Another reason for their launch outside saber-rattling and chest-puffing is simple: cash. They have essentially launched (no pun intended) a global advertisement to potential buyers of the technology they have been touting (though it was not a successful "product demonstration".) Though theoretically propped-up by China and/or Russia, having an income source outside of state sources gives you more political flexibility; that, and the possibility that their technology could be refined/used by "rogue" states/organizations would result in further political chaos, keeping them at or near the center of attention.
Take this concept a bit further. Let's say in 10 years, GPS is standard in enough vehicles on the road to make traffic status very accurate.
Assuming that fossil fueled vehicles are still present, why couldn't a government entity track your road time/route, calculate a pollution or road usage tax based on your actual driving activities and the known MPG rating of your vehicle? One already has to register his/her vehicle (including, year, make and model) with the state. Coupling that with the MPG rating and your driving data could easily be translated to a usage/pollution tax. The government could sell it as an incentive for purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, thus reducing pollution, and/or encouraging greater use mass transit.
This presents one heck of a conflict: believe the witness accounts of her constituents garnered from the investigative reporting of news organizations that are trying desperately to dig up dirt on all fronts
Given that the witnesses are being asked the question, ultimately in the context of a political campaign, how much are the witness' personal ideology shaping how they remembered the situation?
Personally, I have not seen enough evidence piling up for or against the book banning controversy, so I call it a wash.
On the other hand, even if someone had her on tape, with one hand on the bible, while writing edicts calling for books to be banned, some people would shrug it off and subsequently go on a rant about Obama's Muslim faith.
Of course, McCain's response, although beloved by the "moral majority" types, is also wrought with potential craziness (is a miscarriage negligent homicide?).
I realize you're trying to show your perceived fallacies in McCain's response, but I really hope that your last statement was specifically targeted for miscarriages actually caused by neglect, and not all miscarriages.
That assumes that the private entity is only doing it once. If their goal is to make it a money-making venture in the long-term, they are incented to develop a product and/or service that meets customer expectations.
As long as a SINGLE barrel of oil comes from outside the United States, ALL OIL PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES WILL COST PRETTY MUCH THE SAME regardless of the production costs.
If the US was able to sell a barrel of oil less than what OPEC was selling theirs, it would not help pull costs down?
Were this to prove 100% true across all broadcast media, I might be mostly OK with that, in large part because I think a spectrum free of politics could be preferable to what we've got today.
It's your opinion that a spectrum free of politics would be preferable.
What about those who disagree and enjoy the products available today? Would it not be "unfair" to them to lose access to programming they enjoy?
To judge what would be considered "fair", you need a standard, otherwise how would the media outlets determine what they need to do to comply? How does a governmental entity develop an objective standard to what constitutes "fair" when opinion is by its very nature subjective? Opinion is like a Jack Thompson - everyone has one.
How would one provide "fair" coverage to a host that is conservative on some matters and liberal on others? (i.e. Dennis Miller, who admittedly leans a bit more to the right, but supports gay marriage, leaves abortion alone, etc.) Would there need to be a one-for-one viewpoint on every issue?
Ultimately, the fairness doctrine is an attempt to regulate speech. Regardless as to what you consider yourself (left/middle/right,) it should concern you that the government is trying to regulate speech and define what is "fair" to say.
Understood. I probably could have done a better job conveying my point. Basically, what has Obama done to demonstrate his ability to do things differently? I would expect that if he had some sort of proven method he would have used it during his political career, or at least portions of it. Saying he is going to "change" the way things are done is only lip service. He could help quell some of his critics by citing specific examples about how his "change" has worked in the past.
Sure, more people die in car accidents, etc. than terrorist attacks.
One of the fundamental goals of a terrorist is to evoke change in society. If a few hundred people a year were killed by terrorist car bombing, mall shootings, etc., in the continental US, think of the phsycological impacts.
People were wound tight after a uniquely over-the-top attack on 9/11. Imagine what it would be like if the average Joe or Jane started to worry about IEDs made to look like a pile of garbage next to the expressway on their way to work.
Allowing a very small contingent of people to hold a sword of Damocles over the head of a given society does more harm to societal operations and evolution than lightning strikes or car accidents, and they have to be dealt with proactively (militarily, economically, diplomatically, etc.) Doing so after an attack lets the terrorists achieve their objective - terror.
- The Soviets were not known for suicide bombing, using women, children, and mentally and physically handicapped as bomb carriers
- Mutually assured destruction kept the threat in-check; the lack of a border and recognized governmental entity means this does not apply to terrorist groups
- The Soviets were not driven by religious fanaticism, and could be reasoned with (except for Yakov Smirnov)
Not only that, a $22 million dollar cut might be painful, but I am positive there are opportunities for the Lab to run more efficiently to make-up the shortfall. Playing the "layoff card" is much easier to an organization than for it to truly assess that it needs to become smarter about its operations. When an organization's management seems like their only play is workforce reduction, it means they have either not managed personnel supply and demand effectively over time, or they are too lazy or defensive to examine the fundamentals of how things are done operationally.
It was not clear to me how in-depth the testing was at given times during the day, night, week, month, etc.
I would imagine that actual performance is significantly impacted by the number of users - not only of the data service, but all of the folks using their mobile phones as phones at the time(s) tests were conducted.
Voice and data is fighting for the tower's attention, and I would assume most carriers would start ratcheting down data speeds/capacities if their towers were seeing a lot of voice calls.
A long term study examining the most common network performance factors (i.e. latency, throughput, etc.) using the following would prove useful:
Time of day
Weekday, weekend
Population
Tower density
Rural (few buildings over 5-6 stories) vs. Urban (skyscrapers, dense buildings)
So the whole fuss is about rigid Wikipedia policy that if you have (a) a historic figure and you have (b) images, they should be there and it does not even matter for the editors that the depiction is not authentic, not even close to the original, and ultimately has no encyclopedic purpose except that for entertainment of people who grew up reading comics. Then I demand that all pictures of Jesus, Mary, Moses, etc. be removed since we really have no clue what they looked like either.
On the surface, MSFT gains search market share, key web services like Flickr, del.icio.us, Yahoo!'s news services, mail footprint, etc., but the dark horse here is Yahoo!'s deal with AT&T.
I am a DSL subscriber w/ AT&T, which is bundled as "AT&T Yahoo!" What does MSFT gain from that? - not really much other than the types of services mentioned above as well as a captive userbase (something MSFT desperately needs:P )
They do gain better integration and footprint with AT&T Uverse - VOIP, IP Video. MSFT is already partnering with AT&T on much of their effort, and the services are tightly integrated with AT&T Yahoo!. A Yahoo! buy/merge would further cement the relationship and increase MSFT's hooks into the entertainment/Internet space - something Google is rumored to be after as well.
Yeah, except most new and inovative businesses and products are rarely funded by banks due to the banks risk management strategies. Instead banks simply take a cut of all regular economic activity for the benefit of themselves and their investors. Their investors have an economic interest to see that the bank is making the right risks.
This does not usefully grow the economy. And if you haven't already noticed, the vast majority of investment through the stock market goes to companies who quite frankly don't need the investment. Seriously, do you think Microsoft could not continue doing what their doing without people buying and selling MS stock? MS is a single example. The numbers are all there so go look for yourself. The vast majority of stock market investment is concentrated in established business. The stock market is for the most part just legalized gambling where some individuals have knowledge of "when a fighter is going down in the 4th round. I am not ignorant enough to think that there is not a notable number of those who benefit from the market due to insider knowledge. That makes it a less-fair system, and it is unfortunately it takes place.
However, one does not need inside knowledge to make money. Investing in an index fund will almost guarantee a return in the long-term. Doing a little research into a company or fund can improve your chances of finding a return-producing investment in the long-term and maybe in the short-term.
I am fairly confident that the multi-mega-billionaires do more with their money than what you espouse. I imagine they do not keep their billions under their golden-goose-feathered mattresses or in their diamond-encrusted cookie jars. My guess is that their money: - is in a bank, giving the bank the ability to lend money to the "little people" to purchase homes, cars. etc. - is in stock, giving companies of all shapes/sizes capital they need to fund operations, make investments, and grow, thus having some benefit to the "little people" Very well, replace the billionaires with depositor-owned Credit unions. Then explain to me how a whole organization of thousands of people, which is far more effective in all these "funding" areas then a billionaire heir is less advantageous to the society then his pampered ass?
Then explain to me, exactly, the reasoning behind awarding this man all that power and the "merit" to society that his "ownership" of those billions provides... Let's say you get rid of the billionaires and are left with millionaires. At what point will they be deemed without value to society or that they are more "dangerous" than valuable? Who gets to determine what is an acceptable level of value/"danger" relative to one's assets? Why are they qualified to make they decision?
Did you type this on your PC after you did some searching on Google while drinking Coca-Cola with your Large Big Mac Meal? I believe that each of those items I just mentioned were bourne from "little people" and small businesses that came up with products/ideas that the market has responded to, and thus, making many of those involved mega-bazillionaire corporate oligopolistic emperors of evil.
You miss the point. The problem is with the scale of things. There should never be a duo-poly of Coca-Cola and Pepsi ruling 90% of the marketplace. Nor a gigantic all-powerful Google or Microsoft. Allowing such is a market and societal failure. The very existence of billionaires ia a sure indicator of failure of the society to organize things fairly.
Why do you think there are eleventy billion varieties of Coca-Cola products? They are feeling more competitive heat not only from Pepsi, but smaller, more agile competitors (see Jones Soda.) Let's say Coca-Cola loses 2-3% market share to a smaller competitor. If Coca-Cola comes out with a new product that regains that market share loss at the expense of the smaller company, is that a bad thing for society? I don't think so - it means that Coca-Cola is innovating to improve its bottom line, and also forces the smaller company to continue to innovate and compete to take more share away from Coca-Cola.
From a scale perspective, it is the very economies of scale you deride that have brought goods and services to millions if not billions of people who could not afford them before. Is that a bad thing?
Market forces will eventually make these oligopolistic fiefdoms has-beens fit for a future documentary on the History Channel That is insufficient. A societal injstice that takes a life-time (or many) to correct is, for those whose life-times it spans, practically eternal. Not to mention that its removal usually corelates with creation of another.
What is the solution? Preventing people and institutions from earning above a certain amount or gaining a certain level of market share? Again, who gets to decide what is too much and why are they qualified to do so?
If a company is limited to a certain percentage of market share, what is their incentive to lower cost, innovate, etc.? What incentive does the consumer have to look for alternatives if all competitors within a given space are "blah" since the competitors are unable to upset the market balance?
We'll never agree, but appreciate your candor:)
Slashdot Mirror
Another reason for their launch outside saber-rattling and chest-puffing is simple: cash. They have essentially launched (no pun intended) a global advertisement to potential buyers of the technology they have been touting (though it was not a successful "product demonstration".) Though theoretically propped-up by China and/or Russia, having an income source outside of state sources gives you more political flexibility; that, and the possibility that their technology could be refined/used by "rogue" states/organizations would result in further political chaos, keeping them at or near the center of attention.
Might be a good name for an Apple-developed AV solution.
On the other hand, virus writers have a lot of opportunity for virus names like iFormatYourDrive.
Take this concept a bit further. Let's say in 10 years, GPS is standard in enough vehicles on the road to make traffic status very accurate.
Assuming that fossil fueled vehicles are still present, why couldn't a government entity track your road time/route, calculate a pollution or road usage tax based on your actual driving activities and the known MPG rating of your vehicle? One already has to register his/her vehicle (including, year, make and model) with the state. Coupling that with the MPG rating and your driving data could easily be translated to a usage/pollution tax. The government could sell it as an incentive for purchase more fuel efficient vehicles, thus reducing pollution, and/or encouraging greater use mass transit.
This presents one heck of a conflict: believe the witness accounts of her constituents garnered from the investigative reporting of news organizations that are trying desperately to dig up dirt on all fronts
Given that the witnesses are being asked the question, ultimately in the context of a political campaign, how much are the witness' personal ideology shaping how they remembered the situation?
Personally, I have not seen enough evidence piling up for or against the book banning controversy, so I call it a wash.
On the other hand, even if someone had her on tape, with one hand on the bible, while writing edicts calling for books to be banned, some people would shrug it off and subsequently go on a rant about Obama's Muslim faith.
There is a bill under consideration that would allow Unions to see how their members (or potential members) voted.
Washington Times article
It's being pushed under the guise of efficiency, but its potential for abuse is disturbing.
Of course, McCain's response, although beloved by the "moral majority" types, is also wrought with potential craziness (is a miscarriage negligent homicide?).
I realize you're trying to show your perceived fallacies in McCain's response, but I really hope that your last statement was specifically targeted for miscarriages actually caused by neglect, and not all miscarriages.
That assumes that the private entity is only doing it once. If their goal is to make it a money-making venture in the long-term, they are incented to develop a product and/or service that meets customer expectations.
As long as a SINGLE barrel of oil comes from outside the United States, ALL OIL PRODUCED IN THE UNITED STATES WILL COST PRETTY MUCH THE SAME regardless of the production costs.
If the US was able to sell a barrel of oil less than what OPEC was selling theirs, it would not help pull costs down?
Were this to prove 100% true across all broadcast media, I might be mostly OK with that, in large part because I think a spectrum free of politics could be preferable to what we've got today.
It's your opinion that a spectrum free of politics would be preferable.
What about those who disagree and enjoy the products available today? Would it not be "unfair" to them to lose access to programming they enjoy?
Exactly.
If they want to get the message out, remove the rings alltogether, thus removing the basis for the takedown request.
To judge what would be considered "fair", you need a standard, otherwise how would the media outlets determine what they need to do to comply? How does a governmental entity develop an objective standard to what constitutes "fair" when opinion is by its very nature subjective? Opinion is like a Jack Thompson - everyone has one.
How would one provide "fair" coverage to a host that is conservative on some matters and liberal on others? (i.e. Dennis Miller, who admittedly leans a bit more to the right, but supports gay marriage, leaves abortion alone, etc.) Would there need to be a one-for-one viewpoint on every issue?
Ultimately, the fairness doctrine is an attempt to regulate speech. Regardless as to what you consider yourself (left/middle/right,) it should concern you that the government is trying to regulate speech and define what is "fair" to say.
On a somewhat related note, a Dr. Richard Skeinfloot came to similar findings for an instrument that carries his namesake as well.
Understood. I probably could have done a better job conveying my point. Basically, what has Obama done to demonstrate his ability to do things differently? I would expect that if he had some sort of proven method he would have used it during his political career, or at least portions of it. Saying he is going to "change" the way things are done is only lip service. He could help quell some of his critics by citing specific examples about how his "change" has worked in the past.
If he is truly for change, what bi-partisan legislation has he submitted? How many Republican or Independent bills has he voted for?
I do not have the exact data handy, but I do not think Mr. Obama's track record is one of cooperation and reaching across the aisle.
If he is disbarred in Florida, can't he just take the bar exam in another state and setup shop there?
Sure, more people die in car accidents, etc. than terrorist attacks.
One of the fundamental goals of a terrorist is to evoke change in society. If a few hundred people a year were killed by terrorist car bombing, mall shootings, etc., in the continental US, think of the phsycological impacts.
People were wound tight after a uniquely over-the-top attack on 9/11. Imagine what it would be like if the average Joe or Jane started to worry about IEDs made to look like a pile of garbage next to the expressway on their way to work.
Allowing a very small contingent of people to hold a sword of Damocles over the head of a given society does more harm to societal operations and evolution than lightning strikes or car accidents, and they have to be dealt with proactively (militarily, economically, diplomatically, etc.) Doing so after an attack lets the terrorists achieve their objective - terror.
There are a few differences:
- The Soviets were not known for suicide bombing, using women, children, and mentally and physically handicapped as bomb carriers
- Mutually assured destruction kept the threat in-check; the lack of a border and recognized governmental entity means this does not apply to terrorist groups
- The Soviets were not driven by religious fanaticism, and could be reasoned with (except for Yakov Smirnov)
change takes time.
Does that apply to Iraq as well?
Moe: Oh, boy! The deep fryer's here. Heh heh, I got it used from the navy. You can flash-fry a buffalo in forty seconds.
Homer: Forty seconds? But I want it now!
Not only that, a $22 million dollar cut might be painful, but I am positive there are opportunities for the Lab to run more efficiently to make-up the shortfall. Playing the "layoff card" is much easier to an organization than for it to truly assess that it needs to become smarter about its operations. When an organization's management seems like their only play is workforce reduction, it means they have either not managed personnel supply and demand effectively over time, or they are too lazy or defensive to examine the fundamentals of how things are done operationally.
It was not clear to me how in-depth the testing was at given times during the day, night, week, month, etc.
I would imagine that actual performance is significantly impacted by the number of users - not only of the data service, but all of the folks using their mobile phones as phones at the time(s) tests were conducted.
Voice and data is fighting for the tower's attention, and I would assume most carriers would start ratcheting down data speeds/capacities if their towers were seeing a lot of voice calls.
A long term study examining the most common network performance factors (i.e. latency, throughput, etc.) using the following would prove useful:
Time of day
Weekday, weekend
Population
Tower density
Rural (few buildings over 5-6 stories) vs. Urban (skyscrapers, dense buildings)
On the surface, MSFT gains search market share, key web services like Flickr, del.icio.us, Yahoo!'s news services, mail footprint, etc., but the dark horse here is Yahoo!'s deal with AT&T.
:P )
I am a DSL subscriber w/ AT&T, which is bundled as "AT&T Yahoo!" What does MSFT gain from that? - not really much other than the types of services mentioned above as well as a captive userbase (something MSFT desperately needs
They do gain better integration and footprint with AT&T Uverse - VOIP, IP Video. MSFT is already partnering with AT&T on much of their effort, and the services are tightly integrated with AT&T Yahoo!. A Yahoo! buy/merge would further cement the relationship and increase MSFT's hooks into the entertainment/Internet space - something Google is rumored to be after as well.
However, one does not need inside knowledge to make money. Investing in an index fund will almost guarantee a return in the long-term. Doing a little research into a company or fund can improve your chances of finding a return-producing investment in the long-term and maybe in the short-term.
Then explain to me, exactly, the reasoning behind awarding this man all that power and the "merit" to society that his "ownership" of those billions provides... Let's say you get rid of the billionaires and are left with millionaires. At what point will they be deemed without value to society or that they are more "dangerous" than valuable? Who gets to determine what is an acceptable level of value/"danger" relative to one's assets? Why are they qualified to make they decision? Did you type this on your PC after you did some searching on Google while drinking Coca-Cola with your Large Big Mac Meal? I believe that each of those items I just mentioned were bourne from "little people" and small businesses that came up with products/ideas that the market has responded to, and thus, making many of those involved mega-bazillionaire corporate oligopolistic emperors of evil.
You miss the point. The problem is with the scale of things. There should never be a duo-poly of Coca-Cola and Pepsi ruling 90% of the marketplace. Nor a gigantic all-powerful Google or Microsoft. Allowing such is a market and societal failure. The very existence of billionaires ia a sure indicator of failure of the society to organize things fairly.
Why do you think there are eleventy billion varieties of Coca-Cola products? They are feeling more competitive heat not only from Pepsi, but smaller, more agile competitors (see Jones Soda.) Let's say Coca-Cola loses 2-3% market share to a smaller competitor. If Coca-Cola comes out with a new product that regains that market share loss at the expense of the smaller company, is that a bad thing for society? I don't think so - it means that Coca-Cola is innovating to improve its bottom line, and also forces the smaller company to continue to innovate and compete to take more share away from Coca-Cola.
From a scale perspective, it is the very economies of scale you deride that have brought goods and services to millions if not billions of people who could not afford them before. Is that a bad thing?
Market forces will eventually make these oligopolistic fiefdoms has-beens fit for a future documentary on the History Channel That is insufficient. A societal injstice that takes a life-time (or many) to correct is, for those whose life-times it spans, practically eternal. Not to mention that its removal usually corelates with creation of another.
What is the solution? Preventing people and institutions from earning above a certain amount or gaining a certain level of market share? Again, who gets to decide what is too much and why are they qualified to do so? If a company is limited to a certain percentage of market share, what is their incentive to lower cost, innovate, etc.? What incentive does the consumer have to look for alternatives if all competitors within a given space are "blah" since the competitors are unable to upset the market balance? We'll never agree, but appreciate your candor