magekillr

I suspect it won't be ended either, but it's still a pretty BFD (in the immortal words of Joseph Biden). Their top lawyer guy Tom Crone's gone also; everyone below James 'n Rupert have either been thrown under the bus or scarpered from the sinking ship.

I went back a couple of pages, and I saw no evidence that anyone has made a thread about this, so I've decided to do the honors: News Corp's Les Hinton resigns amid phone-hacking scandal I gotta say that I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this. From what I hear in the UK, it's the biggest story of a lifetime in terms of coverage and complexity. My friend Angela tells me that mainstream news junkies are treating it as if the dictator (Murdoch) is falling and everyone's realising just how undemocratic our democracy was. And even the right wing press is reporting heavily since the Milly Dowler revelation. As far as US coverage, it's not nearly as big (especially because we're still waiting to learn if The Very Serious People in Congress are going to allow the US to default). I, for one, could not be happier. The entire world will be a better place when it's ridden of this propagandist criminal syndicate.

Replace first picture with this: [hide][/hide] [Done. P.S We have the same communist party t-shirt. #star_in_the_sky]

Atheist, Caucasian, and I identify as heterosexual, but I voted bisexual because I might one day identify as such. Let's just say that I'm exploring with that avenue. Really I don't like being pigeonholed on the issue of sexuality; it's just so fluid and changes as we grow (not in everyone, certainly).

Democratic in national elections under any circumstance (unless the Republican is more liberal than the Democrat, which almost never happens); sometimes Republican in local elections. For example, I'd vote for a Jon Huntsman over a Ben Nelson. And sorry for any insults that people might take from this, but if after this debt ceiling hysteria you still haven't realized that Republicans are bat-[cabbage] insane, then you're an idiot. These people have no business being in power, ever. If you joined the Tea Party because you want to see lower taxes on millionaires and less regulation of business, then good; you're on solid ground. But if you joined because you want smaller government and a balanced budget, you made a grave mistake.

Who is this guy and what rock has he been hiding under? Oh hi there, babycakes. I wanted to drop in to see what was going on. I also noticed that Ginger_Warrior was posting again, and I love his posts...so I decided to come back regularly.

Sounds pretty pointless to me, but making toy models out of toothpicks is also equally pointless to me; if it gets you through the night then who am I to judge what other people do in their spare time? So long as you're not hurting anyone I don't see a problem.

While there are people in America who are generally knowledgeable about the world and not anti-intellectual, blindly nationalistic, and pathetic...the right wing in America beats the right wing anywhere else in the world in terms of how pathetic it is. People often talk about how our education system lags behind the rest of the world, and there are certain reasons why this could be the case; e.g. funding and poverty. However, after reading more about South Korea's system, I think there's something no amount of funding can fix, and that's our anti-intellectual culture that hates teachers mixed with our unbridled nationalism. So yeah, these are just a few idiots in America, and it would indeed be wrong to extrapolate their disgusting words to represent my country as a whole. But let's face it. The problem is that not just America but most govt. propaganda is aimed at promoting hate culture - the longer people continue hating the longer the people in power can get away with crimes against nations in their self-interest. It is paranoia, "us against the world," combined with "America, [bleep] yeah." This is why I hate American patriotism more than any other. Back on the topic at hand: http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2011/0313/Japan-earthquake-Authorities-race-to-avert-nuclear-crisis-at-second-reactor And Japanese ministers ignored reactor safety warnings: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/12/japan-ministers-ignored-warnings-nuclear

Our Galtian Overlords would happily run us all through the wood chipper for a slight bump in their portfolio values: http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/03/larry-kudlow-devalues-human-life-with-japan-earthquake-freudian-slip.html ~Larry Kudlow

As I said before, I'm against unions in theory -- economic theory should tell you why. I'm very cerebral; I follow the facts to their reasonable conclusion (and this tends to put me on the center to center-left of the spectrum in Sweden and on the very far left in America). Strictly in theory, unions are a net negative. Unfortunately, we don't live in that kind of world. So Ezra Klein makes my point: I also don't think American workers are necessarily more important than other workers, which is why I tend to have favorable views on "free trade." That doesn't mean I support free trade agreements in practice, though (although I'd say I'm more pro-NAFTA than against). In any case, it was obvious from the beginning that Walker would get his way if he really went there. He decided to do that (he also seems to think he's on a mission from God in doing so...). What makes him an idiot, though, is why he waited so long to do what could have been done from the beginning. So in that sense, thanks, Scott Walker, for awakening people to the fact that electing anyone to the right of the most conservative Democrat is pretty damn stupid. He could have pushed the Window to the right (he could have stopped at collective bargaining and taken their cuts in pension...but like a good corporatist he wanted it all), but instead chose to drag it out. Enjoy being re-called.

Wait so are you in university now or not? That's the understanding I came to whilst reading your first post, and then some posters seemed to act as if you're still in high school. Anyway, I'm going to assume you're in university. This is all too common. High school is relatively easy compared to college for one reason (in my opinion): the way your final grade is calculated changes drastically. In college it's usually 2-3 tests + a final = 80% or so of your grade, and all of the homework/quizzes add up to 20-30%. So you can do well on the homework, fail just one test (maybe you had a bad day), and suddenly you either need to ace every other test and final or you're stuck with a B or lower by default. High school this isn't the case. About grades mattering, I'd say it's relative to your goals and major. For example if you're a political science major with a 3.0 and you're applying for law school...you're not going to get into the Tier 2 schools, let alone Tier 1. Yet there would be more forgiveness if you're an engineer who had the same GPA who's going into patent law. So GPA mostly matters if you're trying to go into higher education such as graduate/medical/law school. It also matters for internships, but I'll be honest, you're not going to have a good shot at an internship unless you know someone. I have almost never seen a person go to a career fair and walk away with an internship spot without having an "in." It's particularly why people talking about eliminating affirmative action grate me; since when is getting a job based on "merit" alone (w/e that means)? Also look at your class (you should get a class rank by fall of your 2nd year) to compare yourself. You could be doing well compared with everyone else and might not even know it. Another problem with GPA is that it's relative to other schools, and a lot of Ivy Leagues have serious problems with grade inflation. If you're an engineer a lower GPA can be more forgiving if you're applying for graduate school. I'd say with a 3.0 GPA and some undergraduate research you could get into some decent graduate engineering program; not MIT or Georgia Tech, but hey. Personally I think too much weight is put onto GPA, and this affects learning. I've gotten a good deal amount of C's in undergrad, and usually those were the classes that I learned the most. Statics comes to mind (not statistics). Failed the first test with a 40%...aced everything else, did decent on the homework...came out with a C+. I probably know more statics than someone who got an A, though. I can't speak for graduate students, but almost everyone who I know that went straight into the workforce out of undergrad said their biggest regret was the stock they put into their GPA's. So as long as you're doing the best you can, I can't really say you're doing anything wrong. And follow Myweaponsg00d's advice. I'm not a physics teacher, but I am a graduate aerospace engineer (which is pretty much just physics and math).

I won't comment on the truth of this, as I do not know whether this is true or not scientifically and statistically speaking, but isn't one of your right wing talking points that "teachers are so hard to fire which is why education sucks!" ? How does that level out with that often heard claim? Bit of cognitive dissonance, no? And a corporation will lay off people if it means a quarter of a percentage point increase in their stocks; they will also lay off and discriminate against the older people who have been with them for years for a slight increased efficiency (I'm not talking bottom feeders here). Or the Very Serious People and Supreme Rulers of the Universe will "Go John Galt" if you touch their bonuses despite being bailed out by taxpayers and banks of last resort. Iceland was smart. Speaking of which, what with all of the talk about cutting Social Security and pensions, it would be nice to know how we're going to deal with a section of the population that will more than likely not find another job for as long as they live (people who were laid off in this recession aged 55-65) with cut benefits. If anything, we should be talking about temporarily lowering the retirement age from 67 to 62 or something.

Full disclosure: I am not necessarily pro-union, as people who have been on these boards should know, despite the fact that I am very far left. However, any person who has studied American political history knows that due to the "free rider" issue, only three groups have ever gained any true political power: 1.) Corporations 2.) Unions 3.) Agriculture and Farming (this is why the insurance company "State Farm" got its name). With the basic demise of agriculture and its formation with corporations, we generally now have two powerplayers in unions and corporations. Republicans are going after unions because they know this. In the wake of Citizens United, they know that if they destroy unions, they will have destroyed the Democrats main fundraising and organizational backbone. This isn't about "efficiency" and you know it. This is about destroying the Democratic Party even more than it already has been. I say "already has been" because ever since union power was basically destroyed in the late 1970's and 1980's, both parties have had to rely on fundraising from the rich, wealthy and corporations. How can anyone with half of a brain put some made-up "efficiency" over this simple fact: without unions, our elections are owned by corporations. I say I am not pro-union because they are basically a cartel, and I am against all cartels (including the American Medical Association, which imposes high health care costs on American families by keeping the ability to become a doctor limited -- free market indeed). Due to these established facts, however, I cannot allow corporate power to go unchecked; I therefore support unions. Also, too, it has been a well established RIGHT that we can organize, something that workers in this country [bleep]ing died for; something Ronald Reagan, the famous union buster, recognized. Before I go into the rest, let me just say that Sweden has a workforce that's 85% unionized, and they just overtook the US in "competitiveness": http://current.com/news/92999633_sweden-overtakes-the-us-in-competitiveness.htm Also, there's something else not being pointed out on this thread: the fact that Scott Walker also included "no bidding necessary" for the sale of public assets (named powerplants). He's basically trying to give away the store to the Kochs: The bill would allow for the selling of state-owned heating/cooling/power plants without bids and without concern for the legally-defined public interest. The attempt to break labor is part of the same continuous motion as saying that the crony, corporatist selling of state utilities to the Koch brothers and other energy interests is the new “public interest.” This is class warfare, the rich are waging it against the middle class, and they're winning. So many useful idiots help push their agenda along while the plebes fight over the crumbs; it's the same as nationalism and patriotism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So my argument in favor of unions is probably not one often argued. In fact, my argument has an appeal to libertarians, and why they should support a unionized workforce. It's also not my preference, but given the history of America my preference does not have any viability. Before I go into my argument, I'll discuss the two types of liberalism that I see in this context: a liberal vision of the future as expressed by progressives or market liberals (or whatever other term of art) is based on government redistribution through social programs; and then there are types who argue for less redistribution, but more power to unions and their bargaining power. In an ideal world I am sympathetic to the former, as it maximizes growth for all actors, redistributes wealth among the world, and it seems a natural order that as economies grow more developed they are more service oriented especially as technology and globalization advances; thus our workers have no means of competing with cheap labor despite the need for higher wages (I have shown that the median income in America has been stagnant for 30 years in the past on these boards). Unfortunately, as I stated, this is not what we've seen historically. For example, just take the health care debacle. The health care bill we got sucks. It's corporate welfare with a few goodies for the people; it was a Republican health care bill written by the Heritage Foundation. So how exactly do market liberals expect to win any concessions from the government if they have no negotiating power against well-moneyed interests? If I were dictator, I'd argue for a French health care system; I'd like the British model but that would be too disruptive, as doctors are agents of the state. Yet despite electing a fairly moderate president with huge majorities, we got a center-right neo-liberal health care bill. That system is rife with compromise and filled with cracks, and it might not survive the year thanks to legal assaults. This is the reality under which working people are asked to labor: under the constant threat of governmental takeovers by libertarians and conservatives who will do anything to undercut the programs that support the working class, and in a cyclical political system that ensures that such a takeover will eventually take place. Wealth redistribution by government might provide for the people in the lower socioeconomic classes under ideal conditions, but it will never resolve the power imbalance. So how exactly, or why, rather, should libertarians support unions? I think that libertarians could support invigorated unions for a practical reason: strong labor unions could represent an alternative to government. Social safety nets are paid for by value captured from taxpayers, which means that they are funded through the arbitrary, Byzantine machinations of our tax code– a code that corporate entities have found myriad ways to avoid and exploit. Despite the stereotypes I've seen here, corporations generally have an advantage if the need to re-negotiate wages and compensation arises. Just look at Wisconsin for goodness sake! The unions have agreed to take cuts in wages and pension -- a pension that they fully fund with their wages, by the way. It should be an accepted reality that government grows, the question is only how fast and "large" it will grow. Unionism represents an alternative to government social programs that can slow the growth of government and act as a third force to counterbalance both government and the corporation. I believe in power, I believe that it is unevenly distributed, and I believe that it is necessary for democracy to work on establishing countervailing forces so that no one power rises to exploit the people. A strong labor movement can act as a counterbalance not only on corporate power, which is desperately needed in a context where so much money has ended up in the hands of so few, but also on government. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Going on to talk about the contract negotiation, I do notice a certain irony here. Wasn't it just 2 years ago where a contract was sacrosanct? We Can’t Break AIG Bonus Contracts But Worker Pensions? No Problem!

Suleiman: The CIA's man in Cairo Meet the new boss. However, publicly the generals have taken over, so let's see how this plays out. Obama's statement yesterday was fairly forceful in terms of diplomatic speak, although I'm of the mind that if the US wanted him out, he'd have been out before today. They will do anything to preserve their precious Israeli-Egyptian Peace Treaty (even though one side has continuously not lived up to the expectations of Camp David, making the entire thing a sham).

Is it more plausible that we exist through phenomenal random chance or is it more plausible that we exist through a phenomenal being's design? The former: Can you get something from nothing--Scienceblogs My own take: What came before... that is the problem of infinite regression. The assumption is that all things must have had a beginning. If someone says "God has always existed, he didn't need to be created or to have a beginning," then I can make the exact same argument for matter/energy. If you accept the premise that all things must have a beginning, then the problem of infinite regression can be answered in one of two ways: either everything in the universe came from nothing at the beginning of time, or a supernatural being came from nothing at the beginning of time and then created everything else. It seems much more likely to me that simple atoms and energy could wink into being spontaneously than an omniscient, omnipotent being could do the same. Hawking has argued that the sum total of all matter and energy in the universe is zero, so all of everything that came from nothing still equals nothing and our equation is balanced. So, how do I answer the question of what came before the big bang? I say it is a nonsense question. There was no "before" the big bang. Time is a function of space. With all matter/energy contained within an infinitely small singularity there was no space and therefore no time, thus no "before."

Need help. Liked this girl for a little bit, we slept together a few times, then she cut it off because she didn't want a relationship. Fine by me, as I don't like long-term things anyway. So I got over her in like 2 days. Then a month later she texts me again (when she's drunk) talking about how she misses me and stuff. Blergh, so she has a party before Winter Break, and I decided to go. One thing led to another, and we were the only people left at the party. We go to her room, start talking, and idiot drunk me kisses her. Then the next night she has another party, she barely drinks and I drink nothing...hooked up again. Now it's Sunday, and I realize I don't like her anymore and I didn't know what to do. So I just didn't text her again thinking she'd get the hint. Winter break goes by (a good 5 weeks). Now tonight she texts me saying "this is your last chance..." which it's been like 7 weeks since I last talked to her about any of that stuff. Now I don't know what to do because of a few things: 1.) I don't think I like her, but I do like sleeping with her. In the beginning this is why we were together, as she liked the bedroom stuff. 2.) I don't know how to present number 1 without sounding like an ass, which quite frankly when it comes to relationships I am because I prefer open-relations and friends with benefits. So yeah. Should I just tell her the truth, as in I did like her but after she dumped me I didn't anymore....or just go through the rest of the semester pretending? I'm graduating in May anyway, and then headed to Africa... I'd like to work a "friends with benefits" thing with her, but that's only worked out with one girl. Every other time they want something more (and one time *I* wanted something more, but that's another story). I feel like the answer is really obvious (choice number 1, [wagon]), but I don't like commitments. Ugh this just sounds like I use women for sex which isn't true, but I don't want a relationship when I'm leaving for Africa in a few months. In the meantime, I also don't want to be stuck with just myself, and I like snuggling and talking in bed for hours.

Not sure if this has been posted: The context: "A pic I took yesterday of Christians protecting Muslims during their prayers" And a few weeks back: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/95/3365/Egypt/Attack-on-Egypt-Copts/Egypts-Muslims-attend-Coptic-Christmas-mass,-servi.aspx

Yep, you guys did get hosed. The thing that worries me is Canada's proximity to the US. Washington has been a good friend to Comcast and the other ISPs who manage to deliver poor services with high prices compared to other industrialist countries. When there's so little competition, this is what happens. I hope it's reversed.

I hope you Aussies deal with this ok. Supposed to be stronger than Katrina :S

Here's some background on Obama's envoy; the important parts pertain to his father: Wisner Sr. is most famous for launching Operation Mockingbird, and coining the term "Mighty Wurlitzer" to describe how he played the media like an instrument. It was Wisner, in 1953, who convinced Allen Dulles to set aside $1 million to launch Operation Ajax, overthrow Mohammed Mossadegh, and put the Shah back on the throne of Iran. Wisner became depressed following the failure of the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and was eventually put on administrative leave. After serving for a time as chief of station for London, he was recalled and retired. He killed himself in 1965 with one of his son's shotguns. Now, his son spent his career working at the State Department, including in the sensitive posts of Ambassador to India and Egypt. He was Vice Chairman of American International Group (AIG) until a year ago. Before that he was a member of the board for an Enron subsidiary. What. A. [bleep]ing. Joke.

Dude, me too. Do you know how it happened? It was quite odd. I was logged in the lobby, then when I pressed "Play" it logged me out and my pw was changed. I only visit here and my pure forum where I moderate. Only grabbed 4M, which when I start staking will be nothing, but I only have like 4.5M to work with (won 1.5M today in two stakes thus far but stopped due to glitches). Also, buying corrupt VLS! Pm me.

One thing that's struck me is America's need to be at the center of everything -- like always -- is on full-force. When are Americans, including so-called "liberals" going to understand that it isn't ABOUT you (meaning in this case the collective you that is called the United States)? Without constant U.S. and other western manipulation, people will over time evolve the kinds of governing systems that suit them. Stop insisting that they evolve the kinds of systems that suit you. And then Obama with his know-nothing advisors advising him doesn't help things: http://justworldnews.org/archives/004137.html And this is especially evident when his envoy to the region was Frank Wisner. What a joke. As someone who most decidedly does NOT look at everything that happens in Arab countries through the lens of U.S. and Israeli interests, I say hooray, and more power to the people to overthrow the brutal tyrants who have sold their countries, and the lives of their people to the Empire and its mini-me in the Levant. The people are demanding real democracy, not the sort that comes at the end of an American gun. This is an exciting and potentially wonderful set of events in the Arab world.

Silly people, basic economics: when price controls are lifted, prices will increase. I wasn't sure if it would apply to RS as there's so many other factors, but meh. Also, don't stake yet. Lots of glitches: Everything turned off but he managed to special. My friends already lost several hundred mills to him.

Better than rapier, at least when I tested it before update. I'm waiting for more rules before I stake...or at least until I get a corrupt VLS.

Yeah, because it's affordable to die endlessly in rune and mystic. Not so in armor that costs large sums of money.