Actually, sonoluminescence was discovered in 1934. I believe the most recent batch of research may have been inspired by the observation that snapping shrimp seem to be able to acheive it, and trying to understand what process could release a photon via such a relatively low power system. It seems that if it's not some form of fusion, then an entirely new set of physics, or at least chemistry, needs to be invented.
Well, there's lots of oil in other places also, so why does the middle east still control the world energy market? Easy, for the same reasons they will control the solar market.
1) Cheap labor
2) All their open land doesn't have any NIMBY neighbors to complain
3) No environmental restrictions/regulations
4) The open land cannot be used for anything else, especially crops.
The big downside they face is how do you transfer all the energy collected to the markets that need it? The great thing about oil is that it is extremely portable. Direct electrical transmission over power lines is hugely ineffecient and unreliable over even multi-state regions, let alone continent-wide or global distances. If only there was some ubiquitous power storage and transport system with high efficiencies to help the big middle east oil barons keep making money... hmm.. what's that.. GWB
(Halliburton) is now supporting moving to a hydrogen based economy? Remember kids, hydrogen isn't an energy source, just an energy storage medium.
Is anyone still naive enough to think that all of this hasn't been thought about, researched, and planned for years? The global cartels know to the year, possibly to the month, when oil will be too expensive in recovery to maintain a strong global economy, i.e. current levels of comfort for the ultra rich. Spending large amounts of money on researching alternatives too soon just wastes current year investment income, and results of such research would interfere with pulling every last cent of profit from the current system. As soon as the money/lifestyle/economy equation balances you will see vast changes in the energy landscape, almost overnight. And the same people making huge profits now will still be making huge profits then.
Damn straight! For godsake grow up and get on/. and spend your time trolling instead. Lazy bastids.
Who needs an online community of like minded people with persistent presence, the ability to track friends and enemies, and keep a running log of your musings and conversations. Foolishness I tell you!
You sir, seem to be under the mistaken assumption that this, or any other, "War on Terror" program is actually aimed at terrorists. As you point out, any real terrorists/hackers/bad guys can find a multitude of ways around all of these systems. In fact, if you are actually doing anything deliberately illegal, you must assume that you are being evesdropped on at all times, and so make all of your contacts as innocuous as possible. That's basic subversion 101.
All of these "programs" are to make sure that those in power have something on everybody. That way when you actually do something that interferes with their agenda or makes someone with power mad at you, they can nail you on several unrelated charges and keep their actual agenda somewhat obscured.
As to your point, this very post could, at some point, come back to haunt me. But everytime I state these very obvious facts in a public forum, it would be terribly inconvenient for me to have to "format my shit" to avoid prosecution. The problem with the GP's idea of rotating encryption, is that only works where both ends of the conversation are trusted entities. If I were in Canada, and searching the web for information on something of dubious legality, like growing strains of South American botanicals north of the 48th parallel (hey, I like orchids), this would raise a flag somewhere in a database with my name on it. If later I searched for and made posts in support of opposition candidates and positions (whoever the "opposition" of the day was), that would also go into the file. If I was later surfing "fine art" sites and a link farm popped a window with underage models up, bang. You guessed it, a note into the file. When I did something annoying enough to the monitors, they would select the most convictable of possible offenses, get a warrant for a "secret search" and "discover" illegal content on my PC. Evidence clearly substantiated by the logs provided by my ISP.
See how easy it is. If I were actually doing anything deliberately illegal, I would go to great lengths to protect myself. It's the poor buggers that think they are within the law that will get hammered unsuspectingly.
Not the most "official" site, but still the one with the most information collected in one spot. Feel free to research any place you plan to visit on your own. I think you will find the website I cited extremely accurate.
Now, if you want to discuss authoritative sources and actually doing your research before you open your stupid yap, try [PDF Alert]this. Here, I'll make it easy for your limited abilities and highlight the parts that show you a fool:
SEC. 105. PENALTIES AGAINST SEX TOURISM.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 2423 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
(c) ENGAGING IN ILLICIT SEXUAL CONDUCT IN FOREIGN PLACES- Any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct with another person shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
(f) DEFINITION- As used in this section, the term `illicit sexual conduct' means (1) a sexual act (as defined in section 2246) with a person under 18 years of age that would be in violation of chapter 109A if the sexual act occurred in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States; or (2) any commercial sex act (as defined in section 1591) with a person under 18 years of age.
Now the interesting part of (f)(1) is that it can be interpreted in two ways. Either the sexual act has to occur in the jurisdiction of the United States and be in violation of 109A, or it can be read that the sexual act, wherever it occurred, is illicit, if that same sexual act would be in violation of 109A if it had occured in the U.S. jurisdiction.
Which way do we think the Department of State and Department of Justice interpret it? Let's see.
Here are the DoS and DoJ's interpretation of the above sections:
Washington -- On April 30, 2003, President Bush signed into law the Protect Act aimed at strengthening U.S. law enforcement's ability to prevent, investigate, prosecute and punish violent crimes committed against children. Many of the provisions of the Protect Act focus on protecting children within the United States, but the new law also reaches well beyond U.S. borders to help protect young people and combat child sex tourism. ...
Under the Protect Act, conviction would result in a mandatory 30-year imprisonment for each offense related to the sexual exploitation of children, double the previous penalty. In addition, U.S. investigators have enhanced authority and resources to identify and prosecute U.S residents who prey on minors anywhere. ...
The Changes
The Protect Act enhances law enforcement efforts to combat child sex tourism in several new ways, according to Perry Woo, ICE senior special agent at the Cybercrimes Center in Washington, D.C.
-- U.S. prosecutors no longer have to prove the accused traveled abroad with the intent of having sex with minors. Showing intent is no longer necessary. The accused is subject to the full force of U.S. law if they attempted to or engaged in sexual conduct with children under age 18 in foreign places.
-- Individuals legally residing in the United States as well as U.S. citizens can face federal charges under the Protect Act. This means international students, Green Card holders, trainees and other legitimate guests of the United States may be charged in U.S. federal courts for illicit sexual conduct with minors.
Now, admittedly, the specific examples they give in article linked above, are horrific and the men involved were in extreme violation of both U.S. law, and the laws of the countries they were visiting. H
In the U.S. it varies state to state, from as low as 15 (14 under very specific circumstances) to as high as 18.
The hilarious part? If you happen to live in a '16' state (say Oklahoma), fly to Britain (16) or Spain (14), or any other country with a lower age of consent than 18, and have consensual sex with someone at the legal low end in that country, then pass back into the U.S. and have a layover in an '18' state (Viginia), if the authorities are watching you or get wind of it, you can be held and sentenced in the '18' state for not only statutory rape and child molestation, but also a great law making 'sex' tourism illegal. Even if the sex you had was legal in both the jurisdiction it occurred in and where you reside.
BTW, I understand that if you live in Britain (16), and go have sex with a 14 y.o. in Spain, which is legal, don't ever plan on going back to Britain, or the same will happen with you there.
Either is more likely to produce the results you desire. My mother was a jr. high teacher and home schooled my youngest brother. Unfortunately, I cannot home school my son, or afford private, so I am having to supplement his education at home. The down side to this is that he is so far ahead of his classmates he gets bored.
At least I did manage to keep him out of day-care as he grew up. My ex was at least good for that. It is extremely unlikely that a day care will instill the values you would want in your child. Their interest is served when little billy is happy to be dropped off and is sad to leave when you pick him up. Given that..the states of day-care and home, where do you thing he will be more a spoiled brat?
I prefer a combination. Most games I will usually run through with no guide, just to see what I can figure out/accomplish on my own. However, I will usually get to a point where I am "stuck" then I'll look at a walk-through. Some games, like the GTA series, I did almost entirely using a walk-through, simply because I was enjoying the story unfolding, I enjoyed the gameplay enough to want to do it, but not enough to want to do it over and over, failure after failure. There were several challanges which unlocked content in GTA, especially in SA, that I was just never going to be able to accomplish. My tolerance for repetitive, incredibly picky, game engine BS is not very high (BMX Challenge). The good thing about GTA, was that none of the unlockable content was critical to the gameplay, in fact most of it was simply "cool" stuff that you could use, but that wasn't really useful for actually accomplishing the missions.
Other games, where you have to score incredibly well on a challenge to unlock a critical tool, or the next step, frustrate me to no end. I like a difficult challenge, to gain a sense of accomplishment, but if I spend over 10 times trying to finish a scenario, and find each time that my hand/eye/computer hardware combination is just way too slow to accomplish it (about 2/3 of the way into Icewind Dale) I get bored, uninstall the game, and move on with life.
Also, the easy/medium/hard settings in many games are rediculously far apart and limited.
They should be renamed sleep/doable-to-almost impossible/cheaters and supermen only. I think everyone enjoys a game that is hard enough to stretch them, but not so hard that they get bored from getting constantly killed. I would love to see game AI move from a model where it starts easy then gets harder and harder as it learns your abilities, until finally it is so hard you can't continue, to a model where the AI gets harder until you are struggling, but if you fail a mission or scenario a couple of times, it eases up. Keep the difficulty at an interesting level.
No. "Big Brother" just ensures that everyone is a documented lawbreaker, and that documentation can be used to harrass, blackmail, or remove anyone who offends the ruling power.
Actually, I would bet that since the PBS government subsidy has been cut so much, and since private pledge drives have been failing to meet goals for years, that this is a deal that local PBS stations are entering into to stay alive.
Personally I think it is a great idea. If they can grant access to companies for this type of scheme, and that allows them to keep their shows commercial free, I am all for it. I think this shows some great creative thinking and a surprising amount of flexibility on the part of the station managers to try to keep providing high quality shows, while still not going the "commercial" route.
Absolutely. Full agreement here. The only way to get any change is to get a meaningful third or even fourth party represented. Even then, it might only be different rascals that the corporations have to buy.
Everyone just needs to remember: if they don't like the way things are going, the only wasted vote is one for the Republicans or the Democrats.
Actually, since Bush and Clinton both had advance warning that terrorists were planning on hijacking planes and using them to fly into buildings from the spy programs they already had in place, if some patriot had leaked that information so the public knew about the threat, then maybe, just maybe, there would have been resistance against the hijackers on more than just one of those planes.
I think it would be reasonable to assume, that if the passengers on one plane tried a counter-takeover once they knew what was happening, then in all probability there would have been like minded passengers on the other three planes that would have done something. So once again, "national security" by Presidents of both parties caused the needless death of thousands of Americans, when a more honest an open discussion of the threats and intelligence might have saved most, if not all of them.
Then again, show me a $12 CD where all the tracks are worthwhile, from a RIAA affiliated label.
I pay that much for CD from a lot of local independant bands at their concerts, but part of the big label business model is to only allow a few good tracks on a long album. If the band records 12 outstanding tracks, the label will require them to spread those out over several different albums to maximize profit.
To get back on topic, it is the same principle here. The low bandwidth, non-interesting traffic on the net the "non" common carriers don't care about. But all of the traffic that people really like, they want a cut from as many places as they can get it. The problem is all of these top tier service providers want to retain their non-common carrier status to avoid the restrictions that are specifically enacted in law to keep them from pulling BS like this. Common carriers are restricted from charging both ends of a communication.
Well, since Moussaoui pled guilty in the initial phase, we unfortunately did not get to see the government's full case. I was very interested in seeing what they were going to produce along those lines, but the idiot kept claiming more and more knowledge and influence as the trial went on, he made the prosecutor's case for him. Even though everything he claimed, he could easily have picked up after the actual events.
My original point is that the violation of rights is no longer considered a violation by the mainstream, or the media. That is the tragedy. If a large vocal outcry over these violations were to occur, there might be an end, or reduction, to them, however, all the masses ever hear is more and more about how this is a good thing for their safety.
Violation of rights has to have a context. I can claim that drunk driving laws are a violation of my right to drink and drive, but the laws say I have no such right. We are rapidly approaching the day that a claim that prosecution for spending time with known criminals is a violation of the freedom of association will not be valid either. We have already passed the time when you could claim a right to fly. Try having your name on the do-not-fly list and try getting it back off that list, or even finding why your name was put onto it.
HAHAHAhahahahAHAHAHAHAHA*Gasp for air*HAHAHAhahahahahhaha
You're new to this world aren't you?
Or would you like to explain why Zacarias Moussaoui will be spending his life in prison, if not for "guilt by association"? These days it called "conspiring" and you can and will be persecuted (s.i.c.) for it, at will, any time you 1) make the wrong person mad at you, 2) get in the way, 3) happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, 4) happen to fit a profile when a scapegoat is needed, 5) happen to fit a profile when a media distraction is needed.
Don't get me wrong, Moussaoui is a complete asshat and, if stupidity were a crime, should have gotten the death penalty. But let's not kid ourselves that he actually had anything more to do with 9/11 than being "associated" with those who we know carried out the attacks. Throughout BOTH of his trials, the prosecution never even accused him of commiting ANY crime, other than "conspiracy." In fact, the entirety of both cases consisted of the government saying that Moussaoui knew about the 9/11 plans, and that if he had told the FBI, the attack could have been stopped. Even though it was proven that the FBI already had ALL of the information Moussaoui might have been able to provide, prior to the attacks. Somehow the were able to convince a jury that just one more middle-eastern confirming it would have caused them to connect all the links and swing into action to stop the planes from taking off.
We don't need a new battery technology. Just build batteries so that they are standardized in some form of rack or enclosure that can be swapped out. You pull into the "gas" station an automated device pulls the battery rack out of your car, gives you credit for any remaining charge, loads in a new rack of already charged batteries, and charges you for the difference in energy between the two packs. If properly designed, the enitire transaction could happen much faster than filling a 24, or even 10, gallon gas tank.
The issues come in where someone figures out a scam of pulling in with "bad" battery packs from the junkyard, and pulling out with brand new, fully charged packs.
OK. Are you just a troll, or do you actually read the posts you reply to. Nothing in my post indicates that the stocks I own are performing poorly. I do quite well thank you. Just because the only game is town is corrupt, doesn't mean I'm not going to play, or profit from it.
My entire point is that corruption and inequality (that's not equal pay, it is comparable pay for comparable effort) is endemic in our system and getting worse. I try to do a fair job in keeping my money in corporations that both perform well and that seem to follow my own ethics. This is getting more and more difficult, not because ethical companies perform poorly, it is just so hard to find them any more. Our system does not reward an ethical company over an unethical one in any meaningful way. It is easy to say, "If investors would use thier conscience they could make a difference," but in point of fact, the individual investors in the system have so little influence compared to the large investment houses, pension funds, and incestuous Boards of Directors and corporate management teams that there is almost no impact that can be made by an individual.
As a stock holder in a dozen or so corporations, I can definitively say that all of the CEO's of said companies have been paid ludicrous amounts that are in no way based on the actual performance of my stock and investment in said companies. I also know that my 0.00000003% share of the company makes my voice non-exitent in the debate. The fact that 90+% of most companies shares are purchased by 1) Board of Director members, or 2) Invesment Fund Managers (who may also be members of BoD, or related to members or CEOs) means that many, many, many of the upper management compensation decisions are entirely based on elements that have no correlation to the quality of the job the people have done, but much more on the amount of corruption, inside information, and payola being passed around. I actually attended a couple annual shareholders meetings, thinking that I would then get some of the information that I heard financial analysts talking about, or that obviously some of the big investors had access to. Also thinking that I might have some influence on what I thought my company should be doing. HA!
Sports, Hollywood, or other stars are selling their popularity, and presumably the advertisers and producers are getting a good return for their investment. I personnally do not think that my shares in Coca Cola are that enhanced by massive spending on sports endorsements. But at least the company appears to be trying to show some sort of fiscal responsibility towards the average shareholder.
And you are right, if you own no stock, have no investment protfolio, no retirement fund, don't work for a public company, and have no pension to worry about, it is none of your business. First, I would weep for your future, except that my taxes will pay for your welfare. Second, as someone who participates in all of the above I have a great interest in how my assests are being used, as well as interest in what other companies are presenting as "standard" business practices.
As far as relative value, when the CEO salary vs average worker ratio was 85 to 1 in 1990, I thought that was excessive. Now with the average at 431 to 1, it is so far beyond relative worth that the corruption is glaring.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, sonoluminescence was discovered in 1934. I believe the most recent batch of research may have been inspired by the observation that snapping shrimp seem to be able to acheive it, and trying to understand what process could release a photon via such a relatively low power system. It seems that if it's not some form of fusion, then an entirely new set of physics, or at least chemistry, needs to be invented.
You just got me all hot.
Well, there's lots of oil in other places also, so why does the middle east still control the world energy market? Easy, for the same reasons they will control the solar market.
1) Cheap labor
2) All their open land doesn't have any NIMBY neighbors to complain
3) No environmental restrictions/regulations
4) The open land cannot be used for anything else, especially crops.
The big downside they face is how do you transfer all the energy collected to the markets that need it? The great thing about oil is that it is extremely portable. Direct electrical transmission over power lines is hugely ineffecient and unreliable over even multi-state regions, let alone continent-wide or global distances. If only there was some ubiquitous power storage and transport system with high efficiencies to help the big middle east oil barons keep making money... hmm.. what's that.. GWB (Halliburton) is now supporting moving to a hydrogen based economy? Remember kids, hydrogen isn't an energy source, just an energy storage medium.
Is anyone still naive enough to think that all of this hasn't been thought about, researched, and planned for years? The global cartels know to the year, possibly to the month, when oil will be too expensive in recovery to maintain a strong global economy, i.e. current levels of comfort for the ultra rich. Spending large amounts of money on researching alternatives too soon just wastes current year investment income, and results of such research would interfere with pulling every last cent of profit from the current system. As soon as the money/lifestyle/economy equation balances you will see vast changes in the energy landscape, almost overnight. And the same people making huge profits now will still be making huge profits then.
Proper question would have been:
Should the human race survive the next one hundred years?
Answer must include supporting reasons.
Damn straight! For godsake grow up and get on
Who needs an online community of like minded people with persistent presence, the ability to track friends and enemies, and keep a running log of your musings and conversations. Foolishness I tell you!
You sir, seem to be under the mistaken assumption that this, or any other, "War on Terror" program is actually aimed at terrorists. As you point out, any real terrorists/hackers/bad guys can find a multitude of ways around all of these systems. In fact, if you are actually doing anything deliberately illegal, you must assume that you are being evesdropped on at all times, and so make all of your contacts as innocuous as possible. That's basic subversion 101.
All of these "programs" are to make sure that those in power have something on everybody. That way when you actually do something that interferes with their agenda or makes someone with power mad at you, they can nail you on several unrelated charges and keep their actual agenda somewhat obscured.
As to your point, this very post could, at some point, come back to haunt me. But everytime I state these very obvious facts in a public forum, it would be terribly inconvenient for me to have to "format my shit" to avoid prosecution. The problem with the GP's idea of rotating encryption, is that only works where both ends of the conversation are trusted entities. If I were in Canada, and searching the web for information on something of dubious legality, like growing strains of South American botanicals north of the 48th parallel (hey, I like orchids), this would raise a flag somewhere in a database with my name on it. If later I searched for and made posts in support of opposition candidates and positions (whoever the "opposition" of the day was), that would also go into the file. If I was later surfing "fine art" sites and a link farm popped a window with underage models up, bang. You guessed it, a note into the file. When I did something annoying enough to the monitors, they would select the most convictable of possible offenses, get a warrant for a "secret search" and "discover" illegal content on my PC. Evidence clearly substantiated by the logs provided by my ISP.
See how easy it is. If I were actually doing anything deliberately illegal, I would go to great lengths to protect myself. It's the poor buggers that think they are within the law that will get hammered unsuspectingly.
Not the most "official" site, but still the one with the most information collected in one spot. Feel free to research any place you plan to visit on your own. I think you will find the website I cited extremely accurate.
Now, if you want to discuss authoritative sources and actually doing your research before you open your stupid yap, try [PDF Alert]this. Here, I'll make it easy for your limited abilities and highlight the parts that show you a fool:
Now the interesting part of (f)(1) is that it can be interpreted in two ways. Either the sexual act has to occur in the jurisdiction of the United States and be in violation of 109A, or it can be read that the sexual act, wherever it occurred, is illicit, if that same sexual act would be in violation of 109A if it had occured in the U.S. jurisdiction.
Which way do we think the Department of State and Department of Justice interpret it? Let's see.
Here are the DoS and DoJ's interpretation of the above sections:
Now, admittedly, the specific examples they give in article linked above, are horrific and the men involved were in extreme violation of both U.S. law, and the laws of the countries they were visiting. H
In the U.S. it varies state to state, from as low as 15 (14 under very specific circumstances) to as high as 18.
The hilarious part? If you happen to live in a '16' state (say Oklahoma), fly to Britain (16) or Spain (14), or any other country with a lower age of consent than 18, and have consensual sex with someone at the legal low end in that country, then pass back into the U.S. and have a layover in an '18' state (Viginia), if the authorities are watching you or get wind of it, you can be held and sentenced in the '18' state for not only statutory rape and child molestation, but also a great law making 'sex' tourism illegal. Even if the sex you had was legal in both the jurisdiction it occurred in and where you reside.
BTW, I understand that if you live in Britain (16), and go have sex with a 14 y.o. in Spain, which is legal, don't ever plan on going back to Britain, or the same will happen with you there.
Either is more likely to produce the results you desire. My mother was a jr. high teacher and home schooled my youngest brother. Unfortunately, I cannot home school my son, or afford private, so I am having to supplement his education at home. The down side to this is that he is so far ahead of his classmates he gets bored.
At least I did manage to keep him out of day-care as he grew up. My ex was at least good for that. It is extremely unlikely that a day care will instill the values you would want in your child. Their interest is served when little billy is happy to be dropped off and is sad to leave when you pick him up. Given that..the states of day-care and home, where do you thing he will be more a spoiled brat?
In any country where the majority of the populace is 'educated' in a government controlled school system, the following must be remembered...
"It is not in the best interest of the shepherd to breed smarter sheep." ~~ Author unknown
Oh for mod points to give you an 'insightful'...
I prefer a combination. Most games I will usually run through with no guide, just to see what I can figure out/accomplish on my own. However, I will usually get to a point where I am "stuck" then I'll look at a walk-through. Some games, like the GTA series, I did almost entirely using a walk-through, simply because I was enjoying the story unfolding, I enjoyed the gameplay enough to want to do it, but not enough to want to do it over and over, failure after failure. There were several challanges which unlocked content in GTA, especially in SA, that I was just never going to be able to accomplish. My tolerance for repetitive, incredibly picky, game engine BS is not very high (BMX Challenge). The good thing about GTA, was that none of the unlockable content was critical to the gameplay, in fact most of it was simply "cool" stuff that you could use, but that wasn't really useful for actually accomplishing the missions.
Other games, where you have to score incredibly well on a challenge to unlock a critical tool, or the next step, frustrate me to no end. I like a difficult challenge, to gain a sense of accomplishment, but if I spend over 10 times trying to finish a scenario, and find each time that my hand/eye/computer hardware combination is just way too slow to accomplish it (about 2/3 of the way into Icewind Dale) I get bored, uninstall the game, and move on with life.
Also, the easy/medium/hard settings in many games are rediculously far apart and limited. They should be renamed sleep/doable-to-almost impossible/cheaters and supermen only. I think everyone enjoys a game that is hard enough to stretch them, but not so hard that they get bored from getting constantly killed. I would love to see game AI move from a model where it starts easy then gets harder and harder as it learns your abilities, until finally it is so hard you can't continue, to a model where the AI gets harder until you are struggling, but if you fail a mission or scenario a couple of times, it eases up. Keep the difficulty at an interesting level.
No. "Big Brother" just ensures that everyone is a documented lawbreaker, and that documentation can be used to harrass, blackmail, or remove anyone who offends the ruling power.
Actually, I would bet that since the PBS government subsidy has been cut so much, and since private pledge drives have been failing to meet goals for years, that this is a deal that local PBS stations are entering into to stay alive.
Personally I think it is a great idea. If they can grant access to companies for this type of scheme, and that allows them to keep their shows commercial free, I am all for it. I think this shows some great creative thinking and a surprising amount of flexibility on the part of the station managers to try to keep providing high quality shows, while still not going the "commercial" route.
Absolutely. Full agreement here. The only way to get any change is to get a meaningful third or even fourth party represented. Even then, it might only be different rascals that the corporations have to buy.
Everyone just needs to remember: if they don't like the way things are going, the only wasted vote is one for the Republicans or the Democrats.
Ummmm....you haven't been paying attention, have you?
heck
2+2=4 is only valid for sufficiently low values of 2.
Actually, since Bush and Clinton both had advance warning that terrorists were planning on hijacking planes and using them to fly into buildings from the spy programs they already had in place, if some patriot had leaked that information so the public knew about the threat, then maybe, just maybe, there would have been resistance against the hijackers on more than just one of those planes.
I think it would be reasonable to assume, that if the passengers on one plane tried a counter-takeover once they knew what was happening, then in all probability there would have been like minded passengers on the other three planes that would have done something. So once again, "national security" by Presidents of both parties caused the needless death of thousands of Americans, when a more honest an open discussion of the threats and intelligence might have saved most, if not all of them.
Then again, show me a $12 CD where all the tracks are worthwhile, from a RIAA affiliated label.
I pay that much for CD from a lot of local independant bands at their concerts, but part of the big label business model is to only allow a few good tracks on a long album. If the band records 12 outstanding tracks, the label will require them to spread those out over several different albums to maximize profit.
To get back on topic, it is the same principle here. The low bandwidth, non-interesting traffic on the net the "non" common carriers don't care about. But all of the traffic that people really like, they want a cut from as many places as they can get it. The problem is all of these top tier service providers want to retain their non-common carrier status to avoid the restrictions that are specifically enacted in law to keep them from pulling BS like this. Common carriers are restricted from charging both ends of a communication.
Well, since Moussaoui pled guilty in the initial phase, we unfortunately did not get to see the government's full case. I was very interested in seeing what they were going to produce along those lines, but the idiot kept claiming more and more knowledge and influence as the trial went on, he made the prosecutor's case for him. Even though everything he claimed, he could easily have picked up after the actual events.
My original point is that the violation of rights is no longer considered a violation by the mainstream, or the media. That is the tragedy. If a large vocal outcry over these violations were to occur, there might be an end, or reduction, to them, however, all the masses ever hear is more and more about how this is a good thing for their safety.
Violation of rights has to have a context. I can claim that drunk driving laws are a violation of my right to drink and drive, but the laws say I have no such right. We are rapidly approaching the day that a claim that prosecution for spending time with known criminals is a violation of the freedom of association will not be valid either. We have already passed the time when you could claim a right to fly. Try having your name on the do-not-fly list and try getting it back off that list, or even finding why your name was put onto it.
HAHAHAhahahahAHAHAHAHAHA*Gasp for air*HAHAHAhahahahahhaha
You're new to this world aren't you?
Or would you like to explain why Zacarias Moussaoui will be spending his life in prison, if not for "guilt by association"? These days it called "conspiring" and you can and will be persecuted (s.i.c.) for it, at will, any time you 1) make the wrong person mad at you, 2) get in the way, 3) happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, 4) happen to fit a profile when a scapegoat is needed, 5) happen to fit a profile when a media distraction is needed.
Don't get me wrong, Moussaoui is a complete asshat and, if stupidity were a crime, should have gotten the death penalty. But let's not kid ourselves that he actually had anything more to do with 9/11 than being "associated" with those who we know carried out the attacks. Throughout BOTH of his trials, the prosecution never even accused him of commiting ANY crime, other than "conspiracy." In fact, the entirety of both cases consisted of the government saying that Moussaoui knew about the 9/11 plans, and that if he had told the FBI, the attack could have been stopped. Even though it was proven that the FBI already had ALL of the information Moussaoui might have been able to provide, prior to the attacks. Somehow the were able to convince a jury that just one more middle-eastern confirming it would have caused them to connect all the links and swing into action to stop the planes from taking off.
We don't need a new battery technology. Just build batteries so that they are standardized in some form of rack or enclosure that can be swapped out. You pull into the "gas" station an automated device pulls the battery rack out of your car, gives you credit for any remaining charge, loads in a new rack of already charged batteries, and charges you for the difference in energy between the two packs. If properly designed, the enitire transaction could happen much faster than filling a 24, or even 10, gallon gas tank.
The issues come in where someone figures out a scam of pulling in with "bad" battery packs from the junkyard, and pulling out with brand new, fully charged packs.
OK. Are you just a troll, or do you actually read the posts you reply to. Nothing in my post indicates that the stocks I own are performing poorly. I do quite well thank you. Just because the only game is town is corrupt, doesn't mean I'm not going to play, or profit from it.
My entire point is that corruption and inequality (that's not equal pay, it is comparable pay for comparable effort) is endemic in our system and getting worse. I try to do a fair job in keeping my money in corporations that both perform well and that seem to follow my own ethics. This is getting more and more difficult, not because ethical companies perform poorly, it is just so hard to find them any more. Our system does not reward an ethical company over an unethical one in any meaningful way. It is easy to say, "If investors would use thier conscience they could make a difference," but in point of fact, the individual investors in the system have so little influence compared to the large investment houses, pension funds, and incestuous Boards of Directors and corporate management teams that there is almost no impact that can be made by an individual.
As a stock holder in a dozen or so corporations, I can definitively say that all of the CEO's of said companies have been paid ludicrous amounts that are in no way based on the actual performance of my stock and investment in said companies. I also know that my 0.00000003% share of the company makes my voice non-exitent in the debate. The fact that 90+% of most companies shares are purchased by 1) Board of Director members, or 2) Invesment Fund Managers (who may also be members of BoD, or related to members or CEOs) means that many, many, many of the upper management compensation decisions are entirely based on elements that have no correlation to the quality of the job the people have done, but much more on the amount of corruption, inside information, and payola being passed around. I actually attended a couple annual shareholders meetings, thinking that I would then get some of the information that I heard financial analysts talking about, or that obviously some of the big investors had access to. Also thinking that I might have some influence on what I thought my company should be doing. HA!
Sports, Hollywood, or other stars are selling their popularity, and presumably the advertisers and producers are getting a good return for their investment. I personnally do not think that my shares in Coca Cola are that enhanced by massive spending on sports endorsements. But at least the company appears to be trying to show some sort of fiscal responsibility towards the average shareholder.
And you are right, if you own no stock, have no investment protfolio, no retirement fund, don't work for a public company, and have no pension to worry about, it is none of your business. First, I would weep for your future, except that my taxes will pay for your welfare. Second, as someone who participates in all of the above I have a great interest in how my assests are being used, as well as interest in what other companies are presenting as "standard" business practices.
As far as relative value, when the CEO salary vs average worker ratio was 85 to 1 in 1990, I thought that was excessive. Now with the average at 431 to 1, it is so far beyond relative worth that the corruption is glaring.
I understand your point. I can even logically follow along and agree with your arguement.
But somehow, the CEO still ends up with the new yacht, and the pensions go unfunded...