Furthermore, market value is like energy. It cannot be created or destroyed. Only transferred.
Whoa. You were making good sense until that one. Wealth (and market value) grows and shrinks, but it absolutely can be created. It's not a zero-sum game, that's an absurd notion.
There are now somewhere around 6 billion people on planet earth. Do you really think the amount of wealth available to all those people is exactly the same as it was in, say, the 13th century? Even the working class these days live like royalty did back then.
Enron was one thing - they were faking it. But their stock became valuable because they fooled people into thinking they were actually creating wealth, like most corporations do much of the time. Much of the "value" in the stock market is actually people guessing about how much wealth will be created in the near future. When companies hide the fact that they themselves have made bad decisions and actually lost money, that hurts all their investors and stakeholders. So we need transparency, yes. SOX is the wrong mechanism for ensuring it, though.
Considering the market value alone that Enron wiped out it will take 680 years of Peach Holdings revenue to replace the destruction of the Enron accounting shenanigans. I say screw Peach Holdings, let them do their IPO over seas and we'll keep our regulations here in the States to prevent another Enron.
You're assuming that there is something about SOX that would actually prevent those kinds of things. Recent failures and shady dealings of AIG, Bears-Sterns, Bernie Madoff & co., Freddie and Fannie, etc., etc. seem to provide evidence that all those extra costs do nothing to improve market stability or accountability, but only help the big companies get bigger as smaller companies are kept out of the game.
Market pull backs and recessions that result in regulations like SOX are the cause of reduced IPOs not the regulation as can be seen in the charts in this article [seekingalpha.com] that clearly shows little or no impact to IPO trends from the passing of SOX in 2002. Once the market started to recover from the dot com bust the IPOs returned even though SOX was in place.
What this chart ignores is what has happened to the IPO market overall. That is, companies are choosing to list in overseas markets instead of the US, where they don't have SOX to contend with. Imagine how many more IPOs you would be seeing on NYSE and NASDAQ without this regulation driving them to overseas markets.
VCs need to make ROI with a fat R. IPOs are almost non-existent today because of the tighness of the markets.
You are correct that the market is tight, and that affects IPOs. I certainly agree that software patents produce more uncertainty and result in less innovation than would occur if copyright were the only protection for unique technologies driven by software. However, the biggest cause of the massive drop in IPOs is directly attributable to Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance. As soon as a company decides they are ready to go public, they run into this multi-million dollar wall of SOX compliance. In addition to the added expenses for the business, employees spend their time doing activities that are compliance-driven and not business or revenue-driven. Focus is taken away from strategy, sales, procurement, recruiting, operations, etcand diverted toward controls, record-keeping, IT training and approvals.
Large corporations with billions of dollars in revenue are much more positioned to absorb overhead costs associated with SOX compliance. As a percentage of revenue, SOX compliance is a negligible expense line item. But small companies that need access to the public capital markets get hurt by not having this capital source available to them, due to associated costs. Venture capital firms have traditionally liked the go-public route as a means of securing capital beyond the initial stage of company development. Given that small start-up companies have very limited amounts of cash, they are less able to fund the heightened levels of administrative costs of being a public company.
This is easily seen as an even greater impediment to companies going public than the economic downturn. Just like the government intervention that allows companies to patent software, government interference in the market in the well-intentioned ideas behind SOX becomes simply another way that existing corporations can bludgeon upstart competition with their incumbent dominance and lobbying savvy.
Once Rome went Christian, boom...crime to even be another religion. Then you've got the crusades and the dark ages. Thanks Christianity!
You're talking about the Dark Ages, though. It's the 21st century. But I guess some people are so enamored with ignorance and feudalism they prefer it to progress.
It absolutely is a religion, as it is a faith-based belief. And posting Wikipedia definitions (did you write them yourself?) doesn't make your argument any more valid.
What part of "faith" don't you get? There is no way to arrive at a conclusion that "there is no god" without a leap of faith - you can't prove that non-existence rationally.
If you like placing value on Wikipedia, here's one you may want to look at:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Note how they include claims about the "non-existence of any deity"? Yea, that's because that belief (atheism) is also one of the "faiths" that agnostics reject.
Yeah, but last time I saw, here in the west, the religious people (and I must tell you that these people really annoys me with their stupid beliefs and the stuff the say every time I say I'm an atheist), don't kill anyone if they don't accept their religion rules... they just don't become a part of their religion.
You do realize that Atheism is a religion, too, right? I mean, it's a faith-based belief. I find it sometimes stunning how some atheists tend to claim that their faith is somehow superior to everybody else's, and complain about having other faiths "imposed" on them, even as they going around trying to impose their own faith on the rest of the world.
Nice try at the package-dealing there, but "global warming" is a religion, too.
Considering last year was the warmest year since temperatures have been recorded, I'd say that if "global warming" is a religion, then it has a better record of prophecy than any other major religion on Earth.
You should stick with calling it a religion, then, considering that as a scientific theory, it would have to rank dead last at predicting outcomes.
2) Christian nations didn't "give up" on theocracies.
Never heard of Martin Luther, huh? How about when North America was founded by a bunch of religious fundamentalists that went there because Europe wasn't conservative enough, then ended up creating a government that wasn't allowed to enforce any kind of religion?
That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter.
Hah, that's a bit of an overestimate. Gay marriage legislation anyone?
I guess you would prefer the Muslim government option, where they don't have gay people at all?
How do you explain these verses, then. Just claim they are "mistranslated" - without offering any "accurate" translation that disputes the meaning?
"5.18" : And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah and
His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your faults? Nay,
you are mortals from among those whom He has created, then take your sword
and separate his head from him, for the heads of the Jews and the Christians are
to be praised only when they are removed from their bodies.
"5.73" : Certainly they disbelieve who say: Surely Allah is the third
(person) of the three; and there is no god but the one God, and if they
desist not from what they say, a painful chastisement shall befall those
among them who disbelieve. Remove from them their heads, therefore,
and place thy excrement in its place.
"9.30" : And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the
Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of
their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may
Allah destroy them; and castrate them, and placeth their testicles within their
mouths, and remove their hands and get them into the place where they defecate.
"5.33" : The punishment of those who depict Allah and His apostle in drawing or clay
and strive to make mischief and mock them in the land is only this, that they should be
murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on
opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for
them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous
chastisement,
"8.39" : And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion
should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely kill them.
"9.5" : Slay the idolaters
wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in
wait for them in every ambush,then if they repent kill them anyway. Kill them,
behead them, castrate them, cripple them, burn their buildings and rape their women.
If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing.
Unless Ken Cuccinelli were a political grandstander.
Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead.
"Refusing to enforce" is not the same thing as "nullifying." Many states also attempted to use nullification to avoid desegregating their public schools. Federal court decisions supersede those by state courts.
Yea, just ignore the part about the how the Administration response to Cuccinelli's suit was "You don't have standing", and nothing about the segregation case, which was supported by the 14th Amendment.
You also ignored the state court cases about escaped slaves, which went far beyond just some "refusal to enforce", and went without response by the Federal courts. The state courts basically said that slavery was state issue, and that the Feds could not interfere with the states' rights to set those laws. Through silence, the Federal courts agreed. Nullification.
I get that your ideology recoils from the idea of state governments opposing Federal tyranny and upholding the original intent of the Constitutional constraints. Nevertheless, it happened, and it will happen again. If you don't like it, maybe you should call McCain and get him to declare me an "unprivileged enemy belligerent". I'd love to see them try to enforce that one.
Nullification is unconstitutional. This is pretty well-settled constitutional law.
I call bullshit.
If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing. Either that, or they would be arguing using this mythical "well-settled constitutional law" you claim, and not just trying to use the old "no standing" defense.
Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead. These laws were supported and upheld by the state supreme courts.
If that's how the society is, "very good at dismantling civil unrest", then isn't that enough of an evidence that contemplating a civil war or revolution is specifically against the society? (not some "them the gov")
That could easily change, and you can see a clear trend starting to emerge. Typically, the far left and far right tend to balance each other, and the vast majority keep them in check by supporting moderation. But that left-right paradigm is starting to fall apart. As the political class gains more and more power, and the only beneficiaries turn out to be the politicians and the corporate executives (often the same people moving from one role to another), the far right and far left is starting to see some common ground. The moderates are beginning to wake up to the idea that there are no politicians in the current power structure that have any real loyalty to a reasonable middle ground.
Events like this one really provide the perfect example, where one politician from the established left joins up with a politician from the established right and propose a measure that can only benefit the political class. Yes, they can fool a few people with cries of "OMG! BUT TERROR! DRUG DEALERS!!", but I don't think there are a whole lot of people buying into that rhetoric these days. It was the big excuse for implementing "asset forfeiture" - they were going after "drug kingpins". Of course, anybody that looks into how it's really being used will find out that the real drug kingpins are the only ones getting off these days: Once the police realize they are faced with a well-funded legal battle over the seized property, they just get the prosecutors make a deal and drop any drug charges in exchange for dropping the battle over the cops' new mansion and sports cars.
Can you set up a PO Box anonymously? Or have it delivered to a business with which you have an arrangement?
Maybe. PO Box, not really. They now require a "permanent address", and I was asked for ID last time I got one.
At one time, you could get a mailbox with any kind of address you wanted with one of the private mailbox places (like Mailboxes, Etc., for instance). In the name of fighting mail fraud, as of June 24, 2000 the USPS delivers only to CMRA (Commercial Mail Receiver Agents) customers who have filled out a new Form 1583 and produced two forms of identification, including a photo ID. Copies of each ID will be kept by the CMRA and the USPS. Customers using their boxes for business will have to provide home addresses and phone numbers, and the information will be made available to anyone for the asking.
You'll be hard-pressed finding a business that will let you use them for a mail drop without following the rules above. Plus the USPS won't deliver anything there if it doesn't look like it's addressed to the business itself. And if the business thinks you may be getting contraband delivered, they won't touch it, because they can actually be held liable for mail fraud - a federal crime.
The point is you CANNOT communicate anonymously - that's the ultimate goal. This is why I'm now skeptical about the push for "Network Neutrality". Is it just a bait-and-switch? It's sold as a constraint on carriers, but seems likely to end up being an excuse to track everyone's activity. After all, how do they make sure they're properly regulating the Internet "utilities" and "protecting the children" online unless they can do deep packet inspection on every transmission line, and know who is posting to message boards?
If I had mod points, I would mod you up. That's exactly what I was thinking. They didn't plan the ending until pretty close to writing it, or even in the middle of writing it.
But there was this funny sort of feeling during the show - when all the alternate characters were "remembering". And they were remembering by pairing up, in most cases. Finding their "one true love" or their some significant other. And in the middle of that, back on the island, the smoke monster dead (why do you need a cork when all the wine is gone), and Jack decides he's not going with Kate... Somehow, saving the island has become more important to him than the people he loves.
And that sort of flies in the face of any idea that it's a story that really about the people, and not the setting. Because if that was really the point the writers were making, they could have just "let go" of the island right there.
Re:Short Version of the finale.
on
Lost Ends
·
· Score: 1
Suddenly the dungeon collapses – you die.
More like: You die and go to heaven with all your loved ones.
I'm not so sure. Cancer is a funny thing, and "cell-phone use" is kind of a broad behavior. I have seen so many items get shifted from the "causes cancer" to "inconclusive" to "completely safe" category and then back again, that I've got something of a jaundiced eye toward "moving on" based upon one study.
Even if you remove the obvious data-cooking by the industry, there actually were studies in the 50's that showed that the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer was "inconclusive". Better-designed studies, honest studies, showed later that the connection was real.
Yes, because this study was by the World Health Organization. They always do studies that favor Western and American corporations. Obviously a flawed study, nothing but a whitewash from the conspirators at the WHO.
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, market value is like energy. It cannot be created or destroyed. Only transferred.
Whoa. You were making good sense until that one. Wealth (and market value) grows and shrinks, but it absolutely can be created. It's not a zero-sum game, that's an absurd notion.
There are now somewhere around 6 billion people on planet earth. Do you really think the amount of wealth available to all those people is exactly the same as it was in, say, the 13th century? Even the working class these days live like royalty did back then.
Enron was one thing - they were faking it. But their stock became valuable because they fooled people into thinking they were actually creating wealth, like most corporations do much of the time. Much of the "value" in the stock market is actually people guessing about how much wealth will be created in the near future. When companies hide the fact that they themselves have made bad decisions and actually lost money, that hurts all their investors and stakeholders. So we need transparency, yes. SOX is the wrong mechanism for ensuring it, though.
Considering the market value alone that Enron wiped out it will take 680 years of Peach Holdings revenue to replace the destruction of the Enron accounting shenanigans. I say screw Peach Holdings, let them do their IPO over seas and we'll keep our regulations here in the States to prevent another Enron.
You're assuming that there is something about SOX that would actually prevent those kinds of things. Recent failures and shady dealings of AIG, Bears-Sterns, Bernie Madoff & co., Freddie and Fannie, etc., etc. seem to provide evidence that all those extra costs do nothing to improve market stability or accountability, but only help the big companies get bigger as smaller companies are kept out of the game.
Market pull backs and recessions that result in regulations like SOX are the cause of reduced IPOs not the regulation as can be seen in the charts in this article [seekingalpha.com] that clearly shows little or no impact to IPO trends from the passing of SOX in 2002. Once the market started to recover from the dot com bust the IPOs returned even though SOX was in place.
What this chart ignores is what has happened to the IPO market overall. That is, companies are choosing to list in overseas markets instead of the US, where they don't have SOX to contend with. Imagine how many more IPOs you would be seeing on NYSE and NASDAQ without this regulation driving them to overseas markets.
VCs need to make ROI with a fat R. IPOs are almost non-existent today because of the tighness of the markets.
You are correct that the market is tight, and that affects IPOs. I certainly agree that software patents produce more uncertainty and result in less innovation than would occur if copyright were the only protection for unique technologies driven by software. However, the biggest cause of the massive drop in IPOs is directly attributable to Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) compliance. As soon as a company decides they are ready to go public, they run into this multi-million dollar wall of SOX compliance. In addition to the added expenses for the business, employees spend their time doing activities that are compliance-driven and not business or revenue-driven. Focus is taken away from strategy, sales, procurement, recruiting, operations, etcand diverted toward controls, record-keeping, IT training and approvals.
Large corporations with billions of dollars in revenue are much more positioned to absorb overhead costs associated with SOX compliance. As a percentage of revenue, SOX compliance is a negligible expense line item. But small companies that need access to the public capital markets get hurt by not having this capital source available to them, due to associated costs. Venture capital firms have traditionally liked the go-public route as a means of securing capital beyond the initial stage of company development. Given that small start-up companies have very limited amounts of cash, they are less able to fund the heightened levels of administrative costs of being a public company.
This is easily seen as an even greater impediment to companies going public than the economic downturn. Just like the government intervention that allows companies to patent software, government interference in the market in the well-intentioned ideas behind SOX becomes simply another way that existing corporations can bludgeon upstart competition with their incumbent dominance and lobbying savvy.
Yea, I mean, look how brutal those Israelis are with those peace-loving humanitarians
Once Rome went Christian, boom...crime to even be another religion. Then you've got the crusades and the dark ages. Thanks Christianity!
You're talking about the Dark Ages, though. It's the 21st century. But I guess some people are so enamored with ignorance and feudalism they prefer it to progress.
Man, atheism is no religion.
It absolutely is a religion, as it is a faith-based belief. And posting Wikipedia definitions (did you write them yourself?) doesn't make your argument any more valid.
What part of "faith" don't you get? There is no way to arrive at a conclusion that "there is no god" without a leap of faith - you can't prove that non-existence rationally.
If you like placing value on Wikipedia, here's one you may want to look at:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable.
Note how they include claims about the "non-existence of any deity"? Yea, that's because that belief (atheism) is also one of the "faiths" that agnostics reject.
Playing around with nicknames in a chat is called "abuse".
IRC bans are not related to nicknames, but to idents and to IP addresses.
Calling an IRC channel "room" proves that you are just a pathetic bored Western lame kid with a hamburger inside your skull.
Admit this, it has nothing to do with religion or with politics.
You were the one to behave as a moron online and just triggered a chain reaction.
Looks like IRC has become a religion now, too.
Yeah, but last time I saw, here in the west, the religious people (and I must tell you that these people really annoys me with their stupid beliefs and the stuff the say every time I say I'm an atheist), don't kill anyone if they don't accept their religion rules ... they just don't become a part of their religion.
You do realize that Atheism is a religion, too, right? I mean, it's a faith-based belief. I find it sometimes stunning how some atheists tend to claim that their faith is somehow superior to everybody else's, and complain about having other faiths "imposed" on them, even as they going around trying to impose their own faith on the rest of the world.
Considering last year was the warmest year since temperatures have been recorded, I'd say that if "global warming" is a religion, then it has a better record of prophecy than any other major religion on Earth.
You should stick with calling it a religion, then, considering that as a scientific theory, it would have to rank dead last at predicting outcomes.
2) Christian nations didn't "give up" on theocracies.
Never heard of Martin Luther, huh? How about when North America was founded by a bunch of religious fundamentalists that went there because Europe wasn't conservative enough, then ended up creating a government that wasn't allowed to enforce any kind of religion?
That would hold true for all religions. Fortunately, about 90% of Christians and 100% of Jews in America don't care what religion you are and consider their relationship with their god to be a personal matter.
Hah, that's a bit of an overestimate. Gay marriage legislation anyone?
I guess you would prefer the Muslim government option, where they don't have gay people at all?
How do you explain these verses, then. Just claim they are "mistranslated" - without offering any "accurate" translation that disputes the meaning?
Seems pretty clear to me.
Altruism exists in nature, so it can be a successful strategy.
No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. What you have described is actually enlightened self-interest, not altruism. Which, arguably, doesn't really exist at all.
If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing.
Unless Ken Cuccinelli were a political grandstander.
Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead.
"Refusing to enforce" is not the same thing as "nullifying." Many states also attempted to use nullification to avoid desegregating their public schools. Federal court decisions supersede those by state courts.
Yea, just ignore the part about the how the Administration response to Cuccinelli's suit was "You don't have standing", and nothing about the segregation case, which was supported by the 14th Amendment.
You also ignored the state court cases about escaped slaves, which went far beyond just some "refusal to enforce", and went without response by the Federal courts. The state courts basically said that slavery was state issue, and that the Feds could not interfere with the states' rights to set those laws. Through silence, the Federal courts agreed. Nullification.
I get that your ideology recoils from the idea of state governments opposing Federal tyranny and upholding the original intent of the Constitutional constraints. Nevertheless, it happened, and it will happen again. If you don't like it, maybe you should call McCain and get him to declare me an "unprivileged enemy belligerent". I'd love to see them try to enforce that one.
Gee, thanks for explaining how we can now get "Constitutional Tyranny".
Nullification is unconstitutional. This is pretty well-settled constitutional law.
I call bullshit.
If it was unconstitutional (and well-settled as you claim) there would be no challenge to the health care bill like Ken Cuccinelli is currently doing. Either that, or they would be arguing using this mythical "well-settled constitutional law" you claim, and not just trying to use the old "no standing" defense.
Many states used nullification successfully to ignore the provision of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, and refused to capture or return escaped slaves, protecting them with their own state laws instead. These laws were supported and upheld by the state supreme courts.
If that's how the society is, "very good at dismantling civil unrest", then isn't that enough of an evidence that contemplating a civil war or revolution is specifically against the society? (not some "them the gov")
That could easily change, and you can see a clear trend starting to emerge. Typically, the far left and far right tend to balance each other, and the vast majority keep them in check by supporting moderation. But that left-right paradigm is starting to fall apart. As the political class gains more and more power, and the only beneficiaries turn out to be the politicians and the corporate executives (often the same people moving from one role to another), the far right and far left is starting to see some common ground. The moderates are beginning to wake up to the idea that there are no politicians in the current power structure that have any real loyalty to a reasonable middle ground.
Events like this one really provide the perfect example, where one politician from the established left joins up with a politician from the established right and propose a measure that can only benefit the political class. Yes, they can fool a few people with cries of "OMG! BUT TERROR! DRUG DEALERS!!", but I don't think there are a whole lot of people buying into that rhetoric these days. It was the big excuse for implementing "asset forfeiture" - they were going after "drug kingpins". Of course, anybody that looks into how it's really being used will find out that the real drug kingpins are the only ones getting off these days: Once the police realize they are faced with a well-funded legal battle over the seized property, they just get the prosecutors make a deal and drop any drug charges in exchange for dropping the battle over the cops' new mansion and sports cars.
Can you set up a PO Box anonymously? Or have it delivered to a business with which you have an arrangement?
Maybe. PO Box, not really. They now require a "permanent address", and I was asked for ID last time I got one.
At one time, you could get a mailbox with any kind of address you wanted with one of the private mailbox places (like Mailboxes, Etc., for instance). In the name of fighting mail fraud, as of June 24, 2000 the USPS delivers only to CMRA (Commercial Mail Receiver Agents) customers who have filled out a new Form 1583 and produced two forms of identification, including a photo ID. Copies of each ID will be kept by the CMRA and the USPS. Customers using their boxes for business will have to provide home addresses and phone numbers, and the information will be made available to anyone for the asking.
You'll be hard-pressed finding a business that will let you use them for a mail drop without following the rules above. Plus the USPS won't deliver anything there if it doesn't look like it's addressed to the business itself. And if the business thinks you may be getting contraband delivered, they won't touch it, because they can actually be held liable for mail fraud - a federal crime.
The point is you CANNOT communicate anonymously - that's the ultimate goal. This is why I'm now skeptical about the push for "Network Neutrality". Is it just a bait-and-switch? It's sold as a constraint on carriers, but seems likely to end up being an excuse to track everyone's activity. After all, how do they make sure they're properly regulating the Internet "utilities" and "protecting the children" online unless they can do deep packet inspection on every transmission line, and know who is posting to message boards?
If I had mod points, I would mod you up. That's exactly what I was thinking. They didn't plan the ending until pretty close to writing it, or even in the middle of writing it.
But there was this funny sort of feeling during the show - when all the alternate characters were "remembering". And they were remembering by pairing up, in most cases. Finding their "one true love" or their some significant other. And in the middle of that, back on the island, the smoke monster dead (why do you need a cork when all the wine is gone), and Jack decides he's not going with Kate... Somehow, saving the island has become more important to him than the people he loves.
And that sort of flies in the face of any idea that it's a story that really about the people, and not the setting. Because if that was really the point the writers were making, they could have just "let go" of the island right there.
Suddenly the dungeon collapses – you die.
More like: You die and go to heaven with all your loved ones.
First global warming, now solar system-eating far galaxy monsters. What could possibly be worse?
Congress?
I'm not so sure. Cancer is a funny thing, and "cell-phone use" is kind of a broad behavior. I have seen so many items get shifted from the "causes cancer" to "inconclusive" to "completely safe" category and then back again, that I've got something of a jaundiced eye toward "moving on" based upon one study.
Even if you remove the obvious data-cooking by the industry, there actually were studies in the 50's that showed that the connection between cigarette smoking and cancer was "inconclusive". Better-designed studies, honest studies, showed later that the connection was real.
Yes, because this study was by the World Health Organization. They always do studies that favor Western and American corporations. Obviously a flawed study, nothing but a whitewash from the conspirators at the WHO.
How's that space elevator coming? That's the next stage of space exploration we should really be pushing for.
Do something like this. Put it in a case / box / cabinet of your own design since you don't need the rackmount capability.
http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/
FTFA: