You mean the republicans in the senate where the democrats changed the rules so the republicans cannot block appointments any more? The current nomination for the Surgeon General cannot even pass with a majority democrat senate (with the new lower vote requirement).
But Obama himself has stated several times we do not need a Czar for this. He finally had to do something because of all the screw ups making it appear like no one could find their own ass in Texas. I do not think they two situations could be remotely linked together given those two facts.
Well... while I'm not one for hate and vitriol like most of the politically oriented people out there (it seems), I sit back and watch and: 1) I agree with the other response that neither of the two major parties actually represent a majority of anybody but politicians and businesses,
There are a lot more offices than the federal ones. When you start looking at the state and local ones, you see where they do actually represent the people. But the third parties seem to just grab a handful of attention here and there and not even enough representation to control a city council or county board. That's where the two big parties get their power and strength from despite the federal offices appearing to be out to lunch most of the time.
2) I thought the tea party was an interesting idea until they became right wing on steroids. I thought they were interesting until they started campaigning against abortion, and inviting people like Sarah Pailin to speak at events. Again... I don't run out and start hating on either abortion or anti-abortion activists, I know they both have their opinions and beliefs, but I think it should largely stay out of politics at this point, and it's not going to change any time soon - both parties use it to rile up their bases, though.
You do realize that there are several tea parties right? It's more of a movement than a single power/party even though there seems to be a dominent part of it. As with abortion, all I have heard them speak about is tax monies being used to fund them. If they have come out and said more, I haven't heard (which doesn't mean it hasn't happened). But the very nature of tax money or government funding of abortion is political due to the fact it is a political entity involved. I don't see how it can be kept out of politics unless no tax funding for abortion ever happens.
So no hate against the Tea Party, but they are hardly a big difference between them and republicans - more like republicans demanding what the party SAYS they represent as opposed to how republican candidates actually act when they get into office. The GOP just needs some house cleaning, IMO.
The vast majority of third parties are somewhat the same. There will be a few key issues they vehemently take stands on but the rest if either echoing democrat or republican positions as stated by the idealists if not in reality. But even if it is true as you say about the Tea (Taxed Enough Already)Party- it does not mean someone else cannot do the same and infiltrate one of the parties. That's the great thing about primaries. If you win, you stop the party from running a candidate against you in the election.
People SAY they want freedom and liberty, but neither major party offers it. There's really only one out there that does (besides complete anarchists), and everybody thinks they're "crazy" because they want freedom and liberty, which, OMG, requires people to take back some responsibility for themselves.
I agree somewhat. You cannot have complete freedom because people simply do not think about what they are doing and how it impacts others. Take the libertarian stance on drugs, it's fine and all as long as the user can support their own habit and not harm others. But as we know with history and addictive substances, sometimes they lose jobs, ruin families, resort to stealing, try to operate machinery (cars for instance) and kill others and so on. It's not like we haven't tried it before or anything. And before it was illegal, it wasn't exactly peachy king either.
And yes, it is because as you suggest, people do not take responsibility for themselves.
"The problem is that third parties do not represent the majority of the country and likely a minority of any given area."
That's not the problem. Neither do the other two parties and they do fine
Actually, the two parties do represent the people and they do it quite well. They mostly do it on the local and state level. There are 108 republicans and 55 democrats in office in Ohio without even getting into the county and city data. The vast exposure most people have with the two parties is on the state and local level. They tend to be happy with them and those parties tend to act differently then on the national level (likely because their actions hit closer to home for the most part which makes them more answerable than federal candidates).
The problem is that you're (and the rest of us) voting for the two candidates that the "Lesters" have picked for us to vote on. The game is rigged.
No, the game is not rigged, it is a lot like playing risk but with 80 or more different boards at a time. You and Lessig seem to be looking at the large board and ignoring the others. They pick those for us because we have picked on all the other boards. If the third parties wanted to play, they could do the same if they got on the other boards and took some ground.
There is more to this than federal offices. You will always feel the way you do if you ignore the rest.
I was talking about the law and appeals process. However unfair it may seem, a legal process does exist with both and they can be challenged.
As for the CFAA, section F seems to provide exemptions for law enforcement engaged in any "lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity". The interesting thing would be if the LEO somehow did not have anything lawful.
Of course there is a legal process, it says right in there -
Thousands of people have been forced to fight legal battles that can last more than a year to get their money back.
Here is another humdinger from the article you posted-
Only a sixth of the seizures were legally challenged, in part because of the costs of legal action against the government. But in 41 percent of cases â" 4,455 â" where there was a challenge, the government agreed to return money.
Now if there was no "legal process", how does that happen? I mean if they can just take it without any legal process involved whatsoever, then there would be absolutely nothing to challenge.
Why you were modded up while I was modded down is beyond me. I'm actually factually correct and you failed to even read the article you posted. Well, this is slashdot after all, the mods likely failed to read it too.
Civil asset foreiture as well as eminent domain follow a legal process with appeals routes and so on.
Arresting someone then taking over their account has nothing of the sorts. Creating an account that impersonates someone they arrested in order to entrap someone else doesn't either.
The problem is that third parties do not represent the majority of the country and likely a minority of any given area.
I used to think the problem with third parties was that they do not run for local offices and only focus on national offices unlesd it is a plant designed to siphon votes from a particular canditate in order to let a less desirable one get elected. But after looking around a bit, i have concluded that the honest reality is that third parties simply do not have much support. I tend to disagree with less on issues from a candidate with a big party than i disagree with on with the closest counter part third party. Many people feel the same at least on a local level and a third party is a waste on the national level because they will have to either caucus with a big party or fight both of them and end up being ignored.
Third parties simply are not big tent parties and are likely better off running as one of the big parties through the primary process. An example of this is the tea parties (yes, there are more than one).
Now if you disagree, before replying, think about how the tea party republicans have been treated and explain how any third party trying to do something without even partial support of a big party would do any better.
No shit. I already have an accurate three day forcast for the home and office. Its called a thermostat and airconditioning.
What would be nice is a weekend forecast that would say something different than chance of drunkeness, loud music, and women laughing when you ask them to go home with you. Maybe something like dude, she's a he or crowded- stay home and drink or similar. Of course i'm not sure how a barometer would forcast the mangirl problem. Perhaps i should jusr checkand see if my glasses need updating.
I don't know why. They aren't jamming the interweb or cell phones. Pgp and email will avoid them listening in for anything subvertive.
And ferguson is just a silly distraction that mainly only got attention to play the race card in november. There has been plenty of other skmilar instances that has gained little to no attention since then and before it. The location was simply convienient there.
Its probably just a weird idea they have because they already did it once back in the 1990s.
Its was more of an interesting idea to me when i purchased one. You had to run a program that would sync it to the watch after you put it in sync mode. It would flicker your monitor with horizonal lines and had an eye on the face that you had to line up just right. Some monitors worked better than others too but it was still hit or miss in my experience.
It would allow you to change alarm tones, sync your outlook address book, set alarms and reminders a year or so in advance and have a small amount of text scroll across the face. I played with for a few months then went back to the watch with a tv remote on it. The bars were so much more fun with it.
Lol. They did not just throw darts at a stack of papers and decide to try whatever it landed on. These drugs were already being worked on with knowlege of its Ebola interaction already being worked on.
I'm not saying we know evrrything but we certainly do have a better understanding of it than the health benefits of cat purrs.
So what is subjective about me saying your commrnt sucks, i hope you choke on a pretzel because everyone on the internet is more stupid now that you postef your opinion? Is that legitimate or malicious in its nature? Is it even trolling or just ill concieved criticism?
And what is with the name Dutch Gun. Is that like a dutch oven but from a distance? What with the ovens over there anyways- do they all smell or something? Was that trolling ir a bad attemp at humor? Was it malicious since it was meant to poke fun at your name or will thejudge laugh and ignore it?
Sorry, first that should obviously read "incredulous". Second, the idea that experimental drugs have a reasonable chance of being useful, thus providing hope, is just wrong. It is very rare for this to be true. It is essentially performing random activities, something at the level of rain dances. We may as well give the patients a cat to purr on their lap, and tell them the frequencies of the purrs may help the healing process.
Of course this is only true if the virus was not understood and the drugs were not being developed with eventual intent or treating the virus and similar ones. In this case, they did provide hope.
The best we can hope is the side effects are limited and they just waste money. Unfortunately, history (AZT giving people AIDS, Polio vaccine giving people Polio) suggests we should expect much worse when this kind of rushed drug testing occurs.
While I agree with this in principle, the first case of doing this with this disease turned out well so they did it again. Now they are pushing more drugs that have shown promise on paper but not necessarily on patients. We may still see bad side effects with these drugs but the alternative in many cases is death so the level of severity is somewhat subjective.
Kick the gearbox! This part wasn't about power, it's about consumer markets in general. Do you claim we just can't make enough TVs to satisfy demand? Car lots are empty because they can't get them in as fast as they sell? When is the last time you heard of anyone going to Best Buy and they were told "can't help you, our shelves are empty"? More than one consumer products manufacturer has been caught channel stuffing because production capability well outstripped demand.
My bad, I didn't know you were moving the goal posts. I thought we were still talking about the power generation markets.
As for bailouts, the whole world was screwed by the bubble bursting. Socialist or capitalist hardly mattered. However, by doubling down on the socialism (nationalizing the banks) and a fairly modest bailout loan, Iceland has recovered fairly quickly (more quickly than the U.S.). They also actually prosecuted fraudsters in their banking system. It is well understood that easing back on bank regulation in the early 2000's was a key factor that permitted the crisis.
lol.. All hail socialism then. Am I mocking you? You tell me. One country that actually went bankrupt turned out better than the riots in the streets over the austerity measures in the others. They prosecuted fraudsters in the banking systems in the US too. Of course it was the low level fraudsters who were pushing subprime loans knowing they could package the risk into a swap that would later default but sell it before it did.
Meanwhile, the U.S. proclaimed the crisis over by fiat, but it only ended for Wall Street. It continues to drag on (though with signs of improvement) for the rest of us.Our debt is rising. Iceland's is falling.
ha.. finally something we both completely agree on. Well assuming you believe what you wrote.
I forget which treaty is it, but there are exceptions in which a government can claim a state of emergency and manufacture any drug or violate any patent to address that emergency without violating any international law or foreign law.
It was all over the news back when the Anthrax scares were happening. Canada cited the provisions when it appeared there would be a shortage of Cipro and decided one of their companies would manufacture it for Canadian stockpiles. I think they later reversed on that when Bayer said they could produce the amounts needed.
I would be inclined to think this is one of those times. But these drugs are not tested and have little to no working background that could be used to get generics up and running like you could with other drugs.
The problem you are seeing is that these drugs are nowhere near tested as far as any other drug approved for use would be. These are being used as a last ditch efforts to save someone who would already be dead.
The normal treatment for Ebola is more or less strengthening your body and letting it handle the virus. Blood plasma transfusions from surviving patients seem to help a bit but are sporadic. The ZMapp drug was used- if we are to believe the story- when the patient was within hours of death and no other options existed. Because these are the closest drugs- although completely untested- that seem to help, they are being put to use before any real testing has been done.
People need to get a lot more credulous when it comes to biomed research.
For the reasons stated above, this would be true with these drugs had the situation not been as dire or wide spread. But make no mistake, even the manufacturer claimed the drugs were nowhere near tested for human use or even close to human testing before their first use. It sort of sucks that people are given the choice of death or becoming a guinea pig for a new untested drug, but there simply is nothing else that can offer hope outside of the body's natural defenses which seem to be not doing so well.
In a lot of areas, the rent a cops are mandated by law under certain circumstances. In others, general security guards can be more efficient. We put on a benefit for a friend who wrecked his motorcycle trying to avoid a young kid chasing a dog into the street. We had to estimate the number of people that would be there and hire one rent a cop for every 50 people. We could have security and bouncers outside the rent a cop but needed 1 rent a cop for every 50 people because of the location and that we were permitted to serve alcohol.
Anyways, when you do contract out rent a cops, you generally strike a contract with the law enforcement agency rather than with the cop himself. You actually pay the law enforcement agency and they pay the cop for you. At least that is how it works around here. In our case, it was explained that what we wanted to do was going to require an extra police presence so we had to pay for it. In hind sight, we should have skipped the beer because I think it was what added most of the costs. Only about 40% of the take in was able to be applied to the benefit fund.
You're the one who said the regulation was legitimately about preserving power capacity. Either it can be handled through competition with adequate regulation to assure the power is up to specs and isn't sold at a loss to kill competition or it cannot be and we should admit that there isn't a market solution in that situation.
Only in your mind is it an "either or" or binary decision. There are many levels of in between that are in place and do work quite well.
The thing with wind power is that once the start-up costs are sunk, there are very few cases where it makes sense to cease operations.
Except when it isn't profitable to maintain them or control the distribution of the power to them. You do not exactly put a wind turbine in the ground and forget about it. The blades need to feather with the strength of the wind and in some cases locked altogether, power needs switched from wind sources to others when there isn't enough and power needs to be constantly monitored and directed to where it is needed because of the changing nature of wind generated electricity.
So either they cannot let market forces do what they do and we need to admit that the market isn't going to work there or we need to boot out the corrupt regulators who are distorting the market to benefit their cronies. It is notable that Texas (being Texas) has also not connected to either the Eastern or the Western grid.
Why are you pretending that this system was just thought of last night? Its been in place and working the way the government and regulators want it to work for almost a century. All we have to admit is that you do not understand it and do not like it for reasons probably sunk into your misunderstandings.
Many highly successful countries with high standards of living selectively socialize where it makes the most sense.
Yes, there are some countries who mix just enough capitalism with socialism that they have a high standard of living and don't end up like those hellholes I linked to previously. Some of these countries are Spain, Greece, Ireland, and Iceland, which just needed major bailouts by other European countries in order to avoid bankruptcy with one actually going bankrupt.
The point you are missing WRT to value pricing is that where there is adequate competition there can BE no value pricing. Competition will force the price to approach the marginal cost of production.
This is only true if there is an unlimited or virtually unlimited supply. The problem is that rarely exists in the real world.
Market forces should force the price down to the price of the cheapest model and then force all features to be enabled at that price (since clearly they CAN afford to do so profitably).
No- not really. You see, as long as demand outstrips supply, the price goes up. Only when you can keep supply higher then demand does it constantly go down. This is what happens when you jack the price of 90% of electricity generated up in the hopes that a new model will be developed. It just increases costs, the wind energy comes on line and lowers the demand by increasing the supply, and therefore decreasing the costs until one of the 90% decides to shutter the plant and demand jumps again. Meanwhile, these windmills who aren't artificially inflated continue to sell market price and simply bank the extra until more supply comes along.
A market that doesn't do that in short order is an unhealthy market
That is probably why I keep telling you that it isn't a free market and it isn't pure capitalism. Electricity generation is not an "anyone can enter" market, it is not a you can go from 1MW to 1gW over night market. Everything is heavily regulated.
What would or should be illegal about it though? I mean as long as they are not using government resources for private gain and do not use the threat of government action to entise these contracts there should be nothing illegal about working more than one job. I guess not allowing conflicts of interest crop up might be troublesome but government employees do this stuff quite often whether it is side money, campaign work, or charities.
Maybe it would make them think twice before resorting to violence for anything except self-defense?
Probably not.
I don't like violence either. I even used to bounce at a redneck bar only to stop fights that seemed to pop up about every 3 or 4 beers. I did this mainly to stop innocent bystanders from being hurt because of their idiocy. But I have no sympathy for the guy or girl who runs their mouth to the point someone else shuts it for them. Sure the one who went to violence is weak, but the one who pushed them is weaker and stupid to boot. I don't really care if they want to trade punches, mouth off at each other, or fuck- just do it away from others trying to enjoy themselves and only harm each other.
So if it can't be capitalism and have reliable power, perhaps it's time to admit it and socialize power production.
Lol.. Just because it is not does not mean it cannot be. But do you really want to end up like these hellholes? I mean seriously, it's like you fell in love with the word socialism and have no clue about how horrid it is in practice.
Of course, if they have assured power production now, then more players bringing more capacity isn't going to reduce the reliability, now is it?
It can but doesn't have to. You see, when you flood a market with good, prices drop until players go bankrupt or decide to move on before that happens. In a purposefully manipulated market that artificially increases the costs of one but not all players, you will see the drop outs quicker. This will raise the costs but it might not allow enough capacity to remain. That reduced liability which is likely why it is manipulated on ways you don't like to begin with.
A recurring theme I see is market after market that somehow fails to be healthy. If you see 'value pricing', then the market is unhealthy, for example. It's hard to find a healthy market anywhere.
There are plenty of healthy markets out there. Most commodities are traded on them and do a decent job of representing demand. The problem you seem to be having is that value pricing is not market pricing. It's an arbitrary price set by a manufacturer bases partly on perceived value and largely on profit potential. But that is not a market. If you built and sold competitor Ipad like computers, you would not be in a market in the same ways as energy is. Now market is sort of generic encompassing several types of markets you wouldn't be putting your UPad up for bid and having resellers place bids then resell the product. You would use value pricing and hope to generate sales using any number of techniques like price competition, specialized features, advertising and so on.But it is not the same market type as energy.
The post office has a variety of problems. Commercial mail discounts are not the most significant among them and in fact an increasing amount of their business comes from junk mail overall. On an operational basis the USPS is profitable. The biggest problem they face is that mail volume has fallen by 20% in the last 10 years and is showing little sign of stopping. People simply don't send as many letters as they once did thanks to email and other new technologies. The USPS is a shrinking business but since they in actuality are a government agency they aren't truly given the freedom to behave like one. They are forced to serve unprofitable locations, they cannot close unnecessary post offices, they are limited in their ability to reduce their workforce, etc.
What? they are a government agency but not given the freedom to act like one? And yes, they have closed or are closing unnecessary post offices.
The bulk mail and so on is insignificant other than if they are not making money, they simply need to increase the rates a bit. But they lower the rates for businesses sending spam and up the private postage fee which is declining. Now, you really do not need to be the headmaster at the University of Austin (* the best accounting school last I checked) to see a disconnect here. Let me spell it out, Business rates are too low and private rates are too high. If they did something about that, they would have both business and private customers again.
It's not that government "can be part of the answer". Government HAS to be part of the answer. I agree that except on very small scales, government owned ISPs are probably not the best idea. But large ISPs without any government oversight is probably an even worse idea. There are certain industries (postal services, utilities, infrastructure, communications services) that simply will not work effectively on a large scale without a significant amount of government involvement and oversight.
I disagree on the industries that do not work well without government but that is neither here nor there. Government does not have to be part of the answer, if they weren't involved in the first place, they wouldn't need to be involved in the answer either. Companies like Comcast, Time Warner, ATT/SBC got their big jump in being large ISPs because they had the government give them monopolies in other areas in which they now piggyback their internet service offering onto. With very little effort, existing government regulation can be used to solve problems like net neutrality and so on. We already have consumer protection laws on the books about not receiving what you are being charged for. We already have these large telecoms receiving benefits for broadband roll outs and if they block or limit any services, their access doesn't meet broadband definitions. What is needed is strict enforcement of existing regulation and perhaps a little consolidations or inter-agency abilities with existing government agencies.
That said if the citizens of my local town wanted to have municipal gigabit ethernet controlled by the local government and collectively voted to indicate they were fine with the cost of doing this, I cannot think of a logical reason to prohibit it either. If the local telecom/cable monopolies aren't providing what people want they should be able to utilize their government to make it happen.
Governments who can tax people not wanting the service in order to fund it should never be in competition with private entities. The correct way for the town to get gigabit Ethernet is to bid out access to right of ways provided a certain coverage area on specific types of lines. Treat it like a cable company or the telephone company in which a company does the roll out and then leases the lines at cost to competitors or provides the service together
There is a principle in most states that place limits and in some cases indemnify parents from some acts committed by children due to the fact that children are thinking creature capable of acting on their own will. It's sort of like school, you can teach them all day long but will they learn and will they put what they learned to use or will they attempt something they have not even learned yet.
In some cases, your kid may be the only one liable for the broken window.
But this case isn't exactly like that. It was a defamation case over a fake facebook profile and it wasn't the fact that it existed that made the parents liable. It was that it remained up for 11 months and viewable after the parents were contacted and the two students behind it was suspended from school as well as disciplined by their own parents.
This is more sort of more like if your kid kept swinging balls into the neighbors window for 11 months after being told he broke it the first time.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the republicans in the senate where the democrats changed the rules so the republicans cannot block appointments any more? The current nomination for the Surgeon General cannot even pass with a majority democrat senate (with the new lower vote requirement).
But Obama himself has stated several times we do not need a Czar for this. He finally had to do something because of all the screw ups making it appear like no one could find their own ass in Texas. I do not think they two situations could be remotely linked together given those two facts.
There are a lot more offices than the federal ones. When you start looking at the state and local ones, you see where they do actually represent the people. But the third parties seem to just grab a handful of attention here and there and not even enough representation to control a city council or county board. That's where the two big parties get their power and strength from despite the federal offices appearing to be out to lunch most of the time.
You do realize that there are several tea parties right? It's more of a movement than a single power/party even though there seems to be a dominent part of it. As with abortion, all I have heard them speak about is tax monies being used to fund them. If they have come out and said more, I haven't heard (which doesn't mean it hasn't happened). But the very nature of tax money or government funding of abortion is political due to the fact it is a political entity involved. I don't see how it can be kept out of politics unless no tax funding for abortion ever happens.
The vast majority of third parties are somewhat the same. There will be a few key issues they vehemently take stands on but the rest if either echoing democrat or republican positions as stated by the idealists if not in reality. But even if it is true as you say about the Tea (Taxed Enough Already)Party- it does not mean someone else cannot do the same and infiltrate one of the parties. That's the great thing about primaries. If you win, you stop the party from running a candidate against you in the election.
I agree somewhat. You cannot have complete freedom because people simply do not think about what they are doing and how it impacts others. Take the libertarian stance on drugs, it's fine and all as long as the user can support their own habit and not harm others. But as we know with history and addictive substances, sometimes they lose jobs, ruin families, resort to stealing, try to operate machinery (cars for instance) and kill others and so on. It's not like we haven't tried it before or anything. And before it was illegal, it wasn't exactly peachy king either.
And yes, it is because as you suggest, people do not take responsibility for themselves.
Actually, the two parties do represent the people and they do it quite well. They mostly do it on the local and state level. There are 108 republicans and 55 democrats in office in Ohio without even getting into the county and city data. The vast exposure most people have with the two parties is on the state and local level. They tend to be happy with them and those parties tend to act differently then on the national level (likely because their actions hit closer to home for the most part which makes them more answerable than federal candidates).
No, the game is not rigged, it is a lot like playing risk but with 80 or more different boards at a time. You and Lessig seem to be looking at the large board and ignoring the others. They pick those for us because we have picked on all the other boards. If the third parties wanted to play, they could do the same if they got on the other boards and took some ground.
There is more to this than federal offices. You will always feel the way you do if you ignore the rest.
I was talking about the law and appeals process. However unfair it may seem, a legal process does exist with both and they can be challenged.
As for the CFAA, section F seems to provide exemptions for law enforcement engaged in any "lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity". The interesting thing would be if the LEO somehow did not have anything lawful.
Did you even read your own link?
Of course there is a legal process, it says right in there -
Here is another humdinger from the article you posted-
Now if there was no "legal process", how does that happen? I mean if they can just take it without any legal process involved whatsoever, then there would be absolutely nothing to challenge.
Why you were modded up while I was modded down is beyond me. I'm actually factually correct and you failed to even read the article you posted. Well, this is slashdot after all, the mods likely failed to read it too.
Civil asset foreiture as well as eminent domain follow a legal process with appeals routes and so on.
Arresting someone then taking over their account has nothing of the sorts. Creating an account that impersonates someone they arrested in order to entrap someone else doesn't either.
I think it is a bit different.
The problem is that third parties do not represent the majority of the country and likely a minority of any given area.
I used to think the problem with third parties was that they do not run for local offices and only focus on national offices unlesd it is a plant designed to siphon votes from a particular canditate in order to let a less desirable one get elected. But after looking around a bit, i have concluded that the honest reality is that third parties simply do not have much support. I tend to disagree with less on issues from a candidate with a big party than i disagree with on with the closest counter part third party. Many people feel the same at least on a local level and a third party is a waste on the national level because they will have to either caucus with a big party or fight both of them and end up being ignored.
Third parties simply are not big tent parties and are likely better off running as one of the big parties through the primary process. An example of this is the tea parties (yes, there are more than one).
Now if you disagree, before replying, think about how the tea party republicans have been treated and explain how any third party trying to do something without even partial support of a big party would do any better.
No shit. I already have an accurate three day forcast for the home and office. Its called a thermostat and airconditioning.
What would be nice is a weekend forecast that would say something different than chance of drunkeness, loud music, and women laughing when you ask them to go home with you. Maybe something like dude, she's a he or crowded- stay home and drink or similar. Of course i'm not sure how a barometer would forcast the mangirl problem. Perhaps i should jusr checkand see if my glasses need updating.
I don't know why. They aren't jamming the interweb or cell phones. Pgp and email will avoid them listening in for anything subvertive.
And ferguson is just a silly distraction that mainly only got attention to play the race card in november. There has been plenty of other skmilar instances that has gained little to no attention since then and before it. The location was simply convienient there.
Its probably just a weird idea they have because they already did it once back in the 1990s.
Its was more of an interesting idea to me when i purchased one. You had to run a program that would sync it to the watch after you put it in sync mode. It would flicker your monitor with horizonal lines and had an eye on the face that you had to line up just right. Some monitors worked better than others too but it was still hit or miss in my experience.
It would allow you to change alarm tones, sync your outlook address book, set alarms and reminders a year or so in advance and have a small amount of text scroll across the face. I played with for a few months then went back to the watch with a tv remote on it. The bars were so much more fun with it.
Lol. They did not just throw darts at a stack of papers and decide to try whatever it landed on. These drugs were already being worked on with knowlege of its Ebola interaction already being worked on.
I'm not saying we know evrrything but we certainly do have a better understanding of it than the health benefits of cat purrs.
Ok I'll bite.
So what is subjective about me saying your commrnt sucks, i hope you choke on a pretzel because everyone on the internet is more stupid now that you postef your opinion? Is that legitimate or malicious in its nature? Is it even trolling or just ill concieved criticism?
And what is with the name Dutch Gun. Is that like a dutch oven but from a distance? What with the ovens over there anyways- do they all smell or something? Was that trolling ir a bad attemp at humor? Was it malicious since it was meant to poke fun at your name or will thejudge laugh and ignore it?
Of course this is only true if the virus was not understood and the drugs were not being developed with eventual intent or treating the virus and similar ones. In this case, they did provide hope.
While I agree with this in principle, the first case of doing this with this disease turned out well so they did it again. Now they are pushing more drugs that have shown promise on paper but not necessarily on patients. We may still see bad side effects with these drugs but the alternative in many cases is death so the level of severity is somewhat subjective.
My bad, I didn't know you were moving the goal posts. I thought we were still talking about the power generation markets.
lol.. All hail socialism then. Am I mocking you? You tell me. One country that actually went bankrupt turned out better than the riots in the streets over the austerity measures in the others. They prosecuted fraudsters in the banking systems in the US too. Of course it was the low level fraudsters who were pushing subprime loans knowing they could package the risk into a swap that would later default but sell it before it did.
ha.. finally something we both completely agree on. Well assuming you believe what you wrote.
I forget which treaty is it, but there are exceptions in which a government can claim a state of emergency and manufacture any drug or violate any patent to address that emergency without violating any international law or foreign law.
It was all over the news back when the Anthrax scares were happening. Canada cited the provisions when it appeared there would be a shortage of Cipro and decided one of their companies would manufacture it for Canadian stockpiles. I think they later reversed on that when Bayer said they could produce the amounts needed.
I would be inclined to think this is one of those times. But these drugs are not tested and have little to no working background that could be used to get generics up and running like you could with other drugs.
The problem you are seeing is that these drugs are nowhere near tested as far as any other drug approved for use would be. These are being used as a last ditch efforts to save someone who would already be dead.
The normal treatment for Ebola is more or less strengthening your body and letting it handle the virus. Blood plasma transfusions from surviving patients seem to help a bit but are sporadic. The ZMapp drug was used- if we are to believe the story- when the patient was within hours of death and no other options existed. Because these are the closest drugs- although completely untested- that seem to help, they are being put to use before any real testing has been done.
For the reasons stated above, this would be true with these drugs had the situation not been as dire or wide spread. But make no mistake, even the manufacturer claimed the drugs were nowhere near tested for human use or even close to human testing before their first use. It sort of sucks that people are given the choice of death or becoming a guinea pig for a new untested drug, but there simply is nothing else that can offer hope outside of the body's natural defenses which seem to be not doing so well.
In a lot of areas, the rent a cops are mandated by law under certain circumstances. In others, general security guards can be more efficient. We put on a benefit for a friend who wrecked his motorcycle trying to avoid a young kid chasing a dog into the street. We had to estimate the number of people that would be there and hire one rent a cop for every 50 people. We could have security and bouncers outside the rent a cop but needed 1 rent a cop for every 50 people because of the location and that we were permitted to serve alcohol.
Anyways, when you do contract out rent a cops, you generally strike a contract with the law enforcement agency rather than with the cop himself. You actually pay the law enforcement agency and they pay the cop for you. At least that is how it works around here. In our case, it was explained that what we wanted to do was going to require an extra police presence so we had to pay for it. In hind sight, we should have skipped the beer because I think it was what added most of the costs. Only about 40% of the take in was able to be applied to the benefit fund.
Only in your mind is it an "either or" or binary decision. There are many levels of in between that are in place and do work quite well.
Except when it isn't profitable to maintain them or control the distribution of the power to them. You do not exactly put a wind turbine in the ground and forget about it. The blades need to feather with the strength of the wind and in some cases locked altogether, power needs switched from wind sources to others when there isn't enough and power needs to be constantly monitored and directed to where it is needed because of the changing nature of wind generated electricity.
Why are you pretending that this system was just thought of last night? Its been in place and working the way the government and regulators want it to work for almost a century. All we have to admit is that you do not understand it and do not like it for reasons probably sunk into your misunderstandings.
Yes, there are some countries who mix just enough capitalism with socialism that they have a high standard of living and don't end up like those hellholes I linked to previously. Some of these countries are Spain, Greece, Ireland, and Iceland, which just needed major bailouts by other European countries in order to avoid bankruptcy with one actually going bankrupt.
This is only true if there is an unlimited or virtually unlimited supply. The problem is that rarely exists in the real world.
No- not really. You see, as long as demand outstrips supply, the price goes up. Only when you can keep supply higher then demand does it constantly go down. This is what happens when you jack the price of 90% of electricity generated up in the hopes that a new model will be developed. It just increases costs, the wind energy comes on line and lowers the demand by increasing the supply, and therefore decreasing the costs until one of the 90% decides to shutter the plant and demand jumps again. Meanwhile, these windmills who aren't artificially inflated continue to sell market price and simply bank the extra until more supply comes along.
That is probably why I keep telling you that it isn't a free market and it isn't pure capitalism. Electricity generation is not an "anyone can enter" market, it is not a you can go from 1MW to 1gW over night market. Everything is heavily regulated.
What would or should be illegal about it though? I mean as long as they are not using government resources for private gain and do not use the threat of government action to entise these contracts there should be nothing illegal about working more than one job. I guess not allowing conflicts of interest crop up might be troublesome but government employees do this stuff quite often whether it is side money, campaign work, or charities.
Maybe it would make them think twice before resorting to violence for anything except self-defense?
Probably not.
I don't like violence either. I even used to bounce at a redneck bar only to stop fights that seemed to pop up about every 3 or 4 beers. I did this mainly to stop innocent bystanders from being hurt because of their idiocy. But I have no sympathy for the guy or girl who runs their mouth to the point someone else shuts it for them. Sure the one who went to violence is weak, but the one who pushed them is weaker and stupid to boot. I don't really care if they want to trade punches, mouth off at each other, or fuck- just do it away from others trying to enjoy themselves and only harm each other.
Lol.. Just because it is not does not mean it cannot be. But do you really want to end up like these hellholes? I mean seriously, it's like you fell in love with the word socialism and have no clue about how horrid it is in practice.
It can but doesn't have to. You see, when you flood a market with good, prices drop until players go bankrupt or decide to move on before that happens. In a purposefully manipulated market that artificially increases the costs of one but not all players, you will see the drop outs quicker. This will raise the costs but it might not allow enough capacity to remain. That reduced liability which is likely why it is manipulated on ways you don't like to begin with.
There are plenty of healthy markets out there. Most commodities are traded on them and do a decent job of representing demand. The problem you seem to be having is that value pricing is not market pricing. It's an arbitrary price set by a manufacturer bases partly on perceived value and largely on profit potential. But that is not a market. If you built and sold competitor Ipad like computers, you would not be in a market in the same ways as energy is. Now market is sort of generic encompassing several types of markets you wouldn't be putting your UPad up for bid and having resellers place bids then resell the product. You would use value pricing and hope to generate sales using any number of techniques like price competition, specialized features, advertising and so on.But it is not the same market type as energy.
I was thinking the same thing. Does this mean we are screwed>?
What? they are a government agency but not given the freedom to act like one? And yes, they have closed or are closing unnecessary post offices.
The bulk mail and so on is insignificant other than if they are not making money, they simply need to increase the rates a bit. But they lower the rates for businesses sending spam and up the private postage fee which is declining. Now, you really do not need to be the headmaster at the University of Austin (* the best accounting school last I checked) to see a disconnect here. Let me spell it out, Business rates are too low and private rates are too high. If they did something about that, they would have both business and private customers again.
I disagree on the industries that do not work well without government but that is neither here nor there. Government does not have to be part of the answer, if they weren't involved in the first place, they wouldn't need to be involved in the answer either. Companies like Comcast, Time Warner, ATT/SBC got their big jump in being large ISPs because they had the government give them monopolies in other areas in which they now piggyback their internet service offering onto. With very little effort, existing government regulation can be used to solve problems like net neutrality and so on. We already have consumer protection laws on the books about not receiving what you are being charged for. We already have these large telecoms receiving benefits for broadband roll outs and if they block or limit any services, their access doesn't meet broadband definitions. What is needed is strict enforcement of existing regulation and perhaps a little consolidations or inter-agency abilities with existing government agencies.
Governments who can tax people not wanting the service in order to fund it should never be in competition with private entities. The correct way for the town to get gigabit Ethernet is to bid out access to right of ways provided a certain coverage area on specific types of lines. Treat it like a cable company or the telephone company in which a company does the roll out and then leases the lines at cost to competitors or provides the service together
There is a principle in most states that place limits and in some cases indemnify parents from some acts committed by children due to the fact that children are thinking creature capable of acting on their own will. It's sort of like school, you can teach them all day long but will they learn and will they put what they learned to use or will they attempt something they have not even learned yet.
In some cases, your kid may be the only one liable for the broken window.
But this case isn't exactly like that. It was a defamation case over a fake facebook profile and it wasn't the fact that it existed that made the parents liable. It was that it remained up for 11 months and viewable after the parents were contacted and the two students behind it was suspended from school as well as disciplined by their own parents.
This is more sort of more like if your kid kept swinging balls into the neighbors window for 11 months after being told he broke it the first time.
Oh they are already working on it.
They just have all this sunk cost involved with 5-10 already and need to justify their raises.