Okay.  Just an ethics check!  Carry on! 

> Einstein wrote:

> Competition is important in life. Without competition a lot of people who have done historical things, would have no reason to do so. Man would not have gone to space yet without competition I contend.

A good example of this: when space exploration was seen as a national security issue by both the US and the Soviets, both governments fought to be the first to launch a satellite, send a human into space, orbit the Earth, and land on the moon... a huge amount of progress...

Fast forward to 1992.  The US started its space shuttle program a decade ago, largely to increase its ability to utilize satellite technology, but also to support other orbital missions, such as research on space stations.  With the Soviet Union's fall, space declined as an area of competition, as Russia began cooperating with the US.  The result?  MIR was kept around much longer than needed, we're still using the space shuttle program after 30 years... talk of other launches has been only at the theoretical level, and even NEO detection has been behind schedule.

> Key wrote:

> Hacking isn't a skill, it's a crime.  Using your COMPUTER learned skills to comit acts of sabatoge or theft online?  Well yah, hacking is a crime.

The act is a crime.  But the knowledge itself isn't criminal.  The same knowledge to initiate hacks is also needed to prevent such occurrences.

And yes, Key, it does require skill.  Just because it's criminal, it doesn't mean any idiot can pick up a computer and steal nuclear launch codes. 

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> Guys... this=fallacy of political ideology affiliation.<<

sooooo there isn't any such thing as affiliation, just lies and myth

Um... no.  There's no such thing as single, cookie-cutter ideologies that you can fit every person into.  Humans have a tendency to categorize things, places, and people... which just doesn't work when it comes to something like a set of beliefs, because beliefs and political orientations can be much more nuanced than the conventional liberal-conservative or other categorizations make them out to be.

Guys... this=fallacy of political ideology affiliation.

Avo says he's a libertarian.  Does that mean he agrees with 100% of political views that 100% of other people who call themselves libertarian?  Remember, Avo can't say "go away, you're not a libertarian."

He could, in theory, say "I agree with most libertarian shit, but not X, Y, and Z."  However, that would mean he has to find every fringe belief of people who claim to be libertarians and disassociate himself instantly.

The same shit happens with people of any political affiliation ("oh, politicalcompass.com says Hitler was conservative.  That means all conservatives must hate Jews, right?")

Well, then, Flint, you just acknowledged in that last post that the government needs additional regulations to protect intellectual property rights...

Fair enough.  Just wanted to test you. 

Question, Flint: Couldn't that data be just as easily be interpreted as saying:
89% of US temperature stations show temperature changes between 1 and 5 degrees Celsius
The IPCC data is biased to only show a .6 degree change
11% of information is biased in favor of little or no change to temperatures

MSNBC isn't an "art company?"  What do they produce?

Yes, they're owned by GE.  But then the question to be asked is how much GE micromanages MSNBC.

As for George Soros, um... he REALLY doesn't count here.  He's not a business manager.  He's an investor.  That means:
A: He's not an organization.  Nobody has to check what he says.  If he wants to invest in GE, damn it, he will!  If he wants ice cream for breakfast, he gets it!
B: His profits aren't extremely rooted in politics.  Yes, changing political climates will change investment potential.  But even in the worst of depressions, investment potentials exist. 
C: His assets are liquid.  Even if Congress started setting up regulations on investment profits of some sort, at worst, Soros could just take a small chunk of his money and leave.  The biggest expense would be the plane ticket out.

In small businesses, yes.  But large businesses have no authoritarian leader, large superstructures, dependence on pleasing both political parties in order to gain political favors regardless of political climate, and multiple levels of management.  It's infinitely more difficult for GE to say "forget about profits, I want to make the world a better place" than it is for smaller organizations.  Remember, presidents come into office and leave after 4 or 8 years.  Senate majorities are flimsy, and the Supreme Court can reverse itself pretty easily.  Businesses have to play both sides of the fence.  If Wal-Mart were to burn bridges with the Democrats during the Bush years, a Democrat-controlled government would be hard pressed to try and pander to the company.  That's why many large businesses donate funds to Democrats and Republicans... unless someone's campaign platform is literally "destroy Wal-Mart," there's a chance Wal-Mart can influence that senator into being favorable...

Specific issues, or are we just talking about the bailouts?

http://www.grist.org/article/little-ge

"After a speech in which Immelt announced that "it's no longer a zero-sum game -- things that are good for the environment are also good for business" and vowed that GE was embarking on this initiative "not because it is trendy or moral, but because it will accelerate [economic] growth," he presented a series of "ecomagination" television ads that will be airing nationwide over the next several months."

No economic sacrifice: the "green job" theory believed that technologies, such as alternative energies, that would be created as a result of the initiative would be a net benefit to the economy as a whole as well as GE's bottom line.

As for google...

1: You're going to have to explain the difference between the ads Google does allow gun companies to use and what it doesn't allow gun companies to use on its site.  Maybe it's just that I'm not 100% tech savvy, but I'm lost on this one...
2: By limiting gun companies, Google gets plausible deniability.  "We did what we could... blame it on those guys, not us!"