Help me out here. I've never understood this thought process.
You are saying (rightfully) that we can't secure everything perfectly.
But then you continue the argument...
We can secure everything, so let's not secure anything.
Is this RFID system perfect? No but there is an incremental improvement in security and negatives are not that severe, unless you consider identifying a car uniquely as some great evil.
Why just pin it on Dubya? Did you think it didn't go on before and won't go on afterwords? Do you think it only touches the president and not the 435 reps and 100 senators and 50 govs and their respective legislative bodies?
You are one of the reasons that honest, productive political debate has become all but impossible in America, your blinding *PERSONAL* hatred for a single individual has shut off your brain and your vitriolic attacks lead only to flame wars. Do us a favor and keep your insanity and tunnel vision to yourself.
Greenpeace, for one, stated that "at a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project."
I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.
They are against new coal plants with modern scrubber technology, they are against fission plants, now they are against this expiremental fusion plant. Do they realize that humanity needs energy to live and thrive? Do they realize that by not building new more efficient powerplants they are forcing people to rely on older, more polluting powerplants more heavily?
It seems counterintuitive to me, it's like they would rather stick their thumb in the eye of corporations than actually help the environment.
What does this have to do with serving the country's interest? It is a entertainment/media company... hardly what one would call a business of vital national interest.
Besides, providing the public with a trilogy of blockbuster movies and providing the investors with billions in revenue would suggest that entities involved did their job exceedingly well. But I guess that view isn't anti-business enough huh?
The US is still a powerhouse of an exporter. We export, on average, over 2 billion dollars a day (which I believe makes us the largest exporter in the world but I'd have to verify that.)
The trade deficit is not because the US labor force can't perform (it can and does) but because we import even more than we export.
When you are in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, that's why it is called "public" and not "private."
Are you seriously suggesting that a shopkeeper doesn't have a right to monitor his store for any number of reasons (security, inventory management, layout design, etc)?
I'm all for preventing abuses but saying that it is wrong for people to monitor you when you are out in PUBLIC is a little overboard, imho.
Didn't our wonderful President just sign a bill for you to never be able to declare bankruptcy, even if you get freakin' terminally ill?
There is no such law. Anyone can still declare bankruptcy at any time. The only difference is is that when this legislation becomes law the following will happen: Before you enter into bankruptcy you will have an income test. If you have more than the median income for your area then you'll be forced into a payment plan.
Imagine that... being forced to pay debts you incurred on your own free will. Medical bills are explicitly excluded from this legislation.
But don't let me get in the way of your seething hatred for Bush (who didn't pass the law, congress did.)
That would be awesome. I think it is important that we post unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about how this is just one more step in an inevitable march towards some dytopian future.
Do you have any further information on what method these companies will use to reduce the paperwork? I'm on the provider side and I would be very interested in learning about what's coming down the pipe.
We don't know what the cost of either the print or the web editions are. We do know the price.
If the cost of the print edition is $355 and the cost of the web edition is $64 (both cost figures amortized over the size of the subscriber base) then the profit is 20 times. (profit of $1 and $20 respectively)
Another solution could be the print edition costs $354 and the web edition cost $44 ($2 and $40)
In other words, we don't have enough information to determine where a parity will be reached.
The US was never paying down the debt for any extended period of time (I believe our longest period of paying it down was 9 months.) Take a look for yourself, you'll see the number never goes down.
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm
Also, a large part of the "surplus" was unsustainable. To some degree the surplus was a result of cost cutting but mostly it was the result of increased revenue in the form of capital gains tax. Around the late 90's the government was collecting incredible amounts of capital gains tax due to stock market bubble. This was not a sustainable form of revenue.
The "debt holders" are a sundry group with many different agendas and motives. To suggest that they were all worried about the debt being paid off (which wasn't happening anyway) is misleading at best.
Considering how much misleading crap you were able to pack into your first sentence I think it is safe for people to disregard the rest of your hyper-biased post.
As an aside, I understand it is fashionable to hate Bush on this board and to suggest that he is somehow some evil genius/dumb monkey pulling all the strings to make the rich richer but you do yourself and your politcal cause a huge disservice when you exaggerate (and lie about) your claims.
Unless IBM wants to focus on competing with the ever growing chinense and other low cost manufactures they have no choice but to get out of hardware. Hardware is becoming increasingly commoditized and that means it will become a very difficult business to carve out a living in.
Not to mention IBM has some incredible hardware and software people on staff that would be far better employed helping those with problems in a consulting role.
Increased security will only take us so far considering the increasing reliance of all companies on databases.
Businesses need to quit making personal information so valuable, which means an end to instant credit. This, of course, would have some pretty far reaching implications for the hot-tub and big screen TV market but you take the good with the bad.
It should be combined with a biometric measurement. I understand the privacy people don't like it but identity is becoming increasingly important and a "peice of paper" just isn't going to cut it for much longer.
Because it is a chance to blast Bush and generally be shrill about the changing face of government... Every "enlighted" college student's favorite activity.
Telco's don't want to offer new services that would generate profit because they hate us. It has nothing to do with technical or legal complexity, nope, it's hatred!
And if this is true then you should make a killing by creating a competing carrier. Your assertion is that the market is not catering to the needs of its customers, that is a golden opportunity for you and others.
Of course, you won't do anything about it because you would prefer to brow beat me for "not understanding." Whatever.
The corporations that control the carriers are indifferent to their customers, they do not hate them, if a carrier believed they could generate significant profits by providing the services you suggest they would do it in a second, I think you'll agree they seek profit above all else.
If you plan on responding with some nonsense about how cartel's use monopolistic pricing practices, save it, I've heard it all before and it does not apply in this case where there are not significant barriers to entry.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm just saying. Come on! You know in your heart it is true.
It even gives you a radar image. Works well in bars and cars especially.
http://mobile.srh.weather.gov/
[OT]
The Magnetic Fields Rule!
Help me out here. I've never understood this thought process.
You are saying (rightfully) that we can't secure everything perfectly.
But then you continue the argument...
We can secure everything, so let's not secure anything.
Is this RFID system perfect? No but there is an incremental improvement in security and negatives are not that severe, unless you consider identifying a car uniquely as some great evil.
Why just pin it on Dubya? Did you think it didn't go on before and won't go on afterwords? Do you think it only touches the president and not the 435 reps and 100 senators and 50 govs and their respective legislative bodies?
You are one of the reasons that honest, productive political debate has become all but impossible in America, your blinding *PERSONAL* hatred for a single individual has shut off your brain and your vitriolic attacks lead only to flame wars. Do us a favor and keep your insanity and tunnel vision to yourself.
From TFA:
Greenpeace, for one, stated that "at a time when it is universally recognized that we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, Greenpeace considers it ridiculous to use resources and billions of euros on this project."
I swear, I think Greenpeace is more concerned about making sure nobody builds any new powerplants than they are about protecting the environment.
They are against new coal plants with modern scrubber technology, they are against fission plants, now they are against this expiremental fusion plant. Do they realize that humanity needs energy to live and thrive? Do they realize that by not building new more efficient powerplants they are forcing people to rely on older, more polluting powerplants more heavily?
It seems counterintuitive to me, it's like they would rather stick their thumb in the eye of corporations than actually help the environment.
What does this have to do with serving the country's interest? It is a entertainment/media company... hardly what one would call a business of vital national interest.
Besides, providing the public with a trilogy of blockbuster movies and providing the investors with billions in revenue would suggest that entities involved did their job exceedingly well. But I guess that view isn't anti-business enough huh?
The US is still a powerhouse of an exporter. We export, on average, over 2 billion dollars a day (which I believe makes us the largest exporter in the world but I'd have to verify that.)
o duct/enduse/exports/c0000.html
The trade deficit is not because the US labor force can't perform (it can and does) but because we import even more than we export.
http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/pr
When you are in public you have no reasonable expectation of privacy. In fact, that's why it is called "public" and not "private."
Are you seriously suggesting that a shopkeeper doesn't have a right to monitor his store for any number of reasons (security, inventory management, layout design, etc)?
I'm all for preventing abuses but saying that it is wrong for people to monitor you when you are out in PUBLIC is a little overboard, imho.
This is how you respond? I was just correcting you on your interpretation of the new bankruptcy law.
Apparently you're so hyper reactionary and wary of "idiots like me" that you can't be bothered with the truth.
BTW, if you don't work do you think your income is above or below the median? I'll leave that as an exercise for you... maybe you could ask the news.
Take care psychopath.
There is no such law. Anyone can still declare bankruptcy at any time. The only difference is is that when this legislation becomes law the following will happen: Before you enter into bankruptcy you will have an income test. If you have more than the median income for your area then you'll be forced into a payment plan.
Imagine that... being forced to pay debts you incurred on your own free will. Medical bills are explicitly excluded from this legislation.
But don't let me get in the way of your seething hatred for Bush (who didn't pass the law, congress did.)
That would be awesome. I think it is important that we post unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about how this is just one more step in an inevitable march towards some dytopian future.
Do you have any further information on what method these companies will use to reduce the paperwork? I'm on the provider side and I would be very interested in learning about what's coming down the pipe.
Nothing says Romeo like a guy who knows the ins and outs of an open source email program. Line forms to the left ladies.
We don't know what the cost of either the print or the web editions are. We do know the price.
If the cost of the print edition is $355 and the cost of the web edition is $64 (both cost figures amortized over the size of the subscriber base) then the profit is 20 times. (profit of $1 and $20 respectively)
Another solution could be the print edition costs $354 and the web edition cost $44 ($2 and $40)
In other words, we don't have enough information to determine where a parity will be reached.
The US was never paying down the debt for any extended period of time (I believe our longest period of paying it down was 9 months.) Take a look for yourself, you'll see the number never goes down.
m
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.ht
Also, a large part of the "surplus" was unsustainable. To some degree the surplus was a result of cost cutting but mostly it was the result of increased revenue in the form of capital gains tax. Around the late 90's the government was collecting incredible amounts of capital gains tax due to stock market bubble. This was not a sustainable form of revenue.
The "debt holders" are a sundry group with many different agendas and motives. To suggest that they were all worried about the debt being paid off (which wasn't happening anyway) is misleading at best.
Considering how much misleading crap you were able to pack into your first sentence I think it is safe for people to disregard the rest of your hyper-biased post.
As an aside, I understand it is fashionable to hate Bush on this board and to suggest that he is somehow some evil genius/dumb monkey pulling all the strings to make the rich richer but you do yourself and your politcal cause a huge disservice when you exaggerate (and lie about) your claims.
Just your basic big brain, deep specific knowledge type that the front line consultants rely upon.
Unless IBM wants to focus on competing with the ever growing chinense and other low cost manufactures they have no choice but to get out of hardware. Hardware is becoming increasingly commoditized and that means it will become a very difficult business to carve out a living in.
Not to mention IBM has some incredible hardware and software people on staff that would be far better employed helping those with problems in a consulting role.
Increased security will only take us so far considering the increasing reliance of all companies on databases.
Businesses need to quit making personal information so valuable, which means an end to instant credit. This, of course, would have some pretty far reaching implications for the hot-tub and big screen TV market but you take the good with the bad.
Unless I am misunderstanding you it is not too difficult to dig up that data you just have to know what you are searching for.
1 2.xls
Here's the spreadsheet I always use when citing government budget figures.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy06/sheets/25_
And here's a bunch of other stuff...
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/
You are correct but that won't stop a zillion slashbots from crying "BUSH IS TEH EVIL1!!!!!1111oneoneone"
It should be combined with a biometric measurement. I understand the privacy people don't like it but identity is becoming increasingly important and a "peice of paper" just isn't going to cut it for much longer.
Because it is a chance to blast Bush and generally be shrill about the changing face of government... Every "enlighted" college student's favorite activity.
Oh well you post makes sense.
Telco's don't want to offer new services that would generate profit because they hate us. It has nothing to do with technical or legal complexity, nope, it's hatred!
It makes complete sense now.
BWHAHAHAHAHA!
And if this is true then you should make a killing by creating a competing carrier. Your assertion is that the market is not catering to the needs of its customers, that is a golden opportunity for you and others.
Of course, you won't do anything about it because you would prefer to brow beat me for "not understanding." Whatever.
The corporations that control the carriers are indifferent to their customers, they do not hate them, if a carrier believed they could generate significant profits by providing the services you suggest they would do it in a second, I think you'll agree they seek profit above all else.
If you plan on responding with some nonsense about how cartel's use monopolistic pricing practices, save it, I've heard it all before and it does not apply in this case where there are not significant barriers to entry.