And because it was the point of Zionism they had to get it at the expense of anybody? As the Rolling Stones sung: "You can't always get what you want".
This argument is a conter-argument to the "but the jew people need a state because they have been prosecuted and murdered" idea:
- "Do you need an state? Fine, but don't do it at the expense of people who has had nothing to do with attempting to kill you. Do it at the expense of the country that tried to get all of you killed."
- "But we do not want that piece of land we want the other one"
- "that is what we can morally offer. The other piece of land is not ours to give to you, so you can take our offer or leave it."
I have never understood why the Nazi massacres have to been mentioned. Why losing a lot of people to the Germans (and rest of Europe) qualifies the survivors to take the land from some arabs who were not involved at all. If they needed some compensation, they could have taken Bavaria to the RFA, that would make sense.
And BTW, the jews were not the only people prosecuted... where is the country for the gipsies? There was no "shoah" for them?
So, if you are going to justify Israel by the fact that someone else people, elsewhere, killed jews... would you mind to explain me the relationship? Thanks.
If Iran wanted to be stronger it would try and have better relations with arms producers (eg. Russia, France etc)
I'm not sure what the official stance is today, but historically Iran's relationships with Russia and France have always been decent -- far better than its relationship with the U.S., anyway. France came under a lot of fire for selling weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran also used the SECAM television format for many years, which suggests technology trade with France. Rumor has it Russia is planning some more weapons sales in the near future. Like I said, I'm not sure where they stand officially, but it seems to me France and Russia are among the only countries whose names ever crop up in news stories about trade with Iran.
You are wrong about Russia... in the XIX century it was a key piece of the Great Game (the competition of Russia and UK, UK to mantain hegemony in the Indic and Russian attempts to get a "warm" harbour in it. It happened that one of the paths going south from Russia was through... Iran (Persia at that time).
Later on, during WWII the URSS and UK invaded the country to use it to send materiel (lend-lease) to the Russians. And when the war ended, Stalin tried to get himself a "buffer zone" that included some of the oil producing regions of Iran.
It looks like more a "Iran hates the Shah" AND "USA gives asylum to the Shah" -> "Iran hates USA". Add to that "the enemies of my enemies are my friends", and you get the typical Cold War byproduct.
There has been lots of reports to attacks to civilian instalations in Palestine (here the press covered an attack in an -empty at the time- school financed by the EU). Not to mention when they bulldoze someone's home because he happens to have a neighbour who has put a bomb in Israel.
So yes, they do attack civilian only installations. And don't give a shit about if the world is ok with that.
Anyway, I still find it counterintuitive... Are there somewhere the equations explaining gravitatory pull (potential) near L4? Also, can someone tell how big would be the "stable" area of L4 in, for example, the Earth-Moon system?
Anyway, I still find it counterintuitive for it to be stable; IANA (I am not an astronomer) but could someone point to some pages with the equations with the graviatory pull (potential) at L4/L5? Also, how big would be the "stable" area around L4 (in the Earth-Moon system).
"I missed the part were the USA or UK offered the jews part of THEIR territory to share it with them, instead of sharing the land of other people."
What was the Mandate called? The Norwegian Mandate? Burmese? No the British Mandate, it was British territory after the First World War to which the League of Nations and then the United Nations decided would be managed by the United Kingdom and then partitioned between the Jews and Arabs, a partition that the Arabs did not honor.
Colonies were "holdings", "assets". They were not part of the national territories (no political representation, only a few "English" to control the country and do bussiness, etc.).
Jews have a 3000+ year history in Israel, not Bavaria.
"So some newcomers come..." By newcomers you mean Jews whose ancestors lived in the region since the end of the Babylonian Captivity and who survived the Roman Wars and etc.
There were a few who were there since then, but a lot of them came back from other countries. And yes, as I stated, asserting that you have a "right to the land" because sometime, a long forgotten ascendant must have been lived here is a pretty weak claim (hey, I can make that claim myself, statiscally speaking it is very possible that one of my ascendants had lived in Palestine somtime in the past).
Even using your example, imagine that an indian tribe claims the rights over NY Island. What do you think would happen? And they have been out of there from less time than most of the Jew families.
In the United States we have many homelands for people who were here before the Europeans came, we call those Indian Nations and Reservations. I'm from one thats about exactly half the size of Israel which border one of equal size, so together they are the size of Israel. Somehow though we don't have open warfare going on, American Indians don't blow up the government and civilians of South Dakota.
Because we all know that the Indians were happy when "offered" to exchange their previous lands with the reservations, and did so freely and without violence or pressure. And did not try to resist, neither. Of course, several generations later, the will of fight stops and people that has always lived in the reserve and known nothing else accepts it.
In fact, I think the reserve analogy is a good one. And as you will probably know because you have informed yourself, Israel did set some territories they did not want for the Palestinians to live there, without rights, whatever they like or not. And, like with the reserves, whenever Israel thinks he need one part of that territory, they just expel the Palestinians from there and grab it.
The main reason there is a Palestinian problem is because in 1948 the Arab nations around the British Mandate of Palestine decided that they didn't need to share the Mandate with the Jews, some who had been there 2500 years, others since Modern Zionism started and others who were refugees from WW2 and the anti-Jewish pogroms following the war.
I missed the part were the USA or UK offered the jews part of THEIR territory to share it with them, instead of sharing the land of other people. Maybe it was a punishment for the extermination of the Jews by the muslims? Nope, it was the Germans (well, most of Europe was ok with that). As I read in a book from Michael Moore, if the Jew people had to have a Jew state, they should have been offered Baviera (but what! Are we going to expel WHITE PEOPLE from their homes? No way, better use some non-white people).
Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had been an honored guest of Hitler throughout the war, was influential in getting the Egyptians to take part in the 1948 Arab-Israel War and in coloring the war as a "Holy War", something the Jordanians didn't like as they saw the war as a way to expand their territory.
So some newcomers come, saying they are going to build a country for themselves, start buying lands with money from outside (and in cases not allowing arabs to work with them, see Labor Zionism). With the help of the colonial power, who uses their milicias as police force. How did dare some arabs try to find some help, whatever help they could find? Hell, even some UK and USA people liked Hitler ideas and fought for him, with your reasoning it is proof that all brits and USAians are anti-Zionists.
The war ended with a victorious Israel as a nation and hundreds of thousands of refugees, people who had bought into the whole "push the Jews into the sea" movement, the Arab states they were refugees in didn't want them there and so they marginalized the Palestinians while promising to get rid of the Jews just as soon as they could.
Not to mention the Palestinian uprisings violently put down by Jordan and Syria, both of which kill many more Palestinians than both Intifadas combined.
Yeah, the Arab countries have not treated well the palestinians, either. More in general, it sucks to be in the losing end, no matter when or where. How does that prove that the creation of Israel was the right thing to do?
Palestinian refugee camps are not the sole responsibility of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq all had a hand in making them as they were the aggressors in 1948.
From another POV, they were trying to defend themselves from one of the last episodies of colonialism.
Of course, that was the status until 1948 and so on, and you can't go back in time, so now the solution must be other than "wipe out Israel". But statements like "it is because of the Arabs" understates the invasion that they have suffered (hell, the Nazis did justify the "aktions" because "the jews have caused the war").
Israel is in no "moral high ground" (in fact, it has had lots of time to improve relations when it had the upper hand, but it has prefered to mount an Apartheid with a community of people that provides cheap labour but has absolutely no rights). Please inform yourself about the history and factor that it, life is neither black nor white.
And last, as this is a charged question, I would like to propose an alternate timeframe to express the main points in the story without using "loaded" words:
2000: Latinos and WASP live peacefully in Texas.
2010: Some latinos start arriving in Texas, claiming that they are going to secede and form a Catholic state.
2018: Venezuela and its allies wins WWIII and, in the partitioning of USA, claims Texas (amongst other states). Native Texans will be ruled by a Governor chosen from Caracas.
Even with the center of mass of each planet exactly in the L point of the other, then if the planet has a radius of 100km, parts of it will be 100kms away from the lagrange point --> inestability, whatever long it takes to become catastrophic.
In fact the idea of the line was to show that I can call the "broken window fallacy" a fallacy (the "broken window fallacy fallacy"). As people usually just state a lemma and treat it as self-explaining truth, I like to twist their words a little to "break the dogma". In later lines I explain why I don't think it is as simple as the OP stated.
Keynes does not advice breaking windows and then replacing them to increase budget. He says that would work, too, but it is better if you get something usable (infrastructure, science, technology...) in return.
There's one gaping problem with this idea. We don't enough to make this judgment.
I like my fries with ketchup, and the statements with verbs. Thank you very much.
Maybe you were going to say "We do not know enough to make this judgement". Well, I think history has shown it that, while not a "cure-it-all" magical formula, it does works. The point is, if you think we do not know enough about it being trugh, then why do you oppose it later in your post?
The broken window fallacy exists only when people would use that money to invest, not to store it due to uncertainty and fear.
In other words, you don't have a clue what investment is. Most people would agree that insurance is investment. You are insuring against expensive future events which can cripple your finances and cause low cash flow. Similarly, saving (also called "storing due to uncertainty and fear") is investing against expensive future events like losing a job or needing a down payment on an expensive asset.
No, you don't have a clue what investment is. The only relation of saving money with investing is that you save it in a bank (security boxes apart), then the bank may lend your money for someone to invest it.
This is the sort of conceit that is common to people who want to spend Other Peoples' Money. They believe they can spend my money better than I can. And to rationalize it, they trivialize my investment choices.
Sorry, didn't knew you were investing in windows. The trouble is defining what is better, and for who. Let's say that an economic policy causes 1.000.000 people become unemployed, but allows you to change your BMW by a Ferrari. It is better for you, but for one million people it is worse. And don't misunderstand me (again), I am not talking that you can not defend getting your Ferrari over all. But don't overstate that other people might not think the same. In particular, given the option, I will always vote for one million people working against your/my Ferrari. If you do not want it and lose the vote, you can try going to Mars so you do not have a Government (but there are no roads there for your Ferrari). You can also try to be de Government (there have been a few job openings in North Africa lately).
My view is that Keynesian spending kills the value of a recession, which is to cull the weakest businesses. I don't think it's a coincidence that US economic dominance started to decline in the 70s after a few decades of Keynesian spending.
Multiple item line here:
I think you are confusing keynesianism with bailouts.
Your criterium of "weakest" is very curious (small? with less assets?). Take two bussiness A and B, equal. A decides to innovate, invest (buy new tech, hire better workers, so on), B just keeps doing as usual. The crisis comes and demand falls, B has savings and A investesments. In your view A is "weakest" because they did the right thing in the wrong time (and that was out of their control). In resume, your point only measures reserves, nothing else (neither productivity nor value provided
Keynes does not advice breaking windows and then replacing them to increase budget. He says that would work, too, but it is better if you get something usable (infrastructure, science, technology...) in return.
The broken window fallacy exists only when people would use that money to invest, not to store it due to uncertainty and fear. Do not know about USA but here in Spain there is a serious credit crunch, getting a credit is very difficult no matter how interesting the inversion might be. Taxes in property/deficit would put money back in economy and that would be a good thing.
A similitude could be made with deflation. In deflation, people wants to keep money instead of buying things because the instant they but something, they are losing value (it would be cheaper to but it later). So, breaking their windows means they are forced to buy and reactive the economy.
It is not only about protecting little furry things. I smell they are more interesting in the energy savings, as in keeping the price of energy low (or at least affordable). And you may say "Let's build more nuclears" or whatever, but energy supply is very inelastic (if you start building a nuclear central today, even without the NIMBY pressure, you'll spend some years before the first watt gets into the grid). So they are trying to ease things in the demand side.
BTW, other posts well before yours state that the law does not ban any technology, just forces a minimum energy efficiency. If you can get that with a CFL or burning your dog, the better for you.
A resistor? It is not a new technology, I have had a water warmer for 5 years, so resistors might have been in the market at least 10 years ago...
In fact, an incandescent bulb is just a resistor designed to give light, if you need warming better use the original thing (TM) and not waste any energy in unused photons...
Your statements can only be true if and only if the employement is a sellers'market (there is more demand for employees than supply). Else, the situation is "You don't want to give me your FB login? Fine, the next applicant will and you won't get another interview"
Add to it that corporations are really out of hand for everything that they can control, and you'll see that soon everywhere you go will demand not only you FB login to check it but also to post praises to your employer and ask your friends to buy their products (and beware of befriending "known radicals" or visiting "non-adequate" sites). The more power they can get over you, the more power they can get. The only constraint would be the money they need to spend to control you.
Your employer already has a lots of power over you. Give him more, and you'll end being your slave. What is fine for me if that only applied to idiots willing to comply with it, but soon they will think everyone is an idiot thanks to people like you.
It sounds like a lot of processing to me... not the kind that would swamp your PC while connecting to emule, but one that could be harmful to the backbone routers.
A fixed length means you can design hardware specifically oriented to it, way faster than software.
How about networking multiple worlds? What about when we learn to colonize Mars, and other solar systems?
IPV6 has plenty enough IP addresses for a single galaxy. We might need to rethink it once we have colonised another galaxy, but the million-year ping times would be a bit annoying anyway.
Nothing that a couple of well configured NAT routers can't manage.
Egypt has no power vacuum; it is clear that the army took over. The trouble is that Mubarak has been succeeded by the generals who have worked for him for lots of years, and people wants to keep pressure to avoid having to deal with the same guy with a different face.
First of all, it is not the "FIRST" step. It is the first step that gets published in/., period.
And also, if you have got yourself a little informed, you'll find that they are protesting for things happening since a long time.
My point here is that internet is not creating the environment. What internet brings is information that people finally are doing something about that, and that information encorages the people who already are pissed to join. In short, people do not protest thanks to internet but protests grows thanks to it.
Actually that is precisely your problem. All of your counterpoints are nothing more than rare corner-cases blown out of proportion. No system will ever be free of corner-cases. The trick is to design for the common case and make it work as well as possible. Your blindered focus on corner cases and your desire to throw the baby out with the bathwater doesn't prove anything other than you aren't willing to give the idea more than a passing thought because you have your own predispositions.
-And nobody will care when the corner cases drop dead? If you are a store owner and plan to go into a "pay only with card" schema, then maybe losing 1% of customers is not worth the inconvenience of working with notes. But if you system means that you lose 1% of pacients who end dead, maybe you want to improve it (and btw, if you give the bad drug to someone who is allergic to it, do not think that their relatives will say "he should have thought of carrying his PDA with him". They are going to sue you, and win)
Simply put, failure rates that are ok for other bussiness are just not acceptable to live-or-death bussiness (do you want a nuclear central with the same rate of failures that the shop at the next corner?).
Slashdot Mirror
And because it was the point of Zionism they had to get it at the expense of anybody? As the Rolling Stones sung: "You can't always get what you want".
This argument is a conter-argument to the "but the jew people need a state because they have been prosecuted and murdered" idea:
- "Do you need an state? Fine, but don't do it at the expense of people who has had nothing to do with attempting to kill you. Do it at the expense of the country that tried to get all of you killed."
- "But we do not want that piece of land we want the other one"
- "that is what we can morally offer. The other piece of land is not ours to give to you, so you can take our offer or leave it."
Ethanol-fueled may be a troll, but he's certainly no coward.
Give respect where it is due.
oh, yeah. He posts in /.. My hero!
How sad.
Combine that with the facts of the Shoah,
I have never understood why the Nazi massacres have to been mentioned. Why losing a lot of people to the Germans (and rest of Europe) qualifies the survivors to take the land from some arabs who were not involved at all. If they needed some compensation, they could have taken Bavaria to the RFA, that would make sense.
And BTW, the jews were not the only people prosecuted... where is the country for the gipsies? There was no "shoah" for them?
So, if you are going to justify Israel by the fact that someone else people, elsewhere, killed jews... would you mind to explain me the relationship? Thanks.
If Iran wanted to be stronger it would try and have better relations with arms producers (eg. Russia, France etc)
I'm not sure what the official stance is today, but historically Iran's relationships with Russia and France have always been decent -- far better than its relationship with the U.S., anyway. France came under a lot of fire for selling weapons to Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. Iran also used the SECAM television format for many years, which suggests technology trade with France. Rumor has it Russia is planning some more weapons sales in the near future. Like I said, I'm not sure where they stand officially, but it seems to me France and Russia are among the only countries whose names ever crop up in news stories about trade with Iran.
You are wrong about Russia... in the XIX century it was a key piece of the Great Game (the competition of Russia and UK, UK to mantain hegemony in the Indic and Russian attempts to get a "warm" harbour in it. It happened that one of the paths going south from Russia was through... Iran (Persia at that time).
Later on, during WWII the URSS and UK invaded the country to use it to send materiel (lend-lease) to the Russians. And when the war ended, Stalin tried to get himself a "buffer zone" that included some of the oil producing regions of Iran.
It looks like more a "Iran hates the Shah" AND "USA gives asylum to the Shah" -> "Iran hates USA". Add to that "the enemies of my enemies are my friends", and you get the typical Cold War byproduct.
There has been lots of reports to attacks to civilian instalations in Palestine (here the press covered an attack in an -empty at the time- school financed by the EU). Not to mention when they bulldoze someone's home because he happens to have a neighbour who has put a bomb in Israel.
So yes, they do attack civilian only installations. And don't give a shit about if the world is ok with that.
I don't like feeding trolls, but I'll bite it just this time....
Have you heard about inheritances.... I mean, the thing that allows Paris Hilton being, well, Paris Hilton, instead being employed in a 7-11?
Ok, I was wrong.
Anyway, I still find it counterintuitive... Are there somewhere the equations explaining gravitatory pull (potential) near L4? Also, can someone tell how big would be the "stable" area of L4 in, for example, the Earth-Moon system?
Ok, I was wrong..
Anyway, I still find it counterintuitive for it to be stable; IANA (I am not an astronomer) but could someone point to some pages with the equations with the graviatory pull (potential) at L4/L5? Also, how big would be the "stable" area around L4 (in the Earth-Moon system).
"I missed the part were the USA or UK offered the jews part of THEIR territory to share it with them, instead of sharing the land of other people."
What was the Mandate called? The Norwegian Mandate? Burmese? No the British Mandate, it was British territory after the First World War to which the League of Nations and then the United Nations decided would be managed by the United Kingdom and then partitioned between the Jews and Arabs, a partition that the Arabs did not honor.
Colonies were "holdings", "assets". They were not part of the national territories (no political representation, only a few "English" to control the country and do bussiness, etc.).
Jews have a 3000+ year history in Israel, not Bavaria.
"So some newcomers come..." By newcomers you mean Jews whose ancestors lived in the region since the end of the Babylonian Captivity and who survived the Roman Wars and etc.
There were a few who were there since then, but a lot of them came back from other countries. And yes, as I stated, asserting that you have a "right to the land" because sometime, a long forgotten ascendant must have been lived here is a pretty weak claim (hey, I can make that claim myself, statiscally speaking it is very possible that one of my ascendants had lived in Palestine somtime in the past).
Even using your example, imagine that an indian tribe claims the rights over NY Island. What do you think would happen? And they have been out of there from less time than most of the Jew families.
In the United States we have many homelands for people who were here before the Europeans came, we call those Indian Nations and Reservations. I'm from one thats about exactly half the size of Israel which border one of equal size, so together they are the size of Israel. Somehow though we don't have open warfare going on, American Indians don't blow up the government and civilians of South Dakota.
Because we all know that the Indians were happy when "offered" to exchange their previous lands with the reservations, and did so freely and without violence or pressure. And did not try to resist, neither. Of course, several generations later, the will of fight stops and people that has always lived in the reserve and known nothing else accepts it.
In fact, I think the reserve analogy is a good one. And as you will probably know because you have informed yourself, Israel did set some territories they did not want for the Palestinians to live there, without rights, whatever they like or not. And, like with the reserves, whenever Israel thinks he need one part of that territory, they just expel the Palestinians from there and grab it.
The main reason there is a Palestinian problem is because in 1948 the Arab nations around the British Mandate of Palestine decided that they didn't need to share the Mandate with the Jews, some who had been there 2500 years, others since Modern Zionism started and others who were refugees from WW2 and the anti-Jewish pogroms following the war.
I missed the part were the USA or UK offered the jews part of THEIR territory to share it with them, instead of sharing the land of other people. Maybe it was a punishment for the extermination of the Jews by the muslims? Nope, it was the Germans (well, most of Europe was ok with that). As I read in a book from Michael Moore, if the Jew people had to have a Jew state, they should have been offered Baviera (but what! Are we going to expel WHITE PEOPLE from their homes? No way, better use some non-white people).
Mohammad Amin al-Husayni, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem had been an honored guest of Hitler throughout the war, was influential in getting the Egyptians to take part in the 1948 Arab-Israel War and in coloring the war as a "Holy War", something the Jordanians didn't like as they saw the war as a way to expand their territory.
So some newcomers come, saying they are going to build a country for themselves, start buying lands with money from outside (and in cases not allowing arabs to work with them, see Labor Zionism). With the help of the colonial power, who uses their milicias as police force. How did dare some arabs try to find some help, whatever help they could find? Hell, even some UK and USA people liked Hitler ideas and fought for him, with your reasoning it is proof that all brits and USAians are anti-Zionists.
The war ended with a victorious Israel as a nation and hundreds of thousands of refugees, people who had bought into the whole "push the Jews into the sea" movement, the Arab states they were refugees in didn't want them there and so they marginalized the Palestinians while promising to get rid of the Jews just as soon as they could.
Not to mention the Palestinian uprisings violently put down by Jordan and Syria, both of which kill many more Palestinians than both Intifadas combined.
Yeah, the Arab countries have not treated well the palestinians, either. More in general, it sucks to be in the losing end, no matter when or where. How does that prove that the creation of Israel was the right thing to do?
Palestinian refugee camps are not the sole responsibility of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria and Iraq all had a hand in making them as they were the aggressors in 1948.
From another POV, they were trying to defend themselves from one of the last episodies of colonialism.
Of course, that was the status until 1948 and so on, and you can't go back in time, so now the solution must be other than "wipe out Israel". But statements like "it is because of the Arabs" understates the invasion that they have suffered (hell, the Nazis did justify the "aktions" because "the jews have caused the war"). Israel is in no "moral high ground" (in fact, it has had lots of time to improve relations when it had the upper hand, but it has prefered to mount an Apartheid with a community of people that provides cheap labour but has absolutely no rights). Please inform yourself about the history and factor that it, life is neither black nor white.
And last, as this is a charged question, I would like to propose an alternate timeframe to express the main points in the story without using "loaded" words:
Of course the unused photons I was talking about were in non-infrared wavelengths, (v.g. visible wavelengths). :-)
Even with the center of mass of each planet exactly in the L point of the other, then if the planet has a radius of 100km, parts of it will be 100kms away from the lagrange point --> inestability, whatever long it takes to become catastrophic.
Oh, the old "broken window fallacy" fallacy... :-P
It doesn't matter how old the flaw is.
In fact the idea of the line was to show that I can call the "broken window fallacy" a fallacy (the "broken window fallacy fallacy"). As people usually just state a lemma and treat it as self-explaining truth, I like to twist their words a little to "break the dogma". In later lines I explain why I don't think it is as simple as the OP stated.
Keynes does not advice breaking windows and then replacing them to increase budget. He says that would work, too, but it is better if you get something usable (infrastructure, science, technology...) in return.
There's one gaping problem with this idea. We don't enough to make this judgment.
I like my fries with ketchup, and the statements with verbs. Thank you very much.
Maybe you were going to say "We do not know enough to make this judgement". Well, I think history has shown it that, while not a "cure-it-all" magical formula, it does works. The point is, if you think we do not know enough about it being trugh, then why do you oppose it later in your post?
The broken window fallacy exists only when people would use that money to invest, not to store it due to uncertainty and fear.
In other words, you don't have a clue what investment is. Most people would agree that insurance is investment. You are insuring against expensive future events which can cripple your finances and cause low cash flow. Similarly, saving (also called "storing due to uncertainty and fear") is investing against expensive future events like losing a job or needing a down payment on an expensive asset.
No, you don't have a clue what investment is. The only relation of saving money with investing is that you save it in a bank (security boxes apart), then the bank may lend your money for someone to invest it.
This is the sort of conceit that is common to people who want to spend Other Peoples' Money. They believe they can spend my money better than I can. And to rationalize it, they trivialize my investment choices.
Sorry, didn't knew you were investing in windows. The trouble is defining what is better, and for who. Let's say that an economic policy causes 1.000.000 people become unemployed, but allows you to change your BMW by a Ferrari. It is better for you, but for one million people it is worse. And don't misunderstand me (again), I am not talking that you can not defend getting your Ferrari over all. But don't overstate that other people might not think the same. In particular, given the option, I will always vote for one million people working against your/my Ferrari. If you do not want it and lose the vote, you can try going to Mars so you do not have a Government (but there are no roads there for your Ferrari). You can also try to be de Government (there have been a few job openings in North Africa lately).
My view is that Keynesian spending kills the value of a recession, which is to cull the weakest businesses. I don't think it's a coincidence that US economic dominance started to decline in the 70s after a few decades of Keynesian spending.
Multiple item line here:
Oh, the old "broken window fallacy" fallacy... :-P
Now seriously, two things:
A similitude could be made with deflation. In deflation, people wants to keep money instead of buying things because the instant they but something, they are losing value (it would be cheaper to but it later). So, breaking their windows means they are forced to buy and reactive the economy.
It is not only about protecting little furry things. I smell they are more interesting in the energy savings, as in keeping the price of energy low (or at least affordable). And you may say "Let's build more nuclears" or whatever, but energy supply is very inelastic (if you start building a nuclear central today, even without the NIMBY pressure, you'll spend some years before the first watt gets into the grid). So they are trying to ease things in the demand side.
BTW, other posts well before yours state that the law does not ban any technology, just forces a minimum energy efficiency. If you can get that with a CFL or burning your dog, the better for you.
A resistor? It is not a new technology, I have had a water warmer for 5 years, so resistors might have been in the market at least 10 years ago...
In fact, an incandescent bulb is just a resistor designed to give light, if you need warming better use the original thing (TM) and not waste any energy in unused photons...
While I am all against giving any non-job related info in your interview, giving your login is a breach of contract, not a crime.
Bullshit. Lots of it.
Your statements can only be true if and only if the employement is a sellers'market (there is more demand for employees than supply). Else, the situation is "You don't want to give me your FB login? Fine, the next applicant will and you won't get another interview"
Add to it that corporations are really out of hand for everything that they can control, and you'll see that soon everywhere you go will demand not only you FB login to check it but also to post praises to your employer and ask your friends to buy their products (and beware of befriending "known radicals" or visiting "non-adequate" sites). The more power they can get over you, the more power they can get. The only constraint would be the money they need to spend to control you.
Your employer already has a lots of power over you. Give him more, and you'll end being your slave. What is fine for me if that only applied to idiots willing to comply with it, but soon they will think everyone is an idiot thanks to people like you.
Point 6 is also funny.... doing electronic banking with money from other planetary systems. Wow!
Even monopoly money is worth more, at least you can use it to play monopoly or burn it to get some heat.
First from MARS!
Now seriously, the big "but" to those number is that sometimes the planet you wan to talk to is behind that big, yellow thing. Did you factor that in?
It sounds like a lot of processing to me... not the kind that would swamp your PC while connecting to emule, but one that could be harmful to the backbone routers.
A fixed length means you can design hardware specifically oriented to it, way faster than software.
How about networking multiple worlds? What about when we learn to colonize Mars, and other solar systems?
IPV6 has plenty enough IP addresses for a single galaxy. We might need to rethink it once we have colonised another galaxy, but the million-year ping times would be a bit annoying anyway.
Nothing that a couple of well configured NAT routers can't manage.
Egypt has no power vacuum; it is clear that the army took over. The trouble is that Mubarak has been succeeded by the generals who have worked for him for lots of years, and people wants to keep pressure to avoid having to deal with the same guy with a different face.
First of all, it is not the "FIRST" step. It is the first step that gets published in /., period.
And also, if you have got yourself a little informed, you'll find that they are protesting for things happening since a long time.
My point here is that internet is not creating the environment. What internet brings is information that people finally are doing something about that, and that information encorages the people who already are pissed to join. In short, people do not protest thanks to internet but protests grows thanks to it.
And you suffer from an overactive imagination.
Actually that is precisely your problem. All of your counterpoints are nothing more than rare corner-cases blown out of proportion. No system will ever be free of corner-cases. The trick is to design for the common case and make it work as well as possible. Your blindered focus on corner cases and your desire to throw the baby out with the bathwater doesn't prove anything other than you aren't willing to give the idea more than a passing thought because you have your own predispositions.
-And nobody will care when the corner cases drop dead? If you are a store owner and plan to go into a "pay only with card" schema, then maybe losing 1% of customers is not worth the inconvenience of working with notes. But if you system means that you lose 1% of pacients who end dead, maybe you want to improve it (and btw, if you give the bad drug to someone who is allergic to it, do not think that their relatives will say "he should have thought of carrying his PDA with him". They are going to sue you, and win)
Simply put, failure rates that are ok for other bussiness are just not acceptable to live-or-death bussiness (do you want a nuclear central with the same rate of failures that the shop at the next corner?).