I always find it troublesome when these types of articles post on Slashdot. It is a best guess (for varying values of best) at what could happen, if things continue at a certain rate, without major improvements/changes elsewhere. Science has been been painting bleak pictures of the future for as long as we've been effectively paying attention to science (and likely well before that as well).
To be clear, I'm a big fan of the scientific method and all that it entails, but the whole "Oh no! We're all going to die!" type of crap is just sensationalist. It's great that it may help wake a few more people up that things need to be reigned in, and advancements must be made, but to completely ignore the capabilities of man (and nature) to invent and adapt is as short-sighted as continuing blindly on our current path.
Blind worship of a deity is stupid. Blindly following anything you read/see simply because it's "science" isn't much brighter. We have brains capable of complex thought, let's say we use them a little, eh?
I actually work for a hospital system and we back huge campaigns against smoking (which is not allowed on any of our campuses) as well as texting and driving. Arguably both are "good for business".
To be fair, we're also not-for-profit, but are one of the larger not-for-profits in the region (by region, I mean 1/4 of the US).
The adaptability of the nerve network in the human body really does amaze me. I'm glad to see that we're (as in humanity) making some steps toward resolving paralysis. The concept of being trapped in my own body has always been somewhat chilling to me.
Thank you for the link. I'm with you that the taxes need adjusted and definitely that Social Security is in a bad away right now. If we just cut the pork and inefficiency out of 50% of government we'd be miles ahead as well.
This is consistent in MANY US businesses. I have a good friend who works in a union shop and has been verbally reprimanded for working too quickly (if the work gets done too fast, they cannot properly spread the work around and keep all the union workers employed). The parent company is currently struggling financially, I cannot imagine why...
Perhaps it is like this worldwide, but I really rather doubt that.
First, the taxes invested are not "other people's (the taxpayer's) money". It is the government's money.
Your point, while valid the way you have stated it seems to ignore that the government of this country belongs TO the people, thus the money in question IS the money of the people by definition. All state buildings belong TO the people as a whole, as do national parks, etc. Now, whether the money was spent wisely or not is not something I really care to argue about, I feel there are valid points either way, but the concept that the government is some type of separate entity from the people it governs is simply not correct.
I am being completely earnest here; I'd really like to see the numbers for that. Remember, we need to start paying BACK the debt as well, simply ending the deficit does not resolve the issue.
I agree that buying things you don't need and cannot afford is one of the root causes of the problems in society today, but I think simply saying that buying things you don't need is bad is a bit excessive. I spend a fair amount of money on performance automotive parts I don't NEED to have, but I greatly enjoy working on cars and driving them as a hobby. If we're only buying things we need, we had better stop at food/water/shelter/clothing and ignore things like hobbies.
FWIW, when I was younger and in rather good shape, I was around 8% body fat. I'm approximately 6'1", and at that time weighed around 200 lbs. According to the BMI index I was about halfway between overweight and obese. At 8% body fat. I was by no means a body builder (I mostly cycled and ran, though I did a small amount of weight training as well). At 220 lbs now it says I'm boderline obese, wearing a pant size 2" larger in the waist than I did at 8% body fat.
Between income tax, property tax, gas tax, and sales tax, I pay very nearly 50% of my earnings to various levels of government, and I don't make a particularly impressive salary at all (not even close to 6 figures) and live in a state with reasonable (that's a relative term) taxation.
I understand where you're coming from, but you can replace "Superintendent" and "School Administrator" with about 500 other jobs that also don't pay 6 figures (my job as a network engineer for example) and your paragraphs still make sense. Welcome to life. Not everyone gets to make 100k+ a year.
But, anyway, even if the F22 is the best one-to-one, with only 200 able to fly, maybe 50 at any given time, it had to be seen if 50 of them could do the job against 1200 of a cheaper enemy (say China or Russia).
You mean, it would have to be seen what 50 F22s, PLUS all the F15s, F16s, F18s and whatever F35s they may/may not build can do against 1200 cheaper enemy planes.
Harriers have killed scores of pilots also, mostly because they're unstable and a total SOB to fly. Personally I'd rather not fly something that relies on a weathervane to keep stable.
2. Since then we have had air superiority because we have spent the most to develop it and keep it but even over vietnam we only had a roughly 1:1 kill ratio.
That was true at the very beginning of the war due to poor planning/improper training regarding planes that were not particularly effective at dog fighting. Later in the war the ratios came up dramatically.
About a third of homes have firearms as best as surveys can tell.
I read that as "About a third of homies have firearms as best as surveys can tell" and thought to myself "my, that was racist". I then reread it correctly. It appears that I may be racist instead.
There is some pretty good data that the expansion joints and some other parts of the design may have hastened it's fracturing and thus caused it to sink more quickly. They would not have saved her from sinking, but may have given another 30-60 minutes of time on the water prior to sinking which likely would have saved quite a few lives. Forgive the short citation, there have been quite a few studies about this, but I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment.
Slashdot Mirror
Ugh, stupid autocorrect fixed rein to reign...
I always find it troublesome when these types of articles post on Slashdot. It is a best guess (for varying values of best) at what could happen, if things continue at a certain rate, without major improvements/changes elsewhere. Science has been been painting bleak pictures of the future for as long as we've been effectively paying attention to science (and likely well before that as well).
To be clear, I'm a big fan of the scientific method and all that it entails, but the whole "Oh no! We're all going to die!" type of crap is just sensationalist. It's great that it may help wake a few more people up that things need to be reigned in, and advancements must be made, but to completely ignore the capabilities of man (and nature) to invent and adapt is as short-sighted as continuing blindly on our current path.
Blind worship of a deity is stupid. Blindly following anything you read/see simply because it's "science" isn't much brighter. We have brains capable of complex thought, let's say we use them a little, eh?
Sorry, but you're delusional if you don't think that BOTH parties are all for removing public opinion and scrutiny from what they're doing.
I actually work for a hospital system and we back huge campaigns against smoking (which is not allowed on any of our campuses) as well as texting and driving. Arguably both are "good for business".
To be fair, we're also not-for-profit, but are one of the larger not-for-profits in the region (by region, I mean 1/4 of the US).
The adaptability of the nerve network in the human body really does amaze me. I'm glad to see that we're (as in humanity) making some steps toward resolving paralysis. The concept of being trapped in my own body has always been somewhat chilling to me.
Thank you for the link. I'm with you that the taxes need adjusted and definitely that Social Security is in a bad away right now. If we just cut the pork and inefficiency out of 50% of government we'd be miles ahead as well.
Interesting point. Thank you for a well thought out response, I appreciate that you didn't just go off like all too many people on this site anymore.
Your tendency to group people together stereotypically is telling.
This is consistent in MANY US businesses. I have a good friend who works in a union shop and has been verbally reprimanded for working too quickly (if the work gets done too fast, they cannot properly spread the work around and keep all the union workers employed). The parent company is currently struggling financially, I cannot imagine why...
Perhaps it is like this worldwide, but I really rather doubt that.
First, the taxes invested are not "other people's (the taxpayer's) money". It is the government's money.
Your point, while valid the way you have stated it seems to ignore that the government of this country belongs TO the people, thus the money in question IS the money of the people by definition. All state buildings belong TO the people as a whole, as do national parks, etc. Now, whether the money was spent wisely or not is not something I really care to argue about, I feel there are valid points either way, but the concept that the government is some type of separate entity from the people it governs is simply not correct.
I am being completely earnest here; I'd really like to see the numbers for that. Remember, we need to start paying BACK the debt as well, simply ending the deficit does not resolve the issue.
I agree that buying things you don't need and cannot afford is one of the root causes of the problems in society today, but I think simply saying that buying things you don't need is bad is a bit excessive. I spend a fair amount of money on performance automotive parts I don't NEED to have, but I greatly enjoy working on cars and driving them as a hobby. If we're only buying things we need, we had better stop at food/water/shelter/clothing and ignore things like hobbies.
Sounds like a front for the Umbrella Corporation to me. Be very concerned when they start discussing pharmaceuticals here...
FWIW, when I was younger and in rather good shape, I was around 8% body fat. I'm approximately 6'1", and at that time weighed around 200 lbs. According to the BMI index I was about halfway between overweight and obese. At 8% body fat. I was by no means a body builder (I mostly cycled and ran, though I did a small amount of weight training as well). At 220 lbs now it says I'm boderline obese, wearing a pant size 2" larger in the waist than I did at 8% body fat.
Somewhat useful measurement? Sure. Widely effective? That's debatable.
I definitely know less than Doctor WHO.
Very true. This is complete different from the Democrats; the Democrats represent corporations, not people.
Wait, what?
Who? who the hell is paying 50%?
Between income tax, property tax, gas tax, and sales tax, I pay very nearly 50% of my earnings to various levels of government, and I don't make a particularly impressive salary at all (not even close to 6 figures) and live in a state with reasonable (that's a relative term) taxation.
I understand where you're coming from, but you can replace "Superintendent" and "School Administrator" with about 500 other jobs that also don't pay 6 figures (my job as a network engineer for example) and your paragraphs still make sense. Welcome to life. Not everyone gets to make 100k+ a year.
But, anyway, even if the F22 is the best one-to-one, with only 200 able to fly, maybe 50 at any given time, it had to be seen if 50 of them could do the job against 1200 of a cheaper enemy (say China or Russia).
You mean, it would have to be seen what 50 F22s, PLUS all the F15s, F16s, F18s and whatever F35s they may/may not build can do against 1200 cheaper enemy planes.
Harriers have killed scores of pilots also, mostly because they're unstable and a total SOB to fly. Personally I'd rather not fly something that relies on a weathervane to keep stable.
I would not particularly recommend messing with the Swiss. Hitler tried that, didn't go well.
2. Since then we have had air superiority because we have spent the most to develop it and keep it but even over vietnam we only had a roughly 1:1 kill ratio.
That was true at the very beginning of the war due to poor planning/improper training regarding planes that were not particularly effective at dog fighting. Later in the war the ratios came up dramatically.
I wish I had mod points for you today. Civil war is much more likely than any type of invasion.
About a third of homes have firearms as best as surveys can tell.
I read that as "About a third of homies have firearms as best as surveys can tell" and thought to myself "my, that was racist". I then reread it correctly. It appears that I may be racist instead.
There is some pretty good data that the expansion joints and some other parts of the design may have hastened it's fracturing and thus caused it to sink more quickly. They would not have saved her from sinking, but may have given another 30-60 minutes of time on the water prior to sinking which likely would have saved quite a few lives. Forgive the short citation, there have been quite a few studies about this, but I'm in a bit of a rush at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic_alternative_theories#Expansion_Joint