Recent comments by RE

sdtfs wrote:

You mean the ones you stole from Macy's?

The VERY ones...

RiF, if you're out there.

I'm curious if you succeeded with the free Win 10 Pro installs?

merchants of fear wrote:

Dem clown shills wanted for full-time spin control jobs on the dumbed down Blue Team shill blogs.

Not much changes. The airhead still has nothing of value to contribute. Talk about "dumbed down".

Did RiF succeed with his no-cost Windows 10 install?

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

oh, it's over? too bad... still downloading, guess I'll just give the beta a spin one of these days.

I don't think it's over. At least I haven't heard anything about it!

Mike_PNW wrote:

I know some people pretty high up at MS..would you be comfortable with me forwarding them your conversation with RIF??

Up to you. It's a public forum.

Mike_PNW wrote:

what would MS say if they knew you were providing instructions to others online on how to do this??

I honestly don't know.

They can turn registration of that key off in 10 secs flat. Why didn't they do it?

Mike_PNW wrote:

so back to the Macy's analogy.."hey..if we look the other way while they are stealing out merchandise...our returns will be lower"

The Macy's analogy is a bad one.

What these commands do is enable the transformation of a WIDELY distributed version of the operating system (Win 10 build 10240) from a "Beta/Release Candidate" version into an "activated" version. These commands are MS Windows OS commands that check with MS servers (!) if these are o.k. to gain legit (activated) status.

MS hasn't stopped the check, at least until a few hrs ago.

This isn't stealing, now is it?

Mike_PNW wrote:

stealing is stealing...

It isn't stealing when MS leaves a well-known loophole open. MS is more interested in market share than preventing piracy at this point.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

Download in process... could just as well have used a torrent I suppose. Probably faster.

If you use a torrent make sure it is from WhiteDeathTeamOS. During the Beta they seemed to be the designated MS leakers.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

nice, I will keep that info handy. I guess there is a (legal) place where one can download all sorts of MicroSofts for VMs for personal use...

Don't wait too long. My guess is that this approach will only work until the 29th.

ResistanceIsFeudal wrote:

yes, very cool - legal for virtual machine use, sign me up.

Exactly, I created lots of VMs.

  1. Download the 10240 ISOs (torrents or not).
  2. During install skip entering product codes (twice).
  3. Once installed and signed into a MS account open an Admin CMD window and enter the following commands:

slmgr /ipk W269N-WFGWX-YVC9B-4J6C9-T83GX
slmgr /skms
slmgr /ato

If all three commands don't return success run them one more time. I never had to do it more than twice.

Windows should be activated now.

There is a free way to create legit (activated) installations of Windows 10, either fresh install or upgrade.

I created 10 or so. You might have to be an "insider" (I am) but for some it might be worth a shot.

Let me know if you are interested.

At this price you can't go wrong.

OT For those looking for a cheap but capable smart/Android play phone.

$19.99 shipped for a refurbished Tracfone LG L34C dual core.

I added a Chinese generic 64GB micro SD card for less than $8.

Tracfone LG Optimus Fuel L34C with Triple Minutes for Life Factory Refurbished | eBay

I rooted it and haven't even registered with Tracfone yet. I'm presently using Google Hangouts/Voice exclusively for Wifi calling.

I am presently downloading the huge Nokia Here offline maps so that I can use it as an offline GPS without incurring any data charges.

Great deal even if simply used as a mp3 player.

poicv2.0 wrote:

"What if you posted something other than complete nonsense? "

Why engage the blog's airhead? All it does is pollute the blog with even more inane comments. He is a lost cause.

sporkfed wrote:

It would destroy the passing game, the build up.


tg wrote:

offsides in soccer is almost an impossible call at times for the linesman as he has to be even with the 2nd to last defender (goalie last defender usually) keeping an eye on the attacker while watching the ball leave a foot some 50 yards behind. An automated system that alerted his flag would be quite useful

It is quite complex to automate as the rule only applies to the intended target of the pass. Just because ANY attacking player stands off-sides doesn't mean a stoppage of play.

bearly wrote:

It needs to corrected by discouraging outsourcing/offshoring.

You clearly hate a competitive market. Yeah import price controls are the ticket...

Just ask j6p in Switzerland how that's been working out.

Take a name asswipe wrote:

last time I checked, the top 1% saw an 125% percent increase in wealth/income since the onset of QE. Your point is?

Gini has been rising at the current pace for decades.

Distribution needs to be addressed via taxes not by risking the economy.

Take a name asswipe wrote:

To the ceo's, debt and shareholders, yes. Not so much to the rest of us. The risk was to the status quo, assets would of found a bottom, but the status quo would of been wiped out and replaced anew.

Totally disagree. A huge hit to GDP means a correspondingly huge hit to income = a severely slowing economy.

Jackdawracy wrote:

Why not?, the very same scheme saved us from ourselves in high finance.

I am not familiar enough with agriculture to make that call.

However, the small farmer needs credit as much if not more so than corp ag. Therefore without credit at reasonable rates, small ag is doomed.

Jackdawracy wrote:

So, you agree that only the largest corporate ag concerns should be given unlimited amounts of water, in order to save agriculture in California?

No, I disagree with your analogy.

Jackdawracy wrote:

What if we handled the drought like we did the financial crisis, where only the largest corporate Ag concerns were given unlimited amounts of water, and every other farmer was told to pound sand?

We watched the start of the banking domino theory in 2008. The same with GM and its suppliers.

The GDP hit of a "healthy" cleansing would have been huge and with it the carnage among the "healthy".

Just because they survived as a RESULT of policy actions is by no means assurance they would have otherwise (see 1930-1933). The risks to find out were a bit high.

Rob Dawg wrote:

Updated to include the ratio of population growth to jobs growth:

Did you break out government jobs?

Cinco-X wrote:

Cold snaps like the ones that hit the eastern United States in the past winters are not a consequence of climate change. Scientists have now shown that global warming actually tends to reduce temperature variability.

So can I assume you agree with the study's basic premise?

Scientists at ETH Zurich and at the California Institute of Technology, led by Tapio Schneider, professor of climate dynamics at ETH Zurich, have come to a different conclusion. They used climate simulations and theoretical arguments to show that in most places, the range of temperature fluctuations will decrease as the climate warms. So not only will cold snaps become rarer simply because the climate is warming. Additionally, their frequency will be reduced because fluctuations about the warming mean temperature also become smaller, the scientists wrote in the latest issue of the Journal of Climate.
Temperature extremes will therefore become rarer as this variability is reduced. But this does not mean there will be no temperature extremes in the future. "Despite lower temperature variance, there will be more extreme warm periods in the future because the Earth is warming," says Schneider. The researchers limited their work to temperature trends. Other extreme events, such as storms with heavy rain or snowfall, can still become more common as the climate warms, as other studies have shown.

EngineerJim wrote:

My point is Bolton is an irrelevant has-been.

We will see what his draft status is a year from now.

EngineerJim wrote:

Yes, that was John Bolton.
He represents the opinions of John Bolton.
Again, where is the they?

At which point does Bolton speak for these organizations where he is a senior member.

Bolton is currently a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI),[6] a Fox News Channel commentator, and of counsel to the Washington, D.C. law firm Kirkland & Ellis.[7] He was a foreign policy adviser to 2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney.[8] Bolton is also involved with a number of politically conservative think tanks and policy institutes, including the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Institute of East-West Dynamics, the National Rifle Association, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, the Council for National Policy (CNP) and the Gatestone Institute,[9] where he serves as the organization Chairman.

merchants of fear wrote:

The HCN Blue Team clown troupe will move on as anything goes for their side.

Twofer. Straw man plus name calling.

Bad Dawg Bobby wrote:

BUT,,,,,Completely FREE, so far.

Content-free posts are taxing not free.

burnside wrote:

One thing I don't think was brought up was our progress paying down ww2 debt. I don't know that the timing was ideal, but I tend to think there would have been a call for some kind of downward revision to the tax code regardless of who proposed it.

I tend to agree.

yuan wrote:

I don't think it was possible to not be a Keynsian during that era. I still believe that the targeting of those tax cuts (predominant benefit for the rich and corps -- low multiplier) and the message used to promote (shared prosperity -- yadda yadda) them was proto-supply side.

Nixon went the classical route first but it failed (obviously).

Nixonomics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nixon inherited a weak economy from President Lyndon B. Johnson, who didn’t follow the advice of his economists. In 1969, a tax bill passed that held several Nixon ideas, including a repeal of the investment tax credit and removal of two million of the nation's poor from the tax rolls. After a year it was becoming obvious that the plan wasn’t working. Nixon gave his budget plan to congress in 1971 in which he was to use a $11.6 billion deficit. Nixon then publicly agreed with Keynesian economic principles which stated that government expenditure could take the nation out of their recession, which was a considerably unusual view for a Republican president.

yuan wrote:

I think Kennedy's McCarthyism, his reckless and illegal militarism, and his support for trickle down economic policies are reason enough for me to view him as a deeply flawed individual.

I am not worshiping anybody and therefore expect grey. I personally agree with you regarding JFK's McCarthy issue and his militarism.

As to economics:

The Myth of JFK as Supply Side Tax Cutter - US News

Another important piece of context is the thinking behind the tax cuts. Kennedy's economic policies were rooted in a Keynesian belief in the stimulative effects of budget deficits. While FDR and his aides had embraced countercyclical deficits as necessary in times of recession or depression, Kennedy was the first to advocate planned deficits in a time of neither war nor economic emergency. The aim was for the tax cuts to stimulate demand, driving the economy from the bottom up.

Ed S. wrote:

What I seriously believe is that if any presidential hopeful put out a platform that mirrored the domestic economic and social policies of JFK and RMN they'd be laughed out of either the Red Team or Blue Team Clean Air? Clean Water?

You give Nixon too much credit.

The president did not propose giving the EPA any powers that its predecessor agencies did not have. The EPA was merely to assume responsibility for preexisting clean air and water, pesticide control, and radiation monitoring programs.
In 1972, water quality legislation entered a new era with the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments. This bill represented the most wide-ranging and expensive environmental legislation enacted to that time. It only became law after Congress overrode Nixon's veto on the last day of the 1972 congressional session.

azurite wrote:

Or get rid of the Electoral College, that would make a difference.

That would help a bit but not much. Winner-Takes-All permeates the whole system.

Ed S. wrote:

If Nixon or Kennedy were to run for a nomination in 2016 with the policies advocated in 1960, the only party that would welcome them would be the Greens

While I agree, a third party is unlikely given Duverger's law and CU.

We need to learn to resolve issues within the two party framework.

I debunked, once again, the myth of the "conservative" Kennedy at the end of the last thread...

Comment by RE from thread 'Freddie Mac: 30 Year Mortgage Rates decrease to 3.69% in Latest Weekly Survey'

Cinco-X wrote:

Nixon WAS NOT a conservative. He was the liberal candidate in 1960 against JFK...Jeez...

BS. How many times has this been debunked here already? JEEZ!

Comment by RE from thread 'Las Vegas House sales up YoY in May, Inventory down sharply'

Here are excerpts from the Wiki about Kennedy's "New Frontier" theme. Puffery?

New Frontier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the words of Robert D. Marcus: "Kennedy entered office with ambitions to eradicate poverty and to raise America’s eyes to the stars through the space program"

We don't hear a lot about poverty today, do we?

Amongst the legislation passed by Congress during the Kennedy Administration, unemployment benefits were expanded, aid was provided to cities to improve housing and transportation, funds were allocated to continue the construction of a national highway system started under Eisenhower, a water pollution control act was passed to protect the country’s rivers and streams, and an agricultural act to raise farmers’ incomes was made law.[4] A significant amount of anti-poverty legislation was passed by Congress, including increases in social security benefits and in the minimum wage, several housing bills, and aid to economically distressed areas. A few antirecession public works packages,[3] together with a number of measures designed to assist farmers,[5] were introduced.

Not exactly issues of the right, are they? But let's go on.

Major expansions and improvements were made in Social Security (including retirement at 62 for men), hospital construction, library services, family farm assistance and reclamation.[6] Food stamps for low-income Americans were reintroduced, food distribution to the poor was increased, and there was an expansion in school milk and school lunch distribution. The most comprehensive farm legislation since 1938 was carried out, with expansions in rural electrification, soil conservation, crop insurance, farm credit, and marketing orders. In September 1961

And to summarize.

The facts, I believe, are otherwise. Kennedy’s legislative record in 1961–63 was the best of any President since Roosevelt’s first term

Much more in the article. I call complete BS on your claim.

yuan wrote:

The only way we can prevent idiots like him from being elected and perverting our democracy is by implementing strict voter ID laws, stringent voter registration anti-fraud tests, yearly redistricting by a panel of elected officials and their campaign staff, and making anyone who commits a statutory offence ineligible for the vote!

Ad we need more laws and/or SCOTUS decisions affirming that money is speech.

The Gini was brought up again as if its rise were a recent phenomenon (i.e. blame the Fed/QE).

There is a good in-depth article in the New Yorker covering the subject.

Why Inequality Persists in America - The New Yorker

... The evidence that income inequality in the United States has been growing for decades and is greater than in any other developed democracy is not much disputed. It is widely known and widely studied. Economic inequality has been an academic specialty at least since Gini first put chalk to chalkboard. ...
It might be that people have been studying inequality in all the wrong places. A few years ago, two scholars of comparative politics, Alfred Stepan, at Columbia, and the late Juan J. Linz—numbers men—tried to figure out why the United States has for so long had much greater income inequality than any other developed democracy. Because this disparity has been more or less constant, the question doesn’t lend itself very well to historical analysis. Nor is it easily subject to the distortions of nostalgia. But it does lend itself very well to comparative analysis.

Stepan and Linz identified twenty-three long-standing democracies with advanced economies. Then they counted the number of veto players in each of those twenty-three governments. (A veto player is a person or body that can block a policy decision. Stepan and Linz explain, “For example, in the United States, the Senate and the House of Representatives are veto players because without their consent, no bill can become a law.”) More than half of the twenty-three countries Stepan and Linz studied have only one veto player; most of these countries have unicameral parliaments. A few countries have two veto players; Switzerland and Australia have three. Only the United States has four. Then they made a chart, comparing Gini indices with veto-player numbers: the more veto players in a government, the greater the nation’s economic inequality. This is only a correlation, of course, and cross-country economic comparisons are fraught, but it’s interesting.

Then they observed something more. Their twenty-three democracies included eight federal governments with both upper and lower legislative bodies. Using the number of seats and the size of the population to calculate malapportionment, they assigned a “Gini Index of Inequality of Representation” to those eight upper houses, and found that the United States had the highest score: it has the most malapportioned and the least representative upper house. These scores, too, correlated with the countries’ Gini scores for income inequality: the less representative the upper body of a national legislature, the greater the gap between the rich and the poor.

The growth of inequality isn’t inevitable. But, insofar as Americans have been unable to adopt measures to reduce it, the numbers might seem to suggest that the problem doesn’t lie with how Americans treat one another’s kids, as lousy as that is. It lies with Congress.

justaskin wrote:

they haven't quite got the kinks out of the holodeck yet, RE

When I started in the software business (1973), it was considered highly unlikely that a program could ever beat a chess master. Fifteen years later...

sportsfan wrote:

Okay, RE, I've got to ask. What class of jobs do you see becoming obsolete if augmented reality ever becomes reality?

I expect "high-touch" jobs to be degraded first. The expertise of a local realtor is highly devalued if I can "conference" in my expert from anywhere with full sense awareness.

The same is true for your run of the mill physician whose primary asset is proximity.

Proximity, which is still a major value proposition today, won't be of significant value tomorrow. A HUGE change and unavoidable.

Sorry, I got to go.

emergency hotdog wrote:

and productivity will skyrocket. you'll wear the ar device as a tool to help you work with others. meanwhile, in the cloud, the machines are watching your every move. those 15-30 (sometimes 45 minute) smoke breaks will be much harder to hide. Same with the hours per day people spend looking at facebook and twitter on their phones.

Exactly. This marks the next step in corporate monitoring. First it was keyboard, then system, followed by GPS monitoring, Now whoever is your Brother will be with you in YOUR reality.

Great to see you sportsfan. I missed you.