If it's not a violation of free speech to say you can't directly or indirectly bribe those officials
No but it is a violation to stop a person from exercising their speech, and that includes paying for it. On the other hand corporations shouldn't have the same rights and shouldn't be allowed to donate to any political campaigns. Neither should unions or trade groups.
And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.
Like so many others, you're making the same mistake believing the US military will fight against it's own citizens. It didn't work for the Chinese during the Tiananmen Square protests and it won't in the US. See the party bosses in Beijing feared local army units would join with the protesters if ordered to fire on them and fight against other army units. There were even reports of some army units shooting at others. So what did the bosses do? They had to order the PLA's, People's Liberation Army, 27th Army into the city from other provinces or parts of China.
It's my guess you've never served in the US military either. When I was in the US Army I was in the infantry, you know one of those on the front line shooting at and being shot at by the enemy. I and others I served with would have shot or fragged an officer giving a bad order. I bet my nephew who's a Marine, and has served in Iraq, would not hesitate to do the same.
Oh, and let's look at Iraq. The US military hasn't been able to stop the insurgency and fighting there yet. There is less fighting but partially because the Iraqi and US military negotiated with some of the militia factions there.
Having the entire system dependent on campaign strategies and contributions defeats that all by itself (everything is pulling in the same basic direction: getting re-elected).
If you believe gridlock is good, and I agree it is, then with the new congress next year we may have gridlock, see how Republicans gained control of the House? Now how did they do that? By those campaign strategies and contributions you deplore.
I think anything that removes political contributions to elected officials is a good thing.
So you don't believe in the freedom of speech? Because that is what barring contributions is, silencing speech. As a low income individual I don't enjoy as many ways to spread my speech as others but if I can join others who feel or think the same then we can all contribute pooling our resources to get our message out.
Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.
That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.
Ah but states had more right back then, when state legislatures appointed senators. With senators appointed by states it was supposed to guaranty states rights.
I think one fix is to introduce at the federal level what Texas does. By the Texas Constitution the Texas legislature only meets 140 days every other year.
I've also proposed, and will again, amending the USA Constitution in other ways. For instance Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President changed the way the president and vice president were elected. I propose to amend how they are elected again. This tyme though the electoral college is abolished and all candidates run for president. However voting would use a condorcet method wherein the candidates are ranked. Voters would rank their choices, say there are five candidates the voter's first choice would get 5 points, the second choice 4, and so on. The points for each candidate are then added up with the winner, highest score, becoming president and the runner-up the vice president. As an added twist voters might also negatively rank candidates, the voter can give candidate they absolutely oppose a negative score. Say -5 which is subtracted from the candidate's score.
Considering how much a lot of those companies rely on their network infrastructure, if there isn't a provision for this then perhaps the alternative is to be prepared to take over the whole organization if/when they are crippled by an attack. I am not one for heavy handed government but someone needs to light the fire under these guys.
As Benjamin Franklin wrote: ""They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." We already have too many governmental computer security organizations, we don't need another. But even if one is needed who says DHS is any better at computer security than any other agency?
Part of the cause of that is the lack of proportional representation, though.
No, the biggest problem is the power and size of government. Even with parliamentary systems with proportional representation major parties can be forced to include small and evil parties to form a governing coalition. Witness Israel, whenever the government holds serious talks with Palestinians it has to deal with small ultra conservative Jewish parties who oppose giving Palestinians any land. That is what happened in the talks that came closest to peace, the Taba Summit or talks. In 1999 Israel's PM Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat came the closest to peace in Taba, Egypt. Running against Ariel the Bulldozer Sharon, who had the support of those ultra conservative parties, to become the PM for another term Barak didn't finish negotiations. And of course Sharon opposed them.
talk about democracy. we were just discussing how capitalism easily corrupts and dominates a democratic storefront
Part of Capitalism is free markets. Well free markets do not exist. The closest we've come to it was in America in the 1820s and '30s and it is what inspired Alexis de Tocqueville to write "Democracy in America". Of course there was the black mark on free markets called slavery.
Some transporation and oil companies and maybe a few wharehouses but the vast majority stay in China and it is stolen out of the US economy.
So when Caterpillar exports bulldozers to China and India, they're stealing from China's and India's economy? And what of the rare earth minerals from China? Those are needed for many things you enjoy. Or coltan, the mining of which fuels the conflict in the Congo, which your cellphone needs. Or the deforestation of Indonesia's forests, for the lumber used to make furniture and to clear the land for palm oil plantations for biofuels.
Oh, and let's not forget all those dollars shipped across the Canadian and Mexican borders with the US for oil. Dollars going to Saudi Arabia for oil? HAHA!!! Forget it, Canada is the US's biggest supplier of petroleum and Mexico is right behind them.
Your dollar moves all around it helping everyone else including industries out. Now picture it with a small hole with the air going into another baloon called China?
Yes, it helps everyone, including you and me. And I already said China is at fault for not having free trade.
FYI does Walmart even pay dividends?
Yes Walmart pays dividends. Here is Morningstar's 5 year history of Walmart dividends. And as of right now Walmart's P/E, Price per Earnings ratio, is 14.08. That is how long it would take to payoff the cost of shares in Walmart, 14.08 years. That is if all of the earnings are paid out.
That is what is happening now. Eventually there will be no more pressure to keep it inflated which is what the recession is all about.
Not that good with economics are you? The reason the economy collapsed and we're now in recession is because people borrowed more than they could pay back. People were taking out mortgages than instead of only taking 20 or 30 years to pay off, were going to take twice that. And why? Because they were hoping the house bubble would keep on inflating. But when prices didn't those borrowers couldn't afford their mortgage payments. They also started using their credit cards to pay their debts as well as living expenses. Debts mounted ever higher until people were bankrupt. So what did lenders do? They cut lending, that's what. Employers were then unable to borrow money to pay employees. Don't ask me why but instead of making sure they had enough money to pay employees many employers took out short term loans. Of course the bank bailout supposedly was supposed to get banks to start lending again. However because there was nothing in the bailout that required banks to lend money they didn't.
Sure free trade can help the world economy but it has to cost the American economy to create it. Many economsts agree if you are willing to research
Oh, I have. But first, your own link has Peter Schiff saying free trade is the answer: "The government is actually the source of our problem, that the stimulus is not the solution, the stimulus is why the economy is so messed up in the first place. And I want to go to Washington to end that." He goes on then says "we have to let free market forces repair the damage done to the economy by government intervention".
Now I didn't listen or watch the whole thing but that right there backs me up. Now I suggest you also check out
we're forced to compete with third-world wages, but don't have the option of paying third-world prices.
If you don't shop at Walmart that's your fault and no one else's. And even Walmart employees make enough to pay Walmart prices. Heck Walmart's current growth is with stores in China. And guess where the profits go... To the US and Walmart shareholders.
Once you start talking about products rather than jobs, suddenly all the bullshit rhetoric about "free trade" disappears.
What's Bullshit is that there is no free trade and the US is just as guilty. While China artificially keeps it's exchange rate low, which makes Chinese exports cheap and imports expensive, the US subsidizes agriculture businesses to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Corn is grown and harvested in the US then exported to Mexico where it's sold cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn because these exporters are subsidized.
That's why your job was overseas outsourced, you costs more than others. It doesn't feel good to be on the receiving end but reduced costs lowers most people's expenses. What you and others need to do is find a new market and or acquire a new set of skills.
Where I have a problem is where the people losing a job are close to retirement. By the tyme they're retrained they might as well retire, except they may be broke. Though not close to then myself I am in a similar situation. Because of an accident I was disabled and basically I need to retake a bunch of classes I took, I was a college student when I had the accident. But I can't afford the classes, I can't even work if only to take 1 or 2 classes at a tyme.
At least with the "Tea-Nazis," as you call them, the government's power is restricted as a matter of policy.
No, the government's power is not restricted, instead it's shifted. Though not all, many Tea Partiers have their own social agendas such as outlawing abortions and and denying homosexual unions. Check out the tea party platform.
The fact that Obama thinks that millions of previously American jobs that have been outsourced to India is somehow good shows just how out of touch Obama is with regular America. America needs jobs, and those jobs used to provide careers to Americans.
Guess what? Boeing, GE, and other businesses now have buyers and can hire Americans.
Mr Obama, please get back in tough with the needs to of the American people. Didn't your parties recent thrashing in the election send a message that you need to listen to?
Apparently Obama didn't listen and hasn't learned. I hope the Republican House stalemates Obama though. Then come 2012 both Democrats and Republicans will be blamed and kicked out of office.
What deregulation, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933? It was repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which Clinton signed. Or do you mean the regulations outlawing redlining? And easy credit, when the Federal Reserve lowered federal fund rates from 6.5% to 1% to encourage lending, had nothing to do with it?
Pushing liar loans onto poor people and betting against them with derivatives?
That's easy to deal with, it doesn't even take 1 page of regulations. Better yet, it only takes 1 sentence. "No mortgage lender will be bailed out."
Awarding no-bid contracts to private security firms so they can loot other countries and abuse their people?
No-bid contracts are not to be found in fiscally conservative circles, they are opposite of what is wanted.
Lowering estate taxes on the wealthy so we can have a permanent wealthy aristocracy?
And what's wrong with allowing people to do what they want with the money they work to earn?
it's ignorant people ranting about "socialism"
It's ignorant ranting like this that's the problem. People should learn the truth before speaking.
If the GOP proposes a balanced budget that included the military budget and preserving Social Security, they'd be worth listening too. I expect that if they fail to produce an actual budget like that, they will again be voted out in 2012.
I agree about military spending but Social Security is soon to be bankrupt. With Baby Boomers retiring more and more workers will be needed to support those Boomers. The ratio of retired people on Social Security (SS) to workers paying into it is getting bad. In 1950 16 people paid into SS for every person collecting it. Today that ratio is 3 workers for every retiree, and in 10 year it may be 2 to 1.
Fact is when established under FDR SS was only supposed to be a safety net, people were expected to save for retirement. But now too many people depend on it, even those who made enough money still didn't save and invest enough.
When Obama got elected, I remember speaking about it to a friend of mine who emigrated to Europe some years ago. People there were ecstatic about Obama being our new President-elect. I asked him why. "Is it because Obama is going to make a wonderful President in their view?" His answer? "No. It's because he isn't George Bush." They were far more rational in their appraisal of Obama than we were.
I voted for Obama for 1 reason, McCain scared me. I preferred McCain economically but not militarily, I was afraid if he won the election he'd attack Iran.
In that, Obama hasn't let me down but he has let me down by not taking advise from Chicago school of economics economists.
Solution: Why not raise our import tariff rates to match that of our so-called trading partners?
Because the politicians (and make no mistake, I'm talking both major parties in the U.S.) are bought and paid for by the multinational corporations.
That's a great idea, if you want to start another Great Deprerssion. Protectionist laws like the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act virtually shutdown international trade causing the world's economy to collapse. US exports themselves declined by 61%, falling from "US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion". Before Pres Herbert Hoover signed it more than a 1000 economists warned him not to, but of course he did. In retaliation other national governments passed their own protectionist laws.
I have thought about it to it's logical conclusion.
I don't think you have.
I have thought about it. Because of what I've said a number of people thought I might commit suicide and my doc gave me a prescription for an anti-depressant. A mental health care worker was also arraigned to visit me at home. There are 2 reasons I have not done so. One is because as I said earlier I am stubborn. The other is because of my former spiritual belief in reincarnation. Though I no longer believe in reincarnation, or a soul or spirit, I used to thing that if I ended my own life and reincarnation were true then I'd have to come back in a new incarnation and go through my suffering all over again. Logically if reincarnation did happen but we didn't recall previous lives then it wouldn't matter, but logic could not touch the fear. A third reason could be hope, hope that life will be worth living.
Yes, it's true that the "need" to survive is ultimately a human-imposed axiom... but it's only if one dismisses that that it becomes meaningless.
Though many of us hope there is "meaning", it too is not needed. Of course many people define "meaning" and "meaningless", believe meaning is needed, and deny meaninglessness ie deny "nobody even needs to live".
As stated in the post you replied to I am disabled
With respect- and I'm sure you don't need my condescension- I don't see that it changes the facts being argued here.
Maybe it normally would not change things but those things I had I considered important I lost. Do you think Steven Hawkins would feel the same or differently if he lost his abilities and knowledge? Michael J Fox has been using his fortune to bring awareness of Parkinson's disease to the public and to find a cure, do you think he'd be doing it if he never got Parkinson's disease? What I hold valuable to me is just as important to me as what Hawkins and Fox value are important to them.
The simple fact though is that life is not needed.
You are aware that you can download, install, use for development / test and even PROD the free version of Oracle (Oracle 10g Express Edition) - correct?
No I didn't know that, thanks. I bookmarked it so that I can check it out later. I see it's limited to 4GB DBs, but that's plenty to learn with. As would the free Sybase. Just in case I went ahead to start downloading the Oracle edition but I there isn't an OS X version, that's what I'm currently using, Leopard. A few days ago to test it I installed Snow Leopard on an external drive. I'll also install Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx on the drive too to test as well. Oracle Database 10g Release 2 does have a version for Ubuntu, so I may try it.
I googled Sybase 15.5 ASE Express Edition to check it out too.
you need to check the dates on your sources a little more closely. Both those stories you cite are from 2003, and in the computing world that's a loooooonnnng time.
You're right, I need to be more careful. When I got those links I restricted my search to only webpages updated in the past year. Looking at the "SD Times" article while the article was written on April 1, 2003 the webpage was last updated "As of October 26, 2010 03:59 PM"
According to more recent data from IDC, Oracle had 43.5 percent of the RDBMS market in 2008.
One of those sources you say is old, the eweek article, says that on 21 May 2003 Oracle had a 43% marketshare in RDBMSs. And though they don't have the marketshare stats ServerWatch has the article Top 10 Enterprise Database Systems to Consider. That is dated 20 May 2010.
I wonder how many enterprises are adopting NoSQL, infotech, reports about an InformationWeek Analytics report saying "Microsoft SQL Server Overtaking Oracle as Primary Database in Use" but that 39% of respondents are considering NoSQL, which Slashdot had some news about.
I'm sure there are plenty of happy Microsoft and IBM customers, but Oracle maintains a commanding lead.
I agree however my point has been that Oracle could lose its lead if it treats too many people poorly. As with operating systems applications have to offer what users want or they may go somewhere else. Because I got sick and tired of my PCs crashing a lot a few years ago I switched away from Windows. I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro and underneath my desk I have 2 PCs, a DEC Alpha running Windows NT4 and Redhat Linux, and another PC that only runs Linux. Actually the NT4 PC is the best I have used, I haven't had NT4 crash on me nor did I have hardware problems. And I've used from Windows 3.x to XP. When I can I'll replace my MBP with another one and for a server I'll upgrade my Linux PC.
Actually nobody even needs to live, they may want to but they don't need to do so.
Well, if you want to follow that to its logical conclusion (which I'd argue you already have, but didn't recognise it)
I have thought about it to it's logical conclusion. As stated in the post you replied to I am disabled, a disability I acquired when I was hit while riding my bike by a moving van. I was a college student when I was hit and it didn't take long for me to realize what I lost, almost everything I learned in my classes among other things. In the years since, more than 10, my life has been a living hell. But as some of the doctors and therapists I saw said, I am stubborn, and I hate to give up.
I don't need one but I've been thinking of building my own, a movie DB to start with. Doing so will add to my skill set and show others I can do the same for them, I'm on disability and don't work but I want to start working again as soon as I can.
Are you planning on using Oracle for this? Or do you think that you could perhaps achieve your goal with MySQL or PostgreSQL?
I'm not made out of money, but even if I were the simple database I'm planning doesn't need anything so massive as an enterprise database. As for which one I'll use I've been thinking about using Firebird, but before I actually install any DB I'll investigate different ones to decide which one I will use. I know I'll create a few different tables, for actors, directors, genera, movie titles, producers, and maybe songs. Of course associative tables, to normalize the many-to-many relationships of for instance actors and movies will be needed.
So why buy Oracle? Unless, of course, Oracle can make other databases seem unreliable...
Which is, of course, a conspiracy theory. But then again, IT world seems to have conspiracies and evil plots with disturbing regularity...
I did point that out, and gave the possible example of MS using SCO to discredit Linux, a theory I don't believe or disbelieve.
they make it so hard for you to do shit that if you want to get anything done you have to pay for Oracle support or consultants -- but you don't figure that out until you're already committed.
But as I said in the post you replied to there are other vendors, such as MS, who will help you migrate to their database offerings. How about IBM, despite a slide in relational database sells, IBM passed Oracle as the largest seller of new RDBMS licenses. As SD Times says Oracle's Lead Narrows in Relational Database Market.
Slashdot Mirror
If it's not a violation of free speech to say you can't directly or indirectly bribe those officials
No but it is a violation to stop a person from exercising their speech, and that includes paying for it. On the other hand corporations shouldn't have the same rights and shouldn't be allowed to donate to any political campaigns. Neither should unions or trade groups.
Falcon
And all of those cool military gadgets we ooh and ahh over will be deployed against citizens aspiring for freedom.
Like so many others, you're making the same mistake believing the US military will fight against it's own citizens. It didn't work for the Chinese during the Tiananmen Square protests and it won't in the US. See the party bosses in Beijing feared local army units would join with the protesters if ordered to fire on them and fight against other army units. There were even reports of some army units shooting at others. So what did the bosses do? They had to order the PLA's, People's Liberation Army, 27th Army into the city from other provinces or parts of China.
It's my guess you've never served in the US military either. When I was in the US Army I was in the infantry, you know one of those on the front line shooting at and being shot at by the enemy. I and others I served with would have shot or fragged an officer giving a bad order. I bet my nephew who's a Marine, and has served in Iraq, would not hesitate to do the same.
Oh, and let's look at Iraq. The US military hasn't been able to stop the insurgency and fighting there yet. There is less fighting but partially because the Iraqi and US military negotiated with some of the militia factions there.
Falcon
Having the entire system dependent on campaign strategies and contributions defeats that all by itself (everything is pulling in the same basic direction: getting re-elected).
If you believe gridlock is good, and I agree it is, then with the new congress next year we may have gridlock, see how Republicans gained control of the House? Now how did they do that? By those campaign strategies and contributions you deplore.
Falcon
I think anything that removes political contributions to elected officials is a good thing.
So you don't believe in the freedom of speech? Because that is what barring contributions is, silencing speech. As a low income individual I don't enjoy as many ways to spread my speech as others but if I can join others who feel or think the same then we can all contribute pooling our resources to get our message out.
Falcon
Yes, but remember that originally the House was elected by popular vote while the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of their respective states. The "cooling" effect had a lot to do with being unconcerned with things like winning campaigns, ensuring that campaign contributions keep flowing, popular trends, and knee-jerk emotional issues (like fear-based security theater). Senators had more of a free hand to do what they personally believed should be done, compared to representatives in the House who always had to wet their finger to see which way the wind was blowing.
That purpose is largely defeated by having the senators elected by popular vote. Now they have to represent their campaign donors and supporters more than they represent their states, same as the House.
Ah but states had more right back then, when state legislatures appointed senators. With senators appointed by states it was supposed to guaranty states rights.
I think one fix is to introduce at the federal level what Texas does. By the Texas Constitution the Texas legislature only meets 140 days every other year.
I've also proposed, and will again, amending the USA Constitution in other ways. For instance Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President changed the way the president and vice president were elected. I propose to amend how they are elected again. This tyme though the electoral college is abolished and all candidates run for president. However voting would use a condorcet method wherein the candidates are ranked. Voters would rank their choices, say there are five candidates the voter's first choice would get 5 points, the second choice 4, and so on. The points for each candidate are then added up with the winner, highest score, becoming president and the runner-up the vice president. As an added twist voters might also negatively rank candidates, the voter can give candidate they absolutely oppose a negative score. Say -5 which is subtracted from the candidate's score.
Falcon
Considering how much a lot of those companies rely on their network infrastructure, if there isn't a provision for this then perhaps the alternative is to be prepared to take over the whole organization if/when they are crippled by an attack. I am not one for heavy handed government but someone needs to light the fire under these guys.
As Benjamin Franklin wrote: ""They that can give up Essential Liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." We already have too many governmental computer security organizations, we don't need another. But even if one is needed who says DHS is any better at computer security than any other agency?
Falcon
Part of the cause of that is the lack of proportional representation, though.
No, the biggest problem is the power and size of government. Even with parliamentary systems with proportional representation major parties can be forced to include small and evil parties to form a governing coalition. Witness Israel, whenever the government holds serious talks with Palestinians it has to deal with small ultra conservative Jewish parties who oppose giving Palestinians any land. That is what happened in the talks that came closest to peace, the Taba Summit or talks. In 1999 Israel's PM Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat came the closest to peace in Taba, Egypt. Running against Ariel the Bulldozer Sharon, who had the support of those ultra conservative parties, to become the PM for another term Barak didn't finish negotiations. And of course Sharon opposed them.
Falcon
talk about democracy. we were just discussing how capitalism easily corrupts and dominates a democratic storefront
Part of Capitalism is free markets. Well free markets do not exist. The closest we've come to it was in America in the 1820s and '30s and it is what inspired Alexis de Tocqueville to write "Democracy in America". Of course there was the black mark on free markets called slavery.
Falcon
Some transporation and oil companies and maybe a few wharehouses but the vast majority stay in China and it is stolen out of the US economy.
So when Caterpillar exports bulldozers to China and India, they're stealing from China's and India's economy? And what of the rare earth minerals from China? Those are needed for many things you enjoy. Or coltan, the mining of which fuels the conflict in the Congo, which your cellphone needs. Or the deforestation of Indonesia's forests, for the lumber used to make furniture and to clear the land for palm oil plantations for biofuels.
Oh, and let's not forget all those dollars shipped across the Canadian and Mexican borders with the US for oil. Dollars going to Saudi Arabia for oil? HAHA!!! Forget it, Canada is the US's biggest supplier of petroleum and Mexico is right behind them.
Your dollar moves all around it helping everyone else including industries out. Now picture it with a small hole with the air going into another baloon called China?
Yes, it helps everyone, including you and me. And I already said China is at fault for not having free trade.
FYI does Walmart even pay dividends?
Yes Walmart pays dividends. Here is Morningstar's 5 year history of Walmart dividends. And as of right now Walmart's P/E, Price per Earnings ratio, is 14.08. That is how long it would take to payoff the cost of shares in Walmart, 14.08 years. That is if all of the earnings are paid out.
That is what is happening now. Eventually there will be no more pressure to keep it inflated which is what the recession is all about.
Not that good with economics are you? The reason the economy collapsed and we're now in recession is because people borrowed more than they could pay back. People were taking out mortgages than instead of only taking 20 or 30 years to pay off, were going to take twice that. And why? Because they were hoping the house bubble would keep on inflating. But when prices didn't those borrowers couldn't afford their mortgage payments. They also started using their credit cards to pay their debts as well as living expenses. Debts mounted ever higher until people were bankrupt. So what did lenders do? They cut lending, that's what. Employers were then unable to borrow money to pay employees. Don't ask me why but instead of making sure they had enough money to pay employees many employers took out short term loans. Of course the bank bailout supposedly was supposed to get banks to start lending again. However because there was nothing in the bailout that required banks to lend money they didn't.
Sure free trade can help the world economy but it has to cost the American economy to create it. Many economsts agree if you are willing to research
Oh, I have. But first, your own link has Peter Schiff saying free trade is the answer: "The government is actually the source of our problem, that the stimulus is not the solution, the stimulus is why the economy is so messed up in the first place. And I want to go to Washington to end that." He goes on then says "we have to let free market forces repair the damage done to the economy by government intervention".
Now I didn't listen or watch the whole thing but that right there backs me up. Now I suggest you also check out
"I agree about military spending but Social Security is soon to be bankrupt."
You are lying.
No you are. You can't even provide links to support yourself, not even those that haven't been peer reviewed.
Falcon
we're forced to compete with third-world wages, but don't have the option of paying third-world prices.
If you don't shop at Walmart that's your fault and no one else's. And even Walmart employees make enough to pay Walmart prices. Heck Walmart's current growth is with stores in China. And guess where the profits go... To the US and Walmart shareholders.
Once you start talking about products rather than jobs, suddenly all the bullshit rhetoric about "free trade" disappears.
What's Bullshit is that there is no free trade and the US is just as guilty. While China artificially keeps it's exchange rate low, which makes Chinese exports cheap and imports expensive, the US subsidizes agriculture businesses to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Corn is grown and harvested in the US then exported to Mexico where it's sold cheaper than Mexican farmers can grow corn because these exporters are subsidized.
Falcon
That's why your job was overseas outsourced, you costs more than others. It doesn't feel good to be on the receiving end but reduced costs lowers most people's expenses. What you and others need to do is find a new market and or acquire a new set of skills.
Where I have a problem is where the people losing a job are close to retirement. By the tyme they're retrained they might as well retire, except they may be broke. Though not close to then myself I am in a similar situation. Because of an accident I was disabled and basically I need to retake a bunch of classes I took, I was a college student when I had the accident. But I can't afford the classes, I can't even work if only to take 1 or 2 classes at a tyme.
Falcon
At least with the "Tea-Nazis," as you call them, the government's power is restricted as a matter of policy.
No, the government's power is not restricted, instead it's shifted. Though not all, many Tea Partiers have their own social agendas such as outlawing abortions and and denying homosexual unions. Check out the tea party platform.
Falcon
The fact that Obama thinks that millions of previously American jobs that have been outsourced to India is somehow good shows just how out of touch Obama is with regular America. America needs jobs, and those jobs used to provide careers to Americans.
Guess what? Boeing, GE, and other businesses now have buyers and can hire Americans.
Mr Obama, please get back in tough with the needs to of the American people. Didn't your parties recent thrashing in the election send a message that you need to listen to?
Apparently Obama didn't listen and hasn't learned. I hope the Republican House stalemates Obama though. Then come 2012 both Democrats and Republicans will be blamed and kicked out of office.
Falcon
Deregulation of the banking sector?
What deregulation, the repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933? It was repealed by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act which Clinton signed. Or do you mean the regulations outlawing redlining? And easy credit, when the Federal Reserve lowered federal fund rates from 6.5% to 1% to encourage lending, had nothing to do with it?
Pushing liar loans onto poor people and betting against them with derivatives?
That's easy to deal with, it doesn't even take 1 page of regulations. Better yet, it only takes 1 sentence. "No mortgage lender will be bailed out."
Awarding no-bid contracts to private security firms so they can loot other countries and abuse their people?
No-bid contracts are not to be found in fiscally conservative circles, they are opposite of what is wanted.
Lowering estate taxes on the wealthy so we can have a permanent wealthy aristocracy?
And what's wrong with allowing people to do what they want with the money they work to earn?
it's ignorant people ranting about "socialism"
It's ignorant ranting like this that's the problem. People should learn the truth before speaking.
Falcon
If the GOP proposes a balanced budget that included the military budget and preserving Social Security, they'd be worth listening too. I expect that if they fail to produce an actual budget like that, they will again be voted out in 2012.
I agree about military spending but Social Security is soon to be bankrupt. With Baby Boomers retiring more and more workers will be needed to support those Boomers. The ratio of retired people on Social Security (SS) to workers paying into it is getting bad. In 1950 16 people paid into SS for every person collecting it. Today that ratio is 3 workers for every retiree, and in 10 year it may be 2 to 1.
Fact is when established under FDR SS was only supposed to be a safety net, people were expected to save for retirement. But now too many people depend on it, even those who made enough money still didn't save and invest enough.
Falcon
When Obama got elected, I remember speaking about it to a friend of mine who emigrated to Europe some years ago. People there were ecstatic about Obama being our new President-elect. I asked him why. "Is it because Obama is going to make a wonderful President in their view?" His answer? "No. It's because he isn't George Bush." They were far more rational in their appraisal of Obama than we were.
I voted for Obama for 1 reason, McCain scared me. I preferred McCain economically but not militarily, I was afraid if he won the election he'd attack Iran.
In that, Obama hasn't let me down but he has let me down by not taking advise from Chicago school of economics economists.
Falcon
The only source of information for the above mentioned "middle" class is Murdoch's Newscorp, but thats a different story.
Except Newscorp supports free trade. That is other than anti-copying technologies it does.
Falcon
Solution: Why not raise our import tariff rates to match that of our so-called trading partners?
Because the politicians (and make no mistake, I'm talking both major parties in the U.S.) are bought and paid for by the multinational corporations.
That's a great idea, if you want to start another Great Deprerssion. Protectionist laws like the Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act virtually shutdown international trade causing the world's economy to collapse. US exports themselves declined by 61%, falling from "US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion". Before Pres Herbert Hoover signed it more than a 1000 economists warned him not to, but of course he did. In retaliation other national governments passed their own protectionist laws.
Falcon
I have thought about it to it's logical conclusion.
I don't think you have.
I have thought about it. Because of what I've said a number of people thought I might commit suicide and my doc gave me a prescription for an anti-depressant. A mental health care worker was also arraigned to visit me at home. There are 2 reasons I have not done so. One is because as I said earlier I am stubborn. The other is because of my former spiritual belief in reincarnation. Though I no longer believe in reincarnation, or a soul or spirit, I used to thing that if I ended my own life and reincarnation were true then I'd have to come back in a new incarnation and go through my suffering all over again. Logically if reincarnation did happen but we didn't recall previous lives then it wouldn't matter, but logic could not touch the fear. A third reason could be hope, hope that life will be worth living.
Yes, it's true that the "need" to survive is ultimately a human-imposed axiom... but it's only if one dismisses that that it becomes meaningless.
Though many of us hope there is "meaning", it too is not needed. Of course many people define "meaning" and "meaningless", believe meaning is needed, and deny meaninglessness ie deny "nobody even needs to live".
As stated in the post you replied to I am disabled
With respect- and I'm sure you don't need my condescension- I don't see that it changes the facts being argued here.
Maybe it normally would not change things but those things I had I considered important I lost. Do you think Steven Hawkins would feel the same or differently if he lost his abilities and knowledge? Michael J Fox has been using his fortune to bring awareness of Parkinson's disease to the public and to find a cure, do you think he'd be doing it if he never got Parkinson's disease? What I hold valuable to me is just as important to me as what Hawkins and Fox value are important to them.
The simple fact though is that life is not needed.
Falcon
You are aware that you can download, install, use for development / test and even PROD the free version of Oracle (Oracle 10g Express Edition) - correct?
No I didn't know that, thanks. I bookmarked it so that I can check it out later. I see it's limited to 4GB DBs, but that's plenty to learn with. As would the free Sybase. Just in case I went ahead to start downloading the Oracle edition but I there isn't an OS X version, that's what I'm currently using, Leopard. A few days ago to test it I installed Snow Leopard on an external drive. I'll also install Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid Lynx on the drive too to test as well. Oracle Database 10g Release 2 does have a version for Ubuntu, so I may try it.
I googled Sybase 15.5 ASE Express Edition to check it out too.
Falcon
you need to check the dates on your sources a little more closely. Both those stories you cite are from 2003, and in the computing world that's a loooooonnnng time.
You're right, I need to be more careful. When I got those links I restricted my search to only webpages updated in the past year. Looking at the "SD Times" article while the article was written on April 1, 2003 the webpage was last updated "As of October 26, 2010 03:59 PM"
According to more recent data from IDC, Oracle had 43.5 percent of the RDBMS market in 2008.
One of those sources you say is old, the eweek article, says that on 21 May 2003 Oracle had a 43% marketshare in RDBMSs. And though they don't have the marketshare stats ServerWatch has the article Top 10 Enterprise Database Systems to Consider. That is dated 20 May 2010.
I wonder how many enterprises are adopting NoSQL, infotech, reports about an InformationWeek Analytics report saying "Microsoft SQL Server Overtaking Oracle as Primary Database in Use" but that 39% of respondents are considering NoSQL, which Slashdot had some news about.
I'm sure there are plenty of happy Microsoft and IBM customers, but Oracle maintains a commanding lead.
I agree however my point has been that Oracle could lose its lead if it treats too many people poorly. As with operating systems applications have to offer what users want or they may go somewhere else. Because I got sick and tired of my PCs crashing a lot a few years ago I switched away from Windows. I'm typing this on my MacBook Pro and underneath my desk I have 2 PCs, a DEC Alpha running Windows NT4 and Redhat Linux, and another PC that only runs Linux. Actually the NT4 PC is the best I have used, I haven't had NT4 crash on me nor did I have hardware problems. And I've used from Windows 3.x to XP. When I can I'll replace my MBP with another one and for a server I'll upgrade my Linux PC.
Falcon
Actually nobody even needs to live, they may want to but they don't need to do so.
Well, if you want to follow that to its logical conclusion (which I'd argue you already have, but didn't recognise it)
I have thought about it to it's logical conclusion. As stated in the post you replied to I am disabled, a disability I acquired when I was hit while riding my bike by a moving van. I was a college student when I was hit and it didn't take long for me to realize what I lost, almost everything I learned in my classes among other things. In the years since, more than 10, my life has been a living hell. But as some of the doctors and therapists I saw said, I am stubborn, and I hate to give up.
Falcon
I don't need one but I've been thinking of building my own, a movie DB to start with. Doing so will add to my skill set and show others I can do the same for them, I'm on disability and don't work but I want to start working again as soon as I can.
Are you planning on using Oracle for this? Or do you think that you could perhaps achieve your goal with MySQL or PostgreSQL?
I'm not made out of money, but even if I were the simple database I'm planning doesn't need anything so massive as an enterprise database. As for which one I'll use I've been thinking about using Firebird, but before I actually install any DB I'll investigate different ones to decide which one I will use. I know I'll create a few different tables, for actors, directors, genera, movie titles, producers, and maybe songs. Of course associative tables, to normalize the many-to-many relationships of for instance actors and movies will be needed.
So why buy Oracle? Unless, of course, Oracle can make other databases seem unreliable...
Which is, of course, a conspiracy theory. But then again, IT world seems to have conspiracies and evil plots with disturbing regularity...
I did point that out, and gave the possible example of MS using SCO to discredit Linux, a theory I don't believe or disbelieve.
Falcon
they make it so hard for you to do shit that if you want to get anything done you have to pay for Oracle support or consultants -- but you don't figure that out until you're already committed.
But as I said in the post you replied to there are other vendors, such as MS, who will help you migrate to their database offerings. How about IBM, despite a slide in relational database sells, IBM passed Oracle as the largest seller of new RDBMS licenses. As SD Times says Oracle's Lead Narrows in Relational Database Market.