We have a money sink causing most bankruptcies today that we NEED to deal with and it is called "medical expenses."
The medical industry as a whole are breaking the USA more than the military complex. To argue that a change will make it worse as a reason for doing nothing is more than conservative or selfish; it is foolish. Something else NEEDS to be tried. We will end up in a mess anyhow so we may as well try to dig ourselves out. If we do poorly, we end up in a bigger hole and go broke faster but to sit and just wait for the inevitable -- why just give up? We should put up a fight.
Its not like socialized medicine hasn't been heavily studied and attempted in many ways - there are examples to learn from. Its also not somewhere where we have the time and money to sit around waiting for the PERFECT solution. We need to act -- the sooner the better. If we had addressed this issue 50+ years ago we'd have something to redo, repair, or build upon... oh wait! we do-- Medicare! Most wouldn't give it up, its popular-- it needs to be built upon and some of the past "fixes" need to be removed but those are details.
People need to THINK about their targets - don't waste time killing a camel with a million dollar bomb (even if that is the American way. Grow out of it or go broke.)
The trade deficit is a HUGE problem for the USA and the little we do with India always gets cited in situations like this one while not mentioning how much more we import and how that is indicative of the larger overall problem.
Protectionism IS HEALTHY to a certain extent but we don't believe in it anymore! Instead we believe solely in the free market gods to come rain prosperity upon us. If we get too dry, we just change the rainmen/high priests and pray to the almighty credit card for prosperity to return.
I pay higher income tax, higher sales tax, but my property tax is about HALF Wisconsin and I'm in a major city too. At least in MN, we don't pay sales tax on necessities.
They get you 1 way or another... Me, I want to remove homestead property taxes completely. I am a DIY bargain hunter and in my spare time I could easily make my house worth more than I can afford before my retirement - but say I was retired... it would be even easier to have such a problem. My state is full of small towns who can't afford to run themselves anyhow so they get a sizable chunk from the state...
Sometimes I think we waste 1-2% just playing all these games to fool the selfish voters.
A flat tax is impossible even if it was a constitutional amendment - the amount of POWER lost is so great that it trumps the constitution and that would not be the first time the "quaint document" was ignored.
Tax policy is used to push many agendas some good and some bad as well as many loopholes that sneak in for various reasons-- unsurprisingly, some good things come at the cost of buying a politician with something bad. Many rich people give to charity simply for the write off and good image - take away their write off and they'd cut back if not stop and the newly rich may never do it (or as much.) Many non-profits would be upset. They are not even the powerful ones.... Ballmer would throw a chair!..or...worse... or stomp on a kitten! He probably pays less than 10% in taxes while most people here are above 30%. He'd almost double his taxes with a flat-tax system.
--
Some taxes may be useful, such as taxing items with "external costs" that harm society; although, corporations (and their believers) prevent us from implementing market-oriented solutions. An example of this would be taxing non-biodegradable plastic bags so that they cost slightly more than paper bags - since they come at an external cost which is difficult to monetize as to how much harm it will cause future generations. Other things can be monetized and those costs need to come into play in the marketplace for it to be able to do anything about it. The market can't do a lot of stuff (sorry, there is no Santa) but the market can't act upon factors which are externalized - in fact, markets tend to trend towards externalizing as many costs as they can--- and its peoples around the world who end up paying those costs sooner or later. Naturally regulation has a place as well-- but in the USA neither regulation or "artificial overhead" are allowed to be intelligently debated.
-
Speaking of which, does anybody think Obama can plug that offshore corporate loophole now when he couldn't do it with the last congress? The lost corporate taxes just means smaller businesses, patriotic businesses, and tax payers have to pay the difference.
BTW, corps get a ton of government services and corporate welfare - if they leave the nation they should be billed for services rendered. Most corps who pay for an employee to get training make sure the employee must pay it back or stick around a while --- but for corporations dealing with the peoples' government... its a double standard.
Music happened when there wasn't IP law which was most of human existence. If music is free it will STILL happen we don't need corps generating formula bands and promoting them on radio in the payola scheme we have today.
Movies, well those may be severely hurt. Wouldn't do us much harm if we had less movies. Games probably as well. If they are hurt to the point of going out of business people would have to learn to support them or have no market - the "good apples" would have to support the industry or it wouldn't be considered worthwhile enough for enough people to support it. Simple enough. Do we need to impose a forced scarcity and limit liberty to protect an established market?
Just some things to think about. But NEVER think that all art, culture, music, plays, books, will DIE merely because we do not have a massive industry backing them! With the internet and cheap distribution the overhead is tiny - no industry is required. Artists working DIRECT may make a living at around the same levels as they do now -- possibly more will do better and some big (promoted) ones will not be as rich. Yes, in movies and games the overhead is large - so those could slow considerably... But for me, the loss of blockbusters wouldn't be a problem - a good story doesn't need high production - it can be a stage play requiring some audience imagination... (Shakespeare comes to mind.)
The wii costs much less - just the sensor here costs as much as a Wii.
I don't have to move around like a nut on the Wii unless I want to-- the motion is relative so one can play it without having to make it into a work out. The kids... they over do it and then fall back to minimal movement. I don't think it will stick for that long since you have to move your whole body the way they require. What I've seen is that people get sick of the full motion and find an alternative less intense style of playing the Wii because its relative and more forgiving in how it works.
I never was interested in being made to move around to mimic doing something real and then all this hype about realistic graphics and physics-- its a brain dead approach by trying to recreate reality - if this stuff is progressing towards simulating real activities I may as well GO OUTSIDE and actually do something FOR REAL. I can't race a fancy car and won't pay to fly a plane - those simulators make sense but I'd much rather race in Mario Kart than simulate racing a realistic Porsche. Just as I don't mind motion input that fits in with the action in the game; I don't want to jump around the room.
Voting systems need to be understandable by the voter. This means KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. A computer expert should not be involved. A counting machine based on PAPER can be physically verified and observed by anybody who can COUNT including the interested parties so all are confident of the result. Even a closed corrupt count could come to light if the paper record is preserved. A counting machine can be ignored during a recount; if there is nothing to count then there is no recount and even less deterrent since one can't validate the results. One can't even know if the machine is hacked while a counting machine can be compared against a paper count.
You have to be ignorant OR foolish to think that ANY computer system is better than a paper one under the same conditions. A totally open computer system can be hacked and all traces removed - you do realize that linux still gets patched for security holes right? A hacked compiler or linker can produce bad programs despite clean code. Foreign made hardware components are also suspect (doesn't he NSA have a chip fab plant of their own?) It would take multiple experts just to verify machine at 1 point in time; even then could easily miss a clever attack or a serious security hole. That is barring any tampering after 100% verification (which would only be in theory because you can't get to 100% just like you can't ever be 100% sure a program is bug free.)
The hanging chad problem was over hyped but it is a great example of a solution for a non-problem that complicated the paper system thereby creating a security flaw. It should be obvious that a simple system everybody could see was flawed took so long to be killed off was a problem and now we have people asking about a much much much more complex system and one which only a specialized few could identify flaws?? It defies reason.
Of course, its a somewhat moot issue since the system favors 2 parties which are for sale so any games between the zealots are just a distraction from the larger gaming of the public by the powerful.
Experts exist ALREADY for other areas of law enforcement and we didn't need laws for them. THEFT and FRAUD online is the same thing; in fact many spam schemes are based upon snail mail based schemes of the past.
Giving it a label falsely differentiates it which provides an opportunity to re-invent the wheel in a niche so the lobbyists and other power brokers can do things their way when they can not re-do the existing system. It also creates additional law to complicate things and employ more lawyers (the most powerful special interest group.)
In terms of public threat the robbers who kill for money are a bigger problem since there are more people to rob than there are homosexuals. I figure more people will hear about them IF they get out of jail than the robber-- making the robber more of a threat if they get back into the public.
The motive does not matter; you only need to have one and it need not be the actual motive either.
Killing a geek because you hate them is still MURDER 1. Why does not matter; any motive will be fine (in addition to the evidence.) A serial killer is crazy and possibly may not actually hate (or hate in a normal sense) their victims - but they are a BIG threat and we don't seem to do special things for them - but then when they are finally caught they've usually screwed themselves so bad they have a chain of murder convictions.
Now WHY should a hate murderer get punished more than another murderer? If somebody rapes and murders your mother why should they get LESS time simply because of the color of her skin is the same as the killers??
You don't need terrorism laws anymore than cyber crime. A few special case things but otherwise its the same stuff applies with no need for special junk added on to make somebody sound tough on crime... Mayors want most stats down while police and prosecutors want stats up they each twist them and screw up the system to those ends whether they like to or not in order to keep their jobs.
No, we don't need to call it terrorism. It is STILL a crime the fact it scares some people is beside the point. Terrorizing people is done more by the media than the criminals in the USA anyhow; although, they do amplify conventional terrorism many times more powerful than it is -making them the biggest terror makers of all.
Jailing a murderer who people dislike boosts morale - its the ones who get away that also get noticed that are the problem. What needs to be done special with such crimes is EXTRA EFFORT to make sure everybody sees him/them caught. Some platitudes about crime prevention also help unless they turn into laws... (you don't prevent crime most the time with those but the mob likes to hear it...)
Racists were deterred as they were made accountable publicly -- extra punishment didn't do it, it was just getting them punished JUSTLY that made a big difference. But now we have "tough hate crimes" when the bigger problems were many decades ago.
Simple. Hate is not a crime! Nor should it be, you can't stop hate by law anymore than you can drugs, sex, or any other human traits. skin color, or whatever.
The only thing required is to have HATE be a suitable motive for a crime (which is was already.) Codifying everything is part of the problem in the legal system today - let the judges JUDGE the sentences so that self-defense people may get less or different consequences than some hate motivated person. Trying to program the system (and using lawyers to do it) to undermine and eliminate judges towards the a day when its so complex computers are 'interpreting' the law is too rigid and complex and foolish.
Furthermore, by making laws discriminating against hate crimes you are effectively are creating a THOUGHT crime because in addition to the other charges an additional penalty is being applied for THINKING ('thought' in the most generalized way) an unpopular way. It sounds all well and good for politicians to pick on unpopular minorities (like smokers or races) but it is not fair and while you may not care about them your sense of fair play should deter you. Problem is most people fall for it and so repeats of the past will still happen.
The impact of the motive on the crime should be left outside the system for the judge's discretion; as it always has been. Sure, human bias is involved but there is some appeal possible to help balance this and it is better than having a ridged machine-like policy where 1 size fits all.
Another big FLAW in this hate crime reasoning is the idea that punishment deters crime. It does not do anything to deter many kinds of crime; again its not so simple that "1 size fits all" but then oversimplification works well for marketing politicians. You are not likely going to make any dent in "hate crimes" by punishing them - any deterrent is likely already there for the existing crime and the hate motive tends to cut down on the thinking.
This is CIVIL not criminal. If you can't rate a criminal prosecution you shouldn't rate a civil one in many situations... THIS is one of those situations.
The lesson here AGAIN for Americans to learn from is not to become civilized but to keep their children from doing ANYTHING because we prosecute, sue, and don't provide health care to children. So children can't do ANYTHING because this place isn't safe for kids to be kids
FREE PRESS / FREE SPEECH are closely related, not to mention they are in the 1st together... Clearly the PRESS is not the same as a corporation... well apparently that is not clear to you.
Corporations are not citizens. They have no rights under the constitution (and any they claim to have need to be removed from them.) Someday machines who are smart enough will manage corporations, possibly better than humans do and then it will get interesting. Software tools help manage things today but this is just the beginning.
The PRESS has always been a group until this blogger thing in recent times. However, the modern corporation was born after the civil war and a lot of our problems at their hands have happened since their birth. Before that time, corporations were of a different nature and were not that common. A real person was in charge of the group and could be held liable etc but with the birth of the modern corporation during a time of increased corruption the liability and accountability was removed and has been eroding ever since... as they gain more and more power without anything to hold back the gradual rise to be the dominant form power in the world today.
This will likely be the long term legacy for the USA; as the birth place of the mega corporate oligarchy that will plague global humanity for generations to come. Not democracy (Rome gets credit) and its constitution may be remembered to a degree but will likely be viewed as a failed system and its virtues downplayed by the powerful (as they are ignored today.)
"you broke it, you own it"
- pure propaganda; I wonder if Powell even came up with it.
This is not a business... well, in a way our wars are big business and that dictates our policies; but corruption aside, comparison of geopolitics to crap like that is just false reasoning. We have no obligation to fix Iraq because we made a bad situation even worse by trying to fix it. Clearly, by "fixing it" we made it worse! Common sense says do not continue to fix the mess you made if you just make it bigger.
Since when did ethics really become part of our geopolitics??? its just propaganda. Even then, we are not required to repair nations we break - the morals went out the window when we attacked in the 1st place.
Does it matter? Other than being a conversation starter, what it clearly is NOW is not what it was. Like I said, you can use that to tell some history and get in some good points but the current group shouldn't be legitimized and especially treated as if they are a large group with large protests. They are not.
I know some real libertarians I argue with all the time and we don't disagree a whole lot on most things but these people are nearly like the religious right groups of the 90s... in fact I bet many are the same and many of their manipulators are likely the same as well.
I think some signal got around before without all the hype. The real reason the word spread better now than in the past isn't them, its the internet and how vastly more intelligent the message is over the empty marketing we are bombarded with.
The times also are a factor; more so than this front group's attention. I think they are not contributing anymore than they harm the legitimate movement.
They warp it too far towards the corporations when Ron Paul and his smart followers advocate more government by killing the FED and returning our money back to our control (government WAS ours.) But instead this astroturf movement and gov are totally backing the banksters in any policy they want.
It is not what it was when it started. I know some of the 1st people and they are NOT part of the fake group of suckers who stole the name and just a small number of the early people are fell for the new one under the same banner.
Its not hard to steal a grass roots unorganized movement that has faded out when you have marketing people with tons of corporate funding and TV time when the real movement had an incredible time trying to even get noticed.
FYI: Retail stores markup prices so they can stay in business.
Apple's app store merely needs to charge around the price of a typical retail markup on their software. Major packages may get breaks but then they do in retail stores as well. In fact, someday they may pay for product placement in the app store just like many do today --by paying retail stores for better shelf space for their products!
Its nearly pure profit for apple because there is no retail store involved but given its ideal location they could charge a little more. The difference here is that they are going to pressure vendors to take prices so that the app store's end price is comparable with retail stores instead of charge premium pricing at their store. This may be something smaller vendors like if it is in exchange for FAIR placement in the store against a larger vendor just itching to buy the best shelf space or pay employees to promote their product (like MS does in retail stores.)
Technology has not progressed a whole lot this generation and its currently not moving at the exponential rate the population is.
Projections are limited (can't predict the future) and hindsight is easy to be smug about. If everybody was to live the American way, we ran out of earths long ago. If everybody lived the EU way, we'd be 3x over the limit.
You blow this off; thinking somehow new tech will save us-- we'll buy it and then TRASH it and newer tech will save the day... The cycle doesn't go on forever.
Its how you decide to measure things that impacts the results so much. You may not realize we are overpopulated already but a billion people in severe poverty around the world notice it (but may not understand why and just would like to be you... but there are only so many slots available at the top end... yeah yeah, we have enough to feed everybody but its a COST and distribution problem - give them all jobs... doing what? all the livable jobs are filled...)
Peak OIL: already hit it - if you think it amounts to output then you are grabbing the wrong stat. We can produce oil from shale at higher rates of output than ever before... if we wanted. The problem is that CHEAP to produce OIL has peaked and will never be any cheaper (barring the foolish trading games or government subsidies which only can go so far.)
Peak Copper - coming in a decade or two. Copper will still be around but it'll cost more-- recycling it costs more.
The system is designed around continual growth and there IS A LIMIT technology or not.
Who cares if they get his credentials wrong-- its AMAZING they even remembered what the expert told them at all! Even then, they still attempted to do it when so many experts say its not feasible given the current requirements.
India has some great computer experts. They should do something worthwhile and open source for the extra eyes - maybe get something going for other nations and corps that produces more jobs for them - like how OS in the west used to boost their economies.
They should seriously look at making a modern Multics! That amazing OS ran longer and with better uptimes and was used in the military. It may have been too complex and big back in the day resulting in the creation of unix-- but a modern unix kernel is so big and bloated that multics does not look so big and complex anymore.
They should also consider NOT using C++. It causes too much troubles. ADA is what the USA military used/uses and was created for their needs to avoid problems. In fact, why don't they tweak or pick the language 1st to avoid all the long term issues as well as possibly create local jobs in a new niche.
As far as running windows... they must be thinking WINE because tweaking windows would be a big mistake. Running windows apps in WINE isn't such a great idea either.
Slashdot Mirror
We have a money sink causing most bankruptcies today that we NEED to deal with and it is called "medical expenses."
The medical industry as a whole are breaking the USA more than the military complex. To argue that a change will make it worse as a reason for doing nothing is more than conservative or selfish; it is foolish. Something else NEEDS to be tried. We will end up in a mess anyhow so we may as well try to dig ourselves out. If we do poorly, we end up in a bigger hole and go broke faster but to sit and just wait for the inevitable -- why just give up? We should put up a fight.
Its not like socialized medicine hasn't been heavily studied and attempted in many ways - there are examples to learn from. Its also not somewhere where we have the time and money to sit around waiting for the PERFECT solution. We need to act -- the sooner the better. If we had addressed this issue 50+ years ago we'd have something to redo, repair, or build upon... oh wait! we do-- Medicare! Most wouldn't give it up, its popular-- it needs to be built upon and some of the past "fixes" need to be removed but those are details.
Parent is correct.
People need to THINK about their targets - don't waste time killing a camel with a million dollar bomb (even if that is the American way. Grow out of it or go broke.)
The trade deficit is a HUGE problem for the USA and the little we do with India always gets cited in situations like this one while not mentioning how much more we import and how that is indicative of the larger overall problem.
Protectionism IS HEALTHY to a certain extent but we don't believe in it anymore! Instead we believe solely in the free market gods to come rain prosperity upon us. If we get too dry, we just change the rainmen/high priests and pray to the almighty credit card for prosperity to return.
Am I the only one enjoying the fact the DDOS attack is against people who support DDOS attacks on the constitutional operation of the senate?
May as well have a smile now and then while Rome falls all around you.
Unless its a filibuster DDOS attack - those are ok.
I pay higher income tax, higher sales tax, but my property tax is about HALF Wisconsin and I'm in a major city too. At least in MN, we don't pay sales tax on necessities.
They get you 1 way or another... Me, I want to remove homestead property taxes completely. I am a DIY bargain hunter and in my spare time I could easily make my house worth more than I can afford before my retirement - but say I was retired... it would be even easier to have such a problem. My state is full of small towns who can't afford to run themselves anyhow so they get a sizable chunk from the state...
Sometimes I think we waste 1-2% just playing all these games to fool the selfish voters.
A flat tax is impossible even if it was a constitutional amendment - the amount of POWER lost is so great that it trumps the constitution and that would not be the first time the "quaint document" was ignored.
Tax policy is used to push many agendas some good and some bad as well as many loopholes that sneak in for various reasons-- unsurprisingly, some good things come at the cost of buying a politician with something bad. Many rich people give to charity simply for the write off and good image - take away their write off and they'd cut back if not stop and the newly rich may never do it (or as much.) Many non-profits would be upset. They are not even the powerful ones.... Ballmer would throw a chair! ..or...worse... or stomp on a kitten! He probably pays less than 10% in taxes while most people here are above 30%. He'd almost double his taxes with a flat-tax system.
--
Some taxes may be useful, such as taxing items with "external costs" that harm society; although, corporations (and their believers) prevent us from implementing market-oriented solutions. An example of this would be taxing non-biodegradable plastic bags so that they cost slightly more than paper bags - since they come at an external cost which is difficult to monetize as to how much harm it will cause future generations. Other things can be monetized and those costs need to come into play in the marketplace for it to be able to do anything about it. The market can't do a lot of stuff (sorry, there is no Santa) but the market can't act upon factors which are externalized - in fact, markets tend to trend towards externalizing as many costs as they can--- and its peoples around the world who end up paying those costs sooner or later. Naturally regulation has a place as well-- but in the USA neither regulation or "artificial overhead" are allowed to be intelligently debated.
-
Speaking of which, does anybody think Obama can plug that offshore corporate loophole now when he couldn't do it with the last congress? The lost corporate taxes just means smaller businesses, patriotic businesses, and tax payers have to pay the difference.
BTW, corps get a ton of government services and corporate welfare - if they leave the nation they should be billed for services rendered. Most corps who pay for an employee to get training make sure the employee must pay it back or stick around a while --- but for corporations dealing with the peoples' government... its a double standard.
Music happened when there wasn't IP law which was most of human existence. If music is free it will STILL happen we don't need corps generating formula bands and promoting them on radio in the payola scheme we have today.
Movies, well those may be severely hurt. Wouldn't do us much harm if we had less movies. Games probably as well. If they are hurt to the point of going out of business people would have to learn to support them or have no market - the "good apples" would have to support the industry or it wouldn't be considered worthwhile enough for enough people to support it. Simple enough. Do we need to impose a forced scarcity and limit liberty to protect an established market?
Just some things to think about. But NEVER think that all art, culture, music, plays, books, will DIE merely because we do not have a massive industry backing them! With the internet and cheap distribution the overhead is tiny - no industry is required. Artists working DIRECT may make a living at around the same levels as they do now -- possibly more will do better and some big (promoted) ones will not be as rich. Yes, in movies and games the overhead is large - so those could slow considerably... But for me, the loss of blockbusters wouldn't be a problem - a good story doesn't need high production - it can be a stage play requiring some audience imagination... (Shakespeare comes to mind.)
The wii costs much less - just the sensor here costs as much as a Wii.
I don't have to move around like a nut on the Wii unless I want to-- the motion is relative so one can play it without having to make it into a work out. The kids... they over do it and then fall back to minimal movement. I don't think it will stick for that long since you have to move your whole body the way they require. What I've seen is that people get sick of the full motion and find an alternative less intense style of playing the Wii because its relative and more forgiving in how it works.
I never was interested in being made to move around to mimic doing something real and then all this hype about realistic graphics and physics-- its a brain dead approach by trying to recreate reality - if this stuff is progressing towards simulating real activities I may as well GO OUTSIDE and actually do something FOR REAL. I can't race a fancy car and won't pay to fly a plane - those simulators make sense but I'd much rather race in Mario Kart than simulate racing a realistic Porsche. Just as I don't mind motion input that fits in with the action in the game; I don't want to jump around the room.
Voting systems need to be understandable by the voter. This means KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID. A computer expert should not be involved.
A counting machine based on PAPER can be physically verified and observed by anybody who can COUNT including the interested parties so all are confident of the result. Even a closed corrupt count could come to light if the paper record is preserved. A counting machine can be ignored during a recount; if there is nothing to count then there is no recount and even less deterrent since one can't validate the results. One can't even know if the machine is hacked while a counting machine can be compared against a paper count.
You have to be ignorant OR foolish to think that ANY computer system is better than a paper one under the same conditions. A totally open computer system can be hacked and all traces removed - you do realize that linux still gets patched for security holes right? A hacked compiler or linker can produce bad programs despite clean code. Foreign made hardware components are also suspect (doesn't he NSA have a chip fab plant of their own?) It would take multiple experts just to verify machine at 1 point in time; even then could easily miss a clever attack or a serious security hole. That is barring any tampering after 100% verification (which would only be in theory because you can't get to 100% just like you can't ever be 100% sure a program is bug free.)
The hanging chad problem was over hyped but it is a great example of a solution for a non-problem that complicated the paper system thereby creating a security flaw. It should be obvious that a simple system everybody could see was flawed took so long to be killed off was a problem and now we have people asking about a much much much more complex system and one which only a specialized few could identify flaws?? It defies reason.
Of course, its a somewhat moot issue since the system favors 2 parties which are for sale so any games between the zealots are just a distraction from the larger gaming of the public by the powerful.
Experts exist ALREADY for other areas of law enforcement and we didn't need laws for them. THEFT and FRAUD online is the same thing; in fact many spam schemes are based upon snail mail based schemes of the past.
Giving it a label falsely differentiates it which provides an opportunity to re-invent the wheel in a niche so the lobbyists and other power brokers can do things their way when they can not re-do the existing system. It also creates additional law to complicate things and employ more lawyers (the most powerful special interest group.)
In terms of public threat the robbers who kill for money are a bigger problem since there are more people to rob than there are homosexuals. I figure more people will hear about them IF they get out of jail than the robber-- making the robber more of a threat if they get back into the public.
The motive does not matter; you only need to have one and it need not be the actual motive either.
Killing a geek because you hate them is still MURDER 1. Why does not matter; any motive will be fine (in addition to the evidence.) A serial killer is crazy and possibly may not actually hate (or hate in a normal sense) their victims - but they are a BIG threat and we don't seem to do special things for them - but then when they are finally caught they've usually screwed themselves so bad they have a chain of murder convictions.
Now WHY should a hate murderer get punished more than another murderer? If somebody rapes and murders your mother why should they get LESS time simply because of the color of her skin is the same as the killers??
You don't need terrorism laws anymore than cyber crime. A few special case things but otherwise its the same stuff applies with no need for special junk added on to make somebody sound tough on crime... Mayors want most stats down while police and prosecutors want stats up they each twist them and screw up the system to those ends whether they like to or not in order to keep their jobs.
No, we don't need to call it terrorism. It is STILL a crime the fact it scares some people is beside the point. Terrorizing people is done more by the media than the criminals in the USA anyhow; although, they do amplify conventional terrorism many times more powerful than it is -making them the biggest terror makers of all.
Jailing a murderer who people dislike boosts morale - its the ones who get away that also get noticed that are the problem. What needs to be done special with such crimes is EXTRA EFFORT to make sure everybody sees him/them caught. Some platitudes about crime prevention also help unless they turn into laws... (you don't prevent crime most the time with those but the mob likes to hear it...)
Racists were deterred as they were made accountable publicly -- extra punishment didn't do it, it was just getting them punished JUSTLY that made a big difference. But now we have "tough hate crimes" when the bigger problems were many decades ago.
Simple. Hate is not a crime! Nor should it be, you can't stop hate by law anymore than you can drugs, sex, or any other human traits. skin color, or whatever.
The only thing required is to have HATE be a suitable motive for a crime (which is was already.) Codifying everything is part of the problem in the legal system today - let the judges JUDGE the sentences so that self-defense people may get less or different consequences than some hate motivated person. Trying to program the system (and using lawyers to do it) to undermine and eliminate judges towards the a day when its so complex computers are 'interpreting' the law is too rigid and complex and foolish.
Furthermore, by making laws discriminating against hate crimes you are effectively are creating a THOUGHT crime because in addition to the other charges an additional penalty is being applied for THINKING ('thought' in the most generalized way) an unpopular way. It sounds all well and good for politicians to pick on unpopular minorities (like smokers or races) but it is not fair and while you may not care about them your sense of fair play should deter you. Problem is most people fall for it and so repeats of the past will still happen.
The impact of the motive on the crime should be left outside the system for the judge's discretion; as it always has been. Sure, human bias is involved but there is some appeal possible to help balance this and it is better than having a ridged machine-like policy where 1 size fits all.
Another big FLAW in this hate crime reasoning is the idea that punishment deters crime. It does not do anything to deter many kinds of crime; again its not so simple that "1 size fits all" but then oversimplification works well for marketing politicians. You are not likely going to make any dent in "hate crimes" by punishing them - any deterrent is likely already there for the existing crime and the hate motive tends to cut down on the thinking.
This is CIVIL not criminal. If you can't rate a criminal prosecution you shouldn't rate a civil one in many situations... THIS is one of those situations.
The lesson here AGAIN for Americans to learn from is not to become civilized but to keep their children from doing ANYTHING because we prosecute, sue, and don't provide health care to children. So children can't do ANYTHING because this place isn't safe for kids to be kids
FREE PRESS / FREE SPEECH are closely related, not to mention they are in the 1st together... Clearly the PRESS is not the same as a corporation... well apparently that is not clear to you.
Corporations are not citizens. They have no rights under the constitution (and any they claim to have need to be removed from them.) Someday machines who are smart enough will manage corporations, possibly better than humans do and then it will get interesting. Software tools help manage things today but this is just the beginning.
The PRESS has always been a group until this blogger thing in recent times. However, the modern corporation was born after the civil war and a lot of our problems at their hands have happened since their birth. Before that time, corporations were of a different nature and were not that common. A real person was in charge of the group and could be held liable etc but with the birth of the modern corporation during a time of increased corruption the liability and accountability was removed and has been eroding ever since... as they gain more and more power without anything to hold back the gradual rise to be the dominant form power in the world today.
This will likely be the long term legacy for the USA; as the birth place of the mega corporate oligarchy that will plague global humanity for generations to come. Not democracy (Rome gets credit) and its constitution may be remembered to a degree but will likely be viewed as a failed system and its virtues downplayed by the powerful (as they are ignored today.)
In fact it doesn't matter who says what !
"you broke it, you own it"
- pure propaganda; I wonder if Powell even came up with it.
This is not a business... well, in a way our wars are big business and that dictates our policies; but corruption aside, comparison of geopolitics to crap like that is just false reasoning. We have no obligation to fix Iraq because we made a bad situation even worse by trying to fix it. Clearly, by "fixing it" we made it worse! Common sense says do not continue to fix the mess you made if you just make it bigger.
Since when did ethics really become part of our geopolitics??? its just propaganda. Even then, we are not required to repair nations we break - the morals went out the window when we attacked in the 1st place.
Does it matter? Other than being a conversation starter, what it clearly is NOW is not what it was. Like I said, you can use that to tell some history and get in some good points but the current group shouldn't be legitimized and especially treated as if they are a large group with large protests. They are not.
I know some real libertarians I argue with all the time and we don't disagree a whole lot on most things but these people are nearly like the religious right groups of the 90s... in fact I bet many are the same and many of their manipulators are likely the same as well.
I think some signal got around before without all the hype. The real reason the word spread better now than in the past isn't them, its the internet and how vastly more intelligent the message is over the empty marketing we are bombarded with.
The times also are a factor; more so than this front group's attention. I think they are not contributing anymore than they harm the legitimate movement.
They warp it too far towards the corporations when Ron Paul and his smart followers advocate more government by killing the FED and returning our money back to our control (government WAS ours.) But instead this astroturf movement and gov are totally backing the banksters in any policy they want.
Its supposed to be a shocking tragic situation with a dire ending as a warning to the audiences of the day but I thought the ending was a happy one.
It is not what it was when it started. I know some of the 1st people and they are NOT part of the fake group of suckers who stole the name and just a small number of the early people are fell for the new one under the same banner.
Its not hard to steal a grass roots unorganized movement that has faded out when you have marketing people with tons of corporate funding and TV time when the real movement had an incredible time trying to even get noticed.
FYI: Retail stores markup prices so they can stay in business.
Apple's app store merely needs to charge around the price of a typical retail markup on their software. Major packages may get breaks but then they do in retail stores as well. In fact, someday they may pay for product placement in the app store just like many do today --by paying retail stores for better shelf space for their products!
Its nearly pure profit for apple because there is no retail store involved but given its ideal location they could charge a little more. The difference here is that they are going to pressure vendors to take prices so that the app store's end price is comparable with retail stores instead of charge premium pricing at their store. This may be something smaller vendors like if it is in exchange for FAIR placement in the store against a larger vendor just itching to buy the best shelf space or pay employees to promote their product (like MS does in retail stores.)
Technology has not progressed a whole lot this generation and its currently not moving at the exponential rate the population is.
Projections are limited (can't predict the future) and hindsight is easy to be smug about. If everybody was to live the American way, we ran out of earths long ago. If everybody lived the EU way, we'd be 3x over the limit.
You blow this off; thinking somehow new tech will save us-- we'll buy it and then TRASH it and newer tech will save the day... The cycle doesn't go on forever.
Its how you decide to measure things that impacts the results so much. You may not realize we are overpopulated already but a billion people in severe poverty around the world notice it (but may not understand why and just would like to be you... but there are only so many slots available at the top end... yeah yeah, we have enough to feed everybody but its a COST and distribution problem - give them all jobs... doing what? all the livable jobs are filled...)
Peak OIL: already hit it - if you think it amounts to output then you are grabbing the wrong stat. We can produce oil from shale at higher rates of output than ever before... if we wanted. The problem is that CHEAP to produce OIL has peaked and will never be any cheaper (barring the foolish trading games or government subsidies which only can go so far.)
Peak Copper - coming in a decade or two. Copper will still be around but it'll cost more-- recycling it costs more.
The system is designed around continual growth and there IS A LIMIT technology or not.
Who cares if they get his credentials wrong-- its AMAZING they even remembered what the expert told them at all! Even then, they still attempted to do it when so many experts say its not feasible given the current requirements.
India has some great computer experts. They should do something worthwhile and open source for the extra eyes - maybe get something going for other nations and corps that produces more jobs for them - like how OS in the west used to boost their economies.
They should seriously look at making a modern Multics! That amazing OS ran longer and with better uptimes and was used in the military. It may have been too complex and big back in the day resulting in the creation of unix-- but a modern unix kernel is so big and bloated that multics does not look so big and complex anymore.
They should also consider NOT using C++. It causes too much troubles. ADA is what the USA military used/uses and was created for their needs to avoid problems. In fact, why don't they tweak or pick the language 1st to avoid all the long term issues as well as possibly create local jobs in a new niche.
As far as running windows... they must be thinking WINE because tweaking windows would be a big mistake. Running windows apps in WINE isn't such a great idea either.