i have taken an rf class. take an economics class. if both stations want to try to stomp out each others frequency, their spending money inefficiently and will go out of business.
do bibles make the economy any better? has socialism ever done anything efficiently? can people be motivated by the thought of improving their economic status?
the quality of trolls follows an exponential growth curve. quantity is a linearly decreasing function of time. i bet a math major with some statistics and cs emphasis could predict which post is most likely to be the best troll.
if there were no patent law and no companies doing this research, would the market still exist? yes. would the potential for profit still exist? yes. could you estimate the costs and potential profits, compare to the level of risk you are willing to incur, and decide to make the investment? yes. should the u.s. government be in the business of removing risk from the economy? no.
the moral and ethical issues need not even be addressed. from a purely economic standpoint the ability to patent anything need not exist. on one hand the government grants temporary monopolies. on the other hand it taxes away 25% of the profit you make off your discovery. its a study in inefficiency, almost beautiful in its ridiculousness. i wonder what kind of % of the national budget supports the irs and the uspto.
yea and it aint you. patents are supposed to help the economy. all they do is support of profession of people who analyze artificial man made rules, with no understanding of the principles at hand. abolish patent law. you think that will hurt the economy? then abolish the income tax if its not enough incentive, then tough shit. nobody ever said investment should be risk free.
preserving humanity? like if there were no humans this would happen? no. the earth itself would be better off, perhaps someday a more intelligent species could evolve, and accomplish the things that humans never will.
Re:voting from the comfort of your own home -bad
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
aside from the other things pointing out the stupidity of this argument, theres also the fact that there is no law saying that people should vote based on research. most people vote on strict prarty lines anyway. and theres nothing saying it shouldn't be easier for the non-poor to vote. why shouldn't it be. i agree with the other guy who says its already a meaningless popularity contest/ad campaign based on deception and fud anyway. and if you think this will make voters stupider i don't think you can get stupider than the 3000 morons in florida who voted the wrong way.
Re:voting from the comfort of your own home -bad
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
this really should be modded up. the retard reply that you need a 'good reason' to vote absentee is stupid and untrue. just claim to travel for work if anybody asks. and then sell your ballot, and let them mail it in. this makes the entire anti-internet voting stance because of fraud and vote selling pure drivel.
you can resolve them by examining them only as economic issues, taking a more realistic long term look than is typical. for instance paying your employees bad will be cheap but won't help a company in the long run. this should be done more often, as everybody is always going to be unhappy about something, and the idea that there is some golden ethical standard out there that we're going to stumble across one day is stupid.
there is no fundamental unity of humanity. all that stuff is unattainable. period. do socially 'good' things to ease your conscience if you have to. but don't expect anybody else to.
uhhh defense company stocks are suffering tremendously in the bull market. a government contract is not a guarantee for shit. it can make you actually design something before you get paid a dime, then tell you congress changed it's mind. then a year later you get funding, after all the original designers quit. they probably also have a lower profit margin, but because the military isn't going to be buying as many as say sony they will end up paying more. this won't go a long way on wall street. i'd say it's better than nothing, but not anywhere as good as an industry contract
your conclusion is exactly what i thought would happen too, but tv newspeople keep saying that because the majority is slim, nothing will get done. which apparently both of us believe is bogus.
i heard at least one voter complain that they did complain to the supervisor, who took their ballot, and deposited themselves. this is the violation of the law, which i am trying to reference now
ok that's all and good but i still don't think anybody is ever gonna tell me why bush won't get stuff done. regardless of what we mean when either of us say mandate, i still see bush having more 'power' than clinton because he has the majority in congress. the pundits disagree but don't say why. do you agree about bush not getting stuff done assuming congress remains partisan? if not please explain why i am so damn hardheaded i just don't get it.
with no oversight local office holders have nobody to account to when they are corrupt. obviously the people aren't going to step back and see what's wrong locally compared to other places. and therefore they won't ever know when some corrupt state appointee is screwing them over
i am as far from a bush supporter as it gets. i can't stand the man. he is the absolute last candidate i would have voted for. i don't know what makes you think that i am a supporter, all i'm saying is that you don't need a large majority in congress, all you need is a one vote majority. btw i had planned on voting for nader, although i couldn't make it to the polling location early enough to get in line.
although it's a pretty disappointing way to pick the president, i basically say tough shit to those who erred on their ballots, regardless of the election officials actions. i don't expect it to lead to a revote, although the officials may have broken the law and get punished accordingly. i think the rest of the country doesn't care about palm county and if the democrats do try and force a revote there will be a huge public outcry against them. i expect most people to say if you're to stupid to figure out how to vote, tough shit, it's your fault, not george bush's.
i wanna know why the pundits don't think he can pass his 8 gazillion $ tax cut. even if it's a 50/50 split in senate, cheney casts the tiebraking vote. its not like the bigger the tax cut, the bigger majority you need. he'll never need more than a simple majority assuming the vote breaks on party lines, which is by no means a stretch considering the partisanship of the 105th congress. and i don't think talking about mandate in terms of the actual % of popular vote matters when everything he supports passes. regardless of what your history books say, mine never claimed to relate mandate directly to the % of the popular vote.
hmmm doesn't look like what you said. i would think of mandate as being his ability to get things through congress. and for better or more likely worse i think it's gonna be much better than clinton's ever was. just because the talking heads on tv equate the majority of the vote and the word mandate, doesn't mean that they are equal. as i already pointed out, they were wrong about florida.
at ease, soldier. if you notice, i did not claim that all members of the armed forces do not work hard. however i do question the claim that you are protectings anybody's freedom. this is why gw (among others) wants to bring you home. i personally feel that if corporations need to protect interests abroad, they should do so at their own expense. i also believe that if the current employment trends continue, the american military will lose its competitive edge technology wise in the next generation. i work for a def con so i see exactly how much they are losing out to industry every day. without serious changes to the way they do business they are going to see entire programs end not because of lack of fuding, but because the defense companies can't compete with cisco and the like
Slashdot Mirror
i have taken an rf class. take an economics class. if both stations want to try to stomp out each others frequency, their spending money inefficiently and will go out of business.
do bibles make the economy any better? has socialism ever done anything efficiently? can people be motivated by the thought of improving their economic status?
the quality of trolls follows an exponential growth curve. quantity is a linearly decreasing function of time. i bet a math major with some statistics and cs emphasis could predict which post is most likely to be the best troll.
if there were no patent law and no companies doing this research, would the market still exist? yes. would the potential for profit still exist? yes. could you estimate the costs and potential profits, compare to the level of risk you are willing to incur, and decide to make the investment? yes. should the u.s. government be in the business of removing risk from the economy? no.
the moral and ethical issues need not even be addressed. from a purely economic standpoint the ability to patent anything need not exist. on one hand the government grants temporary monopolies. on the other hand it taxes away 25% of the profit you make off your discovery. its a study in inefficiency, almost beautiful in its ridiculousness. i wonder what kind of % of the national budget supports the irs and the uspto.
no its not. why would it be? it should be up to industry to develop it's own means of protecting signal integrity. not government beaurocrats.
yea and it aint you. patents are supposed to help the economy. all they do is support of profession of people who analyze artificial man made rules, with no understanding of the principles at hand. abolish patent law. you think that will hurt the economy? then abolish the income tax if its not enough incentive, then tough shit. nobody ever said investment should be risk free.
why not just have everybody vote by mail? it works for taxes right? the only problem i see is the tv people don't like it.
preserving humanity? like if there were no humans this would happen? no. the earth itself would be better off, perhaps someday a more intelligent species could evolve, and accomplish the things that humans never will.
aside from the other things pointing out the stupidity of this argument, theres also the fact that there is no law saying that people should vote based on research. most people vote on strict prarty lines anyway. and theres nothing saying it shouldn't be easier for the non-poor to vote. why shouldn't it be. i agree with the other guy who says its already a meaningless popularity contest/ad campaign based on deception and fud anyway. and if you think this will make voters stupider i don't think you can get stupider than the 3000 morons in florida who voted the wrong way.
this really should be modded up. the retard reply that you need a 'good reason' to vote absentee is stupid and untrue. just claim to travel for work if anybody asks. and then sell your ballot, and let them mail it in. this makes the entire anti-internet voting stance because of fraud and vote selling pure drivel.
you can resolve them by examining them only as economic issues, taking a more realistic long term look than is typical. for instance paying your employees bad will be cheap but won't help a company in the long run. this should be done more often, as everybody is always going to be unhappy about something, and the idea that there is some golden ethical standard out there that we're going to stumble across one day is stupid.
there is no fundamental unity of humanity. all that stuff is unattainable. period. do socially 'good' things to ease your conscience if you have to. but don't expect anybody else to.
uhhh defense company stocks are suffering tremendously in the bull market. a government contract is not a guarantee for shit. it can make you actually design something before you get paid a dime, then tell you congress changed it's mind. then a year later you get funding, after all the original designers quit. they probably also have a lower profit margin, but because the military isn't going to be buying as many as say sony they will end up paying more. this won't go a long way on wall street. i'd say it's better than nothing, but not anywhere as good as an industry contract
your conclusion is exactly what i thought would happen too, but tv newspeople keep saying that because the majority is slim, nothing will get done. which apparently both of us believe is bogus.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_ mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=& amp;URL= CH0101/SEC51.HTM&Title=->2000->CH0101->Section%205 1
reference to time limit
i heard at least one voter complain that they did complain to the supervisor, who took their ballot, and deposited themselves. this is the violation of the law, which i am trying to reference now
ok that's all and good but i still don't think anybody is ever gonna tell me why bush won't get stuff done. regardless of what we mean when either of us say mandate, i still see bush having more 'power' than clinton because he has the majority in congress. the pundits disagree but don't say why. do you agree about bush not getting stuff done assuming congress remains partisan? if not please explain why i am so damn hardheaded i just don't get it.
with no oversight local office holders have nobody to account to when they are corrupt. obviously the people aren't going to step back and see what's wrong locally compared to other places. and therefore they won't ever know when some corrupt state appointee is screwing them over
what about people who mistakenly punched the buchanen hole, but were denied a chance to recast their vote, in violation of florida law?
i am as far from a bush supporter as it gets. i can't stand the man. he is the absolute last candidate i would have voted for. i don't know what makes you think that i am a supporter, all i'm saying is that you don't need a large majority in congress, all you need is a one vote majority. btw i had planned on voting for nader, although i couldn't make it to the polling location early enough to get in line.
although it's a pretty disappointing way to pick the president, i basically say tough shit to those who erred on their ballots, regardless of the election officials actions. i don't expect it to lead to a revote, although the officials may have broken the law and get punished accordingly. i think the rest of the country doesn't care about palm county and if the democrats do try and force a revote there will be a huge public outcry against them. i expect most people to say if you're to stupid to figure out how to vote, tough shit, it's your fault, not george bush's.
i wanna know why the pundits don't think he can pass his 8 gazillion $ tax cut. even if it's a 50/50 split in senate, cheney casts the tiebraking vote. its not like the bigger the tax cut, the bigger majority you need. he'll never need more than a simple majority assuming the vote breaks on party lines, which is by no means a stretch considering the partisanship of the 105th congress. and i don't think talking about mandate in terms of the actual % of popular vote matters when everything he supports passes. regardless of what your history books say, mine never claimed to relate mandate directly to the % of the popular vote.
Main Entry: mandate 1 : an authoritative command
hmmm doesn't look like what you said. i would think of mandate as being his ability to get things through congress. and for better or more likely worse i think it's gonna be much better than clinton's ever was. just because the talking heads on tv equate the majority of the vote and the word mandate, doesn't mean that they are equal. as i already pointed out, they were wrong about florida.
at ease, soldier. if you notice, i did not claim that all members of the armed forces do not work hard. however i do question the claim that you are protectings anybody's freedom. this is why gw (among others) wants to bring you home. i personally feel that if corporations need to protect interests abroad, they should do so at their own expense. i also believe that if the current employment trends continue, the american military will lose its competitive edge technology wise in the next generation. i work for a def con so i see exactly how much they are losing out to industry every day. without serious changes to the way they do business they are going to see entire programs end not because of lack of fuding, but because the defense companies can't compete with cisco and the like