It's not about trustworthy people. You will find those anywhere. It's about the people who now have access to our personal data being outside of our Legal and Law enforcement system. In the UK they have a data protection act which restricts personal data from going outside their country. The U.S. would be wise to adopt such a policy. One would think it would be a no brainer these days with our talk of being tough on terrorists. In light of recent news of our borders being porous and our domestic response teams being ill prepared. It really makes me wonder if we are really still that concerned about domestic terrorism.
I don't take that as a troll at all. True Oxford and Cambridge are still highly regarded. Though most Americans that go to the U.K. to study are not in Science or Engineering. The U.S. has many more Univerisities that are very highly regarded especally in the Sciences.
Scientists and Engineers don't get the respect they used to. Why bust your butt in those studies when you can get a business degree and make a similar amount? There really isn't a huge financial incentive to go into those studies. India and China are pumping out Engineers right now due to the fact that a degree in the Sciences means a job that is very high when compared to the rest of the populace. Once their economies develop and once can make a decent living with out the hard studies I bet that they will shift like we did.
It's called the process of creative destruction, and American industry will rise again, much like the Phoenix of lore. Contrast that with what Europe attempted by protecting its industries rather than letting them go and you'll see who had the better model.
You must be pretty ignorant on the differences between the economic models of U.S and Europe. Most of those Auto workes went into construction or other manual tasks not IT. The educated people went into IT desk jobs while the out of work Auto workes made a living building their houses. The real advantage the U.S. has over Europe is cheap land. Europe has very little new construction occuring when compared to the U.S. All of this growth and building that we are doing translates into Jobs. Curtail our new Construction to levels seen in Europe and our Un-Employment will rise signifigantly. If that happens we will be in for a hurting. You will then understand why Europe is modeled the way it is.
I really don't buy that "feel good" hypothesis. Ever wonder why the un-Employment rate is much lower in the U.S than in Europe? It's pretty simple really. However, it is pretty rare that anyone ever points it out. We have a lot more land and lower population density which allows us to build large amounts of new construction like crazy. Reduce our construction to levels seen in Europe and you will see the un-employment rate in the U.S rise. There will be a very tough transition period if this happens. Things will be better after the transition. However, we shouldn't sugar coat what may really happen. People should be aware that there will be some pain.
The Electoral College is an outdated system. If it is so good then why have we not exported to other foriegn governments that we are helping build? The simple reason is that it is a hold over from a time when.
- Most of the populace was uneducated and couldn't read/write - The Vice President was the person with the second highest electoral vote. - Allowing Men to vote that did not own land was considered liberal. - Most of the cities were only conected by trails. Making a true popular election pretty difficult.
It is true that it was intended to give a fairer shake to the smaller states. However, that was also in a time when states were fiercly independent. This simply isn't the case now. Also, you do realize that it is statistically possible ( Although highly unlikely ) to win the election by wining only 13 states. So it is possible to win the Presidency by only carying 1/3 of the States.
Actually the article does cover those two things. Looks like you were a victim of not researching both sides of the story...
Gore did claim to be the one to bring the Internet into being while in Congress. He used the word "Create". "Invent" means the same thing in this context.
FROM TFA:
To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean the same thing: If they mean the same thing, then why have the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet when he never used that word?
Gore's claim was incorrect: the Internet had already existed, and was called the Internet for a few years before he was in Congress
FROM TFA:
today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977
I really don't take it as a lie. He was very intstumental in getting government funding for the internet. He was lobying for the internet as early as 1984. That was pretty farsighted to see the potential back then. It was also risky as there wasn't exactly a public demand for the internet in the 80's. Thus, he was truly championing the internet out of his gut feeling of it's potential and not to pander to a particular constituency. I believe the quote was taken from a talk show. He was not on the stump and repeatedly making the claim as the conservative media would have the public believe. Like it or not the Internet could not have become what it is today with out government funding. Al Gore was a big part of getting that funding.
Or maybe if the Republican controlled congress wasn't squandering so much time and attention over the fat girl in Clinton's Second term we wouldn't have had 911. Oh wait 911 happened under Bush. Considering that we now know that Bush was more concerned with Iraq and didn't listen to his number 1 terrorism advisor. An advisor that happened to server under 4 presidents both Republican and Democrats. It's quite clear that Bush is the one who "blew it" and not the fat girl.
"Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them."
I for one could never get that trick to work on the XBOX version of GTA Vice City. I've tried everything money, flashy cars, early in the morning. Nothing seems to work!
I agree. I lived in the UK from 2001-2002. After coming back to the U.S. I have noticed a ton of shows which are spin-offs of BBC TV on Broadcast and Cable. The more Socialist BBC programing is setting the pace for our Capitalist programming. Maybe it's because they have less sensorship and comercials over there. Granted I did see one of my favortite American show's which they attempted to cross over to the UK. The show was an exact spinoff of "That 70's Show" and was named something like "Those Days". They even picked people that resembled the American cast. Didn't translate very well to UK TV. I only saw it once at 12:00 at night. It was a very sureal moment for me to see UK versions Fezz, Donna and Kelso.
Anyone with a pc and the right software could become and industrial designer. I'm still eagerly awaiting the arrival of nanoassemblers, which I think will be bigger than fire, but this is an exciting development that could change a lot of things.
This would have a huge impact on Capitalism. A very interesting prospect as it would put people on more of an even footing. If one could self replicate most products on the cheap there would be no need for the whole supply chain. This technology may be just what a society needs to become more self sustaining. After all Capitalism is sort off a vicous cycle. Capatalism is only a success when growth is occuring. Any type of stagnation is disaterous. Thus a society must always be consuming , expanding and producing. What happens when you reach a barier to growth? This technology would allow people to have the "freedom" of Capitalism while reducing the burden of being a wage slave. Which is actually a Socialist ideal.
I know it's offtopic but you have got to love the BBC. Almost always informative, no annoying adds. I have to thank the Brittish Tax payers for funding the BBC! Growing up I always heard that UK TV was crap.
However, after living there a few years ago I can say it was quite good. After returning to the US I am amazed at all of the TV shows on air that are basically copies of Brittish TV. Coupling, The Office, Trigger Happy TV, The Sketch show, American Idol, Trading Spaces, Faking it, etc...
That's just a sound you've been conditioned to like. With classic cars we have been conditioned to associate sound with power. This really isn't the case now days with our road cars and the advancement in sound deadning technology. A loud car now days is usually one that is poorly assembled or has a modification to boost the sound. Do the people in your neighborhood like the "sexy" sound you car makes going down the road? I would say probably not. If you really want that sound then just roll up your windows and mod your radio to make a roaring sound whenever you touch the gass. After all you only want to hear your engine and not the other guy driving down the road. Really not much of a different concept then adding glass-packs to your muffler. I like hearing nothing but the wind and maybe a slight hum from the tires on the road. That is the sound of a well engineered modern car. I would much rather hear my music and not have to raise my voice to talk.
I partially disagree with you're statement on welfare. Clinton did not have to cut welfare. We were floating surpluses under Clinton. The fact is Clinton was a hawk for ballancing the budget. Thus Clinton was a true Conservative. I would argue that Clinton was the most succesful Republican President in the past 50 years. After all he did do what the Republicans always promised but couldn't succeed in doing.
You are wrong about "Don't Tax, But Spend Just As Much As If We Were". We are borrowing money from other countries. That is how we get a deficit. The correct term is "borrow and spend" Republican.
Apparently you didn't look closely at the budget. We are still hemoraging a huge deficit in 2005 even with the domestic spending freezes. Even If we cut all of our domestic programs such as education, etc, We would still be in deficit for 2005!
The money used for providing for our own infrastructure is not the spending problem. Our overseas spending is causing our huge deficit. We went from a balanced budget and a projected surpless of 2.5 trillion on average over the next 10 years to being heavily in debt. While it's true that the Congresional Budget office initially miscalculated back in 2000 that the surplus would be 6.5 trillion. It still doesn't justify how we blew out our surplus in the past 4 years and our on track to contunially be in deficit over the next 5 years.
Sure we are in 2 wars. However, the non-essential Iraq war was sold to the American public as get in and get out with the U.S. bearing little cost.
Saudi Arabia is a pretty factioned Kingdom with a lot of players in the Royal family bidding for control. There are extremists in the royal family. The Saudi's can't even keep terrorist operatives out of their military. I found this
article regarding a recent FBI memo while reading Drudge Report. I found the following pretty disturbing.
The Saudi was sent home after it was discovered he provided information to al Qaeda figures in Saudi Arabia, including "coordinates on landmarks in the US," the report says.
"It's not surprising because we believe the Saudi military is infiltrated at the junior officer level in Saudi Arabia," said Dick Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism czar and now an ABC News Consultant. "And there are so many of them who come here for training."
Saying that Iraq was sponsoring Terrorism is a pretty week argument to Justify the Iraq war. The U.S. and just about every other political player sponsors some third party group to achieve it's goals. I don't think I have to remind you of Iran/Contra and numerous dictators that were sponsored by the U.S in some form. The fact is the current administration fought hard to link Iraq to 911. The more sobering fact is that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or our current threat to national security. Our greatest threat is still from terrorists with financing ties back to Saudi Arabi. Saudi Arabi is much more extremist and religous than Iraq. Iraq was probably the most Westernized of all the Islamic countries in the Middle East. Notice I said, "was" meaing the war has changed things. We are friendly with the current faction in charge of the Royal Family. However, it's not unreasonable to say that Saudi Arabia is a politcal event away from being run by a more extremist faction. The existing Saudi Government can not be trusted to control their own extremist factions. Perhaps we went to war with Iraq for that very reason. Meaning that Iraq was an easier target with lots of oil. We can make Saudi Arabi play a little nicer, with out damaging our currently friendly business relationship.
Bin Laden's banishment was basically a sacrificial cow to us back in the 90's. Recall that Bin Laden was very mad that US troops were stationed on Saudi Soil during the First Gulf war. The Royal Family was very happy to have us there as they needed US firepower to deal with Iraq. It was an easy peace overing for the Saudi's to make. It's also important to note that the Bin Laden family has claimed to have turned their back to Osama since the banishment. However, Bin Laden family members from Saudi Arabi were with Osama at a wedding as resently as 99 after the USS Cole atack. Osama even spoke at the wedding regarding the burning flesh of the "infidels" being a great site.
I believe you are only covered if a CPA signs off on your return. If that is the case then Turbo Tax isn't going to help unless they are selling a service which has a CPA approve your return.
Shhhh don't you know you can't metion Saudi and Terrorists in the same breath! It may raise to many questions as to why we invaded Iraq and not Saudi Arabi after 911.
I think the numbers speak for them selves. 14 Saudi High jackers ; 0 Iraqi High Jackers and 0 WMD's found in Iraq.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not about trustworthy people. You will find those anywhere. It's about the people who now have access to our personal data being outside of our Legal and Law enforcement system. In the UK they have a data protection act which restricts personal data from going outside their country. The U.S. would be wise to adopt such a policy. One would think it would be a no brainer these days with our talk of being tough on terrorists. In light of recent news of our borders being porous and our domestic response teams being ill prepared. It really makes me wonder if we are really still that concerned about domestic terrorism.
I don't take that as a troll at all. True Oxford and Cambridge are still highly regarded. Though most Americans that go to the U.K. to study are not in Science or Engineering. The U.S. has many more Univerisities that are very highly regarded especally in the Sciences.
I'm sorry, but it really makes me want to vomit, to see how far we've sunk in the last 200 years.
People also shit in holes dug into the ground 200 years ago....
Scientists and Engineers don't get the respect they used to. Why bust your butt in those studies when you can get a business degree and make a similar amount? There really isn't a huge financial incentive to go into those studies. India and China are pumping out Engineers right now due to the fact that a degree in the Sciences means a job that is very high when compared to the rest of the populace. Once their economies develop and once can make a decent living with out the hard studies I bet that they will shift like we did.
Good point. Also recall that a Brittish Education was once considered the best in the world. Now American universities hold that title.
It's called the process of creative destruction, and American industry will rise again, much like the Phoenix of lore. Contrast that with what Europe attempted by protecting its industries rather than letting them go and you'll see who had the better model.
You must be pretty ignorant on the differences between the economic models of U.S and Europe. Most of those Auto workes went into construction or other manual tasks not IT. The educated people went into IT desk jobs while the out of work Auto workes made a living building their houses. The real advantage the U.S. has over Europe is cheap land. Europe has very little new construction occuring when compared to the U.S. All of this growth and building that we are doing translates into Jobs. Curtail our new Construction to levels seen in Europe and our Un-Employment will rise signifigantly. If that happens we will be in for a hurting. You will then understand why Europe is modeled the way it is.
I really don't buy that "feel good" hypothesis. Ever wonder why the un-Employment rate is much lower in the U.S than in Europe? It's pretty simple really. However, it is pretty rare that anyone ever points it out. We have a lot more land and lower population density which allows us to build large amounts of new construction like crazy. Reduce our construction to levels seen in Europe and you will see the un-employment rate in the U.S rise. There will be a very tough transition period if this happens. Things will be better after the transition. However, we shouldn't sugar coat what may really happen. People should be aware that there will be some pain.
The Electoral College is an outdated system. If it is so good then why have we not exported to other foriegn governments that we are helping build? The simple reason is that it is a hold over from a time when.
- Most of the populace was uneducated and couldn't read/write
- The Vice President was the person with the second highest electoral vote.
- Allowing Men to vote that did not own land was considered liberal.
- Most of the cities were only conected by trails. Making a true popular election pretty difficult.
It is true that it was intended to give a fairer shake to the smaller states. However, that was also in a time when states were fiercly independent. This simply isn't the case now. Also, you do realize that it is statistically possible ( Although highly unlikely ) to win the election by wining only 13 states. So it is possible to win the Presidency by only carying 1/3 of the States.
Actually the article does cover those two things. Looks like you were a victim of not researching both sides of the story...
Gore did claim to be the one to bring the Internet into being while in Congress. He used the word "Create". "Invent" means the same thing in this context.
FROM TFA: To those who say the words "create" and "invent" mean the same thing: If they mean the same thing, then why have the media overwhelmingly and consistently cited Gore as having claimed he "invented" the Internet when he never used that word?
Gore's claim was incorrect: the Internet had already existed, and was called the Internet for a few years before he was in Congress
FROM TFA: today's Internet came into being well before Gore's first term in Congress began in 1977
I really don't take it as a lie. He was very intstumental in getting government funding for the internet. He was lobying for the internet as early as 1984. That was pretty farsighted to see the potential back then. It was also risky as there wasn't exactly a public demand for the internet in the 80's. Thus, he was truly championing the internet out of his gut feeling of it's potential and not to pander to a particular constituency. I believe the quote was taken from a talk show. He was not on the stump and repeatedly making the claim as the conservative media would have the public believe. Like it or not the Internet could not have become what it is today with out government funding. Al Gore was a big part of getting that funding.
Or maybe if the Republican controlled congress wasn't squandering so much time and attention over the fat girl in Clinton's Second term we wouldn't have had 911. Oh wait 911 happened under Bush. Considering that we now know that Bush was more concerned with Iraq and didn't listen to his number 1 terrorism advisor. An advisor that happened to server under 4 presidents both Republican and Democrats. It's quite clear that Bush is the one who "blew it" and not the fat girl.
"Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them."
I for one could never get that trick to work on the XBOX version of GTA Vice City. I've tried everything money, flashy cars, early in the morning. Nothing seems to work!
If you read the captions underneath the pictures they will tell you how it was done.
I agree. I lived in the UK from 2001-2002. After coming back to the U.S. I have noticed a ton of shows which are spin-offs of BBC TV on Broadcast and Cable. The more Socialist BBC programing is setting the pace for our Capitalist programming. Maybe it's because they have less sensorship and comercials over there. Granted I did see one of my favortite American show's which they attempted to cross over to the UK. The show was an exact spinoff of "That 70's Show" and was named something like "Those Days". They even picked people that resembled the American cast. Didn't translate very well to UK TV. I only saw it once at 12:00 at night. It was a very sureal moment for me to see UK versions Fezz, Donna and Kelso.
Anyone with a pc and the right software could become and industrial designer. I'm still eagerly awaiting the arrival of nanoassemblers, which I think will be bigger than fire, but this is an exciting development that could change a lot of things.
This would have a huge impact on Capitalism. A very interesting prospect as it would put people on more of an even footing. If one could self replicate most products on the cheap there would be no need for the whole supply chain. This technology may be just what a society needs to become more self sustaining. After all Capitalism is sort off a vicous cycle. Capatalism is only a success when growth is occuring. Any type of stagnation is disaterous. Thus a society must always be consuming , expanding and producing. What happens when you reach a barier to growth? This technology would allow people to have the "freedom" of Capitalism while reducing the burden of being a wage slave. Which is actually a Socialist ideal.
I know it's offtopic but you have got to love the BBC. Almost always informative, no annoying adds. I have to thank the Brittish Tax payers for funding the BBC! Growing up I always heard that UK TV was crap. However, after living there a few years ago I can say it was quite good. After returning to the US I am amazed at all of the TV shows on air that are basically copies of Brittish TV. Coupling, The Office, Trigger Happy TV, The Sketch show, American Idol, Trading Spaces, Faking it, etc...
That's just a sound you've been conditioned to like. With classic cars we have been conditioned to associate sound with power. This really isn't the case now days with our road cars and the advancement in sound deadning technology. A loud car now days is usually one that is poorly assembled or has a modification to boost the sound. Do the people in your neighborhood like the "sexy" sound you car makes going down the road? I would say probably not. If you really want that sound then just roll up your windows and mod your radio to make a roaring sound whenever you touch the gass. After all you only want to hear your engine and not the other guy driving down the road. Really not much of a different concept then adding glass-packs to your muffler. I like hearing nothing but the wind and maybe a slight hum from the tires on the road. That is the sound of a well engineered modern car. I would much rather hear my music and not have to raise my voice to talk.
I notice the Hogs like Haliburton and others aren't "squealing".
I partially disagree with you're statement on welfare. Clinton did not have to cut welfare. We were floating surpluses under Clinton. The fact is Clinton was a hawk for ballancing the budget. Thus Clinton was a true Conservative. I would argue that Clinton was the most succesful Republican President in the past 50 years. After all he did do what the Republicans always promised but couldn't succeed in doing.
You are wrong about "Don't Tax, But Spend Just As Much As If We Were". We are borrowing money from other countries. That is how we get a deficit. The correct term is "borrow and spend" Republican.
Apparently you didn't look closely at the budget. We are still hemoraging a huge deficit in 2005 even with the domestic spending freezes. Even If we cut all of our domestic programs such as education, etc, We would still be in deficit for 2005!
The money used for providing for our own infrastructure is not the spending problem. Our overseas spending is causing our huge deficit. We went from a balanced budget and a projected surpless of 2.5 trillion on average over the next 10 years to being heavily in debt. While it's true that the Congresional Budget office initially miscalculated back in 2000 that the surplus would be 6.5 trillion. It still doesn't justify how we blew out our surplus in the past 4 years and our on track to contunially be in deficit over the next 5 years.
Sure we are in 2 wars. However, the non-essential Iraq war was sold to the American public as get in and get out with the U.S. bearing little cost.
It's either "Tax and Spend" or "Borrow and Spend". Take your pick...
With Tax and Spend you owe the government. With Borrow and Spend your government owes a foreign government. Personally I would rather have the first.
Saudi Arabia is a pretty factioned Kingdom with a lot of players in the Royal family bidding for control. There are extremists in the royal family. The Saudi's can't even keep terrorist operatives out of their military. I found this article regarding a recent FBI memo while reading Drudge Report. I found the following pretty disturbing.
The Saudi was sent home after it was discovered he provided information to al Qaeda figures in Saudi Arabia, including "coordinates on landmarks in the US," the report says.
"It's not surprising because we believe the Saudi military is infiltrated at the junior officer level in Saudi Arabia," said Dick Clarke, a former White House counterterrorism czar and now an ABC News Consultant. "And there are so many of them who come here for training."
Saying that Iraq was sponsoring Terrorism is a pretty week argument to Justify the Iraq war. The U.S. and just about every other political player sponsors some third party group to achieve it's goals. I don't think I have to remind you of Iran/Contra and numerous dictators that were sponsored by the U.S in some form. The fact is the current administration fought hard to link Iraq to 911. The more sobering fact is that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or our current threat to national security. Our greatest threat is still from terrorists with financing ties back to Saudi Arabi. Saudi Arabi is much more extremist and religous than Iraq. Iraq was probably the most Westernized of all the Islamic countries in the Middle East. Notice I said, "was" meaing the war has changed things. We are friendly with the current faction in charge of the Royal Family. However, it's not unreasonable to say that Saudi Arabia is a politcal event away from being run by a more extremist faction. The existing Saudi Government can not be trusted to control their own extremist factions. Perhaps we went to war with Iraq for that very reason. Meaning that Iraq was an easier target with lots of oil. We can make Saudi Arabi play a little nicer, with out damaging our currently friendly business relationship.
Bin Laden's banishment was basically a sacrificial cow to us back in the 90's. Recall that Bin Laden was very mad that US troops were stationed on Saudi Soil during the First Gulf war. The Royal Family was very happy to have us there as they needed US firepower to deal with Iraq. It was an easy peace overing for the Saudi's to make. It's also important to note that the Bin Laden family has claimed to have turned their back to Osama since the banishment. However, Bin Laden family members from Saudi Arabi were with Osama at a wedding as resently as 99 after the USS Cole atack. Osama even spoke at the wedding regarding the burning flesh of the "infidels" being a great site.
I believe you are only covered if a CPA signs off on your return. If that is the case then Turbo Tax isn't going to help unless they are selling a service which has a CPA approve your return.
Shhhh don't you know you can't metion Saudi and Terrorists in the same breath! It may raise to many questions as to why we invaded Iraq and not Saudi Arabi after 911.
I think the numbers speak for them selves. 14 Saudi High jackers ; 0 Iraqi High Jackers and 0 WMD's found in Iraq.