When the Gallup poll in 1939 asked, 'Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?' the American people responded 'yes' by a margin of more than two-to-one.
It's a leading question. You could ask a lot of questions in the form of "Do you think $politician's $policy is worsening $problem?" and get a positive response. If there's any doubt or controversy people will be inclined to say yes. A more honest survey would list the item and ask how the person felt about it, on a negative to positive scale.
The business community felt even more strongly so.
Shocking! Who could imagine that the business community would take negative views towards regulation?
"Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression."
Another leading question. The people running these surveys either have an agenda or are inept at trying to remove bias.
The recent US "tax refund" was no such thing, since everyone knew damn well the money would end up in the hands of merchants almost immediately.
The fraud isn't people spending their money. It's the government printing money while they are already running a budget deficit and a huge national debt. There is no money to refund! It's just adding to inflation and increasing the burden that will have to be paid further down the road.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if various governments actually tried prohibiting some (lawfully prohibited) uses of encryption for private citizens.
France placed restrictions on encryption from 1990 to 1999. At various times it was either illegal to use encryption, the encryption was limited to 40-bits or some other breakable level, or you had to place the key in escrow with a third party to allow the government access on demand.
You might also read up on the "Clipper chip" proposals that failed in the United States under the Clinton administration. There have been other proposals since then, including some by McCain. Restrictions on encryption is a never-ending battle.
Did Tony Rezko receive special compensation or win a major bid from a government branch because of any action Obama directly took?
Obama wrote a letter in support of a Rezko project.
Obama used his own money to purchase some land from Rezko, above market price, with the intent to help fund his legal fees, but instead of giving or loaning him money, he purchased land, which lowered Rezko's land value, and which certainly would have to be repaid or purchased back from Obama in order to be of salable value. (it was a way of securing a legal loan to an old law friend).
Well now, you're inferring more than Obama has said on the matter. Obama stated he just wanted to expand his yard. Are you saying you don't believe Obama is being honest?
No coordination between the seller, Rezko, the realtors, or Obama are known
Obama informed Rezko of the deal: "To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it. [...] The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers."http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
Also, the letter was written BEFORE the RFP went out, let alone the open public bid.
Davis soon went into business with Rezko, creating a company called New Kenwood LLC to build the seven-story apartment building for senior citizens on a vacant stretch of land once occupied by a gas station at 48th and Cottage Grove. [...] New Kenwood LLC also got letters of support from Obama, who represented a nearby Senate district.
"I am writing in support of the New Kenwood LLC's proposal to build a ninety-seven unit apartment building at 48th and Cottage Grove for senior citizens,'' Obama wrote in separate letters, each dated Oct. 28, 1998, to city and state housing officials.http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
There are few that are activley fighting that corruption, and Obama is their champion.
McCain has a history of fighting against pork and fighting for campaign finance reform, often at odds with his own party, though he's no saint either when it comes to taking money.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you are too blinded by your dedication to the republican party to take a deep look into those you support.
Who do I support? Am I a dedicated Republican? Answer: I actually prefer Obama over McCain this election. I'm an independent. You mistake critique for partisanship.
I was replying to your pie-in-the-sky dreaming about how government should operate and how Obama would fix it: "If we can sever the connection between business and politicians, we rid ourselves of the corruption."
Obama's relationship with Rezko is exactly the kind of influence peddling that goes on. Often there's no smoking gun. Bush has ties with big oil. Cheney has ties with defense industries. But can you nail them with direct evidence of corruption? Do those same charges apply to Obama? If Obama was a Republican, I don't think you'd be so willing to dismiss corruption charges.
Programming languages do not really remove whole categories of errors.
I've done C coding. I've done Java coding. You're wrong.
To take the oft-cited example of array bounds, just because your programming language throws an exception when you attempt to address an array out of bounds doesn't mean the condition is avoided, it just means an exception gets thrown rather than the program dumping core.
If you're lucky the program dumps core. If you're unlucky the program silently corrupts data. You also have a whole class of security bugs that are eliminated when you enforce bounds checking.
But the foolish programmer simply "fixes" the code to say:
You shouldn't hire foolish programmers in any language. There are plenty of good programmers who think about the error and fix it correctly. Your suggestion is to take away useful tools for good programmers.
"The Justice Department's Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs. The inspector General has also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power."
This particular example has nothing to do with the first amendment.
It has everything to do with the first amendment. This example was used by the Supreme Court to show how speech can be limited. See Shouting fire in a crowded theater for details.
If we can sever the connection between business and politicians, we rid ourselves of the corruption. [...] Lobyists should only meet in open forum, with every word they speak published, as Obama suggests, and voluntarily will comply with in his own cabinet meeting notes. Donations from bunsinesses to governments need to be stopped, completely. Only individuals should be able to back a candidate, and with a maximum personal donation to boot
So I wonder, where does Tony Rezko's past relationship with Obama fit into all of this? They've been "friends" since 1990, Rezko raised money for Obama, and Rezko owned his own business. Rezko was involved in the purchasing of Obama's house. Obama had influence in dealings that involved Rezko's business ventures.
If this was about the war and oil, the worse would be assumed. Obama's dealings were about real estate. Does he get a free pass? Are you going to call for charges of treason, life in prison, and seizure of his house?
The bubble was the result of the (1) buy, (2) fix, and (3) sell economy that dominated the first half of this century.
The crisis is the result of bad loans being given to people who absolutely couldn't afford them. The bad loans were immediately sold and resold on the market. If the banks had to hold on to the loans instead of putting them on the open market they would have been more responsible.
There's nothing wrong with putting work into a property and making a profit on that work -- that's the whole point of the economy! The problem is massive speculation and lax oversight. Every time the feds deregulate this happens.
And then, in 2003-2005 a peculiar thing happened. Renting became a more profitable long term strategy than home ownership. If you don't realize this, then you are not seeing the forest from the trees. There are many other affordable options for people like you.
Is this cold comfort for somebody that wants to own a home and not rent? The fact is that people who legitimately would have been able to afford a home either got screwed with over-inflated prices or couldn't buy one at all, and now both Presidential candidates are talking about keeping people in their over-priced homes, even though they can't afford them and shouldn't have bought them in the first place!
you can trust your dog not to eat your wife and child for breakfast if you forget to feed him the night before.
In general, yes, but there's always exceptions. You may have seen the recent "face transplant" story. I read the backgrounds of the patients, and it turns out one of them had her lips and nose eaten by her dog while she was sleeping.
The way I read it is that he uses right-click to get a new tab, but accidentally hits New Window because it's the first option. So yes, he should learn to middle-click.
I met a developer once who would use the menus to copy and paste instead of the usual shortcut keys. Painful.
Also do not forget that you most likely do not pay a cent of those millions, so my point still stays strong.
It doesn't matter if the software is explicitly paid for by users or if driven by ad revenue. The point I responded to wasn't true: "all that beautiful open source software only gets created, fixed and updated because we like to do it"
People are getting paid to work on the software. That's not "because we like to do it".
So your chance of being heard are - as I said - pretty high, if you're nice and know that behind every Bugzilla, every forum and every e-mail address, there are people with feelings.
That I agree with, even with for-profit software (including Microsoft). Still, frustrations will show through no matter what, so it's best to have a thick skin.
Microsoft didn't kill it, they simply provided a good enough browser at a time when many people were searching for one.
Microsoft made IE for free and bundled it as part of their operating system, making it the default choice. Nobody else could have done this -- that's why Opera, a better browser than Netscape at the time, could never unseat Netscape, but Microsoft could.
Some of us see this as an obvious end run around the constitutional prohibition against taxing imports, but the courts are willing to allow it.
I agree, but then the Constitution was written before highways, the Internet, and UPS. The spirit of the law was to prevent stuff like charging double for out-of-state goods. Something like avoiding sales tax wouldn't have been a consideration, since most people would be buying from their local merchant, even if the goods were from out of state.
I'd rather see an amendment to the Constitution than this bogus "use tax" crap.
One thing I never understood was how Microsoft profits from Internet Explorer. (ie. Why should they care if people buy Windows and install some other browser?)
To keep their operating systems monopoly. They used their monopoly to kill Netscape and made IE the browser that 98% of people used, which means web designers only made sure their web pages worked in IE, which made it hard for people to switch operating systems.
Microsoft fell asleep at the wheel, though. They let IE stagnate at version 6 for years, which allowed Mozilla to come out with a better browser that was also compatible.
Microsoft woke up and now the browser wars are upon us once again. Microsoft's biggest play is Silverlight -- if they can get enough people using it they'll own the web again.
Never forget that all that beautiful open source software only gets created, fixed and updated because we like to do it.
Don't forget that Firefox was the result of a for-profit company, Netscape, open sourcing their browser in a desperate bid to remain relevant. Also don't forget that Mozilla gets over $60 million a year from Firefox and has well-paid employees.
Having freedom means like-minded individuals can form groups and set their own rules for discussion. Do you want the government telling you that you must hang out with somebody?
The reason why the government is prevented from infringing free speech is because they have supreme power. Otherwise, they could make it a crime to criticize the government anywhere.
Free speech means you can find a place to speak your message, not that others have to allow your message on their space.
Slashdot Mirror
When the Gallup poll in 1939 asked, 'Do you think the attitude of the Roosevelt administration toward business is delaying business recovery?' the American people responded 'yes' by a margin of more than two-to-one.
It's a leading question. You could ask a lot of questions in the form of "Do you think $politician's $policy is worsening $problem?" and get a positive response. If there's any doubt or controversy people will be inclined to say yes. A more honest survey would list the item and ask how the person felt about it, on a negative to positive scale.
The business community felt even more strongly so.
Shocking! Who could imagine that the business community would take negative views towards regulation?
"Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression."
Another leading question. The people running these surveys either have an agenda or are inept at trying to remove bias.
The recent US "tax refund" was no such thing, since everyone knew damn well the money would end up in the hands of merchants almost immediately.
The fraud isn't people spending their money. It's the government printing money while they are already running a budget deficit and a huge national debt. There is no money to refund! It's just adding to inflation and increasing the burden that will have to be paid further down the road.
I recommend Plain Old Text mode and using the Preview button.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if various governments actually tried prohibiting some (lawfully prohibited) uses of encryption for private citizens.
France placed restrictions on encryption from 1990 to 1999. At various times it was either illegal to use encryption, the encryption was limited to 40-bits or some other breakable level, or you had to place the key in escrow with a third party to allow the government access on demand.
http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/ar/crypto_model.html
http://www.euronet.nl/~rembert/echelon/maginot.html
You might also read up on the "Clipper chip" proposals that failed in the United States under the Clinton administration. There have been other proposals since then, including some by McCain. Restrictions on encryption is a never-ending battle.
So you're one of THOSE people that NEED to emphasize LOTS of words. Your boss probably hates you because you come off as angry and anal retentive.
Okay, so god created the universe - who created God?
A godmaker, obviously.
Did Tony Rezko receive special compensation or win a major bid from a government branch because of any action Obama directly took?
Obama wrote a letter in support of a Rezko project.
Obama used his own money to purchase some land from Rezko, above market price, with the intent to help fund his legal fees, but instead of giving or loaning him money, he purchased land, which lowered Rezko's land value, and which certainly would have to be repaid or purchased back from Obama in order to be of salable value. (it was a way of securing a legal loan to an old law friend).
Well now, you're inferring more than Obama has said on the matter. Obama stated he just wanted to expand his yard. Are you saying you don't believe Obama is being honest?
No coordination between the seller, Rezko, the realtors, or Obama are known
Obama informed Rezko of the deal: "To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it. [...] The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers." http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article
Also, the letter was written BEFORE the RFP went out, let alone the open public bid.
Davis soon went into business with Rezko, creating a company called New Kenwood LLC to build the seven-story apartment building for senior citizens on a vacant stretch of land once occupied by a gas station at 48th and Cottage Grove. [...] New Kenwood LLC also got letters of support from Obama, who represented a nearby Senate district.
"I am writing in support of the New Kenwood LLC's proposal to build a ninety-seven unit apartment building at 48th and Cottage Grove for senior citizens,'' Obama wrote in separate letters, each dated Oct. 28, 1998, to city and state housing officials. http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article
There are few that are activley fighting that corruption, and Obama is their champion.
McCain has a history of fighting against pork and fighting for campaign finance reform, often at odds with his own party, though he's no saint either when it comes to taking money.
Unfortunately, it sounds like you are too blinded by your dedication to the republican party to take a deep look into those you support.
Who do I support? Am I a dedicated Republican? Answer: I actually prefer Obama over McCain this election. I'm an independent. You mistake critique for partisanship.
I was replying to your pie-in-the-sky dreaming about how government should operate and how Obama would fix it: "If we can sever the connection between business and politicians, we rid ourselves of the corruption."
Obama's relationship with Rezko is exactly the kind of influence peddling that goes on. Often there's no smoking gun. Bush has ties with big oil. Cheney has ties with defense industries. But can you nail them with direct evidence of corruption? Do those same charges apply to Obama? If Obama was a Republican, I don't think you'd be so willing to dismiss corruption charges.
Programming languages do not really remove whole categories of errors.
I've done C coding. I've done Java coding. You're wrong.
To take the oft-cited example of array bounds, just because your programming language throws an exception when you attempt to address an array out of bounds doesn't mean the condition is avoided, it just means an exception gets thrown rather than the program dumping core.
If you're lucky the program dumps core. If you're unlucky the program silently corrupts data. You also have a whole class of security bugs that are eliminated when you enforce bounds checking.
But the foolish programmer simply "fixes" the code to say:
You shouldn't hire foolish programmers in any language. There are plenty of good programmers who think about the error and fix it correctly. Your suggestion is to take away useful tools for good programmers.
This isn't news. Get over it.
Cheers,
Dave
You're an asshole.
Cheers,
Your Friend
Finally, there is no evidence (I am aware of) that these orders are so bad.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/nationalsecurityletters/
"The Justice Department's Inspector General has reported that between 2003 and 2006, the FBI issued nearly 200,000 NSLs. The inspector General has also found serious FBI abuses of the NSL power."
This particular example has nothing to do with the first amendment.
It has everything to do with the first amendment. This example was used by the Supreme Court to show how speech can be limited. See Shouting fire in a crowded theater for details.
If we can sever the connection between business and politicians, we rid ourselves of the corruption. [...] Lobyists should only meet in open forum, with every word they speak published, as Obama suggests, and voluntarily will comply with in his own cabinet meeting notes. Donations from bunsinesses to governments need to be stopped, completely. Only individuals should be able to back a candidate, and with a maximum personal donation to boot
So I wonder, where does Tony Rezko's past relationship with Obama fit into all of this? They've been "friends" since 1990, Rezko raised money for Obama, and Rezko owned his own business. Rezko was involved in the purchasing of Obama's house. Obama had influence in dealings that involved Rezko's business ventures.
If this was about the war and oil, the worse would be assumed. Obama's dealings were about real estate. Does he get a free pass? Are you going to call for charges of treason, life in prison, and seizure of his house?
Capitalism is based largely on trial and error
And fraud. Don't forget the fraud.
Ha, I hadn't seen that before. Cheney really knew what he was talking about.
The bubble was the result of the (1) buy, (2) fix, and (3) sell economy that dominated the first half of this century.
The crisis is the result of bad loans being given to people who absolutely couldn't afford them. The bad loans were immediately sold and resold on the market. If the banks had to hold on to the loans instead of putting them on the open market they would have been more responsible.
There's nothing wrong with putting work into a property and making a profit on that work -- that's the whole point of the economy! The problem is massive speculation and lax oversight. Every time the feds deregulate this happens.
And then, in 2003-2005 a peculiar thing happened. Renting became a more profitable long term strategy than home ownership. If you don't realize this, then you are not seeing the forest from the trees. There are many other affordable options for people like you.
Is this cold comfort for somebody that wants to own a home and not rent? The fact is that people who legitimately would have been able to afford a home either got screwed with over-inflated prices or couldn't buy one at all, and now both Presidential candidates are talking about keeping people in their over-priced homes, even though they can't afford them and shouldn't have bought them in the first place!
If it's true and a valid point, then I don't mind hearing it repeated.
One thing I do hate, however, is the ever-growing abuse of acronyms instead of spelling out phrases. It's seriously obfuscating English.
you can trust your dog not to eat your wife and child for breakfast if you forget to feed him the night before.
In general, yes, but there's always exceptions. You may have seen the recent "face transplant" story. I read the backgrounds of the patients, and it turns out one of them had her lips and nose eaten by her dog while she was sleeping.
The way I read it is that he uses right-click to get a new tab, but accidentally hits New Window because it's the first option. So yes, he should learn to middle-click.
I met a developer once who would use the menus to copy and paste instead of the usual shortcut keys. Painful.
Google's "beta" reminds me of those stupid under construction signs that everybody used in the early days of the web.
Also do not forget that you most likely do not pay a cent of those millions, so my point still stays strong.
It doesn't matter if the software is explicitly paid for by users or if driven by ad revenue. The point I responded to wasn't true: "all that beautiful open source software only gets created, fixed and updated because we like to do it"
People are getting paid to work on the software. That's not "because we like to do it".
So your chance of being heard are - as I said - pretty high, if you're nice and know that behind every Bugzilla, every forum and every e-mail address, there are people with feelings.
That I agree with, even with for-profit software (including Microsoft). Still, frustrations will show through no matter what, so it's best to have a thick skin.
Microsoft didn't kill it, they simply provided a good enough browser at a time when many people were searching for one.
Microsoft made IE for free and bundled it as part of their operating system, making it the default choice. Nobody else could have done this -- that's why Opera, a better browser than Netscape at the time, could never unseat Netscape, but Microsoft could.
Microsoft killed Netscape. It's indisputable.
Some of us see this as an obvious end run around the constitutional prohibition against taxing imports, but the courts are willing to allow it.
I agree, but then the Constitution was written before highways, the Internet, and UPS. The spirit of the law was to prevent stuff like charging double for out-of-state goods. Something like avoiding sales tax wouldn't have been a consideration, since most people would be buying from their local merchant, even if the goods were from out of state.
I'd rather see an amendment to the Constitution than this bogus "use tax" crap.
One thing I never understood was how Microsoft profits from Internet Explorer. (ie. Why should they care if people buy Windows and install some other browser?)
To keep their operating systems monopoly. They used their monopoly to kill Netscape and made IE the browser that 98% of people used, which means web designers only made sure their web pages worked in IE, which made it hard for people to switch operating systems.
Microsoft fell asleep at the wheel, though. They let IE stagnate at version 6 for years, which allowed Mozilla to come out with a better browser that was also compatible.
Microsoft woke up and now the browser wars are upon us once again. Microsoft's biggest play is Silverlight -- if they can get enough people using it they'll own the web again.
Never forget that all that beautiful open source software only gets created, fixed and updated because we like to do it.
Don't forget that Firefox was the result of a for-profit company, Netscape, open sourcing their browser in a desperate bid to remain relevant. Also don't forget that Mozilla gets over $60 million a year from Firefox and has well-paid employees.
Having freedom means like-minded individuals can form groups and set their own rules for discussion. Do you want the government telling you that you must hang out with somebody?
The reason why the government is prevented from infringing free speech is because they have supreme power. Otherwise, they could make it a crime to criticize the government anywhere.
Free speech means you can find a place to speak your message, not that others have to allow your message on their space.