That story sounds, like, totally true. I'm sure the FBI sit around outside acting like Jehovah's Witnesses, and send in some civilian to keep the guy there, rather than busting in and arresting the guy.
His counter point was that the flight attendant was able to get into the cockpit. The fact that he was unable to regain control before the fuel ran out wasn't relevant to his point.
The guy was lying on the ground. On his stomach. Do you always become so easily threatened? Do rugs scare you as well, lying there on the ground all menacingly and scary?
Reminds me of the old Johnny Carson quip on Letterman's show during a rash of natural disasters in the L.A. area:
Letterman: "How are things going out there in California"?
Carson: "Pretty good. The mudslides are putting out the fires".
I'm a little confused by the outcome to this story:
He refused to let anyone repair the fiber on threat of death! When law enforcement arrived, Mr. Landowner had moved back over to the Georgia side and claimed he had no idea how the damage had been done. He was out of their jurisdiction. There were no witnesses, and all the law enforcement could do was talk to him and try to get him to confess.
First point: Aren't they guys that were threatened with the 12 gauge considered 'witnesses'?
Second point: All you have to do to avoid arrest is go to the next state??? I'm pretty sure they just arrested a family of bank robbers in Colorado that shot at police in an entirely different state.
In their demo video, the locking mechanism isn't attached to anything, so the whole mechanism bounces around when they whack it. I'd be interested to see if this method still works when it is attached to a solid door.
But the interest you pay each year on your mortgage is going down, and will eventually reach zero. The federal government is going in the opposite direction.
First, he starts way back in the 1600s? What did he do, add up all the campfires that were burning back then?
Second, because he started his trend line sooooo far back, he is completely ignoring the recent (last 50 years) trend. Our energy usage is starting to plateau, and is quickly veering away from his red line slope of 2.9% increase per year. In fact, his red line is going to blow past 10^13 watts before 2050, while our actual use is going to be well below it.
Why the hell would I look up the definition of exponential when I already know what it means? I'll spell it out for you why the OP was wrong by saying that an increase of 'some percentage' is by definition exponential:
X=Y is our function (X is year, Y is energy use), This is a linear function, so it is definitely not exponential
Year 1 = 1 Megajoule
Year 2 = 2 Megajoules, increase of 100% from previous year
Year 3 = 3 Megajoules, increase of 50% from previous year
Year 4 = 4 Megajoules, increase of 33% from previous year
The amount of energy is going up every year by 'some percentage', but it is definitely not going up at an exponential rate. So what was the point of your post again? Or did you just accidentally copy my post and post it as your own?
The amount we actually owe in interest this year is a small portion of this year's budgetary outlays. About half of the defense budget. Roughly $1000 per American.
That would be fine, but the interest we are paying each year is going up, not down. budget projections show it to grow from around 200b to 560b by 2016. And since we are continuing to have deficits, that number will just keep on going up.
creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source
Um, isn't that a bad thing? The more jobs you need for each MW of power, the more expensive that MW of power is. I want fewer jobs per MW, not more. Who writes this shit?
Uh, the first link is from a 2010 article (although it does not list what year the data is taken from). The 2nd is from 2007. They both match up (more or less). And your link also supports my numbers.
...and so getting them wrong
No, that would be you, as evidence by your next statement:
In 2007 the actual distribution left the top 1% with 43% of wealth; the next 4% with 29%; the next 5% with 11%;
So, the top 10% own 83%, so your original statement of 2% owning 80% is only off by a factor of 5. Well done.
You're just another person picking numbers that support their totally skewed image..
Hilarious, considering that you picked the chart that put the number closer to your skewed image. You picked financial wealth over total net worth. Had you picked total net worth (which is, you know, how much total assets people have), the numbers would be 20% controlling 85% of the wealth, which would have put you off by an entire order of magnitude.
Look at that page I linked to for Figure 4
I did, and it supports my statement (20% own 80%), not yours (2% own 80%). Strange that you didn't use that chart, hmmm?
Since 2007 the Financial Crisis (4+ years now) deleted much of the wealth below the top tiers, but added it back to the top tiers.
Really? What do you base that on? Nothing, I'm guessing.
showing how wrong people are about how wealth is distributed
Wow, random, average people don't know the distribution of all of the wealth in a country of 300 million? Shocking. And not really relevant to your original wrong statement.
Slashdot Mirror
And interns work for free.
Intern does not mean "work for free". I, and many others, were paid quite well as interns at an automotive factory years ago while in college.
Where in the article did it say that the FBI were involved?
The feds had no involvement in this (they weren't even mentioned in the article). Local police arrested the kid.
That story sounds, like, totally true. I'm sure the FBI sit around outside acting like Jehovah's Witnesses, and send in some civilian to keep the guy there, rather than busting in and arresting the guy.
I think you're missing part of the story. Local police arrested the kid, not the FBI. In fact, the FBI is not even mentioned in the article.
His counter point was that the flight attendant was able to get into the cockpit. The fact that he was unable to regain control before the fuel ran out wasn't relevant to his point.
The guy was lying on the ground. On his stomach. Do you always become so easily threatened? Do rugs scare you as well, lying there on the ground all menacingly and scary?
Reminds me of the old Johnny Carson quip on Letterman's show during a rash of natural disasters in the L.A. area: Letterman: "How are things going out there in California"? Carson: "Pretty good. The mudslides are putting out the fires".
But cases are made all the time where there is only the victim as the witness. Otherwise, I doubt you could ever bring a rape case to trial.
I'm a little confused by the outcome to this story:
He refused to let anyone repair the fiber on threat of death! When law enforcement arrived, Mr. Landowner had moved back over to the Georgia side and claimed he had no idea how the damage had been done. He was out of their jurisdiction. There were no witnesses, and all the law enforcement could do was talk to him and try to get him to confess.
First point: Aren't they guys that were threatened with the 12 gauge considered 'witnesses'?
Second point: All you have to do to avoid arrest is go to the next state??? I'm pretty sure they just arrested a family of bank robbers in Colorado that shot at police in an entirely different state.
At the rate I'm being asked to pay for other people's things, I might be trying it soon whether I want to or not...
Jeez, now I have to help pay for low income people to surf for porn on top of all the other things I subsidize for them?
In their demo video, the locking mechanism isn't attached to anything, so the whole mechanism bounces around when they whack it. I'd be interested to see if this method still works when it is attached to a solid door.
Where do you live that you think a fingerprint for your passport is unusual?
But the interest you pay each year on your mortgage is going down, and will eventually reach zero. The federal government is going in the opposite direction.
First, he starts way back in the 1600s? What did he do, add up all the campfires that were burning back then?
Second, because he started his trend line sooooo far back, he is completely ignoring the recent (last 50 years) trend. Our energy usage is starting to plateau, and is quickly veering away from his red line slope of 2.9% increase per year. In fact, his red line is going to blow past 10^13 watts before 2050, while our actual use is going to be well below it.
Why the hell would I look up the definition of exponential when I already know what it means? I'll spell it out for you why the OP was wrong by saying that an increase of 'some percentage' is by definition exponential:
X=Y is our function (X is year, Y is energy use), This is a linear function, so it is definitely not exponential
Year 1 = 1 Megajoule
Year 2 = 2 Megajoules, increase of 100% from previous year
Year 3 = 3 Megajoules, increase of 50% from previous year
Year 4 = 4 Megajoules, increase of 33% from previous year
The amount of energy is going up every year by 'some percentage', but it is definitely not going up at an exponential rate. So what was the point of your post again? Or did you just accidentally copy my post and post it as your own?
...has risen some percentage every year. That is exponential by definition...
Some percentage every year is not the definition of exponential. Example:
X=Y is our function (X is year, Y is energy use), This is a linear function, so it is definitely not exponential
Year 1 = 1 Megajoule
Year 2 = 2 Megajoules, increase of 100% from previous year
Year 3 = 3 Megajoules, increase of 50% from previous year
Year 4 = 4 Megajoules, increase of 33% from previous year
The amount of energy is going up every year by 'some percentage', but it is definitely not going up at an exponential rate.
The amount we actually owe in interest this year is a small portion of this year's budgetary outlays. About half of the defense budget. Roughly $1000 per American.
That would be fine, but the interest we are paying each year is going up, not down. budget projections show it to grow from around 200b to 560b by 2016. And since we are continuing to have deficits, that number will just keep on going up.
I'm going to have to ask you to go look up the definition of exponential before you make any more posts about the definition of exponential...
It's covered by 300 ft of water??? We'll NEVER be able to find out what it is for sure!
Hillbillies and white trash aren't kept down by calling them that. They've got the power...
If you've ever met either one of those groups, you would quickly realize how ridiculous your statement is.
creating more jobs per megawatt than any other energy source
Um, isn't that a bad thing? The more jobs you need for each MW of power, the more expensive that MW of power is. I want fewer jobs per MW, not more. Who writes this shit?
Sure, you're pulling numbers from 2007...
Uh, the first link is from a 2010 article (although it does not list what year the data is taken from). The 2nd is from 2007. They both match up (more or less). And your link also supports my numbers.
...and so getting them wrong
No, that would be you, as evidence by your next statement:
In 2007 the actual distribution left the top 1% with 43% of wealth; the next 4% with 29%; the next 5% with 11%;
So, the top 10% own 83%, so your original statement of 2% owning 80% is only off by a factor of 5. Well done.
You're just another person picking numbers that support their totally skewed image..
Hilarious, considering that you picked the chart that put the number closer to your skewed image. You picked financial wealth over total net worth. Had you picked total net worth (which is, you know, how much total assets people have), the numbers would be 20% controlling 85% of the wealth, which would have put you off by an entire order of magnitude.
Look at that page I linked to for Figure 4
I did, and it supports my statement (20% own 80%), not yours (2% own 80%). Strange that you didn't use that chart, hmmm?
Since 2007 the Financial Crisis (4+ years now) deleted much of the wealth below the top tiers, but added it back to the top tiers.
Really? What do you base that on? Nothing, I'm guessing.
showing how wrong people are about how wealth is distributed
Wow, random, average people don't know the distribution of all of the wealth in a country of 300 million? Shocking. And not really relevant to your original wrong statement.
The top 2% of Americans own 80% of the wealth
Nope, it's closer to 20% own 80% of the wealth:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/10/estimates-of-wealth-distribution-are-widely-wrong
http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2
Is it fun pulling numbers out of the air to try to make your point?
And just because you aren't in the top 2% or top 20% doesn't make you poor.
The ratios aren't precisely 100:1...
If by 'aren't precisely' you mean 'aren't anywhere close too', then your statement is correct.