OH NO, say it isn't so! The Democrats are all running against the Tea Party members that are "controlling" the House and Senate - if the Tea Party is "out of gas" then, gasp, who will they run against?
He wasn't "approving" of the stealing, it was the the protester was advocating taking from the rich and giving it to people like him, but when someone took something from him (his mac) he had a problem with it. If he really thinks the "rich" should give their stuff to the "poor" what was his issue with a (most likely) poorer person taking from him, a most likely richer person?
As you said, stealing is stealing, and as the old saying goes, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"
Things left behind are trash - if it was important to them to keep the items they brought to the park, they should have heeded the warnings about the coming evacuation and made plans to get their belongings out of the park. That they choose not to makes their property "abandoned" and considered litter.
"Not only that, but the cops... are stonewalling the protesters when they ask for help. Refusing for example to assist if they get raped, assaulted, and so on."
Uhm, the cops are being told the OWS protesters will handle the "rapes" internally and it is the protesters that are keeping the police out. Take a look here...
"When you put OWS and the Tea Party together they are the 99%."
The vast majority of people are neither in the top 1% NOR are they part of either OWS or the Tea Party - they are what has frequently been called the "Silent Majority" and they tend not to vote, tend not to protest, and tend not to be too concerned about things outside their daily routine and say things like "What are you gonna do, you can't run against City Hall?"
Please articulate one actionable "demand" from the OWS movement. In the begining they specifically choose not to have a defined set of "demands" because it would limit their numbers, they kept it general and watched their numbers swell to include every (and I mean EVERY) conspiracy theory imaginable, and any "common complaint" they all might have is drowned out by the spectacle of the overwhelming number of fringe protesters.
It was too easy to dismiss their "common complaint" of "they (1%) have it, we (99%) want it" and their plan to sit in the park until they get it as, being generous, childish.
Look at the 2008 elections, Sen. McCain spent much MUCH less than his Democratic opponent, and voluntarily opted to comply with McCain/Feingold Campaign reforms, his opponent agreed to voluntarily comply, then simply decided not to and spent $750M on his campaign against the "big money" party...
When given the chice, the last GOP candidate went for "less money in politics" his opponent went for a record level of spending - and plans to best lat campaigns record by aiming for a $1BN campaign, again, running against the "big money" interests of the GOP that will, in all likelyhood spend a fraction of what the incumbent President spends.
The power of Microsoft is their ability to discount the license fee for entry-level OS based on the RAM capacity, screen size and other assorted specifications. They offer significant OS discounts on hardware that can only accept 2 Gig of RAM and have a certain screen size (or smaller).
Ever notice that some "netbooks" ship with Win 7 Home Premium x64 and some ship with Win 7 Starter? The ones that ship without Starter version of Win 7 can typically accept more RAM (4 Gig is not uncommon) and sport nice large screens (like 11")...
Systems/boards sold without a bundled OS from Microsoft are free of any limitations, but if the goal is to sell those boards/systems to OEMs that will build systems that sell with bundled OSs they may opt to limit the RAM capacity of the system.
Typically the power problem for the Atom CPU is in the chipset it is deployed with, not the CPU itself. Early Atom MBs from Intel had a fairly large heatsink on the chipset, and the CPU itself was air-cooled...
"The long term goal would be to have a unified IT department across all 5 stations."
Wrong. The goal is to have a cost-effective solution to the various I.T. problems and concerns from around the organization.
You want to justify an entire new department to take the place of something that already exists in an informal state - you have an uphill battle.
There two good reasons for a company to spend money - to either sell more product or to produce the same product for lower cost. It would be very hard to explain how a Cisco-certified network pro on staff will help sell more advertising, so I'd suggest going after the "lower cost" strategy. Make a list of all the activities you imagine this new group will perform, then put the names/titles of the people that are currently doing each, then how much time they spend on those activities per day/week/month/year, and then put their relative cost down. That is what the company is currently spending on IT.
Now make the same chart, only put proposed hourly costs next to each IT task and run the same numbers, that is what your new department will cost the company.
So then you take the current expense, subtract the proposed cost, and that SHOULD deliver some savings BUT you;ll have to be sure the people that will no longer be doing "pick-up" IT work around the organization will have some "better" activity to do with their new-found time.
Make no mistake about it, your IT group will cost more than the comapny is currently spending, because salaried broadcast engineers who will no longer work on PC issues won't take a cut in pay - they'll cost just the same...
Your argument/proposition is that the comapny will spend a bit more money, will get more productive work out of the various professionals around the company, and hopefully that will allow the business to grow/succeed.
Spain messed up the solar industry quite badly as I recall - they had such obscenely generous subsidies that they made even the most expensive solar panels cost-effective, because the gov't subsidised the purchase and set the prices for solar electricity sold to the power companies that installing solar panels was like printing money. They drove demand for panels through the roof, creating a false demand that the industry tried to meet, but once Spain understood the true cost of their solar initiatives they ended them, causing demand to plummet and the industry to suffer with excess capacity.
Prices don't go down when demand increases, prices go down when you have more product than buyers.
If Gov't subsidies "crank up" and everyone takes advantage of them, then there is no economic advantage.
Think of it this way - if everyone in America wanted a widget, and that widget cost $100, but people were only willing to spend $50 on the widget, the gov't could step in and subsidise each widget to the tune of $50/each, spreading the cost of the subsidy over all Americans. If "everyone" took the Gov't up on the offer, then each person would be paying for their own subsidy ($50/everybody x everybody = $50 per person in increased gov't cost/taxes). Of course, if only half of all Americans actuall paid into the tax code, than half of "everybody" would benefit, while the other half would pay, on average, not only for their subsidy but someone elses, costing them $100 in increased taxes for which they get a $50 subsidy...
Gov't "green" subsidies are limited because we can't afford for them to be widely used.
Except the Gov't didn't shovel money at the early car makers to build factories, then offer generous incentives to car buyers and then pay the drivers for actually using the cars. This is what the Gov't is doing with solar panel industry - paying companies to increase production, paying consumers to install them, then forcing utilities to buy the electricity they generate at above market costs.
Wouldn't it be great if the Solar Panel industry was able to succeed or fail based on the merits and the value of thier products, not be tossed about by the whims of politicians who shovel money into anything that looks "green" wihen they are up for re-election? The politicians, desperate to curry favor with certain constituant groups tosses obscene amounts of money into companies with trivial advancements.
The Government builds up manufacturing capacity with grants and low-cost, gov't backed loans, then they subsidise the purchase of solar panels by end-users to create demand for the panels, then they force utilities to pay well above market rates for whatever power the solar panel owner pumps into the electric grid, without allowing the utility the ability to manage the flow of electricity onto their grid.
And what is the argument for investing ever more money into the solar panel industry? We have to keep up with "threat" of China's investments in their solar panel industry. Here's the problem - first off, solar panels are on their way to being a commodity, and China excells in that space (manufacturing commodity items), second, China has the money to invest in these projects we don't (we perversely are borrowing the money fo fuel our "green initiatives" from China!).
Solyndra was in the $3/watt solar panel business when the industry was going from $2.50 -> $1.60 -> as low as $1/watt solar panels now - Gov't shouldn't be in the business of investing in businesses it subsidies and regulates - it has the ability to create a false market, subject to the political needs of elected officials, not and real demand on the part of the consumer.
Parents also used to have "extra" children in case they lost a few when they were young. Nowadays parents tend to not lose as many children to disease, farming accidents, etc.
Parenting is a 24 hour job, but that doesn't mean you have to stay with the child 24 hours a day - that's not parenting, that is, at best "hovering" and at worst "stalking".
I'm not a fan of so-called "free range parenting" nor am I a "helicoptor parent" - for my children a balance of both is best, and the balance that works with my children may not work for your children.
There is no one single answer - if there was, public schools would adopt that one model and everyone would benefit. That reading a tower of books helped a disadvantaged foster child is fantastic, but that child's experience is far from typical, so mapping his success onto other children is, at best, misguided.
A teacher can teach twenty children simultaneously. A parent will, in most cases, teach only one.
A teacher can march 20 kids along at the pace of the slowest in the room, a parent can teach as fast as their child can learn.
Teachers tend to march the class along as fast as some arbitrary middle child in the class can keep up, sacrificing the lower students and slowing down the top students.
There are problems with public school education, and a $150 eReader isn't what is standing in the way of improving it.
If such an easy fix were possible, there's an easy middle step - have schools buy eReaders - twenty kids plowing through books on thier kindles in a classroom would be a great proof of concept... When iPads, Kindles, Nooks, etc. are deployed in classrooms they become distractions that keep children from learning, not levers that multiply the educational process.
The author has a serious problem with public school teachers that borders on the obsessive, and clouds all reasonable discussion with him on this subject, it would seem.
The problem in schooling isn't teacher salaries, administrative overhead, the cost of school construction, etc. it really has to do with the basics (and while I'm no fan of public school teachers, they are but one piece of a much bigger puzzle).
We've had free lending libraries since the time of Franklin, and to imagine that by somehow taking books off a shelf and injecting them into a shiny electronic device will somehow get kids to read and read and read for 5-10 years is just silly.
Homeschooling is not a new phenomenon, it's how people used to learn things. People homeschool their children for many reasons, teacher salaries isn't typically the main reason - either because the parents want a faith-based education for their children, or they feel the public schools wouldn't benefit their child, OR the parents simply think they "know better", which may or may not be true.
There are many, many subjects that require more than simply "reading a book, writing an essay" to impart mastery. I'm reminded of the scene in Good Will Hunting where Robin William's character dresses down Matt Damon's character and explains "living a life" as opposed to reading about other people's lives in books.
Many famous people earn $50K/hour (or more) - like ex presidents, ex vice presidents, etc. It's not unheard of - it's called a personal appearance.
Seems to me, Newt would have more to explain if he worked at Freddiemac.com for free, because he believed in their fradulent book-keeping and ever lower lending stasndards...
"The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. 1125(d), is an American law enacted in 1999 and established a cause of action for registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name confusingly similar to, or dilutive of, a trademark or personal name."
Newt has publishers, a thriving public speaking business, and other activities that involve his name and likenesses - somebody must have established some formal, legal control of that identity...
The Democratic Super-Pac can't have a legal claim to the name "Newt Gingrich" unless someone there is also named Newt Gingrich - he is a well-known personality, and it will be a trivial matter to get this out of their hands.
I'm old enough to remember the case regarding weber grills (a retailer registered weber.com to sell weber grills on-line, IIRC, before it ever occured to the grill maker to create a website) but my memory fails me regarding the ultimate outcome of the case... It now belongs to Weber, but not sure how that happened...
I'm almost positive that there are STILL folks that will read this report and decry the woeful network connections many in America face - like only have a paltry meg or two download speed and ONLY two choices of providers (ignoring sattelite and cellular)...
That's why the current administration is proposing to inject billions into upgrading our national broadband infrastructure...
The Constitution is VERY easy to interpret when you are trying to argue on the behalf of freedom. The only time you need a crack lawyer to argue an interpretation is when you are trying to present an interpretation that seeks to limit freedom.
It is widely accepted that convicted criminals give up some of their rights as a form of punishment (incarceration, for example, or the ever popular "sexual predator" registries that are becoming so popular, and the restrictions being "registered" imposes on the offender), losing the right to bear arms is just another example, as is losing the right to vote in elections.
Slashdot Mirror
OH NO, say it isn't so! The Democrats are all running against the Tea Party members that are "controlling" the House and Senate - if the Tea Party is "out of gas" then, gasp, who will they run against?
He wasn't "approving" of the stealing, it was the the protester was advocating taking from the rich and giving it to people like him, but when someone took something from him (his mac) he had a problem with it. If he really thinks the "rich" should give their stuff to the "poor" what was his issue with a (most likely) poorer person taking from him, a most likely richer person?
As you said, stealing is stealing, and as the old saying goes, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"
Things left behind are trash - if it was important to them to keep the items they brought to the park, they should have heeded the warnings about the coming evacuation and made plans to get their belongings out of the park. That they choose not to makes their property "abandoned" and considered litter.
Uhm, the cops are being told the OWS protesters will handle the "rapes" internally and it is the protesters that are keeping the police out. Take a look here...
The vast majority of people are neither in the top 1% NOR are they part of either OWS or the Tea Party - they are what has frequently been called the "Silent Majority" and they tend not to vote, tend not to protest, and tend not to be too concerned about things outside their daily routine and say things like "What are you gonna do, you can't run against City Hall?"
Please articulate one actionable "demand" from the OWS movement. In the begining they specifically choose not to have a defined set of "demands" because it would limit their numbers, they kept it general and watched their numbers swell to include every (and I mean EVERY) conspiracy theory imaginable, and any "common complaint" they all might have is drowned out by the spectacle of the overwhelming number of fringe protesters.
It was too easy to dismiss their "common complaint" of "they (1%) have it, we (99%) want it" and their plan to sit in the park until they get it as, being generous, childish.
Look at the 2008 elections, Sen. McCain spent much MUCH less than his Democratic opponent, and voluntarily opted to comply with McCain/Feingold Campaign reforms, his opponent agreed to voluntarily comply, then simply decided not to and spent $750M on his campaign against the "big money" party...
When given the chice, the last GOP candidate went for "less money in politics" his opponent went for a record level of spending - and plans to best lat campaigns record by aiming for a $1BN campaign, again, running against the "big money" interests of the GOP that will, in all likelyhood spend a fraction of what the incumbent President spends.
The power of Microsoft is their ability to discount the license fee for entry-level OS based on the RAM capacity, screen size and other assorted specifications. They offer significant OS discounts on hardware that can only accept 2 Gig of RAM and have a certain screen size (or smaller).
Ever notice that some "netbooks" ship with Win 7 Home Premium x64 and some ship with Win 7 Starter? The ones that ship without Starter version of Win 7 can typically accept more RAM (4 Gig is not uncommon) and sport nice large screens (like 11")...
Systems/boards sold without a bundled OS from Microsoft are free of any limitations, but if the goal is to sell those boards/systems to OEMs that will build systems that sell with bundled OSs they may opt to limit the RAM capacity of the system.
Typically the power problem for the Atom CPU is in the chipset it is deployed with, not the CPU itself. Early Atom MBs from Intel had a fairly large heatsink on the chipset, and the CPU itself was air-cooled...
You wrote:
Wrong. The goal is to have a cost-effective solution to the various I.T. problems and concerns from around the organization.
You want to justify an entire new department to take the place of something that already exists in an informal state - you have an uphill battle.
There two good reasons for a company to spend money - to either sell more product or to produce the same product for lower cost. It would be very hard to explain how a Cisco-certified network pro on staff will help sell more advertising, so I'd suggest going after the "lower cost" strategy. Make a list of all the activities you imagine this new group will perform, then put the names/titles of the people that are currently doing each, then how much time they spend on those activities per day/week/month/year, and then put their relative cost down. That is what the company is currently spending on IT.
Now make the same chart, only put proposed hourly costs next to each IT task and run the same numbers, that is what your new department will cost the company.
So then you take the current expense, subtract the proposed cost, and that SHOULD deliver some savings BUT you;ll have to be sure the people that will no longer be doing "pick-up" IT work around the organization will have some "better" activity to do with their new-found time.
Make no mistake about it, your IT group will cost more than the comapny is currently spending, because salaried broadcast engineers who will no longer work on PC issues won't take a cut in pay - they'll cost just the same...
Your argument/proposition is that the comapny will spend a bit more money, will get more productive work out of the various professionals around the company, and hopefully that will allow the business to grow/succeed.
Spain messed up the solar industry quite badly as I recall - they had such obscenely generous subsidies that they made even the most expensive solar panels cost-effective, because the gov't subsidised the purchase and set the prices for solar electricity sold to the power companies that installing solar panels was like printing money. They drove demand for panels through the roof, creating a false demand that the industry tried to meet, but once Spain understood the true cost of their solar initiatives they ended them, causing demand to plummet and the industry to suffer with excess capacity.
Prices don't go down when demand increases, prices go down when you have more product than buyers.
If Gov't subsidies "crank up" and everyone takes advantage of them, then there is no economic advantage.
Think of it this way - if everyone in America wanted a widget, and that widget cost $100, but people were only willing to spend $50 on the widget, the gov't could step in and subsidise each widget to the tune of $50/each, spreading the cost of the subsidy over all Americans. If "everyone" took the Gov't up on the offer, then each person would be paying for their own subsidy ($50/everybody x everybody = $50 per person in increased gov't cost/taxes). Of course, if only half of all Americans actuall paid into the tax code, than half of "everybody" would benefit, while the other half would pay, on average, not only for their subsidy but someone elses, costing them $100 in increased taxes for which they get a $50 subsidy...
Gov't "green" subsidies are limited because we can't afford for them to be widely used.
Except the Gov't didn't shovel money at the early car makers to build factories, then offer generous incentives to car buyers and then pay the drivers for actually using the cars. This is what the Gov't is doing with solar panel industry - paying companies to increase production, paying consumers to install them, then forcing utilities to buy the electricity they generate at above market costs.
Wouldn't it be great if the Solar Panel industry was able to succeed or fail based on the merits and the value of thier products, not be tossed about by the whims of politicians who shovel money into anything that looks "green" wihen they are up for re-election? The politicians, desperate to curry favor with certain constituant groups tosses obscene amounts of money into companies with trivial advancements.
The Government builds up manufacturing capacity with grants and low-cost, gov't backed loans, then they subsidise the purchase of solar panels by end-users to create demand for the panels, then they force utilities to pay well above market rates for whatever power the solar panel owner pumps into the electric grid, without allowing the utility the ability to manage the flow of electricity onto their grid.
And what is the argument for investing ever more money into the solar panel industry? We have to keep up with "threat" of China's investments in their solar panel industry. Here's the problem - first off, solar panels are on their way to being a commodity, and China excells in that space (manufacturing commodity items), second, China has the money to invest in these projects we don't (we perversely are borrowing the money fo fuel our "green initiatives" from China!).
Solyndra was in the $3/watt solar panel business when the industry was going from $2.50 -> $1.60 -> as low as $1/watt solar panels now - Gov't shouldn't be in the business of investing in businesses it subsidies and regulates - it has the ability to create a false market, subject to the political needs of elected officials, not and real demand on the part of the consumer.
Parents also used to have "extra" children in case they lost a few when they were young. Nowadays parents tend to not lose as many children to disease, farming accidents, etc.
Parenting is a 24 hour job, but that doesn't mean you have to stay with the child 24 hours a day - that's not parenting, that is, at best "hovering" and at worst "stalking".
I'm not a fan of so-called "free range parenting" nor am I a "helicoptor parent" - for my children a balance of both is best, and the balance that works with my children may not work for your children.
When I was a child I remember reading about Australian students that were taught school subjects at home via Amateur Radio broadcasts. The kids would sit at a HF transciever and listen to the instructor and pose questions over the radio link.
There is no one single answer - if there was, public schools would adopt that one model and everyone would benefit. That reading a tower of books helped a disadvantaged foster child is fantastic, but that child's experience is far from typical, so mapping his success onto other children is, at best, misguided.
A teacher can march 20 kids along at the pace of the slowest in the room, a parent can teach as fast as their child can learn.
Teachers tend to march the class along as fast as some arbitrary middle child in the class can keep up, sacrificing the lower students and slowing down the top students.
There are problems with public school education, and a $150 eReader isn't what is standing in the way of improving it.
If such an easy fix were possible, there's an easy middle step - have schools buy eReaders - twenty kids plowing through books on thier kindles in a classroom would be a great proof of concept... When iPads, Kindles, Nooks, etc. are deployed in classrooms they become distractions that keep children from learning, not levers that multiply the educational process.
Asinine.
The author has a serious problem with public school teachers that borders on the obsessive, and clouds all reasonable discussion with him on this subject, it would seem.
The problem in schooling isn't teacher salaries, administrative overhead, the cost of school construction, etc. it really has to do with the basics (and while I'm no fan of public school teachers, they are but one piece of a much bigger puzzle).
We've had free lending libraries since the time of Franklin, and to imagine that by somehow taking books off a shelf and injecting them into a shiny electronic device will somehow get kids to read and read and read for 5-10 years is just silly.
Homeschooling is not a new phenomenon, it's how people used to learn things. People homeschool their children for many reasons, teacher salaries isn't typically the main reason - either because the parents want a faith-based education for their children, or they feel the public schools wouldn't benefit their child, OR the parents simply think they "know better", which may or may not be true.
There are many, many subjects that require more than simply "reading a book, writing an essay" to impart mastery. I'm reminded of the scene in Good Will Hunting where Robin William's character dresses down Matt Damon's character and explains "living a life" as opposed to reading about other people's lives in books.
Many famous people earn $50K/hour (or more) - like ex presidents, ex vice presidents, etc. It's not unheard of - it's called a personal appearance.
Seems to me, Newt would have more to explain if he worked at Freddiemac.com for free, because he believed in their fradulent book-keeping and ever lower lending stasndards...
That whole "santorum" google bomb thing certainly will endear his supporters to the left's various gay rights positions...
Not quite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act
Newt has publishers, a thriving public speaking business, and other activities that involve his name and likenesses - somebody must have established some formal, legal control of that identity...
So anyone can register stephenking.com and the author has no recourse? That seems wrong.
The Democratic Super-Pac can't have a legal claim to the name "Newt Gingrich" unless someone there is also named Newt Gingrich - he is a well-known personality, and it will be a trivial matter to get this out of their hands.
I'm old enough to remember the case regarding weber grills (a retailer registered weber.com to sell weber grills on-line, IIRC, before it ever occured to the grill maker to create a website) but my memory fails me regarding the ultimate outcome of the case... It now belongs to Weber, but not sure how that happened...
I'm almost positive that there are STILL folks that will read this report and decry the woeful network connections many in America face - like only have a paltry meg or two download speed and ONLY two choices of providers (ignoring sattelite and cellular)...
That's why the current administration is proposing to inject billions into upgrading our national broadband infrastructure...
+1
It is widely accepted that convicted criminals give up some of their rights as a form of punishment (incarceration, for example, or the ever popular "sexual predator" registries that are becoming so popular, and the restrictions being "registered" imposes on the offender), losing the right to bear arms is just another example, as is losing the right to vote in elections.