First, any post that contains the phrase "the Constitution, perhaps unwisely, separates the Church and the State" is either a troll or not worth arguing with. I mean, if someone thinks that they are more politically savvy than the Founding Fathers, what can you say to that?
I would like to throw in a tiny factual statement, though: marriage existed before Christians did. There are many married people in the US (and *gasp* the world) who support the idea of marriage and are not Christians. Marriage may be "sacred" to Christians. Beef is sacred to Hindus. Should we pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting McDonalds? "Eating beef? That's just sick."
I hate to sound incredulous, but you must not be reading the papers. China is a net food importer. They import food from the US, amoung other places. In any case, our problem isn't that we rely on foreign resources. Switzerland, Argentina, and Japan rely on foreign resources too. They don't get in wars every five years, because they have learned to solve problems without trying to impose an unilateral military solution.
Isolationism does seem to be in vogue here in the states, but it is an illusion. We could swear to become "self-sufficient" in farming here in the states, but it would be an illusion. The tractors, gasoline, chemicals, harvesting labour, and electronics that are required are supplied from foreign countries, and without this trade our society would collapse. I don't understand the scenario of "What if we didn't trade with anyone? Would we be ok?" The answer, of course, is no. We could be rolling naked on piles of steak and cookies and we would still be SOL when we ran out of gas, labour, electronics, etc. The "rely on other countries for food" scare tactic assumes a scenario that subsidizing farm income doesn't solve. If we're really scared of relying on other countries for food, we should start teaching berry harvesting in middle school, because we won't have any immigrants to abuse when the mythical hammer drops and the Congo Navy blockades the US coast.
Australia is perhaps a special case since it is mostly desert and in the middle of nowhere, shipping-route-wise.
First of all, no one "suffers" from one-person, one-vote. It is a political compromise that avoids the one-person one-AK47 scenario. By definition, if every person gets a vote, how can anyone "suffer" from that? Are you saying that some people are better because they have more property, and should therefore have more votes?
In any event, the myth of the noble farmer is something that comes up repeatedly in American politics, and it irritates me because it is so far from the truth. Sure, there are some farmers out there who are living like their pappys did, scratching out a living on the land of their grandfathers. The vast, vast majority of farmland in the US, however, is owned by coporations or "large scale" farmers who have something close to the land mass of a european country. The myth that the average farm is a four person family with 25 acres and a blue pickup is simply not true, if it ever was.
The other farmer myth is that we need American farms for our food supply. The fact is that much of the food in your local grocery store comes from other countries. Food is cheap to produce. It is so cheap to produce that we have protections to keep the price from falling too low. If Megafarm Alpha can produce corn for 1$ a pound, and it costs Sympathy Farm 3$ a pound to produce it, then Sympathy Farm can go to Congress with their straw hat in hand and say that they needs to get that price set above 3$ a pound, or they'll lose the farm! Never mind that this amounts to a consumer subsidy of 2$+ a pound, or a price increase of 200%. Of course, Megafarm Alpha is crying all the way to the bank. The US Goverment will also buy up food for higher-than-market prices (Gov-mint cheese?) to support these inefficient yet sympathetic family farms, and incidentally the huge Megafarms that contribute to political campaigns. Obviously I'm ranting, but I wish the populace at large was aware of what a huge burden inefficient farming forms on the American taxpayer, because it is certainly unjustified using the current argument of protecting the food supply. How much farmland does the US use for cash crops, cattle feed, and other non-human food produce? I am confident that, with modern farming methods, we are in no danger of losing our ability to feed our population. We are, however, getting ripped off.
What are we supposed to do, all move to the city if we want decent internet access?
The economics of rural service are very interesting. Right now everyone with a phone in the USA is paying to subsidize phone access to rural residents. It costs more money to service an area with a low populations density than an urban area. Fine, people need phones for safety reasons. Rural residents presumably subsidize services they don't need, like meth clinics.
It bothers me when people start talking about subsidizing rural internet access, though. El says that "they're not even thinking about running cable" near his house, and that he'd have to shell out 10K$ to connect to said cable, anyway. I'm curious: who does he think should bear these costs? Everyone in the US?
If people want to move to the middle of nowhere to get away from gangs, traffic, comedians, literacy, and culture, that's fine. It isn't reasonable to expect the same service level in the middle of nowhere that one enjoys in New York City, though. It's especially unreasonable to regard the acquisition of these services as a right. If you want to enjoy cheap services, then move to where it is cheap to provide those services. If you want to live in an area that is difficult and expensive to service, break out your wallet.
El isn't necessarily making this argument, he just reminded me of the people I had to deal with when I worked in the rural NW.
You don't need [...] to see Holly hump a German Shephard.
You obviously weren't paying close attention, if you're talking about episode 0F6A. It's an English Shorthair. _Mindy_ was with the German Shephard, in a different episode.
Right now there's a powerline in NW WA state that used to carry 230kV. It was rated for 500kV, and the transmission company had an easement for 500kV. For years they ran it at a lower voltage, because they could. Now they have some congestion issues, so they bumped up the voltage to 500kV. Bam, "lots" of powerline noise. It's the same amount of noise as any 500kV line, but the people nearby moved in while it was being run at 230kV, so they think that the noise is unreasonable. Trouble is, the easement allows 500kV, which means the neighbours are Screwed. This strikes me as unfair, since when I buy a house I wouldn't think to check the powerline easement to see if there's a higher voltage rating, or to ask what the voltage on the line was currently (no pun intended). Anyway, you might want to do both of these things to avoid a Screwing.
Not only is it illegal and stupid, but if there's a ground anywhere on the line (happens pretty frequently) then there will be a "fault," which means a huge surge of current through the line, which means a huge induced current in your hill-billy (i.e. son of the soil) setup, which means meltdown and other Badness. Just say no.
"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you lawyers do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows that same pattern, Mr. Anderson. Do you know what it is? A virus. Lawyers are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague."
What are the costs to the user when software vendors are held to the same reliability standards as auto makers?
Should there be differentiation between operating system stability and application stability?
What responsibility does the user have for securing their own property?
How will different countries answer these questions, and what is the implication for US software vendors if there are 80 separate standards of culpability for an operating system?
And since I should have at least one answer, the speed of light is slower in materials with a higher index of refraction.
I thought it was another example of people buying something that was too overpowered for their system. Plus, the new PCI-X standard is coming out, so maybe the 10Gig cards are for that. Anyway, it looks like the bus can't handle 10Gbps ethernet anyway.
This is an interesting point. A DS3 is 54 Mbps, or thereabouts, and PCI runs on a 66MHz bus, right? Wouldn't you be wasting bandwidth if you put it into a PC? I thought that was why they are putting the 100Mbps ethernet onto the Northbridge to avoid the PCI bus entirely. I have to admit to only a vague understanding, so if anyone out there knows better please chime in.
I mean really, are we so naive to believe the Clintons buddies (and Bush, Reagan, Carter, etc) didn't get a rubber stamp on thier pork? Of course not.
Actually, with respect to Clinton's presidency, that's exactly what I'm saying. You see, after 1992 there was a Congressional majority of Republicans. That means that they would like nothing better to point out that the Demoncrats were stuffing bills with pork, and then laugh and throw them out. Yes, some porky bills were still passed (for farmers who are saints, sacrificing themselves for the rest of us, etc) but you didn't see the kind of blatant taxdollar giveaways we're seeing with a Republican Congress, President, and Supreme Court. I'm not saying the Demos would be any better if they had the full house, but in that particular respect the President does have some control over the economy.
I'm not saying that the President has absolute control over the economy in the same way I have control over my television. It is amazing to me that people argue that the President of the US, who is probably the single most powerful person in the world, is unable to affect the US economy at all. I guess all he can do is sign legislation that affects trillions of tax dollars, write executive orders that change the status of the largest employer in the country (the govt), and move the armed services around in foriegn countries, incurring massive costs. I'm sure these things have nothing to do with the rest of the economy.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to throw in a tiny factual statement, though: marriage existed before Christians did. There are many married people in the US (and *gasp* the world) who support the idea of marriage and are not Christians. Marriage may be "sacred" to Christians. Beef is sacred to Hindus. Should we pass a Constitutional amendment prohibiting McDonalds? "Eating beef? That's just sick."
At the rate I read /., I won't have children to put through college.
"Adam Sith" is apparently a character from the Knights of the Old Republic game from Lucas Arts. I hadn't heard this quote, though.
I hate to sound incredulous, but you must not be reading the papers. China is a net food importer. They import food from the US, amoung other places. In any case, our problem isn't that we rely on foreign resources. Switzerland, Argentina, and Japan rely on foreign resources too. They don't get in wars every five years, because they have learned to solve problems without trying to impose an unilateral military solution.
Australia is perhaps a special case since it is mostly desert and in the middle of nowhere, shipping-route-wise.
In any event, the myth of the noble farmer is something that comes up repeatedly in American politics, and it irritates me because it is so far from the truth. Sure, there are some farmers out there who are living like their pappys did, scratching out a living on the land of their grandfathers. The vast, vast majority of farmland in the US, however, is owned by coporations or "large scale" farmers who have something close to the land mass of a european country. The myth that the average farm is a four person family with 25 acres and a blue pickup is simply not true, if it ever was.
The other farmer myth is that we need American farms for our food supply. The fact is that much of the food in your local grocery store comes from other countries. Food is cheap to produce. It is so cheap to produce that we have protections to keep the price from falling too low. If Megafarm Alpha can produce corn for 1$ a pound, and it costs Sympathy Farm 3$ a pound to produce it, then Sympathy Farm can go to Congress with their straw hat in hand and say that they needs to get that price set above 3$ a pound, or they'll lose the farm! Never mind that this amounts to a consumer subsidy of 2$+ a pound, or a price increase of 200%. Of course, Megafarm Alpha is crying all the way to the bank. The US Goverment will also buy up food for higher-than-market prices (Gov-mint cheese?) to support these inefficient yet sympathetic family farms, and incidentally the huge Megafarms that contribute to political campaigns. Obviously I'm ranting, but I wish the populace at large was aware of what a huge burden inefficient farming forms on the American taxpayer, because it is certainly unjustified using the current argument of protecting the food supply. How much farmland does the US use for cash crops, cattle feed, and other non-human food produce? I am confident that, with modern farming methods, we are in no danger of losing our ability to feed our population. We are, however, getting ripped off.
The economics of rural service are very interesting. Right now everyone with a phone in the USA is paying to subsidize phone access to rural residents. It costs more money to service an area with a low populations density than an urban area. Fine, people need phones for safety reasons. Rural residents presumably subsidize services they don't need, like meth clinics.
It bothers me when people start talking about subsidizing rural internet access, though. El says that "they're not even thinking about running cable" near his house, and that he'd have to shell out 10K$ to connect to said cable, anyway. I'm curious: who does he think should bear these costs? Everyone in the US?
If people want to move to the middle of nowhere to get away from gangs, traffic, comedians, literacy, and culture, that's fine. It isn't reasonable to expect the same service level in the middle of nowhere that one enjoys in New York City, though. It's especially unreasonable to regard the acquisition of these services as a right. If you want to enjoy cheap services, then move to where it is cheap to provide those services. If you want to live in an area that is difficult and expensive to service, break out your wallet.
El isn't necessarily making this argument, he just reminded me of the people I had to deal with when I worked in the rural NW.
People are going to be dying in Iraq for a long time. This candidate might do something to fix the problem.
"Begun, this Spoiler Season has."
I bet they were really crappy pictures.
That will teach those Vegan terrorists.
You obviously weren't paying close attention, if you're talking about episode 0F6A. It's an English Shorthair. _Mindy_ was with the German Shephard, in a different episode.
Here in America, you label drives "Master/Slave" for correctness.
In Socialist California, the label correctness slaves master YOU!
Of course, there's the Onion's idea of executive compensation....
LISA: Books by grown-up nerds like Gore Vidal, and even he's kissed more boys than I ever will.
MARGE: Girls, Lisa. Boys kiss _girls_.
The noise thing is VERY IMPORTANT. Here's why:
Right now there's a powerline in NW WA state that used to carry 230kV. It was rated for 500kV, and the transmission company had an easement for 500kV. For years they ran it at a lower voltage, because they could. Now they have some congestion issues, so they bumped up the voltage to 500kV. Bam, "lots" of powerline noise. It's the same amount of noise as any 500kV line, but the people nearby moved in while it was being run at 230kV, so they think that the noise is unreasonable. Trouble is, the easement allows 500kV, which means the neighbours are Screwed. This strikes me as unfair, since when I buy a house I wouldn't think to check the powerline easement to see if there's a higher voltage rating, or to ask what the voltage on the line was currently (no pun intended). Anyway, you might want to do both of these things to avoid a Screwing.
I work for a power company.
Not only is it illegal and stupid, but if there's a ground anywhere on the line (happens pretty frequently) then there will be a "fault," which means a huge surge of current through the line, which means a huge induced current in your hill-billy (i.e. son of the soil) setup, which means meltdown and other Badness. Just say no.
"Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment. But you lawyers do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows that same pattern, Mr. Anderson. Do you know what it is? A virus. Lawyers are a disease, a cancer of this planet. You are a plague."
Mississippi as in "Beer-Free."
What are the costs to the user when software vendors are held to the same reliability standards as auto makers?
Should there be differentiation between operating system stability and application stability?
What responsibility does the user have for securing their own property?
How will different countries answer these questions, and what is the implication for US software vendors if there are 80 separate standards of culpability for an operating system?
And since I should have at least one answer, the speed of light is slower in materials with a higher index of refraction.
I thought it was another example of people buying something that was too overpowered for their system. Plus, the new PCI-X standard is coming out, so maybe the 10Gig cards are for that. Anyway, it looks like the bus can't handle 10Gbps ethernet anyway.
This is an interesting point. A DS3 is 54 Mbps, or thereabouts, and PCI runs on a 66MHz bus, right? Wouldn't you be wasting bandwidth if you put it into a PC? I thought that was why they are putting the 100Mbps ethernet onto the Northbridge to avoid the PCI bus entirely. I have to admit to only a vague understanding, so if anyone out there knows better please chime in.
Therefore your cause is to encourage people, so what is your agenda in pursuing this cause?
"Line Item Veto"
Actually, with respect to Clinton's presidency, that's exactly what I'm saying. You see, after 1992 there was a Congressional majority of Republicans. That means that they would like nothing better to point out that the Demoncrats were stuffing bills with pork, and then laugh and throw them out. Yes, some porky bills were still passed (for farmers who are saints, sacrificing themselves for the rest of us, etc) but you didn't see the kind of blatant taxdollar giveaways we're seeing with a Republican Congress, President, and Supreme Court. I'm not saying the Demos would be any better if they had the full house, but in that particular respect the President does have some control over the economy.
I'm not saying that the President has absolute control over the economy in the same way I have control over my television. It is amazing to me that people argue that the President of the US, who is probably the single most powerful person in the world, is unable to affect the US economy at all. I guess all he can do is sign legislation that affects trillions of tax dollars, write executive orders that change the status of the largest employer in the country (the govt), and move the armed services around in foriegn countries, incurring massive costs. I'm sure these things have nothing to do with the rest of the economy.