Until 51% of the people who voted decide to take away your freedom.
I'd rather have a constitutional form of government that guarantees my freedom regardless of what the majority decides. That of course implies democratic processes, but these aren't the ones making me free.
Same as usual. With money they just create out of thin air. This isn't a transfer of wealth or value. Not even of money. It's a transfer of sovereignty with debt as an excuse.
They've been doing that for years, look at just about all of south America. They back a government that racks up debt, let it collapse and then hold the population hostage with that debt. It's a bit naive to think that because they've been doing it with the blessing of the US before that they wouldn't do it *to* the US now.
Heh, don't get me wrong... I'm a constitution fanatic myself and I don't even live in the US;) Just referring to posts below saying the tea party people want to overthrow the US government and that they're no better than terrorists and what not. I personally think it's quite sane and healthy for your country to try and go back to its roots.
They will raise the debt ceiling. The depression will happen anyway, only then you'll owe more.
The IMF will bail you out, and they will have their list of conditions as to how the US should be run. Whatever personal liberty you do not realize you have now do not weigh very much on that list.
So, who do you want to be taken over by? The constitutionalist fanatics in the tea party or the IMF?
Professor Paul Reiter is an example of people who had to threaten to sue the IPCC for claiming that he agrees with their claims. That's the only way he managed to get off the list. His 'contribution' to the IPCC report was that warming is unlikely to lead to the spread of malaria to northern regions. They ignored his report but still listed him as one agreeing to their claim that malaria *would* move north until he finally managed to get his name removed.
Mozilla seems like their new goal is to annoy people into submission.
In the open software world, that's annoying people into finding better alternatives. When the numbers start dwindling, they'll pay attention to the problem. Let's hope for them it won't be too late.
Yes, I think Alcohol is also a problem (I used to drink myself and have friends that still do) before you break out that argument.
So to be clear... You'd be okay with bringing back prohibition given a chance? Would you seriously think yourself entitled to send me to jail if I have a beer at home in this ideal world of yours? If you think it's bad (and hey, you'd be right) don't use it. Regardless, you have no business using force (law enforcement in this case) to enforce that opinion of yours on others.
“We find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp. We hold this view not because we believe the world to be running out of materials in an absolute sense, but rather because the barriers to continued material growth, in the form of problems of economics, logistics, management, and environmental impact, are so formidable.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977), p. 954.
Of course cheap energy has done more to lift civilization out of poverty then anything else.
Read 'Ecoscience' co-authored by John P. Holdren (science Czar) and you'll understand that you hit it right on the nail. It has nothing to do with the environment, cheap energy is a very serious problem to these guys. They started at the forefront of the eugenicist movement (Holdren is a self-proclaimed malthusian) and now they're at the forefront of the global warming hysteria. If one is to believe what's in that book, the solution is de-industrialization of the world so that we can no longer sustain as large a population as we have now. According to the book, a billion is the magic 'sustainable' figure.
'Think of the environment' is the new 'think of the children'. Yes, there are very serious environmental issues but sadly, these issues are way too useful to our leadership as excuses to push an agenda to warrant implementation of any real solutions.
The bill would also create a federal regulatory body to oversee the game.
Basically, they just wanted to put their greedy little hands in the business. Unregulated business does not benefit the government and its insatiable need to grow. On this basic principle (and look at the voting record for this specific example) the republicrats and demoblicans entirely agree.
It's exactly the same principle as the mafia's protection racket only they get to write the laws, so they do it legally.
He's using Perot as the most obvious example of his claims. Just about everybody else who considered running third party faces the same music. You don't have to go for the big seat to see that. How many independents (or other party) are there in the US congress? Senate? I may be an idealist but I don't think the political views of the entire US people neatly fit in just two somewhat similar moulds.
Very valid point, though I wouldn't use movie tickets to measure value as those prices aren't as closely tied to production costs and demand. Go for other commodities when trying to evaluate such things.
Actually, I think that's a very big part of the problem with the US economy lately. Production of real, tangible value is going down in the US. You still produce food, which is pretty good, some cars and a few other things but nowhere near as much as what you import. A country's currency is only worth something so long as other countries need it in order to buy stuff they want/need. Its only saving grace has been that people still need US dollars to buy oil but how long will that last? You can only spread yourself so thin waging wars on countries that attempt to move away from US dollar oil trades.
Silver has real industrial value, it's used in the manufacture of several things. I do not think it really has gained that much in *real* value, though the production/demand ratio is somewhat favourable to it lately. I don't think $35/oz is bubble price in dollars. He historical ratio has been 16:1 silver to gold (I read this, but didn't verify it). Now is gold in a bubble too? Probably, but even then you get a pretty high margin before you hit 16:1.
Bottom line, you have to do your research and answer that question for yourself. Markets are always a gamble. Doing your homework will improve your odds but unless you're Goldman Sachs, there are no bailouts for the risk of you buying stuff that is worth less than you'll be able to sell it.
Also, as someone else pointed out... It could be a mistake to look at silver as *currency* in some settings. The fact that it has value doesn't mean that it'll have value to the person you want to trade it with. If you're both hungry, your silver isn't going to be worth diddly squat compared to his tuna can:)
I wish there were controls to turn off his ability to say 'on there'. That said, it could make a pretty evil drinking game.
Note that I do not really mean to pick on that verbal tick of his. But I don't think I can help getting annoyed with it anymore than he can help saying it.
Well, I wouldn't fault Ubuntu for trying to appeal to the masses. I think their aim is linux on the desktop. I don't use Ubuntu, I also don't use Facebook or social media beyond the occasional Slashdot post (and that's hardly social). The reality is that the masses do.
I'm fine with Ubuntu turning into 'Linux for people who don't care that it's Linux'. There's plenty of choices for people who know what they're doing otherwise and it grows the market, which means that hardware vendors pay a tad (not much) more attention to the fact that linux exists and sales can be made by supporting it, etc.
Do not assume that rights belong to such entities as a majority. Because you'll be incredibly sorry when you turn out to be in the minority. Individuals have rights, be them the lone nut or everyone else. Besides, the only thing making this a 'rights' issue is that those rights are being centrally managed by a purely evil entity (Sony). They've taken rights away and they haven't properly evaluated the ramifications of consequences... Or they did and don't give a damn about you and everyone else suffering those consequences.
Same thing happens with real, basic human rights every day but you're probably too busy playing games to care.
Slashdot Mirror
Until 51% of the people who voted decide to take away your freedom.
I'd rather have a constitutional form of government that guarantees my freedom regardless of what the majority decides. That of course implies democratic processes, but these aren't the ones making me free.
Until someone accidentally says "Muad-dib!" through the array and something explodes.
This type of knowledge has been deemed dangerous. Please report to your local intelligence agency for evaluation and risk assessment.
Same as usual. With money they just create out of thin air. This isn't a transfer of wealth or value. Not even of money. It's a transfer of sovereignty with debt as an excuse.
They've been doing that for years, look at just about all of south America. They back a government that racks up debt, let it collapse and then hold the population hostage with that debt. It's a bit naive to think that because they've been doing it with the blessing of the US before that they wouldn't do it *to* the US now.
Heh, don't get me wrong... I'm a constitution fanatic myself and I don't even live in the US ;) Just referring to posts below saying the tea party people want to overthrow the US government and that they're no better than terrorists and what not. I personally think it's quite sane and healthy for your country to try and go back to its roots.
They will raise the debt ceiling. The depression will happen anyway, only then you'll owe more.
The IMF will bail you out, and they will have their list of conditions as to how the US should be run. Whatever personal liberty you do not realize you have now do not weigh very much on that list.
So, who do you want to be taken over by? The constitutionalist fanatics in the tea party or the IMF?
Elasmobranchii claim exclusivity on laser.
Professor Paul Reiter is an example of people who had to threaten to sue the IPCC for claiming that he agrees with their claims. That's the only way he managed to get off the list. His 'contribution' to the IPCC report was that warming is unlikely to lead to the spread of malaria to northern regions. They ignored his report but still listed him as one agreeing to their claim that malaria *would* move north until he finally managed to get his name removed.
No. No no no no...
The IPCC says they all agree. Even those who had to sue them to get off the agreeing list, you damn climate denier funded by oil companies!
Mozilla seems like their new goal is to annoy people into submission.
In the open software world, that's annoying people into finding better alternatives. When the numbers start dwindling, they'll pay attention to the problem. Let's hope for them it won't be too late.
How could they omit Weebl's most incredible 404!?
http://www.weebls-stuff.com/404
It's groovy ;)
Yes, I think Alcohol is also a problem (I used to drink myself and have friends that still do) before you break out that argument.
So to be clear... You'd be okay with bringing back prohibition given a chance?
Would you seriously think yourself entitled to send me to jail if I have a beer at home in this ideal world of yours?
If you think it's bad (and hey, you'd be right) don't use it. Regardless, you have no business using force (law enforcement in this case) to enforce that opinion of yours on others.
Have you read the book?
“We find ourselves firmly in the neo-Malthusian camp. We hold this view not because we believe the world to be running out of materials in an absolute sense, but rather because the barriers to continued material growth, in the form of problems of economics, logistics, management, and environmental impact, are so formidable.”
- Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren, Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977), p. 954.
I'll grant you that I missed the 'neo' bit.
I think the real issue is that incentives to think make you dangerous to established structures.
Of course cheap energy has done more to lift civilization out of poverty then anything else.
Read 'Ecoscience' co-authored by John P. Holdren (science Czar) and you'll understand that you hit it right on the nail. It has nothing to do with the environment, cheap energy is a very serious problem to these guys. They started at the forefront of the eugenicist movement (Holdren is a self-proclaimed malthusian) and now they're at the forefront of the global warming hysteria. If one is to believe what's in that book, the solution is de-industrialization of the world so that we can no longer sustain as large a population as we have now. According to the book, a billion is the magic 'sustainable' figure.
'Think of the environment' is the new 'think of the children'. Yes, there are very serious environmental issues but sadly, these issues are way too useful to our leadership as excuses to push an agenda to warrant implementation of any real solutions.
The bill would also create a federal regulatory body to oversee the game.
Basically, they just wanted to put their greedy little hands in the business. Unregulated business does not benefit the government and its insatiable need to grow. On this basic principle (and look at the voting record for this specific example) the republicrats and demoblicans entirely agree.
It's exactly the same principle as the mafia's protection racket only they get to write the laws, so they do it legally.
He's using Perot as the most obvious example of his claims. Just about everybody else who considered running third party faces the same music. You don't have to go for the big seat to see that. How many independents (or other party) are there in the US congress? Senate? I may be an idealist but I don't think the political views of the entire US people neatly fit in just two somewhat similar moulds.
Very valid point, though I wouldn't use movie tickets to measure value as those prices aren't as closely tied to production costs and demand. Go for other commodities when trying to evaluate such things.
Actually, I think that's a very big part of the problem with the US economy lately. Production of real, tangible value is going down in the US. You still produce food, which is pretty good, some cars and a few other things but nowhere near as much as what you import. A country's currency is only worth something so long as other countries need it in order to buy stuff they want/need. Its only saving grace has been that people still need US dollars to buy oil but how long will that last? You can only spread yourself so thin waging wars on countries that attempt to move away from US dollar oil trades.
Silver has real industrial value, it's used in the manufacture of several things. I do not think it really has gained that much in *real* value, though the production/demand ratio is somewhat favourable to it lately. I don't think $35/oz is bubble price in dollars. He historical ratio has been 16:1 silver to gold (I read this, but didn't verify it). Now is gold in a bubble too? Probably, but even then you get a pretty high margin before you hit 16:1.
Bottom line, you have to do your research and answer that question for yourself. Markets are always a gamble. Doing your homework will improve your odds but unless you're Goldman Sachs, there are no bailouts for the risk of you buying stuff that is worth less than you'll be able to sell it.
Also, as someone else pointed out... It could be a mistake to look at silver as *currency* in some settings. The fact that it has value doesn't mean that it'll have value to the person you want to trade it with. If you're both hungry, your silver isn't going to be worth diddly squat compared to his tuna can :)
I wish there were controls to turn off his ability to say 'on there'. That said, it could make a pretty evil drinking game.
Note that I do not really mean to pick on that verbal tick of his. But I don't think I can help getting annoyed with it anymore than he can help saying it.
Well, I wouldn't fault Ubuntu for trying to appeal to the masses. I think their aim is linux on the desktop. I don't use Ubuntu, I also don't use Facebook or social media beyond the occasional Slashdot post (and that's hardly social). The reality is that the masses do.
I'm fine with Ubuntu turning into 'Linux for people who don't care that it's Linux'. There's plenty of choices for people who know what they're doing otherwise and it grows the market, which means that hardware vendors pay a tad (not much) more attention to the fact that linux exists and sales can be made by supporting it, etc.
Well, to be fair, history shows that empire and nation building doesn't work much better for pretty much the same (economic) reasons.
That's what makes it an accidental suicide, duh.
I'm not sure which is worse. Large set of tools or set of large tools?
I don't care so long as they include a cool theremin sound!
Do not assume that rights belong to such entities as a majority. Because you'll be incredibly sorry when you turn out to be in the minority. Individuals have rights, be them the lone nut or everyone else. Besides, the only thing making this a 'rights' issue is that those rights are being centrally managed by a purely evil entity (Sony). They've taken rights away and they haven't properly evaluated the ramifications of consequences... Or they did and don't give a damn about you and everyone else suffering those consequences.
Same thing happens with real, basic human rights every day but you're probably too busy playing games to care.