If Lego did do boobies maybe some of us would start playing with legos again;)
I wouldn't, who would want to play with tiny, hard plastic boobies.
Note: I still play with Legos as I now have kids old enough to play with them and it appears that they have moved away from the massive amounts of specialty pieces they had about a decade ago.
And as a total percentage of the work force how many people work as truck drivers, cabbies, or express couturiers? Besides there there will more than likely be company vehicles and not their personal ones. On a average day I drive about 80 miles to and from work with and any errands I need to run. Now provided that it isn't cold and traffic isn't bad because of a snow storm I could get buy with a Leaf. Also it seems reasonable that a large special purpose (delivery van, semi truck style vehicle) would be a perfect option for an electric vehicle. The are large to begin with, have extra space and can pretty much be guaranteed to be carrying only a single person. So we could replace the engine and transmission with an electric motors at the wheels, and thus have the old engine bay area, fuel tank area, and part of the passenger compartment filled with batteries. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that this would be a viable option. Also commercial drivers have mandatory rest periods which could be used to recharge the vehicles so if there were electric vehicles in the trucking fleet truck stops and rest areas would have an incentive to put in charging stations where people pay by the kilowatt hour.
Less the government more the grid operators. That data from the various smart devices will be fed into the network apps and market apps to better use limited resources.
How many people have a commute longer than 20 miles (Chevy volt) or 50 miles (Nissan Leaf) one way so charging at work is . If you are like me neither one would be a good option all the time (the Leaf would work most of the time) but I doubt many people consistently drive more than 100 miles a day.
I was trying to imply that deference would be part of the cuts. A good example of waste that has been one of the hot topics is the F-35 JSF that is being developed and is planned to be deployed into service. Our own military doesn't want the stupid thing but they are getting it. Also there is a lot of cuts that can happen in the military that wouldn't endanger our security. We could close all of our foreign bases and bring those troops home (do we really need to defend Europe), we could quit being Team America World Police and get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and any other country we are fighting in (we go into so many I loose track of which ones we are still in). Doing this would not only cut costs, but probably would make use safer since we typically are viewed as occupiers especially in the middle east where our presence is used a a great recruiting tool for terrorists. Now even in the best case we would still have some troops abroad but by far the vast majority of them should be the embassy guards. Also since we wouldn't have troops all over god's green earth we wouldn't need to have as large armed services. This would be a huge cut (probably in the 100+ billion a year range but I don't know of good numbers) and would be real savings. Granted it couldn't be done instantly and would probably take a few years but we would see cos
As far as domestic cuts there are the giveaways that are subsidies but as you point out they are a small amount. One place to start would be with reforming Medicare especially part D where the government can't negotiate drug prices. There are probably lots of things similar to that but smaller which could be reformed.
Yes social security does need reform. The actual numbers from the Social Security Board of Trustees differ from what you are claiming. For instance Social Security is currently not taking in what is pays out. Both this year and last year the program ran a deficit, last years was $49 billion and this year it is projected to be $46 billion. Now granted there is still interest on the debt that is also social security income that is coming in so it isn't a crisis yet. Once the economy gets better there is a consistent projected $20 billion dollar short fall. The value in the trust fund is projected to continue to grow until about 2022 from interest on existing bonds, but after that the trust fund will start to be depleted. This does not conform to your numbers as you claim in 2037 it will stop being a net contributor to the federal budget. Starting in about 2036 (one year earlier than the date in the 2010 report) the trust fund will have been exhausted at which point it is projected that Social security will only be able to pay 75% of promised benefits and the ability to do is continues out to the projected date of 2085 (they probably have a 75 year projection which is why this date is as far as they go). The solvency problem with social security is something that could be corrected by removing the cap on income that is subjected to it and either raising the social security tax rate, raising the retirement age, adjusting the cost of living increases, means test it, and probably some other things that I am forgetting. The biggest issue is that from now until 2022 the amount of money from social security that is borrowed and thus goes into the general fund is going to be decreasing so if you want to keep spending at current non Social Security spending at current levels you will need to either raise taxes or borrow more money. Then from 2022 to 2036 social security will not contribute any money to the general fund as it draws down the trust fund by redeeming those bonds to pay benefits. Now you may think these dates are way far out in the future but for 2022 is only 11 years out and people have been making hay about the coming issues for as long as I have been following politics (about 14 years) but there seems to be a lack of political will hasn't made the situation better and with the polarization in the countr
My point was is you made it sound like you wouldn't get sent off to die as since you were on a nuclear sub as a reactor operator. Yes I understand that the numbers for early subs weren't good, but then they were basically surface ships that could submerge while modern subs mostly stay under water. Also thanks for your service, I didn't serve but wanted to.
The invisible hand of the free market will sort it out, but you might not like how it does it. The government may sort it out and I can almost guarantee that I won't like their attempt.
So we get tons of energy from the sun every day that does nothing more than warm the giant rock below our feet and radiate it back into space. Our total daily energy consumption is only a fraction of a percent (about 0.0001%) of what the sun provides daily.
And to back up this claim before someone poo poos it I offer this NASA page showing that we receive about 10,000 times the amount of energy from the sun each day than we need. So we could cover 1% of the earth's surface with 1% efficient solar panels and meet our energy needs. Now since we have panels that far exceed the poor 1% performance that number seems reasonable.We quite literally are getting tons (about 216 short tons) of energy from the sun every day.
Because he is delusional. I do wish that the advocates of the welfare state were communists as then there would be a work requirement as communism requires everyone to contribute to receive.
Nothing in communism is "give for free" - it's a structural equality. When it says "from each according to his means" it does say EACH. Everybody gains but everybody ALSO contributes.
Which is why I would probably be more likely to vote for a communist instead of most modern democrats as communism require work. The full phrase is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and you are correct in that it it means everyone needs to contribute.
The first "nice" car I owned was an 85 BMW 528e. Great car, really good mileage, was mechanically perfect and the most expensive thing I had to do to it was change the U-joints in the drive shaft. I paid $2700 for it and it ran great until it got rear ended and totaled. Another problem people make is that they sell vehicles, I was the last owner of every vehicle I have ever owned and they were either totaled, or not worth repairing, are you really going to rebuild the engine on a rusted out 85 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with 257,000 miles on it? If you buy used you are best off taking care of it and driving it until the wheels fall off. As far as resale you would still be better off buying a used vehicle since most of a vehicle's value is lost in the first 3 to 5 years so if you buy new you really take it in the shorts unless you drive the vehicle into the ground.
I don't know what kind of cars you have been buying or the kind of care you give them, but the newest vehicle I have ever owned was 8 years old and had 80,000 miles on it. As far as expensive repairs go if you didn't buy a car with issues and keep up on the maintenance you should be doing even on a new car you won't have high repair bills. Here is an example, my current car is a 97 BWM 540i that I paid $10,000 for a little more than 4 years ago. I got it with 101,000 miles on it, I drive about between 25,000 and 30,000 miles a year and it now has 217,000 miles on it. The most expensive thing I have done to it was replace most of the front suspension since it was getting really worn out, it cost me $1500. Other than that it has pretty much been regular maintenance, tires, and a few hoses. Now granted I have had to fix a few other things but the most expensive one was probably cam speed sensor, or the set of oil pan and valve cover gaskets. Also the increased fuel economy is probably only a slight increase as there haven't been any ground breaking improvements efficiency. You also make the mistake of considering resale value, every vehicle I have ever owned went off to the scrap yard after I was done (2 by accidents 2 by being not repairable).
Even crappy vehicles can last. 3 years ago I bought an 88 Ford Bronco II for $350. As of now I have a between $1000 and $1100 into it including the purchase price. It has all new fluids (all of them), filters (all of them), hoses, belts, gaskets (oil pan, valve covers, intake), starter, radiator, rotors, drums, calipers, pads, spark plugs, spark plug wires, front wheel bearings, battery, and re manufactured fuel injectors. You know what the stupid thing runs better than it has in probably 10 years, except it does foul the plug in one of the cylinders which is probably why it burns some oil (probably has bad rings). It goes through a quart of oil every 1,000 miles or so which isn't bad especially considering that it probably has 250,000+ miles on it. It starts right up even in the winter and goes like a tank in 4 low. It can haul all of my hunting and camping gear as well as any deer I get just fine.
The only problem is that congress has an insatiable appetite for spending money. If we increased taxes 11.6% what would stop government from spending it and then some. No this isn't a R or D thing as they both just spend on different things. Also there has to be the political will to raise taxes (this means on everyone, not just the rich), as much as I don't like taxes they are a necessary evil. Additionally there are probably lots of cuts that could be done but aren't because they are a pet project (F-35 JFS) or carry the favor of some group (I'm looking at you corn and ethanol subsidies to start with) that can add up to real savings quick. The tea partyers were on to something when they were going after cuts, but picked the wrong programs (Medicare and Social Security do need reform) to hold out as examples of massive government waste and abuse. We won't see any decrease in the growth of the debt until we get a balanced budget amendment thus actually forcing congress to do a cost benefit analysis on things.
We sent Physicists off to die too.
LOL. I was a nuclear reactor operator in the US Navy.
I doubt that was in WWI when trench warfare was at its height. And anyway in the case of war as a nuclear reactor operator in the US Navy you would have been sent off to die just like all of your crew mates on the boat. Granted you would probably stand a better chance of survival than the infantry in the army or marines.
They're making it ever more awesome for the likes of me (software dev).
Couldn't agree more. Even though in my free time I don't program I still use Linux at home as the GIS work I do (Grass GIS, UDig and others) work better on Linux or other flavor of Unix than windows.
So then to you high frequency traders must be the best thing for the economy then since they move massive amount of money around all the time really really fast.
I think it is alive as at the top right of the item it looks like there is a smiley face in the grainy sonar image. It must like having its picture taken.
Business lines are far more expensive, but worth it if you actually want to get what is advertised. The only issue I have is the up to part of their advertising as I would expect that I should at some point actually see the type of performance they are advertising but in looking at the charts and graphs it looks like a number of don't even get close.
How about being able to actually get it at all, or even get close to it. Some of the companies (AT&T, Frontier, and Qwest) never came close (stuck around 80% the whole time). Now for a car analogy, this is like saying my 88 Ford Bronco II with a worn out engine is capable of speeds of up to 100 MPH. If I told you that when selling it to you wouldn't you want your money back since there is no way in hell it could actually go that fast (I am lucky if I can reach 70 in it and have gotten it up to 85 or so once with a nice tail wind). Sadly this comparison is fairly close numbers wise.
I would say that any company that was listed that never reached an average of their advertised speed should be taken to task for false advertising. Maybe dragged in front of the FTC, and possible legal action since it looks like most providers are never able to deliver their advertised speed.
I guess I never thought about that as I have gas stove, dryer, water heater, and furnace and every house I have lived in has had them as well (mostly older homes but even the new one my mom has has all gas appliances). I learn something every day.
I did not mean to give the impression that I equate Darjeeling to Earl Grey. My whole point was that there is a vast difference in quality between teas, I have had bad Darjeelings, Earl Greys, Jasmines, Chais, Orange Pekoes, along with others so it might be that you have just have only gotten bad Earl Grey. If you have a bad Earl Grey it is usually really bad as they probably put in way to much oil of bergamont or citrius as there should be hints of these but not overpower the black tea flavor.
Slashdot Mirror
It is the cart before the horse - if we are taking the trouble to send toys to space, shouldn't we also be sending kids to play with those toys?
I have a couple I would considering donating to the cause. The oldest loves legos
If Lego did do boobies maybe some of us would start playing with legos again ;)
I wouldn't, who would want to play with tiny, hard plastic boobies.
Note: I still play with Legos as I now have kids old enough to play with them and it appears that they have moved away from the massive amounts of specialty pieces they had about a decade ago.
And as a total percentage of the work force how many people work as truck drivers, cabbies, or express couturiers? Besides there there will more than likely be company vehicles and not their personal ones. On a average day I drive about 80 miles to and from work with and any errands I need to run. Now provided that it isn't cold and traffic isn't bad because of a snow storm I could get buy with a Leaf. Also it seems reasonable that a large special purpose (delivery van, semi truck style vehicle) would be a perfect option for an electric vehicle. The are large to begin with, have extra space and can pretty much be guaranteed to be carrying only a single person. So we could replace the engine and transmission with an electric motors at the wheels, and thus have the old engine bay area, fuel tank area, and part of the passenger compartment filled with batteries. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that this would be a viable option. Also commercial drivers have mandatory rest periods which could be used to recharge the vehicles so if there were electric vehicles in the trucking fleet truck stops and rest areas would have an incentive to put in charging stations where people pay by the kilowatt hour.
Less the government more the grid operators. That data from the various smart devices will be fed into the network apps and market apps to better use limited resources.
How many people have a commute longer than 20 miles (Chevy volt) or 50 miles (Nissan Leaf) one way so charging at work is . If you are like me neither one would be a good option all the time (the Leaf would work most of the time) but I doubt many people consistently drive more than 100 miles a day.
I was trying to imply that deference would be part of the cuts. A good example of waste that has been one of the hot topics is the F-35 JSF that is being developed and is planned to be deployed into service. Our own military doesn't want the stupid thing but they are getting it. Also there is a lot of cuts that can happen in the military that wouldn't endanger our security. We could close all of our foreign bases and bring those troops home (do we really need to defend Europe), we could quit being Team America World Police and get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and any other country we are fighting in (we go into so many I loose track of which ones we are still in). Doing this would not only cut costs, but probably would make use safer since we typically are viewed as occupiers especially in the middle east where our presence is used a a great recruiting tool for terrorists. Now even in the best case we would still have some troops abroad but by far the vast majority of them should be the embassy guards. Also since we wouldn't have troops all over god's green earth we wouldn't need to have as large armed services. This would be a huge cut (probably in the 100+ billion a year range but I don't know of good numbers) and would be real savings. Granted it couldn't be done instantly and would probably take a few years but we would see cos
As far as domestic cuts there are the giveaways that are subsidies but as you point out they are a small amount. One place to start would be with reforming Medicare especially part D where the government can't negotiate drug prices. There are probably lots of things similar to that but smaller which could be reformed.
Yes social security does need reform. The actual numbers from the Social Security Board of Trustees differ from what you are claiming. For instance Social Security is currently not taking in what is pays out. Both this year and last year the program ran a deficit, last years was $49 billion and this year it is projected to be $46 billion. Now granted there is still interest on the debt that is also social security income that is coming in so it isn't a crisis yet. Once the economy gets better there is a consistent projected $20 billion dollar short fall. The value in the trust fund is projected to continue to grow until about 2022 from interest on existing bonds, but after that the trust fund will start to be depleted. This does not conform to your numbers as you claim in 2037 it will stop being a net contributor to the federal budget. Starting in about 2036 (one year earlier than the date in the 2010 report) the trust fund will have been exhausted at which point it is projected that Social security will only be able to pay 75% of promised benefits and the ability to do is continues out to the projected date of 2085 (they probably have a 75 year projection which is why this date is as far as they go). The solvency problem with social security is something that could be corrected by removing the cap on income that is subjected to it and either raising the social security tax rate, raising the retirement age, adjusting the cost of living increases, means test it, and probably some other things that I am forgetting. The biggest issue is that from now until 2022 the amount of money from social security that is borrowed and thus goes into the general fund is going to be decreasing so if you want to keep spending at current non Social Security spending at current levels you will need to either raise taxes or borrow more money. Then from 2022 to 2036 social security will not contribute any money to the general fund as it draws down the trust fund by redeeming those bonds to pay benefits. Now you may think these dates are way far out in the future but for 2022 is only 11 years out and people have been making hay about the coming issues for as long as I have been following politics (about 14 years) but there seems to be a lack of political will hasn't made the situation better and with the polarization in the countr
My point was is you made it sound like you wouldn't get sent off to die as since you were on a nuclear sub as a reactor operator. Yes I understand that the numbers for early subs weren't good, but then they were basically surface ships that could submerge while modern subs mostly stay under water. Also thanks for your service, I didn't serve but wanted to.
The invisible hand of the free market will sort it out, but you might not like how it does it. The government may sort it out and I can almost guarantee that I won't like their attempt.
So we get tons of energy from the sun every day that does nothing more than warm the giant rock below our feet and radiate it back into space. Our total daily energy consumption is only a fraction of a percent (about 0.0001%) of what the sun provides daily.
And to back up this claim before someone poo poos it I offer this NASA page showing that we receive about 10,000 times the amount of energy from the sun each day than we need. So we could cover 1% of the earth's surface with 1% efficient solar panels and meet our energy needs. Now since we have panels that far exceed the poor 1% performance that number seems reasonable.We quite literally are getting tons (about 216 short tons) of energy from the sun every day.
Or the south in the US.
Because he is delusional. I do wish that the advocates of the welfare state were communists as then there would be a work requirement as communism requires everyone to contribute to receive.
Nothing in communism is "give for free" - it's a structural equality. When it says "from each according to his means" it does say EACH. Everybody gains but everybody ALSO contributes.
Which is why I would probably be more likely to vote for a communist instead of most modern democrats as communism require work. The full phrase is "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and you are correct in that it it means everyone needs to contribute.
The first "nice" car I owned was an 85 BMW 528e. Great car, really good mileage, was mechanically perfect and the most expensive thing I had to do to it was change the U-joints in the drive shaft. I paid $2700 for it and it ran great until it got rear ended and totaled. Another problem people make is that they sell vehicles, I was the last owner of every vehicle I have ever owned and they were either totaled, or not worth repairing, are you really going to rebuild the engine on a rusted out 85 Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme with 257,000 miles on it? If you buy used you are best off taking care of it and driving it until the wheels fall off. As far as resale you would still be better off buying a used vehicle since most of a vehicle's value is lost in the first 3 to 5 years so if you buy new you really take it in the shorts unless you drive the vehicle into the ground.
I don't know what kind of cars you have been buying or the kind of care you give them, but the newest vehicle I have ever owned was 8 years old and had 80,000 miles on it. As far as expensive repairs go if you didn't buy a car with issues and keep up on the maintenance you should be doing even on a new car you won't have high repair bills. Here is an example, my current car is a 97 BWM 540i that I paid $10,000 for a little more than 4 years ago. I got it with 101,000 miles on it, I drive about between 25,000 and 30,000 miles a year and it now has 217,000 miles on it. The most expensive thing I have done to it was replace most of the front suspension since it was getting really worn out, it cost me $1500. Other than that it has pretty much been regular maintenance, tires, and a few hoses. Now granted I have had to fix a few other things but the most expensive one was probably cam speed sensor, or the set of oil pan and valve cover gaskets. Also the increased fuel economy is probably only a slight increase as there haven't been any ground breaking improvements efficiency. You also make the mistake of considering resale value, every vehicle I have ever owned went off to the scrap yard after I was done (2 by accidents 2 by being not repairable).
Even crappy vehicles can last. 3 years ago I bought an 88 Ford Bronco II for $350. As of now I have a between $1000 and $1100 into it including the purchase price. It has all new fluids (all of them), filters (all of them), hoses, belts, gaskets (oil pan, valve covers, intake), starter, radiator, rotors, drums, calipers, pads, spark plugs, spark plug wires, front wheel bearings, battery, and re manufactured fuel injectors. You know what the stupid thing runs better than it has in probably 10 years, except it does foul the plug in one of the cylinders which is probably why it burns some oil (probably has bad rings). It goes through a quart of oil every 1,000 miles or so which isn't bad especially considering that it probably has 250,000+ miles on it. It starts right up even in the winter and goes like a tank in 4 low. It can haul all of my hunting and camping gear as well as any deer I get just fine.
The only problem is that congress has an insatiable appetite for spending money. If we increased taxes 11.6% what would stop government from spending it and then some. No this isn't a R or D thing as they both just spend on different things. Also there has to be the political will to raise taxes (this means on everyone, not just the rich), as much as I don't like taxes they are a necessary evil. Additionally there are probably lots of cuts that could be done but aren't because they are a pet project (F-35 JFS) or carry the favor of some group (I'm looking at you corn and ethanol subsidies to start with) that can add up to real savings quick. The tea partyers were on to something when they were going after cuts, but picked the wrong programs (Medicare and Social Security do need reform) to hold out as examples of massive government waste and abuse. We won't see any decrease in the growth of the debt until we get a balanced budget amendment thus actually forcing congress to do a cost benefit analysis on things.
We sent Physicists off to die too. LOL. I was a nuclear reactor operator in the US Navy.
I doubt that was in WWI when trench warfare was at its height. And anyway in the case of war as a nuclear reactor operator in the US Navy you would have been sent off to die just like all of your crew mates on the boat. Granted you would probably stand a better chance of survival than the infantry in the army or marines.
They're making it ever more awesome for the likes of me (software dev).
Couldn't agree more. Even though in my free time I don't program I still use Linux at home as the GIS work I do (Grass GIS, UDig and others) work better on Linux or other flavor of Unix than windows.
So then to you high frequency traders must be the best thing for the economy then since they move massive amount of money around all the time really really fast.
I think it is alive as at the top right of the item it looks like there is a smiley face in the grainy sonar image. It must like having its picture taken.
Business lines are far more expensive, but worth it if you actually want to get what is advertised. The only issue I have is the up to part of their advertising as I would expect that I should at some point actually see the type of performance they are advertising but in looking at the charts and graphs it looks like a number of don't even get close.
How about being able to actually get it at all, or even get close to it. Some of the companies (AT&T, Frontier, and Qwest) never came close (stuck around 80% the whole time). Now for a car analogy, this is like saying my 88 Ford Bronco II with a worn out engine is capable of speeds of up to 100 MPH. If I told you that when selling it to you wouldn't you want your money back since there is no way in hell it could actually go that fast (I am lucky if I can reach 70 in it and have gotten it up to 85 or so once with a nice tail wind). Sadly this comparison is fairly close numbers wise.
I would say that any company that was listed that never reached an average of their advertised speed should be taken to task for false advertising. Maybe dragged in front of the FTC, and possible legal action since it looks like most providers are never able to deliver their advertised speed.
I guess I never thought about that as I have gas stove, dryer, water heater, and furnace and every house I have lived in has had them as well (mostly older homes but even the new one my mom has has all gas appliances). I learn something every day.
I did not mean to give the impression that I equate Darjeeling to Earl Grey. My whole point was that there is a vast difference in quality between teas, I have had bad Darjeelings, Earl Greys, Jasmines, Chais, Orange Pekoes, along with others so it might be that you have just have only gotten bad Earl Grey. If you have a bad Earl Grey it is usually really bad as they probably put in way to much oil of bergamont or citrius as there should be hints of these but not overpower the black tea flavor.