Because shipping, cheap 3rd world labor and international communications didn't exist in the 50's? What kept corporations from leaving the U.S. in droves then, along with the rich when levied with a 91% marginal tax rate?
The Republicans like off-shoring and the Democrats like raising taxes which combined pretty much destroys US run businesses (the few that are left).
So how much did Democrats raise taxes when they controlled Congress? Or were you thinking of some mirror universe where the Democratic Congress didn't just extend the Bush Tax Cuts at the end of their term?
As the Commander-In-Chief of all U.S. forces, the president is within his authority to order military action against hostile military forces.
Utterly false. It is up to Congress to declare War, not for a president to start a war by merely declaring a target to be a "hostile military force".
Iran has a "hostile military force" - you'd be hostile too if your government had been overthrown by the CIA - can a president start shooting at the country without Congressional action? The Soviet Union had a "hostile military force" - could Kennedy have resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis by lobbing a few ICBM's at Russian military bases?
Usually, yes, if this saying bad stuff is combined with active organizing and support of armed aggression.
Yes, see the precedent of G. Gordon Liddy being shot in the head by a CIA team after he declared that federal agents should be shot in the head, because they could be wearing body armor. Oh wait, I mean see Brandenburg vs Ohio.
They didn't even bother to bring charges against Al-Awlkai. Just like with war against Libya without Congressional authorization, Obama didn't do it because he had the Constitutional authority to do it.
On some planet where Dell and HP don't make more computers than Apple, Nokia doesn't make more phones than Apple, and that Google's Android isn't manufactured in higher numbers than Apple?
Apple is a high-profile target and can certainly afford to pressure their suppliers into treating their workers better. But pretending that they are the worst of the bunch when they're a minority player in every market but MP3 players and tablets is simply not honest.
Yes, the Occupy protesters demanding that people be paid a more decent wage, and executives and financial speculators less, are a bunch of hypocrites
Yes, you're a sophist that's distorting the actual point of the movement that, first and foremost, is in response to political/corporate corruption here in the U.S.
But, that's what conservatives and neo-liberals do: try to take advantage of white liberal guilt in order to fracture and de-focus protest movements.
Nevermind that saving energy is saving money, of course.
Mass transit is cheaper than freeways and thoroughfares. High speed rail is cheaper than flying. Properly insulating your house or business means lower electricity costs in the summer and in the winter. And you talk as if fossil fuel prices weren't rising and as if coal power plants are free.
Even of those claims made there, a good half of them are irrelevant to CO2 reductions. Healthy children? CO2 isn't a pollutant, it's not going to make your children sick.
Obviously, it's the mining and power generation, obviously. Mountaintop removal mining can put pollution into the ground water - effecting your kids. The pollution given off by coal-fired power plants - effecting your kids. The radiation given off by the occasional nuclear clusterfuck - effecting your kids if you're within fallout range.
It's easy to believe in global warming when that's what pays the bills. Follow the money.
So who is the monied source invested in the idea of climate change, exactly? Beuller? Beuller? As opposed to, you know, the fossil fuel industry sponsoring crap like this report...
Translation: you mean his examples were too good. You guys should register for tax-exempt status since denialism is based on nothing more than blind faith that cannot be swayed.
In reality, that's jut lazy false equivalency. Al Gore has never claimed authority by saying "hey, I'm a scientist", he says "hey, look at what these scientists are saying".
I considered your post, and noted it's full of the usual canards, straw men, red herrings, and debunked BS that keeps being brought up like the notion that Clinton was responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge.
When you buy a game, you normally have only bought a license to the game. You do not own the game.
Because some industry hack told you his wishful thinking and you lapped it up? I'll sell you a controlling interest in the Brooklyn Bridge at a discount rate...
You uh...might want to consider what he means by "everywhere else in the physical world". Cars, Beatles memorabilia, houses, baseball cards....you know, physical objects and shit.
Because he didn't want to say "in every other country in the world".
I think in this situation, it's more like you buy a new car and you get a tank of petrol thrown in. You buy a used car, and you have to look after the petrol yourself. From what I've read, it's more like that analogy.
Bad analogy. You're going to have to refill that tank whether it's new or used, and the cost of a tank of gas is going to be a tiny percentage of the purchase price of the vehicle.
As opposed to this "online pass"/"content lock" BS.
This effects gamers trying to sell their old games to other gamers - not sure why that part was left out of the storyline.
It's about the practice of game stores selling new $60 games, then a couple weeks later buying them back for $8 (or more typically store credit) and re-selling them for $55.
Too damn bad. If a used car dealer buys three month old Honda's for cheap and resells them for 95% of the original asking price, it's really none of Honda's business.
The AGW proponents claim we understand everything completely now, and no geoengineering efforts will even be considered; we must go straight to carbon credits and such. And if you don't agree with the official AGW position from all steps 0 through 6, you are a "denier" to be ridiculed.
The AGW proponents seriously propose measures that will cause literally trillions of dollars of harm to the economy. That's literal trillions of dollars of increased costs, jobs destroyed, and other harm. This is not theoretical harm, it is harm to actual human beings.
Carbon credits are merely a capitalist proposal on how to deal with carbon reduction - nothing more, nothing less. And the "trillions of dollars of harm to the economy" is of course a pack of nonsense. Saving energy is saving money in the age of peak oil. We can keep our current lifestyle while drastically reducing our carbon footprint using technologies that have been around for decades.
But then, it's hard to get deinialists to understand something when their ideology is dependent on their not understanding it.
I have yet to hear a single credible plan about how anyone is going to stop the billions of humans on the planet from burning stuff to survive. Let's face it. It's just not going to happen.
Let's face it: just because a large number of people in first world countries are willfully obtuse when it comes to carbon reduction, as real solutions have been around for decades.
Hydro, solar and wind over coal. Mass transit over congested freeways. High speed rail over interstate highways. CFL and LED over halogen bulbs. Proper house insulation.
And just using less resources, period. The average American consumes the same amount of resources as 32 people living in Kenya. If every person on the planet used resources as the same rate as an American, it would be equivalent to a human population of 70 billion.
We can keep most of our current lifestyle if we could stop being moranic about it. But then, Carter was nearly lynched for suggesting that people turn down the thermostat a few degrees and put on a sweater during the winter.
The problem isn't a lack of solutions. The problem is human greed and hubris.
For the record though: over-30 inches and you're in the 400+ USD range so it isn't the cheapest answer.
For the record: for a TV sitting across the living room to be of the same viewing area of a 30" screen right in front of you, you're talking at least a 50 inch LCD TV. Most of which are still around a thousand dollars, and all of which are well over $400....so you were saying?
Most people own TVs independently of the console vs. PC.
And if you ask console gamers why they bought a high def TV, what would the answer be? Sure, they might say sports and movies but also....games. But okay, let's say "most people" own TV's independent of playing console games.
However, speaking of "bursting bubbles", you can make the same argument for computers - "most people" have PC's in their home, independent of playing computer games. And for the cost of a couple controllers for a console, you can buy a cheap dedicated graphics card that will do as good or better in that PC as anything an Xbox 360 or PS3 can do. If the base cost of a TV can be written off for console gaming "because most people have a TV", the base cost of a basic PC can be written off "because most people have a PC". The supposed cost advantage of consoles: thoroughly re-nuked.
The cost just to switch between AMD choices is creeping up on 600 every 2-3 years or 200-300 a year. Intel is even greater
Now you're just putting on the clown shoes. A motherboard/cpu combo can be had for less than half the cost of a new console. Throw in a cheap graphics card, a stick of RAM, and you'll have a system that will blow the doors off a PS3 or 360 for the cost of a Wii. Or did you skip over the part where console costs can be inflated right along with PC gaming costs? You want to start talking $300 processors or $300 graphics cards, and we'll also start talking about $5000 TV's and $800 stereo systems.
But, amazing things can be done when selective math is used in conjunction with leaning an elbow on one side of the scales.
Simple reasons for why PCs can't compete with consoles (and I am a firm PC gamer):
Price - The cost of manufacturing the mainboards of all three of the consoles is somewhere around 150-250 USD, thus they only need a power supply and a DVD drive to function beyond that.
Any reason why the $400-$800+ for a halfway decent TV is always left out of these price points? Wouldn't be because that nukes the supposed cost advantage of consoles, would it? Then there's the fact that a decent PC video card combined with a decent CPU will play every PC game under the sun - whereas you have to buy more than one console if you are into more than one game franchise. Want to play Zelda and Halo?
Of course you can keep your TV between console generations, but the same goes for PC hardware. Buy a quality power supply, and you can swap in a new video card and motherboard/cpu combo every few years to keep up.
Of course there's high end video cards that cost more than $500, but those are no more necessary than buying a $5000 TV and $800 sound system for the latest Call of Duty for the Xbox 360.
Slashdot Mirror
Because shipping, cheap 3rd world labor and international communications didn't exist in the 50's? What kept corporations from leaving the U.S. in droves then, along with the rich when levied with a 91% marginal tax rate?
So how much did Democrats raise taxes when they controlled Congress? Or were you thinking of some mirror universe where the Democratic Congress didn't just extend the Bush Tax Cuts at the end of their term?
I'll see you and raise one "military industrial complex". And what was the top marginal tax rate when Eisenhower was in office again?
Their current machines can still run Snow Leopard. Snow Leopard still has Rosette to run PowerPC apps. Which means that this:
is also false. Looks like you 'kicked Apple out the door' because you didn't do two ten seconds of Googleing.
Utterly false. It is up to Congress to declare War, not for a president to start a war by merely declaring a target to be a "hostile military force".
Iran has a "hostile military force" - you'd be hostile too if your government had been overthrown by the CIA - can a president start shooting at the country without Congressional action? The Soviet Union had a "hostile military force" - could Kennedy have resolved the Cuban Missile Crisis by lobbing a few ICBM's at Russian military bases?
Yes, see the precedent of G. Gordon Liddy being shot in the head by a CIA team after he declared that federal agents should be shot in the head, because they could be wearing body armor. Oh wait, I mean see Brandenburg vs Ohio.
They didn't even bother to bring charges against Al-Awlkai. Just like with war against Libya without Congressional authorization, Obama didn't do it because he had the Constitutional authority to do it.
He did it because he could get away with it.
On some planet where Dell and HP don't make more computers than Apple, Nokia doesn't make more phones than Apple, and that Google's Android isn't manufactured in higher numbers than Apple?
Apple is a high-profile target and can certainly afford to pressure their suppliers into treating their workers better. But pretending that they are the worst of the bunch when they're a minority player in every market but MP3 players and tablets is simply not honest.
Yes, you're a sophist that's distorting the actual point of the movement that, first and foremost, is in response to political/corporate corruption here in the U.S.
But, that's what conservatives and neo-liberals do: try to take advantage of white liberal guilt in order to fracture and de-focus protest movements.
Right back at you.
Whatever it is you're smoking, did you bring enough for everyone? Your complaint doesn't have anything to do with what you just quoted.
Nevermind that saving energy is saving money, of course.
Mass transit is cheaper than freeways and thoroughfares. High speed rail is cheaper than flying. Properly insulating your house or business means lower electricity costs in the summer and in the winter. And you talk as if fossil fuel prices weren't rising and as if coal power plants are free.
What false dichotomy.
Obviously, it's the mining and power generation, obviously. Mountaintop removal mining can put pollution into the ground water - effecting your kids. The pollution given off by coal-fired power plants - effecting your kids. The radiation given off by the occasional nuclear clusterfuck - effecting your kids if you're within fallout range.
So who is the monied source invested in the idea of climate change, exactly? Beuller? Beuller? As opposed to, you know, the fossil fuel industry sponsoring crap like this report...
Translation: you mean his examples were too good. You guys should register for tax-exempt status since denialism is based on nothing more than blind faith that cannot be swayed.
In reality, that's jut lazy false equivalency. Al Gore has never claimed authority by saying "hey, I'm a scientist", he says "hey, look at what these scientists are saying".
But, you knew that already.
I considered your post, and noted it's full of the usual canards, straw men, red herrings, and debunked BS that keeps being brought up like the notion that Clinton was responsible for Waco and Ruby Ridge.
You probably know the difference.
Because some industry hack told you his wishful thinking and you lapped it up? I'll sell you a controlling interest in the Brooklyn Bridge at a discount rate...
You uh...might want to consider what he means by "everywhere else in the physical world". Cars, Beatles memorabilia, houses, baseball cards....you know, physical objects and shit.
Because he didn't want to say "in every other country in the world".
Bad analogy. You're going to have to refill that tank whether it's new or used, and the cost of a tank of gas is going to be a tiny percentage of the purchase price of the vehicle.
As opposed to this "online pass"/"content lock" BS.
This effects gamers trying to sell their old games to other gamers - not sure why that part was left out of the storyline.
Too damn bad. If a used car dealer buys three month old Honda's for cheap and resells them for 95% of the original asking price, it's really none of Honda's business.
Carbon credits are merely a capitalist proposal on how to deal with carbon reduction - nothing more, nothing less. And the "trillions of dollars of harm to the economy" is of course a pack of nonsense. Saving energy is saving money in the age of peak oil. We can keep our current lifestyle while drastically reducing our carbon footprint using technologies that have been around for decades.
But then, it's hard to get deinialists to understand something when their ideology is dependent on their not understanding it.
Let's face it: just because a large number of people in first world countries are willfully obtuse when it comes to carbon reduction, as real solutions have been around for decades.
Hydro, solar and wind over coal.
Mass transit over congested freeways.
High speed rail over interstate highways.
CFL and LED over halogen bulbs.
Proper house insulation.
And just using less resources, period. The average American consumes the same amount of resources as 32 people living in Kenya. If every person on the planet used resources as the same rate as an American, it would be equivalent to a human population of 70 billion.
We can keep most of our current lifestyle if we could stop being moranic about it. But then, Carter was nearly lynched for suggesting that people turn down the thermostat a few degrees and put on a sweater during the winter.
The problem isn't a lack of solutions. The problem is human greed and hubris.
For the record: for a TV sitting across the living room to be of the same viewing area of a 30" screen right in front of you, you're talking at least a 50 inch LCD TV. Most of which are still around a thousand dollars, and all of which are well over $400....so you were saying?
And if you ask console gamers why they bought a high def TV, what would the answer be? Sure, they might say sports and movies but also....games. But okay, let's say "most people" own TV's independent of playing console games.
However, speaking of "bursting bubbles", you can make the same argument for computers - "most people" have PC's in their home, independent of playing computer games. And for the cost of a couple controllers for a console, you can buy a cheap dedicated graphics card that will do as good or better in that PC as anything an Xbox 360 or PS3 can do. If the base cost of a TV can be written off for console gaming "because most people have a TV", the base cost of a basic PC can be written off "because most people have a PC". The supposed cost advantage of consoles: thoroughly re-nuked.
Now you're just putting on the clown shoes. A motherboard/cpu combo can be had for less than half the cost of a new console. Throw in a cheap graphics card, a stick of RAM, and you'll have a system that will blow the doors off a PS3 or 360 for the cost of a Wii. Or did you skip over the part where console costs can be inflated right along with PC gaming costs? You want to start talking $300 processors or $300 graphics cards, and we'll also start talking about $5000 TV's and $800 stereo systems.
But, amazing things can be done when selective math is used in conjunction with leaning an elbow on one side of the scales.
Any reason why the $400-$800+ for a halfway decent TV is always left out of these price points? Wouldn't be because that nukes the supposed cost advantage of consoles, would it? Then there's the fact that a decent PC video card combined with a decent CPU will play every PC game under the sun - whereas you have to buy more than one console if you are into more than one game franchise. Want to play Zelda and Halo?
Of course you can keep your TV between console generations, but the same goes for PC hardware. Buy a quality power supply, and you can swap in a new video card and motherboard/cpu combo every few years to keep up.
Of course there's high end video cards that cost more than $500, but those are no more necessary than buying a $5000 TV and $800 sound system for the latest Call of Duty for the Xbox 360.