No man does 53 billion dollar of work. He games the system so the incremental profits of the workers at the bottom of the pyramid trickle up into his pockets.
You do realize that the the labor theory of value is very widely discredited. Investing is not some giant conspiracy against workers. Investment enables the economy to allocate resources in ways that allow for workers to... well work. A farmer does much better if a speculator can buy their crops at a fixed rate than selling them on the open market. He no longer must bare the entire risk of markets when he farms. Onions cannot be speculated on, and as a result onion farmers are frequently put out of business by wild fluxuations in the market. A person who wants to expand their business may sell bonds or issue stock. These sources of money may not have actual work behind them, but they let the business expand so that actual work can be done.
Oh, and fear of socialism is the primary undercurrent to keep healthcare in America as a luxury only the wealthy can afford.
By law nobody is ever turned down for healthcare in any sort of emergency. 85% of Americans have health insurance but all have access to health care. The fact that the overwhelming majority have insurance shows clearly that it is not exclusive to the rich. A large majority of Americans say they are happy with the quality of care they receive. Of the 15% who are uninsured, about half could afford it but choose to risk it (which is what all forms of insurance are, paying to control a financial risk), and of the remaining uninsured, most are already eligible for programs such as Medicaid and cannot be turned down by hospitals even if they don't pay. America's healthcare system also hardly demonstrates the evils of capitalism, as it isn't a market based system at all. It is the single most regulated industry in the country and the law structures it so that most people are covered through third parties (namely their employer) and are basically required to receive coverage for things they don't need (regulations vary wildly from state to state with no shopping across state lines), and there is the constant overhead created by paperwork and litigation.
America is a fucked up mess. Capitalism is a fallacy.
America is still the largest economy of any country in the world and we are astoundingly successful. For most of human history, the norm has been tyranny, war, brutality, disease, and poverty, but America has been a pleasant exception. It is largely because we were founded on the idea that individuals should be allowed the freedom to pursue their own interest that we have seen such prosperity.
And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts
The courts did absolutely nothing to legalize bribery. Quid pro quo exchanges of money for votes are still very much illegal, and unless you have been huffing paint thinner, you'd have no way of interpreting what SCOTUS said this way.
along with speech equaling money, thus insuring your vote and voice is worthless as any corp can simply come along after the election with a checkbook and take over.
Regardless of your views on the case, money already was a huge player. It always has been, it will continue to grow, the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform Act" did absolutely nothing to reduce the influence of money in politics, as is clearly evident in the fact that we saw some of the most expensive elections in history in the campaigns since it passed. The only thing it really has done is made candidates put those awkward "approve this message" lines in their commercials (which is still in place),encouraged increased use of 3-rd party campaigns (still in place but less relevent), and reduced the competativeness of most elections since it is much more of a pain to criticize opponents (hence its critics have dubbed it the "Incumbency Protection Act"). A politician still must earn your vote and the extreme majority of campaign contributions tend to go to candidates that already favored a viewpoint. Suppose you are a gun company. It is a lot easier to promote a candidate who is already pro-gun than to persuade an anti-gun candidate to join you. All the recent court ruling did was make it so companies can more directly contribute to political speech, rather than indirectly contribute via third parties.
I predict we will continue to be flooded by H1-Bs and illegals even as our unemployment continues to climb past 20% (the numbers the fed uses is a lie, as they no longer count those whose benefits run out or who have given up for lack of work in their area)
Actually, the rate of illegal immigration appears to be declining due to the poor economy. I also would doubt legal H1-Bs hold too negative an impact on the US economy. What do you assume those workers do with the money they've earned? Do you think they eat it? They turn around and re-spend it here, creating jobs or they ship it overseas which removes currency from the US, thus reducing inflation. (It isn't the presence of dollar bills in the economy that make it worth money, it is the asset value the economy has, money is just a token to represent that value.) Illegal immigrants cause problems largely because of the high crime rates associated with illegal human trafficking not the taking of jobs. Also, the US unemployment rate as calculated by the department of Labor (not the Fed, they are a semi-independant central bank) is based on a survey of about 60,000 households to estimate a national average. It is currently about 10%. Your claim of it being underrepresented is a myth that derives from the fact that a few state and local governments compile their stats that way.
while special interests will continue to feed like hogs at the government trough.
Have you ever read history books? Have you ever heard of the Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall, the leader of the 19th century Democrat political machine of New York City? Have you ever read about the Teapot Dome scandal? The current levels of corruption pale in comparison to these.
Once the fed can no longer print phoney money and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses we will get to watch as they return to their home countries and leave the corpse of the USA to rot.
Social Security might be something of a Ponzi scheme, but the rest of the federal government really doesn't come close to the defe
Nixon drew a nice retirement package. The power structure remains intact. A triumph indeed.
Yes, a triamph indeed. Nixon abused his powers and a free press caught him. He was forced to resign and there was a peaceful transfer of power. As an ex-President he did more than just "draw a nice retirement package", he would go on to do a great deal to ease US relations with the USSR and China serving as something of a negotiator. In fact he was considered one of the most respected foreign policy experts in the world. He also was a prominent speaker at universities, but ironically unlike most ex-Presidents, he generally didn't charge for speaking since he felt it was a corrupt abuse of the title of President.
Consider how today's American media presents the Chinese government. Who is it actually being mind-controlled?
Are you fucking serious? Are you really descending to the moral relativism of comparing the media outlets of a country with a state-run press to one where the media has a long history of exposing scandals and bucking the system. American media has its problems, but it certainly is better than any demonstrated alternative.
So...becoming institutionalized to the point that many cannot function in society for any amount of time is not punishment enough?
So...not being able to see you friends and family except for in extremely controlled circumstances is not punishment enough?
So...becoming stigmatized by society to the point that it is extremely difficult to get a decent job, get a decent apartment, or to some extent have any interaction with the public without being pre-judged is not punishment enough?
Well he did say this was a D & D player's dream, and this does seem to to resemble the average D & D mama's basement dweller.
This is such horseshit. I found my time in college to be uniformly exciting and mind-expanding. I can't even imagine what kind of personality it takes to have never found a single college class be educational.
Basically anyone who dislikes fluff. I have no need for further math, science, or English, I've had that for 13 years in school. I just want the skills I need for IT. I don't need a stupid philosophy class.
In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."
Wow, even when he has the right idea, Noam Chomsky is wrong, as always. I am not certain about Goebbels, but I know Stalin frequently had those who agreed with him killed if he felt they were too passionate, so as to prevent any political threats from usurping him. Being outspoken without Stalin's instruction, even if you were supporting Stalin, was a death sentence.
That should be pretty obvious, since treason now means "something I don't like."
The constitution explicitly defines treason as
levying War against them [the US], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
There have only been 40 convictions of treason in US history. It is a VERY rare charge.
Worse, one could legitimately suggest the reason these shows suck in ratings is because people do hear their message and reject it.
The reason conservative talk does well but liberal talk does poorly is just because there is a demographic in the coservative movement that just isn't that big on the left: people in their cars going to work.
We need to get past this two party nonsense and get more diverse political viewpoints, and the Fairness Doctrine won't get us there.
The reason for America's rigid two party system is due to the way elections work, not due to American mindsets. We generally elect people through simple pluralities to single seat districts. In many European countries they have variations of proportional representation. People vote for parties rather than specific candidates and candidates are apportioned based on party turnout. Thus a party with voters that aren't strong enough in any particular area to win a plurality can still win seats.
The real impact this has is on how a party gets what it wants. In European countries an election is held. Normally a parliament will be split with several large centrist parties holding most seats. They will then have to offer up compromises with radical small parties to form coalitions so a Prime Minister can be selected. If there is no compromise then parliements are "hung" and usually get dissolved by another election or votes of no confidence (a majority may remove a Prime Minister at any time for any reason) break up the divided government.
In America we don't need to form coalitions after an election, those coalitions never move. From Lincoln to today, Republicans have long been a center-right collection of businessmen, libertarians (small "l"), and deeply religious people. The Democrats have long been center-left minded people who felt that they needed to help groups that they felt needed special treatment by society through government intervention. From Andrew Jackson to Obama, the group de jure has changed, the mindset hasn't.
In addition to stability the two party system promotes centrism. In order for a bill to pass it must be approved of by the House, the Senate (and it normally must be 60% of the Senate or else the bill is procedurally killed by fillibuster), and the President. When a bill can't pass the leadership in Congress or the President will normally have to convince the most moderate members to go along, usually by changing the bill to a more moderate version. In order to win office one must not be to radical, or voters will be scared. A Presidential Candidate needs to spend most of his time worrying about how the most moderate "swing states" will vote. You can't just crank up the turnout to win over your base, you need the moderates to help you. Control of the House and Senate depend upon the centerist districts and states.
I like the way our system works. I like appealing to the center rather than the fringe. There is a lot of room for improvement, such as eliminating gerrymandering, reforming primaries and cacauses, and amending the constitution to enact a budget line-item veto (preferably one that also mandates a balanced budget) to eliminate pork would all be nice starts.
But rather than being alone to state his opinions, he was there with representatives from three other political parties.
Nearly every political pundit TV show seems to have panels. They bring on people who have views that may or may not differ with the host and they argue.
Radio shows generally will let you call in and argue with the host.
I see no shortage of view offered on the American radio or TV. I see no reason to impose quotas on different points of view. The fairness doctrine is a solution in search of a problem and the idea of taxpayer funds being used to hire bloggers to promote an agenda is a gross abuse of power.
The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds. I mean, they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the "brain dead crowd", while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff (which, to non-Slashdotters, is ridiculously boring) on their website. This could probably work quite well for about a year or two under the right management, but unfortunately will inevitably be screwed up by Comcast, much in the same way that G4 screwed up TechTV.
In the UK, with a football (soccer) match, even if it is on a channel with advertising you only get adverts at half time and before and after the match so there are two 45 minute blocks of uninterrupted football with decent commentators in general.
And yet in that entire time nobody scores.
Really, there is only so much announcing one can do,
he kicks it, he kicks it back, he kicks it, he kicks it back...
Exactly! He may, for example, be more interested in girls. And if he knows how to talk to a girl, he probably won't amount to much of a programmer anyway.
A thinkgeek shirt had the reason geeks don't understand women
But the whole point of these Christian "developers", like Christian "rock/pop musicians" is not to put out a quality product, it's to get the faithful to fork over money.
In other words, rather then being the "snake oil" dealers you claim they are, they are just simply like every single business on the planet. They identify a market, then they look for a way to make money serving that market. There is clear demand for Christian Rock, and the customers obviously buy the music because they enjoy its message, just as one might buy a regular album (or especially a concept album) because one enjoys its message.
The only problem with video games is they are expensive to produce and to buy. A series of Christian games might work, but it is a gamble. Books and songs require relatively less staff than a video game. Of course, a game with an underlying religious message could very much stand a chance at success, but an expressly "Christian Game" might not.
The irony of course is that the US not only has the worst coverage it also has the most expensive healthcare in the world
We also recieve the most healthcare in the world. American's generally have elective surgery much more than is average, and they tend to spend more on optional prescriptions. No surprise, more care = more cost. This isn't a bad thing, remember that like nearly any sector of the economy healthcare is not zero-sum. More money spent there doesn't mean there is less for everything else. Production of goods or providing of services have value, money is used as a token to exchange value. If I spend a few thousand on lasik, it doesn't mean I lost that money and the surgeon gained, it means I exchanged my money for better eyesight, which I valued more than the money spent. The surgeon valued the money more then his efforts. Large sums of the economy spent on healthcare does not in any way indicate a problem. This just shows in absence of rationing people who can spend more will. America's population is also aging, so expect healthcare spending to increase as seniors look for more modern medicine.
while also having a lower life expectancy than most other 1st world countries.
Life expectancy is possibly one of the least rational ways to measure healthcare. America has far higher automobile usage then most countries, and automobiles are very dangerous. We also have an abnormally high murder and violent crime rate. If you factor out murder and traffic accidents this lower life expectancy vanishes. There are other factors that should probably be adjusted for. We also have the highest obesity rate, which may be a health problem but isn't something that would really be helped by socialized medicine. We measure life expectancy differently than several European countries. Notably, hospitals in the US will generally go to further lengths then most European hospitals to save premature or poorly developed newborns, recording them as infant deaths (their young age is such an outlier it can have quite an impact on the average) rather then just letting them die and recording them as stillborn.
No its the system that corporations with marketing departments want and the sheep are fine to go along if they get thrown some facebook points.
Guess what? The people managing socialized healthcare systems want you to go along with their plan? Guess what? Both sides have marketing departments. There is no big conspiracy by "zOMG big companies, teh evilz". Health insurance is a risk pool. You are paying to reduce your risk. It is just like any other form of insurance (or like speculation). Companies are just as rationally self-interested as beurocrats, and both have just as much an interest in denying care or rationing it. The difference is in a market if either party wants, they can refuse the exchange or seek some other seller. I can't just seek another government, not without moving.
Indeed, the problems with our healthcare system all stem from regulation, not insurance companies. Our "free market" healthcare system is the most regulated industry in the country. The only other industries I know of that come anywhere close are airlines, energy, utilities, and rent controlled apartments, none of whom are known for being models of efficiency. We mandate employers provide coverage, so there is no shopping around. Since this makes paying out of pocket a luxury and have laws against other groups teaming up to provide coverage (taking advantage of economies of scale) paying out of pocket if you aren't covered or are self employeed is very expensive. Both the federal government and the states (and many counties or cities) mandate that insurance companies cover non-emergency coverage, rather than allowing for consumer choice drives up prices.Legal liability is ridiculous because you can generally sue someone with no real risk to yourself, rather then having the loser pay for both parties, and there are few caps on li
$30 is about what the os, in its MAX config, is worth. any os.
Value is never that simple. Microsoft will always try to charge the amount that makes maximum profit. Charge too little you don't make as much which of course means less reward and less funding to develop the next OS, charge too much and nobody will buy it. $100 is fairly reasonable actually. MS is much cheaper per license then many of the other options that predated it, which is how MS became so dominant. Now it cost more to switch then it is generally worth. As long as that continues Windows will remain on top.
I am very interested in seeing an example of an American calling a European national 'African American.' I am not doubting you or anything, I'd just like an example to show others.
What does one call a white person who lives in Africa but moves to America. They are literally an "African American".
I wouldn't worry about that, as the end result of *not* cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy. We live unsustainably. Oil isn't forever. Nukes aren't forever. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Oil won't just "run out" one day, it will gradually become harder and harder to find. We will slowly deplete the "easy" sources of oil, and gradually move on to harder and harder oil. Demand for cheap oil will force the markets into finding new ways to get it to us. At the start of the century it was believed that we only had a decade or two's worth of oil left, now we believe we have substantially more. We are now able to drill in the oceans, in the remotest areas of Alaska, in the politically unstable middle east. In Siberia, and deep into the ground in places like Texas, or all around South America, Mexico (the biggest source of foreign oil for the USA is Mexico) or Canada (another surprisingly large source).
Heck even when gas hit its peak, it was still cheaper to buy a gallon of gas than a gallon of water in bottles. Water can be obtained from rivers and lakes, oil requires discovering a well, jumping through legal hoops, drilling deep into the ground, erecting a pump, pumping it out often into a pipeline, transporting it across the country or across the world to a refinery, going through more regulation, refining it, shipping the gas to a station, and putting safety equipment in place so you won't blow yourself up pumping it (and it faces a rather large tax normally). We bitch about the need for alternatives if a gallon of gas tops a couple bucks. That gallon will still take you between 20 and 50 miles, pretty nice compared to walking.
At some point, a few hundred years in the future, oil will become expensive. We won't run out, rather we will just keep moving on to harder and harder wells. Eventually oil's price will exceed that of some other source of energy. At this point oil use will fade while this new energy source will usurp it. There is no need to try to artificially force the market to adopt a politically motivated alternative now, when it will naturally adopt one eventually when it is most efficient for it to do so. The economy likely will do better at adjusting to global warming then governments will at preventing it. Some areas will benefit, some will be hurt, but overall it looks much cheaper to endure it than to fight it.
Consider the food supply. The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well. So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production. Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20%. The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20%: we return to the original problem.
That is in no way the problem. Where do you see starvation? Various parts of Africa, North Korea, and a few other locations. Many of these starving countries are not nearly as populated as the USA or Europe and have more fertile land. Why do they starve? Why does North Korea have a food shortage when South Korea is fine? In both these cases high population is a ridiculous excuse. In Africa, political instability and warfare results in the destruction of crops. In North Korea the socialist regime will not allow for people to grow crops. Some places like Hong Kong are extremely crowded, but still rarely suffer from starvation due to the ability to buy food from less crowded areas. Even poor countries such as India have managed to largely eliminate starvation through use of modernizing their agricultural system and liberalizing trade. Anywhere in the world you see mass starvation it is nearly always the result of either warfare or government intervention in the economy. A lack of places to grow food is a ridiculous explanation. Even poverty doesn't cause starvation. In the USA, arguably the biggest health risk faced by the poor is not starvation, but obesity. People living below the poverty line have abnormally high rates of obesity. Our only problem is too much food. Then again, someone below poverty line here lives a lifestyle that many in Africa would consider to be extremely luxurious.
We have plenty of space to grow food, and with advancing crop production techniques this will be even less of a problem. Theoretically it would be possible to fit the entire population of the world inside the state of Texas and still have a lower population per square mile than New York City.
The Soviets tried invading it like WWII and still lost.
Part of how they lost was the Us funding a resistance called the Mujahideen. After the USSR left the US simply lost interest in the region. This left a power vacuum in place and allowed the Taliban to be created.
No, it's a regulation. A right means that the government or some third party cannot interfere with you buying internet service. A regulation is a government mandate. If Spain's government were to pass a law preventing officials from interfering with consumers purchasing internet service that would be a right to buy. This is a restriction on a company, not a "right"
Slashdot Mirror
No man does 53 billion dollar of work. He games the system so the incremental profits of the workers at the bottom of the pyramid trickle up into his pockets.
You do realize that the the labor theory of value is very widely discredited. Investing is not some giant conspiracy against workers. Investment enables the economy to allocate resources in ways that allow for workers to ... well work. A farmer does much better if a speculator can buy their crops at a fixed rate than selling them on the open market. He no longer must bare the entire risk of markets when he farms. Onions cannot be speculated on, and as a result onion farmers are frequently put out of business by wild fluxuations in the market. A person who wants to expand their business may sell bonds or issue stock. These sources of money may not have actual work behind them, but they let the business expand so that actual work can be done.
Oh, and fear of socialism is the primary undercurrent to keep healthcare in America as a luxury only the wealthy can afford.
By law nobody is ever turned down for healthcare in any sort of emergency. 85% of Americans have health insurance but all have access to health care. The fact that the overwhelming majority have insurance shows clearly that it is not exclusive to the rich. A large majority of Americans say they are happy with the quality of care they receive. Of the 15% who are uninsured, about half could afford it but choose to risk it (which is what all forms of insurance are, paying to control a financial risk), and of the remaining uninsured, most are already eligible for programs such as Medicaid and cannot be turned down by hospitals even if they don't pay. America's healthcare system also hardly demonstrates the evils of capitalism, as it isn't a market based system at all. It is the single most regulated industry in the country and the law structures it so that most people are covered through third parties (namely their employer) and are basically required to receive coverage for things they don't need (regulations vary wildly from state to state with no shopping across state lines), and there is the constant overhead created by paperwork and litigation.
America is a fucked up mess. Capitalism is a fallacy.
America is still the largest economy of any country in the world and we are astoundingly successful. For most of human history, the norm has been tyranny, war, brutality, disease, and poverty, but America has been a pleasant exception. It is largely because we were founded on the idea that individuals should be allowed the freedom to pursue their own interest that we have seen such prosperity.
And it is pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that We, The People no longer have any say in the government at all (taxation without representation) thanks to bribery being legal and corporations being labeled "really rich people" by the courts
The courts did absolutely nothing to legalize bribery. Quid pro quo exchanges of money for votes are still very much illegal, and unless you have been huffing paint thinner, you'd have no way of interpreting what SCOTUS said this way.
along with speech equaling money, thus insuring your vote and voice is worthless as any corp can simply come along after the election with a checkbook and take over.
Regardless of your views on the case, money already was a huge player. It always has been, it will continue to grow, the McCain-Feingold "Campaign Finance Reform Act" did absolutely nothing to reduce the influence of money in politics, as is clearly evident in the fact that we saw some of the most expensive elections in history in the campaigns since it passed. The only thing it really has done is made candidates put those awkward "approve this message" lines in their commercials (which is still in place),encouraged increased use of 3-rd party campaigns (still in place but less relevent), and reduced the competativeness of most elections since it is much more of a pain to criticize opponents (hence its critics have dubbed it the "Incumbency Protection Act"). A politician still must earn your vote and the extreme majority of campaign contributions tend to go to candidates that already favored a viewpoint. Suppose you are a gun company. It is a lot easier to promote a candidate who is already pro-gun than to persuade an anti-gun candidate to join you. All the recent court ruling did was make it so companies can more directly contribute to political speech, rather than indirectly contribute via third parties.
I predict we will continue to be flooded by H1-Bs and illegals even as our unemployment continues to climb past 20% (the numbers the fed uses is a lie, as they no longer count those whose benefits run out or who have given up for lack of work in their area)
Actually, the rate of illegal immigration appears to be declining due to the poor economy. I also would doubt legal H1-Bs hold too negative an impact on the US economy. What do you assume those workers do with the money they've earned? Do you think they eat it? They turn around and re-spend it here, creating jobs or they ship it overseas which removes currency from the US, thus reducing inflation. (It isn't the presence of dollar bills in the economy that make it worth money, it is the asset value the economy has, money is just a token to represent that value.) Illegal immigrants cause problems largely because of the high crime rates associated with illegal human trafficking not the taking of jobs. Also, the US unemployment rate as calculated by the department of Labor (not the Fed, they are a semi-independant central bank) is based on a survey of about 60,000 households to estimate a national average. It is currently about 10%. Your claim of it being underrepresented is a myth that derives from the fact that a few state and local governments compile their stats that way.
while special interests will continue to feed like hogs at the government trough.
Have you ever read history books? Have you ever heard of the Boss Tweed of Tammany Hall, the leader of the 19th century Democrat political machine of New York City? Have you ever read about the Teapot Dome scandal? The current levels of corruption pale in comparison to these.
Once the fed can no longer print phoney money and the whole Ponzi scheme collapses we will get to watch as they return to their home countries and leave the corpse of the USA to rot.
Social Security might be something of a Ponzi scheme, but the rest of the federal government really doesn't come close to the defe
Meetings like ACTA conspiracy (any such hidden meeting certainly qualifies!) are proof Timothy McVeigh got the wrong building.
Umm, is wasn't a copyright treaty that made McVeigh mass murder people.
Nixon drew a nice retirement package. The power structure remains intact. A triumph indeed.
Yes, a triamph indeed. Nixon abused his powers and a free press caught him. He was forced to resign and there was a peaceful transfer of power. As an ex-President he did more than just "draw a nice retirement package", he would go on to do a great deal to ease US relations with the USSR and China serving as something of a negotiator. In fact he was considered one of the most respected foreign policy experts in the world. He also was a prominent speaker at universities, but ironically unlike most ex-Presidents, he generally didn't charge for speaking since he felt it was a corrupt abuse of the title of President.
Consider how today's American media presents the Chinese government. Who is it actually being mind-controlled?
Are you fucking serious? Are you really descending to the moral relativism of comparing the media outlets of a country with a state-run press to one where the media has a long history of exposing scandals and bucking the system. American media has its problems, but it certainly is better than any demonstrated alternative.
So...becoming institutionalized to the point that many cannot function in society for any amount of time is not punishment enough? So...not being able to see you friends and family except for in extremely controlled circumstances is not punishment enough? So...becoming stigmatized by society to the point that it is extremely difficult to get a decent job, get a decent apartment, or to some extent have any interaction with the public without being pre-judged is not punishment enough?
Well he did say this was a D & D player's dream, and this does seem to to resemble the average D & D mama's basement dweller.
This is such horseshit. I found my time in college to be uniformly exciting and mind-expanding. I can't even imagine what kind of personality it takes to have never found a single college class be educational.
Basically anyone who dislikes fluff. I have no need for further math, science, or English, I've had that for 13 years in school. I just want the skills I need for IT. I don't need a stupid philosophy class.
Think of Sweden as the 'Apple' of nations,
Yes, the user experience is planned out, and if you want to do something different, we're not going to allow it.
In the words of Noam Chomsky: "Goebbels was in favour of free speech for views he liked. So was Stalin. If you're really in favor of free speech, then you're in favour of freedom of speech for precisely for views you despise. Otherwise, you're not in favour of free speech."
Wow, even when he has the right idea, Noam Chomsky is wrong, as always. I am not certain about Goebbels, but I know Stalin frequently had those who agreed with him killed if he felt they were too passionate, so as to prevent any political threats from usurping him. Being outspoken without Stalin's instruction, even if you were supporting Stalin, was a death sentence.
That should be pretty obvious, since treason now means "something I don't like."
The constitution explicitly defines treason as
levying War against them [the US], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
There have only been 40 convictions of treason in US history. It is a VERY rare charge.
Worse, one could legitimately suggest the reason these shows suck in ratings is because people do hear their message and reject it.
The reason conservative talk does well but liberal talk does poorly is just because there is a demographic in the coservative movement that just isn't that big on the left: people in their cars going to work.
Meh, I can afford to be modded down for trolling.
We need to get past this two party nonsense and get more diverse political viewpoints, and the Fairness Doctrine won't get us there.
The reason for America's rigid two party system is due to the way elections work, not due to American mindsets. We generally elect people through simple pluralities to single seat districts. In many European countries they have variations of proportional representation. People vote for parties rather than specific candidates and candidates are apportioned based on party turnout. Thus a party with voters that aren't strong enough in any particular area to win a plurality can still win seats.
The real impact this has is on how a party gets what it wants. In European countries an election is held. Normally a parliament will be split with several large centrist parties holding most seats. They will then have to offer up compromises with radical small parties to form coalitions so a Prime Minister can be selected. If there is no compromise then parliements are "hung" and usually get dissolved by another election or votes of no confidence (a majority may remove a Prime Minister at any time for any reason) break up the divided government.
In America we don't need to form coalitions after an election, those coalitions never move. From Lincoln to today, Republicans have long been a center-right collection of businessmen, libertarians (small "l"), and deeply religious people. The Democrats have long been center-left minded people who felt that they needed to help groups that they felt needed special treatment by society through government intervention. From Andrew Jackson to Obama, the group de jure has changed, the mindset hasn't.
In addition to stability the two party system promotes centrism. In order for a bill to pass it must be approved of by the House, the Senate (and it normally must be 60% of the Senate or else the bill is procedurally killed by fillibuster), and the President. When a bill can't pass the leadership in Congress or the President will normally have to convince the most moderate members to go along, usually by changing the bill to a more moderate version. In order to win office one must not be to radical, or voters will be scared. A Presidential Candidate needs to spend most of his time worrying about how the most moderate "swing states" will vote. You can't just crank up the turnout to win over your base, you need the moderates to help you. Control of the House and Senate depend upon the centerist districts and states.
I like the way our system works. I like appealing to the center rather than the fringe. There is a lot of room for improvement, such as eliminating gerrymandering, reforming primaries and cacauses, and amending the constitution to enact a budget line-item veto (preferably one that also mandates a balanced budget) to eliminate pork would all be nice starts.
But rather than being alone to state his opinions, he was there with representatives from three other political parties.
Nearly every political pundit TV show seems to have panels. They bring on people who have views that may or may not differ with the host and they argue.
Radio shows generally will let you call in and argue with the host.
I see no shortage of view offered on the American radio or TV. I see no reason to impose quotas on different points of view. The fairness doctrine is a solution in search of a problem and the idea of taxpayer funds being used to hire bloggers to promote an agenda is a gross abuse of power.
Let me guess, you're the one who found this guy to be "insightful"?
Let me guess, we are about to be lectured by a guy with the word "cum" in his username?
The solution could actually be something like better incorporation of multiple feeds. I mean, they could spruce up the NASA TV cable network to make it a bit more appealing to the "brain dead crowd", while at the same time having the raw footage and all the good stuff (which, to non-Slashdotters, is ridiculously boring) on their website. This could probably work quite well for about a year or two under the right management, but unfortunately will inevitably be screwed up by Comcast, much in the same way that G4 screwed up TechTV.
Or you could just mute it.
In the UK, with a football (soccer) match, even if it is on a channel with advertising you only get adverts at half time and before and after the match so there are two 45 minute blocks of uninterrupted football with decent commentators in general.
And yet in that entire time nobody scores.
Really, there is only so much announcing one can do,
he kicks it, he kicks it back, he kicks it, he kicks it back...
Exactly! He may, for example, be more interested in girls. And if he knows how to talk to a girl, he probably won't amount to much of a programmer anyway.
A thinkgeek shirt had the reason geeks don't understand women
$> man woman
$> Segmentation fault (core dumped)
But the whole point of these Christian "developers", like Christian "rock/pop musicians" is not to put out a quality product, it's to get the faithful to fork over money.
In other words, rather then being the "snake oil" dealers you claim they are, they are just simply like every single business on the planet. They identify a market, then they look for a way to make money serving that market. There is clear demand for Christian Rock, and the customers obviously buy the music because they enjoy its message, just as one might buy a regular album (or especially a concept album) because one enjoys its message.
The only problem with video games is they are expensive to produce and to buy. A series of Christian games might work, but it is a gamble. Books and songs require relatively less staff than a video game. Of course, a game with an underlying religious message could very much stand a chance at success, but an expressly "Christian Game" might not.
The irony of course is that the US not only has the worst coverage it also has the most expensive healthcare in the world
We also recieve the most healthcare in the world. American's generally have elective surgery much more than is average, and they tend to spend more on optional prescriptions. No surprise, more care = more cost. This isn't a bad thing, remember that like nearly any sector of the economy healthcare is not zero-sum. More money spent there doesn't mean there is less for everything else. Production of goods or providing of services have value, money is used as a token to exchange value. If I spend a few thousand on lasik, it doesn't mean I lost that money and the surgeon gained, it means I exchanged my money for better eyesight, which I valued more than the money spent. The surgeon valued the money more then his efforts. Large sums of the economy spent on healthcare does not in any way indicate a problem. This just shows in absence of rationing people who can spend more will. America's population is also aging, so expect healthcare spending to increase as seniors look for more modern medicine.
while also having a lower life expectancy than most other 1st world countries.
Life expectancy is possibly one of the least rational ways to measure healthcare. America has far higher automobile usage then most countries, and automobiles are very dangerous. We also have an abnormally high murder and violent crime rate. If you factor out murder and traffic accidents this lower life expectancy vanishes. There are other factors that should probably be adjusted for. We also have the highest obesity rate, which may be a health problem but isn't something that would really be helped by socialized medicine. We measure life expectancy differently than several European countries. Notably, hospitals in the US will generally go to further lengths then most European hospitals to save premature or poorly developed newborns, recording them as infant deaths (their young age is such an outlier it can have quite an impact on the average) rather then just letting them die and recording them as stillborn.
No its the system that corporations with marketing departments want and the sheep are fine to go along if they get thrown some facebook points.
Guess what? The people managing socialized healthcare systems want you to go along with their plan? Guess what? Both sides have marketing departments. There is no big conspiracy by "zOMG big companies, teh evilz". Health insurance is a risk pool. You are paying to reduce your risk. It is just like any other form of insurance (or like speculation). Companies are just as rationally self-interested as beurocrats, and both have just as much an interest in denying care or rationing it. The difference is in a market if either party wants, they can refuse the exchange or seek some other seller. I can't just seek another government, not without moving.
Indeed, the problems with our healthcare system all stem from regulation, not insurance companies. Our "free market" healthcare system is the most regulated industry in the country. The only other industries I know of that come anywhere close are airlines, energy, utilities, and rent controlled apartments, none of whom are known for being models of efficiency. We mandate employers provide coverage, so there is no shopping around. Since this makes paying out of pocket a luxury and have laws against other groups teaming up to provide coverage (taking advantage of economies of scale) paying out of pocket if you aren't covered or are self employeed is very expensive. Both the federal government and the states (and many counties or cities) mandate that insurance companies cover non-emergency coverage, rather than allowing for consumer choice drives up prices.Legal liability is ridiculous because you can generally sue someone with no real risk to yourself, rather then having the loser pay for both parties, and there are few caps on li
$30 is about what the os, in its MAX config, is worth. any os.
Value is never that simple. Microsoft will always try to charge the amount that makes maximum profit. Charge too little you don't make as much which of course means less reward and less funding to develop the next OS, charge too much and nobody will buy it. $100 is fairly reasonable actually. MS is much cheaper per license then many of the other options that predated it, which is how MS became so dominant. Now it cost more to switch then it is generally worth. As long as that continues Windows will remain on top.
I am very interested in seeing an example of an American calling a European national 'African American.' I am not doubting you or anything, I'd just like an example to show others.
What does one call a white person who lives in Africa but moves to America. They are literally an "African American".
I wouldn't worry about that, as the end result of *not* cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy. We live unsustainably. Oil isn't forever. Nukes aren't forever. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Oil won't just "run out" one day, it will gradually become harder and harder to find. We will slowly deplete the "easy" sources of oil, and gradually move on to harder and harder oil. Demand for cheap oil will force the markets into finding new ways to get it to us. At the start of the century it was believed that we only had a decade or two's worth of oil left, now we believe we have substantially more. We are now able to drill in the oceans, in the remotest areas of Alaska, in the politically unstable middle east. In Siberia, and deep into the ground in places like Texas, or all around South America, Mexico (the biggest source of foreign oil for the USA is Mexico) or Canada (another surprisingly large source).
Heck even when gas hit its peak, it was still cheaper to buy a gallon of gas than a gallon of water in bottles. Water can be obtained from rivers and lakes, oil requires discovering a well, jumping through legal hoops, drilling deep into the ground, erecting a pump, pumping it out often into a pipeline, transporting it across the country or across the world to a refinery, going through more regulation, refining it, shipping the gas to a station, and putting safety equipment in place so you won't blow yourself up pumping it (and it faces a rather large tax normally). We bitch about the need for alternatives if a gallon of gas tops a couple bucks. That gallon will still take you between 20 and 50 miles, pretty nice compared to walking.
At some point, a few hundred years in the future, oil will become expensive. We won't run out, rather we will just keep moving on to harder and harder wells. Eventually oil's price will exceed that of some other source of energy. At this point oil use will fade while this new energy source will usurp it. There is no need to try to artificially force the market to adopt a politically motivated alternative now, when it will naturally adopt one eventually when it is most efficient for it to do so. The economy likely will do better at adjusting to global warming then governments will at preventing it. Some areas will benefit, some will be hurt, but overall it looks much cheaper to endure it than to fight it.
Consider the food supply. The population has now reached a size at which the current amount of food is not sufficient for everyone to eat well. So, scientists at ADM and other companies are trying to invent new ways to increase food production. Suppose that the scientists succeed and that we increase food production by 20%. The population, enjoying this additional food, now grows by an additonal 20%: we return to the original problem.
That is in no way the problem. Where do you see starvation? Various parts of Africa, North Korea, and a few other locations. Many of these starving countries are not nearly as populated as the USA or Europe and have more fertile land. Why do they starve? Why does North Korea have a food shortage when South Korea is fine? In both these cases high population is a ridiculous excuse. In Africa, political instability and warfare results in the destruction of crops. In North Korea the socialist regime will not allow for people to grow crops. Some places like Hong Kong are extremely crowded, but still rarely suffer from starvation due to the ability to buy food from less crowded areas. Even poor countries such as India have managed to largely eliminate starvation through use of modernizing their agricultural system and liberalizing trade. Anywhere in the world you see mass starvation it is nearly always the result of either warfare or government intervention in the economy. A lack of places to grow food is a ridiculous explanation. Even poverty doesn't cause starvation. In the USA, arguably the biggest health risk faced by the poor is not starvation, but obesity. People living below the poverty line have abnormally high rates of obesity. Our only problem is too much food. Then again, someone below poverty line here lives a lifestyle that many in Africa would consider to be extremely luxurious.
We have plenty of space to grow food, and with advancing crop production techniques this will be even less of a problem. Theoretically it would be possible to fit the entire population of the world inside the state of Texas and still have a lower population per square mile than New York City.
The Soviets tried invading it like WWII and still lost.
Part of how they lost was the Us funding a resistance called the Mujahideen. After the USSR left the US simply lost interest in the region. This left a power vacuum in place and allowed the Taliban to be created.
It's a right to buy.
No, it's a regulation. A right means that the government or some third party cannot interfere with you buying internet service. A regulation is a government mandate. If Spain's government were to pass a law preventing officials from interfering with consumers purchasing internet service that would be a right to buy. This is a restriction on a company, not a "right"