In the latest months of WWII, when lacking adult soldiers, the German army drafted kids, too... Are the USA at this point of exhaustion ? (oops, did I win a Godwin, here ?;) )
You are close. Before the war, the Germans supported several programs encourage kids and hobbyists to make things like planes and rockets. They used the ideas and the education value to build their war machine into the most advanced army in the world. I think that is what the US is doing now.
Note: My post is not a Godwin. These German programs are not what made the Nazis evil. It's simply what made their war machine the most advanced. What started as a group of hobbyists called the Verein für Raumschiffahrt grew into the Saturn V and put man on the moon!
Because we understand what an Uncle Tom reference is, and you don't.// A Union cannot have an Uncle Tom, a corporation can.
It would be one thing to call someone an "Uncle Tom" and have no idea what it means. But to fully understand all the ramifications of it and STILL use it as an insult to a black man is what makes you, and people like you textbook cases of racists. The sad part is that you really don't see it and run around calling others racists.
I know what "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is and what the reference means. That's exactly why I won't use it. Would you say of a lucky Jewish person, "Wow! You just made Schindler's list!"?
Oh, the only differences between a corporation and a union how they get their money. A union takes it from its members, and if possible, even it's non-members. A corporation has to convince customers to give it to them in exchange for a product. Both have the same goal, however: Support the men at the top. So unions certainly can own an Uncle Tom. They are called "workers" and they are slaves to the union bosses. Corporations pay their workers. Unions take the money like a pimp or plantation owner.
Oh, cry me a river of fucking crocodile tears, over your uber-conservative ignorant bullshit. Obama has done no such things; he's been the Unions' Uncle Tom, happily handing them everything they wanted.
FTFY, blatant racism aside.
Wait. Tell me again how it's us conservatives that are racist?
So, Obamacare not take over anything. It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies.
Um, then why are so many unions and company's opting out? Why are 20% of the waivers from Nancy Pelosi's district? Why would all these companies and unions opt out of Obamacare if, as YOU stated, it has absolutely no effect on them? What are they opting out of? Why would the government even create a waiver system if there was no point in opting out?
The answer to all these questions:
YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT! You tell lies while calling others liars.
4) The stimulus funds did not "take over" any industries. Give one example. Just one. Literally, I want you to name a single American business which is now government owned because of the stimulus. Either that, or come back and apologize for lying.
Stimulus funds came with strings... no, ROPES attached and did amount to a takeover. You want an example?
Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.
Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.
Here is a story about banks either turning down TARP or leaving the program after the government started changing the rules after the money went out.
5) TARP was passed by Bush, and didn't take over banks in any case.
Passed under Bush, about three months before he left office. Completely administered under Obama and extended by Geitner. Geitner, btw, is the guy who didn't pay his taxes that Obama made treasury secretary. I guess you are OK with that too. Seriously, would you have been OK if Bush put a drug addict in charge of the DEA and a Klan Grand Wizard in charge of Civil Rights?
6) The health care law does not take over anything. It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. The man is lying to you.
Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If you don't believe that, you are lying to yourself. If you think that it took over 2000 pages of "we have to pass it to know what's in it" to do nothing more than, "It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies.", then you should not leave the house without your helmet.
7) New environmental controls?
Do you not watch the news? Look up the Keystone Pipeline. You'll also notice how the rejection of the pipeline helps out Obama supporters, like Warren Buffett. Obama rejecting the pipeline is also a boon for China, who will get the oil instead of us.
Of course, there is also the strict limitations on drilling in the Gulf... or off the east or west coast or on land and especially in Alaska. We can't drill in the Gulf of Mexico, but China can for Cuba. Deep water drilling is banned in the Gulf of Mexico, but Obama funded it in Brazil. That oil and those jobs are also going to China, by the way.
Strange. I just noticed that it seems that China is benefiting much more for Obama's environmental concerns than the actual environment is, which was my point. Obama's regulations do nothing for the environment, harm it if anything. The rejection of the keystone pipeline means that oil w
Shall we start with the executive order allowing the assassination of American citizens who might be doing something the government doesn't like? Or the reversal on closing GITMO?, or the expansion of the use of drones by local police departments? SOPA, PIPA, Extension of the Patriot Act, expansion of the warranties wiretapping program? Need I go on?
Don't forget the take over of several American industries through "stimulus" funds and the takeover of banks through TARP. Never in the history of America has the POTUS fired the CEO of a major corporation until this president came along. And, of course, let's not forget the take over of health care. There is also all the new environmental controls, unless, of course you are a union shop or big time Obama supporter. There is the backing of unions, like the Obama administration forcing Boeing to cease plans for a plant in S. Carolina because S. Carolina is not a union state (that's right! The POTUS told a private industry that they could not open a plant in S. Carolina, a red state, because it was not union friendly enough).
Through TARP, stimulus finds and health care legislation, environmental restrictions and blind union support, the executive branch has taken control of well over half the US economy. Hell, the Boeing thing should be enough to scare the shit out of any American, but the liberals just cheer louder and louder.
Applied Socialism: Public Schools Public Roads Public Police Force Public Fire Departments
Right! And all state/locally funded. Once the feds get involved, things tend to go downhill. Of course, there is a place for federal involvement, but nearly all of them are Constitutional. A national fuel standard would be a good thing. It would prevent refineries from having to create 20-something different blends of gasoline to meet varying state regulations. Since most of these would fall under interstate commerce, regulations would be perfectly Constitutional. It's when the feds get involved in things like setting school curriculum and mortgage rules that bad things start to happen.
OK, but I could use N. Korea or the former Soviet Union as counter examples. Power corrupts. When you make the government all powerful, which is necessary for true Socialism, corruption happens.
True Capitalism is just like true communism. Great in theory, horrible in practice. There is a healthy balance of taking elements from both theories. Taking the socialist approach to ensuring a safety net over which a capitalist driven system can opperate. Take out the safety net, and one mistake can have catostrophic results. Build too big of safety net, and the tightrope of capitalism will get tangled up in it.
I agree. I also feel that the Constitution allows for just the right amount of federally mandated socialism. If we actually tried it and found that more was needed, we could amend the Constitution giving the federal government whatever power was necessary. The rest, as the 10'th states, should be handled by the states.
And I think we can surmize, given the US's current level of social-capitalist involvement, as compared to the rest of the modern world (G7 and BRIC), that we are not anywhere remotely close to the excessively socialist side.
Some would say that's why we have the world's largest economy by far. We certainly have the most production per capita of any nation in history, and we are a lazy lot.
The OP was saying that people no longer have to use PCAW these days because of VNC etc. My point is we never had to use PCAW anyway if we used unix or linux on a PC. If that explanation still isn't simple enough for you let me know and I'll mail you one drawn in crayon.
The problem was that I was working for a digital imaging company that installed photo imaging kiosks in photo labs. Now, this was before digital cameras became popular so the majority of our business was from customers scanning images using flatbed scanner or negative scanner. Our software allowed for customers to manipulate their images in a number of ways and reprint them in minutes using the dye sublimation printer.
Now, I would have loved to used Linux or Unix but we had some issues. First, was finding drivers for the scanners we used. SANE sucked at the time. Next was finding drivers for the dye sub printers. The drivers simply didn't exist. Finally, there would have been issues finding drivers for the touchscreen interface for the CRT monitors we used at the time. Again, none were available.
So, yeah. It would have been nice to use a *n?x solution, but it simply was not an option.
Oh, and this was before most businesses had an Internet connection, so throw in modem drivers as well. Remember in 1999, Winmodems were all the rage and Linux drivers, again, did not exist.
Finally, Kodak, our competition, did use Sun machines that ran a version of Unix, but they had millions to throw at the project and had the machines, drivers and software custom designed by Sun. We had 30 employees and had to use off the shelf components and modify them ourselves if need be.
This is what socialists believe in: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" -- the God Damned Constitution.
Don't forget this little nugget of the Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This means that it is not up to the federal government to force socialist policies. If the states want to, however, that is there right. In a world where the Constitution was followed, if you want socialism, you would look to your governor, not the president, or move to a socialist state.
I remember the first time I used it. It was a Godsend. It was so nice to simply take control and do it rather than sit there on the phone saying, "Click Start. Start. It's on the bottom left. S-T-A-R-T! No, don't type it. Click the button labeled 'Start'. No, it's not on your keyboard. No, wait. Hit CTRL-ESC. Control Escape. It's on your keyboard. Press and hold control and then press and release escape. Keyboard. It's on your keyboard. Nevermind. Do you see Start on your screen?" Even though we were connecting via dialup, it was lightyears better than trying to imagine the screen the use was describing and then describing elements of it it back to them.
But those days are long gone. Now we have RDP, VNC, WebEx, and a host of other remote desktop utilities and protocols. There is no longer a need for PCAW.
Yes, I'm sure that person would be concerned that the company wasted $100 million dollars.
Assuming it's a waste. That there's no benefit, present or future, at all, whatsoever.
And completely ignoring the record quarterly profits... of $13 billion. Not even 0.1% of this quarter's profits, much less the year.
Yes, I'm sure all the Apple shareholders are focusing on this potential waste of money.
Yeah, what's $100 million. That's nothing. Why I remember back when Bill Gates gave $100 million to Apple and it literally saved the company from going under. But those were bad times, right? We're in good times now and the bad times are long behind us. So it's OK to blow $100 million because we all know that the bad times will never return and we will NEVER say, "Gee! That $100 million sure would come in handy today."
And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.
The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines. But as the OP points out, beyond the source's integrity, it really doesn't matter.
The summary author could be Pro-Apple-Stockholder and is outrage that the company his retirement depends on has wasted $100,000,000 on frivolous lawsuits.
Actually, no. There was a lot of freakish behaviour, I don't know how you are able to ignore it*. More than half of the continental United States was affected by either drought or flood last year, a record level of both. In particular, Texas had the worst drought since they started keeping temperature records
Really? Cause I once heard about this event called the "dust bowl", caused in part by a multi-year drought throughout the midwest and south. When we get something worse than that, let me know.
noone would need to tell you what will result when that happens - if you had used your brain to think this more than just 2-3 seconds.
freshwater plume forming means that there is some source that is supplying that freshwater. freshwater, therefore, will grow unless the current trend changes.
If you spent less time telling me to thing and more time... you know, reading the F'in article, you would fine the following:
This fresh water is coming in large part from the rivers running off the Eurasian (Russian) side of the Arctic basin.
Winds and currents have transported this fresh water around the ocean until it has been pulled into the gyre. The volume currently held in the circulation probably represents about 10% of all the fresh water in the Arctic.
Note that TFA says NOTHING about global warming or an increase in the amount of water entering the Arctic. What it DOES say is that WIND is bringing more of the water to the area, and the rotating nature of the winds is holding it there.
there is no telling what will happen to your microclimate in your locale as the globe warms up on average. you may remain unaffected, or get hit by freak weather or conditions.
Well, my "microclimate", meaning the southern half of the United States, just spent a summer with temperatures several degrees warmer than usual and we got no more freakish weather than usual. The winter before that was a few degrees colder than normal, and still no hurricanes over land. So, in a single year, I've seen periods warmer than usual and cooler than usual with no freakish behavior. I think we'll be OK with a 1.6 degree increase over the next 100 years.
Climate change is real, global warming is real and the cause for this is real. This has been established by practically all scientists in the field. Denying it is as futile and idiotic as the few that still refute the theory of evolution based on their personal religious or political ideas.
Just curious... Can you tell me how many of these scientists predicted a fresh water plume, stirred by iceberg moved by high winds, would cause more ice to melt? I can't seem to find that prediction anywhere. I did, however find that high winds will cause the water to cool quicker via evaporation, which should have fixed that pesky iceberg problem, made the water saltier, thereby fixing that overabundance of fresh water problem that started this whole discussion. That was on the Wiki page for Thermohaline circulation. It says, "Wind moving over the water also produces a great deal of evaporation, leading to a decrease in temperature, called evaporative cooling. Evaporation removes only water molecules, resulting in an increase in the salinity of the seawater left behind, and thus an increase in the density of the water mass. In the Norwegian Sea evaporative cooling is predominant, and the sinking water mass, the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW), fills the basin and spills southwards through crevasses in the submarine sills that connect Greenland, Iceland and Great Britain. It then flows very slowly into the deep abyssal plains of the Atlantic, always in a southerly direction."
Also, is CO2 the only gas stored under glaciers? I mean, if the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the time the glaciers formed was so high that releasing a fraction of that gas would be enough to heat the world... wouldn't the planet have been too hot to form these glaciers in the first place?
I'm not trying to be smart ass, but if you don't question, you never learn. And you never EVER give up your freedom of the word of someone else without at least asking a few questions and pointing out gaping logical holes.
The gyre appears to indicate that the ice is becoming thin enough over the Arctic Ocean that the wind is beginning to affect the motion of water under the ice.
I'm quite certain that not only has this not happened before, its not happening now. The summary must not state what the article states, because wind is not magical stuff that teleports through ice in order to transfer its momentum to water underneath it.
Actually, it was melting ice caps break off and are free to move around. This moving of ice bergs stirs up the water underneath it. Think of coffee with cream, with the cream on the bottom. Blowing on the coffee will not stir it up, but a moving a spoon through it will.
With that said, I feel that free moving ice should have basically no effect. To use my analogy above, consider a bathtub full of coffee with cream on the bottom. How much can you stir it by blowing coffee beans around the surface? Also, ice bergs moving around the oceans is NOTHING compared to the ocean currents that already stir up the water which are generated and are strongest at the Arctic.
Right. The Greenland glaciers melting may be bad. Now, would you so kindly tell me how a fresh water plume will affect glaciers ON LAND?
Next, I need some clarification. I understand that glaciers melting on land may rise sea levels and be bad. And I understand that melting ice caps will cause the ocean currents to cease, making the poles freeze while everything else bakes. And I understand that rising CO2 levels trap heat causing the ice to melt... but wait a minute
First, if the ocean currents cease because there is no ice at the poles and poles freeze over, won't that cause the currents to start back up again. See, the currents are caused by freezing water, not frozen water. When salt water freezes, it loses its salt, making the rest of the unfrozen water saltier. That water falls and has nowhere to go but toward the equator. These currents help balance the climate, keeping the tropics from overheating and keeping the northern latitudes from freezing over too much. Which brings me back to my main point; if the poles freeze over due to no current, won't that kick start the currents again? And to YOUR point, glaciers melting over land will have little to no impact on ocean currents, because, as has been previously, stated, GreenLAND is LAND.
Finally, I thought it was CO2 from our SUV's and coal fired plants causing glaciers to melt. Now it's fresh water? Are you telling me there are aspects of the climate that we didn't consider before giving unlimited power over our lives to our governments?
Also note that "global warming" and "climate change" are not found in TFA, but don't let that stop all of you from blaming climate change and global warming on your own... you know, because the scientists are right, even when they never said it.
Of course the web site source is going wildly counter Republican dogma about the dangerous Iranians "the Iranians are constantly lying about their military exploits, especially when it comes to developing new weapons and technology.
Nope! I don't know if you notice, but the President is not a Republican any more. A Republican hasn't held that office in almost exactly three years.
When will Democrats stop blaming Republicans for fuck ups that are all their own?
It's also perfectly aligned with the building of the Panama Canal and population decline of the bald eagle.
And if you think "minor" changes like that can't have drastic effects on ecosystems you obviously have not read enough research on the topic to make your opinion count for anything.
Don't have to. I can look outside. See, this last summer in my little neck f the woods was one of the hottest, driest and longest in recorded history. It was SEVERAL degrees hotter, on average, than just about any other time since records have been taken. The year before that was pretty brutal too. You know what happened? Nothing. Sure, our lawns turned brown and there were some big-ass forest fires (see Bastrop TX), but for the most part, everything is still here. No "drastic effects on ecosystems". We still have birds, bugs and stray cats. So, I really don't care "THOUSANDS OF CLIMATE RESEARCHERS" say when the real world tells me otherwise.
Granted, I'm well aware that thousands of years of this weather can start to change things. Take the Sahara as an example. It used to be a green, lush paradise. Now, it's a friggin' big, hot, unforgiving desert. But it took thousands and thousands of years to become a big friggin' desert and it happened all on its own, before fire was ever invented and the first smoke stack was ever built. And if climatologist were around back then, I'm sure they would proudly point out the climate change was perfectly aligned with the modern cave painting era, and if we don't stop using mastodon blood as the color red, the world is going to end.
Man has a nasty habbit of thinking the things he does result in unrelated outcomes. Native Americans (Indians) used to do a special dance because the last time they did that dance, it rained. They believed that it rained because they did a little dance. Surely, we've advanced beyond such superstitions, right? Pay attention to football fans. How many do stupid things like never washing a lucky jersey or sitting in a lucky chair during the game. I have friends, really smart friends, who do things like refuse to watch their favorite team play live because the last time they watched a game, their team lost and the last time they didn't watch, they won. Against all logic, they honestly believe that the team's performance changes depending on if he is watching the game on TV.
Just like the current global warming debate, climatologists noticed and extremely slight rise in average temperature (less than 1 degree C), and immediately started asking what WE were doing to cause it. Just like this recent warm winter is more likely associated with La Nina rather than a Jeep Laredo, man will immediately consider his own actions as the cause before looking at more mundane causes like a repeating weather cycle.
By the way, last year's warm weather average was caused by an unusually warm summer mixed with a La Nina event that delayed winter in this year. Any year without a winter is going to be warmer on average than any year with a winter, just as a class's grade average is better when the stupid kid is absent.
I'm not saying that global warming is or is not happening. I am saying that it has been warmer and it has been much colder, all before the first ape stood upright and starting carving porn out of a stump. Maybe we should consider more natural reasons for the extremely recent rise in temperature and stop wondering which dance moves caused the rain.
(if their are misspelled words in this, it's because I suck at spelling and Firefox's spell check is not working all of a sudden.)
We just haven't found a drug to fight it. And before people get on the anti-antibiotics bandwagon, if we didn't use antibiotics, then the simplest infection would be "Totally Drug-Resistant".
Now if you want to speak of the "overuse" or preventative use of antibiotics, then go ahead.
Nothing lived outside the oceans until the ozone layer formed. The ozone didn't form until there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere. This oxygen was produced by oceanic algae.
Slashdot Mirror
Less military research, more research that we actually benefit from.
Like jet engines, rocket engines, the Internet and Super Glue?
In the latest months of WWII, when lacking adult soldiers, the German army drafted kids, too... Are the USA at this point of exhaustion ? ;) )
(oops, did I win a Godwin, here ?
You are close. Before the war, the Germans supported several programs encourage kids and hobbyists to make things like planes and rockets. They used the ideas and the education value to build their war machine into the most advanced army in the world. I think that is what the US is doing now.
Note: My post is not a Godwin. These German programs are not what made the Nazis evil. It's simply what made their war machine the most advanced. What started as a group of hobbyists called the Verein für Raumschiffahrt grew into the Saturn V and put man on the moon!
Oh, and can you give me one case where Obama sided with a corporation over a union? Just one?
The it appears I was 100% right! Obama serves the unions, not the corporations.
Because we understand what an Uncle Tom reference is, and you don't. // A Union cannot have an Uncle Tom, a corporation can.
It would be one thing to call someone an "Uncle Tom" and have no idea what it means. But to fully understand all the ramifications of it and STILL use it as an insult to a black man is what makes you, and people like you textbook cases of racists. The sad part is that you really don't see it and run around calling others racists.
I know what "Uncle Tom's Cabin" is and what the reference means. That's exactly why I won't use it. Would you say of a lucky Jewish person, "Wow! You just made Schindler's list!"?
Oh, the only differences between a corporation and a union how they get their money. A union takes it from its members, and if possible, even it's non-members. A corporation has to convince customers to give it to them in exchange for a product. Both have the same goal, however: Support the men at the top. So unions certainly can own an Uncle Tom. They are called "workers" and they are slaves to the union bosses. Corporations pay their workers. Unions take the money like a pimp or plantation owner.
Oh, cry me a river of fucking crocodile tears, over your uber-conservative ignorant bullshit. Obama has done no such things; he's been the Unions' Uncle Tom, happily handing them everything they wanted.
FTFY, blatant racism aside.
Wait. Tell me again how it's us conservatives that are racist?
So, Obamacare not take over anything. It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies.
Um, then why are so many unions and company's opting out? Why are 20% of the waivers from Nancy Pelosi's district? Why would all these companies and unions opt out of Obamacare if, as YOU stated, it has absolutely no effect on them? What are they opting out of? Why would the government even create a waiver system if there was no point in opting out?
The answer to all these questions:
YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT! You tell lies while calling others liars.
4) The stimulus funds did not "take over" any industries. Give one example. Just one. Literally, I want you to name a single American business which is now government owned because of the stimulus. Either that, or come back and apologize for lying.
Stimulus funds came with strings... no, ROPES attached and did amount to a takeover. You want an example?
Second, stimulus dollars came with strings attached that are now causing enormous budget headaches. Many environmental grants have matching requirements, so to get a federal dollar, states and cities had to spend a dollar even when they were facing huge deficits. The new construction projects built with federal funds also have federal Davis-Bacon wage requirements that raise state building costs to pay inflated union salaries.
Worst of all, at the behest of the public employee unions, Congress imposed "maintenance of effort" spending requirements on states. These federal laws prohibit state legislatures from cutting spending on 15 programs, from road building to welfare, if the state took even a dollar of stimulus cash for these purposes.
Here is a story about banks either turning down TARP or leaving the program after the government started changing the rules after the money went out.
5) TARP was passed by Bush, and didn't take over banks in any case.
Passed under Bush, about three months before he left office. Completely administered under Obama and extended by Geitner. Geitner, btw, is the guy who didn't pay his taxes that Obama made treasury secretary. I guess you are OK with that too. Seriously, would you have been OK if Bush put a drug addict in charge of the DEA and a Klan Grand Wizard in charge of Civil Rights?
6) The health care law does not take over anything. It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh. The man is lying to you.
Whoever pays the bills makes the rules. If you don't believe that, you are lying to yourself. If you think that it took over 2000 pages of "we have to pass it to know what's in it" to do nothing more than, "It puts some new regulations on private insurance companies, prevents individuals from abusing the system with an individual mandate, and helps individuals for whom the mandate would be burdensome by providing them with subsidies.", then you should not leave the house without your helmet.
7) New environmental controls?
Do you not watch the news? Look up the Keystone Pipeline. You'll also notice how the rejection of the pipeline helps out Obama supporters, like Warren Buffett. Obama rejecting the pipeline is also a boon for China, who will get the oil instead of us.
Of course, there is also the strict limitations on drilling in the Gulf... or off the east or west coast or on land and especially in Alaska. We can't drill in the Gulf of Mexico, but China can for Cuba. Deep water drilling is banned in the Gulf of Mexico, but Obama funded it in Brazil. That oil and those jobs are also going to China, by the way.
Strange. I just noticed that it seems that China is benefiting much more for Obama's environmental concerns than the actual environment is, which was my point. Obama's regulations do nothing for the environment, harm it if anything. The rejection of the keystone pipeline means that oil w
Shall we start with the executive order allowing the assassination of American citizens who might be doing something the government doesn't like? Or the reversal on closing GITMO?, or the expansion of the use of drones by local police departments? SOPA, PIPA, Extension of the Patriot Act, expansion of the warranties wiretapping program? Need I go on?
Don't forget the take over of several American industries through "stimulus" funds and the takeover of banks through TARP. Never in the history of America has the POTUS fired the CEO of a major corporation until this president came along. And, of course, let's not forget the take over of health care. There is also all the new environmental controls, unless, of course you are a union shop or big time Obama supporter. There is the backing of unions, like the Obama administration forcing Boeing to cease plans for a plant in S. Carolina because S. Carolina is not a union state (that's right! The POTUS told a private industry that they could not open a plant in S. Carolina, a red state, because it was not union friendly enough).
Through TARP, stimulus finds and health care legislation, environmental restrictions and blind union support, the executive branch has taken control of well over half the US economy. Hell, the Boeing thing should be enough to scare the shit out of any American, but the liberals just cheer louder and louder.
ooh! Ohh! I'll play!!
Applied Socialism:
Public Schools
Public Roads
Public Police Force
Public Fire Departments
Right! And all state/locally funded. Once the feds get involved, things tend to go downhill. Of course, there is a place for federal involvement, but nearly all of them are Constitutional. A national fuel standard would be a good thing. It would prevent refineries from having to create 20-something different blends of gasoline to meet varying state regulations. Since most of these would fall under interstate commerce, regulations would be perfectly Constitutional. It's when the feds get involved in things like setting school curriculum and mortgage rules that bad things start to happen.
Applied unregulated freemarket Capitalism:
Ethiopia.
OK, but I could use N. Korea or the former Soviet Union as counter examples. Power corrupts. When you make the government all powerful, which is necessary for true Socialism, corruption happens.
True Capitalism is just like true communism. Great in theory, horrible in practice. There is a healthy balance of taking elements from both theories. Taking the socialist approach to ensuring a safety net over which a capitalist driven system can opperate. Take out the safety net, and one mistake can have catostrophic results. Build too big of safety net, and the tightrope of capitalism will get tangled up in it.
I agree. I also feel that the Constitution allows for just the right amount of federally mandated socialism. If we actually tried it and found that more was needed, we could amend the Constitution giving the federal government whatever power was necessary. The rest, as the 10'th states, should be handled by the states.
And I think we can surmize, given the US's current level of social-capitalist involvement, as compared to the rest of the modern world (G7 and BRIC), that we are not anywhere remotely close to the excessively socialist side.
Some would say that's why we have the world's largest economy by far. We certainly have the most production per capita of any nation in history, and we are a lazy lot.
The OP was saying that people no longer have to use PCAW these days because of VNC etc. My point is we never had to use PCAW anyway if we used unix or linux on a PC. If that explanation still isn't simple enough for you let me know and I'll mail you one drawn in crayon.
The problem was that I was working for a digital imaging company that installed photo imaging kiosks in photo labs. Now, this was before digital cameras became popular so the majority of our business was from customers scanning images using flatbed scanner or negative scanner. Our software allowed for customers to manipulate their images in a number of ways and reprint them in minutes using the dye sublimation printer.
Now, I would have loved to used Linux or Unix but we had some issues. First, was finding drivers for the scanners we used. SANE sucked at the time. Next was finding drivers for the dye sub printers. The drivers simply didn't exist. Finally, there would have been issues finding drivers for the touchscreen interface for the CRT monitors we used at the time. Again, none were available.
So, yeah. It would have been nice to use a *n?x solution, but it simply was not an option.
Oh, and this was before most businesses had an Internet connection, so throw in modem drivers as well. Remember in 1999, Winmodems were all the rage and Linux drivers, again, did not exist.
Finally, Kodak, our competition, did use Sun machines that ran a version of Unix, but they had millions to throw at the project and had the machines, drivers and software custom designed by Sun. We had 30 employees and had to use off the shelf components and modify them ourselves if need be.
This is what socialists believe in: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" -- the God Damned Constitution.
Don't forget this little nugget of the Constitution:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This means that it is not up to the federal government to force socialist policies. If the states want to, however, that is there right. In a world where the Constitution was followed, if you want socialism, you would look to your governor, not the president, or move to a socialist state.
I remember the first time I used it. It was a Godsend. It was so nice to simply take control and do it rather than sit there on the phone saying, "Click Start. Start. It's on the bottom left. S-T-A-R-T! No, don't type it. Click the button labeled 'Start'. No, it's not on your keyboard. No, wait. Hit CTRL-ESC. Control Escape. It's on your keyboard. Press and hold control and then press and release escape. Keyboard. It's on your keyboard. Nevermind. Do you see Start on your screen?" Even though we were connecting via dialup, it was lightyears better than trying to imagine the screen the use was describing and then describing elements of it it back to them.
But those days are long gone. Now we have RDP, VNC, WebEx, and a host of other remote desktop utilities and protocols. There is no longer a need for PCAW.
Are they actually turning a profit yet, or did the bailout just delay the inevitable?
The fact that they are selling more cars than anyone else is completely worthless if they are still operating at a loss.
Sure, they may be selling every car at a loss, but they plan on making up the difference in volume.
Yes, I'm sure that person would be concerned that the company wasted $100 million dollars.
Assuming it's a waste. That there's no benefit, present or future, at all, whatsoever.
And completely ignoring the record quarterly profits... of $13 billion. Not even 0.1% of this quarter's profits, much less the year.
Yes, I'm sure all the Apple shareholders are focusing on this potential waste of money.
Yeah, what's $100 million. That's nothing. Why I remember back when Bill Gates gave $100 million to Apple and it literally saved the company from going under. But those were bad times, right? We're in good times now and the bad times are long behind us. So it's OK to blow $100 million because we all know that the bad times will never return and we will NEVER say, "Gee! That $100 million sure would come in handy today."
Right.
And the OP's point is that it doesn't matter if the money received would only cover 0.1% of the litigation cost or 100.1% of the litigation cost.
The only thing "Insightful" about the GP's post is to question just how biased the summary and article are. It's not hard to read them as being pro-Android and/or anti-Apple (or just indifferent and making shock claims to drive traffic). It's not a bad thing to question the source - whether there's some merit or whether they're just generating FUD headlines. But as the OP points out, beyond the source's integrity, it really doesn't matter.
The summary author could be Pro-Apple-Stockholder and is outrage that the company his retirement depends on has wasted $100,000,000 on frivolous lawsuits.
Actually, no. There was a lot of freakish behaviour, I don't know how you are able to ignore it*. More than half of the continental United States was affected by either drought or flood last year, a record level of both. In particular, Texas had the worst drought since they started keeping temperature records
Really? Cause I once heard about this event called the "dust bowl", caused in part by a multi-year drought throughout the midwest and south. When we get something worse than that, let me know.
noone would need to tell you what will result when that happens - if you had used your brain to think this more than just 2-3 seconds.
freshwater plume forming means that there is some source that is supplying that freshwater. freshwater, therefore, will grow unless the current trend changes.
If you spent less time telling me to thing and more time... you know, reading the F'in article, you would fine the following:
This fresh water is coming in large part from the rivers running off the Eurasian (Russian) side of the Arctic basin.
Winds and currents have transported this fresh water around the ocean until it has been pulled into the gyre. The volume currently held in the circulation probably represents about 10% of all the fresh water in the Arctic.
Note that TFA says NOTHING about global warming or an increase in the amount of water entering the Arctic. What it DOES say is that WIND is bringing more of the water to the area, and the rotating nature of the winds is holding it there.
there is no telling what will happen to your microclimate in your locale as the globe warms up on average. you may remain unaffected, or get hit by freak weather or conditions.
Well, my "microclimate", meaning the southern half of the United States, just spent a summer with temperatures several degrees warmer than usual and we got no more freakish weather than usual. The winter before that was a few degrees colder than normal, and still no hurricanes over land. So, in a single year, I've seen periods warmer than usual and cooler than usual with no freakish behavior. I think we'll be OK with a 1.6 degree increase over the next 100 years.
Climate change is real, global warming is real and the cause for this is real. This has been established by practically all scientists in the field. Denying it is as futile and idiotic as the few that still refute the theory of evolution based on their personal religious or political ideas.
Just curious... Can you tell me how many of these scientists predicted a fresh water plume, stirred by iceberg moved by high winds, would cause more ice to melt? I can't seem to find that prediction anywhere. I did, however find that high winds will cause the water to cool quicker via evaporation, which should have fixed that pesky iceberg problem, made the water saltier, thereby fixing that overabundance of fresh water problem that started this whole discussion. That was on the Wiki page for Thermohaline circulation. It says, "Wind moving over the water also produces a great deal of evaporation, leading to a decrease in temperature, called evaporative cooling. Evaporation removes only water molecules, resulting in an increase in the salinity of the seawater left behind, and thus an increase in the density of the water mass. In the Norwegian Sea evaporative cooling is predominant, and the sinking water mass, the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW), fills the basin and spills southwards through crevasses in the submarine sills that connect Greenland, Iceland and Great Britain. It then flows very slowly into the deep abyssal plains of the Atlantic, always in a southerly direction."
Also, is CO2 the only gas stored under glaciers? I mean, if the atmospheric CO2 concentration at the time the glaciers formed was so high that releasing a fraction of that gas would be enough to heat the world... wouldn't the planet have been too hot to form these glaciers in the first place?
I'm not trying to be smart ass, but if you don't question, you never learn. And you never EVER give up your freedom of the word of someone else without at least asking a few questions and pointing out gaping logical holes.
The gyre appears to indicate that the ice is becoming thin enough over the Arctic Ocean that the wind is beginning to affect the motion of water under the ice.
I'm quite certain that not only has this not happened before, its not happening now. The summary must not state what the article states, because wind is not magical stuff that teleports through ice in order to transfer its momentum to water underneath it.
Actually, it was melting ice caps break off and are free to move around. This moving of ice bergs stirs up the water underneath it. Think of coffee with cream, with the cream on the bottom. Blowing on the coffee will not stir it up, but a moving a spoon through it will.
With that said, I feel that free moving ice should have basically no effect. To use my analogy above, consider a bathtub full of coffee with cream on the bottom. How much can you stir it by blowing coffee beans around the surface? Also, ice bergs moving around the oceans is NOTHING compared to the ocean currents that already stir up the water which are generated and are strongest at the Arctic.
Like the Greenland glaciers.
Right. The Greenland glaciers melting may be bad. Now, would you so kindly tell me how a fresh water plume will affect glaciers ON LAND?
Next, I need some clarification. I understand that glaciers melting on land may rise sea levels and be bad. And I understand that melting ice caps will cause the ocean currents to cease, making the poles freeze while everything else bakes. And I understand that rising CO2 levels trap heat causing the ice to melt... but wait a minute
First, if the ocean currents cease because there is no ice at the poles and poles freeze over, won't that cause the currents to start back up again. See, the currents are caused by freezing water, not frozen water. When salt water freezes, it loses its salt, making the rest of the unfrozen water saltier. That water falls and has nowhere to go but toward the equator. These currents help balance the climate, keeping the tropics from overheating and keeping the northern latitudes from freezing over too much. Which brings me back to my main point; if the poles freeze over due to no current, won't that kick start the currents again? And to YOUR point, glaciers melting over land will have little to no impact on ocean currents, because, as has been previously, stated, GreenLAND is LAND.
Finally, I thought it was CO2 from our SUV's and coal fired plants causing glaciers to melt. Now it's fresh water? Are you telling me there are aspects of the climate that we didn't consider before giving unlimited power over our lives to our governments?
Also note that "global warming" and "climate change" are not found in TFA, but don't let that stop all of you from blaming climate change and global warming on your own... you know, because the scientists are right, even when they never said it.
Of course the web site source is going wildly counter Republican dogma about the dangerous Iranians "the Iranians are constantly lying about their military exploits, especially when it comes to developing new weapons and technology.
Nope! I don't know if you notice, but the President is not a Republican any more. A Republican hasn't held that office in almost exactly three years.
When will Democrats stop blaming Republicans for fuck ups that are all their own?
The drastically oversimplified correlation was that the 1C "slight rise" in temperature was perfectly aligned with the modern industrial era: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png [wikimedia.org]
It's also perfectly aligned with the building of the Panama Canal and population decline of the bald eagle.
And if you think "minor" changes like that can't have drastic effects on ecosystems you obviously have not read enough research on the topic to make your opinion count for anything.
Don't have to. I can look outside. See, this last summer in my little neck f the woods was one of the hottest, driest and longest in recorded history. It was SEVERAL degrees hotter, on average, than just about any other time since records have been taken. The year before that was pretty brutal too. You know what happened? Nothing. Sure, our lawns turned brown and there were some big-ass forest fires (see Bastrop TX), but for the most part, everything is still here. No "drastic effects on ecosystems". We still have birds, bugs and stray cats. So, I really don't care "THOUSANDS OF CLIMATE RESEARCHERS" say when the real world tells me otherwise.
Granted, I'm well aware that thousands of years of this weather can start to change things. Take the Sahara as an example. It used to be a green, lush paradise. Now, it's a friggin' big, hot, unforgiving desert. But it took thousands and thousands of years to become a big friggin' desert and it happened all on its own, before fire was ever invented and the first smoke stack was ever built. And if climatologist were around back then, I'm sure they would proudly point out the climate change was perfectly aligned with the modern cave painting era, and if we don't stop using mastodon blood as the color red, the world is going to end.
Man has a nasty habbit of thinking the things he does result in unrelated outcomes. Native Americans (Indians) used to do a special dance because the last time they did that dance, it rained. They believed that it rained because they did a little dance. Surely, we've advanced beyond such superstitions, right? Pay attention to football fans. How many do stupid things like never washing a lucky jersey or sitting in a lucky chair during the game. I have friends, really smart friends, who do things like refuse to watch their favorite team play live because the last time they watched a game, their team lost and the last time they didn't watch, they won. Against all logic, they honestly believe that the team's performance changes depending on if he is watching the game on TV.
Just like the current global warming debate, climatologists noticed and extremely slight rise in average temperature (less than 1 degree C), and immediately started asking what WE were doing to cause it. Just like this recent warm winter is more likely associated with La Nina rather than a Jeep Laredo, man will immediately consider his own actions as the cause before looking at more mundane causes like a repeating weather cycle.
By the way, last year's warm weather average was caused by an unusually warm summer mixed with a La Nina event that delayed winter in this year. Any year without a winter is going to be warmer on average than any year with a winter, just as a class's grade average is better when the stupid kid is absent.
I'm not saying that global warming is or is not happening. I am saying that it has been warmer and it has been much colder, all before the first ape stood upright and starting carving porn out of a stump. Maybe we should consider more natural reasons for the extremely recent rise in temperature and stop wondering which dance moves caused the rain.
(if their are misspelled words in this, it's because I suck at spelling and Firefox's spell check is not working all of a sudden.)
We just haven't found a drug to fight it. And before people get on the anti-antibiotics bandwagon, if we didn't use antibiotics, then the simplest infection would be "Totally Drug-Resistant".
Now if you want to speak of the "overuse" or preventative use of antibiotics, then go ahead.
Unable to rename log file. File in use.
Killed hbsend and tried again, worked fine.
Nothing lived outside the oceans until the ozone layer formed. The ozone didn't form until there was enough oxygen in the atmosphere. This oxygen was produced by oceanic algae.