Is it possible to program a sequence which changes which samples are used as the timeline progresses?


Undecided.

One must remember also that alot of auto sales was bankrolled through cheaper financing which collapsed, which just shows how one intrinsic failure lead to massive problems down the line. Bailing out all of them is not feasible.

Other countries' socialist policies, like in say, the whole of Europe, do quite well compared to us.

Actually, this is causation without correlation. If you go to Europe, living situations are deteriorating. Their massive amounts of welfare have created a situation in which immigrants are coming not for opportunity, but to be subsidized by programs they haven't paid into their whole lives like existing citizens. Sound familiar? Our programs are being strained by the same problem. I won't deny that they've made better decisions with their socialist powers over the past twenty years. If you want to make this an argument about whose dictator is doing a better job at emulating the market, then certainly Europe wins. France, for example, gets 80% of their energy from nuclear power and is the largest energy exporter in Europe. I'm jealous. That's what the market would have chosen. Our dictators, however, have been blocking it for thirty years due to the influence of the radical environmentalist lobby. Our government-directed economy has also pumped billions of forcibly appropriated money into agri-business bio-fuels like ethanol. It reduced the supply of food because it became more profitable after all the subsidies to grow corn for ethanol than some other crop for food. And it takes almost as much energy to create as it produces. Negative net result, that money would have been better off staying in the hands of people who really couldn't afford to have it taken away. We realize this now, but it never needed to happen. Any product that wouldn't be able to compete on the market without being funded with stolen money isn't worth a damn. So why did we think a bill could do something the market couldn't? All subsidies are retarded, they have collusive anti-competitive redistribution written all over them, and that's exactly what we got despite election year promises that it would give us miracles.

In fact, imagine if a stranger comes to your house and says "Hi, I'd like to take some of your money from your paycheck every week because I think I can spend it better than you can on products and services for your life. You look pretty busy, irresponsible, and unintelligent." Would you give it to them? Why would you do that? That's essentially socialism in a nutshell. People spending other people's money on the claim they can do so with greater thrift than the person that earned it.

Another thing that we do different than Europe is maintain a gigantic military empire. Of course their socialist programs are better, they don't have a military industrial complex sucking trillions of dollars away from them. It's really not necessary in the nuclear age. No nuclear power has ever been invaded domestically. Because it's a losing proposition. If you win the ground war, they have nothing to lose so they launch them. But we're idiots over here, we have this manchausen syndrome where our CIA creates problems that eventually blow back in our face, at which point we can launch all out invasions under the pretense of self-defense. This might include installing the Shah in Iran. Or giving bioweapons to Saddam during the Iran-Iraq conflict. Or arming afghani warriors to fight the Soviets. Or paying off Musharraf in Pakistan to be a puppet. Terrorist propaganda becomes effective because of this shit.

Nowhere else in the world has a more libertarian system than us, as near as I can tell, and it handicaps us.

Price fixing interest rates = socialist
Bailout out bankruptcy with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Allowing one industry to loan out money they don't have, at interest = socialist
Subsidizing one company and not another = socialist
Taxing one company and not another = socialist
Nationalizing private industry to be financed with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Directing industry and research with forcibly appropriated money = socialist
Declaring lending standards discriminatory to low income people and forcing banks to remove them via the Community Reinvestment Act = socialist
Issuing a non-market determined or constitutional money, banning competing currencies, and taxing dollar debasement gains on gold as if it were income = socialist
Blocking nuclear power for 30 years = socialist
Blocking domestic oil drilling for 20 years = socialist


Actually no, they would just need to get enough market power, and apply it ruthlessly to stomp out competition wherever it rises.

Bullshit, no one but the government has endless streams of capital to buy up anything and everything. Only government monopolies are self-sustaining, because they're the only monopolies financed with forcibly appropriated money.

In your version of the world, AMD shouldn't exist. Aptera Motors shouldn't exist. Right? I mean, giant corporations a thousand times their size existed before they even entered the market. They should have been bought out. Oh, wait, what's that? Not all companies are publicly traded.

The reality is, in order for a MARKET monopoly (note: in an environment where they don't have access to government specific powers like inflation and subsidization) to stay that way is to continue to offering the best product at the best price. Because then there's no window, no opportunity for someone else to come in and eat into that marketshare. If a company is delivering crap or overcharging, however, that immediately opens a window for someone else to come in. That's how AMD got so large, Intel was doing exactly that with netburst architecture. Even with a monopoly position, competition was waiting in the wings.

Suppose Microsoft took XP off the market and put Windows 3.1 on the shelf? Do you think they wouldn't go bankrupt? Do you think a competitor wouldn't arise to take their place? Because they're an all-powerful monopoly, right? They don't have to deliver shit, they can just buy Macintosh and anyone else while they pay thousands of programmers to create a product that doesn't sell.

Doh. Someone doesn't understand basic market principles.

One of my favorites from the roaring 20's was the rate war. Slash your prices to nearly nothing, and let your company lose a lot of money, on the premise that the smaller company will go bankrupt before you do.

Actually, large businesses with lots of workers have far more overhead and are much more inefficiently run. That's why most businesses today are small businesses. My mother owns an advertising business for wedding directories with no one but herself employed. A local newspaper owned by the Gannett company recently created a staff of twenty people to try and compete with her. They lasted two years before the magazine ended the operation. It was costing way more money than it was bringing in, and the so-called greedy megagiant slashed it.

Nuttery, Ron Paul is the only politician who believes in the law? Seriously, that's what you're saying? He's probably the only Republican who believes in the law being supreme, but there's more than a few Democrats who believe in the supremacy of law (including some joker with a law degree from Harvard running for President...).

Supreme law is the constitution doofus. It's the law that came before all other laws, it's the laws against government to prevent them from becoming a tyrannical, collusive nuthouse like all other governments before it by assessing which powers, which enablements, it shouldn't have under any circumstances. And inflation was one of them. But after a couple hundred years, people became complacent, arrogant, and ignorant, like yourself, and politicians found that they could ignore it with impunity. There was no longer a bunch of gun-toting, tea-hating radicals ready to hang them on the nearest tree when they broke it. There was nothing but the opposing party. But that party loves to spend, too. So they compromise by allowing the other to break it so long as they get to break it in another way. Remember how the bailout failed and then got passed? They put some extra pork in there to get the votes they needed. Rum and arrowheads...

http://www.greenfaucet.com/economy/porky-the-bailout-bill/19680

Welcome to our country, and the socialist enablements that make this spending possible.

No, but he can still bribe the politicians to look the other way on violation of rights. They do it now, and I'm not sure why it would change, just because the companies have more money to spend (according to your theory).

The bottom line here is that attacking Democrats as being socialist is a huge fucking straw man. We like the free market, and we want it to work.

No, you don't, You don't even know what it is.

Most investment banks are now crying out to be regulated in the wake of this credit crisis, and given that they bribed the government into deregulating them in the first place, that should tell you something.

They're not crying to be regulated, they're crying to be bailed out after being regulated. What do you think regulation is exactly? Do you realize that the fundamental way in which banks operate is fraudulent? How do you regulate that? How do you oversee to make sure fraud is being conducted in the best way possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Money_creation

This is the type of nonsense I hear from the republicrat camp. Regulation, the buzzword of the day. It's meaningless. To "regulate" the bank runs this system was causing, the Federal Reserve was created to backstop bankruptcy. Yes, failure, that free market pinnacle that makes private business suffer and fear consequences for risk and imprudent policy. Or how about the FDIC, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT INSURANCE on deposits. Don't worry, now you don't have to fear about losing your deposit on this scam industry. We've regulated it with the FDIC. OOPS, THE FEAR OF LOSING ONE'S DEPOSIT WAS WHAT DETERRED PEOPLE FROM GIVING IT TO HIGHLY LEVERAGED INVESTMENT BANKS OFFERING ABNORMAL YIELDS, CAUSING THAT BUSINESS MODEL TO GROW, CAUSING OTHER BANKS TO FOLLOW SUIT IN ORDER TO COMPETE.

The problem is regulation on fraudulent activity that should have never been allowed. It slowly but surely eliminated basic deterrents and self-regulating principles by backstopping risk and rewarding bad behavior.

^dghandi
"The issue, in not "right to survive", as you suggest, but moral relevance. The basis for moral relevance is always arbitrary. We do not assign moral relevance to all life ( microbes, etc), nor to all human cells ( finger nails, appendix, cancer), nor all minds ( cows, dogs, chimps). There exists no innate discrete criteria for moral relevance."

As far as this point, there is one instance where this might arise: if all the evolutionary intermediates between apes and men were still alive. It would probably be pretty hard to determine who is "a man" and who is "an ape" based off of their mental, physical, or even genetic makeup. Luckily we don't have this problem because all the intermediates are extinct--thus we can easily distinguish between a "man" and an "ape". However--even if they were not extinct, there is but one criteria to distinguish which is which, and that criteria is not arbitrary: reproduction. Species are the set of animals who can successfully reproduce--thus as hard as it might be from appearance, it would be possible to separate the two.

Recall my definition of a right: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. Rights are thus a sort of "social contract" between men (or at least the same species).

It is only logically consistent to apply "rights" and thus, morality, to your own species. Thus, we define rights in terms of a social contract between men. Every other species is in competition with you. Again, to apply this in any other manner would be to say that a lion cannot morally eat an antelope. Likewise, it would mean that humans could not morally eat plants or animals--and there is no way to reconcile that with "the right to life".

Transcript for the hard of hearing/thinking:

Part 1: how to effectively pause while the audience is interrupting you
thats all right....lets....excuse me....hey.....hold on a second...........(audience chanting)....hold on....hold on everybody...excuse me young man...this is going to be question and answer session.....youll have your chance to answer your question, you dont have to disturb the whole meeting.

Part 2: how to stall while you are thinking of an answer to the question
alright alright, well uh i-i-i-they-uh-well-i-i-i-guess-i-i-i-hold-on-hold a second-everybody-i want everybody to be respectful, thats why were having a town hall meeting, this-this-this is democracy at work, and he-he asked a legitimate question so i want to give him an answer. um, i think you are misinformed about when you say not one time, every issue you spoke of i did speak about

Part 3: how to fabricate an answer to a question off the top of your head
ive been talking about predatory lending for the last two years in th us senate, and worked to pass legislation to prevent it when i was in the state legislature. and i have repeatedly said that many of the uh-uh predatory loans that were made in the mortgage system did target african american latino communities. ive said that repeatedly. number two, gina six. i was the first candidate to get out there and say that this was wrong and we should change it. thats number two, when sean bell got shot i put out a statement immediately saying this is a problem.

Part 4: how to ineffectively cope with your questioner confronting the absurdity of your response, in stutter
so so all all all i all im all all all im im saying im sorry wait wait wait dont start wait wait ho ho ho hold on. dont start dont start shouting back im just answering your question. on on on each of on each of these issues ive spoken out, not i may not have spoken out the way you would have wanted me to speak out, which is which is fine, because no no no i understand, no no look look but but, well well they we well they uh, re-re-re-remember i have other people so im just trying to answer your question.

Part 5: how to make excuses for your answer, in stutter
so so all all all i so uh all i uh ho ho ho ho hold on dont dont dont start shouting back im just answering your question on on on-on each of on each of these issues....i have spoken out, now i may not have spoken out the way you would have wanted me to speak out, which is which is fine, because i, no i understand, no, but but, uh , which is fine, well uh uh, well uh uh they well uh hold on a second, re-re-re-remember well ive got other people.

Part 6: how to deflect attention from your ridiculous response, while trying to establish false credibility through past actions, in stutter
heres what im suggesting is, is that on each of these issues that you mention ive spoken out and ive spoken out forcefully, and i-i-i-i-i uh listen i was a civil rights lawyer i-i-i-i-i i have i have passed the first racial profiling legislation in illinois i uh i passed i-i-i-i passed hold on a second i passed some of the-the-the-the toughest death penalty reform legislation in illinois so-so-so these are issues ive worked on on for decades

Part 7: how to assault your questioner, then raise your voice as you proudly recite a feel-good, meaningless, cliched statement to distract your audience from what just happened
now that doesnt mean that im always going to satisfy the way you want these issues framed. which which which uh gives you the option of voting for someone else, it gives you the option to run for office yourself, but, the, those, those are all options, but, but the one thing but the one thing that i think is important the one thing that i think is important, is that, is that we are respectful to towards each other, and what is true, the one thing i believe is that the only way we are going to solve our problems in this country, the only way we are going to solve our problems in this country is if all of us come together black, white, hispanic, asian, native american, young old, disabled, gay, straight that i think has got to be our agenda. alright. okay.

>> ^jwray:
>> ^honkeytonk73:
If the government actually represented the people, something would be done. But of course, they don't represent the people at all. Otherwise.. the same morons wouldn't keep getting re-elected, even with a 14% approval rating (congress).

I think those congress approval ratings reflect more of people's dissatisfaction with representatives from other districts than dissatisfaction with their own district. I know of no individual congressman with an approval rating that low in his own district.


We can toss numbers around. The fact remains that we have an unpopular president and an unpopular congress that is not doing it's job FOR the people IN the interests of the people. I don't care which party which politician is from. In the end, they are all panderers to the same corporate lobbies tromping around Washington with fists stuffed full of cash.

The American people are not being heard. The average person is getting POORER and worse off as a result of the actions of this government. We are NOT more secure. In fact we are far worse off now than we were 8 years ago.

Imagine if we adopted Bush's privatized social security reform (as McCain wants to implement, though he uses sly speech to avoid the question). With the markets tanking, your privatized social security would be in quite a world of hurt right now.

Rising inflation. Stagnant wages, except for the most elite of course. Increasing healthcare and fuel costs in the double digit percentages year over year. In the end. The middle class citizen is much worse off. Our expenses are rising faster than our wages. The net result. A poorer nation.

The working poor are too busy working to vote, participate in public discourse, or become involved in communities, AND keep a watchful eye on their government. Perfect environment for a repressive government to form. Don't you think?

^ Relax, spoco.

Many countries adapt programing to "suit" their audience. Does it ruin the original vision? Always. But that's entertainment execs doing IMO.

I've seen and shown both versions to my boy. He could have cared less which was which... he was watching the trains. He wore the VHS tapes slam out. You should see the train collection he's saved over the years.

I enjoyed the originals the Reverend intended myself. The movie though made me want to kill a Baldwin even more than I did before.

You non-Americans need to relax on the bitterness shown toward we "yanks". We don't all fit into the cookie cutter you've all fashioned for us.

"And, maybe your cat pees shit. Which is-- which is what our cat does. Which is kind of weird, so let's get a pee... poo.. color."

Ha! Genius! Well played, sir. Well played!

Wait! Woah! Which three?! Which threee!! Wait! Noooo!

Criticism about information dissemination from someone who thought the US was fighting the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia? Who believes we found WMD in Iraq? I think it's time you explore the facts...

But why bother right? Watch Fox News and let them make your opinions for you

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
When it comes to my standards, morals, ethics, and ideals you better believe I'm "staunch" and "stubborn". I've seen and heard enough by now to know which side of the line I want to stand.

It's not my fault that I could take 10 - 15 excerpts from the Bin Laden transcripts and 10 - 15 lines from a Far Left Blog and you wouldn't be able to tell me which was which.

BTW: Good luck with that "Selective" Information Dissemination.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
My sole interest is information dissemination.

But if you must know, I disagree with those comments because its telling when we let Bin Laden let us turn against one another politically, his usage of democrats and Iraq does two things, first placate the Democrats into not arguing for a withdrawl and feed into Bush's desire to sustain a war in Iraq thus letting him ride out in the sunset in January 2009 and hand this war over to which ever candidate gets elected.

The criticism of equaiting the Left with Bin Laden thus means anyone on the left is a homicidal luncatic, which is right considering we had nothing but lies about the war perpetuall from the white house. Who only gladdly accept the flak war between the left and right as it lets them go about their business undettered, mainly by limiting consititutional freedoms, escalating a war based on false pretences.

You have proven to be a staunch at times stubborn supporter of the right wing. So it's not suprising you pose this question to me.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I just wanted to clarify the reason why you have a problem with Brooks:

Is it because he calls the Far Left Bloggers "childish people", or that he points out the fact that Bin Laden is quoting them in his most recent video(therefore, Bin Laden obviously reads and agrees with said bloggers)?

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
CNN did the same thing equating progressives with terrorists.

When it comes to my standards, morals, ethics, and ideals you better believe I'm "staunch" and "stubborn". I've seen and heard enough by now to know which side of the line I want to stand.

It's not my fault that I could take 10 - 15 excerpts from the Bin Laden transcripts and 10 - 15 lines from a Far Left Blog and you wouldn't be able to tell me which was which.

BTW: Good luck with that "Selective" Information Dissemination.

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
My sole interest is information dissemination.

But if you must know, I disagree with those comments because its telling when we let Bin Laden let us turn against one another politically, his usage of democrats and Iraq does two things, first placate the Democrats into not arguing for a withdrawl and feed into Bush's desire to sustain a war in Iraq thus letting him ride out in the sunset in January 2009 and hand this war over to which ever candidate gets elected.

The criticism of equaiting the Left with Bin Laden thus means anyone on the left is a homicidal luncatic, which is right considering we had nothing but lies about the war perpetuall from the white house. Who only gladdly accept the flak war between the left and right as it lets them go about their business undettered, mainly by limiting consititutional freedoms, escalating a war based on false pretences.

You have proven to be a staunch at times stubborn supporter of the right wing. So it's not suprising you pose this question to me.

In reply to this comment by deedub81:
I just wanted to clarify the reason why you have a problem with Brooks:

Is it because he calls the Far Left Bloggers "childish people", or that he points out the fact that Bin Laden is quoting them in his most recent video(therefore, Bin Laden obviously reads and agrees with said bloggers)?

In reply to this comment by Farhad2000:
CNN did the same thing equating progressives with terrorists.

I'm wondering too, which was which?

I'm guessing the propane was on the right.

@ Fletch

>If it really is the word of god, then it MUST be factual if you believe god to be infallible.

I think we're teetering on the semantics of "factual", maybe because I chose the wrong word. Here's an example of what I mean:

"[Jesus,] why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?" Jesus answered them, "Those who are well don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do."

Jesus was not saying that he ate with tax collectors and sinners because they needed antibiotics. That they are "sick" is not FACT, it is a metaphor. So when I say the Bible is not fact-based, I mean that it is largely driven by metaphors. There is however a FACT there in the quote. The FACT is carried by the metaphor. God doesn't have to have a literally-stated Bible in order to be infallible. The abscence of being literal does not make something fallible, although it would in science. I think this is where many of us run into a roadblock. Love is beyond science, and it bothers us because we have this in-built desire to "know for sure."

>If you don't believe it to be completely factual, then how can you believe it is the word of god?

I'm sorry, I've struggled with my wording, so I'll make it clear: I believe it to be full of facts and truths, carried in the meaning of metaphors.

>If you believe some parts are literal and are open for interpretation, then who decides which is which? You? Your pastor?

Most times it is obvious when you read. "Jesus went over to the well to talk to the woman" versus "Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?" Fact vs metaphor. I think your question of who decides is a really, really good one. This is why Christians get together to discuss the Bible. It can be difficult to read and understand. Quite often I have gone back to something I thought I understood, and I have seen that there was another level to a particular verse it that I wasn't old enough, or experienced, enough to appreciate. All a pastor can say is, "I spent alot of time thinking about this, and here's what I think." Since humans are fallible, you get pastors who are wrong. Jesus acknowledges the difficulty when he says, "Enter through the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

>"God is outside of time"? Who says?

He does. The Bible does.

>Strengthens evolution if you ask me.

There is no doubt in my mind that it strengthens 'evolution'. I really don't think God is so simple that He would do anything other than allow for life to change and evolve. I mean if He got such a big kick out of creating stuff, why would He just want His creations to sit around and be boring. I think if I were the ultimate creator, I would make stuff that went off on its own and constantly re-made itself, because that would be, and is, a beautiful thing to behold.

>I just refuse to fill in the blanks with "god did it".

No doubt, it can be a cop out. "Why did the book hit the ground when it fell off the table? God did it!" ...doesn't work for me either. But, why does gravity necessarily exist? Couldn't we have a universe without it? Sure we could. Where did it come from? God did it! ...that one I am okay with.

>Throw away the Kent Hovind DVDs and think for yourself man!

I have no idea who that is. Maybe there's hope for me.

@marr:

Then how can you believe ANY of it? My god (pun intended), there are as many interpretations of the bible as there are people who read it. If it really is the word of god, then it MUST be factual if you believe god to be infallible. If you don't believe it to be completely factual, then how can you believe it is the word of god? If you believe some parts are literal and some are open for interpretation, then who decides which is which? You? Your pastor? Religion keeps trying to cram viability into the cracks of scientific knowledge. Always trying to reinvent itself so that science and religion can co-exist peacefully. Who are you to say the bible isn't all factual? Is your grip on belief so tenuous that you must create your own set of rules? "God is outside of time"? Who says? I wonder what concept of time they had around 80AD.

And, cave beetles is your example of something becoming less complex? Strengthens evolution if you ask me. If they lost their eyes, how do you know other senses didn't become more complex? Maybe losing eyesight was due to evolutionary pressure for using other senses that increased survival. I don't know, but you surely don't. I just refuse to fill in the blanks with "god did it". Throw away the Kent Hovind DVDs and think for yourself man!

@doremifa:

"As an atheist-leaning agnostic, I think it is important to show tolerance (cults are a different story)."

Atheist-leaning agnostic? Lol! Sounds like you are almost on one side of the fence but your pant leg is caught on a barb. Evolution doesn't disprove Santa either. Still think he exists? Might exist? Your assertation that science can't disprove god implies that science is trying to disprove god. No more than trying to disprove Santa. And I thinks all religions are cults of a sort.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I use XP everyday at my day job. Today, coincidentally - I compiled a list of the top 7 things I hate about Windows:

1. Hidden/collapsed menu items in Word. What a goofy idea, and so annoying - why hide menu items that you are looking for. Classic.

2. whole word auto-select. The number of times I've had to turn that off. It just keeps coming back.

3. Clipboard menu keeps coming-up on CTRL-C. Again, I keep turning it off, it keeps coming back.

4. Grouping of multiple windows in a task bar. So if you have more than 3 Word windows open they get collapsed into a single brick in the task bar. Often truncating the title of the document, so no hope of actually figuring out which is which, without clicking on each one.

5. CTRL-F doesn't = "Find" in Outlook. Am minor gripe, but it shits me.

6. Crappy "unsmart" name finding in Outlook address book. Good luck if you are in a large organization.

7. The "open file" dialog box. It doesn't remember that I like my files sorted by date descending, so I can find the most recent one I'm working on. Invariably the "date" header is way off somewhere else, which requires a horizontal scroll then a click.

I'm wondering are any of these things fixed in Vista? If so I may install it on Parallels for my Mac.