It's manufacturing ended up in Japan. The engineering prowess developing it was in the US. That was a day when Japan was what China is today: the place with a well-educated high-work-ethic labor force but not enough innovation to come up with revolutionary products.
I don't know about that... "High Tech" generally refers to consumer electronics. And that really started with personal computers, VCRs, and fax machines. All of which are staples of the 80s.
North Korea doesn't allow free reports roam free across its territory. Israel even allows BBC and Al Jazeera (both state media of hostile regimes) to be report freely. Oh, and for any Brit sycophan, spare me the line about BBC not being a state medium. And if you are feeling like reaching for "you have no idea how..." type of statement.... I do have a pretty good idea as to state medium of any state works. Brits have a history of using propaganda to advance their causes around the globe. BBC is no different despite their perception of independence.
Israel is pretty terrible at managing perceptions. I wouldn't attribute to them this degree of subtlety. For all the talk of the size of the jewish lobby, its effectiveness is pretty abysmal. How else can you explain that Israel (1) doesn't get to define its own capital; (2) doesn't get to lawfully annex East Jerusalem even though it is an acceptable international law that territory conquered in a war can be legally annexed; (3) must answer for building buildings as if it were equivalent to burning down of school children (yes, the media does make that equivalence all the time); (4) must moderate itself in how aggressively it defends itself from those who try to wipe it out? Are my points "israeli propaganda?" Depends on whether true statements can be called propaganda. They can be, of course, (for example, if they are guilty of omission). But nonetheless, the general meme is to not buy these statements as true even though they are. So Israeli PR machine is failing even at selling the truth as true. I'd say that's pretty bad perception management.
I don't think he outed himself by posting his google docs account as much as he did by posting from eponymous slashdot account with account number 137(!!!!). That's about as genuine as anything I would ever trust on the Internet.
Obvious answer to that is that prevailing wage is a range and by being able to always pay at the bottom of that range to a large population of (even the most talented) foreign workers, you suppress the wage. But that's the least of it. Near slave-like working conditions in IT departments are there because people are forced to compete with the workers for whom firing is equivalent to deportation.
Pay is hardly an issue. They get to hire people for whom getting fired is equal to deportation. They are in every way indentured servants. If they are good enough to get an H1-B, they should get a green card. At least, this way, US citizens wouldn't have to compete with them on sub-standard work-environment and work conditions.
Popular vote is the only method to accurately capture the desire of the entire population.
Not at all. It may seem so on surface, but it doesn't account for possible pockets of corrupted locales exerting undue influence on the overall process. Limiting such corruption (as dead people voting in Chicago) is precisely why the electoral college is a superior system.
Deliberately proving false market date to manipulate the market for gain – that is something else and that is what happened here.
Yes, and for every transaction, there is someone on the other side of that transaction. LIBOR is the rate at which the banks claim to be lending to EACH OTHER -- not to their customers. And for every lender who has an incentive to exaggerate the rate, there is a borrower who has an incentive to create a perception that he rate is lower than it is. Since there is no checks or commitments created by this information (about THEIR OWN RATES -- not "market" rates), both buyers and sellers can be assumed to lie somewhat with the average working out to a good information point. Think of it as a very sophisticated haggling mechanism. You see two merchants arguing with each other. One says "oh, but I just sold this same chair for $100 yesterday". And the other says, "good for you! and I just bought a chair just like it for $50... I guess we both lucked out!" And you, as a bystander know what's going on (if you are a competent market participant anyhow): both merchants are trying to pull the price towards where they want to see it. And they both know that if they want to trade with each other, they'll have to meet in the middle... Which tells you that the market price is $75... which is the price that neither of the merchants named.
Unless Corporate People get different rules than People People,
Directly from the FDIC link you provided:
"...Any person or entity can have FDIC insurance coverage in an insured bank..."
Which means that if you are unwise enough to actually keep rolling 20 million in your accounts in one bank, you can do it through a pool of corporate entities.
If Congress had not acted to bail out the various banking institutions during the crisis, about half of wage earning American's would have suddenly discovered that:- they did not get paid
That's quite an exaggeration. 2 out of 8 largest US investment banks DID go bankrupt. And the unemployment did not go up by 12.5 percent overnight (2/8th of the 50% figure you are quoting).
they cannot access their bank account
FDIC insures banks independently from any bail out money. So this statement shows blatant lack of understanding of the situation.
they cannot use their debit card
Also false. Simply because the networks connecting S&L's are not operated by the investment banks.
they cannot use their charge card
This is actually possible. But only if their charge cards were issued by bankrupt investment banks. If they were issued by smaller banks, they would have been fine.
The part that you forget to mention is that Americans would have had access to cheaper housing. So we wouldn't be sinking so much of our income into the black hole of repaying an artificially inflated debt.
Wait, but "propping up" as you put it, or providing price support, as it is really called, is what turns recessions into depressions. It's how those at the lower end of the economic scale not only see their wages reduced (as a result of recession), but also don't get to rip the benefits of price drops. The result is just doubled up misery. As for Stallman, he would benefit the world tremendously if he were to just stick to writing software and keep his political theories untangled from his code.
It isn't fraud. The rate that banks report for the purposes of calculating LIBOR is NON-BINDING INFORMATION. You can't commit fraud if thinks you say don't create or claim to fulfill any obligations. The reason the whole thing works is because both buyers and sellers are assumed to occasionally exaggerate the numbers. So the average number is actually a very accurate representation of where the rate stands.
The "debate" is between evidence and special interests
That is an outrageous lie. Given how often the counter position is stated, there is no way that you are now aware of it. So you must be telling what isn't truth despite the fact that you know that it is false. That's a lie. The interests on the side of AGW theory are much better funded and have much more at stake than the skeptics. So as far as the funding is concerned, it is the skeptics who have an uphill battle. As far as calling the collected data "evidence", that is also a lie, because most of the skepticism is of the conclusions drawn from the collected data. You don't need evidence to counter a bad conclusion if you can show that the interpretation mechanisms are flawed.
specifically, giving up fossil fuels
How do you fail to grasp that this is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor and an unprecedented power grab? How do you shill for a study which might even slightly question the extremes of AGW predictions. AGW is a theory which is used to make calls for drastic dystopian change to the world. How do you possibly ask to do that without at evidence even when it is presented?
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.
The reason that proponents of the anthropomorphic theory are much, much more suspect is that they refuse to admit that there is more money on the side of that GW camp. It's just not money coming from private hands. This theory is widely seen as a way to increase government power through arbitrarily-applied regulation and equally arbitrary government subsidies. As much money as the oil industry has, the governments get to print money, so they have more.
Science self-corrects
Only when there is no outside bias. Given the tremendous pressure applied on the scientific community by the government and the media to comply with the AGW agenda or be labeled a pariah, and given how vitriolic and visceral the attacks on skeptics are (even going so far as to relabeling them "deniers" so as to pull their credentials as thinking individuals), there is no credible way to claim that there is no outside bias. Any claims to the contrary are down right insane.
Slashdot (the headline of this post, for one) felt the need to counter Bloomberg's summary with NY Times summary.
All I see is a study that accepts mainstream climate science and offers another data point about climate sensitivity
You must be talking about something else then. The study claims the data shows plateauing since the 2000. It doesn't directly conclude that the previous conclusions (that GW is anthropogenic) were wrong. But it does provide evidence to support investing such a possibility.
Not really. Not when studying a trend in which the main conclusion was drawn based on a jump during a 20 year period. Plateauing for 10 years is actually quite telling about the overall trend..
An oil-producing country says that burning oil is okay. News at 11.
You probably meant oil-exporting. Most countries in the world are oil producing. Only the oil-exporting ones can be argued to have an interest in selling oil.
Oh, and that aside, you are an unbelievable tool. The likes of you were the ones running the inquisition... not arguing for it, not providing the philosophical basis for it, not the ones paying for it. You are of the ilk that took the pleasure in just being a part of it.
Aristotle: "most technology has already been discovered." He was, of course, saying that the most important aspect of human affairs is politics. And he was saying it in the book which was dedicated to describing the nature of politics. He did a fine job of the latter despite the silly opinion on scientific progress. Let's deconstruct a little bit. If nothing else, more advanced technology requires a longer period of initial entry point preparation. So more of a life span is spent on studying than before. Which requires more educators, newer methods of education, etc. It seems like most people in education "industry" seem to think they can cash in on that by simply providing more of their services at more expensive prices, but, of course, it will not work. Inefficient constructs will fail over medium term (not short as the students hope), but not long (as the teachers hope). As for the larger question, in general, whenever you hear someone say "this time it's different", they are selling something.
Here's why: the point of this phrase is to get a person to throw away their current priorities... to disregard everything they care about at the moment. Once their life priorities are diminished, they are more willing to explore new directions (ie, other priorities) for their time, money, body, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
It's manufacturing ended up in Japan. The engineering prowess developing it was in the US. That was a day when Japan was what China is today: the place with a well-educated high-work-ethic labor force but not enough innovation to come up with revolutionary products.
I don't know about that... "High Tech" generally refers to consumer electronics. And that really started with personal computers, VCRs, and fax machines. All of which are staples of the 80s.
Why more surpricing? US got its reputation as technology powerhouse for all the tech released under Reagan.
North Korea doesn't allow free reports roam free across its territory. Israel even allows BBC and Al Jazeera (both state media of hostile regimes) to be report freely. Oh, and for any Brit sycophan, spare me the line about BBC not being a state medium. And if you are feeling like reaching for "you have no idea how..." type of statement.... I do have a pretty good idea as to state medium of any state works. Brits have a history of using propaganda to advance their causes around the globe. BBC is no different despite their perception of independence.
Israel is pretty terrible at managing perceptions. I wouldn't attribute to them this degree of subtlety. For all the talk of the size of the jewish lobby, its effectiveness is pretty abysmal. How else can you explain that Israel (1) doesn't get to define its own capital; (2) doesn't get to lawfully annex East Jerusalem even though it is an acceptable international law that territory conquered in a war can be legally annexed; (3) must answer for building buildings as if it were equivalent to burning down of school children (yes, the media does make that equivalence all the time); (4) must moderate itself in how aggressively it defends itself from those who try to wipe it out? Are my points "israeli propaganda?" Depends on whether true statements can be called propaganda. They can be, of course, (for example, if they are guilty of omission). But nonetheless, the general meme is to not buy these statements as true even though they are. So Israeli PR machine is failing even at selling the truth as true. I'd say that's pretty bad perception management.
I don't think he outed himself by posting his google docs account as much as he did by posting from eponymous slashdot account with account number 137(!!!!). That's about as genuine as anything I would ever trust on the Internet.
We by law have to pay PW to these worker
Obvious answer to that is that prevailing wage is a range and by being able to always pay at the bottom of that range to a large population of (even the most talented) foreign workers, you suppress the wage. But that's the least of it. Near slave-like working conditions in IT departments are there because people are forced to compete with the workers for whom firing is equivalent to deportation.
Pay is hardly an issue. They get to hire people for whom getting fired is equal to deportation. They are in every way indentured servants. If they are good enough to get an H1-B, they should get a green card. At least, this way, US citizens wouldn't have to compete with them on sub-standard work-environment and work conditions.
Popular vote is the only method to accurately capture the desire of the entire population.
Not at all. It may seem so on surface, but it doesn't account for possible pockets of corrupted locales exerting undue influence on the overall process. Limiting such corruption (as dead people voting in Chicago) is precisely why the electoral college is a superior system.
demand China trade free. People speak. We do. China not hackers. China high quality everything. Thank you!
Deliberately proving false market date to manipulate the market for gain – that is something else and that is what happened here.
Yes, and for every transaction, there is someone on the other side of that transaction. LIBOR is the rate at which the banks claim to be lending to EACH OTHER -- not to their customers. And for every lender who has an incentive to exaggerate the rate, there is a borrower who has an incentive to create a perception that he rate is lower than it is. Since there is no checks or commitments created by this information (about THEIR OWN RATES -- not "market" rates), both buyers and sellers can be assumed to lie somewhat with the average working out to a good information point. Think of it as a very sophisticated haggling mechanism. You see two merchants arguing with each other. One says "oh, but I just sold this same chair for $100 yesterday". And the other says, "good for you! and I just bought a chair just like it for $50... I guess we both lucked out!" And you, as a bystander know what's going on (if you are a competent market participant anyhow): both merchants are trying to pull the price towards where they want to see it. And they both know that if they want to trade with each other, they'll have to meet in the middle... Which tells you that the market price is $75... which is the price that neither of the merchants named.
Unless Corporate People get different rules than People People,
Directly from the FDIC link you provided:
"...Any person or entity can have FDIC insurance coverage in an insured bank..."
Which means that if you are unwise enough to actually keep rolling 20 million in your accounts in one bank, you can do it through a pool of corporate entities.
Maybe my employer and yours should split their business across multiple banks such that no one failure can bring the whole thing crashing down.
Not multiple banks. Multiple bank accounts. Which is precisely what everyone does when the amounts are large enough that they need to be secured.
AIG's primary business is insurance. Which insurance company was brought down by the failure of AIG?
If Congress had not acted to bail out the various banking institutions during the crisis, about half of wage earning American's would have suddenly discovered that:- they did not get paid
That's quite an exaggeration. 2 out of 8 largest US investment banks DID go bankrupt. And the unemployment did not go up by 12.5 percent overnight (2/8th of the 50% figure you are quoting).
they cannot access their bank account
FDIC insures banks independently from any bail out money. So this statement shows blatant lack of understanding of the situation.
they cannot use their debit card
Also false. Simply because the networks connecting S&L's are not operated by the investment banks.
they cannot use their charge card
This is actually possible. But only if their charge cards were issued by bankrupt investment banks. If they were issued by smaller banks, they would have been fine.
The part that you forget to mention is that Americans would have had access to cheaper housing. So we wouldn't be sinking so much of our income into the black hole of repaying an artificially inflated debt.
Wait, but "propping up" as you put it, or providing price support, as it is really called, is what turns recessions into depressions. It's how those at the lower end of the economic scale not only see their wages reduced (as a result of recession), but also don't get to rip the benefits of price drops. The result is just doubled up misery. As for Stallman, he would benefit the world tremendously if he were to just stick to writing software and keep his political theories untangled from his code.
It isn't fraud. The rate that banks report for the purposes of calculating LIBOR is NON-BINDING INFORMATION. You can't commit fraud if thinks you say don't create or claim to fulfill any obligations. The reason the whole thing works is because both buyers and sellers are assumed to occasionally exaggerate the numbers. So the average number is actually a very accurate representation of where the rate stands.
Obviously. This isn't the only mistype in my post, btw.
The "debate" is between evidence and special interests
That is an outrageous lie. Given how often the counter position is stated, there is no way that you are now aware of it. So you must be telling what isn't truth despite the fact that you know that it is false. That's a lie. The interests on the side of AGW theory are much better funded and have much more at stake than the skeptics. So as far as the funding is concerned, it is the skeptics who have an uphill battle. As far as calling the collected data "evidence", that is also a lie, because most of the skepticism is of the conclusions drawn from the collected data. You don't need evidence to counter a bad conclusion if you can show that the interpretation mechanisms are flawed.
specifically, giving up fossil fuels
How do you fail to grasp that this is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor and an unprecedented power grab? How do you shill for a study which might even slightly question the extremes of AGW predictions. AGW is a theory which is used to make calls for drastic dystopian change to the world. How do you possibly ask to do that without at evidence even when it is presented?
The reason people are suspect when they criticize the overwhelming evidence that exists right now is because there are substantial political and corporate interests that support framing it as uncertain or as a debate.
The reason that proponents of the anthropomorphic theory are much, much more suspect is that they refuse to admit that there is more money on the side of that GW camp. It's just not money coming from private hands. This theory is widely seen as a way to increase government power through arbitrarily-applied regulation and equally arbitrary government subsidies. As much money as the oil industry has, the governments get to print money, so they have more.
Science self-corrects
Only when there is no outside bias. Given the tremendous pressure applied on the scientific community by the government and the media to comply with the AGW agenda or be labeled a pariah, and given how vitriolic and visceral the attacks on skeptics are (even going so far as to relabeling them "deniers" so as to pull their credentials as thinking individuals), there is no credible way to claim that there is no outside bias. Any claims to the contrary are down right insane.
And where exactly is this being 'vilified'?
Slashdot (the headline of this post, for one) felt the need to counter Bloomberg's summary with NY Times summary.
All I see is a study that accepts mainstream climate science and offers another data point about climate sensitivity
You must be talking about something else then. The study claims the data shows plateauing since the 2000. It doesn't directly conclude that the previous conclusions (that GW is anthropogenic) were wrong. But it does provide evidence to support investing such a possibility.
Not really. Not when studying a trend in which the main conclusion was drawn based on a jump during a 20 year period. Plateauing for 10 years is actually quite telling about the overall trend..
An oil-producing country says that burning oil is okay. News at 11.
You probably meant oil-exporting. Most countries in the world are oil producing. Only the oil-exporting ones can be argued to have an interest in selling oil.
Oh, and that aside, you are an unbelievable tool. The likes of you were the ones running the inquisition... not arguing for it, not providing the philosophical basis for it, not the ones paying for it. You are of the ilk that took the pleasure in just being a part of it.
Aristotle: "most technology has already been discovered." He was, of course, saying that the most important aspect of human affairs is politics. And he was saying it in the book which was dedicated to describing the nature of politics. He did a fine job of the latter despite the silly opinion on scientific progress. Let's deconstruct a little bit. If nothing else, more advanced technology requires a longer period of initial entry point preparation. So more of a life span is spent on studying than before. Which requires more educators, newer methods of education, etc. It seems like most people in education "industry" seem to think they can cash in on that by simply providing more of their services at more expensive prices, but, of course, it will not work. Inefficient constructs will fail over medium term (not short as the students hope), but not long (as the teachers hope). As for the larger question, in general, whenever you hear someone say "this time it's different", they are selling something. Here's why: the point of this phrase is to get a person to throw away their current priorities... to disregard everything they care about at the moment. Once their life priorities are diminished, they are more willing to explore new directions (ie, other priorities) for their time, money, body, etc.
Are you implying their breasts and noses are genetically rather than surgically shaped? Based on what?