He certainly could have made a universe that appeared old in a recent time frame. However, I think if you study the Bible closely, He would not have done so. Such an act would seem to go against His nature.
He isn't out to deceive His creation into thinking something that isn't true. He has created the universe as it is and laid out a path of how to restore a relationship with Him in the Bible. The age of the universe, as the scientific community understands it, is not contradicted by the very limited amount of space the Bible gives the subject.
Restoring a proper relationship to Him is the part that people need to worry about. In the very long run, that's all that matters. Getting hung up on the proper interpretation of a few chapters and scattered verses and then condemning the rest because a light reading of that small subset doesn't match what the current scientific community says is a mistake.
If there were only one vendor for each item that would be true. However when you have multiple competing vendors trying to get business and everybody sees the same relative drop in expenses, there is likely to be a passing on of some of the savings in each cycle of the food chain unless there is collusion between the vendors (as is sometimes the case). There is almost always somebody who wants the business and is willing to give up some of their now slightly larger profit to get it. This repeats until a new equilibrium is reached at a probably lower level.
I used shoes in a different comment. I just bought some shoes at WalMart for $18. Several years ago, they would have been $60 or so. Why the drop? Lower manufacturing costs and lower material prices offset the increased cost of transporting the product from overseas. Why didn't the price stay at $60 to use your argument and the companies pocket the difference? Because various manufacturers wanted the business of WalMart and were willing to drop their wholesale cost closer to their cost of production. Dropping taxes lowers the cost of production just like lowering labor costs. No effect like that is immediate, but over time it does happen.
To give an example of how seemingly small costs influence business, there's also the cost of transportation of those goods to market and transportation of raw materials to build those goods. Granted, in an era of cheaper transportation costs, you won't see much of an impact there, but there are actually some companies that have pulled manufacturing back to the US simply due to the cost of transporting the product to the customer as fuel costs rose last summer. Don't discount even what you consider marginal costs like taxes in business decisions. You'd certainly think fuel would be a marginal cost as well, yet it made a difference to some manufacturers. Include sane product liability caps for locally designed and manufactured products and there would be more companies making the choice to move manufacturing back to the US. Would we get all the manufacturing back? Unlikely. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
As a counterpoint to your Verizon bill which is, after all a service, look at a complex piece of equipment like the new Boeing plane or military equipment or cars or space shuttles. Do you honestly think that if all the tax cost were pulled out of the raw price for each component and thus not factored into every single supplier's markup before sell to the next company up in the chain that you wouldn't see the cost of the finished product drop? Will shoes get much cheaper? No - of course not - they're already absurdly cheap although I'd prefer to buy a pair and pay more if they'd last longer than the laces but that's another topic. Big ticket items would be considerably cheaper.
Of course it would severely impact the accounting industry - no scrambled eggs without some shells. It would also affect the legal profession, but I'll bet not many on Slashdot would shed a tear there.
Because the respective prices those corporations would charge to maintain the same profit margin would go up, multiplied countless times as their products get used and reused in creating final end consumer products. Consumers would end up paying much more in cost of goods than they would if the personal tax rates were just adjusted up and the illusion of corporate taxes and outright giveaways in terms of tax credits were simply eliminated.
How many jobs would be returned to the US if we made the US a corporate tax haven and instituted some sane liability laws?
Why do you think the boost front end module and css and js aggregation options are so popular? They may not help with registered user content, but really help with anonymous users.
I would agree that the skill sets might be somewhat unique. I'm also skeptical that those skill sets that are now occupying the office are truly effective though. You can be liked and elected and still not fulfill the duties of your office very well.
I would also suggest that if all of the new members of Congress were randomly selected from their respective states, and the staff was rotated out along with them, the resulting skill set differential wouldn't be appreciably worse than it is now. Everyone would be mostly even in their confusion.
You could still have an election of who you thought was best from say 3 random candidates. Some states in each election might get a competitive advantage for that term and some might be at a disadvantage, but it would even itself out over time.
If they did away with the tax code as their first act and replaced it with an equivalent to the head tax (prorated for under 18 or over 65) and other constitutionally valid income sources before they got creative it would do a lot to force a clean up of the bloat the federal government has become, Corporations don't pay taxes anyway.
They could fund everything we now have if they could stomach it. If they go in the red a particular year, raise everybody's head tax next year to cover the past year's overage and the current budget - don't let deficit spending continue. Increase the head tax as needed till the debt is reduced to sane levels.
For good measure, collect it in one chunk from each family once per year on October 15th instead of spreading the pain out. That would also focus the newly elected member's attention to getting the federal beast back to what is actually essential for the country as opposed to what is nice for the vast majority who have no federal tax burden now. Paying in April would give the pain to much time to subside before the next elections.
Extend that to the states as well. Put a head tax on every resident and do away with corporate taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, license and registration fees and all the other mind numbing garbage. Pay it a different quarter. Pay the county head tax another quarter and the city head tax another quarter (if you don't live in the rural country anyway). For people who move, or have homes in two or more places, prorate it based on the time they spend in each.
In reality the huge government that exists makes it hard for anyone in Congress to really do a good job. Vast amounts of the laws passed deal with taxation and loopholes. This proposal gets rid of one huge block of legislation and would do a lot to make the skill set differential less of an issue. Reduce the law burden on the American people and get us back to the place where people aren't guilty of something just because they haven't read x million pages of legalese.
Look for members of congress that are roundly hated by both parties. That is by no means a guarantee that they are voting in a principled way that reflects what their actual constituents want, but it's a good sign. Ron Paul would be a good example. There aren't many others.
My objection to CFLs is that they grow dark over their lifespan. They don't usually completely die early (although that has happened to me as well) but their light output decreases to the point you can't read with them. The old fluorescent tubes in ceiling fixtures were long enough that you didn't notice them aging as much, but the CFLs have a real problem with this. Savings and ROI aren't material if they don't stay functional over the advertised life span.
I've sworn off CFLs for good. I'll be happy to try LEDs when they get them down to a reasonable price range for the fixtures I have, but until then I'll stay with incandescent lights (and if LEDs don't pick up the pace soon I'll be laying in a big supply).
The power grid in the contiguous U.S. is divided up into three sections - East, West, and Texas. While they are interconnected, there are limits on the amount of power they can transfer between each other.
Transmitting energy over long distances has cost due to resistive losses in the lines. A quote on answers.com indicates that in 1980, you could cost effectively transmit power over 4,300 miles. While you might stretch between the coasts with that, you won't stretch from LA where everybody seems to be on the road to NYC where many people commute.
Depending on what is being charged and any additional efficiencies since 1980, it might be doable today. Obviously, if you can sell the electricity closer to where it is produced, you can sell it more profitably, and since electric power plants are generally run by corporations.....
I would ask that you pray to God about where He wants you to go to church. He'll make it clear to you.
Most Catholic or Protestant Christian denominations share many common characteristics and have only a few differences from one another. There are also many non-denominational Christian churches that are excellent. The beliefs they share in common are by far larger in number than the doctrinal differences between them.
Most differences you will see are in worship service formats and what happens during worship. In very general terms, the closer you are to the Catholic church (Anglican / Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian), the more traditional the service format and the less dynamic the service but there are always exceptions depending on the pastor. Methodist, Baptist and Pentecostal churches tend to have freer worship formats and are a bit more spirited. But God knows which of the various churches in your vicinity you would be best served by attending. Perhaps one of the stuffiest looking churches happens to have a really good Bible teacher which is what you need. Perhaps a small run down Pentecostal church has someone who will be an excellent friend. Listening for His will is always the best plan.
You'll also find people who you enjoy the company of and those you don't in any significantly large body of people. If God tells you to go to a particular church, then go there, even if there happen to be a couple of people who rub you the wrong way. He knows best and has a long term outlook for you.
If you don't think you're getting a clear direction, then pick a place you feel comfortable and begin studying the Bible yourself. Get involved in the church's Sunday School program or possibly in a small group. If you want to learn about the Bible, that's the place to be. If you don't understand something in the Bible ask someone there. Both Sunday School and Small Groups are good places to learn and ask questions in non-threatening environments. If it looks like the church you pick isn't following what you read in the Bible's New Testament, ask why not (and perhaps seek a different church).
Finally, to help in Bible study, I recommend purchasing a good study Bible. There are many out there, but I happen to like Dake's, and his companion book God's Plan for Man. I also recommend picking a daily use Bible version that is easy for you to read. Many recommend the NIV, but I generally recommend NKJV (since I grew up on KJV). The first step to understanding the Bible is just sitting down and reading it a few times. Easier translations that make it easier to read are a win in this regard. I'd even recommend a really easy to read translation like the Living Bible or the like to start with as a companion to a study Bible. Then, if you find you aren't understanding something in your daily reading or something pricks your interest, you can dig into the study Bible for more information.
I'd like to add a couple more clarifying comments to this post. It seemed the best spot to cover several previous comments.
Read the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This is not a parable. Christ was speaking of a particular rich man and beggar who were known in the community. One traditions holds that the name of the rich man was Dives. The Hebrew sheol was divided into two compartments - one of torment for the wicked dead and one of paradise for the righteous dead. Before Christ's death on the cross, the souls of all who died ended up in one of those two places. Their bodies decayed. The two compartments were close enough physically to allow communication between them, but you could not pass from one to another.
When Christ died, his body was taken to the tomb and his soul went to the paradise compartment of sheol (as did the repentant sinner crucified beside him). While his soul didn't go to the torment side of sheol, he did go near it as they are physically close.
At the time of his resurrection, he took all the souls in the paradise compartment with him to heaven. That's what the "Eph. 4:8-10 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)" is talking about.
From the point of Christ's victory over Satan on, the souls of those who die go to either hell or heaven. At the rapture, the bodies of all the righteous dead will be glorified and reunited with their soul. The wicked dead remain in hell till the great white throne judgment where those in the torment side of sheol are judged and delivered to the lake of fire as a permanent disposition.
Tartarus, itself is reserved specifically for angels who sinned with man. Read Jude and the history of Noah's time for more information.
14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
It isn't just the mark. It is the worship of the beast as opposed to God that is the primary offense, and I think that the general assumption is that getting the mark will require worship of the beast at least at the time of receiving the mark - hence don't get the mark if you want to avoid hell. The choice will be execution (for failure to worship the beast) or receiving the mark and worshiping the beast. The angels are sent throughout the earth speaking from the sky in each person's native language warning about what is to come and the consequences. The choice will be clear.
Remember that Salvation is not a once and forever thing. You have to choose to keep doing right and stop doing what the Bible or the Holy Spirit tells you is wrong. Worshiping Satan would be a fail, regardless of whether it is done today or at the time of the mark of the beast. God's grace is big. I'm not sure how big His net of mercy is with us today when we have accepted Christ as Savior and still go on failing Him. I believe it extends to some point. But He sends His angels out to specifically say He has had enough and this limit will not be covered by His grace if passed.
Those who have accepted Christ as Savior and repented of sin will be caught up with Jesus in the sky long before this point in time, so there is no risk of their salvation being "undone" by it.
Well, we hope there will be enough of a mess someone will notice the time has come, but I keep remembering the scripture "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.", so I wouldn't guarantee it.
Read some of the "Left Behind" series for one view of the tribulation period. Several other authors view the same period through the eyes of the military and other groups whose numbers are depleted while opposing forces with fewer Christians remain largely intact. It leads to interesting speculation about the new balance of world power with some countries and populations largely unaffected and other countries perhaps decimated.
As far as the number of accidents and resulting mess, it will really depend on the time of day when the "rapture" occurs.
The 144,000 sealed Jews are caught up to be with God, but this is not the "rapture" as popularly known. That word isn't in the Bible. The return of Christ in the air for His church occurs between Rev. 3 and 4 at the end of the church age and is for anyone who has accepted Christ as Savior and repented of sin. Ethnicity doesn't matter for that "rapture". Details of the event are described elsewhere in the Bible.
The Holy Spirit will continue to work to bring people to a right relationship with God during the entire seven year period following the catching away of the Church, just as He is doing today. In addition, God will send angels to announce truth through the heavens during a portion of this period to all who will listen so none will have any confusion about the choices they are making. Revelation records there will be many who accept Christ during this period, but most will be killed by the anti-Christ's forces for their decision.
It isn't too late for you if you miss the rapture. But realistically, if you have turned your back on Jesus Christ now, when it is easy to choose Him, you are unlikely to choose Him when things get tough, even when you see the book of Revelation playing out before you. I suspect the "Left Behind" series authors have a good grasp of just how big a mess the world is going to be in after the church is removed, especially if the event occurs during the day on a part of the world with a higher percentage of Christians.
The mark of the beast question is a black and white choice some (or all depending on whether you view the anti-Christ's kingdom as extending over the entire world or just a portion of the old Roman empire) must make that will lead to hell if taken. It has historically been thought of as a physical mark like a tattoo or something, but as technology has advanced, I suspect it will be more like an RfID tag that is tied to your credit card and that cash as we know it today will not be available. Thus, except for barter, you will not be able to do business without the identifying tag.
Corporations have annual meetings. Each company has a process by which you can get a shareholder proposal presented at the meeting. Sometimes there are thresholds for how many shares you have to own, but these are usually very low. There is also usually a requirement to actually show up at the meeting to present the proposal, which entails additional cost.
Granted, in most cases there aren't enough votes to get a stockholder proposal passed, but sometimes it happens. Regardless, there is a mechanism in place for large companies to listen. You will actually have to be a stockholder rather than owning some tiny fraction of a mutual fund, but it can be done. Every stockholders vote counts the same. If you think you have a legitimate beef, write a well written proposal as free of hyperbole as you can and present it. You might be surprised. The results are binding on the corporation, whether they like the outcome or not.
And yes, I know that most mutual funds vote with management and there are a vast number of stockholders that just vote with management as well. But there are a few of us who actually take the time to look at the proposals, read about the directors who are up for election and try to only vote for people who might be an asset rather than are holding a honorary position or have ossified in their position and need removed from office and go play with their grandchildren. There is an increasing movement to try to reign in corporate handouts to management as well in terms of stock options and golden parachute packages, but those move slowly. If you fail one year, try to listen to the comments at the meeting and do better next year. Remember that you will get much further with actual evidence of problems rather than generalizations.
For some parts of the country, that is a valid option. Switching to electric vehicles will reduce our dependence on oil as the battery technology slowly evolves.
But for large swaths of the country, oil is required for transportation and will be for the foreseeable future. Jets are not going to fly on electricity any time soon. Most long haul trains won't either although short haul might be a different story. 18-wheelers won't convert in any short time frame - the weight/power/speed ratio just isn't there. Much of the Midwest and West will only change when battery technology gets drastically better. The distances between towns is large and the population density in most towns makes transit systems impractical. Temperature drops in winter also cause problems.
They just added a wind farm outside of our town, but the biggest technical problem that wind faces is moving the power from its point of generation to where it is needed. Nobody wants lots of transmission lines in their back yard either. As more and more cars are converted to electricity, the distribution and generation of power are going to lead to some really tough choices that nobody has really even begun to think about yet - including you. You're trading a clean city for a dirty power plant. Solar panel production and disposal when they break also has some environmental concerns. TANSTASFL.
I used to think the same way. But I also think the shift to electric vehicles is going to accelerate in many regions of the country where they're practical. That will reduce consumption drastically over the next couple of decades. So if it's a choice of enriching the middle east or western companies during the changeover, I vote for us.
But I also remember the gas lines during the last embargo. They weren't fun.
Not at all. They're saying these toys are costing a bunch of money every day setting on the shelf when they could be drilling producing wells in my field over here, so let's go. Home moves and drilling holes to completion takes a finite amount of time.
There is money to be made in the gulf, but it isn't the only place to play. There is money to be made all over. I agree they'll definitely return assuming the political climate doesn't disintegrate. At this point that is an open question that nobody knows the answer to because nobody can make an accurate guess as to when the rupture will be completely sealed and what the total damage will be.
I think most of the drillers understand best practices. BP appears to have cut corners and they won't be the last to do so, regardless of the rules in place. Rules are fine. Oversight gets iffy with the small number of qualified people that the government is likely to employ. I don't really think additional delay will make things magically fail safe.
Actually, the quality of the oil does vary from place to place and thus there is a refining cost differential to turn it into useful stuff. Transportation costs also have a bit of relevance from wellhead to refinery. Other than that, yes, oil is a commodity.
Imports dropped quite a bit last year due to the recession, but are way above the production capacity of 33 wells. But I think the reserves in the Deepwater Horizion field are estimated at over 2 billion barrels, so it isn't a resource that can be ignored either. Who knows what other fields are out there which won't be explored now or won't be explored as effectively due to the political climate. As vehicles move further and further to electric power, the usage equation will change and imports vs. local production dynamics will shift. This won't happen in the near future, but will become relevant at some point.
This concern isn't about producing wells. It is about drilling rigs.
It was recently reported in various news channels that Anadarko was trying to break a contract with a drilling operator in the gulf because Anadarko couldn't use their contracted drilling equipment due to the moratorium. The owner of the equipment replied they could use it elsewhere. The drilling costs IIRC were on the order of $400,000/day. Other deep water drilling day rates I've seen go up to $800,000/day.
If the moratorium continues, the drilling rigs will move where they can be utilized, and they'll stay there while there is work. Most won't just sit around and wait the moratorium out and hope it isn't extended. There are limited numbers of deep water drilling rigs, they take time to build, and nobody wants to build replacement rigs to meet a spot shortage because they've all moved to other areas due to this. So there could be a longer term impact even if the moratorium does end in 6 months.
Likewise, the exploration companies are going to pick places to explore for oil based on the likelihood of being able to produce from them, and the moratorium also puts that at risk. There are many variables in that equation that are continually reviewed, but politics in all its forms factors in heavily.
Take a nominal production rate from the Deepwater Horizon experience (as it'll be replaced ASAP), multiply it by 365 and then by 33+. That's a lot of barrels of oil and cubic feet of gas produced locally each year that we don't have to depend on less stable countries for. Regardless of your opinions on alternative forms of energy for cars, we're going to be dependent on oil for many years to come. Why shut off a good source?
Everybody learned something from this disaster, including the major oil companies. Nobody wants to repeat it, although at some point one probably will. If the government doesn't like the consequences, maybe they should open up more shallow water tracts in other areas of the country where problems can be fixed more easily when things go wrong.
And the politicians we elect are better qualified?
There were many reasons why a true democracy was considered ill advised in post Revolutionary war times and still wouldn't work today. The qualifications of the average person making up the government isn't one of them.
I seriously doubt that we would be significantly worse off if all our Representatives and Senators were randomly selected from the population of eligible residents each year and forced to work without the help of any previous office holder. The bills produced might not be as elegant and may have a few more problems in their wording than they do now, but I'll bet there would be fewer of them and the intent of the people would come through a lot clearer than the bills crafted by the "qualified" folk. Although the entitlements would be just as difficult for them to manage in budgeting as they are for the experts today, there'd probably be a lot less pork from special interest groups and the entitlements probably wouldn't have gotten to be as big a problem as they are today if that approach was in place.
Slashdot Mirror
He certainly could have made a universe that appeared old in a recent time frame. However, I think if you study the Bible closely, He would not have done so. Such an act would seem to go against His nature.
He isn't out to deceive His creation into thinking something that isn't true. He has created the universe as it is and laid out a path of how to restore a relationship with Him in the Bible. The age of the universe, as the scientific community understands it, is not contradicted by the very limited amount of space the Bible gives the subject.
Restoring a proper relationship to Him is the part that people need to worry about. In the very long run, that's all that matters. Getting hung up on the proper interpretation of a few chapters and scattered verses and then condemning the rest because a light reading of that small subset doesn't match what the current scientific community says is a mistake.
If you search the USPTO, you'll probably find somebody patented 'a lot'.
If there were only one vendor for each item that would be true. However when you have multiple competing vendors trying to get business and everybody sees the same relative drop in expenses, there is likely to be a passing on of some of the savings in each cycle of the food chain unless there is collusion between the vendors (as is sometimes the case). There is almost always somebody who wants the business and is willing to give up some of their now slightly larger profit to get it. This repeats until a new equilibrium is reached at a probably lower level.
I used shoes in a different comment. I just bought some shoes at WalMart for $18. Several years ago, they would have been $60 or so. Why the drop? Lower manufacturing costs and lower material prices offset the increased cost of transporting the product from overseas. Why didn't the price stay at $60 to use your argument and the companies pocket the difference? Because various manufacturers wanted the business of WalMart and were willing to drop their wholesale cost closer to their cost of production. Dropping taxes lowers the cost of production just like lowering labor costs. No effect like that is immediate, but over time it does happen.
Labor is only one factor in the cost of goods.
To give an example of how seemingly small costs influence business, there's also the cost of transportation of those goods to market and transportation of raw materials to build those goods. Granted, in an era of cheaper transportation costs, you won't see much of an impact there, but there are actually some companies that have pulled manufacturing back to the US simply due to the cost of transporting the product to the customer as fuel costs rose last summer. Don't discount even what you consider marginal costs like taxes in business decisions. You'd certainly think fuel would be a marginal cost as well, yet it made a difference to some manufacturers. Include sane product liability caps for locally designed and manufactured products and there would be more companies making the choice to move manufacturing back to the US. Would we get all the manufacturing back? Unlikely. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
As a counterpoint to your Verizon bill which is, after all a service, look at a complex piece of equipment like the new Boeing plane or military equipment or cars or space shuttles. Do you honestly think that if all the tax cost were pulled out of the raw price for each component and thus not factored into every single supplier's markup before sell to the next company up in the chain that you wouldn't see the cost of the finished product drop? Will shoes get much cheaper? No - of course not - they're already absurdly cheap although I'd prefer to buy a pair and pay more if they'd last longer than the laces but that's another topic. Big ticket items would be considerably cheaper.
Of course it would severely impact the accounting industry - no scrambled eggs without some shells. It would also affect the legal profession, but I'll bet not many on Slashdot would shed a tear there.
Because the respective prices those corporations would charge to maintain the same profit margin would go up, multiplied countless times as their products get used and reused in creating final end consumer products. Consumers would end up paying much more in cost of goods than they would if the personal tax rates were just adjusted up and the illusion of corporate taxes and outright giveaways in terms of tax credits were simply eliminated.
How many jobs would be returned to the US if we made the US a corporate tax haven and instituted some sane liability laws?
Why do you think the boost front end module and css and js aggregation options are so popular? They may not help with registered user content, but really help with anonymous users.
You should have used the word lose instead of loose.
I would agree that the skill sets might be somewhat unique. I'm also skeptical that those skill sets that are now occupying the office are truly effective though. You can be liked and elected and still not fulfill the duties of your office very well.
I would also suggest that if all of the new members of Congress were randomly selected from their respective states, and the staff was rotated out along with them, the resulting skill set differential wouldn't be appreciably worse than it is now. Everyone would be mostly even in their confusion.
You could still have an election of who you thought was best from say 3 random candidates. Some states in each election might get a competitive advantage for that term and some might be at a disadvantage, but it would even itself out over time.
If they did away with the tax code as their first act and replaced it with an equivalent to the head tax (prorated for under 18 or over 65) and other constitutionally valid income sources before they got creative it would do a lot to force a clean up of the bloat the federal government has become, Corporations don't pay taxes anyway.
They could fund everything we now have if they could stomach it. If they go in the red a particular year, raise everybody's head tax next year to cover the past year's overage and the current budget - don't let deficit spending continue. Increase the head tax as needed till the debt is reduced to sane levels.
For good measure, collect it in one chunk from each family once per year on October 15th instead of spreading the pain out. That would also focus the newly elected member's attention to getting the federal beast back to what is actually essential for the country as opposed to what is nice for the vast majority who have no federal tax burden now. Paying in April would give the pain to much time to subside before the next elections.
Extend that to the states as well. Put a head tax on every resident and do away with corporate taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, license and registration fees and all the other mind numbing garbage. Pay it a different quarter. Pay the county head tax another quarter and the city head tax another quarter (if you don't live in the rural country anyway). For people who move, or have homes in two or more places, prorate it based on the time they spend in each.
In reality the huge government that exists makes it hard for anyone in Congress to really do a good job. Vast amounts of the laws passed deal with taxation and loopholes. This proposal gets rid of one huge block of legislation and would do a lot to make the skill set differential less of an issue. Reduce the law burden on the American people and get us back to the place where people aren't guilty of something just because they haven't read x million pages of legalese.
Look for members of congress that are roundly hated by both parties. That is by no means a guarantee that they are voting in a principled way that reflects what their actual constituents want, but it's a good sign. Ron Paul would be a good example. There aren't many others.
I don't have OCD. I have CDO. That's like OCD but the letters are in the right order.
My objection to CFLs is that they grow dark over their lifespan. They don't usually completely die early (although that has happened to me as well) but their light output decreases to the point you can't read with them. The old fluorescent tubes in ceiling fixtures were long enough that you didn't notice them aging as much, but the CFLs have a real problem with this. Savings and ROI aren't material if they don't stay functional over the advertised life span.
I've sworn off CFLs for good. I'll be happy to try LEDs when they get them down to a reasonable price range for the fixtures I have, but until then I'll stay with incandescent lights (and if LEDs don't pick up the pace soon I'll be laying in a big supply).
The power grid in the contiguous U.S. is divided up into three sections - East, West, and Texas. While they are interconnected, there are limits on the amount of power they can transfer between each other.
Transmitting energy over long distances has cost due to resistive losses in the lines. A quote on answers.com indicates that in 1980, you could cost effectively transmit power over 4,300 miles. While you might stretch between the coasts with that, you won't stretch from LA where everybody seems to be on the road to NYC where many people commute.
Depending on what is being charged and any additional efficiencies since 1980, it might be doable today. Obviously, if you can sell the electricity closer to where it is produced, you can sell it more profitably, and since electric power plants are generally run by corporations.....
I would ask that you pray to God about where He wants you to go to church. He'll make it clear to you.
Most Catholic or Protestant Christian denominations share many common characteristics and have only a few differences from one another. There are also many non-denominational Christian churches that are excellent. The beliefs they share in common are by far larger in number than the doctrinal differences between them.
Most differences you will see are in worship service formats and what happens during worship. In very general terms, the closer you are to the Catholic church (Anglican / Episcopalian, Lutheran, Presbyterian), the more traditional the service format and the less dynamic the service but there are always exceptions depending on the pastor. Methodist, Baptist and Pentecostal churches tend to have freer worship formats and are a bit more spirited. But God knows which of the various churches in your vicinity you would be best served by attending. Perhaps one of the stuffiest looking churches happens to have a really good Bible teacher which is what you need. Perhaps a small run down Pentecostal church has someone who will be an excellent friend. Listening for His will is always the best plan.
You'll also find people who you enjoy the company of and those you don't in any significantly large body of people. If God tells you to go to a particular church, then go there, even if there happen to be a couple of people who rub you the wrong way. He knows best and has a long term outlook for you.
If you don't think you're getting a clear direction, then pick a place you feel comfortable and begin studying the Bible yourself. Get involved in the church's Sunday School program or possibly in a small group. If you want to learn about the Bible, that's the place to be. If you don't understand something in the Bible ask someone there. Both Sunday School and Small Groups are good places to learn and ask questions in non-threatening environments. If it looks like the church you pick isn't following what you read in the Bible's New Testament, ask why not (and perhaps seek a different church).
Finally, to help in Bible study, I recommend purchasing a good study Bible. There are many out there, but I happen to like Dake's, and his companion book God's Plan for Man. I also recommend picking a daily use Bible version that is easy for you to read. Many recommend the NIV, but I generally recommend NKJV (since I grew up on KJV). The first step to understanding the Bible is just sitting down and reading it a few times. Easier translations that make it easier to read are a win in this regard. I'd even recommend a really easy to read translation like the Living Bible or the like to start with as a companion to a study Bible. Then, if you find you aren't understanding something in your daily reading or something pricks your interest, you can dig into the study Bible for more information.
Best wishes!
I'd like to add a couple more clarifying comments to this post. It seemed the best spot to cover several previous comments.
Read the story of the rich man and Lazarus. This is not a parable. Christ was speaking of a particular rich man and beggar who were known in the community. One traditions holds that the name of the rich man was Dives. The Hebrew sheol was divided into two compartments - one of torment for the wicked dead and one of paradise for the righteous dead. Before Christ's death on the cross, the souls of all who died ended up in one of those two places. Their bodies decayed. The two compartments were close enough physically to allow communication between them, but you could not pass from one to another.
When Christ died, his body was taken to the tomb and his soul went to the paradise compartment of sheol (as did the repentant sinner crucified beside him). While his soul didn't go to the torment side of sheol, he did go near it as they are physically close.
At the time of his resurrection, he took all the souls in the paradise compartment with him to heaven. That's what the "Eph. 4:8-10 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)" is talking about.
From the point of Christ's victory over Satan on, the souls of those who die go to either hell or heaven. At the rapture, the bodies of all the righteous dead will be glorified and reunited with their soul. The wicked dead remain in hell till the great white throne judgment where those in the torment side of sheol are judged and delivered to the lake of fire as a permanent disposition.
Tartarus, itself is reserved specifically for angels who sinned with man. Read Jude and the history of Noah's time for more information.
I'll save the AC the trouble...
14:9-11 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.
It isn't just the mark. It is the worship of the beast as opposed to God that is the primary offense, and I think that the general assumption is that getting the mark will require worship of the beast at least at the time of receiving the mark - hence don't get the mark if you want to avoid hell. The choice will be execution (for failure to worship the beast) or receiving the mark and worshiping the beast. The angels are sent throughout the earth speaking from the sky in each person's native language warning about what is to come and the consequences. The choice will be clear.
Remember that Salvation is not a once and forever thing. You have to choose to keep doing right and stop doing what the Bible or the Holy Spirit tells you is wrong. Worshiping Satan would be a fail, regardless of whether it is done today or at the time of the mark of the beast. God's grace is big. I'm not sure how big His net of mercy is with us today when we have accepted Christ as Savior and still go on failing Him. I believe it extends to some point. But He sends His angels out to specifically say He has had enough and this limit will not be covered by His grace if passed.
Those who have accepted Christ as Savior and repented of sin will be caught up with Jesus in the sky long before this point in time, so there is no risk of their salvation being "undone" by it.
Well, we hope there will be enough of a mess someone will notice the time has come, but I keep remembering the scripture "Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.", so I wouldn't guarantee it.
Read some of the "Left Behind" series for one view of the tribulation period. Several other authors view the same period through the eyes of the military and other groups whose numbers are depleted while opposing forces with fewer Christians remain largely intact. It leads to interesting speculation about the new balance of world power with some countries and populations largely unaffected and other countries perhaps decimated.
As far as the number of accidents and resulting mess, it will really depend on the time of day when the "rapture" occurs.
The 144,000 sealed Jews are caught up to be with God, but this is not the "rapture" as popularly known. That word isn't in the Bible. The return of Christ in the air for His church occurs between Rev. 3 and 4 at the end of the church age and is for anyone who has accepted Christ as Savior and repented of sin. Ethnicity doesn't matter for that "rapture". Details of the event are described elsewhere in the Bible.
The Holy Spirit will continue to work to bring people to a right relationship with God during the entire seven year period following the catching away of the Church, just as He is doing today. In addition, God will send angels to announce truth through the heavens during a portion of this period to all who will listen so none will have any confusion about the choices they are making. Revelation records there will be many who accept Christ during this period, but most will be killed by the anti-Christ's forces for their decision.
It isn't too late for you if you miss the rapture. But realistically, if you have turned your back on Jesus Christ now, when it is easy to choose Him, you are unlikely to choose Him when things get tough, even when you see the book of Revelation playing out before you. I suspect the "Left Behind" series authors have a good grasp of just how big a mess the world is going to be in after the church is removed, especially if the event occurs during the day on a part of the world with a higher percentage of Christians.
The mark of the beast question is a black and white choice some (or all depending on whether you view the anti-Christ's kingdom as extending over the entire world or just a portion of the old Roman empire) must make that will lead to hell if taken. It has historically been thought of as a physical mark like a tattoo or something, but as technology has advanced, I suspect it will be more like an RfID tag that is tied to your credit card and that cash as we know it today will not be available. Thus, except for barter, you will not be able to do business without the identifying tag.
Corporations have annual meetings. Each company has a process by which you can get a shareholder proposal presented at the meeting. Sometimes there are thresholds for how many shares you have to own, but these are usually very low. There is also usually a requirement to actually show up at the meeting to present the proposal, which entails additional cost.
Granted, in most cases there aren't enough votes to get a stockholder proposal passed, but sometimes it happens. Regardless, there is a mechanism in place for large companies to listen. You will actually have to be a stockholder rather than owning some tiny fraction of a mutual fund, but it can be done. Every stockholders vote counts the same. If you think you have a legitimate beef, write a well written proposal as free of hyperbole as you can and present it. You might be surprised. The results are binding on the corporation, whether they like the outcome or not.
And yes, I know that most mutual funds vote with management and there are a vast number of stockholders that just vote with management as well. But there are a few of us who actually take the time to look at the proposals, read about the directors who are up for election and try to only vote for people who might be an asset rather than are holding a honorary position or have ossified in their position and need removed from office and go play with their grandchildren. There is an increasing movement to try to reign in corporate handouts to management as well in terms of stock options and golden parachute packages, but those move slowly. If you fail one year, try to listen to the comments at the meeting and do better next year. Remember that you will get much further with actual evidence of problems rather than generalizations.
For some parts of the country, that is a valid option. Switching to electric vehicles will reduce our dependence on oil as the battery technology slowly evolves.
But for large swaths of the country, oil is required for transportation and will be for the foreseeable future. Jets are not going to fly on electricity any time soon. Most long haul trains won't either although short haul might be a different story. 18-wheelers won't convert in any short time frame - the weight/power/speed ratio just isn't there. Much of the Midwest and West will only change when battery technology gets drastically better. The distances between towns is large and the population density in most towns makes transit systems impractical. Temperature drops in winter also cause problems.
They just added a wind farm outside of our town, but the biggest technical problem that wind faces is moving the power from its point of generation to where it is needed. Nobody wants lots of transmission lines in their back yard either. As more and more cars are converted to electricity, the distribution and generation of power are going to lead to some really tough choices that nobody has really even begun to think about yet - including you. You're trading a clean city for a dirty power plant. Solar panel production and disposal when they break also has some environmental concerns. TANSTASFL.
I used to think the same way. But I also think the shift to electric vehicles is going to accelerate in many regions of the country where they're practical. That will reduce consumption drastically over the next couple of decades. So if it's a choice of enriching the middle east or western companies during the changeover, I vote for us.
But I also remember the gas lines during the last embargo. They weren't fun.
Not at all. They're saying these toys are costing a bunch of money every day setting on the shelf when they could be drilling producing wells in my field over here, so let's go. Home moves and drilling holes to completion takes a finite amount of time.
There is money to be made in the gulf, but it isn't the only place to play. There is money to be made all over. I agree they'll definitely return assuming the political climate doesn't disintegrate. At this point that is an open question that nobody knows the answer to because nobody can make an accurate guess as to when the rupture will be completely sealed and what the total damage will be.
I think most of the drillers understand best practices. BP appears to have cut corners and they won't be the last to do so, regardless of the rules in place. Rules are fine. Oversight gets iffy with the small number of qualified people that the government is likely to employ. I don't really think additional delay will make things magically fail safe.
Actually, the quality of the oil does vary from place to place and thus there is a refining cost differential to turn it into useful stuff. Transportation costs also have a bit of relevance from wellhead to refinery. Other than that, yes, oil is a commodity.
Imports dropped quite a bit last year due to the recession, but are way above the production capacity of 33 wells. But I think the reserves in the Deepwater Horizion field are estimated at over 2 billion barrels, so it isn't a resource that can be ignored either. Who knows what other fields are out there which won't be explored now or won't be explored as effectively due to the political climate. As vehicles move further and further to electric power, the usage equation will change and imports vs. local production dynamics will shift. This won't happen in the near future, but will become relevant at some point.
This concern isn't about producing wells. It is about drilling rigs.
It was recently reported in various news channels that Anadarko was trying to break a contract with a drilling operator in the gulf because Anadarko couldn't use their contracted drilling equipment due to the moratorium. The owner of the equipment replied they could use it elsewhere. The drilling costs IIRC were on the order of $400,000/day. Other deep water drilling day rates I've seen go up to $800,000/day.
If the moratorium continues, the drilling rigs will move where they can be utilized, and they'll stay there while there is work. Most won't just sit around and wait the moratorium out and hope it isn't extended. There are limited numbers of deep water drilling rigs, they take time to build, and nobody wants to build replacement rigs to meet a spot shortage because they've all moved to other areas due to this. So there could be a longer term impact even if the moratorium does end in 6 months.
Likewise, the exploration companies are going to pick places to explore for oil based on the likelihood of being able to produce from them, and the moratorium also puts that at risk. There are many variables in that equation that are continually reviewed, but politics in all its forms factors in heavily.
Take a nominal production rate from the Deepwater Horizon experience (as it'll be replaced ASAP), multiply it by 365 and then by 33+. That's a lot of barrels of oil and cubic feet of gas produced locally each year that we don't have to depend on less stable countries for. Regardless of your opinions on alternative forms of energy for cars, we're going to be dependent on oil for many years to come. Why shut off a good source?
Everybody learned something from this disaster, including the major oil companies. Nobody wants to repeat it, although at some point one probably will. If the government doesn't like the consequences, maybe they should open up more shallow water tracts in other areas of the country where problems can be fixed more easily when things go wrong.
Still seems pretty dark out there to me.
And the politicians we elect are better qualified?
There were many reasons why a true democracy was considered ill advised in post Revolutionary war times and still wouldn't work today. The qualifications of the average person making up the government isn't one of them.
I seriously doubt that we would be significantly worse off if all our Representatives and Senators were randomly selected from the population of eligible residents each year and forced to work without the help of any previous office holder. The bills produced might not be as elegant and may have a few more problems in their wording than they do now, but I'll bet there would be fewer of them and the intent of the people would come through a lot clearer than the bills crafted by the "qualified" folk. Although the entitlements would be just as difficult for them to manage in budgeting as they are for the experts today, there'd probably be a lot less pork from special interest groups and the entitlements probably wouldn't have gotten to be as big a problem as they are today if that approach was in place.