I don't buy the premise that any women can't go out and find legal work to make money to pay the bills.
Well, that's the nice thing about being a conservative: details like there being six unemployed people for every open job need not enter your storyline. Or McJob wages not coming close to making rent, much less rent + student loan payments.
In short, there is valid reasons for this action to have been taken. Imagine, if you will, that a chemical was being voted for APPROVAL, instead of being banned. Imagine further that a researcher who did all the studies about safety on this chemical sat on and chaired the approval committee. Would we want that to be allowed? Wouldn't people be screaming about that pretty loudly?
And this:
The American Chemical Council has no particular dog in this fight. Flame retardant is simply one of thousands of chemicals covered by this organization which has members in hundreds of different companies.
Like 99.9% of government laws and regulations, we never should have had a mandate of ethanol in gas
Because you want more arsenic in your drinking water and more lead paint on your children's toys? Why don't you Randians make an MMO, 'Going Galt', so you can enact out your economic fantasies there and stop endangering the rest of us with your stupid bullshit.
Whereas with real socialism, society benefits, as opposed to a handful of individuals. It's not farm hands driving those new trucks and living in McManshions.
So now it is to them, regardless of any facts. They haven't actually used it to any significant degree, if at all, they just hate on it because they think they are supposed to hate it.
Or...they have used it, or have seen the qualitative and/or qualitative reviews showing just why Windows 8 is a piece of shit. How it's not internally consistent, how mundane tasks are now hidden behind multiple layers of obscurity, and generally user hostile.
But let's pretend a spade isn't a spade, and that it's all just a bunch of Haterz whining on the Intertubes. Were you pushing the same storyline when Windows ME was released? How about Bob?
On one hand, WikiLeaks created "a transparency mechanism to hold governments and corporations to account" when nobody else could or would. On the other hand, WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation as those it sought to expose, while its supporters are expected to follow, unquestioningly, in blinkered, cultish devotion.'
There is zero hypocrisy in valuing personal privacy while wanting transparency in government, and only dumbfucking concern trolls would claim otherwise.
Case in point: let's say Barack Obama gets his jollies off when Michelle spanks him while wearing a Nixon mask. I don't need or want to know that information, as it's NMFB. And Obama would not be a hypocrite for wanting to keep that private, he's a hypocrite for blocking more FOIA requests than Bush after promising transparency in government.
WikiLeaks itself was 'guilty of the same obfuscation and misinformation
Are they using secrecy to coverup massive lawbreaking and corruption on their part? No? Then what the fuck are you talkin bout, Willis? Right now, the only people who have gone to jail for Bush's warrantless wiretapping and torture programs is the whisteblowers who revealed them. Unless Wikileaks is pulling that kind of shit - like say if the currently less-than-credible rape allegations against Assange are true and Wikileaks has spent money to cover it up - then you can blow this false equivalency right up your ass, concern troll.
500 years ago: scientific research is done by aristocrats as a self-funded hobby, or sometimes by priests after the Catholic Church got over it's butthurt on heliocentrism. Printing is exorbitantly expensive and education for the general population. There might have been hundreds of Issac Newtons born in a generation, but they ended up working on farms or in the military, not going to an academy.
Now: research is directly sponsored by governments. You don't have to be in the priesthood or be the child of rich parents to go to secondary school anymore - though the latter certainly helps with admissions and student loans. The Mars Rovers were huge government funded, collaborative projects, not a hobby by Bill Gates. And of course the Internet allows sharing of data at a speed and volume that Newton never could have imagined.
You would hope the "anonymous reader" would have thought about this after a couple seconds, and is just posing the question for conversational purposes....
So buy a device you are allowed to own. Buying this says you are OK with someone else deciding what programs you are allowed to run.
Riiiight. Because every Android user audits the full source code of every app they install, as opposed to trusting the software developer. Seems legit.
In the future people will look back saying that Apple lost their lead in the market because they refused to open up.
To the.000002% of the population that are Stalmanites, as opposed to the 99.9999998% of the population that doesn't give a rats ass and just wants something that works?
Hmm nothing new there then, refusal to license MacOS is why windows became the de facto standard on the PC and Apple nearly disappeared.
And be a OS juggernaut like OS/2, Be, Amiga, and Commodore? Or, maybe you're ignoring the fact that Microsoft is a software company that was bundling an office suite, and Apple is a hardware company that made money by...selling hardware.
Most of all, pay no attention to that clone experiment in the 90's that only cost Apple marketshare and money....
I'm not entirely sure I understand what's going on there, netbooks were well refined products that seem to have gone out of favour and everyone is designing Chromebooks from scratch.
The storyline that I've heard is that Microsoft killed the Netbook with their licensing requirements for Windows. To qualify for cheap copies of Windows, the hardware had to stay shitty. 2 gigs of ram, slow and small hard drives, weak CPU's and GPU's.
So, for the consumer, why would you want to pay $300 for a laptop with 3 year old hardware when for $350 you can get a larger screen, more ram, dual core processor, etc etc...
Which is why I think Microsoft are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to force everyone to their shitty Windows 8. Either Chrome or Windows 8 will break their previous user experience, so why not try the cheaper Chromebooks? Major PC manufacturers ditching Windows for some of their laptops is another sign, since that would have been unheard of 5 years ago...
Yeah. You do. First Amendment guarantees you the freedom of association. Freedom of association requires the freedom to travel. And traveling, in many parts of the United States, means the freedom to drive.
That's why you need to be licensed to do it.
Changes nothing. Voting is a right, but comes with certain requirements - that you be a citizen, that you be at least 18 years old, and not be a felon. Gun ownership is a right, but you have to get a restricted license before you can purchase a machine gun.
Israel has to "deal" with gunpowder rockets that even the IDF admits are a psychological, not military weapon. You're more likely to die in an accident with a passenger bus in Israel than die from a quassam rocket.
What you (and others that share your "The thrill is gone" sentiments simply don't understand Product Development cycles.
So why has Apple brought Thunderbolt to the rest of their line through the Product Development cycle, but their workstations are the last to the new high speed bus? And USB 3?
That's called "wishful corporate lapdog thinking". If it's not something you and Valve sign beforehand, it's not a contract. If you cannot modify the terms by mutual agreement, it's not a contract. If the agreement is not signed before the sale is completed, it's not a contract.
Centralized banking IS banking run by the biggest banks themselves. One big private bank whose actions are confidential, yet has complete control over the currency and securitizes the entire banking system. Since when did you think that anything tied to government was not run by the biggest private interests they influenced?
Since when do banks have to be corrupt for-profit industries that, as Matt Taibbi said in 2010 in describing Goldman Sachs
"a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money"
...that literally rip everyone off. National governments, state governments, city governments, conservatives, liberals, anarchists, fascists, pensioners, investors, homeowners, 401k holders, taxpayers...everybody.
Banks should be a non-profit utility or service, just like your local municipal water company or the USPS. North Dakota has a non-profit state run bank that has managed to avoid crashing it's state economy or create massive asset bubbles on junk assets or tell investors they were buying AAA backed securities it privately knew were junk...
No, it's an argument against the government involving itself in even the most absurdly simple economic situations. If
Simplicity is irrelevant - the question is, should government be regulating xyz, or not. And the answer when it comes to the banks: of course, yes. Look at the history of bank crashes before the (flawed) creation of the Fed. Look at our 70 year history of crisis-free banking before the deregulation fetishists took over and repealed Glass Steagall. Look at other countries like Canada, that avoided the financial collapse in 2008 entirely, because they regulated their banks.
If the government had not forced themselves by law to trade a certain ratio of silver for a certain ratio of gold (and vice versa), they wouldn't have gotten themselves into the horrific situations they did.
Hardly. The problem was the banks were gambling with 60 to 1 debt-to-asset ratios. What would a backed currency have done to prevent that? Jack and squat, and Jack left town.
If the government had not forced themselves by law to trade a certain ratio of silver for a certain ratio of gold (and vice versa), they wouldn't have gotten themselves into the horrific situations they did.
Nevermind all the horrific stations we've had on a backed currency. Gold Bugging, like drinking drano to cure an ulcer, is the wrong cure for the disease. "Backed" currencies are subject to the same mass manipulation seen in commodities markets, which defeats the purpose of having a backed currency in the first place: having a stable monetary base free from wild fluctuations.
And I have yet to see any Bugs explain how the deal with the problem of hoarding. You switch to a gold, silver, or chicken backed currency, and the Waltons and Kochs will take their annual profits and buy gold. Doing so limits the publicly available supply of the metal, which increases the value of their existing holdings. This will then dramatically worsen income inequality, as the richest can afford to buy the most gold, increasing their own riches, whereas the working poor are especially screwed. And of course, this will lead to an ever-increasing price of gold (or silver or chickens), defeating the stated purpose of having a backed currency: a stable value on your money. Unless of course, a new and plentiful supply of gold is found to reduce the value of the hoarders - but that would also distort the value of money.
Local banks would be far more stable and would probably be based off a franchise system with networked multiple-commodity-based currency syste
Oh noes! They lost $15 to prevent a complete collapse of the economy and monetary system! That maybe a tragedy among historical tragedies, but calling it "fraud" is Randian hogwash.
It might sound callous, and it is: if you're living in the street, begging handouts, you're a great big human parasite.
When there's six unemployed people for every job opening? When that homeless person you're sneering at might in fact be working, but sees the bulk of his wages go to health care or garnished for student loan payments on a now-worthless degree?
I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to a human being, and not a brownshirt sucker of Satan's cock living on rarified air. But that's where you're lucky: if you lose your job through no fault of your own, you'll still enjoy a safety net provided by those commie pinko socialists, nevermind your past history of being a Randian shitbag.
Original poster was not the problem. That would be the AC who decided to get snippy over a simple question.
You were browbeating
Asking a person to back up a claim they are making is browbeating on what planet?
being just as much an ass yourself
The ass was the AC who started making snippy comments on "not reading" rather than responding to the point. You're being an ass with this selective hall monitor crap and browbeating, gaslighting projection.
Who absorbs the cost of all the re-downloading bandwidth?
Probably the same company that absorbs the re-downloading any time I install my 8 year old copy of Counter-Strike on a new or reformatted computer: Valve.
If you were to google you could find all of the information you needed
Not my job to prove your points for you. It's the job of the person making the assertion to back it up.
instead of brow beating someone
Who you talkin bout, Willis? There was no browbeating, only beating back asshollery in response to a simple question of overall profits vs smartphone profits.
More than 70 percent of its mobile revenue came from smartphone sales.
Wonderful! Now why didn't you say that the first time instead of being an asshole?
Any state fund or pension fund that lost money on a bond sale or interest rate hedge will (and can) sue the banks for fraud, wiping out any profit banks may have had.
Not if the Feds get out in front with a "settlement" that forces the banks to pay back.001% of the money they made through fraud but gives them partial or full immunity from further suits. Like they did with the ~$20 billion settlement for hundreds of billions in mortgage fraud.
The period most liberals point to when defending the institution of the Fed is the middle-to-end of the 19th century
Wanting centralized banking with some regulation != wanting said centralized banking to be run by the biggest banks themselves.
First, the government passed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, in which they agreed to purchase wild amounts of silver in return for fiat currency - which backfired, due to the fact that anyone selling silver would take the silver tickets and immediately exchange them for their equivalent value in gold, completely depleting the government's gold supply. Suddenly, silver's value goes up and gold plummets; the government ends up on the wrong end of the scale.
That's an argument against Gold Bugging, not having regulated banking.
No, not really; the real solution would have been to allow banks to issue their own private currencies.
LOL! Because everyone wants their life savings to go down the toilet when BOA or Citi fail. Because merchants would love having to deal with 5,234,987 different domestic currencies rather than just one. Whatever it is you're smoking here, did you bring enough for everyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's the nice thing about being a conservative: details like there being six unemployed people for every open job need not enter your storyline. Or McJob wages not coming close to making rent, much less rent + student loan payments.
Wait. You typed this:
And this:
In the same breath? With a straight face?
Speaking of "credibility", you're simply lying about Cenk here.
Because you want more arsenic in your drinking water and more lead paint on your children's toys? Why don't you Randians make an MMO, 'Going Galt', so you can enact out your economic fantasies there and stop endangering the rest of us with your stupid bullshit.
Republican Socialism: socialized cost/risk, privatized profit. See: military-industrial-complex, bank bailouts, farm subsidies...
Whereas with real socialism, society benefits, as opposed to a handful of individuals. It's not farm hands driving those new trucks and living in McManshions.
Amazing, then, that in 15 years that no one else has figured out how to do marketing or spin the press.
Or...they have used it, or have seen the qualitative and/or qualitative reviews showing just why Windows 8 is a piece of shit. How it's not internally consistent, how mundane tasks are now hidden behind multiple layers of obscurity, and generally user hostile.
But let's pretend a spade isn't a spade, and that it's all just a bunch of Haterz whining on the Intertubes. Were you pushing the same storyline when Windows ME was released? How about Bob?
There is zero hypocrisy in valuing personal privacy while wanting transparency in government, and only dumbfucking concern trolls would claim otherwise.
Case in point: let's say Barack Obama gets his jollies off when Michelle spanks him while wearing a Nixon mask. I don't need or want to know that information, as it's NMFB. And Obama would not be a hypocrite for wanting to keep that private, he's a hypocrite for blocking more FOIA requests than Bush after promising transparency in government.
Are they using secrecy to coverup massive lawbreaking and corruption on their part? No? Then what the fuck are you talkin bout, Willis? Right now, the only people who have gone to jail for Bush's warrantless wiretapping and torture programs is the whisteblowers who revealed them. Unless Wikileaks is pulling that kind of shit - like say if the currently less-than-credible rape allegations against Assange are true and Wikileaks has spent money to cover it up - then you can blow this false equivalency right up your ass, concern troll.
Other than conflating core civil liberties with....consumer products? I'm sure Pete Hoekstra would approve, anyway.
Next up...a look back on how New Coke was just like COINTELPRO! News at 11....
500 years ago: scientific research is done by aristocrats as a self-funded hobby, or sometimes by priests after the Catholic Church got over it's butthurt on heliocentrism. Printing is exorbitantly expensive and education for the general population. There might have been hundreds of Issac Newtons born in a generation, but they ended up working on farms or in the military, not going to an academy.
Now: research is directly sponsored by governments. You don't have to be in the priesthood or be the child of rich parents to go to secondary school anymore - though the latter certainly helps with admissions and student loans. The Mars Rovers were huge government funded, collaborative projects, not a hobby by Bill Gates. And of course the Internet allows sharing of data at a speed and volume that Newton never could have imagined.
You would hope the "anonymous reader" would have thought about this after a couple seconds, and is just posing the question for conversational purposes....
Riiiight. Because every Android user audits the full source code of every app they install, as opposed to trusting the software developer. Seems legit.
To the .000002% of the population that are Stalmanites, as opposed to the 99.9999998% of the population that doesn't give a rats ass and just wants something that works?
And be a OS juggernaut like OS/2, Be, Amiga, and Commodore? Or, maybe you're ignoring the fact that Microsoft is a software company that was bundling an office suite, and Apple is a hardware company that made money by...selling hardware.
Most of all, pay no attention to that clone experiment in the 90's that only cost Apple marketshare and money....
The storyline that I've heard is that Microsoft killed the Netbook with their licensing requirements for Windows. To qualify for cheap copies of Windows, the hardware had to stay shitty. 2 gigs of ram, slow and small hard drives, weak CPU's and GPU's.
So, for the consumer, why would you want to pay $300 for a laptop with 3 year old hardware when for $350 you can get a larger screen, more ram, dual core processor, etc etc...
Which is why I think Microsoft are shooting themselves in the foot by trying to force everyone to their shitty Windows 8. Either Chrome or Windows 8 will break their previous user experience, so why not try the cheaper Chromebooks? Major PC manufacturers ditching Windows for some of their laptops is another sign, since that would have been unheard of 5 years ago...
Yeah. You do. First Amendment guarantees you the freedom of association. Freedom of association requires the freedom to travel. And traveling, in many parts of the United States, means the freedom to drive.
Changes nothing. Voting is a right, but comes with certain requirements - that you be a citizen, that you be at least 18 years old, and not be a felon. Gun ownership is a right, but you have to get a restricted license before you can purchase a machine gun.
Israel has to "deal" with gunpowder rockets that even the IDF admits are a psychological, not military weapon. You're more likely to die in an accident with a passenger bus in Israel than die from a quassam rocket.
So why has Apple brought Thunderbolt to the rest of their line through the Product Development cycle, but their workstations are the last to the new high speed bus? And USB 3?
That's called "wishful corporate lapdog thinking". If it's not something you and Valve sign beforehand, it's not a contract. If you cannot modify the terms by mutual agreement, it's not a contract. If the agreement is not signed before the sale is completed, it's not a contract.
Everything else is brownshirt talk.
Since when do banks have to be corrupt for-profit industries that, as Matt Taibbi said in 2010 in describing Goldman Sachs
Banks should be a non-profit utility or service, just like your local municipal water company or the USPS. North Dakota has a non-profit state run bank that has managed to avoid crashing it's state economy or create massive asset bubbles on junk assets or tell investors they were buying AAA backed securities it privately knew were junk...
Simplicity is irrelevant - the question is, should government be regulating xyz, or not. And the answer when it comes to the banks: of course, yes. Look at the history of bank crashes before the (flawed) creation of the Fed. Look at our 70 year history of crisis-free banking before the deregulation fetishists took over and repealed Glass Steagall. Look at other countries like Canada, that avoided the financial collapse in 2008 entirely, because they regulated their banks.
Hardly. The problem was the banks were gambling with 60 to 1 debt-to-asset ratios. What would a backed currency have done to prevent that? Jack and squat, and Jack left town.
Nevermind all the horrific stations we've had on a backed currency. Gold Bugging, like drinking drano to cure an ulcer, is the wrong cure for the disease. "Backed" currencies are subject to the same mass manipulation seen in commodities markets, which defeats the purpose of having a backed currency in the first place: having a stable monetary base free from wild fluctuations.
And I have yet to see any Bugs explain how the deal with the problem of hoarding. You switch to a gold, silver, or chicken backed currency, and the Waltons and Kochs will take their annual profits and buy gold. Doing so limits the publicly available supply of the metal, which increases the value of their existing holdings. This will then dramatically worsen income inequality, as the richest can afford to buy the most gold, increasing their own riches, whereas the working poor are especially screwed. And of course, this will lead to an ever-increasing price of gold (or silver or chickens), defeating the stated purpose of having a backed currency: a stable value on your money. Unless of course, a new and plentiful supply of gold is found to reduce the value of the hoarders - but that would also distort the value of money.
Oh noes! They lost $15 to prevent a complete collapse of the economy and monetary system! That maybe a tragedy among historical tragedies, but calling it "fraud" is Randian hogwash.
When there's six unemployed people for every job opening? When that homeless person you're sneering at might in fact be working, but sees the bulk of his wages go to health care or garnished for student loan payments on a now-worthless degree?
I'm sorry, I thought I was talking to a human being, and not a brownshirt sucker of Satan's cock living on rarified air. But that's where you're lucky: if you lose your job through no fault of your own, you'll still enjoy a safety net provided by those commie pinko socialists, nevermind your past history of being a Randian shitbag.
Original poster was not the problem. That would be the AC who decided to get snippy over a simple question.
Asking a person to back up a claim they are making is browbeating on what planet?
The ass was the AC who started making snippy comments on "not reading" rather than responding to the point. You're being an ass with this selective hall monitor crap and browbeating, gaslighting projection.
Probably the same company that absorbs the re-downloading any time I install my 8 year old copy of Counter-Strike on a new or reformatted computer: Valve.
Not my job to prove your points for you. It's the job of the person making the assertion to back it up.
Who you talkin bout, Willis? There was no browbeating, only beating back asshollery in response to a simple question of overall profits vs smartphone profits.
Wonderful! Now why didn't you say that the first time instead of being an asshole?
Not if the Feds get out in front with a "settlement" that forces the banks to pay back .001% of the money they made through fraud but gives them partial or full immunity from further suits. Like they did with the ~$20 billion settlement for hundreds of billions in mortgage fraud.
Wanting centralized banking with some regulation != wanting said centralized banking to be run by the biggest banks themselves.
That's an argument against Gold Bugging, not having regulated banking.
LOL! Because everyone wants their life savings to go down the toilet when BOA or Citi fail. Because merchants would love having to deal with 5,234,987 different domestic currencies rather than just one. Whatever it is you're smoking here, did you bring enough for everyone?