Why? Its not enough to point at the debt and say "scary, disaster is coming".
If you don't think the debt is a problem, then why not just cancel all income tax and add 4 trillion per year of debt, it is only pretend money after all.
And yes, frankly it IS enough to point to it. If you don't understand how debt and interest work, combined with inflation, then you shouldn't be part of the conversation.
Sadly, millions and millions of people ARE a part of the conversation who have no bloody idea what they are talking about, which leads us to where we are today.
Listen, until you've TRIED it and thought about the potential, don't knock it. This isn't a fad anymore. People scoffed at the first mouse, too.
I have tried it... and it is nothing like the mouse...
VR might one day be a thing, but it won't be this day...
A number of years ago I was able to use a very nice VR setup that you could stand up in and walk around in. It wasn't wireless, you had to be tethered (both headset and gloves), and of course the graphics weren't as good as today, but it was motion controlled and you wore gloves that had very sensitive 3D position trackers.
I fully get the appeal, but we're still many, many years away from this being a thing. The current versions will be a fad, then it'll all come back again in 20 years to try again. It might actually be ready then, depending on the tastes of the time.
A trade up isn't going to be enough... If new games stop working on my existing PS4 half way through a generation, then this will be my last PlayStation...
Sony can do what they want, but I expect 10 years of use out of a console these days. The PS3 did that, it still serves us well upstairs, because there was never a PS 3.5.
If they want to come out with a PS5, that's fine, but this is much too early.
Clinton has pissed in too many cereal bowls, made too many backroom deals. She's damaged goods...
Frankly, the R controlled Congress could work with Sanders better than it could Clinton, he at least is honest about his viewpoints and isn't bought and paid for.
While I disagree with many things Sanders says, I do respect him. Clinton? Nope, she's dog meat as far as I'm concerned, nothing she says means anything because she just lies, lies, and lies.
If she is on the Ticket, then it doesn't matter who the other name is, the ballot might as well say:
[ ] Clinton [ ] Not-Clinton
If it ended up being Sanders vs. Trump, I'd actually have to give that some thought, because while he is a socialist, Trump is a bit nuts.
Reality is somewhere in between the two of them. Shame we can't toss them in a blender and take the best parts out and throw away the trash of both sides.
That is just political posturing. If Obama actually nominated someone with the viewpoints and stance of Scalia, the Senate would confirm him in 2 seconds.
I'm 12,000 miles away and I've recently heard republican senators say that they would not confirm anybody for SC justice that Obama picked, simply because Obama picked them. That is childish obstructionism and a clear dereliction of duty
Nonsense... The Senate doesn't have to confirm anyone they don't want to confirm...
The President nominates people, but the Senate either confirms or rejects them...
The Senate has unlimited power to reject any and all people nominated by the President, it forces the President to pick someone acceptable to many people, not just him.
The Republicans shut down the government rather than work with him, or did that little fact slip your memory?
When "working with him" means doing what he wants, what exactly would you expect?
Obama walked in and thought he could do what he wanted. Thus you've gotten 8 years of a bunch of nothing, other than the disaster that ACA has been, and even that was only passed due to a one day gap in the Senate and couldn't have been done any other day.
4-8 more years of obama-style presidency is by far the superior choice
You say that now, but in the long run you'd be sorry for that choice...
But that's ok, plenty of people like to vote against their own best interest...
The United States has no future under its current system, something has to give. That is why Trump is doing so well, a large number of people can tell that it is broken and change is needed.
Congress can't pass a budget that the President won't sign, so it goes both ways.
Our current President has been impossible to work with, so in return Congress has largely refused to work with him, that also goes both ways, but since he is one and they are many, he needed to show leadership.
Which he doesn't have.
Clinton? Congress won't work with her either, so more of the same.
There is a difference between investing all of your profit per car into increasing production capacity, and actually losing money on each car. Tesla's profit margin on the Model S is 25%. They invest all of this and more in building their production line for their lower cost Model 3, as well as in battery production. The losing money per car meme is GM and fossil fuel industry FUD.
No, it really isn't. You need to understand the difference between gross and net profit margin.
They spent $718 million on R&D, but you couldn't back all of that out, some R&D would be required to keep the Model S up to date with features, laws, etc.
Tesla's Model S currently boasts a gross profit margin of around 25%.
That is a quote from your link. Gross profit margin ONLY takes into account the cost of goods sold, the actual cost to build each Tesla Model S, not counting the overhead of the company itself existing. It doesn't count the front desk girl, the CEO's pay, the cost of the phone lines, etc. It is just the direct cost of putting the cars together.
The reason it is a useful number is that it means that if Tesla builds another 10,000 cars, they SHOULD be profitable per car, even if the company as a whole isn't.
Even if they weren't investing in anything else, the company would NOT be profitable. It just doesn't work that way.
Net Income after expenses for all of 2015 was ($888,663,000)
So Tesla lost nearly a billion dollars in 2015.
Even if you back out R&D costs, it is still a negative, and you couldn't back them all out, since even if they had no plans beyond the Model S, some money must continue to be spent each year keeping the car current and legal.
Unlike oil, we have enough coal for centuries. "Peak Coal" won't occur until long after the ecological costs have become devastating.
Yea, people say that, but I don't think it is as true as you suspect it is...
According to the 1970s, we were supposed to be running out of oil by now, except, we're not...
Coal is in a lot of places, but we burn a crap ton of it and it doesn't have the endless reserves many people think it does. Not the cheap kind anyway.
So, although you have the money and have been paid, the bank gets to hit you with fee's only because of the way they line up the batch processing. If they were to process deposits first (As many credit unions do) it cuts down the number of NSF fees they can collect by more than half.
No bank worth their salt does it that way anymore.
It might have been true years ago, but it isn't true today.
I bank with Bank of America. All their "big bank" issues aside, they don't do what you describe. They provide a "pending balance" for anything credited and only charge fees if you go over your balance at the end of the day and haven't made it up.
If by chance you DO have a bank doing that, then leave, that is stupid.
"Black people should clean up their own house," is racist.
I simply disagree.
You're treating a race as if it were some sort of cohesive group in itself, and attributing negative attributes to the race.
I don't see it that way. Instead the problem is that I see the leaders of the black community supporting and encouraging that behavior, and they are leaders because the people follow them.
So it IS a culture problem, among people who happen to be black.
It is not a problem of their race, there are exceptions to the rule (I provided one, Collin Powell), but they are exceptions.
Example: If white leaders people were supportive of what Timothy McVeigh did, then other people would right to blame white people for the violence. Instead, white leaders denounce the violence, denounce blaming others for such problems. Going further back, we denounce the use of slavery, it was wrong, we won't do it again.
If someone like Jesse Jackson were to stand up and say "my fellow African Americans, put down the guns, renounce violence, renounce blame of race, accept the apology for slavery, lets move forward together as once race, equal rights for all, no special treatment for anyone, all lives matter", I'd go march with him in a heartbeat.
As it stands, I don't respect him because he doesn't do that, instead he has used the race issue to divide Americans and further his own ambitions.
---
Side note: The Muslims have the same problem (and they aren't even a race). I don't see a whole lot of leaders within that community screaming from the mountain top "stop the violence, this is unacceptable, you will NOT get 72 virgins, you will go to hell for killing civilians, what you are doing is WRONG"
If both American Muslims and Middle Eastern nations would like to avoid WWIII, they need to start doing that, and loudly. The perception, right or wrong, is that secretly they DO want WWIII as the next holy war. What happened this week in Brussles is a good example of what should be followed by loud, continous, and harsh condemnations from Muslim leaders around the world, telling their followers that this is not acceptable and must stop, and to please report on your fellow Muslims who are thinking of doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Its not enough to point at the debt and say "scary, disaster is coming".
If you don't think the debt is a problem, then why not just cancel all income tax and add 4 trillion per year of debt, it is only pretend money after all.
And yes, frankly it IS enough to point to it. If you don't understand how debt and interest work, combined with inflation, then you shouldn't be part of the conversation.
Sadly, millions and millions of people ARE a part of the conversation who have no bloody idea what they are talking about, which leads us to where we are today.
They refuse to hold hearings. Isn't that the minimum due diligence?
So you'd be happier if they held a hearing and then said "pass"?
What's the difference?
The R team has clearly decided to wait until the election. The D team doesn't have to like it, but there isn't much they can do about it.
If YOU don't like it, vote D. :) If you do, vote R.
Listen, until you've TRIED it and thought about the potential, don't knock it. This isn't a fad anymore. People scoffed at the first mouse, too.
I have tried it... and it is nothing like the mouse...
VR might one day be a thing, but it won't be this day...
A number of years ago I was able to use a very nice VR setup that you could stand up in and walk around in. It wasn't wireless, you had to be tethered (both headset and gloves), and of course the graphics weren't as good as today, but it was motion controlled and you wore gloves that had very sensitive 3D position trackers.
I fully get the appeal, but we're still many, many years away from this being a thing. The current versions will be a fad, then it'll all come back again in 20 years to try again. It might actually be ready then, depending on the tastes of the time.
A trade up isn't going to be enough... If new games stop working on my existing PS4 half way through a generation, then this will be my last PlayStation...
Sony can do what they want, but I expect 10 years of use out of a console these days. The PS3 did that, it still serves us well upstairs, because there was never a PS 3.5.
If they want to come out with a PS5, that's fine, but this is much too early.
Either your graphics card is 5 years old, or you over-payed massively.
A GeForce GTX 980 TI can play Grand Theft Auto V at 4k at about 30 fps at 4k with all the detail turned up.
Even at medium detail, it struggles to hold an average of 60 fps with many dips down to ~40 fps.
And yes, that is a current $600+ video card.
Which is EXACTLY what he did.
Meh, almost kinda sorta... He was fine in the past for non-SCOTUS positions, but he is too liberal to replace Antonin Scalia.
It would shift the balance on the SCOTUS, which is already too far left.
At this point Obama could nominate Scalia's clone and the Senate STILL wouldn't confirm just because Obama nominated him.
Don't be silly, of course they would.
Clinton has pissed in too many cereal bowls, made too many backroom deals. She's damaged goods...
Frankly, the R controlled Congress could work with Sanders better than it could Clinton, he at least is honest about his viewpoints and isn't bought and paid for.
While I disagree with many things Sanders says, I do respect him. Clinton? Nope, she's dog meat as far as I'm concerned, nothing she says means anything because she just lies, lies, and lies.
If she is on the Ticket, then it doesn't matter who the other name is, the ballot might as well say:
[ ] Clinton
[ ] Not-Clinton
If it ended up being Sanders vs. Trump, I'd actually have to give that some thought, because while he is a socialist, Trump is a bit nuts.
Reality is somewhere in between the two of them. Shame we can't toss them in a blender and take the best parts out and throw away the trash of both sides.
That is just political posturing. If Obama actually nominated someone with the viewpoints and stance of Scalia, the Senate would confirm him in 2 seconds.
I'm 12,000 miles away and I've recently heard republican senators say that they would not confirm anybody for SC justice that Obama picked, simply because Obama picked them. That is childish obstructionism and a clear dereliction of duty
Nonsense... The Senate doesn't have to confirm anyone they don't want to confirm...
The President nominates people, but the Senate either confirms or rejects them...
The Senate has unlimited power to reject any and all people nominated by the President, it forces the President to pick someone acceptable to many people, not just him.
Maybe...
Frankly, the problem Apple has, at least to me, is that I can't imagine anything else I need or want in a phone.
The iPhone 6 Plus is fast, the screen is just the right size (no bigger please), the camera is really nice, it has enough memory and storage, etc.
What else do I need in a phone?
I plan to keep the 6 Plus for a long time.
You're very wrong. Look at the graph here, and you'll see current debt as % GDP is below the average for the past 50 years.
Learn the difference between debt and deficit and you won't make that mistake...
We're approaching 20 trillion in debt, that is going to kill us sooner or later...
The Republicans shut down the government rather than work with him, or did that little fact slip your memory?
When "working with him" means doing what he wants, what exactly would you expect?
Obama walked in and thought he could do what he wanted. Thus you've gotten 8 years of a bunch of nothing, other than the disaster that ACA has been, and even that was only passed due to a one day gap in the Senate and couldn't have been done any other day.
In contrast, Obama has:
decreased debt % of GDP (see CBO)
What crack are you smoking? Debt has passed 100% GDP and keeps going up as a % of GDP.
resolved ballooning hospital operating costs (see ACA)
Bwahhahha... Oh crap, you actually think that?
4-8 more years of obama-style presidency is by far the superior choice
You say that now, but in the long run you'd be sorry for that choice...
But that's ok, plenty of people like to vote against their own best interest...
The United States has no future under its current system, something has to give. That is why Trump is doing so well, a large number of people can tell that it is broken and change is needed.
Congress can't pass a budget that the President won't sign, so it goes both ways.
Our current President has been impossible to work with, so in return Congress has largely refused to work with him, that also goes both ways, but since he is one and they are many, he needed to show leadership.
Which he doesn't have.
Clinton? Congress won't work with her either, so more of the same.
There is a difference between investing all of your profit per car into increasing production capacity, and actually losing money on each car. Tesla's profit margin on the Model S is 25%. They invest all of this and more in building their production line for their lower cost Model 3, as well as in battery production. The losing money per car meme is GM and fossil fuel industry FUD.
No, it really isn't. You need to understand the difference between gross and net profit margin.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?...
Tesla lost $888 million dollars last year.
They spent $718 million on R&D, but you couldn't back all of that out, some R&D would be required to keep the Model S up to date with features, laws, etc.
Tesla's Model S currently boasts a gross profit margin of around 25%.
That is a quote from your link. Gross profit margin ONLY takes into account the cost of goods sold, the actual cost to build each Tesla Model S, not counting the overhead of the company itself existing. It doesn't count the front desk girl, the CEO's pay, the cost of the phone lines, etc. It is just the direct cost of putting the cars together.
The reason it is a useful number is that it means that if Tesla builds another 10,000 cars, they SHOULD be profitable per car, even if the company as a whole isn't.
Even if they weren't investing in anything else, the company would NOT be profitable. It just doesn't work that way.
Cost of Goods sold is not the only expense... You also have to subtract general operating expenses...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=T...
Tesla lost $6.93 dollars per share last quarter
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?...
Net Income after expenses for all of 2015 was ($888,663,000)
So Tesla lost nearly a billion dollars in 2015.
Even if you back out R&D costs, it is still a negative, and you couldn't back them all out, since even if they had no plans beyond the Model S, some money must continue to be spent each year keeping the car current and legal.
http://seekingalpha.com/articl...
They are losing about $15,000 on each car sold, give or take.
The Model S likely will never make money, it is the new Model 3 that is supposed to do that.
But the battery in the Model S costs more than the base price of the Model 3, and batteries haven't gotten THAT cheap yet.
Like I said, time will tell.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Unlike oil, we have enough coal for centuries. "Peak Coal" won't occur until long after the ecological costs have become devastating.
Yea, people say that, but I don't think it is as true as you suspect it is...
According to the 1970s, we were supposed to be running out of oil by now, except, we're not...
Coal is in a lot of places, but we burn a crap ton of it and it doesn't have the endless reserves many people think it does. Not the cheap kind anyway.
I think people are looking at Tesla and thinking that for the first time in decades a new manufacturer can be successful.
Maybe, but perhaps Tesla should consider being successful before everyone gets all excited.
Tesla has a small volume luxury product that still loses money, and there is no assurance it is anywhere near ready to go mainstream.
Time will tell, but it isn't successful yet.
So, although you have the money and have been paid, the bank gets to hit you with fee's only because of the way they line up the batch processing. If they were to process deposits first (As many credit unions do) it cuts down the number of NSF fees they can collect by more than half.
No bank worth their salt does it that way anymore.
It might have been true years ago, but it isn't true today.
I bank with Bank of America. All their "big bank" issues aside, they don't do what you describe. They provide a "pending balance" for anything credited and only charge fees if you go over your balance at the end of the day and haven't made it up.
If by chance you DO have a bank doing that, then leave, that is stupid.
Yeah, it's a lot of rigamarole
No, actually it all sounds quite reasonable.
There SHOULD be strong protections in place before you start driving around and tearing down homes.
A professional demo company shouldn't have any issues with what you posted.
"Black people should clean up their own house," is racist.
I simply disagree.
You're treating a race as if it were some sort of cohesive group in itself, and attributing negative attributes to the race.
I don't see it that way. Instead the problem is that I see the leaders of the black community supporting and encouraging that behavior, and they are leaders because the people follow them.
So it IS a culture problem, among people who happen to be black.
It is not a problem of their race, there are exceptions to the rule (I provided one, Collin Powell), but they are exceptions.
Example: If white leaders people were supportive of what Timothy McVeigh did, then other people would right to blame white people for the violence. Instead, white leaders denounce the violence, denounce blaming others for such problems. Going further back, we denounce the use of slavery, it was wrong, we won't do it again.
If someone like Jesse Jackson were to stand up and say "my fellow African Americans, put down the guns, renounce violence, renounce blame of race, accept the apology for slavery, lets move forward together as once race, equal rights for all, no special treatment for anyone, all lives matter", I'd go march with him in a heartbeat.
As it stands, I don't respect him because he doesn't do that, instead he has used the race issue to divide Americans and further his own ambitions.
---
Side note: The Muslims have the same problem (and they aren't even a race). I don't see a whole lot of leaders within that community screaming from the mountain top "stop the violence, this is unacceptable, you will NOT get 72 virgins, you will go to hell for killing civilians, what you are doing is WRONG"
If both American Muslims and Middle Eastern nations would like to avoid WWIII, they need to start doing that, and loudly. The perception, right or wrong, is that secretly they DO want WWIII as the next holy war. What happened this week in Brussles is a good example of what should be followed by loud, continous, and harsh condemnations from Muslim leaders around the world, telling their followers that this is not acceptable and must stop, and to please report on your fellow Muslims who are thinking of doing this.