I recently (within the past 8 months) switched to a Mac, and I hardly _ever_ use the dock. I can understand why it stays around: many users, especially Mac users, aren't comfortable with keyboard commands. For my computing habits, however, its utility is vastly overshadowed by Spotlight, which is an AutoComplete launcher for everything on your computer.
Wanna start Firefox? Command-Space, "fir", Enter. Wanna open your resume? Command-Space, "my-re", Enter.
It's like the Windows Run dialog on crack, showing you a list of matches that shrinks as you type, with your most commonly used option highlighted. I think I use the mouse less on the Mac than I ever have with Windows.
Anonymity also insulates you against the whims of government, and organizations that don't have your best interests in mind.
Speaking of government, it seems kind of messed up to me that we have hardly a shred of privacy left, even less when it comes to government matters, yet much of the government's work is done behind closed doors.
Aren't these people supposed to be working for us?
The initial cause was the government deciding that fucking with the money supply was a good idea. Inflation of the money supply creates a market boom that is artificial (not created by demand), and must be followed by a bust. The Community Reinvestment Act certainly had a big role to play in this particular cycle, and I'm glad you pointed it out. But the CRA is another example of how regulation just messes things up. If there was no government mandate for banks to take on these risky loans, and there wasn't an artificially low interest rate on Fed loans making them look more profitable than they really were, these banks would never have gotten into such a mess in the first place. The deregulation that made things worse (by enabling banks to hide their bad debt) would not have had such a negative effect if the banks hand't been coerced and tricked into making bad loans!
This is not a defense of the banks' behavior, merely a description of how their actions relate to the landscape they inhabit. The worst thing we can do right now is to pump more money (that we don't have) into the system. If we leave it alone and get rid of the Fed, or at least greatly reduce its power, we will have a short, sharp year-long recession followed by a full recovery. This could be the last boom/bust cycle if we the people decide to act. If the bailout passes, we're looking at a lingering 10-year recession, further devaluation of the dollar, and a socialist market in all but name.
You're absolutely right about the Law of Unintended Consequences and government's failure to learn, which is why government needs to keep their hands off the markets.
I suggest you read up on Austrian Economics. This crisis, along with the dot com bubble, the S&L fiasco in the '80s, and even the Great Depression were all predicted by that system and were all caused by the Fed monkeying around with interest rates.
Here's the simple version: The Fed lowers interest rates to below their actual market value, causing investors to throw money at things that would not be profitable if the interest rates were kept at their true value. When the rates go back up (as they are forced to do to avoid hyperinflation) those investments fail.
A choice quote from Ron Paul, who predicted this years ago and is now appearing all over the airwaves to discuss the crisis and the proposed bailout:
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
I realize that this thread is about the cause of the crisis, but I cannot overemphasize how important it is that we stop the government from passing this bailout. Call your congressmen.
I'm in PA, another swing state, and I will absolutely vote 3rd party. The only way to make 3rd parties viable is to keep voting for them. The elections are always close. They are designed to be close. Part of the reason is to make it feel like we're accomplishing something, ignoring the fact that the left hand puppet and the right hand puppet are attached to the same corpulent body, and another part of the reason is to keep people from voting for 3rd parties out of fear that the wrong puppet might get in.
I'm optimistic about the future. The trick is to get Americans to wake up and realize that an alternative exists. The Campaign for Liberty has just gotten off the ground, but they're already fielding liberty-minded candidates at all levels of government. They have a pretty good vetting process to make sure that these people are genuine, too.
This $700bn bailout has an exceptionally low approval rating from the public (I heard 7% on NPR yesterday). If it passes, it will be a monumental example of how divorced from the public our leaders really are. In this case America will be ripe for change IF and ONLY IF Americans know that (real) change is available.
If you're fed up with the two-party system or even just the career politicians who have been running the place, check out the Campaign for Liberty. Tell your friends. Run for office. Educate people. Do something in addition to preaching to the choir. We are at a point in history where we can make a difference, but only if we get off of our asses and do it.
(This is not directed at you, Trifthen, but is a general call to action.)
I see where you're coming from, but Isolationism doesn't work when you want to sleep well at night.
What I'm talking about isn't isolationism; that would be completely cutting ourselves off from trade and communication. What I'm talking about is Jefferson's "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Sleeping well at night is a weak excuse for meddling in the affairs of others. There's plenty that goes on within our own borders that should be keeping you awake, and our energy is better spent eradicating those practices. "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
We can and should stay home unless we are attacked directly. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Why did we go to Kuwait and Somalia but not Darfur? Why aren't we in Zimbabwe (to name one of several African countries with huge problems) putting a stop to their rampant police abuse? Also keep in mind that half the time we give weapons and support to "the good guys" they end up turning said weapons against us later on.
We should not be the world police. If you really want an interventionist foreign policy, then stick with what the UN decides to support and throw troops where they direct you to. I personally want none of it, but it's better than playing cowboy.
When the Russians go rolling across Europe again as the resources of the planet become scarce, remember you said that. You will be praying for the U.S. and all of its "wasteful" high-tech weaponry to come on over (again) and save you. Maybe next time we should stay home and let you all eat each other.
As opposed to the US, who is currently rolling across the Middle East in search of precious hydrocarbons that we need to fuel our military-industrial complex that has to keep growing to fight all of the people we piss off as we roll across the Middle East in search of precious hydrocarbons?
(And yes, we should stay home and let them eat each other...it's their business.)
Voting republican won't work for me. They are traditionally the party of smaller government and individuality, but they left those traditions in the dust years ago when the neocons took over. They may return to it eventually, but judging by the way he toes the line nowadays McCain isn't the one to take them there.
I failed to mention foreign policy as the other dealbreaker in my original post. Both McCain's and Obama's foreign policies are variations on the same meddlesome one that George Bush has been using, the one that has alienated us from much of the world. Obama seems more willing to give up some US sovereignty and McCain more eager to stomp on the sovereignty of other nations. Neither of these is acceptable to me.
Also, for the record, I understand that no 3rd party is going to win, so we're stuck with Obama or McCain. Of the two, I would rather have Obama. I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on inefficient health care that will certainly help some people at home than on bombing Iran, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, or whoever is at the top of the warmongers' hit list this week.
This is why America will fall. As I see it, you just turned having an ivy league education into a negative point...
Agreed.
No, you're right. There's absolutely no change between a white child of privilege who's father and grandfather's influences gave him his education and career, and a guy from a single family mixed race household who went to college on scholarship, earned his admittance, and finished in the top of the class.
This election has way too much emphasis on the person of John McCain versus the person of Barack Obama instead of their respective policies.
Is it so inconceivable that two men of diverse backgrounds could end up with similar policies? I am aware that there are differences, and that some of these are important in the short term. Taking the long view, however, results in an identical push by both candidates for more government and less individual freedom. These ramifications won't be made apparent for another 10-20 years, but they will show up. I cannot vote for any candidate who will (sometimes with the best intentions) do such a thing to my country.
Agreed. Rather than have a line-item veto, Congress needs to regulate the way its bills are written (they want to regulate everything else, why not themselves?). DownsizeDC has some stuff that would help in this respect like the Read The Bills Act, which forces Congress to sit through the full reading of a bill before voting on it. I believe they have other proposed legislation that would limit bills to one subject, eliminating riders.
Do this and the need for line-item veto is eliminated. Unpopular legislation would be much harder to pass because it can't be whisked through the page-93 back door. Bills would either be shorter and more concise, or there would be a lot less of them due to the readings.
Sounds like a big win for The People, which is why I am not optimistic that it will come about. We're too lazy to keep pushing for it.
Yes it does, because it is not in their best interest to vote for Obama or McCain even if that is their desire.
It would also reaffirm that we are a nation ruled by laws, and as such all men are subject to those laws even when it is inconvenient.
Not that any of this will happen. No, there will be a special exemption or "bailout" because those two candidates are "too big to not be on the ballot." And any of us who bring up the event in the future will be ignored or, at best, accused of inflating a technicality into something it is not.
I'm increasingly convinced that the people running this place have perfected the art of turning gold into shit.
I was thinking along these lines myself. America's anger is finally starting to stir because increasing numbers of its citizens are tired of being treated like shit by their government. I predict that incidents of civil disobedience are going to rise sharply over the next few years. One of the hallmarks of civil disobedience is nonviolence, so it would be hard to spin as terrorism, but I can imagine government pressure on Google to take down how-tos and videos that advocate civil disobedience.
I am also of the opinion that Google would decline to cave to such pressure, should it come.
Surprised no grammar nazis picked this one up yet. Its' isn't a valid construction in English at all. Had it been it's, I'm sure that its tags would already include its. Is everyone afraid that they've missed a rule?
Yes, I know what posting this makes me, and I'm fine with that.
Yep, I agree. The first three or four chapters of the book are the most reliable, as they deal with Bohm's theory of a holographic universe and Pribam's holonomic brain model. After that it spirals into the "this could totally fit!" groping that you mentioned. It's still a decent book and a great introduction to the holographic theories, but I was disappointed when I checked out Sai Baba on Wikipedia only to find that he was a huge fraud. It casts a pallor on the rest of the book, especially since most of the people he mentions aren't easy to get information about.
I'm still a fan of the theories, and I'm less likely to dismiss psychic phenomena as complete bunk, but I would have to personally experience something like the dozens of highly accurate aura readings that he details to be convinced. I also can't help but feel that Talbot's purpose in writing the book was more to get his paranormal foot in the door than to discuss the holographic theories...that's certainly what happened to me.
Are they suggesting that each will be good for different areas? Or do they just not know what they're talking about?
Probably a little bit of both, but I'm leaning more towards the latter after reading that bit about MIDI "composing itself." Computers can play Go better than they can write music (i.e., not as well as a determined amateur).
Slashdot Mirror
I recently (within the past 8 months) switched to a Mac, and I hardly _ever_ use the dock. I can understand why it stays around: many users, especially Mac users, aren't comfortable with keyboard commands. For my computing habits, however, its utility is vastly overshadowed by Spotlight, which is an AutoComplete launcher for everything on your computer.
Wanna start Firefox? Command-Space, "fir", Enter.
Wanna open your resume? Command-Space, "my-re", Enter.
It's like the Windows Run dialog on crack, showing you a list of matches that shrinks as you type, with your most commonly used option highlighted. I think I use the mouse less on the Mac than I ever have with Windows.
Anonymity also insulates you against the whims of government, and organizations that don't have your best interests in mind.
Speaking of government, it seems kind of messed up to me that we have hardly a shred of privacy left, even less when it comes to government matters, yet much of the government's work is done behind closed doors.
Aren't these people supposed to be working for us?
Mod parent up. America hasn't had a true free market in decades.
I have friends who swear by this. They call the resulting vodka Ketel None.
I fail to see how learning Assembly in 3D would be any more useful or any less painful.
The initial cause was the government deciding that fucking with the money supply was a good idea. Inflation of the money supply creates a market boom that is artificial (not created by demand), and must be followed by a bust. The Community Reinvestment Act certainly had a big role to play in this particular cycle, and I'm glad you pointed it out. But the CRA is another example of how regulation just messes things up. If there was no government mandate for banks to take on these risky loans, and there wasn't an artificially low interest rate on Fed loans making them look more profitable than they really were, these banks would never have gotten into such a mess in the first place. The deregulation that made things worse (by enabling banks to hide their bad debt) would not have had such a negative effect if the banks hand't been coerced and tricked into making bad loans!
This is not a defense of the banks' behavior, merely a description of how their actions relate to the landscape they inhabit. The worst thing we can do right now is to pump more money (that we don't have) into the system. If we leave it alone and get rid of the Fed, or at least greatly reduce its power, we will have a short, sharp year-long recession followed by a full recovery. This could be the last boom/bust cycle if we the people decide to act. If the bailout passes, we're looking at a lingering 10-year recession, further devaluation of the dollar, and a socialist market in all but name.
You're absolutely right about the Law of Unintended Consequences and government's failure to learn, which is why government needs to keep their hands off the markets.
I suggest you read up on Austrian Economics. This crisis, along with the dot com bubble, the S&L fiasco in the '80s, and even the Great Depression were all predicted by that system and were all caused by the Fed monkeying around with interest rates.
Here's the simple version: The Fed lowers interest rates to below their actual market value, causing investors to throw money at things that would not be profitable if the interest rates were kept at their true value. When the rates go back up (as they are forced to do to avoid hyperinflation) those investments fail.
A choice quote from Ron Paul, who predicted this years ago and is now appearing all over the airwaves to discuss the crisis and the proposed bailout:
It's the same destructive strategy that government tried during the Great Depression: prop up prices at all costs. The Depression went on for over a decade. On the other hand, when liquidation was allowed to occur in the equally devastating downturn of 1921, the economy recovered within less than a year.
I realize that this thread is about the cause of the crisis, but I cannot overemphasize how important it is that we stop the government from passing this bailout. Call your congressmen.
WTF? Shouldn't you be placing the blame on the people who voted FOR Bush?
I'm in PA, another swing state, and I will absolutely vote 3rd party. The only way to make 3rd parties viable is to keep voting for them. The elections are always close. They are designed to be close. Part of the reason is to make it feel like we're accomplishing something, ignoring the fact that the left hand puppet and the right hand puppet are attached to the same corpulent body, and another part of the reason is to keep people from voting for 3rd parties out of fear that the wrong puppet might get in.
I'm optimistic about the future. The trick is to get Americans to wake up and realize that an alternative exists. The Campaign for Liberty has just gotten off the ground, but they're already fielding liberty-minded candidates at all levels of government. They have a pretty good vetting process to make sure that these people are genuine, too.
This $700bn bailout has an exceptionally low approval rating from the public (I heard 7% on NPR yesterday). If it passes, it will be a monumental example of how divorced from the public our leaders really are. In this case America will be ripe for change IF and ONLY IF Americans know that (real) change is available.
If you're fed up with the two-party system or even just the career politicians who have been running the place, check out the Campaign for Liberty. Tell your friends. Run for office. Educate people. Do something in addition to preaching to the choir. We are at a point in history where we can make a difference, but only if we get off of our asses and do it.
(This is not directed at you, Trifthen, but is a general call to action.)
Go ahead, Republicans, use your mod point! Strike me down! I will only grow more powerful!
More powerful will you grow, hmm, only when the truth you realize: Republican, Democrat, both to the Dark Side have fallen.
I see where you're coming from, but Isolationism doesn't work when you want to sleep well at night.
What I'm talking about isn't isolationism; that would be completely cutting ourselves off from trade and communication. What I'm talking about is Jefferson's "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."
Sleeping well at night is a weak excuse for meddling in the affairs of others. There's plenty that goes on within our own borders that should be keeping you awake, and our energy is better spent eradicating those practices. "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
We can and should stay home unless we are attacked directly. Otherwise, where do you draw the line? Why did we go to Kuwait and Somalia but not Darfur? Why aren't we in Zimbabwe (to name one of several African countries with huge problems) putting a stop to their rampant police abuse? Also keep in mind that half the time we give weapons and support to "the good guys" they end up turning said weapons against us later on.
We should not be the world police. If you really want an interventionist foreign policy, then stick with what the UN decides to support and throw troops where they direct you to. I personally want none of it, but it's better than playing cowboy.
When the Russians go rolling across Europe again as the resources of the planet become scarce, remember you said that. You will be praying for the U.S. and all of its "wasteful" high-tech weaponry to come on over (again) and save you. Maybe next time we should stay home and let you all eat each other.
As opposed to the US, who is currently rolling across the Middle East in search of precious hydrocarbons that we need to fuel our military-industrial complex that has to keep growing to fight all of the people we piss off as we roll across the Middle East in search of precious hydrocarbons?
(And yes, we should stay home and let them eat each other...it's their business.)
Voting republican won't work for me. They are traditionally the party of smaller government and individuality, but they left those traditions in the dust years ago when the neocons took over. They may return to it eventually, but judging by the way he toes the line nowadays McCain isn't the one to take them there.
I failed to mention foreign policy as the other dealbreaker in my original post. Both McCain's and Obama's foreign policies are variations on the same meddlesome one that George Bush has been using, the one that has alienated us from much of the world. Obama seems more willing to give up some US sovereignty and McCain more eager to stomp on the sovereignty of other nations. Neither of these is acceptable to me.
Also, for the record, I understand that no 3rd party is going to win, so we're stuck with Obama or McCain. Of the two, I would rather have Obama. I would much rather have my tax dollars spent on inefficient health care that will certainly help some people at home than on bombing Iran, Russia, North Korea, Pakistan, or whoever is at the top of the warmongers' hit list this week.
This is why America will fall. As I see it, you just turned having an ivy league education into a negative point...
Agreed.
No, you're right. There's absolutely no change between a white child of privilege who's father and grandfather's influences gave him his education and career, and a guy from a single family mixed race household who went to college on scholarship, earned his admittance, and finished in the top of the class.
This election has way too much emphasis on the person of John McCain versus the person of Barack Obama instead of their respective policies.
Is it so inconceivable that two men of diverse backgrounds could end up with similar policies? I am aware that there are differences, and that some of these are important in the short term. Taking the long view, however, results in an identical push by both candidates for more government and less individual freedom. These ramifications won't be made apparent for another 10-20 years, but they will show up. I cannot vote for any candidate who will (sometimes with the best intentions) do such a thing to my country.
Agreed. Rather than have a line-item veto, Congress needs to regulate the way its bills are written (they want to regulate everything else, why not themselves?). DownsizeDC has some stuff that would help in this respect like the Read The Bills Act, which forces Congress to sit through the full reading of a bill before voting on it. I believe they have other proposed legislation that would limit bills to one subject, eliminating riders.
Do this and the need for line-item veto is eliminated. Unpopular legislation would be much harder to pass because it can't be whisked through the page-93 back door. Bills would either be shorter and more concise, or there would be a lot less of them due to the readings.
Sounds like a big win for The People, which is why I am not optimistic that it will come about. We're too lazy to keep pushing for it.
Yes it does, because it is not in their best interest to vote for Obama or McCain even if that is their desire.
It would also reaffirm that we are a nation ruled by laws, and as such all men are subject to those laws even when it is inconvenient.
Not that any of this will happen. No, there will be a special exemption or "bailout" because those two candidates are "too big to not be on the ballot." And any of us who bring up the event in the future will be ignored or, at best, accused of inflating a technicality into something it is not.
I'm increasingly convinced that the people running this place have perfected the art of turning gold into shit.
Better yet, they hide the whole thing inside their muffler or gas tank so the whole thing would be hidden.
Best comment I've read all day! =)
I would be a lot more interested in that. Think of the awful movie possibilities!
I was thinking along these lines myself. America's anger is finally starting to stir because increasing numbers of its citizens are tired of being treated like shit by their government. I predict that incidents of civil disobedience are going to rise sharply over the next few years. One of the hallmarks of civil disobedience is nonviolence, so it would be hard to spin as terrorism, but I can imagine government pressure on Google to take down how-tos and videos that advocate civil disobedience.
I am also of the opinion that Google would decline to cave to such pressure, should it come.
That's a stupid policy.
1. [??]
2. Profit!
Surprised no grammar nazis picked this one up yet. Its' isn't a valid construction in English at all. Had it been it's, I'm sure that its tags would already include its. Is everyone afraid that they've missed a rule?
Yes, I know what posting this makes me, and I'm fine with that.
Yep, I agree. The first three or four chapters of the book are the most reliable, as they deal with Bohm's theory of a holographic universe and Pribam's holonomic brain model. After that it spirals into the "this could totally fit!" groping that you mentioned. It's still a decent book and a great introduction to the holographic theories, but I was disappointed when I checked out Sai Baba on Wikipedia only to find that he was a huge fraud. It casts a pallor on the rest of the book, especially since most of the people he mentions aren't easy to get information about.
I'm still a fan of the theories, and I'm less likely to dismiss psychic phenomena as complete bunk, but I would have to personally experience something like the dozens of highly accurate aura readings that he details to be convinced. I also can't help but feel that Talbot's purpose in writing the book was more to get his paranormal foot in the door than to discuss the holographic theories...that's certainly what happened to me.
Are they suggesting that each will be good for different areas? Or do they just not know what they're talking about?
Probably a little bit of both, but I'm leaning more towards the latter after reading that bit about MIDI "composing itself." Computers can play Go better than they can write music (i.e., not as well as a determined amateur).