"Additionally we can pull hundreds of billions in foreign aid and put that into our domestic scientific, engineering, and manufacturing base instead. "
It might be hard to pull a few hundreds of billions out of foreign aid because our total foreign aid is about $52B a year. That includes "military" foreign aid.
That's for 2011, and it is about $4B greater than 2010. Unless we added another $48B or so in foreign aid in the last year, it is going to be hard to trim $100B from a $52B budget.
Even trimming $100B from a $683B Military budget might be hard.
Even taking a wide view of 'Military' spending (including interest on debt from past wars, counter terrorism, and such) it would be hard to cut $100B from a $1.4T budget, but now we are talking actually do-able.
They freed the slaves, opposed jim Crow laws, busted trusts and monopolies, crushed corrupt political bosses, supported Women's suffrage (early in the game), supported prohibition (after suffrage)
It was actually a triple whammy that turned the party into right wing socialist wing nuts.
The 'Southern' strategy to attract white democrats who felt abandoned when the Democrats started backing civil rights: The R's abandoned their history and embraced the closet racists
The Nixon/Kissinger "Neo-con" years where followers of Harrington and Kristol became influential in party leadership. (Basically, anti-communist socialists who support massive military spending against communist regimes and call themselves conservative.): The R's abandoned economic conservatism and embraced the right wing socialist policies they continue today.
The Reagan strategy of wooing the right wing evangelical vote: The R's abandoned their socially progressive history and embraced the religious right.
After that, the small business owner that had been the mainstay of the Republican party for decades was derisively referred to as a 'Chamber of Commerce' Republican and ridiculed. The Republican party was once the party that freed the slaves, opposed Jim Crow laws, was the progressive party of Teddy Roosevelt that cleaned up political corruption, busted monopolies and created the national park system.
That's the theory that Oompha Loomphas created the earth out of discarded cocoa bean husks sometime last Thursday night, and we all woke up for the first time Friday morning with all our memories primed to think that we'd been here for years and years, right?
I use Linux so I'm no longer an authority on Windows, but why switch? Can't you just use Windows 7 for a few years? You don't have to get a new computer or update your OS just because something new has come out. If Windows 7 works for you keep using it.
In Linux land gnome 3 was a terrible interface. However each month developers came out with tweeks, applets and extensions that made it useful for users. I just kept using XFCE, but the point is don't worry about Windows 8. Either it will become workable, or it will be replaced by Windows 9.
Windows XP didn't hit it's stride until SP2, so relax. Use what you are using and wait it out.
It could also be that this version of Direct X is Windows 8 specific. I don't use Windows, but is it common to have that small 'a' subscript in a release. It sure seems odd to me. Like it is some kind of sub-release targeted ad a specific sub architecture of Windows.
When Windows first came on the market it was not the market leader. It did not have years of legacy code or legacy applications holding it back. It could have been built more secure from the ground up.
All of Windows competitors competed in the same market with the same 'cyber-criminals'. They built products that better withstood attack. All of the parties building products for sale in all of these markets were subject to the same market forces. By the time we got to the world of touch surfaces, music players and phones, Microsoft had a few things it could have used to its advantage: $49B in the bank and market dominance. They are complaining that they had to re-direct resources to make Windows secure. Then they should have tapped into their reserves and gotten more resouces!
Maybe if they didn't waste money on ads for churros and running shoes with Jerry Seinfeld and put that money towards product development they would have succeeded.
Microsoft failed in these markets because they failed to understand what consumers wanted. They have no one else to blame but themselves.
The 'Inalienable rights' statement is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.
'Creator' or 'God' is not mentioned in the constitution. Article IV does state:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
And, of course, the first amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Besides, fundamentalist christians should have no problem with a seperation of church and state. The bible explicitly tells them to render unto rome what is rome's and to god what is god's. I'm sure every last fundamentalist preacher and religious order in America voluntarily pays taxes, even though they are exempt by law. If they don't render unto the government what is due, they are not following the word of god and are hypocrites. I'm sure none of them ever do anything hypocritical!
"There’s a concept in economics called 'opportunity costs,' which you may not have learned about because you were taking chemistry instead of economics. Opportunity costs are the sacrifices we make when we choose one alternative over another.... "
When you chose to send your sons to a public school where the cost of tuition is spread over all the taxpayers, even those who do not have children, you ran right into one of those 'opportunity costs' you are talking about. You had alternative choices: home schooling, private tutors, forming a charter school with like minded parents.
Making the choice that you made resulted in some sacrifices over the control of the course of study your sons follow in school. Reality, and 'opportunity costs' are a bitch dude!
The article even says that the parent was mis-informed that chemistry was required. A little due dilligence on his part, and his son could have taken a different scince class. Whoosh! There goes another opportunity cost. Choosing to be more involved in your child's education would have given you the opportunity to learn more about required classes and avoided this whole issue. By making the choice you did (not being as involved as you could have) the sacrifices of opportunity costs came back and bit you again.
Of course, it always has to be someone else's fault.
If you study the natural world, the universe in all of its wonder it is easy to be filled with a sense of awe. The kind of feeling people often only experience through religion.
Anyone who seriously devotes time to studying the world, and chooses to believe in a 'god', would never think that the 'god' who authored the universe is the same 'god' that is supposed to have authored the Bible, or any other religious text.
If there is anything that would mark a creator, it would be that they were always 100% consistent. I'm not claiming there is a creator, but if there is that creator is always self-consistent and never contradictory. I don't think that can be applied to who ever or what ever wrote the Bible.
Sorry, 100% self consistent and an inoordinate fondness for beetles.
Mis-quoting an off the cuff remark by Ronald Reagan...
U.N. Spokesperson: "We have just passed the first international blasphemy regulations. It is now illegal for any nations to engage in blasphemy at the national level. As our first act under this legislation, any offending nation that has officially referred to any other nation as 'The Great Satan' is now outlawed... We begin bombing the offending nations in 5 minutes."
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waitresses.
Why do I get this feeling it's Apple trying to get some anti-Samsung feelings out there? After all, the iPhone factory stories of suicides and crap like that really got some talk time before. If this is what it was supposed to be, it's weak. Otherwise, I'm not sure what is new or interesting about this story.
It is interesting how many anti-[insert name of current lawsuit foe] stories show up in the media when apple or someone starts to sue a company.
Not to excuse the behavior, but it seems to happen with companies other than apple as well.
Is it really coordinated, or could it be the increased attention of the lawsuit gets journalists to start doing background on the parties involved? Those background research efforts then lead to these stories. Before the apple lawsuit, who outside of South Korea paid much attention to Samsung? This could be a side effect of the lawsuits.
Wait, I just said "journalists to start doing background on the parties involved". Since when do 'journalists' in the technical press do anything other than:
Cut and paste corporate press releases
Write opinion pieces
Get paid to badmouth someone
Journalists in the tech press doing background research! There is about as much chance of that as SCO had in making billions in its lawsuit scam.
Keep searching for balance and understanding. God and religion are not the same thing. Religion is an activity of man, not of god. You might have been taught that doubting and questioning is a bad thing.
In the Bible Jesus is quoted as saying:
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed."
But remember that according to Christian belief Jesus was just a man, not a god. Jesus had his doubts and was not 100% sure of his own beliefs:
"Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani? which is, being interpreted, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
If Jesus was 100% sure he would survive death on the cross, then he really wasn't sacrificing anything through his death. Christian belief says that the sacrifice Jesus made gives mankind redemption or forgiveness from sin and pays for mankind's salvation. Well if Jesus was 100% sure he wouldn't really die, then there was no sacrifice, and then there is no redemption and no salvation. So in Christian belief, Jesus's moment of doubt is the central defining moment.
So if you have doubts about your beliefs that should not be a problem. Jesus had doubts. Any Christian that thinks you should have no doubt isn't doing what Jesus did. If you are going to base your beliefs on books written by humans, remember that even the best of us are fallible. Jesus was not happy with the way religion was practiced in his time. You can also be unhappy with the way religion is practiced in your time. Just try not to die for your beliefs, live for them instead.
I'm not a big fan of socialized medicine, but I also don't believe it is the end of the world.
I am amazed that the majority of people who are 'foaming at the mouth' crazy in their opposition to socialized medicine are also 'foaming at the mouth' crazy in their support of socialized religion. Not all, but there does seem to be a strong interest on socialized religion from the right wing in America...
Teach young earth creationism in schools (instead of teaching your own children and leaving other people alone)
Use government to ban teaching of evolution (instead of founding, and funding your own schools)
Impose religious views on a Woman's right to choose (instead of trying to convince people instead of force people)
" You must follow the law as I give it to you whether you agree with it or not."
The Judge acts as an expert on the law. The Judge decides matters of law in Court cases. There is no need for a Jury when it comes to matters of law. This instruction tells the Jury that the Judge will clarify matters of law, and that the jury must follow the law even if they do not agree with the law. For example, one juror may believe that all software patents are 'like totally bogus, or something!" This instruction says that it really doesn't matter what the juror thinks about software patents, they must follow the law, period. If the juror wants the law changed they must elect politicians who will change the law, here in Court we just obey the law as it exists.
Courts cannot even review a law all on their own. The parties in the cuase must ask a higher Court for the review. Those party requested reviews can go up to the Supreme Court. The Supremes are the final reviewers.
"You must not infer from these instructions or from anything I may say or do as indicating that I have an opinion regarding the evidence or what your verdict should be."
The Judge decides matters of law, but the Jury will cast their verdict of who wins in disputes between the two parties in the litigation. This jury decision should be made based on the evidence. The Jury makes the call in disputes: Apple says this, Samsung says that; who wins the argument based on evidence?
Ths second instruction is not telling the Jury about decisions on legal matters like the first instruction did. Legal matters are the Judge's call. Disputes between parties are the Jury's call. The Jury must decide their opinions based on evidence and not on what they think the Judge would want.
These are pretty much the same instructions I have received when I have been on a Jury. Worded differently, but same meanings.
Neither Apple or Samsung are accused of destroying evidence.
Apple accused Samsung of not retaining email from the point in time when Apple requested the lower Court order that evidence be retained, and got the lower Court to issue the original warning. Samsung disputed Apple's opinon. Samsung showed that it did retain emails from the point in time when the Court issued the order to retain evidence, although not from the point in time that Apple made the request. Basically, Samsung's argument is that the Court, not Apple issues these kind of orders.
It turns out that Apple itself did not retain emails until the Court finally ordered it, so they engaged in exactly the same behavior Samsung did. Apple did not start fully retaining
Judge Koh decided that since Apple and Samsung engaged in the exact same behavior regarding saving of potential evidence, they should both get treated exactly the same in Court.
I think that you get the ramifications of the parent pretty clearly. And yes they are correct. Sometimes this is true, even in extreme cases of shared belief. And yes, I think they speaking tounge in cheek.
For instance, did you know that up until about 150 years ago that it was completely legal in many parts of the United States to actually own another human being because of the color of their skin? The reason this extreme behavior was allowed was because the majority of the voting public in those regions all agreed that it should not just be be allowed, but that it was right and just to do so!
Taking legal slavery as an actual example, although an extreme one, you can then suppose that many other odd behaviors can be either enforced or banned through the use of majority will being applied in a democratic-republican form of government. Banning the teaching of evolution is a small perturbation from normal behavior compared to thinking it is right and just to actually own another human being. One injustice has been dealt with in the past. This does not mean that there are no current examples of majority will legalizing bizarre and strange behavior now and in the future.
All that is needed for evil to succeed is that enough good men do nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
It might be hard to pull a few hundreds of billions out of foreign aid because our total foreign aid is about $52B a year. That includes "military" foreign aid.
That's for 2011, and it is about $4B greater than 2010. Unless we added another $48B or so in foreign aid in the last year, it is going to be hard to trim $100B from a $52B budget.
Even trimming $100B from a $683B Military budget might be hard.
Even taking a wide view of 'Military' spending (including interest on debt from past wars, counter terrorism, and such) it would be hard to cut $100B from a $1.4T budget, but now we are talking actually do-able.
Could we weave Begley Cloth now for or planetary colonization efforts?
. The Republicans were a progressive party.
They freed the slaves, opposed jim Crow laws, busted trusts and monopolies, crushed corrupt political bosses, supported Women's suffrage (early in the game), supported prohibition (after suffrage)
It was not the party we know today.
It was actually a triple whammy that turned the party into right wing socialist wing nuts.
After that, the small business owner that had been the mainstay of the Republican party for decades was derisively referred to as a 'Chamber of Commerce' Republican and ridiculed. The Republican party was once the party that freed the slaves, opposed Jim Crow laws, was the progressive party of Teddy Roosevelt that cleaned up political corruption, busted monopolies and created the national park system.
The Brain, of Pinky and the Brain, and Christopher Walken explain that science does not understand non-dairy creamer.
Is that 1 thing?
Omphalism?
That's the theory that Oompha Loomphas created the earth out of discarded cocoa bean husks sometime last Thursday night, and we all woke up for the first time Friday morning with all our memories primed to think that we'd been here for years and years, right?
You can
You pick which desktop environment to use at login. Your choice becomes the default so you don't have to choose every time you log in.
You left one very important word out of your list of hard G words: Graphic.
GIF is an acronym for Graphic Interchange Format, not for Giraffe interchange format. So the G in GIF is hard, just like the G in Graphic.
What kind of dark ages operating system are you using? download managers?
Worked for me.
What could be more standard than that?
I use Linux so I'm no longer an authority on Windows, but why switch? Can't you just use Windows 7 for a few years? You don't have to get a new computer or update your OS just because something new has come out. If Windows 7 works for you keep using it.
In Linux land gnome 3 was a terrible interface. However each month developers came out with tweeks, applets and extensions that made it useful for users. I just kept using XFCE, but the point is don't worry about Windows 8. Either it will become workable, or it will be replaced by Windows 9.
Windows XP didn't hit it's stride until SP2, so relax. Use what you are using and wait it out.
It could also be that this version of Direct X is Windows 8 specific. I don't use Windows, but is it common to have that small 'a' subscript in a release. It sure seems odd to me. Like it is some kind of sub-release targeted ad a specific sub architecture of Windows.
When Windows first came on the market it was not the market leader. It did not have years of legacy code or legacy applications holding it back. It could have been built more secure from the ground up.
All of Windows competitors competed in the same market with the same 'cyber-criminals'. They built products that better withstood attack. All of the parties building products for sale in all of these markets were subject to the same market forces. By the time we got to the world of touch surfaces, music players and phones, Microsoft had a few things it could have used to its advantage: $49B in the bank and market dominance. They are complaining that they had to re-direct resources to make Windows secure. Then they should have tapped into their reserves and gotten more resouces!
Maybe if they didn't waste money on ads for churros and running shoes with Jerry Seinfeld and put that money towards product development they would have succeeded.
Microsoft failed in these markets because they failed to understand what consumers wanted. They have no one else to blame but themselves.
Build procucts people actually want to buy.
A death cruller!
The 'Inalienable rights' statement is in the Declaration of Independence, not the constitution.
'Creator' or 'God' is not mentioned in the constitution. Article IV does state :
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
And, of course, the first amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Besides, fundamentalist christians should have no problem with a seperation of church and state. The bible explicitly tells them to render unto rome what is rome's and to god what is god's. I'm sure every last fundamentalist preacher and religious order in America voluntarily pays taxes, even though they are exempt by law. If they don't render unto the government what is due, they are not following the word of god and are hypocrites. I'm sure none of them ever do anything hypocritical!
"There’s a concept in economics called 'opportunity costs,' which you may not have learned about because you were taking chemistry instead of economics. Opportunity costs are the sacrifices we make when we choose one alternative over another. ... "
When you chose to send your sons to a public school where the cost of tuition is spread over all the taxpayers, even those who do not have children, you ran right into one of those 'opportunity costs' you are talking about. You had alternative choices: home schooling, private tutors, forming a charter school with like minded parents.
Making the choice that you made resulted in some sacrifices over the control of the course of study your sons follow in school. Reality, and 'opportunity costs' are a bitch dude!
The article even says that the parent was mis-informed that chemistry was required. A little due dilligence on his part, and his son could have taken a different scince class. Whoosh! There goes another opportunity cost. Choosing to be more involved in your child's education would have given you the opportunity to learn more about required classes and avoided this whole issue. By making the choice you did (not being as involved as you could have) the sacrifices of opportunity costs came back and bit you again.
Of course, it always has to be someone else's fault.
What a douche.
If you study the natural world, the universe in all of its wonder it is easy to be filled with a sense of awe. The kind of feeling people often only experience through religion.
Anyone who seriously devotes time to studying the world, and chooses to believe in a 'god', would never think that the 'god' who authored the universe is the same 'god' that is supposed to have authored the Bible, or any other religious text.
If there is anything that would mark a creator, it would be that they were always 100% consistent. I'm not claiming there is a creator, but if there is that creator is always self-consistent and never contradictory. I don't think that can be applied to who ever or what ever wrote the Bible.
Sorry, 100% self consistent and an inoordinate fondness for beetles.
Mis-quoting an off the cuff remark by Ronald Reagan...
U.N. Spokesperson: "We have just passed the first international blasphemy regulations. It is now illegal for any nations to engage in blasphemy at the national level. As our first act under this legislation, any offending nation that has officially referred to any other nation as 'The Great Satan' is now outlawed... We begin bombing the offending nations in 5 minutes."
Thank you, I'll be here all week. Remember to tip your waitresses.
Here is a definition of CC by SA
Why do I get this feeling it's Apple trying to get some anti-Samsung feelings out there? After all, the iPhone factory stories of suicides and crap like that really got some talk time before. If this is what it was supposed to be, it's weak. Otherwise, I'm not sure what is new or interesting about this story.
It is interesting how many anti-[insert name of current lawsuit foe] stories show up in the media when apple or someone starts to sue a company.
Not to excuse the behavior, but it seems to happen with companies other than apple as well.
Is it really coordinated, or could it be the increased attention of the lawsuit gets journalists to start doing background on the parties involved? Those background research efforts then lead to these stories. Before the apple lawsuit, who outside of South Korea paid much attention to Samsung? This could be a side effect of the lawsuits.
Wait, I just said "journalists to start doing background on the parties involved". Since when do 'journalists' in the technical press do anything other than:
Journalists in the tech press doing background research! There is about as much chance of that as SCO had in making billions in its lawsuit scam.
Keep searching for balance and understanding. God and religion are not the same thing. Religion is an activity of man, not of god. You might have been taught that doubting and questioning is a bad thing.
In the Bible Jesus is quoted as saying:
But remember that according to Christian belief Jesus was just a man, not a god. Jesus had his doubts and was not 100% sure of his own beliefs:
If Jesus was 100% sure he would survive death on the cross, then he really wasn't sacrificing anything through his death. Christian belief says that the sacrifice Jesus made gives mankind redemption or forgiveness from sin and pays for mankind's salvation. Well if Jesus was 100% sure he wouldn't really die, then there was no sacrifice, and then there is no redemption and no salvation. So in Christian belief, Jesus's moment of doubt is the central defining moment.
So if you have doubts about your beliefs that should not be a problem. Jesus had doubts. Any Christian that thinks you should have no doubt isn't doing what Jesus did. If you are going to base your beliefs on books written by humans, remember that even the best of us are fallible. Jesus was not happy with the way religion was practiced in his time. You can also be unhappy with the way religion is practiced in your time. Just try not to die for your beliefs, live for them instead.
I'm not a big fan of socialized medicine, but I also don't believe it is the end of the world.
I am amazed that the majority of people who are 'foaming at the mouth' crazy in their opposition to socialized medicine are also 'foaming at the mouth' crazy in their support of socialized religion. Not all, but there does seem to be a strong interest on socialized religion from the right wing in America...
I have no interest in socialized religion.
Will there be bottles with red wax around the cap?
If not, I'll skip it.
No, there is no inconsistency...
The Judge acts as an expert on the law. The Judge decides matters of law in Court cases. There is no need for a Jury when it comes to matters of law. This instruction tells the Jury that the Judge will clarify matters of law, and that the jury must follow the law even if they do not agree with the law. For example, one juror may believe that all software patents are 'like totally bogus, or something!" This instruction says that it really doesn't matter what the juror thinks about software patents, they must follow the law, period. If the juror wants the law changed they must elect politicians who will change the law, here in Court we just obey the law as it exists.
Courts cannot even review a law all on their own. The parties in the cuase must ask a higher Court for the review. Those party requested reviews can go up to the Supreme Court. The Supremes are the final reviewers.
The Judge decides matters of law, but the Jury will cast their verdict of who wins in disputes between the two parties in the litigation. This jury decision should be made based on the evidence. The Jury makes the call in disputes: Apple says this, Samsung says that; who wins the argument based on evidence?
Ths second instruction is not telling the Jury about decisions on legal matters like the first instruction did. Legal matters are the Judge's call. Disputes between parties are the Jury's call. The Jury must decide their opinions based on evidence and not on what they think the Judge would want.
These are pretty much the same instructions I have received when I have been on a Jury. Worded differently, but same meanings.
Neither Apple or Samsung are accused of destroying evidence.
Apple accused Samsung of not retaining email from the point in time when Apple requested the lower Court order that evidence be retained, and got the lower Court to issue the original warning. Samsung disputed Apple's opinon. Samsung showed that it did retain emails from the point in time when the Court issued the order to retain evidence, although not from the point in time that Apple made the request. Basically, Samsung's argument is that the Court, not Apple issues these kind of orders.
It turns out that Apple itself did not retain emails until the Court finally ordered it, so they engaged in exactly the same behavior Samsung did. Apple did not start fully retaining
Judge Koh decided that since Apple and Samsung engaged in the exact same behavior regarding saving of potential evidence, they should both get treated exactly the same in Court.
Apple disagrees.
I think that you get the ramifications of the parent pretty clearly. And yes they are correct. Sometimes this is true, even in extreme cases of shared belief. And yes, I think they speaking tounge in cheek.
For instance, did you know that up until about 150 years ago that it was completely legal in many parts of the United States to actually own another human being because of the color of their skin? The reason this extreme behavior was allowed was because the majority of the voting public in those regions all agreed that it should not just be be allowed, but that it was right and just to do so!
Taking legal slavery as an actual example, although an extreme one, you can then suppose that many other odd behaviors can be either enforced or banned through the use of majority will being applied in a democratic-republican form of government. Banning the teaching of evolution is a small perturbation from normal behavior compared to thinking it is right and just to actually own another human being. One injustice has been dealt with in the past. This does not mean that there are no current examples of majority will legalizing bizarre and strange behavior now and in the future.
All that is needed for evil to succeed is that enough good men do nothing.
Someone has a new IT infrastructure they want to sell to the Saudis.
First create the demand with the 'cyber attack', then be ready to supply the solution.
Should be able to charge a huge price tag.