Yeah, really, if they want us to watch ads, perhaps they should make it so that the ads don't take longer to load than the rest of the page, crash the browser or cover content. I get that they need ads to cover the cost of service, but that doesn't really entitle them to make an unlimited nuisance out of them.
If these are the satellites that I'm thinking of, this would be very bad indeed. There isn't any inherent reason why the US needs to be the only ones with satellites doing this work, but the reason it's being cut is to appease climate change skeptics. And unless the ESA or somebody else gets satellites up there to prevent a potential gap in recordings we'll largely have to start over.
From the article, we're not the only ones with those sorts of satellites, there apparently aren't enough of them to fill the gap that we'd be leaving.
Nice try, but that's not actually true. The Democrats never had a veto proof majority during the 111th congress, there was a period between July and September of 2009 when they had precisely 60 votes, meaning that they had to have absolutely every member of their party on board plus the 2 independents in order to get the cloture vote.
It's easy to make those sorts of ignorant potshots when you don't know what you're talking about.
That's one example. So, you're saying because we're not the least corrupt government in the world, that we can't be about as uncorrupted as they get? I'm sorry, but that's just not a valid counter point, and the ad hominem doesn't help your case.
There are some corruption problems in the US, but to paint the government as being extremely corrupt is just plain ignorant. If you don't believe me, just look at Italy, they've got severe corruption problems.
I'm sorry, but that's not evidence of corruption. TARP was one of an extremely small number of options available. The others being nationalizing the banking industry or buying the toxic assets. The debate was done openly, and people knew who voted for what. Just because it wasn't wise and benefited corporate interests doesn't make it corruption. It makes it a poor decision, corruption is a completely different matter, even if the ultimate results are similar.
Believe it or not there's a lot of citizens out there that specifically vote for candidates that are friendly to big business, consequently, I'm not really sure how you can possibly regard those sorts of favors as corruption, when they're done above the board and the voters know about it.
As far as the Corruptions Perceptions Index, that's about perceptions of corruption, it's not about corruption. And even by that measure we're still one of the least corrupt governments in the world. That's your citation that's saying that.
The problem isn't the options, the problem is that the election system is set up to reward extreme candidates. The system around here has more or less solved that problem, it's just that folks in other states haven't caught on. We've got a top two primary system where the top two candidates can be from any party and even the same party. So far that's led to the liberal areas electing more moderate candidates. Ditto for the conservative areas. Additionally, we don't allow the winners to draw the districting lines, which makes it difficult for one party to gerrymander in any sort of effective manner without the knowledge and consent of the other party.
Then you've got the nutters, right now it seems to be mainly GOP, who vote for the most extreme candidate in the primaries. Following the primaries, they turn right, whether they're liberal or conservative for the final election.
LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being? The President has been a pretty big disappointment in the area of civil liberties, but he's been a hell of a lot better than anybody we've had in the last 30 years in most other areas. Just look at do nothing Clinton and the huge smoking crater from 3 GOP Presidencies. Scarily enough, the current crop of GOP candidates are even less qualified to lead the country than either Bush was.
You are aware that the Republicans refuse to fund closing GITMO, right? The President has powers, but ending Iraq and GITMO in a responsible way aren't within his ability. Yes, he could just order the military out of Iraq and to hell with the consequences and he could just order the gates at GITMO opened, and for the personnel to look the other way. Nobody in their right mind thinks that's an acceptable solution to the problem.
As long as the GOP continues to obstruct government, there's little that the President can do. The VP however, as President of the Senate, could declare the Senate to not be a continuing body, which would cut through most of the means by which the GOP has been holding things up. I'm not sure why that hasn't happened. That used to be the case, and considering how abused the filibuster has been lately, it would be a step forward. It's not like the GOP is even acting in any sort of good faith.
The US is not extremely corrupt. Zimbabwe under Mugabe was extremely corrupt, Libya under Gaddafi is extremely corrupt. The US government is about as uncorrupted as you're going to get. Like it or not a lot of these things wouldn't happen if the voters wouldn't reward secrecy and punish transparency.
No, it's because the benefits of winning greatly outstrips the potential gains. It's an awfully big gamble to take. When you factor in the money it costs for an attorney and the necessary legal staff, you very quickly run up bills much higher than that. Some people will appeal on principle, but I suspect that it's fairly unusual.
Plus, they lost their first trial, you're more likely to get the sum knocked down than overturned at this stage, which means that you end up paying even more money that you would have as you wouldn't be getting legal fees from the other party.
A judge doing that at the beginning of the first trial would be way out of line.
You mean apart from the fact that it's fucking stupid and obsolete? Libre used to be a word in English, at this point it's all but forgotten about. The Latin root at least has some wider connection to the point they're trying to make.
Plus it's a sound alike for Libra which is hardly a great idea.
Indeed, the thing is that no matter how much money a politician can get for voting one way or another, it doesn't do them a damned bit of good if it results in 2/3 of the voters voting for somebody else at the next opportunity.
In this case, I don't think so. They will likely ignore us if we ask for software patents to be completely abolished, however, there's big money on both sides of this one. Consequently, we can probably get things that are more beneficial for the part on the side of reducing the impact of software patents.
That would be pretty dumb to try. People don't typically walk into work and find OpenOffice or now LibreOffice installed, they typically went looking for it and are likely aware of what was going on. Not to mention all the installs that came with Linux distros that had already migrated away from Openoffice in favor of the previous fork.
Once you've gotten folks away from MS, it's trivial to get them to the more stable, reliable and current fork. Especially if the older one is dying out.
PTSD is more about being unable to leave the memories, pretty much anything you spend that much time thinking about is going to stick. If you repeated think about a specific page out of the phonebook over and over and over again all day long, you'll store that information indefinitely. It's not likely to be of any use, but if you concentrate on in long enough for enough iterations that will be with you permanently.
It's probably more closely related to the problems of schizophrenia, one of the hypothesis surrounding it is that it's caused by hyperlearning and an eidetic memory. I'm not sure ultimately what the verdict will be when all is said and done, but if you look at the symptoms, it wouldn't be surprising. Folks that are overwhelmed by information overload tend to have trouble sorting and assembling information in meaningful ways.
Depending upon your standards and tolerance for repairing the damage, driving stick isn't hard. You can always restrict yourself to first gear and barely have to worry about shifting. The tough thing is that you probably don't want to have to buy several new transmissions as you perfect your skills. Motorcycle transmissions OTOH are a lot more forgiving as they're designed so that you ride the clutch frequently.
Depending upon your gaming habits it's not that much more expensive. Around here it literally takes a week minimum to get your next game. So, around here you have to keep your games for an average of at least 2 days before gamefly becomes the better deal.
Gamefly is a real rip off around here. I'm guessing that for most people, it's a much better deal. But, they still haven't built a warehouse to service the Northwest. They could at least give us a discount, but as it is they're overcharging us.
No, that's not a problem with currencies. It's a problem with corrupt, incompetent government officials. Hyperinflation doesn't just happen, and in practice it doesn't happen in countries with a functioning government. Zimbabwe had that because of deliberate sabotage of the economic system to keep Robert Mugabe in power.
We won't see that in the US because neither the rich, poor, corporations nor government appointees are willing to let that happen, and the problem is about as hard to avoid as a train. It's well understood what causes that to happen, it's not exactly hard to avoid.
Being able to transmit money for free, is nice, but it's not a reasonable way of choosing a form of payment.
The US Mint doesn't print money, they strike the coinage, the Bureau of Engraving prints the money. (Not really important to the point, but I'd rather not let that slip by. The mint is run by political appointees that were themselves appointed by individuals that I got to vote for. The number of coins in circulation is based upon need, and the growth in the supply is more or less meaningless. They don't just keep minting coins because they can, those coins cost money and they only strike them as needed. Same goes for paper currency, the amount they print has a relationship to the number that they have to replace and the size of the economy.
The Federal Reserve's policy relation in all of this is ultimately not as open ended as you seem to suggest. Sure they created a lot of money in recent years via quantitative easing, but the effect itself, particularly with the early stages was nihil. They could have done the same thing by way of issuing government assurances that the government would step in for some portion if need be. And required banks to put their own money to buy themselves out of government ownership in exchange. Same solution to the same problem, the only difference was nominal. Believe it or not, the rich and the corporations that normally are for class warfare are even more opposed to that sort of thing than the lower classes are as they have much more to lose. Hence we won't be seeing that in the long term.
When it comes to bitcoins, you aren't being given the opportunity to partake of the next run. The number of bitcoins popping into existence at this point is embarrassingly small, it's hardly unusual for somebody to spend more money on electricity than if they were to just buy the coins. I'm not sure on what basis one would claim that one was getting anything. This isn't any different than how the mint does it, I can buy those coins. The Mint doesn't lie to people about what they're getting or how they get them.
The last point is a straw man, and blatantly so. Yes, we in the US could have hyperinflation, but we won't. The reason why is that businesses and government like some inflation, but not hyperinflation. Hyperinflation isn't something that just happens, it's more or less a deliberate act of economic sabotage. Nobody in the US, whether it be citizen, corporation or government official is going to let that happen. We might have high inflation, but it will never get to that point, and we will still be able to pay off our debts using that cash. Something which is decidedly not the case with bitcoins.
In other words, the real world economy is pretty well understood, and so is the bitcoin economy, but unlike the real world economy, there is only one outcome that we're likely to see. And that's a run on the bank as the early adopters rush for the exits leaving everybody else holding the bag.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, really, if they want us to watch ads, perhaps they should make it so that the ads don't take longer to load than the rest of the page, crash the browser or cover content. I get that they need ads to cover the cost of service, but that doesn't really entitle them to make an unlimited nuisance out of them.
If these are the satellites that I'm thinking of, this would be very bad indeed. There isn't any inherent reason why the US needs to be the only ones with satellites doing this work, but the reason it's being cut is to appease climate change skeptics. And unless the ESA or somebody else gets satellites up there to prevent a potential gap in recordings we'll largely have to start over.
From the article, we're not the only ones with those sorts of satellites, there apparently aren't enough of them to fill the gap that we'd be leaving.
Nice try, but that's not actually true. The Democrats never had a veto proof majority during the 111th congress, there was a period between July and September of 2009 when they had precisely 60 votes, meaning that they had to have absolutely every member of their party on board plus the 2 independents in order to get the cloture vote.
It's easy to make those sorts of ignorant potshots when you don't know what you're talking about.
That's one example. So, you're saying because we're not the least corrupt government in the world, that we can't be about as uncorrupted as they get? I'm sorry, but that's just not a valid counter point, and the ad hominem doesn't help your case.
There are some corruption problems in the US, but to paint the government as being extremely corrupt is just plain ignorant. If you don't believe me, just look at Italy, they've got severe corruption problems.
I'm sorry, but that's not evidence of corruption. TARP was one of an extremely small number of options available. The others being nationalizing the banking industry or buying the toxic assets. The debate was done openly, and people knew who voted for what. Just because it wasn't wise and benefited corporate interests doesn't make it corruption. It makes it a poor decision, corruption is a completely different matter, even if the ultimate results are similar.
Believe it or not there's a lot of citizens out there that specifically vote for candidates that are friendly to big business, consequently, I'm not really sure how you can possibly regard those sorts of favors as corruption, when they're done above the board and the voters know about it.
As far as the Corruptions Perceptions Index, that's about perceptions of corruption, it's not about corruption. And even by that measure we're still one of the least corrupt governments in the world. That's your citation that's saying that.
The problem isn't the options, the problem is that the election system is set up to reward extreme candidates. The system around here has more or less solved that problem, it's just that folks in other states haven't caught on. We've got a top two primary system where the top two candidates can be from any party and even the same party. So far that's led to the liberal areas electing more moderate candidates. Ditto for the conservative areas. Additionally, we don't allow the winners to draw the districting lines, which makes it difficult for one party to gerrymander in any sort of effective manner without the knowledge and consent of the other party.
Then you've got the nutters, right now it seems to be mainly GOP, who vote for the most extreme candidate in the primaries. Following the primaries, they turn right, whether they're liberal or conservative for the final election.
LOL, so instead, you're going to vote for the party that's actively fighting against your well being? The President has been a pretty big disappointment in the area of civil liberties, but he's been a hell of a lot better than anybody we've had in the last 30 years in most other areas. Just look at do nothing Clinton and the huge smoking crater from 3 GOP Presidencies. Scarily enough, the current crop of GOP candidates are even less qualified to lead the country than either Bush was.
You are aware that the Republicans refuse to fund closing GITMO, right? The President has powers, but ending Iraq and GITMO in a responsible way aren't within his ability. Yes, he could just order the military out of Iraq and to hell with the consequences and he could just order the gates at GITMO opened, and for the personnel to look the other way. Nobody in their right mind thinks that's an acceptable solution to the problem.
As long as the GOP continues to obstruct government, there's little that the President can do. The VP however, as President of the Senate, could declare the Senate to not be a continuing body, which would cut through most of the means by which the GOP has been holding things up. I'm not sure why that hasn't happened. That used to be the case, and considering how abused the filibuster has been lately, it would be a step forward. It's not like the GOP is even acting in any sort of good faith.
Citation needed.
The US is not extremely corrupt. Zimbabwe under Mugabe was extremely corrupt, Libya under Gaddafi is extremely corrupt. The US government is about as uncorrupted as you're going to get. Like it or not a lot of these things wouldn't happen if the voters wouldn't reward secrecy and punish transparency.
No, it's because the benefits of winning greatly outstrips the potential gains. It's an awfully big gamble to take. When you factor in the money it costs for an attorney and the necessary legal staff, you very quickly run up bills much higher than that. Some people will appeal on principle, but I suspect that it's fairly unusual.
Plus, they lost their first trial, you're more likely to get the sum knocked down than overturned at this stage, which means that you end up paying even more money that you would have as you wouldn't be getting legal fees from the other party.
A judge doing that at the beginning of the first trial would be way out of line.
You mean apart from the fact that it's fucking stupid and obsolete? Libre used to be a word in English, at this point it's all but forgotten about. The Latin root at least has some wider connection to the point they're trying to make.
Plus it's a sound alike for Libra which is hardly a great idea.
Indeed, the thing is that no matter how much money a politician can get for voting one way or another, it doesn't do them a damned bit of good if it results in 2/3 of the voters voting for somebody else at the next opportunity.
I recommend the following process:
Is it a patent over software? If so, throw patent in trash can then goto next patent.
Just imagine how much time that would save.
In this case, I don't think so. They will likely ignore us if we ask for software patents to be completely abolished, however, there's big money on both sides of this one. Consequently, we can probably get things that are more beneficial for the part on the side of reducing the impact of software patents.
Which would make this a good time, to get the spelling right. It should be LiberOffice, not LibreOffice. They should be using the Latin root.
That would be pretty dumb to try. People don't typically walk into work and find OpenOffice or now LibreOffice installed, they typically went looking for it and are likely aware of what was going on. Not to mention all the installs that came with Linux distros that had already migrated away from Openoffice in favor of the previous fork.
Once you've gotten folks away from MS, it's trivial to get them to the more stable, reliable and current fork. Especially if the older one is dying out.
Which is why they never said that you don't need Flash?
PTSD is more about being unable to leave the memories, pretty much anything you spend that much time thinking about is going to stick. If you repeated think about a specific page out of the phonebook over and over and over again all day long, you'll store that information indefinitely. It's not likely to be of any use, but if you concentrate on in long enough for enough iterations that will be with you permanently.
It's probably more closely related to the problems of schizophrenia, one of the hypothesis surrounding it is that it's caused by hyperlearning and an eidetic memory. I'm not sure ultimately what the verdict will be when all is said and done, but if you look at the symptoms, it wouldn't be surprising. Folks that are overwhelmed by information overload tend to have trouble sorting and assembling information in meaningful ways.
I need to watch that, I've heard it's not good, but the effects looked kind of cool.
Depending upon your standards and tolerance for repairing the damage, driving stick isn't hard. You can always restrict yourself to first gear and barely have to worry about shifting. The tough thing is that you probably don't want to have to buy several new transmissions as you perfect your skills. Motorcycle transmissions OTOH are a lot more forgiving as they're designed so that you ride the clutch frequently.
Apparently, they have finally added a warehouse to service this region. That's what I get for not double checking it. Never mind about that then.
That's stupid, they should be using the "I'm feeling lucky" button.
Depending upon your gaming habits it's not that much more expensive. Around here it literally takes a week minimum to get your next game. So, around here you have to keep your games for an average of at least 2 days before gamefly becomes the better deal.
Gamefly is a real rip off around here. I'm guessing that for most people, it's a much better deal. But, they still haven't built a warehouse to service the Northwest. They could at least give us a discount, but as it is they're overcharging us.
No, that's not a problem with currencies. It's a problem with corrupt, incompetent government officials. Hyperinflation doesn't just happen, and in practice it doesn't happen in countries with a functioning government. Zimbabwe had that because of deliberate sabotage of the economic system to keep Robert Mugabe in power.
We won't see that in the US because neither the rich, poor, corporations nor government appointees are willing to let that happen, and the problem is about as hard to avoid as a train. It's well understood what causes that to happen, it's not exactly hard to avoid.
Being able to transmit money for free, is nice, but it's not a reasonable way of choosing a form of payment.
The US Mint doesn't print money, they strike the coinage, the Bureau of Engraving prints the money. (Not really important to the point, but I'd rather not let that slip by. The mint is run by political appointees that were themselves appointed by individuals that I got to vote for. The number of coins in circulation is based upon need, and the growth in the supply is more or less meaningless. They don't just keep minting coins because they can, those coins cost money and they only strike them as needed. Same goes for paper currency, the amount they print has a relationship to the number that they have to replace and the size of the economy.
The Federal Reserve's policy relation in all of this is ultimately not as open ended as you seem to suggest. Sure they created a lot of money in recent years via quantitative easing, but the effect itself, particularly with the early stages was nihil. They could have done the same thing by way of issuing government assurances that the government would step in for some portion if need be. And required banks to put their own money to buy themselves out of government ownership in exchange. Same solution to the same problem, the only difference was nominal. Believe it or not, the rich and the corporations that normally are for class warfare are even more opposed to that sort of thing than the lower classes are as they have much more to lose. Hence we won't be seeing that in the long term.
When it comes to bitcoins, you aren't being given the opportunity to partake of the next run. The number of bitcoins popping into existence at this point is embarrassingly small, it's hardly unusual for somebody to spend more money on electricity than if they were to just buy the coins. I'm not sure on what basis one would claim that one was getting anything. This isn't any different than how the mint does it, I can buy those coins. The Mint doesn't lie to people about what they're getting or how they get them.
The last point is a straw man, and blatantly so. Yes, we in the US could have hyperinflation, but we won't. The reason why is that businesses and government like some inflation, but not hyperinflation. Hyperinflation isn't something that just happens, it's more or less a deliberate act of economic sabotage. Nobody in the US, whether it be citizen, corporation or government official is going to let that happen. We might have high inflation, but it will never get to that point, and we will still be able to pay off our debts using that cash. Something which is decidedly not the case with bitcoins.
In other words, the real world economy is pretty well understood, and so is the bitcoin economy, but unlike the real world economy, there is only one outcome that we're likely to see. And that's a run on the bank as the early adopters rush for the exits leaving everybody else holding the bag.