Please consider reading up on this matter. These social programs traditionally, and logically, require more funding as time goes by to account for cost of living increases. This has been happening for a long time and for Democrats to offer no cost of living increases in funding for these programs is an offer of compromise. It is a fact that it is an act of compromise because it is contrary to what most Democrats and the majority of the American people want. It is this kind of long term thinking that we need right now. We don't need knee jerk reactionary cuts that fail to consider future generations. All legislation is dependent upon future Congresses not changing it, this is how a stable Democracy works. Finally, please use Google and do some research on Government spending. In the 8 years that Republicans controlled our government from 2000-2008 government spending increased by over 55%. Please go rant somewhere else about Democrats spending too much money or not being genuine when offering to compromise in order to move this country forward.
Thanks for pointing this out. You're right. As far as I understand the plan it would have prevented me from deducting the interest on my mortgage which is a benefit that I and many other homeowners I know appreciate. My experiences are not everyone's but this hit close to home so I exaggerated.
I never thought of it this way. Rather than being a threat to not raise taxes "or else", it is a promise that if you hold the line we'll make sure you're elected again. It is a little bit sensational sounding but it sort of is a bribe, isn't it? Thanks for this nice twist of logic.
"The Republicans proposed a plan that would have raised taxes by eliminating deductions while lowering marginal rates (thus raising effective rates). "
The plan the Republicans proposed lowered taxes on the richest people in the country (lowering the top rate possibly to 28% from the current 35%). Logic dictates that if this plan truly does generate any revenue at all it will be at the expense of the middle and lower classes paying more in taxes. The Democrats and a significant majority of Americans believe the richest people in our country should pay their fair share of the taxes and they believe they are not currently paying a fair amount. Why would the Democrats even consider such a proposal?
In regards to your comment on "mythical spending cuts" I believe you're being disingenuous and not fairly representing the opposing viewpoint. The fact that Democrats are offering any cuts at all to social programs is a true act of compromise. Again, many Democrats and a majority of the American people do not support any cuts to these programs.
In regards to my claims about what the American people believe or support please do some research on recent polling about social safety net cuts and taxes. Many polls have been done by a variety of sources and the result has been very consistent.
With all due respect I think you're making a false equivalence here. Please provide an example of how the Democrats are as extreme as Republican with regards to debt reduction. The Democrats have put their sacred cows on the table despite popular support for preserving the social safety nets. They've offered cuts to these programs in exchange for tax increases on the richest people in our country. Republicans have refused all discussion of tax increases without reservation. Not once have Republicans come to the table with a plan to raise taxes on the richest people in the country. The best they could do was a tax plan that effectively lowered the tax rates on the richest people while eliminating many itemized deductions that benefited the rest of us! So please do tell us where the Democrats were extreme during any part of these discussions.
"Still, unless you've got a fixation on having the latest and greatest, Android, even an older version of the system, easily offers a better experience than iOS."
Have you ever used an iOS device? Do you know anything at all about usability? I am not saying iOS is better than Android, but to say "easily offers a better experience..." you're not being intellectually honest.
And I FAIL at reading comprehension. My suggestion is neither a backpack nor will it fit a 17" MBP. Sorry Internets for wasting your tubes. Sorry Slashdotters for this post and the previous one!
I understand what you mean. This is a good example of the minority placing a check on the majority so that we can have a broader discussion. However, what is at stake in this issue, the credit of the entire country, is critical to everyone in a national and possibly an international context. In many cases I can see it would be good to have the minority slow down or stop a process in which the majority might be doing something new that is dangerous or questionable. But in this case it is the opposite. It is the minority that is, in effect, doing something new: potentially causing the US to default on its debt for the first time ever. The majority attempting to raise the debt ceiling is nothing new and has been done for decades by politicians of each party. I am not saying this is a good thing, but it is hard to deny that it is a low risk procedural move. The discussion of our debt that the minority is forcing should be held outside the context of raising our debt ceiling due to the time constraints involved. There is a false urgency being imposed by these people. The debt ceiling simply must increase or dire circumstances will occur. I say raise the debt ceiling and then fight over how to prevent this from happening again. The minority still gets to voice their opinion but with less leverage due to having no manufactured crisis. There are other ways the minority can obtain leverage without risking the credit of the entire country. My personal opinion as a home owner and citizen is that the recovery of our battered economy is more important than making rash decisions on how to reduce trillions of dollars in debt in a matter of days. Something as imperative as reducing debt deserves time and debate because it is so important to get it right.
If we do default or if our credit gets downgraded even without a default the minority will have achieved a Pyrrhic victory at great cost to the people of this great country.
Because these people represent a minority of the overall public. Yet they are exercising disproportionate control over critical government decisions. They have a right to their opinions and to represent those who voted for them. However, they've found a procedural tactic to put our society and the world in general at financial risk so that they can ram their beliefs down the throats of the majority. These people made promises that don't stand up to the real world. I don't really mind and often expect this from politicians but it is scary when people care more about re-election than maintaining the financial credibility of the United States of America during one of the greatest recessions in history.
The new Internet also allows for new tactics of protest. When people organize to post this type of offensive content all over the place the hardliners will find the Internet is shrinking and becoming less useful for their people. Are these types of protests basically trolling the hardliners?
I think you're proving this was a large mistake, not that it was with malice.
600 GB is a lot of data. But I wonder how many terabytes of legitimate data has been collected over the same period of time? 600 GB littered over many terabytes of other data over a long period of time could be likened to a needle in a haystick.
You're right that Google should not be given much slack. I think all signs point to this being an honest mistake that should never be repeated rather than anything more sinister. It may soon be proved otherwise, but right now that is just conjecture.
You make a good point. It is important to consider that Google's motives may not be altruistic. Furthermore, you're right that in the past companies "come clean" only after it becomes clear that they have no choice.
However, I don't think it is fair to presume the guilt of Google simply because of the actions of other companies. There is no proof of anything here other than what is publicly known about the situation. In admitting we don't know what prompted the disclosure you must also admit finger pointing is baseless until we learn more about what happened. The systematic method of data collection doesn't even speak to guilt. Any sufficiently large and complex system could be difficult to audit especially on a global scale.
I think it is fair to say that it is at least possible that there were no evil intentions on Google's part. There is just as much evidence for this as any other conclusion at this point.
I wonder if this is the start of a slippery slope situation. The goal here wasn't really to combat piracy but to assert control over cable box output. Now that they've justified one situation to block output (no matter how weak) they now have something concrete to point to the next time they want to block output. Basically, once one action to limit your rights is legal, how far is it until another action is deemed legit. So on and so forth.
Sony does make a media center console. This is the primary use of my PS3. It may not play every format or codec, but that doesn't change the fact that it happily supports CD's, DVD's, Blue-ray, Netflix streaming, MP3's, photos, some videos, etc.
It may not work for you as a media center but it certainly works for some folks.
You've made some good points that are obviously valid. I wonder if the reason there are so many people trying to limit free speech is because it is so pervasive in United States society. Even with your points being true the US still has more freedom of speech than many other countries. The Supreme Court in the US reviews hard core pornography and dog fighting videos just to determine if they are far beyond a reasonable standard of societal normality. They're not reviewing political demonstrations or reading blog posts because those types of speech are nearly unanimously accepted by all but the fringe of people living in the US. I know there are exceptions and injustices but I don't think those instances are the norm.
I think you've shown what active public discussion and disagreement looks like in a free society. It has warts but I don't know of a more freely speaking society on the planet at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Please consider reading up on this matter. These social programs traditionally, and logically, require more funding as time goes by to account for cost of living increases. This has been happening for a long time and for Democrats to offer no cost of living increases in funding for these programs is an offer of compromise. It is a fact that it is an act of compromise because it is contrary to what most Democrats and the majority of the American people want. It is this kind of long term thinking that we need right now. We don't need knee jerk reactionary cuts that fail to consider future generations. All legislation is dependent upon future Congresses not changing it, this is how a stable Democracy works. Finally, please use Google and do some research on Government spending. In the 8 years that Republicans controlled our government from 2000-2008 government spending increased by over 55%. Please go rant somewhere else about Democrats spending too much money or not being genuine when offering to compromise in order to move this country forward.
Thanks for pointing this out. You're right. As far as I understand the plan it would have prevented me from deducting the interest on my mortgage which is a benefit that I and many other homeowners I know appreciate. My experiences are not everyone's but this hit close to home so I exaggerated.
I never thought of it this way. Rather than being a threat to not raise taxes "or else", it is a promise that if you hold the line we'll make sure you're elected again. It is a little bit sensational sounding but it sort of is a bribe, isn't it? Thanks for this nice twist of logic.
The plan the Republicans proposed lowered taxes on the richest people in the country (lowering the top rate possibly to 28% from the current 35%). Logic dictates that if this plan truly does generate any revenue at all it will be at the expense of the middle and lower classes paying more in taxes. The Democrats and a significant majority of Americans believe the richest people in our country should pay their fair share of the taxes and they believe they are not currently paying a fair amount. Why would the Democrats even consider such a proposal?
In regards to your comment on "mythical spending cuts" I believe you're being disingenuous and not fairly representing the opposing viewpoint. The fact that Democrats are offering any cuts at all to social programs is a true act of compromise. Again, many Democrats and a majority of the American people do not support any cuts to these programs.
In regards to my claims about what the American people believe or support please do some research on recent polling about social safety net cuts and taxes. Many polls have been done by a variety of sources and the result has been very consistent.
With all due respect I think you're making a false equivalence here. Please provide an example of how the Democrats are as extreme as Republican with regards to debt reduction. The Democrats have put their sacred cows on the table despite popular support for preserving the social safety nets. They've offered cuts to these programs in exchange for tax increases on the richest people in our country. Republicans have refused all discussion of tax increases without reservation. Not once have Republicans come to the table with a plan to raise taxes on the richest people in the country. The best they could do was a tax plan that effectively lowered the tax rates on the richest people while eliminating many itemized deductions that benefited the rest of us! So please do tell us where the Democrats were extreme during any part of these discussions.
Improved UI
Face recognition
Movie Studio
New camera app
Hardware Acceleration
A lot more: http://briefmobile.com/android-4-0-ice-cream-sandwich-announced-feature-list
"Still, unless you've got a fixation on having the latest and greatest, Android, even an older version of the system, easily offers a better experience than iOS."
Have you ever used an iOS device? Do you know anything at all about usability? I am not saying iOS is better than Android, but to say "easily offers a better experience..." you're not being intellectually honest.
And I FAIL at reading comprehension. My suggestion is neither a backpack nor will it fit a 17" MBP. Sorry Internets for wasting your tubes. Sorry Slashdotters for this post and the previous one!
I carry a Nikon D7000 and a 15" MBP every day in this: http://www.tamrac.com/3447.htm
The bag does well protecting its contents and also has enough storage for camera and computer stuff. I like this bag and I am glad I got it.
I understand what you mean. This is a good example of the minority placing a check on the majority so that we can have a broader discussion. However, what is at stake in this issue, the credit of the entire country, is critical to everyone in a national and possibly an international context. In many cases I can see it would be good to have the minority slow down or stop a process in which the majority might be doing something new that is dangerous or questionable. But in this case it is the opposite. It is the minority that is, in effect, doing something new: potentially causing the US to default on its debt for the first time ever. The majority attempting to raise the debt ceiling is nothing new and has been done for decades by politicians of each party. I am not saying this is a good thing, but it is hard to deny that it is a low risk procedural move. The discussion of our debt that the minority is forcing should be held outside the context of raising our debt ceiling due to the time constraints involved. There is a false urgency being imposed by these people. The debt ceiling simply must increase or dire circumstances will occur. I say raise the debt ceiling and then fight over how to prevent this from happening again. The minority still gets to voice their opinion but with less leverage due to having no manufactured crisis. There are other ways the minority can obtain leverage without risking the credit of the entire country. My personal opinion as a home owner and citizen is that the recovery of our battered economy is more important than making rash decisions on how to reduce trillions of dollars in debt in a matter of days. Something as imperative as reducing debt deserves time and debate because it is so important to get it right.
If we do default or if our credit gets downgraded even without a default the minority will have achieved a Pyrrhic victory at great cost to the people of this great country.
Because these people represent a minority of the overall public. Yet they are exercising disproportionate control over critical government decisions. They have a right to their opinions and to represent those who voted for them. However, they've found a procedural tactic to put our society and the world in general at financial risk so that they can ram their beliefs down the throats of the majority. These people made promises that don't stand up to the real world. I don't really mind and often expect this from politicians but it is scary when people care more about re-election than maintaining the financial credibility of the United States of America during one of the greatest recessions in history.
Little Big Planet has the best co-op mode of any game I've played.
The new Internet also allows for new tactics of protest. When people organize to post this type of offensive content all over the place the hardliners will find the Internet is shrinking and becoming less useful for their people. Are these types of protests basically trolling the hardliners?
I think you're proving this was a large mistake, not that it was with malice.
600 GB is a lot of data. But I wonder how many terabytes of legitimate data has been collected over the same period of time? 600 GB littered over many terabytes of other data over a long period of time could be likened to a needle in a haystick.
You're right that Google should not be given much slack. I think all signs point to this being an honest mistake that should never be repeated rather than anything more sinister. It may soon be proved otherwise, but right now that is just conjecture.
You make a good point. It is important to consider that Google's motives may not be altruistic. Furthermore, you're right that in the past companies "come clean" only after it becomes clear that they have no choice.
However, I don't think it is fair to presume the guilt of Google simply because of the actions of other companies. There is no proof of anything here other than what is publicly known about the situation. In admitting we don't know what prompted the disclosure you must also admit finger pointing is baseless until we learn more about what happened. The systematic method of data collection doesn't even speak to guilt. Any sufficiently large and complex system could be difficult to audit especially on a global scale.
I think it is fair to say that it is at least possible that there were no evil intentions on Google's part. There is just as much evidence for this as any other conclusion at this point.
I wonder if this is the start of a slippery slope situation. The goal here wasn't really to combat piracy but to assert control over cable box output. Now that they've justified one situation to block output (no matter how weak) they now have something concrete to point to the next time they want to block output. Basically, once one action to limit your rights is legal, how far is it until another action is deemed legit. So on and so forth.
Sony does make a media center console. This is the primary use of my PS3. It may not play every format or codec, but that doesn't change the fact that it happily supports CD's, DVD's, Blue-ray, Netflix streaming, MP3's, photos, some videos, etc. It may not work for you as a media center but it certainly works for some folks.
You've made some good points that are obviously valid. I wonder if the reason there are so many people trying to limit free speech is because it is so pervasive in United States society. Even with your points being true the US still has more freedom of speech than many other countries. The Supreme Court in the US reviews hard core pornography and dog fighting videos just to determine if they are far beyond a reasonable standard of societal normality. They're not reviewing political demonstrations or reading blog posts because those types of speech are nearly unanimously accepted by all but the fringe of people living in the US. I know there are exceptions and injustices but I don't think those instances are the norm. I think you've shown what active public discussion and disagreement looks like in a free society. It has warts but I don't know of a more freely speaking society on the planet at the moment.