Sorry if you feel I misrepresented your comment. That was not my intention. I understood what you were saying, and perhaps I phrased my reply badly. What I was trying to get across was more the point that if you asked 100 average people on the street which party was the more fiscally conservative, the majority of them would still sat the Republicans, in spite of the fact that our nation is now on the verge of a new great depression thanks to Republican financial mismanagement. Democrats may not be as fiscally conservative as many people would like, but at least Clinton was able to leave a budget surplus, something no Republican has done (especially no modern Republican). While I don't disagree with your last sentence (Though I usually vote Democratic,I'm more of a proud liberal than a party Democrat, and I'm happy to point out places where the Dems are wrong), I feel that it is important to make it very clear that the Republicans, when they talk about being the fiscally responsible party, are just plain lying.

To be clear, the second paragraph of my reply was not directed at you, but at any other readers who would post kneejerk anti-Obama rhetoric.

But I'm still waiting for a citation regarding your comment "More than half of economists think the New Deal didn't help". As I pointed out before, that sounds like a talking point. Even if there is a survey that says that, it doesn't necessarily mean much. I see two problems potential problems. First, who conducted the study, how large was the sample, what were the biases of the sample group, etc. Second, the University of Chicago school of Economics and the economic theories they promote have been the dominant economic worldview over the last 50 years, so presumably a sizable chunk of economists believe in that worldview. Those same theories have lead to things like the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act which pretty much directly lead to our current economic downturn. It would seem to me that those so called "experts" should maybe be ignored for a while. Remember, it wasn't all that long ago when 50% of doctors would have said leaches are a quite effective medical tool, so just because someone is an "expert" doesn't mean that they are right.

I think you definition of "Fiscal Conservative" is flat out wrong. That may be the -theoretical- definition, and that may have been the practical definition thirty years ago, but that definition no longer has any bearing on the policies of the Republican party. Since Reagan, and accelerating greatly under Bush, Republican policy has been to cut income while accelerating spending*. It is exactly the opposite of anything that could be called 'fiscally conservative'.

And before the Republicans all start screaming about Obama's rampant spending, don't blame him for the problem that your guy left us with. Unfortunately, Bush dug us deep into a hole, so now we have little choice but to spend some money to get out of it. Regardless, at least he isn't cutting taxes while accelerating spending. A true fiscal conservative understands that sometimes spending is unavoidable (such as during a time of war), but understands that in those circumstances you will have to raise taxes to pay for it.

I'd also be interested in a citation for you comment "More than half of economists think the New Deal didn't help". Sounds like a Republican talking point to me.

Whoever moderated this as offtopic is an idiot. In one sentence, that Colbert quote pretty much sums up the entire survey result. Insightful would be a much more appropriate mod.

It's much simpler than that. The Republican Party has demonstrated for at least the last 30 years, and especially in the last 8 years, that they have absolutely no respect for science in particular, or education general. Is it really hard to see why a group of well educated scientists would want little to do with a party that despises them?

Party labels have less to do with who you vote for than the GP seems to assume. Just because someone calls themselves a Democrat doesn't mean that they will never vote for a Republican. It's stating a preference, nothing more. Most people tend to lean to one side of the aisle or the other. Even most people who call themselves independents will usually self-identify with one party or the other if pressed.

That's not to say that there aren't party ideologues on each side who will vote the party line regardless of the candidate, but historically they have been a relatively small number, and well outnumbered by the people who will vote for the candidate with the better TV ads or similar ridiculous reasons. After the 2008 presidential campaign, that seems to be changing on the Republican side as they appear to be actively trying to drive out anyone who is NOT a party ideologue. Take Dick Cheney's comments about Colin Powell as just one bit of evidence of this. Another example was the smear campaign ran against any right-wing pundits who had dared to question the credentials of Sarah Palin as VP. We'll have to wait and see what happens there, but the irony is that those party ideologues are killing there party. The base, no matter how well organized, cannot carry a national election on their own. If they ever want to win the white house again, they'll need a lot more than the Republican base.

When rho tells you that a corporation is not considered a person, rho is talking out of his or her ass.

You are right that a corporation (otherwise known as a 'legal person') does not have all the rights of a human citizen (otherwise known as a 'natural person') but the doctrine of corporate personhood is, unfortunately, quite well established in US law. Just because you don't agree with the semantics doesn't mean the statement is wrong.

This would have been a good opportunity to use Google before opening your mouth... For example, this Wikipedia article provides a good summary of the issues surrounding the doctrine of corporate personhood, and would have been the first result had you googled for "corporate personhood".

All fine and good... There is no possible way to design the entire world with redundant systems. But a company like Authorize.net doesn't have that excuse. Hopingh has nothing to do with it, it's called network engineering. They should have multiple data centers located in geographically dispersed parts of the world. This is hosting 101 for any large-scale internet business. The OP is right, the CIO should be cleaning out his desk as we speak.

Oh, I got that... Just thought it was funny.

Umm... That's the comment id, not my UID. My UID is a bit more than 50% lower than yours (27,873). :-)

That's always the case. They don't want it to be true since if it were true it would make them rethink their beliefs. Same thing is true with the anti-global warming zealots. Global warming can't possibly be true since it conflicts with their political ideology. It truly is baffling how so many otherwise intelligent people can completely shut off their brains when it comes to fairly simple topics (ok, maybe Quantum Mechanics isn't that simple).

From that sentence fragment? Nothing at all. That may be a clue that they actually are a racist, or it might be an honest statement. Any reasonable person understands that a single sentence fragment such as that is not sufficient to judge the actual meaning behind it. It's quite clear that you need more context. Fortunately, in the case of Cory's statement, we have a huge amount of context with which to form an opinion. He's not exactly a recluse, so his opinions are quite public.

Really, I have to say that this is an incredibly shaky argument. It betrays a significant lack of subtle reasoning on your part. Even if your statement had the obvious meaning you imply, Cory's statement is really only analogous to it in the flimsiest of ways. If I said, "I hate spinach, but I love that Spinach dip" would you assume that I was really lying and hated the dip? If not, why is my statement ok, but Cory's proof that he really hates Amazon? It is possible for people to have two different opinions about someone or something depending on the context. Rational people understand that, but I suppose that is asking a bit much of you.

I'm guessing that you haven't read TFA yet...

That danger is that a couple of corporate giants will end up with a buyer's market for creative works, control over the dominant distribution channel, and the ability to dictate the terms on which creative works are made, distributed, appreciated, bought, and sold.

And the danger of that is that these corporate giants might, through malice or negligence, end up screwing up the means by which the world talks to itself.

He also specifically says:

I have a lot of sympathy with artists' rights groups and even entertainment companies that mistrust giants like Amazon.com Inc. (Nasdaq: AMZN) and Google (Nasdaq: GOOG).

Now, it's not that I hate Amazon or Google, but I do understand that they are fast becoming the intermediary between creators and audiences (and vice-versa), and that this poses a danger to everyone involved in the creative industries.

It's quite clear he's not opposed to Amazon or Google, but simply that he's warning against those two companies amassing too much control over media and the Internet, since they could than wield that power in a way that:

ultimately sets the agendas for law, politics, health, climate, justice, crime, education, child-rearing, and every other important human subject.

All that's just from the executive summary. The rest of the article expands upon that, but doesn't add anything truly significant to that. If you've ever read Doctorow before, you know that he's not opposed to either Amazon or Google, in fact he has promoted services by both of them on his blog, and I'm willing to bet that he'd agree, at least in principal, with your point. That said, he also has called out both companies when they have crossed a line. All he's doing with this article is pointing out that there is a line that they are in danger of crossing if people aren't paying attention. He's not saying people should boycott Amazon or Google or anything like that, just that they need to be aware of just how much control is concentrated in these two groups hands. That seems pretty reasonable to me.

So, before you throw around words like pathetic, it might serve you to have a clue what you're talking about, ok?

I think the subtle point the Cell phone companies were attempting to make is that you can have a phone with all sorts of gadgets, but it the Cell company doesn't support the backed for it, then it's pretty much useless gadgets.

Hmm... Think you're pretty much wrong about this. Assuming the base feature set for a carrier to remain competitive (reliable network, 3g, SMS, MMS, Maybe a few more network related things), all the othyer 'features' can just be supported by the phone. Worst case, for something like the iPhone's Visual Voicemail, the manufacturer could run a server to support those feature transparently to the carrier. Most of the "features" supported by the carriers (GPS or TV viewing for example) are just things that could just as easily be provided by third party providers, but the carrier forces a lockdown on the phone so they can charge $9.99 a month for the same feature that many other phones provide for free. Want proof? My T-Mobile G1 provides both those features for free. The TV viewing is limited to YouTube, but there's no technical reason at all that Hulu or another free TV service couldn't be supported-- except the fact that the carrier forbids it!

Economics 101 assumes that the two sides of the bargain are on relatively equal footing. If one side of the bargain has an unfair advantage, then economics 101 no longer applies. That is why there are laws against insider trading in the US.

That's also why econ 101 doesn't apply to health insurance. Even if you get rid of things like pre-existing condition limits, the consumer will never be able to adequately judge which health insurance provider is best for them any more than they were able to judge the relative risks/rewards of an ARM vs. a fixed rate mortgage. The market is just to complicated and specialized for even a well educated consumer to make a decision, so they are forced to rely on a possibly unscrupulous insurance broker, or maybe just throw a dart at a board to choose the "best" health care plan for them. Adding more insurance providers would only make a difficult situation even worse, while minimizing the one benefit that the big insurance providers have: economies of scale.

this article from this month's New Yorker looks at the city with the most expensive health care in the US (almost double the national average). It looks at quality of care, success rates and a variety of other factors, yet the only place where McAllen, TX is above average is in cost. So it asks where all that extra money goes. Interestingly, while it's not really accurate to say that competition is the cause of the increased costs, it is fair to say that capitalism is.

The article is very definitely worth reading. It brings up several key issues that I have not heard addressed in the health care debate previously. It doesn't propose a solution to the funding issue (single payer, public option, or stick with private insurers), but it does propose some simple fixes that will go a long way to reducing health care expenses regardless of which system we end up with. There's no single magic bullet that will fix the health care crsis in America, but the smarter care suggested by the article will do a lot more than just adding more doctors or insurers.

The mercury thing is a highly over-rated problem. Yes, CFL's contain mercury, but the amount is less than the amount released by burning the coal required to power an incandescent bulb, and since modern CFLs mostly use solid mercury (mercury amalgam, the same material that's in your fillings), the dangers to the environment are greatly reduced. See this article from Popular Mechanics for more info.

I suspect that they did. It actually seems to me that Mr. Specht's case may be pretty weak. The article doesn't specify what sort of software Android Data made, but trademarks only apply in cases where confusion is likely. Google may have presumed since the trademark hadn't been used and since, according to Google at least, "there couldn't be any confusion between the two names", they would be granted the trademark. Admittedly that's not a very sound way to make a business decision, but it's certainly not the first time this has happened to a major company... Remember Cisco suing Apple over it's iPhone trademark?

The real situation here is pretty simple... Intentionally or not, Google has invested many millions of dollars in developing Android and the Android brand. Mr. Specht has a relatively weak claim on the trademark, so Google will offer him a choice: A few million to sell the trademark, or they will tie him up or years, running up his legal bills until he can't afford to fight anymore.

Not saying it's a good way to do business, but it's almost certainly what will happen.