What do you suppose happens in oceanic waters, other than you pissing in them? Think about, you fucking halfwit. Better understanding of tides allows us to understand everything from risks of erosion to oceanic currents (affecting everything from weather systems to shipping) to the best upgrades for ports, harbors and other sea-facing services.
MightyMartian was not confused. MightyMartian states clearly that hydrocarbons are the best, because puking unlimited amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere to prove those fucking hippies wrong is what America is all about. Insatiable appetites coupled with absolute and unassailable certain in our God-given right to do whatever the fuck we want is the American Way!
Sure, uranium is a decent substitute, but it's a little hippy-ish, because it involves scientists, and we all know some of them are fucking hippies.
Back to serious mode; those algae are going to need nitrates and other nutrients, and they're going to need energy. Now the most obvious sources of energy for growing these algae would be something like geothermal or solar. So if we're going to develop this infrastructure just to "grow" diesel, doesn't seem a bit odd to someone that we wouldn't just go straight to the alternative sources? Why create this middle tier of energy production?
Don't bother us with your pathetic alternative energies. We have to burn every fucking ounce of long-chain hydrocarbons, use up every ounce of radioactive ore, burn every ounce of methane and other simple hydrocarbon, before we even consider your pathetic green hippy alternative energy sources. Only fags and Commies believe in generating electricity by anything other than CO2-vomiting power plants. Oh, and CO2 is totally harmless, no matter how fucking much of it you puke out.
God bless oil! The only way oil could be better is if I could fuck or eat it! Now get off my lawn, you pathetic Marxist hippies.
And you can't devalue metal-based money? My favorite example of how stupid it is to peg your currency to metals is what happened in the 19th century when China, who held much of the world's silver, began seeing a massive outflow due to unfair trade and opium sales. It caused a general depression in most currencies because the supply of silver suddenly jumped through the ceiling. Effectively a large increase in supply on the market can lead to severe downward pressure on a currency, based on nothing more than the supply itself, not because of the issues it might cause for manufacturing or other industrial processes.
All forms of trade are inherently based on trust. Trust that you haven't mucked with the medium of exchange.
In this situation, I think measured cuts and tax increases are by far the more sensible solution. Yes, tax increases do have a retarding effect on the economy, but that can be overstated.
Unfortunately, tax policy isn't developed by sensible people, it's developed by people more interested in short term political gain.
But those politicians have districts and states. They are answerable to the voter. Rather than creating artificial barriers and basically throwing the baby (in this case the experienced lawmaker) out with the bathwater, it strikes me the better solution is try to encourage the voters to become part of the political process.
It's not as if first or second term politicians are not vulnerable to interest groups. The political process is poisoned by money from the very start. The solution isn't getting rid of professional lawmakers, it's dealing with the underlying problem.
Microsoft is no longer without competition, and if it starts biting the hand that has fed it for a quarter century, it may find that that competition suddenly starts getting a lot more attention.
Oh Christ, would you fucking Ron Paulites shut the fuck up. Jesus, none of you know a fucking thing about economics, just mouthing "fiat currency is baaaaad" like semi-retarded sheep.
The value of a fiat currency isn't based on nothing, it's based on a huge number of factors, including net economic output, GDP and so forth. Much more sensible than basing it on how much fucking gold the government is sitting on, which is utterly arbitrary and has little or nothing to do with the actual economic life of the country.
I'm always curious as to why people think getting rid of professional politicians will help things. One of the great things that Britain has always had is a tradition of long-serving politicians who create a sort of central group of experienced men and women who have been in and out government. From these ranks you produce people like Gladstone, Churchill and Thatcher. It's ludicrous to force out your most experienced people in any profession simply because you think fresh air alone is enough to fix the problem.
If you start chipping at those things which represent future prosperity, all you're doing is pulling down the walls. Rome started going down the tubes when it began debasing its currency. It meant ultimately less artisans, tradesmen, a less professional army, less civil servants and in the end, complete collapse.
Man. I didn't RTFA, and I thought it was about staging scientists funerals, or funereal scientists stooges! Why can't the articles be about what I think they're about?
The problem here is that HP and Dell both have significant inroads into the corporate, small and medium sized business worlds (well, Acer and Lenovo are also doing alright there as well). If Microsoft sets itself up as a competitor to these companies, this is going to significantly alter the landscape. I can well imagine these companies looking at throwing resources behind something like Android and making a corporate version of it.
I think if it's just tablets, then it's a pretty small portion of the whole and the OEMs, while probably not happy, will go along. If the strategy moves much beyond that, into more general purpose PCs, then this is a major shift.
OEMs are what made Microsoft what it is. They've tolerated a small amount of Microsoft branding, but if Microsoft rocks that boat too much, then Redmond better have a big plan to make up for what is basically the foundation on which the whole company is built. Microsoft deciding to become like IBM of old at this point, so far as I can see, carries substantial risks (though, of course, if it works, would have substantial rewards).
Re:Windows 8 seems like a solid product
on
Windows 8 Is Ready
·
· Score: 2
That's an interesting observation. That makes more sense than paid MS astroturfers.
Slashdot Mirror
What do you suppose happens in oceanic waters, other than you pissing in them? Think about, you fucking halfwit. Better understanding of tides allows us to understand everything from risks of erosion to oceanic currents (affecting everything from weather systems to shipping) to the best upgrades for ports, harbors and other sea-facing services.
Because understanding tidal dynamics has no easily perceivable economic benefits.
Go back to jacking off to Ron Paul posters, and leave the adults to talk, moron.
MightyMartian was not confused. MightyMartian states clearly that hydrocarbons are the best, because puking unlimited amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere to prove those fucking hippies wrong is what America is all about. Insatiable appetites coupled with absolute and unassailable certain in our God-given right to do whatever the fuck we want is the American Way!
Sure, uranium is a decent substitute, but it's a little hippy-ish, because it involves scientists, and we all know some of them are fucking hippies.
It's like government by obsessive-compulsive sufferers. "I can't concentrate on this bill, I can only keep my obsessions front and center."
Government for the morons, by the morons and of the morons.
Back to serious mode; those algae are going to need nitrates and other nutrients, and they're going to need energy. Now the most obvious sources of energy for growing these algae would be something like geothermal or solar. So if we're going to develop this infrastructure just to "grow" diesel, doesn't seem a bit odd to someone that we wouldn't just go straight to the alternative sources? Why create this middle tier of energy production?
Don't bother us with your pathetic alternative energies. We have to burn every fucking ounce of long-chain hydrocarbons, use up every ounce of radioactive ore, burn every ounce of methane and other simple hydrocarbon, before we even consider your pathetic green hippy alternative energy sources. Only fags and Commies believe in generating electricity by anything other than CO2-vomiting power plants. Oh, and CO2 is totally harmless, no matter how fucking much of it you puke out.
God bless oil! The only way oil could be better is if I could fuck or eat it! Now get off my lawn, you pathetic Marxist hippies.
And you can't devalue metal-based money? My favorite example of how stupid it is to peg your currency to metals is what happened in the 19th century when China, who held much of the world's silver, began seeing a massive outflow due to unfair trade and opium sales. It caused a general depression in most currencies because the supply of silver suddenly jumped through the ceiling. Effectively a large increase in supply on the market can lead to severe downward pressure on a currency, based on nothing more than the supply itself, not because of the issues it might cause for manufacturing or other industrial processes.
All forms of trade are inherently based on trust. Trust that you haven't mucked with the medium of exchange.
Based on what? Money in circulation? I mean, what's your metric here? How does it make any sense?
And yes, the guy is a Ron Paulite, as is the lunatic that just posted a reply to your post.
In this situation, I think measured cuts and tax increases are by far the more sensible solution. Yes, tax increases do have a retarding effect on the economy, but that can be overstated.
Unfortunately, tax policy isn't developed by sensible people, it's developed by people more interested in short term political gain.
Simple. Tax the living shit out of all political donations and disallow political advertising as an expense that can reduce net income.
But those politicians have districts and states. They are answerable to the voter. Rather than creating artificial barriers and basically throwing the baby (in this case the experienced lawmaker) out with the bathwater, it strikes me the better solution is try to encourage the voters to become part of the political process.
It's not as if first or second term politicians are not vulnerable to interest groups. The political process is poisoned by money from the very start. The solution isn't getting rid of professional lawmakers, it's dealing with the underlying problem.
Microsoft is no longer without competition, and if it starts biting the hand that has fed it for a quarter century, it may find that that competition suddenly starts getting a lot more attention.
Oh Christ, would you fucking Ron Paulites shut the fuck up. Jesus, none of you know a fucking thing about economics, just mouthing "fiat currency is baaaaad" like semi-retarded sheep.
The value of a fiat currency isn't based on nothing, it's based on a huge number of factors, including net economic output, GDP and so forth. Much more sensible than basing it on how much fucking gold the government is sitting on, which is utterly arbitrary and has little or nothing to do with the actual economic life of the country.
I'm always curious as to why people think getting rid of professional politicians will help things. One of the great things that Britain has always had is a tradition of long-serving politicians who create a sort of central group of experienced men and women who have been in and out government. From these ranks you produce people like Gladstone, Churchill and Thatcher. It's ludicrous to force out your most experienced people in any profession simply because you think fresh air alone is enough to fix the problem.
If you start chipping at those things which represent future prosperity, all you're doing is pulling down the walls. Rome started going down the tubes when it began debasing its currency. It meant ultimately less artisans, tradesmen, a less professional army, less civil servants and in the end, complete collapse.
Man. I didn't RTFA, and I thought it was about staging scientists funerals, or funereal scientists stooges! Why can't the articles be about what I think they're about?
The problem here is that HP and Dell both have significant inroads into the corporate, small and medium sized business worlds (well, Acer and Lenovo are also doing alright there as well). If Microsoft sets itself up as a competitor to these companies, this is going to significantly alter the landscape. I can well imagine these companies looking at throwing resources behind something like Android and making a corporate version of it.
I think if it's just tablets, then it's a pretty small portion of the whole and the OEMs, while probably not happy, will go along. If the strategy moves much beyond that, into more general purpose PCs, then this is a major shift.
So how does Windows deal with restricting where this window can be remapped?
OEMs are what made Microsoft what it is. They've tolerated a small amount of Microsoft branding, but if Microsoft rocks that boat too much, then Redmond better have a big plan to make up for what is basically the foundation on which the whole company is built. Microsoft deciding to become like IBM of old at this point, so far as I can see, carries substantial risks (though, of course, if it works, would have substantial rewards).
That's an interesting observation. That makes more sense than paid MS astroturfers.
Of course they are? Android is already running on PC-like hardware. They're just computers, fuckwad.
Look at my uid you dickless moron. Now go play in traffic shill boy
Okay hotshot. List my aliases. Get to it fucktard.
Yes, but at least the ruling means that if they try sleazy moves, there is a door to fight them.
As honest as opinion as can be bought.