Comment Re:Confused (Score 1) 266
Of course not. MediaSenty is protected by lobbyists.
The students are not.
Of course not. MediaSenty is protected by lobbyists.
The students are not.
Just make sure you don't legally change your name to Anonymous Coward and I think you'll be fine.
I thought I had read/heard somewhere (might have even been the documentary Revolution OS) that Finns & Swedes grow up with English Sesame Street available to them and as a result many of them are bilingual from a young age.
Don't believe everything you read.
However, regular TV shows and movies are not dubbed unlike in some other European countries and instead use subtitles, which is a pretty good way to learn English.
Personally I learned English from video games, because they didn't translate those back in the day. The Microprose manuals were particularly useful for developing English skills.
BTW, Linus is tri-lingual (at the very least)...Finnish, Swedish and English.
It was an accident. Yea, sure.
I disagree. The primates running the investment banks on Wall Street knew exactly what they wanted. They just didn't care other people got hurt while they got rich.
Sociopathic behavior, afaik, is something animals are yet to exhibit. Hurray! We're still at the top of the food pyramid!
"I wonder what's next."
The Nationalization Ghost.
Look for it to become a household word just in time for the healthcare reform debate.
CIA, FBI, Jeb Bush, Janet Reno, Florida Supreme Court, Florida Bar Association, 2 Live Crew, Ice-T, Take Two Interactive, Rockstar Games, Paul Eibeler, Paula Eibel, tin foil manufacturers,
Damn it, I could go on forever.
This must not be a real Jackhole sponsored bill. Too few targets.
You really sure they actually deleted it?
I've had pretty poor results with requests to delete my account information in the past with various online entities. Buy.com, for example, never deletes anything...I am still getting spammed by them to four disabled accounts years after they were supposedly gone.
There you go again with straw man arguments.
Hiring H1B workers requires the companies to pay prevailing wages. If they not doing so, then they're breaking the law.
The H1B program does not reduce the prevailing wage. H1B workers do not reduce the prevailing wage.
Companies who abuse the H1B program and the Government who is failing to adequately oversee their own program are reducing the prevailing wage.
The H1B program has all the sageguards in place to prevent this. If it's happening it's not the fault of the program or the temporary workers working in this country because of it.
From the few English language translations it seems as if the study was limited to studying the economic impact of file sharing to content publishing businesses (Seagate products store a lot of porn, you know, their CEO said so).
Nor did it seem to address the economic impact of reinventing/remixing/reusing/repackaging/redistributing/mashing up digital content available for free (legally or illegally)
If so, then the study, by no means, is an accurate depiction of the economic impact of file sharing.
If you actually go through the list, the comments on all of the companies listed state they're not going out of business in 2009.
What was the point of this again?
"They ended collecting *so* much information, that they couldn't analyze it all:"
Which is precisely the problem in the US right now. Or at least was immediately after 9/11, when the Government outsourced data collection to private companies as documented by No Place to Hide.
The solution isn't necessarily to end Welfare, but at the same time we probably shouldn't increase Welfare without revamping the system to eliminate fraud.
Yes, but that's not the same as cutting funding on it, which was what I replied to.
Obviously the programs being funded should actually work. Why would you fund them if they didn't?
Police do not prevent crime. They investigate crimes, identify and arrest suspects, and feed the criminal justice system. The threat of punishment is what prevents crime, not being caught by a policeman that summarily let's you go. Do you really think a car thief would stop stealing cars if we eliminated jails and just put more police on patrol? The only ounce of truth to your argument is that improving the likelihood of getting caught probably does decrease crime. Simply adding police does not result in linear gains on this end though.
You're not really seeing the forest from the trees.
Obviously it's not police alone. Crime is a multi-faceted problem caused by many issues (poverty, education, abusive environment, policing, justice system, etc.), but all other things being equal increased police force DOES reduce crime.
A comment about linear gains...that was kinda my point. Investing in preventive programs doesn't have to produce linear gains, because they are usually preventing problems that are MUCH costlier than the investment in the preventive programs.
You bandy the word neo-con about pretty loosely. Lots of folks, Democrats included, would like to see government spending decrease. To circle back to Welfare for a moment, I would prefer to teach people how to fish rather than giving them a fish. Obviously giving them shelter, clothing, and food is necessary for some time, but the goal should be to make people self reliant and responsible. The current Welfare system does little to improve a person's situation and is more focused on preventing it from declining. A truly progressive society would try to lift up the downtrodden, help them a get a job and become a productive worker in society. That's why so many people hate government programs.
The problem is that when people are talking about cutting government spending on social programs, it's not just the "ineffective" welfare program(s) that get cut.
My wife works at a non-profit in NYC that specializes in issues relating to problem youth (education, juvenile justice system, home situation, childhood poverty, etc. etc.) and deals with the New York State (NYS) and City (NYC) budget decisions a lot. NYS and NYC fund all kinds of community programs that you describe as "progressive" (and a lot of them are). Most of them work better than the actual welfare program, usually because they're more targeted and smaller in scale.
When budget cuts happen, THOSE programs get cut first regardless of their effectiveness. That's how it always happens.
In any case, that wasn't really my point. The real point was that most social programs, even those with issues, are preventive in nature and produce cost reductions in the long run. Programs should obviously always be improved and the programs that truly do not benefit anyone should be eliminated.
Increasing spending on a broken system only loses us all more money and doesn't fix the problem
Well, yes. Framing the budget discussions in this manner would be great. Most people don't. All they spout is "Government spending bad. No spending good.", just like the comment I was responding to did.
Depends on the tax rates. Obviously an oppressive tax would, but a small one probably wouldn't.
It's debatable.
He set up his investment advisory business in a manner that it wasn't subjected to the same sort of regulatory oversight as mutual funds and even hedge funds are while operating in much the same way.
But I agree that enforcing regulations already in affect is a bigger problem than lack of regulation.
Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.
