So what happens if mail delivery isn't profitable? Do you really think its profitable to deliver mail cheaply as USPS does to po-dunk Alaska? How about having post offices in every community large and small around the country? How profitable would this be? If this was a 'profitable business' model, I'd expect my local FedEx or UPS office to be much closer, instead of having to drive to the outskirts of town to the warehouse district to get a package.
Business doesn't always provide the best solution, especially when we're talking about equal provision of services across the country. It reminds me of the Rural Electrification Act in the '30s. Basically, electricity companies at the time had refused to electrify rural communities and farms because it wasn't profitable to do so. The REA corrected this by providing government backing to provide electricity across the country, and by doing so, greatly raised living standards and productivity of the rural and farm sector.
They have this here in France - order online and stop at the store to pick it up. Since the store itself does pickup only, prices are actually pretty competitive with regular grocery stores, as there is no need to stock, clean and organize aisles for customers. The service is extremely useful for families with young children - it lets them avoid an hour in a regular grocery store with a screaming, cranky kid.
Soviets might have been inferior technology-wise to the West, but in all of the Cold War conventional land battle scenarios I've read, the numerically superior Soviet forces would deplete NATO and US forces within a week. Thats why there was such an emphasis on building up short to medium range nuclear weapons by NATO, as this would be their only hope of fending off any Soviet aggression on the European continent.
And it was NATO who was focused on a defensive war - they had absolutely no way to ever hope of reaching far into Soviet territory in an offensive battle. Their ground forces were sufficient to blunt an initial Soviet attack, and thats about it.
Yeah, those high speed trains are totally vulnerable... just look at all the fatalities that have occurred on the TGV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents/sarcasm
Why do you pay 100 times more? Because you're dependent on all the services and roads provided by the government to make that kind of money. And because you have so much more to lose if the protections, stability and infrastructure provided by the government weren't there.
Lets assume you make $1,000,000 in the US. With that salary, you would have a pretty good standard of living. Now, imagine moving to Sudan with that same salary. Looks good at first, since you won't have to pay any of those pesky taxes to the government. But it gets more complicated if you want to keep your standard of living. You're going to have to hire a security force to keep your property safe, bribe some local officials to make sure you have electricity (or buy a generator + fuel), provide your own water and sewage system, etc. Pretty much everything you take for granted will have to be paid for separately... and I'm guessing it wont be cheap.
So the rich *should* pay more taxes because their use of the infrastructure, protection and stability provided by the govt has enabled them to make more. And providing for the poor with taxes is actually beneficial in the long run! Give the poor enough money to live, and enough stability in their lives (medicare, education, etc), will help prevent them for looking for money elsewhere (i.e. breaking into your mansion and stealing crap). Less crime = smaller need for police funding.
Thats indeed the case. Here in France, you have an account of days off. If you get sick for a day, you take a day off out of that account. However, if you have the flu, or something serious, your doctor can give you a note stating your needed recovery time, and you will be able to take that time off without burning vacation days.
That being said, 'socialist' Europe comes out way ahead when you consider the amount of vacation and leisure time all workers get, 'free' education, cheaper health-care, better public transport, etc (all which generally would decrease the GDP per capita).
New Dehli increases its security snake force to scare away smaller, more troublesome serpent species. Fifty new pythons have been added to the Serpent Sporting Stall Security Services (SSSSS).
Actually, the 'f' looking thing is a long s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s). In some scripts, a double s was written with a ligatured long s and short s. Not sure why the long s fell out of favor.. maybe to simplify typesetting.
Counterpoint: In France, fuel prices are vastly higher than in the USA, and taking the train is cheaper than driving.
When I was in Britain, it shocked me how expensive train tickets were... even just within the London area! I don't know if this has to do with the privatization of the rail system under Thatcher or what, but prices were just outrageous!
You said "How can you hope to have a train system that is actually used regularly that covers that much area."
You could have said "How can you hope to have a interstate highway system that is actually used regularly that covers that much area." I bet similar arguments were made in the 50s when Eisenhower planned the interstate system, which we now know was an incredible boon to interstate commerce and travel. Why wouldn't a national train system be just as useful?
Ever take a high-speed train? They have nothing to do with population density or area. In fact, their whole purpose is to quickly cover vast empty areas between dense population centers.
Example: Paris-Bordeaux TGV trains call at between 0-2 stations.
Thats the problem right there -- religion/God/etc cannot be, and should not be subjected to scientific tests. Can scientific tests prove one set of morals is 'better' than another? How would you even define better in that context? But just because science cant say anything useful about morals does not mean they should be rejected.
Verifiability, proof, etc are not the raison d'etre of religion. Sure, through the years, some religions have been used as a method of control. However, at their base, their purpose is to guide and enlighten people. In many cases, religion can give a sense of community, hope, belonging, structure, to an otherwise chaotic and impersonal life.
Hmm, thats interesting how the name precisely defines the ideals. Its kind of like how the German DEMOCRATIC Republic AKA East Germany was extremely democratic and not socialist in any way whatsoever./sarcasm
Come on, learn your history. The Nazi regime was NOT socialist - the fascism that took hold in Europe in the early part of the 20th century was a reaction against the spreading socialism, communism and working-class revolts. Control of industries/production was not given to the people like in a socialist system - it was held by individual industrialists. (See Schindler's List for an example of a wealthy industrialist in Nazi Germany)
I wholly agree. I read this Out of This World retrospective the other day (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/another-world-retrospective), and it really opened my eyes how differently games are made now.
I remember playing Out of This World back in the day, and dying A LOT. That game was really really tough, especially for a 12 year old, or whatever I was back then. But when you got somewhere, it was really rewarding... even if you had to work at it a while. There was no 'Tutorial' level where it guided you through 'press blah to jump', 'hold your fire button for a forcefield', etc. There was no arrow showing you where you need to go next. Your 'buddy' never had to yell 'Cover Me!' for the player to understand that he needed protection. Everything you learned in the game, you learned on the fly...
The differences between Palin and Obama 'on paper' are more than you let on in your post. To continue your metaphor, lets say I'm hiring them for a job... here's what I'd likely see on their resumes:
Palin: Active in high-school sports Won beauty pagent Transferred 5 times to 4 colleges in 5 years; degree in communications ~4 years sportscaster/sports reporter 4 years city council 6 years mayor 3 years governor
Obama: High school sports Attended college prep school Attended 2 colleges, one being Columbia, studying poli sci and international relations Travelled worldwide 3 years director of Developing communities project Harvard Law school + Harvard Law Review editor, graduated magna cum laude 12 years constitutional law professor at University of Chicago Law School 8 years serving on 2 boards of directors of Chicago philanthropic organizations 8 years state senate 4 years US senate
Now, I dont know about you, but if I had to make a decision on who to hire based solely on the contents of these resume's, the job would hands down go to Obama.
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 2, 11-1051 (B)... A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
So if I'm not carrying one of the listed forms of identification, which is wholly in my right as a US citizen not to, then according to this clause, I am presumed to be an alien unlawfully present in the US. Perhaps you should read it before making crap up.
And stop bringing up the ICE strawman. ICE, as a federal agency, doesn't and cannot stop random people for no reason. That is why I'm not concerned about ICE. But to answer your curiosity, yes, I have been complaining about the Patriot Act's unconstitutional broadening of federal law enforcement power.
1) How do they verify that I'm a US citizen solely based on my name?
2) The reason there is no concern over ICE's power to request ID is because they arent in the business of doing random/targeted stops for other crimes. The Federal Government is not granted general police powers by the Constitution. Take the FBI, for example. They aren't allowed to do random stops on the street like local police. If I'm taken into custody by the FBI (or ICE) its because they've done an investigation and already have a case against me, and not just spotted me on the street and decided I look 'illegal.'
So if I choose to exercise my right as a US Citizen and not carry identification I'm presumed to be an illegal alien? Hah, can a law be any more blatantly unconstitutional?
Slashdot Mirror
So what happens if mail delivery isn't profitable? Do you really think its profitable to deliver mail cheaply as USPS does to po-dunk Alaska? How about having post offices in every community large and small around the country? How profitable would this be? If this was a 'profitable business' model, I'd expect my local FedEx or UPS office to be much closer, instead of having to drive to the outskirts of town to the warehouse district to get a package.
Business doesn't always provide the best solution, especially when we're talking about equal provision of services across the country. It reminds me of the Rural Electrification Act in the '30s. Basically, electricity companies at the time had refused to electrify rural communities and farms because it wasn't profitable to do so. The REA corrected this by providing government backing to provide electricity across the country, and by doing so, greatly raised living standards and productivity of the rural and farm sector.
They have this here in France - order online and stop at the store to pick it up. Since the store itself does pickup only, prices are actually pretty competitive with regular grocery stores, as there is no need to stock, clean and organize aisles for customers. The service is extremely useful for families with young children - it lets them avoid an hour in a regular grocery store with a screaming, cranky kid.
Soviets might have been inferior technology-wise to the West, but in all of the Cold War conventional land battle scenarios I've read, the numerically superior Soviet forces would deplete NATO and US forces within a week. Thats why there was such an emphasis on building up short to medium range nuclear weapons by NATO, as this would be their only hope of fending off any Soviet aggression on the European continent.
And it was NATO who was focused on a defensive war - they had absolutely no way to ever hope of reaching far into Soviet territory in an offensive battle. Their ground forces were sufficient to blunt an initial Soviet attack, and thats about it.
Shoot, I hope there weren't any fallouts around when this guy was killed... I hear those things are nasty!
Yeah, those high speed trains are totally vulnerable... just look at all the fatalities that have occurred on the TGV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV_accidents /sarcasm
Ah, so you use the Cropper for your caper to keep the capture of Claude Coopers clean copper clappers he kept in a closet?
Why do you pay 100 times more? Because you're dependent on all the services and roads provided by the government to make that kind of money. And because you have so much more to lose if the protections, stability and infrastructure provided by the government weren't there.
Lets assume you make $1,000,000 in the US. With that salary, you would have a pretty good standard of living. Now, imagine moving to Sudan with that same salary. Looks good at first, since you won't have to pay any of those pesky taxes to the government. But it gets more complicated if you want to keep your standard of living. You're going to have to hire a security force to keep your property safe, bribe some local officials to make sure you have electricity (or buy a generator + fuel), provide your own water and sewage system, etc. Pretty much everything you take for granted will have to be paid for separately... and I'm guessing it wont be cheap.
So the rich *should* pay more taxes because their use of the infrastructure, protection and stability provided by the govt has enabled them to make more. And providing for the poor with taxes is actually beneficial in the long run! Give the poor enough money to live, and enough stability in their lives (medicare, education, etc), will help prevent them for looking for money elsewhere (i.e. breaking into your mansion and stealing crap). Less crime = smaller need for police funding.
Thats indeed the case. Here in France, you have an account of days off. If you get sick for a day, you take a day off out of that account. However, if you have the flu, or something serious, your doctor can give you a note stating your needed recovery time, and you will be able to take that time off without burning vacation days.
Good article on the flaws of using GDP per capita to measure quality of life: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magazine/16GDP-t.html?pagewanted=all
That being said, 'socialist' Europe comes out way ahead when you consider the amount of vacation and leisure time all workers get, 'free' education, cheaper health-care, better public transport, etc (all which generally would decrease the GDP per capita).
I dont know what Mac you've been using, but to minimize the window on my Mac, I click the orange - button.
New Dehli increases its security snake force to scare away smaller, more troublesome serpent species. Fifty new pythons have been added to the Serpent Sporting Stall Security Services (SSSSS).
You didn't finish... where's the link to Kevin Bacon?
Actually, the 'f' looking thing is a long s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s). In some scripts, a double s was written with a ligatured long s and short s. Not sure why the long s fell out of favor.. maybe to simplify typesetting.
Counterpoint: In France, fuel prices are vastly higher than in the USA, and taking the train is cheaper than driving.
When I was in Britain, it shocked me how expensive train tickets were... even just within the London area! I don't know if this has to do with the privatization of the rail system under Thatcher or what, but prices were just outrageous!
You said "How can you hope to have a train system that is actually used regularly that covers that much area."
You could have said "How can you hope to have a interstate highway system that is actually used regularly that covers that much area." I bet similar arguments were made in the 50s when Eisenhower planned the interstate system, which we now know was an incredible boon to interstate commerce and travel. Why wouldn't a national train system be just as useful?
Ever take a high-speed train? They have nothing to do with population density or area. In fact, their whole purpose is to quickly cover vast empty areas between dense population centers.
Example: Paris-Bordeaux TGV trains call at between 0-2 stations.
Have you tried e-harmony.com? ;)
Thats the problem right there -- religion/God/etc cannot be, and should not be subjected to scientific tests. Can scientific tests prove one set of morals is 'better' than another? How would you even define better in that context? But just because science cant say anything useful about morals does not mean they should be rejected.
Verifiability, proof, etc are not the raison d'etre of religion. Sure, through the years, some religions have been used as a method of control. However, at their base, their purpose is to guide and enlighten people. In many cases, religion can give a sense of community, hope, belonging, structure, to an otherwise chaotic and impersonal life.
Thats because the souls are too small for current medical technology to detect.
Hmm, thats interesting how the name precisely defines the ideals. Its kind of like how the German DEMOCRATIC Republic AKA East Germany was extremely democratic and not socialist in any way whatsoever. /sarcasm
Come on, learn your history. The Nazi regime was NOT socialist - the fascism that took hold in Europe in the early part of the 20th century was a reaction against the spreading socialism, communism and working-class revolts. Control of industries/production was not given to the people like in a socialist system - it was held by individual industrialists. (See Schindler's List for an example of a wealthy industrialist in Nazi Germany)
Bah, Wisconsin's got you all beat! Check out the size of this Beaver Dam! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Dam,_Wisconsin
I wholly agree. I read this Out of This World retrospective the other day (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/another-world-retrospective), and it really opened my eyes how differently games are made now.
I remember playing Out of This World back in the day, and dying A LOT. That game was really really tough, especially for a 12 year old, or whatever I was back then. But when you got somewhere, it was really rewarding... even if you had to work at it a while. There was no 'Tutorial' level where it guided you through 'press blah to jump', 'hold your fire button for a forcefield', etc. There was no arrow showing you where you need to go next. Your 'buddy' never had to yell 'Cover Me!' for the player to understand that he needed protection. Everything you learned in the game, you learned on the fly...
The differences between Palin and Obama 'on paper' are more than you let on in your post. To continue your metaphor, lets say I'm hiring them for a job... here's what I'd likely see on their resumes:
Palin:
Active in high-school sports
Won beauty pagent
Transferred 5 times to 4 colleges in 5 years; degree in communications
~4 years sportscaster/sports reporter
4 years city council
6 years mayor
3 years governor
Obama:
High school sports
Attended college prep school
Attended 2 colleges, one being Columbia, studying poli sci and international relations
Travelled worldwide
3 years director of Developing communities project
Harvard Law school + Harvard Law Review editor, graduated magna cum laude
12 years constitutional law professor at University of Chicago Law School
8 years serving on 2 boards of directors of Chicago philanthropic organizations
8 years state senate
4 years US senate
Now, I dont know about you, but if I had to make a decision on who to hire based solely on the contents of these resume's, the job would hands down go to Obama.
That IS what the law says in your own post:
Arizona Revised Statutes Section 2, 11-1051 (B) ... A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
So if I'm not carrying one of the listed forms of identification, which is wholly in my right as a US citizen not to, then according to this clause, I am presumed to be an alien unlawfully present in the US. Perhaps you should read it before making crap up.
And stop bringing up the ICE strawman. ICE, as a federal agency, doesn't and cannot stop random people for no reason. That is why I'm not concerned about ICE. But to answer your curiosity, yes, I have been complaining about the Patriot Act's unconstitutional broadening of federal law enforcement power.
1) How do they verify that I'm a US citizen solely based on my name?
2) The reason there is no concern over ICE's power to request ID is because they arent in the business of doing random/targeted stops for other crimes. The Federal Government is not granted general police powers by the Constitution. Take the FBI, for example. They aren't allowed to do random stops on the street like local police. If I'm taken into custody by the FBI (or ICE) its because they've done an investigation and already have a case against me, and not just spotted me on the street and decided I look 'illegal.'
So if I choose to exercise my right as a US Citizen and not carry identification I'm presumed to be an illegal alien? Hah, can a law be any more blatantly unconstitutional?