The bean-counters and mindless penny pinchers who run most corporations like to keep everything secret and proprietary without fully appreciating the costs associated with maintaining that level of secrecy. The solution is simple, only keep something secret if you've first: taken the effort to understand what it will cost to do so and second: taken the effort to make sure the secret won't actually be forgotten. In short, keep fewer secrets, and keep them a lot better.
What we have now isn't the result of "pure" capitalism. It's kind of the intersection between democracy and capitalism. The people with the money have been using the money do manipulate the democratic system, thereby achieving results that would not be possible in a capitalist system (these bailouts, no-bid government contracts, limited liability corporations and things like that are good examples). In return, politicians promise to reign in the people with money, which is really pretty absurd if you think about.
The end result of pure capitalism probably would be very different (thats not to say better).
No, it's the difference between your heavy handed, brain-dead ideas, and actually building a better car. It's the difference between being a bully, and being an inventor.
It always seemed like it was designed to punish wealthy polluters more than it was meant to end increasing CO2 concentrations and mitigate the consequences of of that CO2. What needs to be done is obvious:
1) Replace energy infrastructure with wind and solar (Nuclear isn't an option because people won't let the plants be built). 2) Replace the majority of automotive transit with electrically powered light rail. 3) Build appropriate flood control and irrigation infrastructure in countries where these are lacking.
Kyoto was all about targets and incentives. That makes no sense when the whole thing could only ever be solved with large scale engineering projects which Kyoto made no effort to directly address.
Just because you want something doesn't mean that you need it, or that you can afford it.
Plenty of people don't want those programs. Enough people that republicans have no difficulty proposing cuts to them, and would have no difficulty getting reelected if cuts were made. By contrast, republicans advocating tax rate increases would not be able to get reelected. Expecting republicans to make concessions that would likely cost them their jobs is not reasonable.
Taxes should increase as appropriate... but taxes should also increase as appropriate.
Ah yes, this is the Democrat platform, I believe.
But the reality is that even if you cut every dime of discretional spending from your budget, you'd still be running a deficit.
The entire budget is discretionary. The claim that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not discretionary is bogus, as it would only require an act of congress to change them. And, if you could touch those programs, you really could balance the budget without raising taxes. So that claim that Republicans are the only ones holding the line on a critical issue is bogus.
Do you believe that if it weren't for Grover Norquist, most republicans would support raising taxes? The reason his pledge is important is republicans vote for candidates who say "I will never raise taxes" and then vote them out if they do. All Grover Norquist does is keep track of republicans who make that promise, and then point it out come election time if they break it.
Did he? Or was it the people who were improperly classifying information for political purposes? As you said, it was someone else's job. Someone who wasn't doing their job right and left the responsibility to someone else.
Some people would say that much of the information he released shouldn't have been classified in the first place. So, who is really the one misusing it?
The concern about teacher unions is not born out of some misguided free-market ideology. Rather it is born out of concern that teachers unions are too powerful and that they care about the teachers more than the students. So while you seem to think it's because people don't care about the weakest members of society (the teachers) in reality it's because they do care about the weakest members of society (the children).
As far as whether we should get rid of teachers unions, or simply neuter them, I guess it could go either way. But something has to be done. You have to be able to get rid of a teacher who isn't performing, the social cost of keeping them around is too great. I don't think many people are even thinking of the monetary cost when they say the teachers unions have to go.
Slashdot Mirror
The bean-counters and mindless penny pinchers who run most corporations like to keep everything secret and proprietary without fully appreciating the costs associated with maintaining that level of secrecy. The solution is simple, only keep something secret if you've first: taken the effort to understand what it will cost to do so and second: taken the effort to make sure the secret won't actually be forgotten. In short, keep fewer secrets, and keep them a lot better.
If the history channel read this story, they would undoubtably conclude that the plant was built with the help of aliens.
I've lived in two of those cities and never been mugged. I'm not saying they aren't dangerous, but it's not a part of every day life.
What we have now isn't the result of "pure" capitalism. It's kind of the intersection between democracy and capitalism. The people with the money have been using the money do manipulate the democratic system, thereby achieving results that would not be possible in a capitalist system (these bailouts, no-bid government contracts, limited liability corporations and things like that are good examples). In return, politicians promise to reign in the people with money, which is really pretty absurd if you think about.
The end result of pure capitalism probably would be very different (thats not to say better).
Thanks for this. It really puts in perspective just how fucked we all are.
He was saying that if they chose tablets significantly cheaper than the iPad, as the parent suggested, no one would use them. It's probably true.
If they were actually producing it they might not have gone out of business.
Also, what's wrong with the shape? Do you hate it just because it doesn't look like other cars? It looks good, like an airplane with no wings.
No, it's the difference between your heavy handed, brain-dead ideas, and actually building a better car. It's the difference between being a bully, and being an inventor.
It always seemed like it was designed to punish wealthy polluters more than it was meant to end increasing CO2 concentrations and mitigate the consequences of of that CO2. What needs to be done is obvious:
1) Replace energy infrastructure with wind and solar (Nuclear isn't an option because people won't let the plants be built).
2) Replace the majority of automotive transit with electrically powered light rail.
3) Build appropriate flood control and irrigation infrastructure in countries where these are lacking.
Kyoto was all about targets and incentives. That makes no sense when the whole thing could only ever be solved with large scale engineering projects which Kyoto made no effort to directly address.
As someone who just made several hundred dollars while lounging around in key west, I can safely say that the trade off is well worth it.
Groundwater moves very slowly. You'd have time to get out.
I wonder why the world economy is going to shit.
That only took about 20 years. Most industries take at least 40 to adopt new technologies, right?
Just because you want something doesn't mean that you need it, or that you can afford it.
Plenty of people don't want those programs. Enough people that republicans have no difficulty proposing cuts to them, and would have no difficulty getting reelected if cuts were made. By contrast, republicans advocating tax rate increases would not be able to get reelected. Expecting republicans to make concessions that would likely cost them their jobs is not reasonable.
Ah yes, this is the Democrat platform, I believe.
The entire budget is discretionary. The claim that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are not discretionary is bogus, as it would only require an act of congress to change them. And, if you could touch those programs, you really could balance the budget without raising taxes. So that claim that Republicans are the only ones holding the line on a critical issue is bogus.
Do you believe that if it weren't for Grover Norquist, most republicans would support raising taxes? The reason his pledge is important is republicans vote for candidates who say "I will never raise taxes" and then vote them out if they do. All Grover Norquist does is keep track of republicans who make that promise, and then point it out come election time if they break it.
Should taxes not decrease?
Appearantly, the western media is the enemy.
Did he? Or was it the people who were improperly classifying information for political purposes? As you said, it was someone else's job. Someone who wasn't doing their job right and left the responsibility to someone else.
Some people would say that much of the information he released shouldn't have been classified in the first place. So, who is really the one misusing it?
I've never seen any proof of this claim, though it certainly is repeated often enough.
*For extremely slow values of speedy.
I know it's hard to believe, but all these things have been legal at various times and places throughout history.
I'm sure I don't even need to cite examples of modern laws that are a result of moral panic.
Laws are obviously written around public opinion.
A traitor is someone who gives aid to the enemy.
The concern about teacher unions is not born out of some misguided free-market ideology. Rather it is born out of concern that teachers unions are too powerful and that they care about the teachers more than the students. So while you seem to think it's because people don't care about the weakest members of society (the teachers) in reality it's because they do care about the weakest members of society (the children).
As far as whether we should get rid of teachers unions, or simply neuter them, I guess it could go either way. But something has to be done. You have to be able to get rid of a teacher who isn't performing, the social cost of keeping them around is too great. I don't think many people are even thinking of the monetary cost when they say the teachers unions have to go.