Slashdot Mirror

Here is what is also true: greenpeace and other "green" organizations have been found to be taking millions of dollars in money from Russian oil interests, through shell corporations

Hey, you left out your link to a reliable source for this claim.

According to the GAO, $106 billion was spent by US government on climate research by 2010.

A total over an unstated number of years is meaningless. According to Forbes -- hardly a lefty source, and this is a denialist article -- the U.S. Government spent $32.5 billion on climate studies over 20 years between 1989 and 2009. That's $1.6 billion a year. About $5 per American per year. Accoridng to the GAO (notice the hyperlink, please starting using them, thanks) federal climate change acivities in 2010 were $8.8 billion, but that includes "technology to reduce emissions, science to better understand climate change, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes" -- so climate research is only a small part of that. Figure a quarter to a third of it is climate research. So we're looking at something on the order of $2 or $3 billion a year spent by the federal government on climate change research.

For comparison, the Iraq war was is estimated to have cost $1,100 billion in total.

Exxon Mobills's profits -- not revenues, profits -- last year were $32.5 billion. And that's just one company.

The Army's R&D budget -- not the whole military, just the Army -- is around $21 - 32 billion.Climate research funding is chump change. I kind of liked this line of bullshit better when it was "those scientists telling us smoking causes cancer are just riding the research gravy train!" At least it was a fresh and audacious sort of intellectual dishonesty then. Now it's just pathetic.

$159,279,888 in 1973 or ~$837M is 2015 dollars for the A-10. The GAU-8A develop cost was $49.7M in 1974 or $235M in 2015 dollars for a total system development cost of just over $1B.

That is true, but without understanding what the GAO report was covering it can be a bit misleading. Here is a bit of a graphic summary. http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/...

First it is important to note the 106B was over like a 20 year period. It is also important to note, that 106B wasn't all for science (in fact only the minority of it was). That number was the full amount they could attribute towards any are of work on climate change. In the above link the break it down into science, technology, and international assistance. So this covers FAR more than what one would first think of if they were told 106B went to climate change research. Research into clean coal? That would be counted. Nuclear, that would be counted. Research into better batteries for electric cars, that is counted. Research in to solar/wind, that is counted.

You can dig into the reports further to get a more detailed understanding. The point is simply saying climate change got 106B may sound like "oh my god climate researchers are getting rich!!!!". However, when you understand what the report really covers (long period of time and only a small portion goes to what you'd normally thing of as climate research) it does change the perspective a bit.

Is that before or after inflation?

Inflation-adjusted.


Because I'm pretty sure I couldn't get a flight from Chicago to LA on a day's notice in 1980 for the equivalent purchasing power of what it costs today.

Probably true - But you've compared one niche use case (and one drastically affected by improved technology, at that) against the market as a whole. Even accepting that business travel (and freight) makes up the vast majority of air traffic, most of it doesn't happen on a moment's notice.

While it is technically true that both sides have some non-zero amount of money, one side has enough of it to afford the worlds biggest PR firm along with 4 companies in the Fortune 10 (that would be 4 of the top 10 US companies by revenue.

Oh, give me a frigging break. Yes, energy companies (not just oil) spent millions of dollars on research and campaigns contrary to global warming alarmism. Some estimates go as high as $40 and even $50 million. But according to a recent GAO report, our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago.

Nowhere in that report does that number show up. And oddly enough, the biggest share of the money spend by far (even more than the money going to NASA, IOW weather satellites and sending them into space) is going to the Department of Energy. Including research into better ways to burn fossil fuels and "climate change" unrelated things like "energy conservation" and "electricity delivery".

While it is technically true that both sides have some non-zero amount of money, one side has enough of it to afford the worlds biggest PR firm along with 4 companies in the Fortune 10 (that would be 4 of the top 10 US companies by revenue.

Oh, give me a frigging break. Yes, energy companies (not just oil) spent millions of dollars on research and campaigns contrary to global warming alarmism. Some estimates go as high as $40 and even $50 million.

But according to a recent GAO report, our own government spent $106 Billion dollars on "climate change" research, and that was by 2010, 4 years ago.

So this "oil companies are spending money" argument works against the climate alarmists. No matter how you cut it, the "other side" has outspent them by more than 1000 to 1.

Damage to roads is usually considered proportional to the fourth power of the axle weight. Cars are generally calculated to average 2 tons, even "big" SUVs aren't usually as heavy as their size might imply. I don't like SUVs either, but that's no excuse for bad policy. According to this GAO report, a fully-loaded tractor-trailer does as much damage to the roads as at least 9,600 cars. Fuel consumption is proportional to weight at low speeds, and at higher speeds wind resistance rises as the square of velocity; it is obvious just looking at the exponents that a simple fuel tax will not tax large vehicles in proportion to the damage that they cause. Taxing consumers as opposed to commercial vehicles is a terrible idea; it would have the effect of subsidizing heavy vehicular traffic. If we're going to subsidize freight, we should invest in rail infrastructure.

Eventually, people will realize that it's horribly exaggerated and nothing major will even happen as a result of "global warming" / "climate change" / "whatever other terms are used because the previous ones didn't inspire enough fear".

The trick is to make that "eventually" happen sooner. Because the politicians who are playing off of it are lying to us. So the political implications, not to mention economic implications, are much farther reaching than "Oops, we made a mistake."

The junk science has got to stop. GAO report: $106 Billion spent by government on studying this by 2010 (4 years ago!), with little to actually show for it. That literally dwarfs any claims of "oil or coal industry money" paying the other side.

No they aren't.

5% to 10%* of accident are due to mechanical failure. That's the problem with common knowledge, it's often wrong.

If we are talking just about accident cause by manufacturer defect, then yes, it's a fraction of a percent.
Don't forget that incident due to improper maintenance also counts under mechanical failure. Under inflated tires, worn brakes, etc.
http://www.gao.gov/assets/240/...

"Repeated references to same."
Doesn't mean it's true. There are may repeated reference to think that aren't true. see Acupuncture 'therapies', or standing in a door way during an earthquake, or the people repeated say people used to think the world was flat.

*this is a surprisingly hard number to pin down.
Now, you need to apologize for not doing your homework.

RTFA: "A report (PDF) on attacks against government computers noted that there was a 35 percent increase between 2010 and 2013." http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/...

Sorry dude, but whoever told you that lied to you. In 2001, the USPS pension fund had $0 in it, and they'd promised to pay out $32 billion. You can see it in their annual report:

http://about.usps.com/who-we-a...
Click "balance sheets" and it's at the bottom of page1.

Congress mandated that they start catching up, first by reducing the outflow in 2003-2005, then by actually setting money aside starting in 2006. What was pretty extreme about the mandate is that Congress gave them only ten years to get caught up. That's roughly the same as asking someone to pay off their mortgage in 10 years - it can be done, but it sure isn't easy. That's what all the shouting was about - until the tinfoil-hat crowd started making up complete BS like what you spouted. Of course, there was a reason for the relatively short timeline - it's entirely possible that in the next ten years marketers will largely switch to email and stop using the postal service much. If that happens, USPS will not be bringing in revenue to cover their retirement plans. So the timeline is short, getting caught up is painful, but it would be unfair to their workers to rely on Penny Saver to still be pumping billions into the USPS 20 year from now.

They've done a pretty good job catching up, as you can see in this 2014 GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/...

Gay marriage is about gaining the SAME right as the rest of the population. Affirmative action is about granting certain racial groups EXTRA rights over the rest of the population.

You clearly dont understand what marriage is. Marriage is not a holy bond, nor do homosexuals want to get married out of a great respect for the institution of marriage. They want to be able to get married because marriage gives them extra rights that unmarried people (the rest of the population) do not have. Note how I used your own terminology and it fits exactly.

The push for gay marriage was never about equality. A push for equality would remove all special rights from the married class or give all the special rights the married class has to the unmarried class. Since gay marriage does neither, it cannot be about equality at all. Its about adding themselves to the special rights group that enjoys 1,138 statutory provisions that use marriage as the determining factor for EXTRA benefits and privileges.

I assume you mean that the pro man-made climate change are the groups that get the funding. You must do because the amount of money spent by just the US Government (around $2B a year on just scientific studies alone, and growing) dwarfs that spent by the energy companies on research.

If you can be bothered here is the GAO Report and a much easier to read summary

Not saying the money isn't well spent, or that man-made climate change isn't happening - but its just plain wrong to say that Big Oil is outspending the poor universities when it comes to climate research.

Strange reactions here on Slashdot. Some "insightful" comments here were about freedom of believe, freedom of speech, intolerance, separation of work and personal believes. Let me first explain that same-sex marriage have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The point of the debate of same-sex marriage are not some pagan rituals from aeons ago, long assimilated by the Christian church, that involves a priest and some blessings. The point of same-sex marriage is the recognition of a partnership of two people by the government on the state and the federal level. In the USA there are currently 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. That are 1,138 benefits, right and privileges that gay couples currently cannot benefit from, because they were born like they were born!

Nobody is talking to force the church or any priest to marry same sex couples. It is only about the recognition of the union between two people so they can enjoy the same benefits, right and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy!

Brendan Eich have all right to exercise his freedom of speech and freedom of believes by his donation to Prop 8. But you have also give the same right to the employees of Mozilla who opposes his bigotry. The definition of a bigot is someone who "strongly and unfairly dislikes other people or ideas" [2]. Nobody except Brendan Eich can know if he have this feelings against gay couples, but his actions are very clearly the actions of a bigot. How can somebody who does not strongly and unfairly dislikes same sex couples to marry donates for a law that would prohibit same sex couples to marry? (keep in mind that by marrying I mean that the state recognizes the union)

How would you feel if tomorrow a Prop 9. would be introduced that would prohibit inter-racial marriage? And if Brendan Eich would donate from his private bank account to Prop 9? Would you still be comfortable that he represents Mozilla as the new CEO? There is no difference here. Two people are forbidden to form a union only because they were born like they were born.

Again, Brendan Eich have all his rights of freedom of speech. But he represents as the CEO Mozilla, and his actions, also his private actions, are tied to Mozilla.

[1] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...

> Just because an individual may not support gay marriage does not mean they also hate gay people.

"I not hate black people, but black people should drink from a special sink, or should use a different entrance to bars". That is state and federal law what we are talking about, not some personal opinions. If marriage would be just a religious ceremony, then there would be no debate about gay marriage. But we are talking about the legal status of marriage, that have legal aspects, like tax breaks, property rights, etc. And laws against gay marriage are not about the religious ceremony, it's about the state and federal acknowledgement of a civil status. You are bear some people of some state and federal privileges because they are born like they are born.

> Leave marriage between individuals to the churches.

Yes, I wish. Tell that to the government. There are in the USA about 1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. Please let your government know that you would like to abolish all of them.

[1] http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d...

...

Then why is the state buying ammo at an unprecented rate?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

...

You mean buying ammunition at a highly precedented and declining rate?

Even Fox News more or less debunked this bit of conspiracy baiting.

Bill Clinton's staffers went around prying the W keys off the keyboards in the White House before George W. Bush moved in (among other things), but we don't automatically accuse Clinton himself of being petty and moronic because of that.

It's not an accident that the average Fox News fan is less informed than people that don't watch any news at all, it is on purpose.

According to that linked "study", Fox News viewers are stupid because "91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs" and "72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit" and so forth. Such a high percentage of Fox News viewers believe in these obvious falsehood is a proof that Fox News makes you stupid! or so that article claims.

91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs.
Study: stimulus created 450,000 government sector jobs and destroyed 1,000,000 private sector jobs.

72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit.
GAO report: In rosy scenario, where everything goes perfect, it could decrease deficit by $13.25 trillion!!! or it could increase the deficit by $6.2 trillion.

Apparently not buying into White House's propaganda and disagreeing with liberal's worldview make Fox News viewers stupid. At least they weren't accused of being racist.

An activist or anti-NSA or anti-CIA protestor (or even worse, a government auditor) suddenly finds their door burst open and an FBI SWAT team barges in and confiscates their PC or laptop or Apple, which somehow now has downloaded child porn files on it, when the owner of said laptop has never downloaded nor viewed such filth in their lives? And on and on and on......

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650531.pdf

From the above GAO report: GAO reported that the U.S. Special Operations Command illegally diverted more than $136 million over six years to pay for a helicopter development project.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/658969.pdf

An activist or anti-NSA or anti-CIA protestor (or even worse, a government auditor) suddenly finds their door burst open and an FBI SWAT team barges in and confiscates their PC or laptop or Apple, which somehow now has downloaded child porn files on it, when the owner of said laptop has never downloaded nor viewed such filth in their lives? And on and on and on......

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/650531.pdf

From the above GAO report: GAO reported that the U.S. Special Operations Command illegally diverted more than $136 million over six years to pay for a helicopter development project.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/658969.pdf

They are losing $16 billion a year because they pay out $5.5 billion a year for future pensions?

Bad math is bad math. If they didn't fund pensions at all, I guess you should expect future tax payers to just pay that, they are STILL behind $10.5 billion a year.

Nope. Read TFA, and following the links. There is a GAO report linked therethat contains details of the USPS budget shortfall.

According to the GAO report, $32 billion of the $41 billion shortfall in the past 6 years is due to the pension requirements. If 78% of the shortfall is due to an unreasonable requirement, I think we can say that it's a significant contribution.

As for the rest, the new requirement for pensions came into effect right about the time that first-class mail use began to decline (2008). If the USPS had its normal budget, it might have been able to make investments in its own infrastructure, try to figure out ways to deal with that decline, etc.

Instead, every year it has Congress forcing it into more debt. Imagine if you suddenly had to make payments each year that broke your budget, and just at that moment your sources of income started going down.

People faced with desperate situations make difficult decisions, which sometimes force them into further debt. As an individual, you might be forced to drop some of your insurance coverage, get into credit card debt, etc., rather than investing money in things that would help you recover.

Congress's requirements put the squeeze on the USPS in the same way, at the worst possible moment. I'm not saying everything was managed great, but the USPS was basically balancing the books until this pension requirement came along... and the vast majority of losses since have come from it.

There was however at least one no bid contract awarded --- it went to a local company: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/avoid-severe-consequences-delays-hhs-awards-no-bid-contracts-marketplaces_754032.html

It's being contested though: http://www.gao.gov/products/D04539

I hear that Congress, the Constitutional body charged with writing and changing the laws, and having oversight over the intelligence agencies and the ability to demand reports, as well as controlling their budgets, has several agencies that work for it that do research and analysis. Somehow it seems preferable to go to them instead of giving hundreds of thousands of highly sensitive documents to a journalist with fringe politics living in a foreign country that works for a foreign newspaper that is ideologically opposed to the American system, and in former times would have been sympathetic to America's sworn enemies.

GAO

LOC

For a look at what the Medicare fraud rates are, please see:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/17/peter-roskam/rep-roskam-says-medicare-fraud-rate-8-10-percent/
(does not support "over 10% ... goes to fraud".)

For a comparison of public and private insurance fraud, you could start here:
http://www.renalbusiness.com/news/2009/06/fraud-prevalent-in-private-health-insurance.aspx
(private and public suffer about the same rates of fraud)

The ACA requires insurance companies to take everyone, even those with preconditions. It also requires them to pay out at least 80% of their revenue as medical payments, capping their administrative and profit margins. While 20% isn't great, it's better than some insurance companies have been doing, and it's a start.

What will it take to prove to you that the current "debacle" is not intended to make everyone hate insurance companies? What will you say when things start running smoothly in a few days or a few weeks? Do you need surveys re: public approval-ratings of the medical insurance industry, to detect a sudden shift? (I couldn't find any such survey results, sadly.)

I don't see how anyone would argue that single-payer solves the fraud issue. There's no obvious mechanism for it. I don't see how anyone would accept that argument, either. I therefore don't see how that would be the natural progression of things.

Even other socialist (nearly communist!) countries with single-payer health insurance systems, don't turn their doctors and hospitals into government employees and government institutions. (Example: France.) Maybe they should, I don't know. But we would have to seriously alter our pace of change to possibly overtake and surpass them in the way you're suggesting. And with our gridlock, I'm just not seeing it.

There are probably others, maybe even some more recent, but here's the GAO's report on the lessons we could learn from the Canadian health system, which parts we might consider importing, including cost comparisons. This is from 1991. http://archive.gao.gov/d20t9/144039.pdf

Gasoline taxes go overwhelmingly to highway maintenance. And wear to highways increases exponentially to weight. For example, a tractor trailer causes approximately 9600 (this is not a typo!) times the amount of wear per mile than does a typical passenger car. So simply figure out a reasonable budget for highway maintenance, and apportion it accordingly by vehicle/weight. SUVs pay more than Priuses who pay more than motorcycles.

  Long-distance semis crossing the state can pay a toll based on odometer readings based on entry and exit to the state and a standardized damage cost per mile.

You can report this type of fraud to your state. Most of the relevant federal URL's are unavailable and the following GAO site is only for federal contracts.
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

You know, that's a good point. I've told myself that it's not my responsibility, and I'm reluctant to give her more ammunition in her feud with me. On the other hand, I'm a believer in not complaining about something unless you're willing to do something about it. So perhaps I should.

Knock yourself out. Let's assume you're American.

(PDF) In the United States, the national inventory of commercial spent nuclear fuel amounts to nearly 70,000 metric tons, which is stored at 75 sites in 33 states

For simple math that's 219 grams per person.

Now before you grab a shovel and bury that half-pound nuisance in your back yard, that's the uranium weight. Since there is binder and filler and stuff in that as well as the results of fission heat production (cesium, tritium and whatnot) and fissile uranium weight is typically only 3% of fuel rods, your actual weight of high-level nuclear waste to dispose of is 33x that, or 7.227 Kilos, or 16 pounds. Per person: man, woman, child. If you have usual the 2+3 nuclear family that's 80 pounds of crap that's never going to be safe in your lifetime to be put in a safe place for 100,000 years. Some of it is plutonium - one of the most toxic materials on Earth - which must also be protected from nation-states that desire it for weapons production, so budget for armed guards, hazard pay and regular audits of your 80LB bundle of joy - forever. That's just your share today. That top line figure grows by 3,000 metric tons per year.

Frankly here's the lie about fast reactors: Even in the utopian world where they work, can be built, deliver on their promises and create 100% of the world's electical power too cheap to meter - they don't need even 10% of our current spent fuel output, let alone the stores we've been saving up for 50 years. They could not consume the spent fuel ever.

• Download the GAO report. Page 4 lists the total number of employees that were involved in waivers (~3M).
• Of that total, ~50% were union members.
• now, since unions represent ~12% of the US workforce (~65M at last count) = 8M
• It would seem that Unions got a disproportionate amount of the waivers.

Does that mean that of the 1200+ waivers, that Unions got > 600? no.

Before you say that union contracts are negotiated, and therefore cannot be altered, ask yourself if the minimum wage gets increased, do union wages get automatically increased? Isn't that a change in federal law, outside the control of the unions?

Available here.

A quick scan indicates it does not say exactly what news reports are claiming it does. The title gives a hint: "TSA Could Strengthen Monitoring of Allegations of Employee Misconduct".

The media (including /.) has seized on one fact out of the report, that the number of misconduct investigations has increased about 27% (not 26% as reported), and erroneously concluded that the rate of misconduct at the agency has increased by 26% (e.g. the title of this /. piece). This conclusion is not necessarily *wrong*, mind you, but the data in the report simply doesn't give us any basis for drawing it. For one thing, one of the main criticisms of the report is that the TSA is not tracking the *outcome* of investigations. For all we know the increase is the result of a higher rate of investigation, or even the increase in the agency's head count.

The whole point of the report is that the TSA has been so slapdash at tracking investigations of employee misconduct it doesn't know the degree which employees are violating policies or even the law. Consequently nobody really knows whether the rate of misconduct has gone up or down. That's damning enough to be going on with.

Yes, it makes sense to pay up your pension fund in advance...not 75 years in advance though! By paying into your pension fund 75 years in advance, you are funding the pensions of employees who haven't even been born yet. I can see requiring that the next 25 years worth of pensions are funded in advance but 75 years is insanity and for most businesses would be completely untenable.

You are mistaken about "employees who haven't even been born yet". For example, see this report by the (non-partisan) GAO. On page 2 of the PDF, the GAO specifically states that the liability which must be pre-funded "covers the projected benefits for about 471,000 current postal retirees and a portion of the projected benefits for about 528,000 current employees; it does not cover employees not yet hired." (I assume that the USPS hasn't hired anyone who is not born yet!)

Also, I would like to point out that that these benefits are not actually pensions in general but strictly the health benefit component.

Personally, I think the amortization schedule may be too aggressive, but it's really quite clear that a fund must be established and funded PDQ to cover the pension liability. If Joe Schmoe, an employee of LexCorp, was promised a pension (unlikely in these days) but learned that LexCorp did not have any kind of pension fund, then he would be foolish to plan on actually receiving said pension in 20, 30, or 40 years from now. Who knows if LexCorp would even exist when Mr. Schmoe is retired, let alone have sufficient income to cover the expenses of retiree benefits on a pay-as-you-go basis?

What's more, the core business of the USPS is a shrinking industry. If they have a hard time funding the benefits now, they will almost certainly be even less able to fund them in the future.

A lot of the danger in these systems is not how they are used right now, it is how they might be used by someone we haven't even identified yet who's running the show in 5 or 10 or 50 years.

I agree on both points. That is why there needs to be good oversight by Congress, the executive branch, and the courts (when they are involved). Frankly I would like to see if Congressional oversight could be strengthened somehow, perhaps through the GAO - Government Accountability Office. It is regrettable, but radical Islamist violence and terrorism will be with us a long time. After 9/11 it was observed that based on historical examples this sort of problem can last decades, 20, 30, 50 years.* The American people need to be protected, both from terrorism ( which resulted in 71,803 people killed, wounded, or kidnapped in 2007), and from potential overreach or abuse from intelligence agencies. It is a delicate act governing intelligence agencies - they must be kept accountable to Congress, the President, and the Courts, but not needlessly hampered in a manner that cripples their effectiveness.

...several prominent US politicians including a man who ran for President stated publicly and unambiguously that the surviving suspect should be treated as an enemy combatant and thus excluded from the normal rules of due process.

That should be understood for what it is in essence - advocacy, and posturing, but not decision making. The Executive branch has the power, the say over how he will be treated for prosecution under existing law. Since it appears that the two brothers, and the rumored sleeper cell possibly connected to them, were linked to terrorists in Dagestan, it could open up prosecution under the Law of War in a military commission as a legal matter. As a policy matter, terrorists captured within the territory of the United States have generally been routed through the criminal justice system. Terrorists captured outside the United States have been subject to being sent to Guantanamo, although I seem to recall that several have been brought into the criminal justice system as well.

And if I may adjust your language - what happened in Boston wasn't a tragedy, it was an atrocity. It was a deliberate attack with the intent of killing and maiming innocent civilians enjoying a sporting event with an international reputation, following, and participation.

2013 Boston Marathon bombing 3 dead, 254 wounded. Fifteen victims suffered amputations, two of which had double amputations.

I think that was a good post you made.

*And with the ease of travel and international communications today, combined with the unrest in so many Muslim nations, it could easily last longer. Al Qaida's goals are very long term, so they are planning for the long haul.

The slashdot summary is wrong.

In the actual GAO report, WOW was not even mentioned by name once.

In fact, at the very start, the report says :-

Transactions within virtual economies or using virtual currencies could produce taxable income in various ways, depending on the facts and circumstances of each transaction. For example, transactions within a "closed-flow" virtual currency system do not produce taxable income because a virtual currency can be used only to purchase virtual goods or services. An example of a closed-flow transaction is the purchase of items to use within an online game. In an "openflow" system, a taxpayer who receives virtual currency as payment for real goods or services may have earned taxable income since the virtual currency can be exchanged for real goods or services or readily exchanged for governmentissued currency, such as U.S. dollars.

TFA makes it clear the only people who may be taxed are the gold-sellers who sell in game goods for real money on third party exchanges/websites outside of the game.

The WOW 1%ers are safe.

Although the Sea Wolf submarine project did not have this particular problem (insufficient buoyancy requiring retrofitting) - it did have the problem of starting the construction of the submarine before the design work was finished, which then delayed the project and drove up costs as the builder waited on the designers to finish their work. The cost increase for the Sea Wolf was 45%. And it is not as if the U.S. had limited experience in building submarines.

The Spanish program was projected as costing 550 million Euros per sub, if they can fix the buoyancy problem by lengthening the sub by less than 30 meters (very likely) then they will be doing better than the Sea Wolf program.

BTW - another to describe the situation is that once all of the specs were completed, the Spanish Navy discovered that it needed a bigger sub than originally planned. Many U.S. defense programs have had similar experiences. Not as scandalous sounding though.

Road wear isn't a factor of tire PSI, but axle load. Road wear increases at an exponetional proportional to axle load.

See p.23 of this: http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf - showing that a 5 axle tractor/trailer does 9600 times the road damage than a car, despite only weighing 20 times as much. (A bicycle's wear to the road is likely immeasurably small compared to a car).

What is the debt to income level of the federal government? Were it a corporation, it would be in receivership waiting for the assets to be sold to try to pay off its creditors. Over the next 75 years the GOA estimated a shortfall of $45.8 trillion for entitlement programs. Is that broke enough for you? Has the US defaulted? No - simply because it can print as much money as it wants. See Zimbabwe.

http://www.gao.gov/financial/fy2009financialreport.html
http://www.fms.treas.gov/finrep12/citizenguide/fr_citizen_guide_where_we_are_now.html

Nearly All States Received More Funding Than They Contributed in Highway Taxes Since 2005

Yes. It also won the 2012 Ig Nobel literature prize.

"Printing money" as implemented in the US involves things like selling bonds to increase the money supply. The owners of existing debt know that possibility was there, which makes it a legal strategy, albeit one with consequences. That ultimately devalues the currency, risks inflation to negate its value, and is already resulting in actions by the debt holders (which include foreign investors) as you push that idea forward. It's self-limiting to some extent as it becomes less effective.

The first major downside has been terms of the debt repayment getting worse as US debt is downgraded. And I believe the only reason there's been enough buyers to balance the printing out so far is people fleeing the even less stable Euro into US dollars. The printing trick may not even work for much longer.

Regardless, looking at how the debt and the ceiling are defined, I don't see any way to accurately describe this coin thing except as an accounting trick. There's no checks and balances on that game like the money supply changes introduces, and it's changing the terms for existing debt holders in a way they didn't think was legal. If the US is getting downgraded just for the money printing, what do you think will happen if it becomes clear to all the foreign investors making this work that the US will pick "exploit a loophole" over any real ceiling resolution?

While yes, technically this is about printing (minting) new money, it is not just a "we'll print more money and pay our bills with that" approach. That would just lead to inflation

Rather, everyone already knows that the federal budget is running a deficit. Some people freak out about it, others say we can handle it by getting spending down and revenue up. Doesn't matter. (note, we've been running deficits for most of the last 100 years; the total debt only grows moderately if at all - until the great recession - because we constantly are paying it off as well. Servicing the debt had been about 14% of federal outlays as recently as the the 90s to pay off Reagan's deficits, but is now about 7% of federal outlays)

What does matter is that sometime within the next month, the credit limit that congress imposed on itself will be hit and if it is not raised then US defaults on its debt, and its credit rating drops like the last time the republicans pulled this trick.

Depositing the big coin only says that OK, we are not at the limit, we are now one-coin's-worth below it. Nothing changes after said deposit just as nothing changes when congress eventually passes an increase in the debt ceiling. The government still has the same spending obligations and the same revenue to (not quite) pay for it. All depositing the coin would do would to forgo the stupid debt limit debates that do nothing but cause political squabbles.

I've read it is between a cube and fourth power. According to this Government Accountability Office report states that a truck which weighs as much as 20 cars causes 9,600x the damage (p23). That is 20% more than the cube of the weight ratio. Also, Wikipedia backs the fourth power rule of thumb.

I've now read the document someone else linked to: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11281.pdf

It says both Canada and the UK replaced notes with coins at a ratio of 1:1.6 to make up for people keeping them (in jars, pockets etc), which increases the initial cost but makes extra money from seigniorage.

I was on holiday in the US (as a child) when one of the $1 coins was introduced, and a relative gave me about $30 worth -- I'm not sure why -- which I never spent. I went back last year, and took them along to spend. I obviously didn't want to carry them all at once, but didn't want them left-over at the end of the trip, so I took a few to spend each day. I sometimes had trouble -- people didn't want to accept them, or thought (given my accent) they were foreign. I put most of them in machines in the end, but was still surprised to find machines that didn't accept them.

Unless you run a business, I think getting coins from banks is odd (a few people have commented about doing that). I've never withdrawn coins from a bank; I get coins in change, almost always in amounts less than £5. Getting more than £5 in coins as change comes with an apology, and usually an effort to increase the change due to £10 to avoid it, I wouldn't do it voluntarily!

As for where I live...I live in the New Orleans area...I've been through more than my share of storms on the level of intensity that NYC got, and I do know what they are like.

I'm pretty sure the New Orleans area building codes are not up to snuff for a Loma Prieta level earth quake.

It's similarly unfair to expect the NYC codes to be up to snuff for a Sandy-like storm (although I'd expect them to be a lot closer than they were, given the 20 and 50 year storm history for the area, as you implied, I wouldn't expect them to be quite there still).

Of course, the codes were not up to snuff in New Orleans for Katrina, but it was a worse disaster than it should have been, given that the levee (redesigned) levee system was started in 1965 and was supposed to have been completed in 1978/1979 - 25 years before Katrina hit.

Government Accounting Office report of Katrina: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d051050t.pdf

PS: A lot of the levee delays were environmentalist opposition, legal opposition, local populace opposition, and local government failures to maintain the parts of the system that had already been handed off from the corps of engineers to local authorities.

According to the GAO, the average cost of an Atlas V launch this year is $200 million. That's up somewhat from years past, but not radically higher. So for years now, that's been the cost of a launch. Talking about per ton doesn't really mean much because you couldn't select a lower capacity launch vehicle for less money--there wasn't one available. A Falcon 9 today costs $54 million complete, including insurance. (Since the government typically self-insures, presumably it could be less for an NOAA launch.) So while it's an order of magnitude, it's not actually a factor of 10. A factor of 4, more or less.

Still a very significant number. Yes, the number you quote as reasonable IS reasonable. But before the Falcon 9 was proven successful, it was not an available price. The only available price (from an American launch company) was 4X that.

"The Medicare program is a target for fraud because it is based on the "honor system" of billing. It was originally set-up to help honest doctors who helped the needy with medical services."

Let's take a system that's rife with fraud, and instead of fixing it, let's make it BIGGER. What could possibly go wrong?

On top of that, let's put out several thousand pages of new regulations, taxes, fees, and surcharges, and let's hire an additional 11,000+ IRS agents to monitor all that. Of COURSE costs will go down!

Those private insurance companies that have fraud rates in the 1%-2% neighborhood, compared to the Medic[are/aid] fraud rates in the ~20%? Let's impose price caps and other financial limitations on them, while forcing them to provide more and more coverage. Profits? Who needs them, when you're talking about "the greater good"? So, they'll go out of business, serves them right, those fat cats. Who cares if they were 10 times more efficient than government-run health insurance?

"In fiscal year 2010, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)—the agency that administers Medicare and Medicaid—estimated that these programs ade a total of over $70 billion in improper payments." Source: GAO testimony, March 9, 2011, retrieved from http://www.gao.gov/assets/130/125652.pdf

...ObamaCare - yet another RESOUNDING SUCCESS of this administration. On every account.

This is from the DHS website: Link

I'm all for jumping down the government's throat for wasteful spending, but let's keep things in perspective. I also didn't see a link to the GAO report in the sensational article at the top . Here's a link to a GAO report: GAO Report I'm not sure if if is the one being described in the article, but this one came out in January.

First off, I'm excited to see a Bitcoin based card that can be used just as easily as other credit/debit cards. However, it's disappointing to see that the interchange fees will be comparable to Mastercard and Visa (1-3% p15 http://www.gao.gov/assets/300/298664.pdf). Maybe there will be a reduction in the fees as more options come forward?

I posted this elsewhere, but its entirely relevant to most discussions on here -

In 2010 (year picked because figures are unlikely to be revised), the UK spent £118.2Billion on the NHS, for a population of about 63Million persons.

Thats a per population head equivalent of £1906 or $2954.

In that same year, the US spent about $381Billion on Medicaid and about $509Billion on Medicare - both of which highly intersect with what the NHS provides, for a population of about 311.5Million persons.

Thats a per population head equivalent of $2858.

Except the US Medicare and Medicaid programmes don't cover 311.5Million persons - Medicaid covers roughly 50Million persons, and Medicare covers roughly the same number - theres about a 6Million person intersection between the two (persons that are enrolled in both), so, again roughly, the total number of beneficiaries for these federal and state programmes is around 94Million.

That makes it a per eligible head equivilent of $9469.

And you know which system I would rather have? The one I currently use - the NHS at $2954.

The US system is just very very badly run.

Sources:

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/risks/insurance/medicaid_program.php
http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/agency/hhs/reforming-medicare-payments.php
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-05.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

I posted this elsewhere, but its entirely relevant to most discussions on here -

In 2010 (year picked because figures are unlikely to be revised), the UK spent £118.2Billion on the NHS, for a population of about 63Million persons.

Thats a per population head equivalent of £1906 or $2954.

In that same year, the US spent about $381Billion on Medicaid and about $509Billion on Medicare - both of which highly intersect with what the NHS provides, for a population of about 311.5Million persons.

Thats a per population head equivalent of $2858.

Except the US Medicare and Medicaid programmes don't cover 311.5Million persons - Medicaid covers roughly 50Million persons, and Medicare covers roughly the same number - theres about a 6Million person intersection between the two (persons that are enrolled in both), so, again roughly, the total number of beneficiaries for these federal and state programmes is around 94Million.

That makes it a per eligible head equivilent of $9469.

And you know which system I would rather have? The one I currently use - the NHS at $2954.

The US system is just very very badly run.

Sources:

http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/risks/insurance/medicaid_program.php
http://www.gao.gov/highrisk/agency/hhs/reforming-medicare-payments.php
http://www.kff.org/medicare/upload/7305-05.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_(United_States)

The GAO's report in 2009 stated that the Food and Nutrition Service overpaid food EBT benefits by 4.36%, which was actually a record low. It also found that in 2/3 of cases where overpayment happened, it was due to an error by the case worker.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-956T

That wouldn't seem to support your claim that masses of people driving luxury cars are defrauding the program

Don't try the anti establishment crap with me.

"After all the towers go up"...Yeah that's why new antennae are being installed and maintained all the time..People always complain about lack of service, so the company must always put up new towers. Investment is ongoing, therefore will never be 100% recouped.

Per the Government Accountability Office - http://www.gao.gov/highlights/d10779high.pdf Cellphone plans dropped 50% from 1999 to 2009

You have 2 year lock ins for several reasons - - prevalent use of handset subsidies (which have to be recovered) - If customers wish to terminate their contracts early, there will be an exit fee to ensure all costs are recovered. - Less customer churn (going back and forth to get the best deals from either seller

You don't want a 2 year lock in, then go ahead and buy your phone for the full cost and go get a plan (no 2 year commitment required)