Does he include the 12 years he has already been CEO, or does he mean starting now? Starting next year? Starting on an as yet to be released starting date?
Good expositions, this one and the one above. I don't blame Republicans exclusively, BTW. Outside of the usual menu of hot-button issues the differences between Republicans and Democrats are relatively subtle and primarily rhetorical.
I agree that it is not in the interests of Iran to turn all of this into a hot war. On our side, though, there seems to be quite a bit of motivation to go that way, not least because there will be a lot of money to be made in various venues.
A proxy bomb set off by Iran-supported extremists would quickly be attributed to Iran, and they would suffer verily for it. I can't see it in their interest to do something like that. Nuclear explosives are not military weapons, they are political weapons for most countries that currently possess them. Iran is a case in point, as is N Korea. They can't use them without risking a speedy and effective end-of-regime event. That is arguably not the case for Israel. If they were to use tactical nuclear weapons outside of significant population centers in a context where they could argue some kind of imminent existential threat (a rather far-fetched scenario, really), they might "get away with it," albeit with enormous political and diplomatic cost inside and outside. Even that would likely result in significant political turmoil in Israel, amounting to partial or total regime change anyway. The point being that the use of nuclear weapons is so fraught with peril for the aggressor that there is an enormous disincentive.
Funny how Pakistan, a country that finances and supports terrorism is given a free pass to having a nuclear arsenal
You really have to wonder about that. Since the 1980's they have supported a wide variety of Sunni extremists, often in direct military conflict with US soldiers. Iran has never done that. Why then is Pakistan considered an ally and given billions in military aid even though it has been a Saudi-financed supporter of active enemies of the US for decades? Why is Iran the big enemy even though it has done far less direct harm to the US or our interests? It is an opaque war between powerful bands of international mobsters that drape themselves with sappy pseudo-patriotic treacle, which is unfortunately swallowed whole by the news media and their vast audience.
Preventing a theocracy from getting a nuclear reaction is inarguably a good thing.
This is rubbish. You are using a premise as its own justification. Israel is not in danger from an Iranian nuclear attack. Such an attack would be complete suicide for Iran. At best, Iran wants to play the game of using the Bomb as a political weapon as does everyone else. It isn't e very credible game, given the force asymmetry between them and Israel. Israelis know Iran is not a substantial threat, as some of their intelligence officials have pointed out. The question is, why are Israel and the US conducting open hostilities against Iran, including operations by US Special Forces on Iranian territory and support of terrorist attacks in Iran by Mujahedin e Khalq as well as Flame, Stuxnet, etc.?
In the past one could have speculated that they help maintain the illusion of great instability in the Middle East, which helps justify huge financial support of the US and international arms industry (where Israel is an important player, BTW) as well as high petroleum spot market prices (the traditional reason to ensure that there is always conflict somewhere vaguely near our political allies' oil fields, but not too near). Oddly, though, oil prices have fallen in the recent past, presumably due to unusually weak demand (in spite of that all-time favorite: "The Summer Driving Season"). Military spending has not diminished, however, and in the US Republican politicians are constantly trying to take military spending "off the table" when budget cutting activities heat up.
Frankly, I never am able to figure out why such things occur until well after the fact when the other shoe drops and it becomes clear who is making the big bucks out of the deal. Make no mistake, though. This is about money, one way or the other. The "Israel is in mortal danger from the crazy mullahs" scam is pure horse shit. I guess we'll have to wait for Steve Coll to quietly write a book 10 years from now with the details.
Actually, what apparently makes it not-bribery is that the money goes to the politicians' campaign funds. That's perfectly legal. After that, you just expense everything you can to the campaign fund.
It occurred to me the other day that the patent office should release quarterly lists of things that are deemed "obvious" as of that date. For example, any invention that uses a software interface, a computer, and/or a database and that is not otherwise novel, is obvious. Any use of a graphical element to trigger an action or actions in a graphical computer interface is obvious. Gathering data from users for analysis and decision making is obvious. The first list would be pretty long.
I'm tempted to say it should be backwards, and have an inducement to reject as many as possible. I think neither should be a criterion. They should be rewarded more for zealously searching out prior art, forcing applicants to write clearly and specifically, and narrowing the scope of patents as much as possible. Probably a few other things as well that escape me at the moment.
If their PC cash cows didn't give them so much money to subsidize their other often dubious product lines, there would very likely be no Windows phone of any kind. Seriously, would you care? Would anyone other than pundits even notice?
Everyone is already drunk, everybody is already hooked up with someone and ready to roll, and the bar is closing in half an hour. Guess who just showed up looking for some action? Yep. Just like always.
At risk, many say, are the very qualities that have drawn generations of outsiders here, like the city's diversity and creativity. Families, black residents, artists and others will increasingly be forced across the bridge to Oakland, they warn.
Means:
The diversity and creativity formerly accumulated in SF will now spread throughout the SF Bay Area.
It only creates water as a byproduct! It's so clean! So innovative! So environmentally responsible! Luckily, liquid hydrogen can be found anywhere! No need to burn any of those nasty fossil fuels or evil nookyaler things, no sir! This is the real deal! Clean, clean, clean! Next stop, The Hydrogen Economy!
We all can watch Fox News. It's easy and there's nothing to stop us. But should we? Is there any redeeming value that accrues by watching it, or is it all pure commercial pro-establishment rubbish whose primary purposes are a) to make money from advertising, and b) promote a particular political ideology, not necessarily in that order?
There are many similar things that we can do: smoke, drink sugary beverages, eat meat every day, drink lots of booze, live a sedentary lifestyle, obsessively and bitterly wish we were millionaires, drive our cars always as fast as possible (because we're in a hurry and everyone else is a fucking loser), drive big expensive cars (or aspire to do so), drink sugary beverages in large quantities, obsessively and bitterly wish we were billionaires, zealously believe and promote a political party or candidate, covet the yuppie lifestyle, smoke lots of dope (insert favorite drug and drug pastime here), play video or computer games or consume electronic pop culture at every available moment (earbuds? always on), have all the latest gadgets (cell phones, laptops, consoles, tablets, Apple products, etc.), gain weight without any reasonable limit, and so on. The list is long. We can do it if we feel like it. Who are you to deny that right?
We can do those things, right? Nothing to stop us.
While Carr isn't making a case for Lamarckian evolution, the argument here seems weak to me; the same kind of brain change could be attributed to books, or television, or the automobile, couldn't it?
Do you doubt that has occurred? Not to mention video games, urbanization, industrialization, birth control, etc.
I've been using Ubuntu with the Gnome interface on a daily basis for 8 or more years, and Fedora before that. It works fine. Quirks? Issues? Just like the rest of them. I use open source tools for as much as possible, and fall back to Windows only when there is no open source alternative. I don't see it as a game, a contest, a political issue, or anything requiring me to "support" one side or another. Open source software is self-sustaining, and as long as there are contributors that keep it going it provides millions of people with free and powerful computing tools. It is foolish to go out and pay money when your needs can be largely fulfilled for free. Yes, you need to have more than one computer with a different OS on each one. That might have been an obstacle 10 years ago, but it is not one now. It is cheap and easy to be practical these days.
No. What you get is a matter of the manufacturer's policy. The government's role is to prevent fraud, willfull negligence, and other criminal activities, nothing more. It is up to you to make intelligent choices.
Slashdot Mirror
Not on our watch
Does he include the 12 years he has already been CEO, or does he mean starting now? Starting next year? Starting on an as yet to be released starting date?
Grow a pear? Dude! What you got down there?!
Good expositions, this one and the one above. I don't blame Republicans exclusively, BTW. Outside of the usual menu of hot-button issues the differences between Republicans and Democrats are relatively subtle and primarily rhetorical.
I agree that it is not in the interests of Iran to turn all of this into a hot war. On our side, though, there seems to be quite a bit of motivation to go that way, not least because there will be a lot of money to be made in various venues.
A proxy bomb set off by Iran-supported extremists would quickly be attributed to Iran, and they would suffer verily for it. I can't see it in their interest to do something like that. Nuclear explosives are not military weapons, they are political weapons for most countries that currently possess them. Iran is a case in point, as is N Korea. They can't use them without risking a speedy and effective end-of-regime event. That is arguably not the case for Israel. If they were to use tactical nuclear weapons outside of significant population centers in a context where they could argue some kind of imminent existential threat (a rather far-fetched scenario, really), they might "get away with it," albeit with enormous political and diplomatic cost inside and outside. Even that would likely result in significant political turmoil in Israel, amounting to partial or total regime change anyway. The point being that the use of nuclear weapons is so fraught with peril for the aggressor that there is an enormous disincentive.
Funny how Pakistan, a country that finances and supports terrorism is given a free pass to having a nuclear arsenal
You really have to wonder about that. Since the 1980's they have supported a wide variety of Sunni extremists, often in direct military conflict with US soldiers. Iran has never done that. Why then is Pakistan considered an ally and given billions in military aid even though it has been a Saudi-financed supporter of active enemies of the US for decades? Why is Iran the big enemy even though it has done far less direct harm to the US or our interests? It is an opaque war between powerful bands of international mobsters that drape themselves with sappy pseudo-patriotic treacle, which is unfortunately swallowed whole by the news media and their vast audience.
Preventing a theocracy from getting a nuclear reaction is inarguably a good thing.
This is rubbish. You are using a premise as its own justification. Israel is not in danger from an Iranian nuclear attack. Such an attack would be complete suicide for Iran. At best, Iran wants to play the game of using the Bomb as a political weapon as does everyone else. It isn't e very credible game, given the force asymmetry between them and Israel. Israelis know Iran is not a substantial threat, as some of their intelligence officials have pointed out. The question is, why are Israel and the US conducting open hostilities against Iran, including operations by US Special Forces on Iranian territory and support of terrorist attacks in Iran by Mujahedin e Khalq as well as Flame, Stuxnet, etc.?
In the past one could have speculated that they help maintain the illusion of great instability in the Middle East, which helps justify huge financial support of the US and international arms industry (where Israel is an important player, BTW) as well as high petroleum spot market prices (the traditional reason to ensure that there is always conflict somewhere vaguely near our political allies' oil fields, but not too near). Oddly, though, oil prices have fallen in the recent past, presumably due to unusually weak demand (in spite of that all-time favorite: "The Summer Driving Season"). Military spending has not diminished, however, and in the US Republican politicians are constantly trying to take military spending "off the table" when budget cutting activities heat up.
Frankly, I never am able to figure out why such things occur until well after the fact when the other shoe drops and it becomes clear who is making the big bucks out of the deal. Make no mistake, though. This is about money, one way or the other. The "Israel is in mortal danger from the crazy mullahs" scam is pure horse shit. I guess we'll have to wait for Steve Coll to quietly write a book 10 years from now with the details.
The first rule of introducing Star Trek to people who have never seen it is: Do not introduce Star Trek to people who have never seen it.
The second rule of introducing Star Trek to people who have never seen it is: Do not introduce Star Trek to people who have never seen it.
Got a list?
You mean "got a name?"
Actually, what apparently makes it not-bribery is that the money goes to the politicians' campaign funds. That's perfectly legal. After that, you just expense everything you can to the campaign fund.
It occurred to me the other day that the patent office should release quarterly lists of things that are deemed "obvious" as of that date. For example, any invention that uses a software interface, a computer, and/or a database and that is not otherwise novel, is obvious. Any use of a graphical element to trigger an action or actions in a graphical computer interface is obvious. Gathering data from users for analysis and decision making is obvious. The first list would be pretty long.
I'm tempted to say it should be backwards, and have an inducement to reject as many as possible. I think neither should be a criterion. They should be rewarded more for zealously searching out prior art, forcing applicants to write clearly and specifically, and narrowing the scope of patents as much as possible. Probably a few other things as well that escape me at the moment.
If their PC cash cows didn't give them so much money to subsidize their other often dubious product lines, there would very likely be no Windows phone of any kind. Seriously, would you care? Would anyone other than pundits even notice?
There won't be enough battery for anyone, though.
Everyone is already drunk, everybody is already hooked up with someone and ready to roll, and the bar is closing in half an hour. Guess who just showed up looking for some action? Yep. Just like always.
... in fact, I don't give a rat's ass about the Windows phone. Too bad about Nokia, though. They should have done something with Linux and Qt.
The neutrinos have mutated, I tell you! They have mutated!
Will it be precipitous?
At risk, many say, are the very qualities that have drawn generations of outsiders here, like the city's diversity and creativity. Families, black residents, artists and others will increasingly be forced across the bridge to Oakland, they warn.
Means:
The diversity and creativity formerly accumulated in SF will now spread throughout the SF Bay Area.
Why is this a bad thing?
It only creates water as a byproduct! It's so clean! So innovative! So environmentally responsible! Luckily, liquid hydrogen can be found anywhere! No need to burn any of those nasty fossil fuels or evil nookyaler things, no sir! This is the real deal! Clean, clean, clean! Next stop, The Hydrogen Economy!
When people watch Fox News, it is the viewers who become Comedy Central.
We all can watch Fox News. It's easy and there's nothing to stop us. But should we? Is there any redeeming value that accrues by watching it, or is it all pure commercial pro-establishment rubbish whose primary purposes are a) to make money from advertising, and b) promote a particular political ideology, not necessarily in that order?
There are many similar things that we can do: smoke, drink sugary beverages, eat meat every day, drink lots of booze, live a sedentary lifestyle, obsessively and bitterly wish we were millionaires, drive our cars always as fast as possible (because we're in a hurry and everyone else is a fucking loser), drive big expensive cars (or aspire to do so), drink sugary beverages in large quantities, obsessively and bitterly wish we were billionaires, zealously believe and promote a political party or candidate, covet the yuppie lifestyle, smoke lots of dope (insert favorite drug and drug pastime here), play video or computer games or consume electronic pop culture at every available moment (earbuds? always on), have all the latest gadgets (cell phones, laptops, consoles, tablets, Apple products, etc.), gain weight without any reasonable limit, and so on. The list is long. We can do it if we feel like it. Who are you to deny that right?
We can do those things, right? Nothing to stop us.
.. after the largest crater on the moon.
While Carr isn't making a case for Lamarckian evolution, the argument here seems weak to me; the same kind of brain change could be attributed to books, or television, or the automobile, couldn't it?
Do you doubt that has occurred? Not to mention video games, urbanization, industrialization, birth control, etc.
I wholeheartedly agree. If you don't want to pay, you have free and legal options. You don't even have to pirate stuff.
I've been using Ubuntu with the Gnome interface on a daily basis for 8 or more years, and Fedora before that. It works fine. Quirks? Issues? Just like the rest of them. I use open source tools for as much as possible, and fall back to Windows only when there is no open source alternative. I don't see it as a game, a contest, a political issue, or anything requiring me to "support" one side or another. Open source software is self-sustaining, and as long as there are contributors that keep it going it provides millions of people with free and powerful computing tools. It is foolish to go out and pay money when your needs can be largely fulfilled for free. Yes, you need to have more than one computer with a different OS on each one. That might have been an obstacle 10 years ago, but it is not one now. It is cheap and easy to be practical these days.
No. What you get is a matter of the manufacturer's policy. The government's role is to prevent fraud, willfull negligence, and other criminal activities, nothing more. It is up to you to make intelligent choices.