"From what I understand, the government asked for web search strings alone. No identifying information at all."
This is a trial run for the DOJ. If this works out, you can guarentee that personally identifyable information will be requested next. That request will come under a Patriot Act Secret Warrant, so you'll never hear about it. The goverment will use that data to secretely and warrantlessly tap your other communications, you'll be arrested and sent to a secret prison where you'll have no access to a lawyer or the red cross. Sure you may try to starve yourself or hang yourself from your bedsheets after 4 or 5 years, but the guards will make sure to tie you down and force feed you so that your misery can continue.
"I am amazed that people do not see Google's action for what it is -- a huge and hugely inexpensive public relations stunt."
I'm amazed at how short-sited people can be. Within the realms of the law, Google has two options: 1. Hand over the data, 2. File a formal opposition to the motion. Yahoo and MSN were more than happy to jetison our data to whoever wanted it. Google has, at least, taken this step to raise awarness. They may not get anywhere, but at least they tried, which is more than can be said for the Google-alternates.
If Google were to follow the precedent set by Yahoo and MSN then there is absolutely no barrier to doing it again. While a bunch of random URLs may not do the government any good, you can bet that they are using this as a trial run. Next time it won't be random URLs. Next time it will be searches, or searches correlated with urls, or people correlated to searches. Monitoring the search engines is an easy way to monitor the internet as a whole.
Its short-sighted to lambast Google's actions because they're the only major search engine that is trying to defend our rights. Google's business interests and our privacy go hand in hand. One has to remember that Google has to operate within the boundaries of the law. They're doing all they can to raise awareness about those laws, but it is OUR responsibility to get those laws changed. We need to make it politically expensive for our government to act this way; instead you're trying to make it politically expensive for Google to make a stand. Quit your whining, close slashdot, put down the anime, and write a letter to your leaders.
It doesn't double the cost. The workload is spread out over two people who each can do their job in less than 1/2 the time it would take one of them to do both. Division of labor and specialization saves money overall.
My manager uses the same argument (cost) to justify using his C++ programmers as SQL DBAs.
"Yes, Daniel Robbins has decided to leave Microsoft to pursue his passion for software development with an independent software vendor where he will be focused on building in.NET on Windows."
It worked out well for Microsoft. Even though he's not working for Microsoft anymore, they've successfully taken one of the most prominent open source figures and turned him into a.NET lacky.
From the first link "What started out as the "Unfair genocide of the Canaanites" ended up as the "Less-than-they-deserved punitive deportation from the land"--filled with patience and mercy and 'second chances'. It was nonetheless a judgment, and nonetheless involved death--as it later would be repeated to His people."
It amazes me the lengths normally logical and rational people will go to simply to explain something that's obviously a 7000 year old collection of myths written by humans. It makes about as much sense to me as explaining how the "Big Bad Wolf" was justified in eating "Little Red Riding Hood's" grandma. It doesn't really matter.
"As others have noted, this warm-over of punctuated equilibria is a challenge to Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution, not to evolution itself. "
I'm not sure what side you are on, but it needs to be made clear that punctuated equilibrium DOES NOT challenge natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. Punctuated equilibrium simply refines the time scales over which natural selection works.
If, for example, the Great Rift Valley in Africa warmed significantly over a few hundred thousand years, this is a natural event. And, if that warming caused forest to turn into plains, this is a natural event. And, if that lack of forest cause certain monkeys to develop taller posture and longer gaits so that they could survive in the new climate, this is a natural event selecting better adapted species to survive. Both Darwin's original theory and P.E. are in agreement on the fact that nature selects the survivors; P.E. simply says that it can happen faster than we thought.
P.E. makes total sense from a mathematicall standpoint. Imagine a cartesian plain (landscape) made up of peaks and valley representing the probability of an animal surviving given a certain set of features. Peaks are successful combinations of features, valleys are combinations that would lead to certain death. In other words, each peak is a niche. At the very beginning of life the landscape is open with successful niches. Randomly combining a set of features will put you, on average, halfway between a peak and valley. So long as no other creatures exists at a higher level on your particular peak, you are the most successful and will probably survive. Moreover, at the beginning of time, it is almost as likely for you to make a huge evolutionary jump and land at another successful niche at another peak. But, over time, creatures evolve to their niches and climb higher on the mountain. Over time it becomes mathematically unlikely to jump from one peak to another AND be more successful in that niche than the existing life forms. Creatures tend to become better and better adapted to their own peaks by making small, tuning changes.
When the equilibrium is punctuated the landscape changes suddenly. Successful niches become deadly and vice versa. The probability of successfully jumping from one peak to another increases, and so does the apparent rate of evolution. That's why evolution seems to work in spurts. We see evidence of this happening again and again: the transition of single celled to multicellular, the age of amphibians, the age of reptiles, the age of dinosaurs (different), the age of mammals, etc. Each age represents a time when life jumped from one configuration to another quickly and then spent millions of years honing those features.
No, you're abosolutely correct. But you have to look at this from the point of view of the newspaper. They're just trying to ride the intelligent design wave by pointing out good working science. In fact, I don't think that there is a serious evolutionary biologist out there that disputes punctuated equilibrium as a good, solid theory.
Most notably, the legendary biologist Stephen Gould has written extensively on the subject. Anyone with even a basic interest in evolutionary biology should pick up one of his books. There's a good list at the end of the wikipedia article, but I wouldn't recommend his latest book (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory) for anyone but the most dedicated.
For those not in familiar with punctuated equilibrium, its a refinement of Darwin's original theory, not a dispute. Whereas Darwin said that species tend to change gradually overtime, Stephen Gould argued that species are static for long periods of time (equilbrium) until something dramatic happens (the punctuation). He argued that species evolve relatively quickly during events like ice ages, famines, massive volcanoes, meteor strikes.
Evidence for punctuated equilibrium is littered throughout the fossil record. P.E. is the only theory (that I know of) that adequately explains why for billions of years life was single celled and simple. Then, during the Precambrian Explosion some 500 million years ago, life exploded into every form of multicellular life seen today. During those few million years every phyla in existence today came onto the scene. According to P.E. life was stable and single celled until something pushed life from one stable equilibrium to another.
This isn't to say that P.E. rules out slow gradual changes, it simply explains fossil evidence showing a rapid change. But, by rapid change, I'm still talking about millions and millions of years, not something that happened over a work week.
Hmmm. Is it that warm in New Zealand that you bake outside? Or are you talking about the hole in the ozone layer? CFC's and related molecules can act as greenhouse gases, but it is their ability to destory O3 molecules that you seem to be talking about. Greenhouse warming is different from the ozone layer. The world may be getting hotter because of greenhouse gases, but the ozone layer is quietly rebuilding itself as we speak:
I once heard Rush Limbaugh argue against global warming. He said something to the effect:
"Scientists know that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. That's right all those clouds above us are made of greenhouse gases. How can we say that greenhouse gasses will cause global warming when the clouds are made of greenhouse gases?"
Brilliant. Hard to imagine he recently spent time in rehab.
An attitude of blaming everyone else for things won't get you far in life. China is torturing, violating human rights, killing etc, not Google. It may be easier to bitch about Google, especially because they won't kill your for your thoughts, but you need (we all need) to focus our energies on China. If Google didn't capitulate then the Baidu (a Chinese owned search engine) would simply step in and fill the gap. I guarentee you that Baidu doesn't put a disclaimer about censorship on any of their pages.
If you really disagree with this shit, and you're not just bitching for the sake of bitching, then do something about it. Write a letter to your congressman voicing your concerns. Talk about human rights violations, Tianemen Square, their aggressive stance on Tiawan, the virtual genocide in Tibet, pegging the yuan to the dollar, the lack of freedom of religion, their support of a nuclear Iran and nuclear North Korea, their poor environmental standards, rampant espionage, pick anything.
If you're a bit more militant, then jump on the Freenet project or TOR and help get that information to the Chinese people. If the amount of effort developers put into cracking DRM on their porn DVD's was redirected into an anti-censorship application then China would be helpless to hide the truth.
A recent survey in the Economist magazine shows that most of Europeans want a larger more powerful China to offset the US. In fact, Europe is now actively moving towards selling China arms. So, if you know any Europeans, talk to them, tell them to stop being so hurt about their fall from influence and consider the ramifications of what they are asking for.
I was listening to NPR the other day and someone made a great point about why they are doing this. By law, the Bush administration is allowed to get these secret warrants if they have some sort of probable cause. According to the guest almost none of these warrants are denied. But, he continued, the Bush administration must not have probable cause. If they went to the courts asking for a warrant on these particular cases then they might be denied. In other words, by breaking the law and not going to the court they aren't being told no. It's a lot like not asking your parents to do something because they are going to say no, so you do it without asking.
That's also why the Bush administration isn't defending not going to the courts. They simply repeat "its legal, its legal" because they don't want to argue this on the basis of probable cause.
Interestingly, the gentleman on the radio who was defending the white house said that "if your daughter travels overseas to finish her masters in Arabic and calls home, then you won't be monitored". The other gentlemen asked what process guarenteed this statement. The defender claims that they have to ask an acting officer before doing it. Good thing the American army doesn't have any bad apples in its command chain (Abu Graib)!
"only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders"
This is how Milton Freeman might run a business, but doesn't that sound a little psychotic? Anyone who starts a business can run it however they want and they don't have to be assholes about it. In the long wrong, being an asshole and only worrying about profit will work against a company, just look at the major American car makers.
By the way, just because someone once said something doesn't mean you pick it up and start repeating it like a parrot. Think for yourself.
"For those who cannot read, I will spell it out for you. The US Constitution REMOVES from government the power to do anything not permitted."
You must be a strict constructionist. Lets be clear that this statement is an opinion, not necessarily a fact, and has been argued since day one. For instance, Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist. That is until Napoleon offered him the Louisiana purchase. The constitution never says we can annex large swathes of virgin territory, but I, living in Arizona, am glad he changed his mind and saw that things aren't so black and white.
I do agree with you though. The government is way out of line. Lets not pretend like it started after 9/11 either. You and I both know that NSA's Echelon program was up an running for years before 9/11. The FBI had carnivore. Thanks to the war on drugs, local law enforcement can search without warrant. Did any of these massive incursions into our privacy prevent 9/11? Yes, yes it did.
Dude, don't feel bad, most posters on slashdot don't know the first thing about economics either.
1.) China a Japan didn't "buy" the US. A 1 trillion dollar investment in country that generates $12.5 trillion dollars in wealth a year and is conservatively worth HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS of dollars is about as insignificant as your economic understanding.
2.) Have you ever heard of the $200 billion dollar trade deficit between the US and China? A trade embargo against China would cripple China as they receive way more money from us, than we do them ($200 billion dollars more last year alone) . China's GDP is somewhere around $1 - 1.2 trillion, $200 billion dollars means that their economy would collapse by %20 overnight. Compare that with ~1.5% of the US GDP. We give up cheap t-shirts and they give up quality of life.
3.) The Chinese Yuan is (loosely) pegged to the dollar. It may fluctuate up or down a few percentage points in relation to the US, but for the most part China maintains a static peg to our dollar at around 8.1 - 8.3 yuan / dollar. If China decided to attempt to economically blackmail us it would directly hurt them. If our dollar crashes, they're dollar crashes and they can no longer buy raw materials for imports. On the other hand, if they inflate the shit out of the US dollar, then they won't be able to compete with any other third world countries when selling exports.
The reason Bush will bow down to China is not economics, its because people like you take the option of force off the table. If Iraq, in your eyes, is some sort of unattainable joke, what do you really expect Bush to do about a country of China's size?
Dude, seriously. The Russians have been researching Fiber Optics for years now, which clearly enables the Fusion tech to be research. If they crank up Science to 80% or 90% they'll be ready in no time.
Re:Maybe not declining, but simply changing
on
Spam is Dead
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If anyone annoys me with their ads, I leave. I don't block their ads, I simply don't read their website any more.
This strategy isn't too well thought out, it just makes sure that everyone loses. Using an adblocker means that I get to see the content on X site while not having to see the add. I come out ahead and it costs the company a little bit to show me the content. They also don't recoup any of that cost in terms of advertising dollars since I never saw the ad. Overall the company is slightly worse off and I'm slightly enriched.
The strategy of avoiding the site, however, means that no one sees the content or ads. No one is any better off, and no one is any worse off. A better strategy would be a combination. Adblock, and visit, sites that have annoying ads. Don't adblock the non-annoying ads. Viewing non-obtrusive ads on certain sites leaves both you and those socially responsible marketters better off. On the other hand, annoying advertisers will see their costs soar with revenue stagnant....and knowing is half the battle.
I agree. In fact, I can't imagine why Wikipedia wouldn't use ads. Done tastefully and unobtrusively (unlike the eye-sore appearing in the middle of Slashdot right now) ads would increase the value of articles as they would provide additional external resources relative to the article.
Wikipedia needs to embrace Google's advertising and use it as a means of hiring more developers and editors. An operating budget and a staff of more than 3 people would go a long way to solve people's complaints about worthless content.
Wikipedia claims that they receive 2 billion page views per month. If they could make 1/10th of 1 penny in ad dollars per view, that would throw off 2 million dollars a month. That's a lot of money compared to their current $200k pledge drive. In reality they would probably make a lot more than 1/10th of one penny considering they have an ideal mechanism for delivering content related directed advertisements.
Democracy is unlikely to spread like you think it will.
OK, so its not like the Middle East has suddenly become the United States of Arabia. But, there has a been a ton of progress in the Middle East lately towards Democracy:
1. Democratic elections in Lebanon, free of Syrian influence for the first time in 18 years.
2. Women given the right to vote in Kuwait for the first time ever.
3. Limited regional elections allowed in Saudi Arabia.
4. An pseudo-Democratic presidential election in Egypt.
5. The fiasco in Iraq. Whatever you might say about it, a democratic process is taking place.
Baby steps, baby. While none of these are quite the model of perfection they do represent incremental improvements. Given time to grow these movements may blossom in something much closer to that Western model we're familiar with.
Slashdot Mirror
"From what I understand, the government asked for web search strings alone. No identifying information at all."
This is a trial run for the DOJ. If this works out, you can guarentee that personally identifyable information will be requested next. That request will come under a Patriot Act Secret Warrant, so you'll never hear about it. The goverment will use that data to secretely and warrantlessly tap your other communications, you'll be arrested and sent to a secret prison where you'll have no access to a lawyer or the red cross. Sure you may try to starve yourself or hang yourself from your bedsheets after 4 or 5 years, but the guards will make sure to tie you down and force feed you so that your misery can continue.
Yeah, Google's the bad guy here.
It may be as simple as Google is not on trial. The fourth amendment prevents you from saying anything to incriminate yourself.
"I am amazed that people do not see Google's action for what it is -- a huge and hugely inexpensive public relations stunt."
/ senators_cfm.cfm
I'm amazed at how short-sited people can be. Within the realms of the law, Google has two options: 1. Hand over the data, 2. File a formal opposition to the motion. Yahoo and MSN were more than happy to jetison our data to whoever wanted it. Google has, at least, taken this step to raise awarness. They may not get anywhere, but at least they tried, which is more than can be said for the Google-alternates.
If Google were to follow the precedent set by Yahoo and MSN then there is absolutely no barrier to doing it again. While a bunch of random URLs may not do the government any good, you can bet that they are using this as a trial run. Next time it won't be random URLs. Next time it will be searches, or searches correlated with urls, or people correlated to searches. Monitoring the search engines is an easy way to monitor the internet as a whole.
Its short-sighted to lambast Google's actions because they're the only major search engine that is trying to defend our rights. Google's business interests and our privacy go hand in hand. One has to remember that Google has to operate within the boundaries of the law. They're doing all they can to raise awareness about those laws, but it is OUR responsibility to get those laws changed. We need to make it politically expensive for our government to act this way; instead you're trying to make it politically expensive for Google to make a stand. Quit your whining, close slashdot, put down the anime, and write a letter to your leaders.
House of Representatives:
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information
It doesn't double the cost. The workload is spread out over two people who each can do their job in less than 1/2 the time it would take one of them to do both. Division of labor and specialization saves money overall.
My manager uses the same argument (cost) to justify using his C++ programmers as SQL DBAs.
RTFA:
.NET on Windows."
"Yes, Daniel Robbins has decided to leave Microsoft to pursue his passion for software development with an independent software vendor where he will be focused on building in
"why are there not import/export sanctions on China"
The United States and Europe both have arms embargoes against China:
Q&A: China arms embargo row
Note that Europe wants to lift those sanctions because, "the Chinese human rights record has improved". France and Germany, sigh...
We would have a hard time expanding the embargoe to other industries because of our membership in the WTO.
It worked out well for Microsoft. Even though he's not working for Microsoft anymore, they've successfully taken one of the most prominent open source figures and turned him into a .NET lacky.
Score:
MS 1
Linux 6.022 x 10^23
From the first link "What started out as the "Unfair genocide of the Canaanites" ended up as the "Less-than-they-deserved punitive deportation from the land"--filled with patience and mercy and 'second chances'. It was nonetheless a judgment, and nonetheless involved death--as it later would be repeated to His people."
It amazes me the lengths normally logical and rational people will go to simply to explain something that's obviously a 7000 year old collection of myths written by humans. It makes about as much sense to me as explaining how the "Big Bad Wolf" was justified in eating "Little Red Riding Hood's" grandma. It doesn't really matter.
"As others have noted, this warm-over of punctuated equilibria is a challenge to Natural Selection as the mechanism of evolution, not to evolution itself. "
I'm not sure what side you are on, but it needs to be made clear that punctuated equilibrium DOES NOT challenge natural selection as the mechanism for evolution. Punctuated equilibrium simply refines the time scales over which natural selection works.
If, for example, the Great Rift Valley in Africa warmed significantly over a few hundred thousand years, this is a natural event. And, if that warming caused forest to turn into plains, this is a natural event. And, if that lack of forest cause certain monkeys to develop taller posture and longer gaits so that they could survive in the new climate, this is a natural event selecting better adapted species to survive. Both Darwin's original theory and P.E. are in agreement on the fact that nature selects the survivors; P.E. simply says that it can happen faster than we thought.
P.E. makes total sense from a mathematicall standpoint. Imagine a cartesian plain (landscape) made up of peaks and valley representing the probability of an animal surviving given a certain set of features. Peaks are successful combinations of features, valleys are combinations that would lead to certain death. In other words, each peak is a niche. At the very beginning of life the landscape is open with successful niches. Randomly combining a set of features will put you, on average, halfway between a peak and valley. So long as no other creatures exists at a higher level on your particular peak, you are the most successful and will probably survive. Moreover, at the beginning of time, it is almost as likely for you to make a huge evolutionary jump and land at another successful niche at another peak. But, over time, creatures evolve to their niches and climb higher on the mountain. Over time it becomes mathematically unlikely to jump from one peak to another AND be more successful in that niche than the existing life forms. Creatures tend to become better and better adapted to their own peaks by making small, tuning changes.
When the equilibrium is punctuated the landscape changes suddenly. Successful niches become deadly and vice versa. The probability of successfully jumping from one peak to another increases, and so does the apparent rate of evolution. That's why evolution seems to work in spurts. We see evidence of this happening again and again: the transition of single celled to multicellular, the age of amphibians, the age of reptiles, the age of dinosaurs (different), the age of mammals, etc. Each age represents a time when life jumped from one configuration to another quickly and then spent millions of years honing those features.
Isn't that simply punctuated equilibrium?
No, you're abosolutely correct. But you have to look at this from the point of view of the newspaper. They're just trying to ride the intelligent design wave by pointing out good working science. In fact, I don't think that there is a serious evolutionary biologist out there that disputes punctuated equilibrium as a good, solid theory.
Most notably, the legendary biologist Stephen Gould has written extensively on the subject. Anyone with even a basic interest in evolutionary biology should pick up one of his books. There's a good list at the end of the wikipedia article, but I wouldn't recommend his latest book (The Structure of Evolutionary Theory) for anyone but the most dedicated.
For those not in familiar with punctuated equilibrium, its a refinement of Darwin's original theory, not a dispute. Whereas Darwin said that species tend to change gradually overtime, Stephen Gould argued that species are static for long periods of time (equilbrium) until something dramatic happens (the punctuation). He argued that species evolve relatively quickly during events like ice ages, famines, massive volcanoes, meteor strikes.
Evidence for punctuated equilibrium is littered throughout the fossil record. P.E. is the only theory (that I know of) that adequately explains why for billions of years life was single celled and simple. Then, during the Precambrian Explosion some 500 million years ago, life exploded into every form of multicellular life seen today. During those few million years every phyla in existence today came onto the scene. According to P.E. life was stable and single celled until something pushed life from one stable equilibrium to another.
This isn't to say that P.E. rules out slow gradual changes, it simply explains fossil evidence showing a rapid change. But, by rapid change, I'm still talking about millions and millions of years, not something that happened over a work week.
Repeat after me: market capitalization.
Rock on.
Hmmm. Is it that warm in New Zealand that you bake outside? Or are you talking about the hole in the ozone layer? CFC's and related molecules can act as greenhouse gases, but it is their ability to destory O3 molecules that you seem to be talking about. Greenhouse warming is different from the ozone layer. The world may be getting hotter because of greenhouse gases, but the ozone layer is quietly rebuilding itself as we speak:
_ 3115000/3115707.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/sci_tech/newsid
I once heard Rush Limbaugh argue against global warming. He said something to the effect:
"Scientists know that water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. That's right all those clouds above us are made of greenhouse gases. How can we say that greenhouse gasses will cause global warming when the clouds are made of greenhouse gases?"
Brilliant. Hard to imagine he recently spent time in rehab.
An attitude of blaming everyone else for things won't get you far in life. China is torturing, violating human rights, killing etc, not Google. It may be easier to bitch about Google, especially because they won't kill your for your thoughts, but you need (we all need) to focus our energies on China. If Google didn't capitulate then the Baidu (a Chinese owned search engine) would simply step in and fill the gap. I guarentee you that Baidu doesn't put a disclaimer about censorship on any of their pages.
If you really disagree with this shit, and you're not just bitching for the sake of bitching, then do something about it. Write a letter to your congressman voicing your concerns. Talk about human rights violations, Tianemen Square, their aggressive stance on Tiawan, the virtual genocide in Tibet, pegging the yuan to the dollar, the lack of freedom of religion, their support of a nuclear Iran and nuclear North Korea, their poor environmental standards, rampant espionage, pick anything.
If you're a bit more militant, then jump on the Freenet project or TOR and help get that information to the Chinese people. If the amount of effort developers put into cracking DRM on their porn DVD's was redirected into an anti-censorship application then China would be helpless to hide the truth.
A recent survey in the Economist magazine shows that most of Europeans want a larger more powerful China to offset the US. In fact, Europe is now actively moving towards selling China arms. So, if you know any Europeans, talk to them, tell them to stop being so hurt about their fall from influence and consider the ramifications of what they are asking for.
China has to change slowly. We can't have the USSR repeat itself in a country of 1.2 billion people. Lets just hope they change.
I was listening to NPR the other day and someone made a great point about why they are doing this. By law, the Bush administration is allowed to get these secret warrants if they have some sort of probable cause. According to the guest almost none of these warrants are denied. But, he continued, the Bush administration must not have probable cause. If they went to the courts asking for a warrant on these particular cases then they might be denied. In other words, by breaking the law and not going to the court they aren't being told no. It's a lot like not asking your parents to do something because they are going to say no, so you do it without asking.
That's also why the Bush administration isn't defending not going to the courts. They simply repeat "its legal, its legal" because they don't want to argue this on the basis of probable cause.
Interestingly, the gentleman on the radio who was defending the white house said that "if your daughter travels overseas to finish her masters in Arabic and calls home, then you won't be monitored". The other gentlemen asked what process guarenteed this statement. The defender claims that they have to ask an acting officer before doing it. Good thing the American army doesn't have any bad apples in its command chain (Abu Graib)!
"only social responsibility of a corporation is to deliver a profit to its shareholders"
This is how Milton Freeman might run a business, but doesn't that sound a little psychotic? Anyone who starts a business can run it however they want and they don't have to be assholes about it. In the long wrong, being an asshole and only worrying about profit will work against a company, just look at the major American car makers.
By the way, just because someone once said something doesn't mean you pick it up and start repeating it like a parrot. Think for yourself.
"For those who cannot read, I will spell it out for you. The US Constitution REMOVES from government the power to do anything not permitted."
You must be a strict constructionist. Lets be clear that this statement is an opinion, not necessarily a fact, and has been argued since day one. For instance, Thomas Jefferson was a strict constructionist. That is until Napoleon offered him the Louisiana purchase. The constitution never says we can annex large swathes of virgin territory, but I, living in Arizona, am glad he changed his mind and saw that things aren't so black and white.
I do agree with you though. The government is way out of line. Lets not pretend like it started after 9/11 either. You and I both know that NSA's Echelon program was up an running for years before 9/11. The FBI had carnivore. Thanks to the war on drugs, local law enforcement can search without warrant. Did any of these massive incursions into our privacy prevent 9/11? Yes, yes it did.
Dude, don't feel bad, most posters on slashdot don't know the first thing about economics either.
1.) China a Japan didn't "buy" the US. A 1 trillion dollar investment in country that generates $12.5 trillion dollars in wealth a year and is conservatively worth HUNDREDS OF TRILLIONS of dollars is about as insignificant as your economic understanding.
2.) Have you ever heard of the $200 billion dollar trade deficit between the US and China? A trade embargo against China would cripple China as they receive way more money from us, than we do them ($200 billion dollars more last year alone) . China's GDP is somewhere around $1 - 1.2 trillion, $200 billion dollars means that their economy would collapse by %20 overnight. Compare that with ~1.5% of the US GDP. We give up cheap t-shirts and they give up quality of life.
3.) The Chinese Yuan is (loosely) pegged to the dollar. It may fluctuate up or down a few percentage points in relation to the US, but for the most part China maintains a static peg to our dollar at around 8.1 - 8.3 yuan / dollar. If China decided to attempt to economically blackmail us it would directly hurt them. If our dollar crashes, they're dollar crashes and they can no longer buy raw materials for imports. On the other hand, if they inflate the shit out of the US dollar, then they won't be able to compete with any other third world countries when selling exports.
The reason Bush will bow down to China is not economics, its because people like you take the option of force off the table. If Iraq, in your eyes, is some sort of unattainable joke, what do you really expect Bush to do about a country of China's size?
Dude, seriously. The Russians have been researching Fiber Optics for years now, which clearly enables the Fusion tech to be research. If they crank up Science to 80% or 90% they'll be ready in no time.
If anyone annoys me with their ads, I leave. I don't block their ads, I simply don't read their website any more.
...and knowing is half the battle.
This strategy isn't too well thought out, it just makes sure that everyone loses. Using an adblocker means that I get to see the content on X site while not having to see the add. I come out ahead and it costs the company a little bit to show me the content. They also don't recoup any of that cost in terms of advertising dollars since I never saw the ad. Overall the company is slightly worse off and I'm slightly enriched.
The strategy of avoiding the site, however, means that no one sees the content or ads. No one is any better off, and no one is any worse off. A better strategy would be a combination. Adblock, and visit, sites that have annoying ads. Don't adblock the non-annoying ads. Viewing non-obtrusive ads on certain sites leaves both you and those socially responsible marketters better off. On the other hand, annoying advertisers will see their costs soar with revenue stagnant.
I agree. In fact, I can't imagine why Wikipedia wouldn't use ads. Done tastefully and unobtrusively (unlike the eye-sore appearing in the middle of Slashdot right now) ads would increase the value of articles as they would provide additional external resources relative to the article.
Wikipedia needs to embrace Google's advertising and use it as a means of hiring more developers and editors. An operating budget and a staff of more than 3 people would go a long way to solve people's complaints about worthless content.
Wikipedia claims that they receive 2 billion page views per month. If they could make 1/10th of 1 penny in ad dollars per view, that would throw off 2 million dollars a month. That's a lot of money compared to their current $200k
pledge drive. In reality they would probably make a lot more than 1/10th of one penny considering they have an ideal mechanism for delivering content related directed advertisements.
What a perfectly cromulent post!
Democracy is unlikely to spread like you think it will.
OK, so its not like the Middle East has suddenly become the United States of Arabia. But, there has a been a ton of progress in the Middle East lately towards Democracy:
1. Democratic elections in Lebanon, free of Syrian influence for the first time in 18 years.
2. Women given the right to vote in Kuwait for the first time ever.
3. Limited regional elections allowed in Saudi Arabia.
4. An pseudo-Democratic presidential election in Egypt.
5. The fiasco in Iraq. Whatever you might say about it, a democratic process is taking place.
Baby steps, baby. While none of these are quite the model of perfection they do represent incremental improvements. Given time to grow these movements may blossom in something much closer to that Western model we're familiar with.