bascule

This was an interesting op ed: http://robertreich.org/post/572112065/apple-isnt-the-problem-wall-streets-big-banks-are This guy wonders if the "people familiar with the matter" are correct and the FTC is really going after Apple, why are they doing that instead of going after the Wall Street financials? On the other hand, the four largest U.S. financial institutions are so big and the rest of the economy so dependent on them that if one of them makes a bad decision it can take us all down. Between them they hold more than $7 trillion in assets, over half the size of the entire U.S. economy. So why is the FTC nosing around Apple and not around Wall Street? Because the Federal Trade Commission Act allows the agency to stop “unfair methods of competition” almost anywhere in the economy except in the financial sector. Banks are explicitly excluded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause#Significance_.E2.80.93_federal_rights_in_navigable_waters US v. Rands FPC v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp US v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co Gibson v. US South Carolina v. Georgia Scranton v. Wheeler US v. Commodore Park, Inc Short answer, if you f*** up the navigable waters controlled by the federal government (ownership was divided between the state and federal governments in United States v. States of Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida), you're going to pay.

For what it's worth, if you jailbreak it and know what you're doing, even if you completely trash the OS installation you can always factory restore the iPhone (using a built-in Apple feature, DFU mode) In wish case... how is Apple any the wiser? They'll still have to honor the warranty. The only problem arises if you physically damage a jailbroken phone.

BP's CEO says they will "absolutely be paying" for the cleanup: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126468782&ft=1&f=1001 Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedWTF: XLiqvZOP8TY The reason they can't stop the oil is because they can't figure out how to shut a value? And they're trying to shut the valve with a robotic submarine? Seriously? Shouldn't there be some kind of failsafe system? Like a wire that runs down the length of the "riser" and needs to receive some sort of periodic signal from the rig or otherwise it trips an emergency cutoff valve?

Well isn't this strange... jackson33, you have me at an impasse. There's an article I'd like to discuss, but it's only available through News Corp outlets at the moment, specifically the New York Post, the Wall Street Journal, and FoxNews.com. Also, it's a rumor... The New York Post: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/an_antitrust_app_buvCWcJdjFoLD5vBSkguGO The Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703612804575222553091495816.html?mod=WSJ_Tech_LEADTop And FoxNews.com: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/03/apple-adobe-flash-antitrust-investigation/ ...are reporting that Apple is under investigation for anti-trust violations stemming from the recent policy changes it made which blocked, among other things, Flash-based applications from their app store. If that's true I'm sure it would bother any free market capitalist, and it would bother me. It's Apple's device and Apple's app store. Who is the government to tell them how they can run it? Don't like it? Buy an Apple competitor's tablet. I'll be interested in seeing how this all pans out, if it's true News Corp actually has a scoop here, and if not they're rumormongering against Obama. This entire story is predicated upon the anonymous testimony of "a person familiar with the matter" according to the New York Post, and I'm not sure that's a source I can trust.

Perhaps one difference with Katrina is that the inadequate construction of the levees and their potential to fail if a Category 3+ hurricane hit New Orleans was extremely well known. In 2004 FEMA conducted a preparedness study about a hypothetical category 3 "Hurricane Pam" which hit New Orleans: The consequence assessment for Hurricane Pam indicated that more than one million people would be displaced and that 600,000 buildings would be damaged, with some completely destroyed. The report on the simulation, TIME reported, warned that transportation would be a major problem in any storm situation paralleling the fictional "Hurricane Pam." Unfortunately, the study did not drum up enough attention to get the problems addressed in time for Katrina. I suppose you could make the same argument for offshore drilling platforms and consider them all ticking time bombs for ecological disaster.

This is interesting... http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USN0121519420100502 I suppose it's not unexpected... Exxon paid to clean up the Valdez oil spill. Glad to see Obama taking a stand on this.

I kind of have to agree... I suppose using the Latin Cross as a grave marker is something I don't inherently see as Christian.

Then I take it we disagree? Okay, apparently you feel the words "regarding using conventional means to redress non-nuclear WMD attacks on the US" radically alter the meaning of your statement. That said, I strongly disagree that that Fox's paraphrase provides a fair summary of Gates statements regarding using conventional means to redress non-nuclear WMD attacks on the US.

Right now? Sure. But my opinion is if some country weaponized an airborne strain of ebola and killed millions of Americans, you'd see that policy reversed tomorrow (a scenario given by Newt Gingrich on Hannity's program, where he was arguing that we wouldn't use nukes even in that case) If anything then, given the wording of the statement, it's a bit hollow. However, you're claiming: Do you really think: even in the case of a biological or chemical attack is a fair summary of Gates' statements?

I think many conservatives are probably happy about the Supreme Court now

Okay, I'll bite. Explain please. You're standing behind this statement?

Whoops, mea culpa... So I take it you still think it's justified for Fox to paraphrase this: Still, given the catastrophic potential of biological weapons and the rapid pace of biotechnology development, the United States reserves the right to make any adjustment to this policy that may be warranted by the evolution and proliferation of biological weapons. as this: even in the case of a biological or chemical attack. Riiiiiiiiiiggggggght. I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there.

What factual inaccuracies? The quoted phase is exact, and the non-quoted phrase is a fair summary of Gates statements regarding using conventional means to redress non-nuclear WMD attacks on the US. Let's look at the real quote: http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2010/April/20100408105509eaifas0.7353022.html As part of this new approach, the United States pledges not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear weapons state that is party to the NPT and in compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The United States would only consider the use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances to defend the vital interests of the United States or its allies and partners. There should be no doubt, however, that we will hold fully accountable any state, terrorist group, or other non-state actor that supports or enables terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction. In my opinion, I strongly disagree with your assessment. The paraphrased portion of the quote is not representative.

The end goal was net worth, but calculated in an uncomplicated way. Guess that didn't work out so well.

*facepalm* Yes Pangloss, Obama actually approved of offshore drilling! I thought that was clear from my statement: I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform But hey, if you want to continue to draw out arguments with people who agree with you, be my guest.

He reminds me of Ray Comfort describing why evolution is wrong. The interviewer is asking him really good questions though. By the way, you can embed youtube videos with the tag: y4y8mTRqXAo

So, I did get from another thread that it's not possible to use quantum entanglement for superluminal communication. However, here's a layman-oriented article describing a technique for using entanglement for superluminal computation, which they claim they can carry out so long as no time travel paradoxes are caused: http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24903/ Here's their paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.1238 Neat stuff!

It's an identity problem... if you destroy one thing in the course of making an exact duplicate of it elsewhere by transmitting it as information, do the concepts of original and copy actually have any significance, or have you simply moved the object from one place to another in the form of information?

I don't approve, but whatever. I like open polls. If you're embarrassed about your net worth nobody's forcing you to vote.

Hi Pangloss. To re-reiterate: I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform Do you get the idea now? No really, please keep telling me how offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform. I really want to know. That is relevant information to the argument I'm presenting, which is: I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform Thank you for entirely ignoring any of the points presented, so you can drive home the fact that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform. After all, it's not like: I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform No, please keep arguing that point!

I'm somewhat curious how people's opinions of how the government should manage money compare to their personal lives. How do you stack up? Note that for the purposes of this poll, I'd like the term debt to refer to non-amortized debt without collateral. That means it doesn't apply to mortgages or vehicle loans which amortized and are for a singular, tangible piece of property. These types of "debts" can be thought of more as installment payments. However, it does refer to credit cards, lines-of-credit, etc. Student loans are a bit of a gray area... because a university can't repossess your education I'd say they should be considered a debt. NOTE TO MODS: I botched the poll title, can you change it to "How do your beliefs about government fiscal policy compare to your personal life?"

For those of you who are still unclear on the taxes/debt dichotomy, perhaps I can put it this way: 1) Obama cut taxes. The overwhelming majority of Americans are seeing the lowest rate in decades 2) Obama cut taxes by increasing the deficit 3) The tea party is still complaining that taxes should be cut more, while simultaneously lambasting the bill which decreased taxes (it's one of "the bailouts!"), and insisting that the deficit is a problem too So tea party members oppose bills that decrease taxes, think taxes should be decreased, and think the deficit should be decreased... all at the same time I think the concept of "priorities" escapes these people. Want to permanently decrease taxes? Focus on decreasing the deficit, until you run a surplus. Pay down the national debt. This will reduce the amount of interest we are paying on the debt, and when that happens we can reduce taxes accordingly. In the meantime, cutting taxes is counterproductive.

"Drill Baby Drill" is, for all intents and purposes, the centerpiece of Republican energy policy. My opinion is that it wouldn't have been part of the Obama plan had it not been so heavily pushed by Republicans during the 2008 election. And even then, it's not exactly a major component of his plan. Pangloss, was I unclear when I said "I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform"? I thought I was, but apparently not. To reiterate, I entirely concede that offshore drilling was part of Obama's energy platform.

Personally I kind of like having an administration with hyperfocus on the Internet and social media that is having issues dealing with old media. Not that that excuses Obama's behavior