First off, your source is not appropriate for a serious argument. It's an op/ed by a columnist with accusations of plagiarism to his name, not a news article.
Ah yes, the "personally attack the messenger" tactic. Tell me though, which of the facts stated in the article are wrong, and where are the objective cites? Right.
The loans that caused the vast majority of the current mess were issued by mortgage brokers (firms like Countrywide Financial, Ameriquest Mortgage, and Ditech), not banks.
No, many of those loans from banks were sold to those firms as the banks knew they were toxic and it was an out given to them by the CRA and CRA-related legislation and regulations. Banks would quickly sell these mortgages on the secondary market to mortgage lenders like Countrywide, as well as these mortgage lenders' own risky home loans.
The idea that the CRA caused this mess has been debunked repeatedly by every study done on the subject. If you want some real sources on this, I'd suggest studies put out by a university, the Federal Reserve, or the US Treasury Department.
You're going to cite liberal and left-leaning sources that have a clear bias towards the Democrat/liberal agenda like the Center For Community Capital, and the Federal Reserve & U.S. Treasury Dept. which have strong political reasons to cover their butts for their roles, not to mention to not garner the wrath of Democrats? Fail.
The rest of your rant is hand-waving and typical playing of the race card as was done by Democrats in Congress to force the housing market into this crisis in the first place.
Your debunking has been debunked. Every time government sticks its' fingers into financial matters to try to equalize outcomes it ends up in disaster. Like it or not, poor people cannot afford to own a home. Many minorities are poor, so many minorities cannot afford a home. Rather than try to grow the economy by lowering taxes and regulations so more people, including minorities, prosper, the government attempted to ignore the reality that poor people, of which minorities are a large percentage, simply cannot afford to purchase a home.
Now that the financial chickens are coming home to roost, those politicians and their ideological supporters are scrambling to assign blame to anyone or anything but themselves and their unrealistic liberal/socialist policies that they fought to promote and enforce through the power of government.
Why is it that rather than allowing people the freedom so that everyone has the opportunity to raise themselves up (and yes, being a freedom rather than a decree, some may not choose wisely and fail..oh noes!) those on the left would rather lower everyone to an equal level of misery? Why are liberals so cruel?
The government didn't force anyone to make bad loans. If you are a loan officer and you made a bad loan, it isn't because the government held a gun to your back.
"The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit."
But let's not let those pesky facts get in the way of some good old class warfare, eh?
And neither would the production of music by the artists be worth the effort.
Excuse me, but your assuming that most artists have ever received a monetary return that would financially make creating & performing music "worth it". Here's a clue from a musician of 30-plus years; most musicians, even very talented and creative musicians, don't make anywhere near what it costs them to create and perform their music in just about any measure you'd care to use.
We real musicians don't play and write for money...we do it because the music is inside us and burning a hole in our souls to get out. Between instrument and equipment costs, travel costs, etc etc, we rarely ever break even and even more rarely do we ever actually get ahead financially. This is why the majority of musicians have day jobs. Even many artists signed to a label seldom come out ahead because of "Hollywood accounting".
Read this piece by Steve Albini on what a typical artist/band goes through even in the rare case they're even offered the chance to sign with a major label.
Even knowing all that, how the odds are totally stacked against a band or artist ever making a living from music, we still work, strive, and sacrifice to write and perform our music.
This is why the idea that you espouse is, no offense, totally wrong.
No, it wasn't, although I can see how it could come across that way. I was being friendly, actually.
Then you really, REALLY need to work on your people-skills.
I had just shared with you some of my best knowledge and wisdom, because I wanted you to see the world more clearly.
That's all fine and good, but there is more than one valid way to look at the world, and just because someone has a different opinion from yours doesn't mean they don't see the world just as clearly as you. It just means their experiences & knowledge lead them to different conclusions. Factual arguments and earnestly expressed & reasoned opinions will do far, far more to convince than condescension.
Take copyright for example. Are you willing to go out and campaign in favor of more reasonable copyright? Are you willing to run for office and talk to your colleges about it? Are you even willing to donate a few dollars to the EFF to help them get the point across?
I have campaigned for copyright reform. I contact my representatives regularly. I have and do donate to the EFF. I'm not in a position to be able to run for office and not likely to win an election if I did, because I'm not willing to compromise my principles & beliefs the necessary amount to succeed. I regularly talk to my colleagues about copyright and how it damages society in its' current form.
Maybe you have tried some of these, but most people are not willing to do more than complain. On the other hand, some people, like authors, movie studios, recording studios, musicians, actually do care a lot about copyright.
I *am* a musician & songwriter. I'm also intelligent enough to realize that recordings are merely a publicity tool in this age of the internet and digital copies, as well as realizing that copyright in its' current form actually hurts me as a musician and songwriter. I regularly encourage my fellow musicians & songwriters to be active and voice their displeasure to their elected officials and contribute to organizations like the EFF.
It was the authors who got copyright established in the first place.
This is incorrect. Copyright was established by the writers of the US Constitution under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution.
To wit; "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
It is likely that most politicians have not actually heard about things like creative commons or the GPL, they don't know the power of building off an established work, and since no one is around to tell them, they believe what the studios and musicians tell them.
Here I mostly agree, although I'm of the opinion after talking with many politicians on the subject that they really don't have any interest in learning about these topics even when informed of their existence & importance and usually dismiss them unless and until they grow in importance in relation to their personal reelection chances and garnering of campaign contributions and support from the big players.
The musicians themselves have little voice, as most "name" musicians have their interests tied with the studios and labels and are quite reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. Other less well-known and unsigned musicians have little voice as they have little money to make themselves heard compared to the recording industry & other pro-copyright extension and expansion interests.
There are some issues that really do get normal people out into the world, issues like abortion or gay marriage. People stood out on the streets in favor/against gay marriage, and they are even willing to kill over abortion. That is some serious commitment, and that is why people politicians pay attention to those issues.
These are some of the "wedge issues" I referred to in my previous post. As long as the politicians can keep the electorate inflam
In cases where the public cares, the politicians must follow. In cases where the public doesn't care, the politicians are free to do what they want.
This is precisely what wedge issues and manufactured "crises" are about. The politicians distract & deceive from their true agendas & legislative actions to keep the people so dizzy that things like passing the Sony Bono Copyright Act aren't in the minds of voters when election time comes. Just like the current financial/housing/employment "crises". This is simply a re-asdjustment of a system thrown out of whack by the government interfering too much in forcing banks to make bad mortgage loans and not enough in oversight on Wall St.
Left alone, things would sort themselves out within a year. These kinds of cycles have happened repeatedly in my 50-plus years. Now however it's being used as an excuse to rob future generations and enact major moves towards a cradle-to-grave nanny state. They scare and panic the public with talk of doom & crisis and rush through a bill that not even the lawmakers themselves had time to read, let alone the public, that would never survive open debate & scrutiny.
They can get away with all these things because both political parties play the exact same games. They cover for each other, just as Obama & the Democrats refuse to investigate the former administrations' actions and Bush refused to investigate the Clinton administrations' actions. It's classic "Kronos & Kodos".
It's all a rigged game and the people are only allowed to vote on that which they already know which direction the outcome will swing or that which has little actual meaning to those in powers' ability to grow their wealth. power, & influence.
Hope you learned something.
That was smarmy, arrogant, and uncalled for. Bugger off.
Even if every single Microsoft patent holds, that basically means the core of their business expires within a decade, and a lot of it has expired already.
Yeah, but I'd watch for the Democrat-majority congress and along with the new Democrat administration to Bono-ize patent terms just as was done for copyright terms. If they'll do it for Disney, why not for the US' largest OS vendor Microsoft?
It is clear that in the next 20 years or so we will be getting some new copyright laws, as we transition from a society where the publisher is king to a society where we want to compensate people for what they've done.
I'm sorry, but short of some kind of massive socio-political revolution I don't see anything like that coming to pass. The *people* may see the logic and desire these changes, but as it's been apparent for decades, government cares little what the people want and shows no signs of changing direction.
Those in government only make empty promises and platitudes in order to be re-elected. They're real constituents aren't individual citizens, they are the special interests, PACs, and monied campaign contributors and organizers like George Soros.
Unless these interests see some benefit to themselves and their agendas it will only get worse.
Dear JPL. While we are thrilled about your discovery, Mars isn't going anywhere. We are trying to save the economy and lesten the impact of this economic down turn so that we can spend even more money on you guys in the future. Spending 10 billion on machinists creates more jobs than spending 10 billion on rocket scientists. Hope you understand.
Funding Agency.
Dear _Funding Agency_,
We here at JPL understand your position. Since you feel that the space program has no benefits worth funding, we'll be sending over a large fleet of trucks to collect all your computers and other technology made possible by research connected with said space program.
We understand your need to keep operating however, and in the spirit of mutual understanding you've shown us, we will be sending you Univac for your future computational needs. Please have a very large building with a large electrical power system and a team of vacuum-tube replacement technicians ready.
Why? Why not send the first astronauts on 1-way trips? Of course it would be a suicide mission, but i'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers.
If we could somehow convince the terrorists now in Gitmo there are Westerners there to blow up, we could solve the one-way trip-volunteer problem AND the what-to-do-with-the-detainees-when-Gitmo-closes problem in one fell swoop.
Why should a government not be forced to lay people off when the economy is? (sic)
Assuming the missing word in your question is "bad", the answer is that laying off people worsens the already worsening economy. Even conservatives should admit that one of the basic roles of government is to govern (thus the name). A governor, in mechanical terms, regulates an engine from going too fast or too slow. If it slows an already too slow engine, it is not doing its job. Laying workers off is the exact opposite if what government should do during a downturn. Laying them off in a booming economy is best, for they then have the best chances of finding other jobs and continuing to be functioning members of society.
The US governments' job is not to govern the economy or the job market other than to set rules of fair play among the various participants.
When the government gets involved any further in these things politicians *will* seize on it as an opportunity for self-enrichment and means to gather power and influence for themselves and their political party and ideology at the cost of the people, our freedoms, and society as a whole.
That's largely, if not entirely, why the US is in trouble now.
Stop whining on about 'teh founders' This isn't star trek Deep Space Nine and the world is not the USA. Not everyone says 'gee' for example. I do not give a flying fuck what a few people hundreds of years ago wrote down. I asked what you thought. Try thinking for yourself.
BTW if I buy a house its my property for ETERNITY.
We as a society are being robbed of our land!*
*actually your 'founders' were pretty good at doing that, as I recall. Not everything they did was nice, justified, fair or reasonable was it?
As far as you owning your house for eternity, no. Not if you live in the US.
Due to a recent Supreme Court ruling, if the government decides they can make more tax revenue by taking away your house and giving it to someone else they can.
As to the rest of your "post"...well...I guess I can answer on your level so you understand:
[cliffskimode]Naa naa nana naaa! I know you are but what am I? THBBBT!:P[/cliffskimode]
Now, go upstairs and see if your mommy needs help in the kitchen and let the grownups talk.
(Hmm...I wonder if "[cliffskimode]" could be the next/. meme?:D )
Or do you genuinely believe that copyright is teh evil and we would be better off if nobody who produces content ever got paid?
Copyright wasn't created to make sure anybody who produces content gets paid.
Maybe you should read that line above again.
When the US was founded there was no copyright. Many people wrote things. Sometimes the things they wrote were copied & published by someone else who wrongly claimed authorship.
So, many people who would write things didn't, or didn't publish/tell anyone.
The founders thought "Gee, how can we encourage people who might create works to make them public so everyone benefits? Aha! We'll allow them through the power of government to very temporarily hold a monopoly on creation of copies & distribution of copies of the work that doesn't and wouldn't naturally or normally exist so that they'll be encouraged to publish so that society benefits, after which the works will revert back to their normal state known as "public domain"!"
The purpose of copyright isn't to provide a payday. It's to make sure works are made public so that society benefits. The deal is, the writer gets a short window of time in which he may use the temporary monopoly on creation of copies & distribution of copies IN EXCHANGE for the works entering public domain to benefit everyone in society at the end of the term of copyright.
This has been twisted and perverted (as has so many things in the Constitution). Now copyrights last over a generation, meaning we'll never see most copyrighted works created in our lifetime enter public domain, and likely not even our children will see most of those same works enter public domain either.
The half of the deal where society benefits has in a practical sense been eliminated. The public and society as a whole has been robbed. The Constitution has moved a little closer to becoming totally meaningless.
Works published in the US after 2002:
70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
This is a system for assisting in coordinating deployment of riot troops and other resources to control the population in an urban setting when things collapse. The government knows the path we are currently traveling will lead to societies' collapse and the revolt of the population against the government.
Heck, the FBI is already training first-responders now in dealing with IEDs, although they say "terrorist-planted IEDs" to cover their butts. If a road is well-traveled by law-abiding citizens (and a well-traveled road is the type that would be the best target), terrorists would find it extremely hard to plant roadside bombs without getting reported. So who do you think the government thinks will be planting IEDs?
I suggest you read the various smarmy bullshit TPB frontmen have issued over the years before accusing the prosecutors of being immature. The attitude of "theres nothing the court can do even if they win" and "we dont have any money so its tough" just reeks of petulant children refusing to tidy their room. And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore. Remind me how well that attitdue goes down with judges?
There's a huge difference here.
A private parties' opinions voiced outside a courtroom when there are no court proceedings occurring concerning another parties' actions has exactly squat to do with statements of parties *inside* the courtroom *during* court proceedings. You might as well bring up that they may have also acted childish having teased a classmate on the playground in primary school for all the relevance it has to what's happening *now* in a *courtroom* during a court proceeding.
It was perfectly reasonable to make a joke over the clueless legal threats TPB received from entities outside their country, many if not most based on laws that don't even exist in Sweden like the DMCA, when a reasonable interpretation by normal people in Sweden of the Swedish laws would make those legal threats seem like a bad joke at best.
If you had a webpage with pictures of your family on it and received a threatening letter from some Mullah in the middle-east threatening you with legal action for your moms' face not being covered by a veil, would you consider it ridiculous?
How about if you were a restaurant owner in a country that permitted smoking in public and inside restaurants and you kept receiving legal threats from NYC?
When it was repeated hundreds and hundreds of times, would you be "childish" for posting those silly threats with some snarky replies since they seemed to pay no attention to the ridiculous nature of their legal threats?
Personally, I find what little restraint they *did* show remarkable considering the circumstances.
The assertion that Europe has the welfare state only because America is covering their defense..
I never stated that it was the only reason, but it does contribute hugely along with confiscatory levels of taxes and other forms of wealth transference from the people to the government.
Finland, for example, has never elected to join in a defense pact with the US. Nonetheless, it has built on its own one of the strongest armies in Europe (defense analysts suggest it could hold off another offense by the Russian army) and a fine welfare state matching in most respects its Nordic neighbors.
Finland bloodied Soviet Russia's nose in failed invasion attempts previously in 1939 and 1941, and enjoys a natural geographic/terrain advantage over an invasion from the direction of Russia. These previous failed invasions by Russia were extremely costly in every way to Finland and have caused Finland to develop a strong cadre-type military with mandatory full-concription and an extremely-strong sense of independence.
The Fins can fight, and will do so under extreme conditions against massive forces that far outnumber and outgun them, and win! I greatly admire the Finnish people. They are a hardy and pragmatic sort that while having suffered great hardships and losses as a nation, plus living where climate conditions can be harsh & unforgiving, are nonetheless open, generous, and friendly. They're also great people to have at your back as allies if trouble starts.
Finland prides itself on its' citizens' ability and readiness if threatened. Finland being so small in population and area relatively speaking, coupled with full-conscription allows it to use military spending very efficiently compared to other countries. This allows them to have the necessary wealth to spare on social programs that is out of proportion with other countries' size & wealth.
46% of world wide investments in military is required to keep the Russians of the EUs lawn? I don think so not including the money invested by the EU itself. Furthermore German forces have the largest number of tanks in Western Europe and the east side (the evil Russians) have lost most of its conventional potential in the past years. Also countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Baltic states do now belong to the Western military pact. So it would be foolish to attack the West. Also for what reason shall they do so? Attacking their biggest gas and oil customer doest not look like a good idea. And they are not propagating their twisted implementation of communism. They have discontinued the use of that system. Here is an interesting link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures] It shows that the EU is spending 6 times more money on military than the Russian. And believe me, I live in Europe and I am not frightened by Russian or some terrorists for that matter. However, I agree that a space program is normally contributing to technological development and progress. And it allows the human spirit to thrive. And my argument was not stop the space program, but to stop the stupid military funding. Invest your money in the future not in the protection of access to limited resources, which will be gone anyway. This would also be beneficial for the US. I really think that 700 Billion US$ is really too much. Hey the next player (EU) uses 300 Billion US$ and these two are allies.
First, the list doesn't account for purchasing power parity, which they admit to in the text. The Wiki article also states for example that China's estimate would almost double if adjusted for purchasing power parity. Also as I stated previously, the US by its' military strength and the investment in defense worldwide allows the EU and our other allies to devote far less to defense than they would have to otherwise.
The other thing is that it doesn't account for how the US military expenditure breaks down. A very large part of the expenditure is for bases around the world whose major use is for providing humanitarian emergency relief along with the costs of personnel and equipment, etc for that mission. US military funding also goes towards things like research, DARPA being one example. Core military expenditures for weapons and troops are only a part of the military budget in the US.
Russia may be lagging militarily in conventional forces like tanks etc at the moment, but they are already revitalizing their military capabilities. Witness the recent resuming of Bear bomber flights testing Western defenses. Again, the failure of the list to account for purchasing power parity means that those differences between the EU and Russian numbers may be deceptive. Also as with the US military spending, it's a safe bet that Russia spends far less of its' military budget on non-core military than does the EU.
Russia is also making moves indicative of intentions to re-integrate some of their old satellite states. Oil prices are also falling, so Russia is receiving less and less from the pipeline to the EU. They've already shown a willingness to turn off the pumps to apply pressure which means that they aren't so dependent on the revenue as to allow it to override other interests.
Falling oil prices means that the value of maintaining good relations with the EU and the West is falling, and as they feel the crunch of less and less oil money coming in, they will be under pressure from within to find some way to acquire wealth to keep their people happy. War and other forms of military conflict generate wealth and jobs as well as help keep people distracted from internal problems.
I *am* glad we can fully agree that a vital & ambitious space program is a good thing, and has multiple benefits to society that on the whole far outweigh the investment.:)
I would always favor social welfare over a space plane in this decade
I believe that having things like the space program not only helps employment, but also brings progress in many many fields that benefit society and help reduce the need for social programs.
BTW. in France and Germany the state is spending most of its money on social/welfare aspects instead of investing too much money in weapons.
France and Germany can afford to do this precisely because the US spends so much on the military and subsidizes & assists Frances' and Germany's defense. Especially with Russia now becoming aggressive again, if the US did not assist in so many ways with helping those countries with defense they would of necessity be spending much, much more on their military.
This is very reasonable because violence can not be stopped by more violence.
This has been demonstrated to be patently false over and over throughout history. Violence and the perceived threat of violence is the only thing that has halted those who would conquer for wealth & power. Diplomacy only ever works if there is credible force to back it up.
As the famous quote goes; "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'good doggy' while looking for a big stick".
I like space science very much, but I wouldn't trade the well being of my fellow citizens for a space plane.
This is not a zero-sum game. A space program can contribute mightily across a wide spectrum to the well-being of a society and its' people, and the societies' long-term wealth and progress.
Cutting NASA Budgets? NASA got an extra billion in the Obama stimulus package.
You are correct. However I was thinking at the time I posted about proposed cuts to the manned spaceflight program. I know they haven't been enacted yet or anything (to my knowledge), but it just depresses me that I was born in the '50s and grew up with a vibrant manned spaceflight program and went on to work in aerospace. I was really looking forward to seeing humanity progress to at least moon and Mars habitats before I died, along with all the wealth and progress it would bring the US and the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm. A "Flamebait" mod? I guess politically-motivated moderation is still alive and well.
Again mods, "I strongly disagree"!=="Flamebait".
Unless of course there are simply facts that are too unpleasant (or inconvenient for the moderators' political beliefs) to be mentioned on /. .
Ask Alfred Wegener.
Bah, just ask me!
I invent the time machine, but die before getting credit because some corporation sent an assassin back in time..hold on, there's the doorbell.
>BANG!
Aaagghh!...NO_CARRIER
First off, your source is not appropriate for a serious argument. It's an op/ed by a columnist with accusations of plagiarism to his name, not a news article.
Ah yes, the "personally attack the messenger" tactic. Tell me though, which of the facts stated in the article are wrong, and where are the objective cites? Right.
The loans that caused the vast majority of the current mess were issued by mortgage brokers (firms like Countrywide Financial, Ameriquest Mortgage, and Ditech), not banks.
No, many of those loans from banks were sold to those firms as the banks knew they were toxic and it was an out given to them by the CRA and CRA-related legislation and regulations. Banks would quickly sell these mortgages on the secondary market to mortgage lenders like Countrywide, as well as these mortgage lenders' own risky home loans.
The idea that the CRA caused this mess has been debunked repeatedly by every study done on the subject. If you want some real sources on this, I'd suggest studies put out by a university, the Federal Reserve, or the US Treasury Department.
You're going to cite liberal and left-leaning sources that have a clear bias towards the Democrat/liberal agenda like the Center For Community Capital, and the Federal Reserve & U.S. Treasury Dept. which have strong political reasons to cover their butts for their roles, not to mention to not garner the wrath of Democrats? Fail.
The rest of your rant is hand-waving and typical playing of the race card as was done by Democrats in Congress to force the housing market into this crisis in the first place.
Your debunking has been debunked. Every time government sticks its' fingers into financial matters to try to equalize outcomes it ends up in disaster. Like it or not, poor people cannot afford to own a home. Many minorities are poor, so many minorities cannot afford a home. Rather than try to grow the economy by lowering taxes and regulations so more people, including minorities, prosper, the government attempted to ignore the reality that poor people, of which minorities are a large percentage, simply cannot afford to purchase a home.
Now that the financial chickens are coming home to roost, those politicians and their ideological supporters are scrambling to assign blame to anyone or anything but themselves and their unrealistic liberal/socialist policies that they fought to promote and enforce through the power of government.
Why is it that rather than allowing people the freedom so that everyone has the opportunity to raise themselves up (and yes, being a freedom rather than a decree, some may not choose wisely and fail..oh noes!) those on the left would rather lower everyone to an equal level of misery? Why are liberals so cruel?
Strat
The government didn't force anyone to make bad loans. If you are a loan officer and you made a bad loan, it isn't because the government held a gun to your back.
Oh really?
"The roots of this crisis go back to the Carter administration. That was when government officials, egged on by left-wing activists, began accusing mortgage lenders of racism and "redlining" because urban blacks were being denied mortgages at a higher rate than suburban whites.
The pressure to make more loans to minorities (read: to borrowers with weak credit histories) became relentless. Congress passed the Community Reinvestment Act, empowering regulators to punish banks that failed to "meet the credit needs" of "low-income, minority, and distressed neighborhoods." Lenders responded by loosening their underwriting standards and making increasingly shoddy loans. The two government-chartered mortgage finance firms, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, encouraged this "subprime" lending by authorizing ever more "flexible" criteria by which high-risk borrowers could be qualified for home loans, and then buying up the questionable mortgages that ensued.
All this was justified as a means of increasing homeownership among minorities and the poor. Affirmative-action policies trumped sound business practices. A manual issued by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston advised mortgage lenders to disregard financial common sense. "Lack of credit history should not be seen as a negative factor," the Fed's guidelines instructed. Lenders were directed to accept welfare payments and unemployment benefits as "valid income sources" to qualify for a mortgage. Failure to comply could mean a lawsuit."
But let's not let those pesky facts get in the way of some good old class warfare, eh?
Strat
And neither would the production of music by the artists be worth the effort.
Excuse me, but your assuming that most artists have ever received a monetary return that would financially make creating & performing music "worth it". Here's a clue from a musician of 30-plus years; most musicians, even very talented and creative musicians, don't make anywhere near what it costs them to create and perform their music in just about any measure you'd care to use.
We real musicians don't play and write for money...we do it because the music is inside us and burning a hole in our souls to get out. Between instrument and equipment costs, travel costs, etc etc, we rarely ever break even and even more rarely do we ever actually get ahead financially. This is why the majority of musicians have day jobs. Even many artists signed to a label seldom come out ahead because of "Hollywood accounting".
Read this piece by Steve Albini on what a typical artist/band goes through even in the rare case they're even offered the chance to sign with a major label.
The Problem With Music
Even knowing all that, how the odds are totally stacked against a band or artist ever making a living from music, we still work, strive, and sacrifice to write and perform our music.
This is why the idea that you espouse is, no offense, totally wrong.
Cheers!
Strat
This will result in a new Marine One being procured.
No need.
What, you think the Islamic extremists want to kill Obama!?!? He's the best thing that's happened to them in a decade!
If they deliberately obtained the plans it was only to help point out any flaws!
In Obama's Soviet Socialist Amerika, terrorists protect YOU!
No, it wasn't, although I can see how it could come across that way. I was being friendly, actually.
Then you really, REALLY need to work on your people-skills.
I had just shared with you some of my best knowledge and wisdom, because I wanted you to see the world more clearly.
That's all fine and good, but there is more than one valid way to look at the world, and just because someone has a different opinion from yours doesn't mean they don't see the world just as clearly as you. It just means their experiences & knowledge lead them to different conclusions. Factual arguments and earnestly expressed & reasoned opinions will do far, far more to convince than condescension.
Take copyright for example. Are you willing to go out and campaign in favor of more reasonable copyright? Are you willing to run for office and talk to your colleges about it? Are you even willing to donate a few dollars to the EFF to help them get the point across?
I have campaigned for copyright reform. I contact my representatives regularly. I have and do donate to the EFF. I'm not in a position to be able to run for office and not likely to win an election if I did, because I'm not willing to compromise my principles & beliefs the necessary amount to succeed. I regularly talk to my colleagues about copyright and how it damages society in its' current form.
Maybe you have tried some of these, but most people are not willing to do more than complain. On the other hand, some people, like authors, movie studios, recording studios, musicians, actually do care a lot about copyright.
I *am* a musician & songwriter. I'm also intelligent enough to realize that recordings are merely a publicity tool in this age of the internet and digital copies, as well as realizing that copyright in its' current form actually hurts me as a musician and songwriter. I regularly encourage my fellow musicians & songwriters to be active and voice their displeasure to their elected officials and contribute to organizations like the EFF.
It was the authors who got copyright established in the first place.
This is incorrect. Copyright was established by the writers of the US Constitution under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution.
To wit; "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
It is likely that most politicians have not actually heard about things like creative commons or the GPL, they don't know the power of building off an established work, and since no one is around to tell them, they believe what the studios and musicians tell them.
Here I mostly agree, although I'm of the opinion after talking with many politicians on the subject that they really don't have any interest in learning about these topics even when informed of their existence & importance and usually dismiss them unless and until they grow in importance in relation to their personal reelection chances and garnering of campaign contributions and support from the big players.
The musicians themselves have little voice, as most "name" musicians have their interests tied with the studios and labels and are quite reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them. Other less well-known and unsigned musicians have little voice as they have little money to make themselves heard compared to the recording industry & other pro-copyright extension and expansion interests.
There are some issues that really do get normal people out into the world, issues like abortion or gay marriage. People stood out on the streets in favor/against gay marriage, and they are even willing to kill over abortion. That is some serious commitment, and that is why people politicians pay attention to those issues.
These are some of the "wedge issues" I referred to in my previous post. As long as the politicians can keep the electorate inflam
In cases where the public cares, the politicians must follow. In cases where the public doesn't care, the politicians are free to do what they want.
This is precisely what wedge issues and manufactured "crises" are about. The politicians distract & deceive from their true agendas & legislative actions to keep the people so dizzy that things like passing the Sony Bono Copyright Act aren't in the minds of voters when election time comes. Just like the current financial/housing/employment "crises". This is simply a re-asdjustment of a system thrown out of whack by the government interfering too much in forcing banks to make bad mortgage loans and not enough in oversight on Wall St.
Left alone, things would sort themselves out within a year. These kinds of cycles have happened repeatedly in my 50-plus years. Now however it's being used as an excuse to rob future generations and enact major moves towards a cradle-to-grave nanny state. They scare and panic the public with talk of doom & crisis and rush through a bill that not even the lawmakers themselves had time to read, let alone the public, that would never survive open debate & scrutiny.
They can get away with all these things because both political parties play the exact same games. They cover for each other, just as Obama & the Democrats refuse to investigate the former administrations' actions and Bush refused to investigate the Clinton administrations' actions. It's classic "Kronos & Kodos".
It's all a rigged game and the people are only allowed to vote on that which they already know which direction the outcome will swing or that which has little actual meaning to those in powers' ability to grow their wealth. power, & influence.
Hope you learned something.
That was smarmy, arrogant, and uncalled for. Bugger off.
Strat
Even if every single Microsoft patent holds, that basically means the core of their business expires within a decade, and a lot of it has expired already.
Yeah, but I'd watch for the Democrat-majority congress and along with the new Democrat administration to Bono-ize patent terms just as was done for copyright terms. If they'll do it for Disney, why not for the US' largest OS vendor Microsoft?
Strat
They're real constituents...
Gah! s/They're/Their
Apologies to the spelling Nazis.
It is clear that in the next 20 years or so we will be getting some new copyright laws, as we transition from a society where the publisher is king to a society where we want to compensate people for what they've done.
I'm sorry, but short of some kind of massive socio-political revolution I don't see anything like that coming to pass. The *people* may see the logic and desire these changes, but as it's been apparent for decades, government cares little what the people want and shows no signs of changing direction.
Those in government only make empty promises and platitudes in order to be re-elected. They're real constituents aren't individual citizens, they are the special interests, PACs, and monied campaign contributors and organizers like George Soros.
Unless these interests see some benefit to themselves and their agendas it will only get worse.
Strat
Now the cases will proceed individually, with each plaintiff having to show individually that they overpaid.
"Hey, Vista has splashly effects"
"Hey, buy this laptop, it'll run Vista"
[hand over some money]
"wtf, this is not beefy enough to run the splashy effects! I paid for something I didn't get."
[Judge] Yeah, but I did suckers! Bwaahahaha!
[Judge drives off in new Bentley to mansion in the Hamptons]
Dear JPL. While we are thrilled about your discovery, Mars isn't going anywhere. We are trying to save the economy and lesten the impact of this economic down turn so that we can spend even more money on you guys in the future. Spending 10 billion on machinists creates more jobs than spending 10 billion on rocket scientists. Hope you understand.
Funding Agency.
Dear _Funding Agency_,
We here at JPL understand your position. Since you feel that the space program has no benefits worth funding, we'll be sending over a large fleet of trucks to collect all your computers and other technology made possible by research connected with said space program.
We understand your need to keep operating however, and in the spirit of mutual understanding you've shown us, we will be sending you Univac for your future computational needs. Please have a very large building with a large electrical power system and a team of vacuum-tube replacement technicians ready.
Best of luck,
JPL
Why? Why not send the first astronauts on 1-way trips? Of course it would be a suicide mission, but i'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers.
If we could somehow convince the terrorists now in Gitmo there are Westerners there to blow up, we could solve the one-way trip-volunteer problem AND the what-to-do-with-the-detainees-when-Gitmo-closes problem in one fell swoop.
A twofer!
Strat
Why should a government not be forced to lay people off when the economy is? (sic)
Assuming the missing word in your question is "bad", the answer is that laying off people worsens the already worsening economy. Even conservatives should admit that one of the basic roles of government is to govern (thus the name). A governor, in mechanical terms, regulates an engine from going too fast or too slow. If it slows an already too slow engine, it is not doing its job. Laying workers off is the exact opposite if what government should do during a downturn. Laying them off in a booming economy is best, for they then have the best chances of finding other jobs and continuing to be functioning members of society.
The US governments' job is not to govern the economy or the job market other than to set rules of fair play among the various participants.
When the government gets involved any further in these things politicians *will* seize on it as an opportunity for self-enrichment and means to gather power and influence for themselves and their political party and ideology at the cost of the people, our freedoms, and society as a whole.
That's largely, if not entirely, why the US is in trouble now.
Strat
Stop whining on about 'teh founders'
This isn't star trek Deep Space Nine and the world is not the USA. Not everyone says 'gee' for example.
I do not give a flying fuck what a few people hundreds of years ago wrote down. I asked what you thought.
Try thinking for yourself.
BTW if I buy a house its my property for ETERNITY.
We as a society are being robbed of our land!*
*actually your 'founders' were pretty good at doing that, as I recall. Not everything they did was nice, justified, fair or reasonable was it?
As far as you owning your house for eternity, no. Not if you live in the US.
Due to a recent Supreme Court ruling, if the government decides they can make more tax revenue by taking away your house and giving it to someone else they can.
As to the rest of your "post"...well...I guess I can answer on your level so you understand:
[cliffskimode]Naa naa nana naaa! I know you are but what am I? THBBBT! :P[/cliffskimode]
Now, go upstairs and see if your mommy needs help in the kitchen and let the grownups talk.
(Hmm...I wonder if "[cliffskimode]" could be the next /. meme? :D )
Strat
Or do you genuinely believe that copyright is teh evil and we would be better off if nobody who produces content ever got paid?
Copyright wasn't created to make sure anybody who produces content gets paid.
Maybe you should read that line above again.
When the US was founded there was no copyright. Many people wrote things. Sometimes the things they wrote were copied & published by someone else who wrongly claimed authorship.
So, many people who would write things didn't, or didn't publish/tell anyone.
The founders thought "Gee, how can we encourage people who might create works to make them public so everyone benefits? Aha! We'll allow them through the power of government to very temporarily hold a monopoly on creation of copies & distribution of copies of the work that doesn't and wouldn't naturally or normally exist so that they'll be encouraged to publish so that society benefits, after which the works will revert back to their normal state known as "public domain"!"
The purpose of copyright isn't to provide a payday. It's to make sure works are made public so that society benefits. The deal is, the writer gets a short window of time in which he may use the temporary monopoly on creation of copies & distribution of copies IN EXCHANGE for the works entering public domain to benefit everyone in society at the end of the term of copyright.
This has been twisted and perverted (as has so many things in the Constitution). Now copyrights last over a generation, meaning we'll never see most copyrighted works created in our lifetime enter public domain, and likely not even our children will see most of those same works enter public domain either.
The half of the deal where society benefits has in a practical sense been eliminated. The public and society as a whole has been robbed. The Constitution has moved a little closer to becoming totally meaningless.
Works published in the US after 2002:
70 years after the death of author. If a work of corporate authorship, 95 years from publication or 120 years from creation, whichever expires first.
http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/
I mean really...120 freaking years!?!? When originally it was 28 years with an option for extension for an additional 28 years!?!?
We as a society have been robbed of our culture.
Strat
This is not about crime.
This is a system for assisting in coordinating deployment of riot troops and other resources to control the population in an urban setting when things collapse. The government knows the path we are currently traveling will lead to societies' collapse and the revolt of the population against the government.
Heck, the FBI is already training first-responders now in dealing with IEDs, although they say "terrorist-planted IEDs" to cover their butts. If a road is well-traveled by law-abiding citizens (and a well-traveled road is the type that would be the best target), terrorists would find it extremely hard to plant roadside bombs without getting reported. So who do you think the government thinks will be planting IEDs?
http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2008/03/24/FBI_begins_IED_training/UPI-26431206400450/
Get ready for super-happy-fun-times.
Strat
"the prosecution acts like a five year old"
I suggest you read the various smarmy bullshit TPB frontmen have issued over the years before accusing the prosecutors of being immature. The attitude of "theres nothing the court can do even if they win" and "we dont have any money so its tough" just reeks of petulant children refusing to tidy their room.
And one look at the legal threats page is enough to prove that those guys treat the law as a joke they can ignore. Remind me how well that attitdue goes down with judges?
There's a huge difference here.
A private parties' opinions voiced outside a courtroom when there are no court proceedings occurring concerning another parties' actions has exactly squat to do with statements of parties *inside* the courtroom *during* court proceedings. You might as well bring up that they may have also acted childish having teased a classmate on the playground in primary school for all the relevance it has to what's happening *now* in a *courtroom* during a court proceeding.
It was perfectly reasonable to make a joke over the clueless legal threats TPB received from entities outside their country, many if not most based on laws that don't even exist in Sweden like the DMCA, when a reasonable interpretation by normal people in Sweden of the Swedish laws would make those legal threats seem like a bad joke at best.
If you had a webpage with pictures of your family on it and received a threatening letter from some Mullah in the middle-east threatening you with legal action for your moms' face not being covered by a veil, would you consider it ridiculous?
How about if you were a restaurant owner in a country that permitted smoking in public and inside restaurants and you kept receiving legal threats from NYC?
When it was repeated hundreds and hundreds of times, would you be "childish" for posting those silly threats with some snarky replies since they seemed to pay no attention to the ridiculous nature of their legal threats?
Personally, I find what little restraint they *did* show remarkable considering the circumstances.
Strat
That is the sound...of your doom.
Agent Smith, The Matrix
Troll!?!?
C'mon, mods! "I disagree"!=="troll".
That was an honest evaluation and opinion, delivered calmly and rationally.
I guess it's pretty typical for /. though, sadly. If you're unable to debate and discuss on the merits, just use mod points instead of using a brain.
[Sigh]
The assertion that Europe has the welfare state only because America is covering their defense..
I never stated that it was the only reason, but it does contribute hugely along with confiscatory levels of taxes and other forms of wealth transference from the people to the government.
Finland, for example, has never elected to join in a defense pact with the US. Nonetheless, it has built on its own one of the strongest armies in Europe (defense analysts suggest it could hold off another offense by the Russian army) and a fine welfare state matching in most respects its Nordic neighbors.
Finland bloodied Soviet Russia's nose in failed invasion attempts previously in 1939 and 1941, and enjoys a natural geographic/terrain advantage over an invasion from the direction of Russia. These previous failed invasions by Russia were extremely costly in every way to Finland and have caused Finland to develop a strong cadre-type military with mandatory full-concription and an extremely-strong sense of independence.
The Fins can fight, and will do so under extreme conditions against massive forces that far outnumber and outgun them, and win! I greatly admire the Finnish people. They are a hardy and pragmatic sort that while having suffered great hardships and losses as a nation, plus living where climate conditions can be harsh & unforgiving, are nonetheless open, generous, and friendly. They're also great people to have at your back as allies if trouble starts.
Finland prides itself on its' citizens' ability and readiness if threatened. Finland being so small in population and area relatively speaking, coupled with full-conscription allows it to use military spending very efficiently compared to other countries. This allows them to have the necessary wealth to spare on social programs that is out of proportion with other countries' size & wealth.
Cheers!
Strat
46% of world wide investments in military is required to keep the Russians of the EUs lawn? I don think so not including the money invested by the EU itself. Furthermore German forces have the largest number of tanks in Western Europe and the east side (the evil Russians) have lost most of its conventional potential in the past years. Also countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, and the Baltic states do now belong to the Western military pact. So it would be foolish to attack the West. Also for what reason shall they do so? Attacking their biggest gas and oil customer doest not look like a good idea. And they are not propagating their twisted implementation of communism. They have discontinued the use of that system. Here is an interesting link [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures] It shows that the EU is spending 6 times more money on military than the Russian. And believe me, I live in Europe and I am not frightened by Russian or some terrorists for that matter. However, I agree that a space program is normally contributing to technological development and progress. And it allows the human spirit to thrive. And my argument was not stop the space program, but to stop the stupid military funding. Invest your money in the future not in the protection of access to limited resources, which will be gone anyway. This would also be beneficial for the US. I really think that 700 Billion US$ is really too much. Hey the next player (EU) uses 300 Billion US$ and these two are allies.
First, the list doesn't account for purchasing power parity, which they admit to in the text. The Wiki article also states for example that China's estimate would almost double if adjusted for purchasing power parity. Also as I stated previously, the US by its' military strength and the investment in defense worldwide allows the EU and our other allies to devote far less to defense than they would have to otherwise.
The other thing is that it doesn't account for how the US military expenditure breaks down. A very large part of the expenditure is for bases around the world whose major use is for providing humanitarian emergency relief along with the costs of personnel and equipment, etc for that mission. US military funding also goes towards things like research, DARPA being one example. Core military expenditures for weapons and troops are only a part of the military budget in the US.
Russia may be lagging militarily in conventional forces like tanks etc at the moment, but they are already revitalizing their military capabilities. Witness the recent resuming of Bear bomber flights testing Western defenses. Again, the failure of the list to account for purchasing power parity means that those differences between the EU and Russian numbers may be deceptive. Also as with the US military spending, it's a safe bet that Russia spends far less of its' military budget on non-core military than does the EU.
Russia is also making moves indicative of intentions to re-integrate some of their old satellite states. Oil prices are also falling, so Russia is receiving less and less from the pipeline to the EU. They've already shown a willingness to turn off the pumps to apply pressure which means that they aren't so dependent on the revenue as to allow it to override other interests.
Falling oil prices means that the value of maintaining good relations with the EU and the West is falling, and as they feel the crunch of less and less oil money coming in, they will be under pressure from within to find some way to acquire wealth to keep their people happy. War and other forms of military conflict generate wealth and jobs as well as help keep people distracted from internal problems.
I *am* glad we can fully agree that a vital & ambitious space program is a good thing, and has multiple benefits to society that on the whole far outweigh the investment. :)
Cheers!
Strat
I would always favor social welfare over a space plane in this decade
I believe that having things like the space program not only helps employment, but also brings progress in many many fields that benefit society and help reduce the need for social programs.
BTW. in France and Germany the state is spending most of its money on social/welfare aspects instead of investing too much money in weapons.
France and Germany can afford to do this precisely because the US spends so much on the military and subsidizes & assists Frances' and Germany's defense. Especially with Russia now becoming aggressive again, if the US did not assist in so many ways with helping those countries with defense they would of necessity be spending much, much more on their military.
This is very reasonable because violence can not be stopped by more violence.
This has been demonstrated to be patently false over and over throughout history. Violence and the perceived threat of violence is the only thing that has halted those who would conquer for wealth & power. Diplomacy only ever works if there is credible force to back it up.
As the famous quote goes; "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'good doggy' while looking for a big stick".
I like space science very much, but I wouldn't trade the well being of my fellow citizens for a space plane.
This is not a zero-sum game. A space program can contribute mightily across a wide spectrum to the well-being of a society and its' people, and the societies' long-term wealth and progress.
Strat
Cutting NASA Budgets? NASA got an extra billion in the Obama stimulus package.
You are correct. However I was thinking at the time I posted about proposed cuts to the manned spaceflight program. I know they haven't been enacted yet or anything (to my knowledge), but it just depresses me that I was born in the '50s and grew up with a vibrant manned spaceflight program and went on to work in aerospace. I was really looking forward to seeing humanity progress to at least moon and Mars habitats before I died, along with all the wealth and progress it would bring the US and the world.
Strat