their position in the applications market. This includes things like HR, Payroll, Accounting and Purchasing systems.
Actually, no. The main point of the article was that Tivo and Netflix isn't as great a combination as was originally thought. I just added Mr. Greenberg's comments as a side note on his opinion on Netflix in general. It is all of /. that focused on the phone call issue, when they ignored the main point of the article.
I apologize for actually summarizing the article for the people that chose not to read it.
As the person that submitted the article, note that it is Hank Greenberg from CBS Marketwatch that made the claim. I was just reiterating something that Mr. Greenberg claimed. I haven't subscribed to Netflix in over a year.