If having multiple avenues for whistleblowing is good for humanity then I'm afraid Domshit-Berg doesn't agree with you as he very handily sabotaged WL before taking 300K documents and setting up his own tent across the street.
According to someone at WikiLeaks.
It is not unusual for a company with idiot or malicious employees to try to blame the last guy who left for all their troubles. "Oh, we weren't bad admins, it was George who left a year ago breaking in and causing trouble..."
For every one city admin who locks down the routers when he leaves there are probably 10,000 admins who are accused out of spite of hacking by ex-employers.
some way of speaking RS-232 at suitably low voltage.
Ok, I'll bite. How do you speak RS-232 "at suitably low voltage", since RS-232 includes the voltage limits as part of the standard?
What do you mean by this?
No, I pointed out a simple fact. Building a bridge with tax dollars does not create wealth, because it is not being sold for a profit. The money went into it and it has no worth more than that.
Compare that to building a new house. That house cost X to build. The developer sells it for X+40%. That creates wealth. The owner keeps it ten years, sells it for a profit. More wealth.
Taxing people to build stuff doesn't make them wealthier or more able to create jobs. It makes them poorer and less able to create jobs. It is a simple fact: you cannot tax an economy into health, you can only tax it to death.
Look at your own numbers. That $100 each entrepreneur was taxed is no longer available to hire employees. The expansion of each business is cut by ten percent -- more than the amount of jobs created on a temporary basis for the tax funded project.
You realize they AREN'T just talking about TLDs right?
the NTIA is asking for the power to object to any proposed Internet address for any reason.
"I object to the internet address 124.34.2.1! Boycott!"
What is most depressing is not that the NTIA is pushing for the ability to veto domain names, but that a company that promotes itself as "The world leader in managed DNS solutions" refers to "internet addresses" when it means "domain names", and in another clinker talks about "web suffixes". http://dns.tmcnet.com/topics/dns/articles/142361-dns-world-new-web-suffixes-on-its-way.htm
Nope no hatred, just simple facts. Our economy was doing better when we taxed them at much higher rates.
Nope, not a fact. Not causality, either.
You have just been sold a ration of shit by them.
No, I just don't hate them like is popular these days. I still consider being one a worthy goal and haven't gotten a sour grapes attitude because I haven't made it yet.
Putting in roads means people can start businesses.
Unless they no longer have the money to do that because it was taken from them to build the roads. It is not the roads themselves that create the jobs, it is the entrepreneurs who create the jobs long after the "jobs created" by spending bundles of tax money are gone. The people being paid to lean on the shovels during construction are now out of work again.
If I live in some village with no roads no matter what great ideas I have I can't get those products out.
That's what I said.
Creating a road would let me create jobs. Taxing me to pay for it is fine, because I am now far richer due to those roads.
No, you are deeper in debt because you had to borrow the money to create the business that you hope will succeed, because the taxes you paid no longer can be used for that. Or you have to start smaller than you would have because you don't want to go into deeper debt and you don't have as much money as you could have. Either way, fewer jobs get created.
So the internet was just moving money from A to B?
Yes. And then the entrepreneurs got hold of it and spent THEIR money making it more than the slow, limited resource that it was when the government built it.
You realize this is not a zero sum economy right?
I didn't say it was. You do realize that spending money to build infrastructure IS a zero sum game, because of the reasons I already told you. It's what happens when the entrepreneurs are set loose that is not zero-sum, because THEY are creating wealth, not simply taking it from those who have and giving it to those who don't. Until you can actually sell that Brooklyn Bridge that tax money paid to build you aren't creating wealth, you are using other people's money.
Not a single penny of that stimulus created wealth. It took from those who have and gave to those who didn't. Or it took from us all by making all our money worth less.
People who create jobs do not create more jobs because they have extra money, they tend to keep that money instead.
Untrue. People who create jobs use the money they got in profits to do it. They may keep some of that themselves, but most of what isn't plowed back into the business goes to stockholders who risked their money in the ffirst place. You can have all the bright ideas in the world, but if you can't get backing to build your startup, you go noplace. You think roads are important? Try creating a new company without money from investors.
And what they DO manage to keep is usually spent (creating more jobs through increased demand) or put in the bank/stocks etc (creating jobs through increased borrowing ability and lower interest rates.)
Taking from the super rich and spending money that ends up being paid to the lower classes can and will improve economies because they spend that money right away again.
You can create jobs, via investments in infrastructure. These facilitate business and can indirectly create jobs.
Every dollar spent on creating jobs comes either directly out of someone's pocket or the printing press.
The former means there is less money in the hands of people who create jobs or available for spending on things that increases demand that causes jobs to be created. The latter means everyone's money is worth less and thus cannot create as many jobs.
For a good example witness the lack of jobs in areas with no roads.
Areas with no roads have no businesses, because businesses need roads to move their products, and people need roads to be able to get to the stores to buy them. Putting roads in someplace does not, by itself, create jobs that aren't just taken from someplace else for the reasons already mentioned. It does create the infrastructure for new businesses to come in and start up, but if they don't have the money (because it was taken from them to build the roads in the first place) they aren't going to expand into the new areas.
Jobs are created by expanding the economy, not just moving it from A to B. Expanding the economy comes from production and business, not government. Government is good at moving money from A to B. That's all.
Which was why the Founders here in the US thought Democracy was the absolute worst possible form of government, even counting Monarchy,
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." No, they didn't count "Monarchy" as better than democracy, otherwise we'd have a monarchy.
And that gets us to the idiocy that is e-democracy, e-government, Ross Perot's Electronic Town Hall and today's article and Open Source government. It's all rubbish and will lead to mass graves if we are dumb enough to trade our Republic for it.
That is true. Not because democracy is the absolute worst form, but because the assumptions of an informed and caring voter base don't apply anymore, if ever.
No.
Your post proves it. Without this forum your voice might as well be silenced.
That is absolute nonsense. This forum is not the only place to speak, and it carries zero weight in the local or state political process. Believe me, my voice appears where it matters, and here, too.
This forum does prove that the ability to speak and the value of that speech are unrelated concepts, and thus that the ability to vote and the value of that vote are likewise.
Claiming that it is good that anyone can vote is silly. People who vote who have no interest in voting causes results by random selections on their part, or selections based on superficial analyses of the issues and candidates. This is not good democracy, this is lunacy.
As for the anti-Christian stuff, I wouldn't be able to criticize them (or Muslims) if they didn't do hateful things.
That wooshing sound is the point flying right over your head. THEY didn't do hateful things. A few nutjobs that you are painting them all with did that. Your rant about Christians is as relevant to Christians as if you ranted at the easter bunny because your pet rabbit peed on the floor.
Yeah. Great idea. (frowns). BTW if I sound a little bitter, it's because I just finished reading an article about a Tea Party-affiliated "Minuteman" that busted into a Hispanic home and shot an 8-yr-old girl just because she was brown.
I'll do 'ya 19 times (or 3000 times?) better. I just finished reading an article about Islamic-affiliated hijackers that crashed a couple of airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, killing more than 3000 people just because... they existed. Another couple hundred died in a cornfield in Pennsylvania because they... were on the wrong airplane at the wrong time.
Another article, this time an Islamic-affiliated suicide bomber who got on a crowded bus and killed women and children just for riding the bus. The ones who didn't die in the blast immediately were torn up with warfarin-laced shrapnel and bled out on the street.
Yes, I agree, let's base our system of government, and our hatred, on the action of one person (or 19 people) who were somehow affiliated with something we want to hate. It's much better than any democracy.
With nutjobs like this in an existence, I do NOT want a democracy where they can simply vote to kill/jail people whenever they want.
Nutjobs come in all shapes, colors, and affiliations. But please, continue your anti-Christian rant. It's lots of fun to read.
It's precisely those folks sitting at home shooting off their mouths that makes democracy work. The ability for *anyone* to participate in the process is what makes the system great.
No.
The ability for anyone to participate is what makes it fail. It leads to results based on sound-bites and emotions instead of reality and serious consideration of the issues.
The perfect example of this is the Oregon initiative process. Anybody can get an initiative on the ballot to do almost anything (legal and constitutional, and sometimes that's not a limit either). Just get enough people to sign a petition, it gets on the ballot.
Then the people who can make the most warm-fuzzy happy feelings about their idea, or scare the people into opposing the other side, win.
Drugs are bad, n'kay? Let's mandate prison sentences and take the discretion away from judges, n'kay? Let's raise taxes on stuff that isn't used by the majority of people -- it won't cost YOU anything! Oh, THAT idea came from awful people from New York, so ignore any consideration of the merits of the idea, vote NO!
Expand that to the federal level. It was most remarkable to read a series of letters to the editor of a local activist paper commenting on how great it was for students to get involved in the last presidential election. Then some of them wrote in saying they felt great about doing it, even though they didn't have the time to learn anything about the candidates.
No, getting to the right answer is seldom the same as getting to the warm-fuzzy feel-good-all-over result that getting everyone, even those who don't really care about something, to vote comes up with.
DeToqueville predicted it; e-democracy will fulfill it. Any democracy can exist only until the people realize they can vote taxes onto everyone else. Big bad rich people, for one.
Meh, it's a moot point. One of his overworked and underpaid aides will skim over or just read the first sentence, much like I did with your post.
There, fixed that for 'ya. Continuing: and then the aide will put a tick mark in the "likes you" column regarding anything similar to this topic on the tally sheet, just like he does with every letter they get, even the negative ones.
I've written him. I've gotten the 'thanks for your support' form letter reply.
Its kind of like when Brazil started finger printing all US citizens who arrived in their country. Which upset said citizens until it was pointed out the the US was doing that to all foreign nationals arriving in the US.
Really? I was upset about the cost of the visa, that they demanded my passport in their possession, and that we had to hire someone in another city to hand-carry the application into one of their consulates, but only mildly -- I wasn't paying for it. I don't even remember anything about fingerprinting so I must not have been very upset about it.
The website was quite upfront about the fee being charged. They said "that's what the US charges our citizens, so we're charging you." Like I said, I wasn't paying the bill, I didn't care. Would I want to go to Brazil for a vacation based on that fee? Nope. Do they care? Nope. The country is too damn hot for my tastes, anyway.
Let's just make people do useless things that require almost zero effort, knowledge, or both.
Nobody makes anyone be a gas station attendant. Running from car to car for an eight or ten hour shift is hardly "zero effort".
Let's face it, there are a large number of people who have essentially zero knowledge, who want to make a bit of extra money (maybe on the side), or who simply don't want to be a part of the 9-5 rat race but do want to eat on a regular basis. Some people even like a job where they get to interact with people (for God know's what reason). "Gas Station Attendant" fits their lifestyle just fine.
And he just got reelected so you know his stand on this isn't posturing for next years election.
Not next year, but the next time he's up.
He's got to be scared. One of the stalwart undefeatable democrats in his state nearly had his assed whipped by a conservative challenger this year, so he knows the writing is on the wall for him. Add that to the high-tech computer industries in the state and he knows he's got a literate base of voters watching.
As for being a "good one", he's the fellow who made a well-publicized promise not to use negative advertising in his campaign against Gordon Smith, and two days later the ads claiming that Smith killed a teenage kid started airing. (A worker at one of the processing plants Smith's family runs was killed in an accident. The family of the kid appeared in Smith ads supporting him...)
A reduction in fuel costs would be reflected in increases with other jobs. Take a service company for instance. They could hire more staff, if they didn't have to pay as much in fuel costs.
What gives you the crazy idea that a reduction in cost to the gas station owner would result in lower fuel costs to anyone else?
These are the people who routinely jack up the price around major travel holidays and then don't bring it all the way back down following. These are the people who jack up the price on existing stocks whenever the news reports an increase in the cost of crude
He started campaigning for president the day he won the election for senator. I will not use weaselly words like "heavily" to try to justify or explain it away.
Senators have no official role in foreign policy. They can go kissy-face with foreign dignitaries and play at "fact finding", but they get no role other than approval of treaties after the fact.
He did nothing to merit a Nobel Peace Prize prior to his election as President, and nothing since. The award to him had nothing to do with the stated goals of the Nobel and everything to do with his pandering to foreign interests and for foreign approval during his campaign.
And normally there is a small orange blinking light with a pedestrian on it to warn cars of this.
I have no idea what you mean by this. A blinking light on what? The green light in the middle of the intersection? No, I've never seen such a thing. A "blinking light" on the walk signal? Yes, the walk signal blinks, but it isn't usually orange, it is white.
Cars need no warning that there might be a pedestrian in the crosswalk. They're supposed to look before they turn.
The fact remains, in civilized places, peds in the crosswalk crossing with a walk signal ALWAYS have the right of way no matter what the vehicle signals show. There is no "blinking orange light" needed to tell drivers this, it is written into the vehicle code.
Slashdot Mirror
Domestic use of DPI still perfectly acceptable.
DPI is a tool. It can be used for good things or bad things, just like any other tool.
Waterboarding requires water, a cloth mask, and a board. Let's ban exports of lumber, cloth, and water, ok?
If having multiple avenues for whistleblowing is good for humanity then I'm afraid Domshit-Berg doesn't agree with you as he very handily sabotaged WL before taking 300K documents and setting up his own tent across the street.
According to someone at WikiLeaks.
It is not unusual for a company with idiot or malicious employees to try to blame the last guy who left for all their troubles. "Oh, we weren't bad admins, it was George who left a year ago breaking in and causing trouble..."
For every one city admin who locks down the routers when he leaves there are probably 10,000 admins who are accused out of spite of hacking by ex-employers.
A definition of /.
some way of speaking RS-232 at suitably low voltage.
Ok, I'll bite. How do you speak RS-232 "at suitably low voltage", since RS-232 includes the voltage limits as part of the standard? What do you mean by this?
Wow, with this you jumped the shark, sir.
No, I pointed out a simple fact. Building a bridge with tax dollars does not create wealth, because it is not being sold for a profit. The money went into it and it has no worth more than that.
Compare that to building a new house. That house cost X to build. The developer sells it for X+40%. That creates wealth. The owner keeps it ten years, sells it for a profit. More wealth.
Taxing people to build stuff doesn't make them wealthier or more able to create jobs. It makes them poorer and less able to create jobs. It is a simple fact: you cannot tax an economy into health, you can only tax it to death.
Look at your own numbers. That $100 each entrepreneur was taxed is no longer available to hire employees. The expansion of each business is cut by ten percent -- more than the amount of jobs created on a temporary basis for the tax funded project.
You realize they AREN'T just talking about TLDs right? the NTIA is asking for the power to object to any proposed Internet address for any reason.
"I object to the internet address 124.34.2.1! Boycott!"
What is most depressing is not that the NTIA is pushing for the ability to veto domain names, but that a company that promotes itself as "The world leader in managed DNS solutions" refers to "internet addresses" when it means "domain names", and in another clinker talks about "web suffixes". http://dns.tmcnet.com/topics/dns/articles/142361-dns-world-new-web-suffixes-on-its-way.htm
Nope no hatred, just simple facts. Our economy was doing better when we taxed them at much higher rates.
Nope, not a fact. Not causality, either.
You have just been sold a ration of shit by them.
No, I just don't hate them like is popular these days. I still consider being one a worthy goal and haven't gotten a sour grapes attitude because I haven't made it yet.
Putting in roads means people can start businesses.
Unless they no longer have the money to do that because it was taken from them to build the roads. It is not the roads themselves that create the jobs, it is the entrepreneurs who create the jobs long after the "jobs created" by spending bundles of tax money are gone. The people being paid to lean on the shovels during construction are now out of work again.
If I live in some village with no roads no matter what great ideas I have I can't get those products out.
That's what I said.
Creating a road would let me create jobs. Taxing me to pay for it is fine, because I am now far richer due to those roads.
No, you are deeper in debt because you had to borrow the money to create the business that you hope will succeed, because the taxes you paid no longer can be used for that. Or you have to start smaller than you would have because you don't want to go into deeper debt and you don't have as much money as you could have. Either way, fewer jobs get created.
So the internet was just moving money from A to B?
Yes. And then the entrepreneurs got hold of it and spent THEIR money making it more than the slow, limited resource that it was when the government built it.
You realize this is not a zero sum economy right?
I didn't say it was. You do realize that spending money to build infrastructure IS a zero sum game, because of the reasons I already told you. It's what happens when the entrepreneurs are set loose that is not zero-sum, because THEY are creating wealth, not simply taking it from those who have and giving it to those who don't. Until you can actually sell that Brooklyn Bridge that tax money paid to build you aren't creating wealth, you are using other people's money.
Not a single penny of that stimulus created wealth. It took from those who have and gave to those who didn't. Or it took from us all by making all our money worth less.
People who create jobs do not create more jobs because they have extra money, they tend to keep that money instead.
Untrue. People who create jobs use the money they got in profits to do it. They may keep some of that themselves, but most of what isn't plowed back into the business goes to stockholders who risked their money in the ffirst place. You can have all the bright ideas in the world, but if you can't get backing to build your startup, you go noplace. You think roads are important? Try creating a new company without money from investors.
And what they DO manage to keep is usually spent (creating more jobs through increased demand) or put in the bank/stocks etc (creating jobs through increased borrowing ability and lower interest rates.)
Taking from the super rich and spending money that ends up being paid to the lower classes can and will improve economies because they spend that money right away again.
Ahhh, that wonderful class hatred shows up.
You can create jobs, via investments in infrastructure. These facilitate business and can indirectly create jobs.
Every dollar spent on creating jobs comes either directly out of someone's pocket or the printing press.
The former means there is less money in the hands of people who create jobs or available for spending on things that increases demand that causes jobs to be created. The latter means everyone's money is worth less and thus cannot create as many jobs.
For a good example witness the lack of jobs in areas with no roads.
Areas with no roads have no businesses, because businesses need roads to move their products, and people need roads to be able to get to the stores to buy them. Putting roads in someplace does not, by itself, create jobs that aren't just taken from someplace else for the reasons already mentioned. It does create the infrastructure for new businesses to come in and start up, but if they don't have the money (because it was taken from them to build the roads in the first place) they aren't going to expand into the new areas.
Jobs are created by expanding the economy, not just moving it from A to B. Expanding the economy comes from production and business, not government. Government is good at moving money from A to B. That's all.
Which was why the Founders here in the US thought Democracy was the absolute worst possible form of government, even counting Monarchy,
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest." No, they didn't count "Monarchy" as better than democracy, otherwise we'd have a monarchy.
And that gets us to the idiocy that is e-democracy, e-government, Ross Perot's Electronic Town Hall and today's article and Open Source government. It's all rubbish and will lead to mass graves if we are dumb enough to trade our Republic for it.
That is true. Not because democracy is the absolute worst form, but because the assumptions of an informed and caring voter base don't apply anymore, if ever.
That is not the only variance. One frequency contains no information.
That is not correct. L1 carries C/A and P codes, L2 carries P.
No. Your post proves it. Without this forum your voice might as well be silenced.
That is absolute nonsense. This forum is not the only place to speak, and it carries zero weight in the local or state political process. Believe me, my voice appears where it matters, and here, too.
This forum does prove that the ability to speak and the value of that speech are unrelated concepts, and thus that the ability to vote and the value of that vote are likewise.
Claiming that it is good that anyone can vote is silly. People who vote who have no interest in voting causes results by random selections on their part, or selections based on superficial analyses of the issues and candidates. This is not good democracy, this is lunacy.
As for the anti-Christian stuff, I wouldn't be able to criticize them (or Muslims) if they didn't do hateful things.
That wooshing sound is the point flying right over your head. THEY didn't do hateful things. A few nutjobs that you are painting them all with did that. Your rant about Christians is as relevant to Christians as if you ranted at the easter bunny because your pet rabbit peed on the floor.
Yeah. Great idea. (frowns). BTW if I sound a little bitter, it's because I just finished reading an article about a Tea Party-affiliated "Minuteman" that busted into a Hispanic home and shot an 8-yr-old girl just because she was brown.
I'll do 'ya 19 times (or 3000 times?) better. I just finished reading an article about Islamic-affiliated hijackers that crashed a couple of airplanes into the World Trade Center towers, killing more than 3000 people just because ... they existed. Another couple hundred died in a cornfield in Pennsylvania because they ... were on the wrong airplane at the wrong time.
Another article, this time an Islamic-affiliated suicide bomber who got on a crowded bus and killed women and children just for riding the bus. The ones who didn't die in the blast immediately were torn up with warfarin-laced shrapnel and bled out on the street.
Yes, I agree, let's base our system of government, and our hatred, on the action of one person (or 19 people) who were somehow affiliated with something we want to hate. It's much better than any democracy.
With nutjobs like this in an existence, I do NOT want a democracy where they can simply vote to kill/jail people whenever they want.
Nutjobs come in all shapes, colors, and affiliations. But please, continue your anti-Christian rant. It's lots of fun to read.
It's precisely those folks sitting at home shooting off their mouths that makes democracy work. The ability for *anyone* to participate in the process is what makes the system great.
No.
The ability for anyone to participate is what makes it fail. It leads to results based on sound-bites and emotions instead of reality and serious consideration of the issues.
The perfect example of this is the Oregon initiative process. Anybody can get an initiative on the ballot to do almost anything (legal and constitutional, and sometimes that's not a limit either). Just get enough people to sign a petition, it gets on the ballot.
Then the people who can make the most warm-fuzzy happy feelings about their idea, or scare the people into opposing the other side, win.
Drugs are bad, n'kay? Let's mandate prison sentences and take the discretion away from judges, n'kay? Let's raise taxes on stuff that isn't used by the majority of people -- it won't cost YOU anything! Oh, THAT idea came from awful people from New York, so ignore any consideration of the merits of the idea, vote NO!
Expand that to the federal level. It was most remarkable to read a series of letters to the editor of a local activist paper commenting on how great it was for students to get involved in the last presidential election. Then some of them wrote in saying they felt great about doing it, even though they didn't have the time to learn anything about the candidates.
No, getting to the right answer is seldom the same as getting to the warm-fuzzy feel-good-all-over result that getting everyone, even those who don't really care about something, to vote comes up with.
DeToqueville predicted it; e-democracy will fulfill it. Any democracy can exist only until the people realize they can vote taxes onto everyone else. Big bad rich people, for one.
Either by itself probably would not have sunk the ship. Both were required, and so both deserve a share of the responsibility.
That's like the drunk blaming the telephone pole for jumping out in front of his car. Both were required for the collision ...
Homeland Security may have its issues, but comparing them to UPS is uncalled for.
Yeah, UPS is much worse. I've yet to have a DHS agent break into my house to hide a package and not leave an note telling me where he hid it.
Meh, it's a moot point. One of his overworked and underpaid aides will skim over or just read the first sentence, much like I did with your post.
There, fixed that for 'ya. Continuing: and then the aide will put a tick mark in the "likes you" column regarding anything similar to this topic on the tally sheet, just like he does with every letter they get, even the negative ones.
I've written him. I've gotten the 'thanks for your support' form letter reply.
Its kind of like when Brazil started finger printing all US citizens who arrived in their country. Which upset said citizens until it was pointed out the the US was doing that to all foreign nationals arriving in the US.
Really? I was upset about the cost of the visa, that they demanded my passport in their possession, and that we had to hire someone in another city to hand-carry the application into one of their consulates, but only mildly -- I wasn't paying for it. I don't even remember anything about fingerprinting so I must not have been very upset about it.
The website was quite upfront about the fee being charged. They said "that's what the US charges our citizens, so we're charging you." Like I said, I wasn't paying the bill, I didn't care. Would I want to go to Brazil for a vacation based on that fee? Nope. Do they care? Nope. The country is too damn hot for my tastes, anyway.
Let's just make people do useless things that require almost zero effort, knowledge, or both.
Nobody makes anyone be a gas station attendant. Running from car to car for an eight or ten hour shift is hardly "zero effort".
Let's face it, there are a large number of people who have essentially zero knowledge, who want to make a bit of extra money (maybe on the side), or who simply don't want to be a part of the 9-5 rat race but do want to eat on a regular basis. Some people even like a job where they get to interact with people (for God know's what reason). "Gas Station Attendant" fits their lifestyle just fine.
And he just got reelected so you know his stand on this isn't posturing for next years election.
Not next year, but the next time he's up.
He's got to be scared. One of the stalwart undefeatable democrats in his state nearly had his assed whipped by a conservative challenger this year, so he knows the writing is on the wall for him. Add that to the high-tech computer industries in the state and he knows he's got a literate base of voters watching.
As for being a "good one", he's the fellow who made a well-publicized promise not to use negative advertising in his campaign against Gordon Smith, and two days later the ads claiming that Smith killed a teenage kid started airing. (A worker at one of the processing plants Smith's family runs was killed in an accident. The family of the kid appeared in Smith ads supporting him...)
A reduction in fuel costs would be reflected in increases with other jobs. Take a service company for instance. They could hire more staff, if they didn't have to pay as much in fuel costs.
What gives you the crazy idea that a reduction in cost to the gas station owner would result in lower fuel costs to anyone else?
These are the people who routinely jack up the price around major travel holidays and then don't bring it all the way back down following. These are the people who jack up the price on existing stocks whenever the news reports an increase in the cost of crude
Senators have no official role in foreign policy. They can go kissy-face with foreign dignitaries and play at "fact finding", but they get no role other than approval of treaties after the fact.
He did nothing to merit a Nobel Peace Prize prior to his election as President, and nothing since. The award to him had nothing to do with the stated goals of the Nobel and everything to do with his pandering to foreign interests and for foreign approval during his campaign.
He would be wiser to make it right by sending Mubarak a million out-of-fashion, leftover, unpopular, unsold shoes.
No, that would be Imelda Marcos, you insensitive clod.
And normally there is a small orange blinking light with a pedestrian on it to warn cars of this.
I have no idea what you mean by this. A blinking light on what? The green light in the middle of the intersection? No, I've never seen such a thing. A "blinking light" on the walk signal? Yes, the walk signal blinks, but it isn't usually orange, it is white.
Cars need no warning that there might be a pedestrian in the crosswalk. They're supposed to look before they turn.
The fact remains, in civilized places, peds in the crosswalk crossing with a walk signal ALWAYS have the right of way no matter what the vehicle signals show. There is no "blinking orange light" needed to tell drivers this, it is written into the vehicle code.