That is what climate scientists of course do and why the models have been adapting over the last century, when they could predict things like the intensity of the monsoons in 1900 but now can predict a lot more.
Oh great - quoting a Russian as evidence about how democracy doesn't work. If Stalin planted Rand to fuck up US politics he couldn't have done a better job.
Personally I think it's insane that a civil crime such as a breach of copyright terms is treated as a criminal matter more serious than assaulting someone and leaving them with injuries that will be with them for the rest of their life.
Here we go again. The New York Times is a foreign government? Snowden didn't have to sell Putin anything. Merely being an embarrassment to the USA was enough to get him in the door.
If it's a high profile case the lawyer gets screwed over too. Take a look at what happened to those appointed to defend people in GITMO as an example - Major Mori was pushed out of the military and then found he couldn't get a job in the US due to the bad reputation he gained by doing his job as ordered and not rolling over as suggested in backroom deals with amoral non-military spooks outside of his chain of command. Now he works in Australia. A patriot doing as ordered driven out of the country.
BTW, I'm sorry about the bit about "silly personal attack" and various other bits where I have got you mixed up with HornWumpus who seems to have just come in to crap on everything then fly away like a seagull.
There are lots of things the government could spend money on to make things better
Yes but my point is "fiscal conservatives" are about deep cuts first and making things better second - dangerous idiots that are incompatible with conservative government in the specific case and good governance in general. They are about being "penny wise and pound foolish" - what you want as an accountant in the low levels of an org but not someone you want in a position of enough responsibility where they can derail a long term plan.
So you don't like that example and think it all happened in a different way to what I do - so vehemently that you went as far as accusing me of "supporting" someone I couldn't even name - then let's try something else.
Let's pick a goose - maybe start with prisons. It's insanely expensive to keep people locked up, even in a prison camp full of tents in Texas. So what happens when a "fiscally conservative" person gets in charge? How does that fit with a conservative approach to law and order when you start to empty the prisons? A bit of a loss of gold eggs when your "fiscal conservative" makes radical changes to keep the prison population low - like Thatcher in year 3 of the first term not just reverting to previous sentencing but making it far more lax. Getting an idea yet?
Let's pick a different goose, the military. By it's nature a military likes to have the resources to deal with a variety of possibilities. Enter the "fiscal conservative" - a lot of money can be saved by limiting military spending to current operations. Not very compatible with conservative, or any competent government is it?
I challenge you to discuss those points about why there are not a lot of conservative "fiscal conservatives" without some sort of silly personal attack.
Yes, it's become very clear that my simple example I was sure you'd know something about is not something you've been following enough to get more than random sound bites - yet you've been somewhat vocal about it while mixing up everyone in Europe it appears. A right of centre "fiscally conservative" bunch took a failing economy (failed with a lot of advice from Goldman Sachs remember - conservative bunch there but not fiscally so) and decided to just cut everything. The country ground to a halt and those businesses that were still standing found they couldn't operate for infrastructure reasons. It was in the fucking news in every form of media. In fairy tale terms you may remember it's "don't kill the golden goose" - well they stopped feeding the goose, ate the goose and their bad economy turned into utter shit. So in times of plenty you can go on about how it's a pity that a conservative is no miser, but when things get tight a conservative is not going to be able to be a miser without killing off some of the things in society they think is worth conserving - no goose no gold later. Hence a conservative with bailouts instead of letting Ford and GM die. Making sense yet? I've course you've got to be able to tell the difference between years of "small government" propaganda and no functioning government at all to grasp the concept - use your brain instead of dumbed down PR.
What an utter lack of empathy on your part - you cannot relate that something stupid done there could apply to someone doing something stupid in your own backyard, and yet you accuse me of things that I'm warning about. What a loser.
Not just the usual suspects - the UK and Australia are putting together restrictions on VPNs and various people in power in both places don't give a shit how much collatoral damage they do in the process. Murdoch is behind some of it for cable tv vs file sharing reasons but is only one of many pushing for it - making VPNs illegal is a wet dream for various security agencies. They've been like that ever since SSL was invented but now they have people in politics taking them seriously.
Support? Fuck you and your attacking the messenger bullshit. I give an example on the other side of the fucking world of a massive fuckup on top of another massive fuckup and now I'm supporting it am I? What inspires such shit? Why the personal attack? I won't ask for an apology because I doubt you are man enough to take responsibility for your own words, just some sort of pathetic bully.
Please read my post to see where in the timeline I am describing - "attempted cure was far worse than the disease" is an enormous clue which I possibly should put in red with a BLINK tag so you do not miss it again. Please read that line. Then look up "austerity" in a dictionary if you really did read but fail to comprehend instead of merely skimming and cheerleading which is what I suspect. Getting it yet? It seems short posts don't convey enough and long ones exceed attention span and do not get read, unless there is some game of pretending to be stupid "for rhetorical effect" going on. What is going on? Why does such a simple opinion of why the USA doesn't breed conservative candidates who are fiscally conservative create so much confusion? Surely it's not all that hard a concept to grasp and discuss without confusing someone enough that they can't separate past and present tenses?
Look internationally instead of waving flags - please attempt to at least read and comprehend my posts instead of a knee jerk "How can you be so out of touch" without considering anything other than the last five minutes.
Sorry to post a second time, but you have completely missed my point probably because I did not explain it. I'm referring to the situation where the Greek economy was in trouble a few years ago and some "conservatives" (compared with the previous bunch anyway) who were "fiscally conservative" came in and their attempted cure was far worse than the disease.
Such penny wise and pound foolish authoritarian idiots are a problem and we can be thankful that US conservatives have only paid lip service to austerity instead of practising it.
The "fiscally conservative" bit is the important bit and not your definition of what is left and what is right and where the last lot of authoritarians fit in the scale.
With the internationally laughed at joke of a clusterfuck of voting systems in Florida in 2000 I have to admit I wonder why anyone thinks he can be trusted with the responsibility of a hot dog stand let alone a State or country.
I have a bit of hope that we'll get a conservative candidate who's fiscally conservative
I suggest you look at what happened to Greece over the last few years and be happy that you've never actually had one of those get into a position where they can destroy an economy.
So long as you are willing to put up with sixteen thousand student and academics without email for a week and a half until the trouble ticket makes it through the queue and they finally fix their internal DNS stuffup in their hosted Exchange mail farm. That one was fun to watch from the outside trying to send mail in. I think it's very likely that people did get fired for choosing Microsoft that time. Of course you'll probably point out that such a situation was a small customer of no consequence and not "enterprisy" enough - which is certainly the line MS took that time.
I'm not sure why IBM is listed as being a major competitor to AWS and Azure for cloud hosting
Because unlike Azure they can do leap years.
Too Zune?
Seriously they've been running other's people stuff on machines they own since before Sun said "the network is the computer", let alone before the "cloud" name turned up. Others may have more volume but IBM have not left the game they have been in for a long time, and they have not had such public stuffups as two leap year bugs in a row.
So your "source" was a ten year old? I don't know why you didn't work it out for yourself that your "source" was not involved at the time and was passing on a rumour that they can not confirm for mere dramatic effect. I'll bet that he's not willing to put his shaggy dog story to Buzz either. I'm also willing to bet that the details of the story have grown with the telling to each bunch of students.
Slashdot Mirror
That is what climate scientists of course do and why the models have been adapting over the last century, when they could predict things like the intensity of the monsoons in 1900 but now can predict a lot more.
Oh great - quoting a Russian as evidence about how democracy doesn't work. If Stalin planted Rand to fuck up US politics he couldn't have done a better job.
Personally I think it's insane that a civil crime such as a breach of copyright terms is treated as a criminal matter more serious than assaulting someone and leaving them with injuries that will be with them for the rest of their life.
Here we go again. The New York Times is a foreign government?
Snowden didn't have to sell Putin anything. Merely being an embarrassment to the USA was enough to get him in the door.
If it's a high profile case the lawyer gets screwed over too. Take a look at what happened to those appointed to defend people in GITMO as an example - Major Mori was pushed out of the military and then found he couldn't get a job in the US due to the bad reputation he gained by doing his job as ordered and not rolling over as suggested in backroom deals with amoral non-military spooks outside of his chain of command. Now he works in Australia. A patriot doing as ordered driven out of the country.
BTW, I'm sorry about the bit about "silly personal attack" and various other bits where I have got you mixed up with HornWumpus who seems to have just come in to crap on everything then fly away like a seagull.
Yes but my point is "fiscal conservatives" are about deep cuts first and making things better second - dangerous idiots that are incompatible with conservative government in the specific case and good governance in general.
They are about being "penny wise and pound foolish" - what you want as an accountant in the low levels of an org but not someone you want in a position of enough responsibility where they can derail a long term plan.
More than the New York times got?
Where is your source for all this - either you are leaking top secret information yourself or are making up shit.
So you don't like that example and think it all happened in a different way to what I do - so vehemently that you went as far as accusing me of "supporting" someone I couldn't even name - then let's try something else.
Let's pick a goose - maybe start with prisons. It's insanely expensive to keep people locked up, even in a prison camp full of tents in Texas. So what happens when a "fiscally conservative" person gets in charge? How does that fit with a conservative approach to law and order when you start to empty the prisons? A bit of a loss of gold eggs when your "fiscal conservative" makes radical changes to keep the prison population low - like Thatcher in year 3 of the first term not just reverting to previous sentencing but making it far more lax.
Getting an idea yet?
Let's pick a different goose, the military. By it's nature a military likes to have the resources to deal with a variety of possibilities. Enter the "fiscal conservative" - a lot of money can be saved by limiting military spending to current operations. Not very compatible with conservative, or any competent government is it?
I challenge you to discuss those points about why there are not a lot of conservative "fiscal conservatives" without some sort of silly personal attack.
Yes, it's become very clear that my simple example I was sure you'd know something about is not something you've been following enough to get more than random sound bites - yet you've been somewhat vocal about it while mixing up everyone in Europe it appears.
A right of centre "fiscally conservative" bunch took a failing economy (failed with a lot of advice from Goldman Sachs remember - conservative bunch there but not fiscally so) and decided to just cut everything. The country ground to a halt and those businesses that were still standing found they couldn't operate for infrastructure reasons. It was in the fucking news in every form of media. In fairy tale terms you may remember it's "don't kill the golden goose" - well they stopped feeding the goose, ate the goose and their bad economy turned into utter shit.
So in times of plenty you can go on about how it's a pity that a conservative is no miser, but when things get tight a conservative is not going to be able to be a miser without killing off some of the things in society they think is worth conserving - no goose no gold later. Hence a conservative with bailouts instead of letting Ford and GM die. Making sense yet?
I've course you've got to be able to tell the difference between years of "small government" propaganda and no functioning government at all to grasp the concept - use your brain instead of dumbed down PR.
What an utter lack of empathy on your part - you cannot relate that something stupid done there could apply to someone doing something stupid in your own backyard, and yet you accuse me of things that I'm warning about. What a loser.
The New York Times is run by Russians?
Not just the usual suspects - the UK and Australia are putting together restrictions on VPNs and various people in power in both places don't give a shit how much collatoral damage they do in the process. Murdoch is behind some of it for cable tv vs file sharing reasons but is only one of many pushing for it - making VPNs illegal is a wet dream for various security agencies. They've been like that ever since SSL was invented but now they have people in politics taking them seriously.
Support? Fuck you and your attacking the messenger bullshit. I give an example on the other side of the fucking world of a massive fuckup on top of another massive fuckup and now I'm supporting it am I?
What inspires such shit? Why the personal attack? I won't ask for an apology because I doubt you are man enough to take responsibility for your own words, just some sort of pathetic bully.
Please read my post to see where in the timeline I am describing - "attempted cure was far worse than the disease" is an enormous clue which I possibly should put in red with a BLINK tag so you do not miss it again. Please read that line. Then look up "austerity" in a dictionary if you really did read but fail to comprehend instead of merely skimming and cheerleading which is what I suspect. Getting it yet?
It seems short posts don't convey enough and long ones exceed attention span and do not get read, unless there is some game of pretending to be stupid "for rhetorical effect" going on.
What is going on? Why does such a simple opinion of why the USA doesn't breed conservative candidates who are fiscally conservative create so much confusion? Surely it's not all that hard a concept to grasp and discuss without confusing someone enough that they can't separate past and present tenses?
Look internationally instead of waving flags - please attempt to at least read and comprehend my posts instead of a knee jerk "How can you be so out of touch" without considering anything other than the last five minutes.
Sorry to post a second time, but you have completely missed my point probably because I did not explain it.
I'm referring to the situation where the Greek economy was in trouble a few years ago and some "conservatives" (compared with the previous bunch anyway) who were "fiscally conservative" came in and their attempted cure was far worse than the disease.
Such penny wise and pound foolish authoritarian idiots are a problem and we can be thankful that US conservatives have only paid lip service to austerity instead of practising it.
The "fiscal conservatives" were the ones that came in to destroy the economy in order to save it, not the ones that caused the original problems.
The "fiscally conservative" bit is the important bit and not your definition of what is left and what is right and where the last lot of authoritarians fit in the scale.
Is he the Bush child that actually turns up for work?
With the internationally laughed at joke of a clusterfuck of voting systems in Florida in 2000 I have to admit I wonder why anyone thinks he can be trusted with the responsibility of a hot dog stand let alone a State or country.
I suggest you look at what happened to Greece over the last few years and be happy that you've never actually had one of those get into a position where they can destroy an economy.
So long as you are willing to put up with sixteen thousand student and academics without email for a week and a half until the trouble ticket makes it through the queue and they finally fix their internal DNS stuffup in their hosted Exchange mail farm. That one was fun to watch from the outside trying to send mail in. I think it's very likely that people did get fired for choosing Microsoft that time.
Of course you'll probably point out that such a situation was a small customer of no consequence and not "enterprisy" enough - which is certainly the line MS took that time.
Because unlike Azure they can do leap years.
Too Zune?
Seriously they've been running other's people stuff on machines they own since before Sun said "the network is the computer", let alone before the "cloud" name turned up. Others may have more volume but IBM have not left the game they have been in for a long time, and they have not had such public stuffups as two leap year bugs in a row.
So your "source" was a ten year old?
I don't know why you didn't work it out for yourself that your "source" was not involved at the time and was passing on a rumour that they can not confirm for mere dramatic effect.
I'll bet that he's not willing to put his shaggy dog story to Buzz either. I'm also willing to bet that the details of the story have grown with the telling to each bunch of students.