That's why prudential supervision of investment institutions and not just of traditional banks is so important and why the credit crunch has ballooned out so immensely for the most part over a fairly insignificant but irresponsibly, immensely highly leveraged sub-prime mortgages. As for the reserve bank printing money, I would still argue that above all that keeping them separate from the treasury and the political authority is paramount. History has shown that particularly if political pressure is placed on monetary policy it creates runaway inflation. As far as monetising debts, of course large scale monetisation will bring hyper-inflation, but equally a country highly in budget deficit may plausibly be forced to depreciate it's currency to finance an otherwise insurmountable burden. As for low steady levels of inflation, they are almost impossible to eliminate and in some ways are necessary to maintain an efficient economy.

This is a thoughtful post from QM and deserves a thoughtful response!



First of all, equality is paramount in both law and religious faith. Equality is mandatory before and after law, and the highest laws of all countries and common wealths are your God given natural rights. In the UK for example the Queen's bible is the highest common law of the land (which is why you swear to tell the truth holding a copy).

This is not to say that those of religious faith won't be offended by equality in action, or those exercising their God given natural rights won't be offended by the response from people of faith. This is where the imbalance lies.

Freedom means having the right to choose any faith, or no faith at all.


Now THIS is important-
"Right now "equality" is too strong and thus freedom is weak."
IS THE SAME AS:
"All men are equal, but some are more equal than others"

>> ^Nebosuke:
It seems like parkour tries to be a modern reinterpretation of gymnastics.

More like a reinterpretation of the obstacle course in an urban setting. If you're talking about doing gymnastics while running, then you're talking about "free running", which is not the same as parkour, "l'art du déplacement" (art of moving). Parkour is an art, as in martial art, whereas free running is "do whatever you want while running as long as it looks good". Parkour can and should look good too, but efficiency is paramount.

I can say for years that I too detested iTunes for the DRM. But after a while, and given my patience with computing (which led me down the path of working in IT) I kinda gave in, bought a second hand iPod Nano, and have been happy since.

But to answering your questions:

1. I consider the old experiment of putting a frog in boiling water vs cold then slowing boiling them to death. The idea is the frog gets use to latter and won't jump out even when it's near death.

The RIAA, on the other hand, reacted like the former when presented with Napster. It existed, almost literally, under their noses. They had no "warming up" period to the idea of digitally available music. Because of the initial knee-jerk reaction they whole of the association is still reeling from the notion that anyone could rip them off in a few clicks. The slowness is due to the hard coding of the idea, in executive heads, that the control of the physical media the music is listened to on is paramount. Given that you can rip tracks from a CD or convert files from one format to another and from one device to another, this isn't possible. Draconian is my usual word for mentality because of this. They missed the boat for the digital age and are slowly dying at an industry because of it. A very slow death, but a death nonetheless.

2. All that above being said, your options right now are limited.

• Buy CDs, use software to legally rip them into mp3 or wav (windows media player can even do the former if you'd like automatically). Then store the CDs away for safe keeping. I've been doing this off and on for years myself and have quite a collection of MP3 files to show for it.
  
• Find the limited websites out there that sell DRM free music. I won't list any personally because I find their selection not worth buying from.
  
• Become a digital miscreant and convert files out of their DRM state. Out here in the states that violates the DMCA (Section 1201 if you are wondering. It signing into law is the only action I have yet to forgiven Bill Clinton for, and I even forgive him for the whole lying under oath about blowjobs). I cannot really get you in the right direction on this other than to tell you to google for something... gah, I can't remember... the HYMM of our fathers PROJECT makes for an interesting REQUIEM.

Thats all I have to say. There are way to support artists but not the industry, but they require you to work at it.

Star Trek is a great show. Too bad Berman and Braga (and Paramount to some degree) had to screw it up.

(@1:50)

"...again, that was an unfair attack, based on verbage that Senator McCain used..."

I do not think that word means what you think it means, Sarah.

Verbiage (if that is the word she was trying to use, not 'verbage' which is a deliberate misspelling to signify garbage data) -noun (1.) overabundance or superfluity of words, as in writing or speech; wordiness; verbosity.

Surely she did not mean to imply that her good running mate was a big bag of wind, did she? First it was "Nucular", now this?!? She has as much verbal-diarhea coming out of her mouth as George "W". How can she hope to master the "old boys network" of Washington if she continues to fail at mastering the English language? Too careless for leadership, where clear, concise communication is paramount!

Besides, any verbiage is well-deserving of an attack, I say.

A HERO damnit! They gave Kirk a glorified 'red shirt' special. Paramount deserves to have lost the franchise.

Next Gen.. pshhh. There's not enough testosterone in the whole collective crew to fill ONE set of testicles.. and that INCLUDES Worf.

DAMN PARAMOUNT TO HELL! Damn those writers and exes to a lifetime of festering ass boils and hemorrhoids!

This ending IS even worse than the one used. I would have thrown a fit. Instead the one used I just sat there w/ my mouth agape dumbfounded. I didn't start getting really pissed until the drive home.

Captain Kirk should have gone out IN FLAMES! FLAMES!!!! Literally man, on fire ..still kicking asses, making computers self destruct and kissing hot beehive haired yeomans and naked green women along the way.

I wanted to see him push Spock and McCoy into the last shuttle craft and he had to punch them out first, and flaming Kirk goes back to kicking yet more asses until he hits self destruct and blows he and Enterprise up over San Francisco while everyone screams and cheers!!!! KIIIRRRRRRRRKKK!!!!!

WOOT!! that's right!

(thanks Blankman I enjoyed this )

WOODY ALLEN: That's quite a lovely Jackson Pollock, isn't it?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: Yes it is.

WOODY ALLEN: What does it say to you?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: It restates the negativeness of the universe, the hideous lonely emptiness of existence, nothingness, the predicament of man forced to live in a barren, godless eternity, like a tiny flame flickering in an immense void, with nothing but waste, horror, and degradation, forming a useless bleak straightjacket in a black absurd cosmos.

WOODY ALLEN: What are you doing Saturday night?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: Committing suicide.

WOODY ALLEN: What about Friday night?

GIRL IN MUSEUM: [leaves silently]

"Play It Again, Sam", Paramount Pictures, 1972

*dead This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Paramount Pictures Corp.
*dead

One final point - if you believe that Hamas are created to invade Israel, and you believe that this is possible, you really need to look very hard at Israel, their military, their nuclear weapons (which they have illegally against the non-proliferation treaty which they signed) and ask yourself what would happen if America, UK and the UN recognised this as being the real goal of Hamas.

This is your proof.

Good luck.

In reply to this comment by Irishman:
"I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter."
This makes Israeli invasion and occupation legal how? This charter is not denounced by the UN, regardless of its language. It is an extremist charter which, if you understand how culture works in politics, will unite an entire nation against an invading enemy.

It is not "my point" that Israel created Hamas, this is "what happened". Hamas is seen as the 'son of Israel' in the arab world. The majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas. The majority of the world want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. The Jewish people who march on the streets every year want Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

"I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained."
You are completely missing the point - Hamas has a charter but they are willing to negotiate a settlement. Politics takes care of the rest of it PEACEFULLY. If Israel stopped the occupation Hamas would not stay in power for long. This is the solution that Jimmy Carter saw, as well as the Egyptians and Saudis. Hamas will remain in power whilst Israel occupy the land. Just so you know, the Irish republican charter does indeed lay claim to a part of the United Kingdom.

None of this is my opinion, this is the clear facts of the matter.

If you still disagree, rather than emailing me back, please get in touch with Respect or the UK MP George Galloway who will be more than happy to address your points.

http://www.georgegalloway.com/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

"I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter."
This makes Israeli invasion and occupation legal how? This charter is not denounced by the UN, regardless of its language. It is an extremist charter which, if you understand how culture works in politics, will unite an entire nation against an invading enemy.

It is not "my point" that Israel created Hamas, this is "what happened". Hamas is seen as the 'son of Israel' in the arab world. The majority of Israelis want to negotiate with Hamas. The majority of the world want Israel to negotiate with Hamas. The Jewish people who march on the streets every year want Israel to negotiate with Hamas.

"I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained."
You are completely missing the point - Hamas has a charter but they are willing to negotiate a settlement. Politics takes care of the rest of it PEACEFULLY. If Israel stopped the occupation Hamas would not stay in power for long. This is the solution that Jimmy Carter saw, as well as the Egyptians and Saudis. Hamas will remain in power whilst Israel occupy the land. Just so you know, the Irish republican charter does indeed lay claim to a part of the United Kingdom.

None of this is my opinion, this is the clear facts of the matter.

If you still disagree, rather than emailing me back, please get in touch with Respect or the UK MP George Galloway who will be more than happy to address your points.

http://www.georgegalloway.com/
http://www.respectcoalition.org/


In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

You are suggesting that Israel's justification for invading Palestine is Hamas' charter.


No, I'm saying that the checkpoints and refusing 'right of return' are an ugly necessity because of groups like Hamas' with stated goals of reclaiming all of Israel as a single Palestinian state.


...All of this is IN RESPONSE to occupation and oppression.
IN RESPONSE...

...Hamas was created IN RESPONSE to the Israeli occupation...

...the occupation LED to Hamas being elected by creating the conditions for an extremist Palestinian government...


I understand your point about Hamas forming out of the palestinian people's blight, and I even agree fully with you, but previously you stated:

Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount...


If you want to defend Hamas on the historical context of the Israeli occupation of the surrounding land, then the historical context of that occupation becomes relevant as well. Israel's occuption outside it's '68 borders is the direct result of the aggression of the surrounding Arab nations AGAINST Israel. Even many arab scholars in Egypt and Saudi Arabia are quick to point out that their own nations role in the Palestinian people's blight must not be ignored.

But I again agreed with your earlier statement that historical context leads to endless finger pointing, and the will of the people today is paramount.


If you are suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel you are wrong.


I am not only suggesting that Hamas was set up to invade Israel, I am stating it as fact as it is clearly laid out in Hamas own charter. That is were the will of the people, currently, is paramount. Regardless of what has led up to Hamas growth, in it's current nature it is a divisive and militant organization when real negotiation is needed. The Palestinian Authority and Israel are getting along much better, and in an ideal world the PA would see growing support across Palestine as Israel worked with it. Supporting Hamas though is in direct contradiction to that and just keeps the circle of violence going.


All of the criticisms you lay against Hamas can also be said of Nelson Mandella, the Irish Republicans, and the ANC.


I'm certain your more familiar with the Irish Republicans than I, but I'm pretty sure that calls for the entire UK to become a new Ireland were not entertained.

You don't just decide to not negotiate with an elected democratic government because you view them as extremists from inside your own culture. Nelson Mandella was an extremist, my own country is now governed by people who murdered and planted bombs in the 1970s, in retaliation to British oppression. They are extremists but they are not terrorists.

Hamas does not exist to stir retaliatory strikes from Isreal, that is American propoganda and is completely untrue. Hamas wants to liberate their country which has been illegally occupied by Isreal and wants to reassemble their nation which is an entirely legal and legitimate goal.

As MP George Galloway has said, a suicide bombing of of a group of Israeli soldiers in illegal occupation of Palestinian lands is an entirely legitimate military act, a suicide bombing of a group of Israeli settlers illegally occupying Palestinian land is an entirely justifiable military action. A suicide bombing of a falafel stall in Tel Aviv is not. A bombing of a nightclub in Haifa is not.

It is not the methods or the weapons that make them terrorists.

Isreal is circling and taking over Palestinian land, the idea that they are encouraging any kind of withdrawal is laughable and untrue.



In reply to this comment by bcglorf:

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.


I call Hamas a splinter group in the sense of operating through suicide bombers and operating on a mandate to remove all Jews from the region because they are Jewws. In Hamas' sick and twisted version of Islam, that's every good muslim's duty. Did you not even look at the quotes I gave you, go read the whole charter and see for yourselft. That they managed to get a political mandate just makes them all the worse. The extremists in the world need to be marginalized, not dignified by negotiating with them. I'd say negotiating with Fatah and refusing to recognize Hamas until they change their mandate is the proper course.


It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.


And few political struggles with extremists have been resolved through negotiating, that's why history is littered with assassinations, coups, and wars. I'd rather see negotiations with the reasonable elements than lending any strength or dignity to extremists.


Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.


Now your listening too closely to Hamas' propaganda. Hamas runs out of Syria, they are primarily an engine to stir retaliatory strikes from Israel. Syria provides the funding, training, and rockets so Hamas can attack Israeli civilians. Then the Hamas militants hide in civilian homes and mosques and wait to see if Israel will come after them. All the while Syria hopes for as many dead Palestinians as possible to rally more anti-Israeli sentiment. Hamas lacks any real military strength to 'beat back' Israeli forces. Israel has always mantained a policy of short and quick military operations. The only goal they have is to defend their civilians from attack. Taking land is not a goal so there is no invasion for Hamas to even try to beat down.


Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


And what political steps are you proposing Palestinians have taken? Electing Hamas, seems to me to be making things worse and giving a mandate of more war and bloodshed, not less. For Israel's part, their political process has continued to encourage withdrawal from expanded settlements and encouraged the handover of land taken in previous wars over to the Palestinian Authority.

Hamas is not a splinter group, it has a political mandate and the people put Hamas in power. It is more than an analogy I use, there are Palestinian flags flying in the streets of Belfast right now. The Irish republican parties do not recognise Northern Ireland as being British, that is a political position with democratic support.


I call Hamas a splinter group in the sense of operating through suicide bombers and operating on a mandate to remove all Jews from the region because they are Jewws. In Hamas' sick and twisted version of Islam, that's every good muslim's duty. Did you not even look at the quotes I gave you, go read the whole charter and see for yourselft. That they managed to get a political mandate just makes them all the worse. The extremists in the world need to be marginalized, not dignified by negotiating with them. I'd say negotiating with Fatah and refusing to recognize Hamas until they change their mandate is the proper course.


It is not the moderates who have to be negotiated with, no political struggle has ever been resolved by moderates, it is the extremists who need to negotiate.


And few political struggles with extremists have been resolved through negotiating, that's why history is littered with assassinations, coups, and wars. I'd rather see negotiations with the reasonable elements than lending any strength or dignity to extremists.


Hamas recognising Isreal's right to exist would loose the support of the people who put them in power and is political suicide, no government of Palestine, not Hamas nor anyone else put there by those people can ever do that. If it were not for Hamas Palestine would have been wiped off the map, Isreali troops have been beaten back time and time again by Palestinian forces.


Now your listening too closely to Hamas' propaganda. Hamas runs out of Syria, they are primarily an engine to stir retaliatory strikes from Israel. Syria provides the funding, training, and rockets so Hamas can attack Israeli civilians. Then the Hamas militants hide in civilian homes and mosques and wait to see if Israel will come after them. All the while Syria hopes for as many dead Palestinians as possible to rally more anti-Israeli sentiment. Hamas lacks any real military strength to 'beat back' Israeli forces. Israel has always mantained a policy of short and quick military operations. The only goal they have is to defend their civilians from attack. Taking land is not a goal so there is no invasion for Hamas to even try to beat down.


Whatever the historical context, it is the will of the people today that is paramount, this is the very essence of democracy and it is the only way all of these conflict historically have been resolved. The Isreali and Palestinian people are sick of the bloodshed, but only the Palestinians have taken the political steps. This is exactly how it happened in Ireland.


And what political steps are you proposing Palestinians have taken? Electing Hamas, seems to me to be making things worse and giving a mandate of more war and bloodshed, not less. For Israel's part, their political process has continued to encourage withdrawal from expanded settlements and encouraged the handover of land taken in previous wars over to the Palestinian Authority.