Came here to say this. It's amazing what our government decides it can get away with. Once we allow it to have the power to do this for someone who was most certainly guilty, we have given it the power to do this with anyone else it decides is guilty enough. It's very dangerous territory that we need to retreat from. End American imperialism. It's time we got rid of Obushma.
Adding an amendment does not mean it's been passed and is in effect. If this were true, then we would have gotten rid of the patriot act, withdrawn from foreign deployment, made smoking illegal, beefed up the patriot act, and given every person in america free tacos and jailtime. Here is the current status: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/s1151
No, I mean job offers. I'm not including those emails. Granted, I play the field a lot and am very active in the start-up community, but I constantly have to turn down real and full fledged offers.
Maybe weekly is a slightly exaggerated, but no, I mean job offers. Granted, I market myself constantly and play the field a lot, but I see a lot of opportunity out there. If someone can't find a CS job in the US, it's because either A, they're not looking in the right places, or B, thy have no idea how to market themselves.
I get job offers weekly that offer to pay me ~$60/hr throughout the U.S.. Seriously, I can throw a dart at the map and find a job. I am a recent graduate of 2010. I had a job 2 weeks before graduating, and I was by no means an outperforming student. 2.7 GPA.
I actually work for a certain fortune 500 company that produces laser printers, and while we are phasing a lot of our fax focus out, there just isn't the faith in email that there is in fax. With a fax, you have a physical copy ending up in an office that you know someone has received. There's no spam filter to worry about and you know that that fax is going to get to the right person a lot more than than email if you don't have that person's direct email. For something you have a physical copy of, fax is just a lot simpler. Until there are more printers out there that have email addresses built into them, we're going to be a ways off from replacing fax.
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
According to the studies, Corn is actually better at producing energy than switch grass or wood. You'd be far better off researching fuel cells for transportable fuel than biomass. and even then, using fossil fuels for transportable fuel only is fine with me. It becomes such a relatively minor market that it does no real environmental damage and is the best solution for a niche market.
It's far enough along that Germany is replacing all of it's nuclear power plants with solar power plants. Is it perfect now? No, but there have been some pretty decent breakthroughs in recent times that, in the next 20 years, solar will be one of the dominant and cheapest energy sources on the planet, replacing much of the coal and nuclear facilities. I'm not some starry eyed dreamer either. I'm very critical of technologies that don't work, and in the past, solar was not to the point of becoming a major power source, but now we're getting there.
but the problem is that the source of bio-fuels is extremely fractured. and when you start creating waste for the sake of bio-fuels you move into energy loss. The other types of green energy don't run into this problem. Solar and wind, particularly in the form of temperature differential solar towers, are here now and are on the threshold of become major power sources for the world. Bio-fuels are not even close.
Bio-fuel is nothing but a pipedream. We waste far too many resources trying to develop it when it just takes far too many resources to create a sufficient supply of one type for the fuel to be a sufficient replacement for anything. It would be one thing if we all created a waste of one type from whatever resource we exhumed, but we don't. There is way too much promise in fields like solar power for us to be spending this much time on bio-fuel.
I own sprint stock and have for 10 years. I watched it go from $15/share, to well over $100/share where I thought I should sell but held off the temptation in the hopes to have a larger portfolio in the future, to now where it's less than $5/share...So yeah, I guess you could buy now. It can't really go much lower,
I obviously wasn't intending to talk about anything like this, but hey, you brought it up.:P So this statement you made is one that I see a lot of people making and I think it shows a disconnect between the understanding of what a profit actually means and what jobs are. You probably don't want to hear about it, but it bothers me, so deal.
A profit is far more than just making moneyIt shows that you are creating wealth. One of the fundamental law of economics is that trade creates wealth. By trading, you should end up with more than you gave up. When you can't make a profit, it shows that resources are being improperly allocated. If HP decides they suck at PCs and close down, that doesn't mean those jobs and resources are lost. It means they have to be reallocated. If HP sold 1,000,000 PCs a year, that doesn't mean there are 1,000,000 PCs less going to be purchased. A business staying around that doesn't make a profit is preventing those resources from being used by a company that can make better use of them and create more wealth. This creation of wealth is one of the biggest assets to the advancement of humanity and to encourage the opposite prevents progress from happening. The problem that a lot of people have, of course, is that the wealth ends up in the hands of the top and the elite, but this frustration should not be used to advocate the prevention of wealth creation. This is the result of very different causes.
Comparing raping to turning off social media temporarily for the good of society? Are the updates about your friend's cat that important to you?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
There is no excuse to violating the right of freedom of speech and communication, no matter what the justification. If I can justify locking away people in internment camps for the good of society does that make it acceptable
No. People have been saying this about Google for the past 5+ years. The difference between Google and Microsoft is that Google has maintained the mindset of a startup. Things like 20% time will always insure that Google has a fresh set of ideas brewing and working their way up.
That's actually not even remotely true. While yes, the wars are significant adding to our budget, we have significantly increased spending across the board. In 2000, we spent $1.77 trillion, 18.2% of GDP with a deficit of $0.04 trillion. Our 2011 budget is $3.83 trillion, 26% of GDP, with a deficit of $1.65 trillion. Adjusting the 2000 budget of $1.77 trillion to 2010 dollars would result in $2.22 trillion or $1.61 trillion less than we're currently spending. If we used the last Clinton budget and adjusted it for inflation, we'd have a deficit of $0.4 trillion in a year where tax revenues are at a relatively low level. So, not even close. Eliminating the entire military budget still lives us with a massive deficit, so we can't just blame this on the wars.
The TYPE of government is fine. A constitutional republic is the ideal form of government in my mind. Unfortunately, the federal government has slowly expanded its power beyond its intended limits time and time again. The founding fathers should have been clearer in their wording so there was not nearly as much openness to manipulate it and there should be heavier consequences for going beyond the limits of the constitution. The more power we give to elected officials, the more corrupt they become. Democracy will always fail us. A constitutional republic with clear defined limits of power prevents that abuse from happening.
If you believe Obama is actually trying to balance the budget, then all you need to do is look at what his plan actually entails to think otherwise. The same goes for Boener's plan. Both add over $7 Trillion in new debt over the next 10 years and spending levels continue to rise. If they were actually interested in balancing the budget, the would put us on a path to reduce spending and actually balance the budget, but all this is is a bunch of smoke and mirrors to make us think they're doing the right thing. In reality, all they're doing is continuing to expand the power of the federal government, the executive branch in particular. We need to return to Clinton administration levels of spending, adjusted for inflation of course. We can't keep the Obushma empire going.
It's a shame how one state can house both Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. Hopefully the old turtle will be out of office next election. There aren't many who attempt to expand the powers of the executive branch on the level of Mitch, and we'll be better off without him.
No Libertarian?
Regardless, we will never have more than a two-party system until we change the election system. A pure first-past-the-post system will only support 2 parties. If you want more parties you need to eliminate primaries and move to a two-tier run off election system. All candidates are thrown in the ring for the first election, and unless one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the top two candidates return for a second election. This election system takes emphasis off of parties and more on the individuals running. Granted, it's not a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we've got or a proportional representation system. If you want to see this change happen, it needs to move from the ground up, starting with city elections and moving to statewide. You must first cripple the beast before you attack it.
Slashdot Mirror
Came here to say this. It's amazing what our government decides it can get away with. Once we allow it to have the power to do this for someone who was most certainly guilty, we have given it the power to do this with anyone else it decides is guilty enough. It's very dangerous territory that we need to retreat from. End American imperialism. It's time we got rid of Obushma.
Adding an amendment does not mean it's been passed and is in effect. If this were true, then we would have gotten rid of the patriot act, withdrawn from foreign deployment, made smoking illegal, beefed up the patriot act, and given every person in america free tacos and jailtime. Here is the current status: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/112/s1151
No, I mean job offers. I'm not including those emails. Granted, I play the field a lot and am very active in the start-up community, but I constantly have to turn down real and full fledged offers.
Maybe weekly is a slightly exaggerated, but no, I mean job offers. Granted, I market myself constantly and play the field a lot, but I see a lot of opportunity out there. If someone can't find a CS job in the US, it's because either A, they're not looking in the right places, or B, thy have no idea how to market themselves.
I get job offers weekly that offer to pay me ~$60/hr throughout the U.S.. Seriously, I can throw a dart at the map and find a job. I am a recent graduate of 2010. I had a job 2 weeks before graduating, and I was by no means an outperforming student. 2.7 GPA.
I actually work for a certain fortune 500 company that produces laser printers, and while we are phasing a lot of our fax focus out, there just isn't the faith in email that there is in fax. With a fax, you have a physical copy ending up in an office that you know someone has received. There's no spam filter to worry about and you know that that fax is going to get to the right person a lot more than than email if you don't have that person's direct email. For something you have a physical copy of, fax is just a lot simpler. Until there are more printers out there that have email addresses built into them, we're going to be a ways off from replacing fax.
corn requires 29 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced;
switch grass requires 45 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced; and
wood biomass requires 57 percent more fossil energy than the fuel produced.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/July05/ethanol.toocostly.ssl.html
According to the studies, Corn is actually better at producing energy than switch grass or wood. You'd be far better off researching fuel cells for transportable fuel than biomass. and even then, using fossil fuels for transportable fuel only is fine with me. It becomes such a relatively minor market that it does no real environmental damage and is the best solution for a niche market.
In the sense that it's an extremely long, elaborate, and inefficient process, yes.
It's far enough along that Germany is replacing all of it's nuclear power plants with solar power plants. Is it perfect now? No, but there have been some pretty decent breakthroughs in recent times that, in the next 20 years, solar will be one of the dominant and cheapest energy sources on the planet, replacing much of the coal and nuclear facilities. I'm not some starry eyed dreamer either. I'm very critical of technologies that don't work, and in the past, solar was not to the point of becoming a major power source, but now we're getting there.
but the problem is that the source of bio-fuels is extremely fractured. and when you start creating waste for the sake of bio-fuels you move into energy loss. The other types of green energy don't run into this problem. Solar and wind, particularly in the form of temperature differential solar towers, are here now and are on the threshold of become major power sources for the world. Bio-fuels are not even close.
Bio-fuel is nothing but a pipedream. We waste far too many resources trying to develop it when it just takes far too many resources to create a sufficient supply of one type for the fuel to be a sufficient replacement for anything. It would be one thing if we all created a waste of one type from whatever resource we exhumed, but we don't. There is way too much promise in fields like solar power for us to be spending this much time on bio-fuel.
I own sprint stock and have for 10 years. I watched it go from $15/share, to well over $100/share where I thought I should sell but held off the temptation in the hopes to have a larger portfolio in the future, to now where it's less than $5/share...So yeah, I guess you could buy now. It can't really go much lower,
that's keeping a lot of people employed
I obviously wasn't intending to talk about anything like this, but hey, you brought it up. :P So this statement you made is one that I see a lot of people making and I think it shows a disconnect between the understanding of what a profit actually means and what jobs are. You probably don't want to hear about it, but it bothers me, so deal.
A profit is far more than just making moneyIt shows that you are creating wealth. One of the fundamental law of economics is that trade creates wealth. By trading, you should end up with more than you gave up. When you can't make a profit, it shows that resources are being improperly allocated. If HP decides they suck at PCs and close down, that doesn't mean those jobs and resources are lost. It means they have to be reallocated. If HP sold 1,000,000 PCs a year, that doesn't mean there are 1,000,000 PCs less going to be purchased. A business staying around that doesn't make a profit is preventing those resources from being used by a company that can make better use of them and create more wealth. This creation of wealth is one of the biggest assets to the advancement of humanity and to encourage the opposite prevents progress from happening. The problem that a lot of people have, of course, is that the wealth ends up in the hands of the top and the elite, but this frustration should not be used to advocate the prevention of wealth creation. This is the result of very different causes.
I thought this as well. Why on earth would you stop doing something that, according to TFA, counts as 1/3 of your revenue.
Comparing raping to turning off social media temporarily for the good of society? Are the updates about your friend's cat that important to you?
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." There is no excuse to violating the right of freedom of speech and communication, no matter what the justification. If I can justify locking away people in internment camps for the good of society does that make it acceptable
No. People have been saying this about Google for the past 5+ years. The difference between Google and Microsoft is that Google has maintained the mindset of a startup. Things like 20% time will always insure that Google has a fresh set of ideas brewing and working their way up.
But...the robots....:( So disappointed.
That's actually not even remotely true. While yes, the wars are significant adding to our budget, we have significantly increased spending across the board. In 2000, we spent $1.77 trillion, 18.2% of GDP with a deficit of $0.04 trillion. Our 2011 budget is $3.83 trillion, 26% of GDP, with a deficit of $1.65 trillion. Adjusting the 2000 budget of $1.77 trillion to 2010 dollars would result in $2.22 trillion or $1.61 trillion less than we're currently spending. If we used the last Clinton budget and adjusted it for inflation, we'd have a deficit of $0.4 trillion in a year where tax revenues are at a relatively low level. So, not even close. Eliminating the entire military budget still lives us with a massive deficit, so we can't just blame this on the wars.
The TYPE of government is fine. A constitutional republic is the ideal form of government in my mind. Unfortunately, the federal government has slowly expanded its power beyond its intended limits time and time again. The founding fathers should have been clearer in their wording so there was not nearly as much openness to manipulate it and there should be heavier consequences for going beyond the limits of the constitution. The more power we give to elected officials, the more corrupt they become. Democracy will always fail us. A constitutional republic with clear defined limits of power prevents that abuse from happening.
Because someone felt the need to expend a lulz?
Because I was replying to a joke?
If you believe Obama is actually trying to balance the budget, then all you need to do is look at what his plan actually entails to think otherwise. The same goes for Boener's plan. Both add over $7 Trillion in new debt over the next 10 years and spending levels continue to rise. If they were actually interested in balancing the budget, the would put us on a path to reduce spending and actually balance the budget, but all this is is a bunch of smoke and mirrors to make us think they're doing the right thing. In reality, all they're doing is continuing to expand the power of the federal government, the executive branch in particular. We need to return to Clinton administration levels of spending, adjusted for inflation of course. We can't keep the Obushma empire going.
It's a shame how one state can house both Mitch McConnell and Rand Paul. Hopefully the old turtle will be out of office next election. There aren't many who attempt to expand the powers of the executive branch on the level of Mitch, and we'll be better off without him.
No Libertarian? Regardless, we will never have more than a two-party system until we change the election system. A pure first-past-the-post system will only support 2 parties. If you want more parties you need to eliminate primaries and move to a two-tier run off election system. All candidates are thrown in the ring for the first election, and unless one candidate gets more than 50% of the vote, the top two candidates return for a second election. This election system takes emphasis off of parties and more on the individuals running. Granted, it's not a perfect system, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we've got or a proportional representation system. If you want to see this change happen, it needs to move from the ground up, starting with city elections and moving to statewide. You must first cripple the beast before you attack it.
Finally, someone who thinks on my level. :P Can't believe some people don't know how to take a joke.