I have used FireFox almost exclusively for about 2 years. What got me started on FireFox was I wanted the same browser feel despite what OS I was on (Windows or Linux). So it was the cross OS support that got me into FireFox, but what has kept me using it is the vast plugin support. One of my favorite being Foxmarks. (but Foxmarks is coming out for IE eventually, I am now alpha testing on IE). Anyway, so I look at Chrome and wonder will it met these two key needs and if it is as good as FireFox will that be any reason to switch? So I can see that it will be cross OS, but to be better the FireFox, but the next question is will it take it a step further, will it work on my Blackberry or other mobile PDAs? That would be the motivator to get me looking, but to solidify a change, I would need the plugin options the FireFox currently has and others like IE are lacking. Can Google do it? I think they have a great shot.
...is one guy who returned to Microsoft, the price of an employee service was raised, and the stock price is lower than it was at a point in the past.
Well that and tomorrow I went back in time; gained access to the frozen Google code base and did a replace "mojo" with "Austin Powers' plot" on every class and library I could find.
Google makes it's money selling advertisements. (no surprise). Companies and people paying for AD space is up in economic booms and down in downturns(should be no surprise). So it makes sense that Google should see a revenue shrinkage over the next 2-3 years (my prediction of recessions initial period before recovery) as some companies die all together and others cut costs. Also with downturn they don't have to provide the level of incentives to keep top notch people given fact that the uncertainty in the market will help keep employees. Plus they hired too many people as of late so if people leave it helps them get books more in line anyway.
Perhaps we should just rate Internet bandwidth by Megabits per dollar instead of Megabits per second to see what parts of the country are best for highspeed. I have been suggesting the same for cars rating them on miles per dollar versus miles per gallon. I have a friend with a modified plug-in that costs $7000 more then my same car in gas, he will say he gets infinity miles per gallon, when in truth they need to use miles per dollar with (total miles driven) / ($7000 + total cost of electric used in charging car) compared to the same model in standard gas engine using (total miles driven) / (Cost spent on gas) to see where the break even and savings come in. If you have to fix items unique to one type like say oil pan on standard car or batteries on electric, those should be added into the price. In fact to be fair every cost should be added into the total cost. OK so I went on a tangent, but I am not an intentional troll, more of an accidental one.
Does anybody know the % market share on a per browser version basis? Something like 15% - FireFox2, 10% - FireFox3, etc. I am just wondering if FF2 or FF3 is more prevalent.
Listen if our mainframe team was using JAVA I would be so happy because they would be working within the same decade as the Networking team. I have suggested they move all their apps to JAVA dozens of time, because if they migrated all the assembly programs to JAVA now, they could keep them on the mainframe for the short term and migrate them to Linux Intel boxes on VMware for the long term. Plus our mainframe has special JAVA processors that we can use without paying any more money to license their use, but if we want to use more than 2 processors we need to pay IBM to turn them on. But do the operators get this? No, instead our mainframe guys are wasting time migrating their assembly programs to natural. That is why I hate mainframe operators, they are 40 years in the past and their fix is to move to something that will put them 35-25 years in the past. It makes my head hurt watching the stupidity of mainframe group think.
The only reason that we still run a mainframe is because the management in place grow up around the mainframe and their underlings would be put out of work if we got rid of it. There is no reason why we couldn't be moving all of its relatively simple programs from the mainframe to a JAVA or.NET other then the fact that we have to wait for all of the current decision makers to retire or just die. The money we waste on hardware components or in turning on software features that are free in most other parts of the industry as well as the time it takes for old farts to get their head around distributed computing concepts is insane. While they spend days writing a program to do screen scraping to get an answer for management "How many people work here?" before eventually conceding they are unable to get the correct result only to have management come to me for a 2 minute powershell script to get the same information from AD. Yes we store things one way in the mainframe and again in AD or SQL Databases because the mainframe people are scared to try and cross the bridge and work with us. They freak out at anything new and worse they don't how the mainframe works. I read all about the Z/9 in an attempt to relate to those bums, I walked over to their side of the hall and in 15 minutes realized the operators don't care to learn how or why something is, they prefer to think of it as a black box. A big black box that takes up lots of room, lots of power and lots of cash. IBM mainframes exist because people who fear change are unable to get off them, not because there is anything fundamentally advantageous about them. I am planning their destruction, a VM that runs on Intel hardware but responds just like a mainframe, it is software that could be sold for nothing and then all the mainframe apps could be moved to it and IBM would be finished, dead toast. I think it is sad you have to pay and enter a code if you want to see more HD space, you cannot just plug in more SAN space, you have to buy it like you would for the Intel side and then pay IBM to let you see it. It is just a revolting way of doing IT. Mainframes are not innovative people, Mainframes are not sex or cool. Mainframes are anti-hacker, anti-explorer, anti-learning. I cannot stress how much they suck.
Maine works similar to what you describe as I understand it, with there being two districts with 1 vote each and then the person who gets the popular vote gets 2 additional votes, so that Maine could break 3-1, instead of giving all 4 votes to one candidate, though I don't think it has ever happened... yet.
They may or may not be "pro-choice", but they are "pro-abortion".
If they were pro-choice they would have to support the right for a person to choose to own a gun or not. They would also support the right for a person to choose Hybrid or the biggest SUV out there. They would also have to support a person's right to choose to eat meat or not. In short to be pro-choice you would have to accept whatever a person decides and commit yourself to individual rights, liberals do a poor job of standing up to individual choices. Most liberal policies are collectivist vs. individual in nature, so the claim to "pro-choice" is dishonest. I mean from the poll that started this thread Democrats are far more against blogger choice more than Republicans. Democrats tend to be the ones claiming to be "pro-choice" however. Finally those claiming to be "pro-choice" do support abortion so they are "pro-abortion". Also if you are pro-abortion by your choice you are anti-US and the reason is clear the Declaration of Independence states that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If you support denying a baby life and thus the right to pursuit happiness (but not promise happiness), then your beliefs run counter to the founders and most Americans throughout history for that matter.
I don't care, because it was disclosed. NBC mentioned the "foot print" fireworks over Beijing was a computer generated event for viewers, the fact that people failed to listen and comprehend is their own fault.
When I was watching NBC follow the "foot print" fireworks, they mentioned that it was a computer generated walk-through of the fireworks. If people were unaware it is because they are retarded and were not paying attention, it is not because China/NBC tried to pull a fast one.
It is the crisis point that will cause the switch, which is why all we need to do is work to get the oil out of the ground now. In the future as the supply drops off then market forces will build things like plugin electric vehicles and political forces will push environmental obstructionists to the side and finally allow us to build more nuclear plants to charge our electric cars and we'll be just fine. However what politicians and some people are trying to do today is force change on us that is not needed. I have two great gasoline powered cars. I just bought an Accord and I intend to keep it for at least 10-12 years before getting a new car. I am having a baby so I intend to sell my Camry and get either a Tahoe, Pilot or Explorer. I am not worried about the price of gas, it is cheaper than milk or shampoo per gallon. I also know that this country has more than enough oil, we just need to remove the Federal obstructions and allow ourselves to get it. Maybe my next car in 2020 will be electric or hybrid or something altogether different, but as for today, I just want my government to get out of the way and stop hurting this economy.
would be wiser to look ahead to the point when the gas WILL run out and start planning for that.
Why should we get off gas/oil while there is still over a century of use left? I think drilling in ANWR and off the cost is a long term gain and I think buying oil from American companies, produced with American labor, is good for our country.
The reason I called it a remote part of the world is that it is a remote part of the world, and the few people that live there want us to drill there and the people who don't live there and people who will never go there are opposed to it. I thought Democrats were "Pro-Choice", so why not lift the bans of drilling and give individual states the choice to harvest oil and natural gas or not. Those states that value the environment over jobs for working people can continue with their ban and those that want to help create jobs and lower living expenses can drill.
GNOME is great. MONO has a lot of potential (and is a welcome/needed addition to Linux in my opinion). There is no question that he is providing a key service by bridging the gap between Windows and Linux, which in today's heterogeneous networks is critical.
The only real innovation they do is making each new version of Windows more bloated than the previous version
You cannot believe that
.NET Framework (The concept of the CLR for multiple languages and built in a way that you have have several versions is a huge innovation beyond JAVA, which does not make using multiple REs easy)
Visual Studio (It is one of the best, if not the best IDE out there and is reasonably priced. OK, yes I do use Eclipse, but VS is much more solid, cleaner and has great features that speed development/troubleshooting.)
Exchange (Hands down better for office resource management and scheduling than any other product out there.
I don't understand why people are grabbing onto this "free software" idea as if it is an entitlement. I mean, what if I said all lamps should be free. How would that make sense? Yet with software somehow it is a great idea. What is next calls for "free health care" as if it to is a right? Grow up people, life requires you work and effort, it is insane to assume otherwise, because doing so means you are a selfish prick living off of other people's work and efforts.
What if my business isn't sustainable with a 5% profit margin?
Why exactly wouldn't it be?
Well for starters because there is another venture that would produce 6% or more in profit. So say for example, the government taxed, oh I don't know oil companies in the United States. The investors pull there money out of things that go to producing more oil and put their money into anything from shampoo manufacturers to coffee express franchises. Well then we get less oil produced and the supply goes down, so the cost goes up and so government taxes big oil more, and the situation repeats until citizens are paying a great deal more for gas, the oil companies are just surviving (or moving out of the country) and government is reaping excessive profits for doing nothing, which the politicians explain to us is apparently less wrong then working to make large profits. On the plus size we have more shampoo and lattes.
The cost of drilling in ANWR would be more like this:
(Environmental Damage in remote part of world) - (Jobs Created * Happy People with Jobs) - (Cost Saving per Gallon * Gallons)
and that would alone would demonstrate the cost of Oil went down from what it would otherwise be, but you then have to factor in (People who get jobs at flower shops * Small Business Florists who can afford to higher new employees with cost savings) + (People who get jobs in Bakeries... Well you get the picture.
With math like yours I bet you believe in Carbon Offsets.
That is a terrible gamble, you are so close the bottom (rates are only better is between 6%-0%), but worse 6.1%+, so that is a stupid risk accepting ARM, you have to gamble you will be able to flip or sell in few years, which is not only a gamble the market will not go up, but that the market will go up enough to cover mortgage payments you put into house, but also realtor costs etc., so you have to sell for significant more to break even and you are gambling that mortgage and credit lending terms will not tighten because if that happens you or a perspective buyer could be unable to refinance the home away from the ARM. You are just making so many terrible choices with a ARM it is like deciding not to hit on a 12. Even if the dealer busts, you are an idiot. ARMs were stupid then and are even more so now, back at the time most ARMs we given out, you could get fixed interest only loans with good credit and payment history and that would have been better idea then ARM if you want to keep monthly costs down until you sell/refi. Also let me say if you are just able to make ARM payment, but unable to make it with rate increase or if you cannot refinance should lenders marginally raise lending standards, then you deserve to get your pocket/credit hit.
Society benefits more by having bad lenders fail then rewarding bad lenders with government bailouts. So while you think you are saving some people from loosing their jobs with a government bailout, you are costing more job loss down the road and enslaving the middle class to cover the bill. The best solution is smaller government and letting the banks fail. Now yes it will suck in the short term and it will be painful, but it will benefit the country and people the most in the long term. I am disgusted at our government, it is the reason we are failing now, it is the reason we don't have enough oil production at home, it's promise to bail our banks that caused banks to get reckless that is requiring many of them be bailed out, our government is allowing illegal aliens to run over the border and then collect government benefits and even sue citizens in civil court (WTF?), it is government that created stupid programs to lend capital and give away limited education spots to people because of their color or minority status, when what government should have done is said "Lend to the best people, accept the best people, don't discriminate on our behalf" then we would be much better off. Government is expensive and it hurts more then it helps. Our government is not providing a common defense on our borders, hell we put a few rent-a-cops instead of troops there. Government is not providing a more perfect union, and we do not have liberty and to prove it see if a cop lets you drive without your seatbelt. So what is government's solution to the problems it created? Well it would like to nationalize healthcare (which is Unconstitutional without amendment) and it wants to regulate commodities (a sure fire way to push markets and traders to London). Government is evil and liberals worship it. It just blows me away the retarded nature of the common person. We may be created equal, but we do not end up that way, people need to wake up. Liberals get angry when their hard working neighbor makes more money or gets a raise, they want to cut the rich down. I feel good when people get a raise or more money, I think cool that is a system I can understand, work hard, get more stuff. But the government taxing my income makes me think about two other things 1). Socialist are selfish thieves and 2). I should just stop working, because I would rather be poor then work and have a government take my income.
An ARM was stupid if you took it when 15 and 30 year loans were at historical lows and you expected to refinance for a lower rate in the future. When rates are at 6%, you get a 5% ARM, hoping you can get a lower rate in the next 5 years, yeh your an idiot.
Slashdot Mirror
I have used FireFox almost exclusively for about 2 years. What got me started on FireFox was I wanted the same browser feel despite what OS I was on (Windows or Linux). So it was the cross OS support that got me into FireFox, but what has kept me using it is the vast plugin support. One of my favorite being Foxmarks. (but Foxmarks is coming out for IE eventually, I am now alpha testing on IE). Anyway, so I look at Chrome and wonder will it met these two key needs and if it is as good as FireFox will that be any reason to switch? So I can see that it will be cross OS, but to be better the FireFox, but the next question is will it take it a step further, will it work on my Blackberry or other mobile PDAs? That would be the motivator to get me looking, but to solidify a change, I would need the plugin options the FireFox currently has and others like IE are lacking. Can Google do it? I think they have a great shot.
...is one guy who returned to Microsoft, the price of an employee service was raised, and the stock price is lower than it was at a point in the past.
Well that and tomorrow I went back in time; gained access to the frozen Google code base and did a replace "mojo" with "Austin Powers' plot" on every class and library I could find.
Google makes it's money selling advertisements. (no surprise). Companies and people paying for AD space is up in economic booms and down in downturns(should be no surprise). So it makes sense that Google should see a revenue shrinkage over the next 2-3 years (my prediction of recessions initial period before recovery) as some companies die all together and others cut costs. Also with downturn they don't have to provide the level of incentives to keep top notch people given fact that the uncertainty in the market will help keep employees. Plus they hired too many people as of late so if people leave it helps them get books more in line anyway.
Perhaps we should just rate Internet bandwidth by Megabits per dollar instead of Megabits per second to see what parts of the country are best for highspeed. I have been suggesting the same for cars rating them on miles per dollar versus miles per gallon. I have a friend with a modified plug-in that costs $7000 more then my same car in gas, he will say he gets infinity miles per gallon, when in truth they need to use miles per dollar with (total miles driven) / ($7000 + total cost of electric used in charging car) compared to the same model in standard gas engine using (total miles driven) / (Cost spent on gas) to see where the break even and savings come in. If you have to fix items unique to one type like say oil pan on standard car or batteries on electric, those should be added into the price. In fact to be fair every cost should be added into the total cost. OK so I went on a tangent, but I am not an intentional troll, more of an accidental one.
With Road Island and Delaware coming in first and second respectively, I think it is obvious that size (and/or density) does matter.
Does anybody know the % market share on a per browser version basis? Something like 15% - FireFox2, 10% - FireFox3, etc. I am just wondering if FF2 or FF3 is more prevalent.
Listen if our mainframe team was using JAVA I would be so happy because they would be working within the same decade as the Networking team. I have suggested they move all their apps to JAVA dozens of time, because if they migrated all the assembly programs to JAVA now, they could keep them on the mainframe for the short term and migrate them to Linux Intel boxes on VMware for the long term. Plus our mainframe has special JAVA processors that we can use without paying any more money to license their use, but if we want to use more than 2 processors we need to pay IBM to turn them on. But do the operators get this? No, instead our mainframe guys are wasting time migrating their assembly programs to natural. That is why I hate mainframe operators, they are 40 years in the past and their fix is to move to something that will put them 35-25 years in the past. It makes my head hurt watching the stupidity of mainframe group think.
The only reason that we still run a mainframe is because the management in place grow up around the mainframe and their underlings would be put out of work if we got rid of it. There is no reason why we couldn't be moving all of its relatively simple programs from the mainframe to a JAVA or .NET other then the fact that we have to wait for all of the current decision makers to retire or just die. The money we waste on hardware components or in turning on software features that are free in most other parts of the industry as well as the time it takes for old farts to get their head around distributed computing concepts is insane. While they spend days writing a program to do screen scraping to get an answer for management "How many people work here?" before eventually conceding they are unable to get the correct result only to have management come to me for a 2 minute powershell script to get the same information from AD. Yes we store things one way in the mainframe and again in AD or SQL Databases because the mainframe people are scared to try and cross the bridge and work with us. They freak out at anything new and worse they don't how the mainframe works. I read all about the Z/9 in an attempt to relate to those bums, I walked over to their side of the hall and in 15 minutes realized the operators don't care to learn how or why something is, they prefer to think of it as a black box. A big black box that takes up lots of room, lots of power and lots of cash. IBM mainframes exist because people who fear change are unable to get off them, not because there is anything fundamentally advantageous about them. I am planning their destruction, a VM that runs on Intel hardware but responds just like a mainframe, it is software that could be sold for nothing and then all the mainframe apps could be moved to it and IBM would be finished, dead toast. I think it is sad you have to pay and enter a code if you want to see more HD space, you cannot just plug in more SAN space, you have to buy it like you would for the Intel side and then pay IBM to let you see it. It is just a revolting way of doing IT. Mainframes are not innovative people, Mainframes are not sex or cool. Mainframes are anti-hacker, anti-explorer, anti-learning. I cannot stress how much they suck.
Maine works similar to what you describe as I understand it, with there being two districts with 1 vote each and then the person who gets the popular vote gets 2 additional votes, so that Maine could break 3-1, instead of giving all 4 votes to one candidate, though I don't think it has ever happened ... yet.
They may or may not be "pro-choice", but they are "pro-abortion".
If they were pro-choice they would have to support the right for a person to choose to own a gun or not. They would also support the right for a person to choose Hybrid or the biggest SUV out there. They would also have to support a person's right to choose to eat meat or not. In short to be pro-choice you would have to accept whatever a person decides and commit yourself to individual rights, liberals do a poor job of standing up to individual choices. Most liberal policies are collectivist vs. individual in nature, so the claim to "pro-choice" is dishonest. I mean from the poll that started this thread Democrats are far more against blogger choice more than Republicans. Democrats tend to be the ones claiming to be "pro-choice" however. Finally those claiming to be "pro-choice" do support abortion so they are "pro-abortion". Also if you are pro-abortion by your choice you are anti-US and the reason is clear the Declaration of Independence states that We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If you support denying a baby life and thus the right to pursuit happiness (but not promise happiness), then your beliefs run counter to the founders and most Americans throughout history for that matter.
The open part (BSD) is the part Apple didn't write. God you're an idiot.
I don't care, because it was disclosed. NBC mentioned the "foot print" fireworks over Beijing was a computer generated event for viewers, the fact that people failed to listen and comprehend is their own fault.
When I was watching NBC follow the "foot print" fireworks, they mentioned that it was a computer generated walk-through of the fireworks. If people were unaware it is because they are retarded and were not paying attention, it is not because China/NBC tried to pull a fast one.
It is the crisis point that will cause the switch, which is why all we need to do is work to get the oil out of the ground now. In the future as the supply drops off then market forces will build things like plugin electric vehicles and political forces will push environmental obstructionists to the side and finally allow us to build more nuclear plants to charge our electric cars and we'll be just fine. However what politicians and some people are trying to do today is force change on us that is not needed. I have two great gasoline powered cars. I just bought an Accord and I intend to keep it for at least 10-12 years before getting a new car. I am having a baby so I intend to sell my Camry and get either a Tahoe, Pilot or Explorer. I am not worried about the price of gas, it is cheaper than milk or shampoo per gallon. I also know that this country has more than enough oil, we just need to remove the Federal obstructions and allow ourselves to get it. Maybe my next car in 2020 will be electric or hybrid or something altogether different, but as for today, I just want my government to get out of the way and stop hurting this economy.
would be wiser to look ahead to the point when the gas WILL run out and start planning for that.
Why should we get off gas/oil while there is still over a century of use left? I think drilling in ANWR and off the cost is a long term gain and I think buying oil from American companies, produced with American labor, is good for our country.
The reason I called it a remote part of the world is that it is a remote part of the world, and the few people that live there want us to drill there and the people who don't live there and people who will never go there are opposed to it. I thought Democrats were "Pro-Choice", so why not lift the bans of drilling and give individual states the choice to harvest oil and natural gas or not. Those states that value the environment over jobs for working people can continue with their ban and those that want to help create jobs and lower living expenses can drill.
GNOME is great. MONO has a lot of potential (and is a welcome/needed addition to Linux in my opinion). There is no question that he is providing a key service by bridging the gap between Windows and Linux, which in today's heterogeneous networks is critical.
If you hate MS for being closed, am I to take it that you hate Apple more as they are even more closed than MS?
Your web experience must be so boring.
The only real innovation they do is making each new version of Windows more bloated than the previous version
You cannot believe that
Visual Studio (It is one of the best, if not the best IDE out there and is reasonably priced. OK, yes I do use Eclipse, but VS is much more solid, cleaner and has great features that speed development/troubleshooting.)
Exchange (Hands down better for office resource management and scheduling than any other product out there.
I don't understand why people are grabbing onto this "free software" idea as if it is an entitlement. I mean, what if I said all lamps should be free. How would that make sense? Yet with software somehow it is a great idea. What is next calls for "free health care" as if it to is a right? Grow up people, life requires you work and effort, it is insane to assume otherwise, because doing so means you are a selfish prick living off of other people's work and efforts.
What if my business isn't sustainable with a 5% profit margin?
Why exactly wouldn't it be?
Well for starters because there is another venture that would produce 6% or more in profit. So say for example, the government taxed, oh I don't know oil companies in the United States. The investors pull there money out of things that go to producing more oil and put their money into anything from shampoo manufacturers to coffee express franchises. Well then we get less oil produced and the supply goes down, so the cost goes up and so government taxes big oil more, and the situation repeats until citizens are paying a great deal more for gas, the oil companies are just surviving (or moving out of the country) and government is reaping excessive profits for doing nothing, which the politicians explain to us is apparently less wrong then working to make large profits. On the plus size we have more shampoo and lattes.
Your math is wrong.
... Well you get the picture.
The cost of drilling in ANWR would be more like this:
(Environmental Damage in remote part of world) - (Jobs Created * Happy People with Jobs) - (Cost Saving per Gallon * Gallons)
and that would alone would demonstrate the cost of Oil went down from what it would otherwise be, but you then have to factor in (People who get jobs at flower shops * Small Business Florists who can afford to higher new employees with cost savings) + (People who get jobs in Bakeries
With math like yours I bet you believe in Carbon Offsets.
That is a terrible gamble, you are so close the bottom (rates are only better is between 6%-0%), but worse 6.1%+, so that is a stupid risk accepting ARM, you have to gamble you will be able to flip or sell in few years, which is not only a gamble the market will not go up, but that the market will go up enough to cover mortgage payments you put into house, but also realtor costs etc., so you have to sell for significant more to break even and you are gambling that mortgage and credit lending terms will not tighten because if that happens you or a perspective buyer could be unable to refinance the home away from the ARM. You are just making so many terrible choices with a ARM it is like deciding not to hit on a 12. Even if the dealer busts, you are an idiot. ARMs were stupid then and are even more so now, back at the time most ARMs we given out, you could get fixed interest only loans with good credit and payment history and that would have been better idea then ARM if you want to keep monthly costs down until you sell/refi. Also let me say if you are just able to make ARM payment, but unable to make it with rate increase or if you cannot refinance should lenders marginally raise lending standards, then you deserve to get your pocket/credit hit.
Society benefits more by having bad lenders fail then rewarding bad lenders with government bailouts. So while you think you are saving some people from loosing their jobs with a government bailout, you are costing more job loss down the road and enslaving the middle class to cover the bill. The best solution is smaller government and letting the banks fail. Now yes it will suck in the short term and it will be painful, but it will benefit the country and people the most in the long term. I am disgusted at our government, it is the reason we are failing now, it is the reason we don't have enough oil production at home, it's promise to bail our banks that caused banks to get reckless that is requiring many of them be bailed out, our government is allowing illegal aliens to run over the border and then collect government benefits and even sue citizens in civil court (WTF?), it is government that created stupid programs to lend capital and give away limited education spots to people because of their color or minority status, when what government should have done is said "Lend to the best people, accept the best people, don't discriminate on our behalf" then we would be much better off. Government is expensive and it hurts more then it helps. Our government is not providing a common defense on our borders, hell we put a few rent-a-cops instead of troops there. Government is not providing a more perfect union, and we do not have liberty and to prove it see if a cop lets you drive without your seatbelt. So what is government's solution to the problems it created? Well it would like to nationalize healthcare (which is Unconstitutional without amendment) and it wants to regulate commodities (a sure fire way to push markets and traders to London). Government is evil and liberals worship it. It just blows me away the retarded nature of the common person. We may be created equal, but we do not end up that way, people need to wake up. Liberals get angry when their hard working neighbor makes more money or gets a raise, they want to cut the rich down. I feel good when people get a raise or more money, I think cool that is a system I can understand, work hard, get more stuff. But the government taxing my income makes me think about two other things 1). Socialist are selfish thieves and 2). I should just stop working, because I would rather be poor then work and have a government take my income.
An ARM was stupid if you took it when 15 and 30 year loans were at historical lows and you expected to refinance for a lower rate in the future. When rates are at 6%, you get a 5% ARM, hoping you can get a lower rate in the next 5 years, yeh your an idiot.