What economists do you most closely align yourself with, what school of economics do you adhere to, and do you believe that there is a link between freedom and liberty, and the type of economic system in place, presently or hypothetically? What economic system would be ideal to you?
1) On the Federal level, you can either have the Constitution OR democracy, not both.
2) The Constitution ended a long, long time ago, and almost no current politicians make any pretense of having any loyalty to it.
3) Fascism is system of government and economics. It is also known as Corporatism (a point of some confusion among the less educated, it has zero to do with the corporation as presently understood). Even if your first paragraph's contentions where true in their entirety, it would not necessarily indicate a fascist system of government and society.
I don't see anyone using eComStation, though. Is someone using it? Probably. Who? I'm not really sure.
I didn't realize legacy Palm hardware was still in use. However, I think most people use non-Palm OS Symbol units, NCR, and other specialized data collection hardware, instead of old Palm devices.
The ReactOS project dates to 1998, when Windows 2000 was still "Whistler." I don't think it's moving along due to Vista. MS is not dropping free support for XP until 2014. Sales, yeah, sort of, but Windows XP Home (i.e. "the bad version") is still being sold with itsy bitsy PCs, and OEMs are still carrying the XP line.
2) Dump PDA line, close down any idiotic Folio-like R&D until profitable.
3) Fundamentally redesign the appearance hardware, and boost its features. Palm needs smartphones that combine the business-edge of RIM with the glitz of the iPhone.
4) Throw out smartphone that is innovative and a noticeable improvement over its predecessor at least twice a year. You need volume, turnover, and upgrade incentives.
5) Get a new OS, now. If you have to, buy or rent another OS, and slap a Palm emulation layer on top.
I know what you mean. Almost all the guys screaming about anthropogenic global warming have huge financial stakes in it, either through investments in "alternative" energy programs, or through government and Left-wing institutional grants.
I mentioned a book written by a Canadian enviro who has some weird, socialistic ideas about things. Your question also evinces a lack of concern for facts, and a preference for ideology.
Um, have you ever tried editing that section on Wikipedia? I've done extensive battle on the Oreskes issue, and I eventually left Wikipedia over the kind of iron-fisted censorship that is Wikipedia. I don't think Wikipedia is part of any conspiracy; it simply is controlled by very bad people, and there are no checks and balances. Wikipedia is simply wrong on that, and trying to add multiple, independent sources opposing it will only result in immediate deletion. If you want, you can poke through the page history.
And they're not. Everything the proponents of anthropogenic global warming has turned out to be wrong, even as they furiously attempt to dig up some shred of science to support their claims. I suggest starting with "The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud" by Canadian environmental journalist Lawrence Solomon, and the National Center for Policy Analysis' "A Global Warming Primer," http://eteam.ncpa.org/files/GlobalWarmingPrimer_low.pdf (can't figure out a way to link to a PDF on/., probably not supposed to be able to) to get a better idea of what's been going on.
The oceans serve as heat reservoir, and will absorb heat during high output solar cycles. Once the Sun goes into a low solar output cycle, the Earth will maintain a fairly stable temperature as the oceans return the heat to the atmosphere. Once the oceans have reached equilibrium, there will be a net loss of heat into space, and the Earth will begin to cool. This is calculated to begin in or around 2012. That's why the oceans are cooling.
A statistical anomaly in what sense? The global warming alarmists keep saying the Earths' temperature rises every year. It hasn't. One wouldn't expect it too either, as the sun cycle is in a low period, and only our oceans, which trap and then release heat, have managed to keep the Earth at a steady temperature. Around 2012, things are going to get a bit nippy.
"Microsoft still has three out of ten people running an old version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched, while Firefox has converted more than half of its users to the latest version in just over a week. That should set a few alarm bells ringing in Redmond."
And? We know that MS has 70% of its IE users on IE7, and we know Mozilla has, according to a site, 55% of its users on FF3. We know FF3 reached this benchmark, on a single site, after just over a week. Do we know what IE7's usage rates where after just over a week? No. No conclusions can be drawn. Slashdot should not be posting crap designed to fool stupid people.
The primary purpose of freedom of speech is to protect political speech. If you throw that out, there's no limit to what you can rip apart through legislation.
Slashdot Mirror
Keynes/Friedman, or Mises, I'd prefer.
What economists do you most closely align yourself with, what school of economics do you adhere to, and do you believe that there is a link between freedom and liberty, and the type of economic system in place, presently or hypothetically? What economic system would be ideal to you?
Um, where's the link to the court ruling??? If there isn't yet one published, the parent needs to say so.
1) On the Federal level, you can either have the Constitution OR democracy, not both.
2) The Constitution ended a long, long time ago, and almost no current politicians make any pretense of having any loyalty to it.
3) Fascism is system of government and economics. It is also known as Corporatism (a point of some confusion among the less educated, it has zero to do with the corporation as presently understood). Even if your first paragraph's contentions where true in their entirety, it would not necessarily indicate a fascist system of government and society.
Contrary to the triumphalist tone of the uber-parent, the case has not been cracked, chipped, broken apart, or otherwise solved.
According to the EPA, and even with pseudo-science, you still need arbitrary numbers to plug in.
Yeah, pork for nerds is far more moral than pork for anyone else. Screw the Constitution, nerds want their pork chops!
I didn't realize legacy Palm hardware was still in use. However, I think most people use non-Palm OS Symbol units, NCR, and other specialized data collection hardware, instead of old Palm devices.
The ReactOS project dates to 1998, when Windows 2000 was still "Whistler." I don't think it's moving along due to Vista. MS is not dropping free support for XP until 2014. Sales, yeah, sort of, but Windows XP Home (i.e. "the bad version") is still being sold with itsy bitsy PCs, and OEMs are still carrying the XP line.
I don't watch...movies...
Are astronauts fatasses now too?
Who would want it, and why? Palm is on its second or third try to get off the thing.
2) Dump PDA line, close down any idiotic Folio-like R&D until profitable.
3) Fundamentally redesign the appearance hardware, and boost its features. Palm needs smartphones that combine the business-edge of RIM with the glitz of the iPhone.
4) Throw out smartphone that is innovative and a noticeable improvement over its predecessor at least twice a year. You need volume, turnover, and upgrade incentives.
5) Get a new OS, now. If you have to, buy or rent another OS, and slap a Palm emulation layer on top.
I know what you mean. Almost all the guys screaming about anthropogenic global warming have huge financial stakes in it, either through investments in "alternative" energy programs, or through government and Left-wing institutional grants.
I mentioned a book written by a Canadian enviro who has some weird, socialistic ideas about things. Your question also evinces a lack of concern for facts, and a preference for ideology.
Um, have you ever tried editing that section on Wikipedia? I've done extensive battle on the Oreskes issue, and I eventually left Wikipedia over the kind of iron-fisted censorship that is Wikipedia. I don't think Wikipedia is part of any conspiracy; it simply is controlled by very bad people, and there are no checks and balances. Wikipedia is simply wrong on that, and trying to add multiple, independent sources opposing it will only result in immediate deletion. If you want, you can poke through the page history.
Er, ok, so it autolinked it...manually inputting the URL didn't work.
And they're not. Everything the proponents of anthropogenic global warming has turned out to be wrong, even as they furiously attempt to dig up some shred of science to support their claims. I suggest starting with "The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud" by Canadian environmental journalist Lawrence Solomon, and the National Center for Policy Analysis' "A Global Warming Primer," http://eteam.ncpa.org/files/GlobalWarmingPrimer_low.pdf (can't figure out a way to link to a PDF on /., probably not supposed to be able to) to get a better idea of what's been going on.
They don't. Also, you've just stepped on a landmine. Science isn't based on consensus; it's based on empiricism.
The oceans serve as heat reservoir, and will absorb heat during high output solar cycles. Once the Sun goes into a low solar output cycle, the Earth will maintain a fairly stable temperature as the oceans return the heat to the atmosphere. Once the oceans have reached equilibrium, there will be a net loss of heat into space, and the Earth will begin to cool. This is calculated to begin in or around 2012. That's why the oceans are cooling.
Why do you say that the oceans are slowing down global warming?
A statistical anomaly in what sense? The global warming alarmists keep saying the Earths' temperature rises every year. It hasn't. One wouldn't expect it too either, as the sun cycle is in a low period, and only our oceans, which trap and then release heat, have managed to keep the Earth at a steady temperature. Around 2012, things are going to get a bit nippy.
I don't know what this is supposed to prove, we knew it stopped in 1998 prior to 2007.
I'm increasingly stunned by the gullibility of those who think the "precautionary principle" is a logical course of action to follow.
And? We know that MS has 70% of its IE users on IE7, and we know Mozilla has, according to a site, 55% of its users on FF3. We know FF3 reached this benchmark, on a single site, after just over a week. Do we know what IE7's usage rates where after just over a week? No. No conclusions can be drawn. Slashdot should not be posting crap designed to fool stupid people.
The Earth stopped warming in 1998. Even the notoriously unreliable IPCC says so. Crazy people and wild speculation doesn't make for good journalism.
The primary purpose of freedom of speech is to protect political speech. If you throw that out, there's no limit to what you can rip apart through legislation.