It's always hard to know if money is well spent or not but a good question or two to ask is: What are the consequences of not spending it vs the consequences of spending it and not needing it
I don't think your very familiar with Iranian history, US history, what a theocracy is and isn't, and most assuredly not with Iranian intentions. You would not be saying these things if you were a women, a non-muslim, or have lived in any eastern muslim theocracy.
You mean they wouldn't be able to put a nuke in a shipping container? Or perhaps hand a few over to Hezbolla and or Hamas? There is more than one way to "touch" America and missiles would probably be the last method used.
Oh yes, it was the US that is escalating everything... The Norks shelling a South Korean island and sinking an SK Navy ship with a torpedo are not provocative in any way shape or form, but video of a weapon in testing and years away from actual deployment is. Wow
There are plenty of very smart liberals out there that strongly feel that government just doesn't take enough in taxes. Be it income, sales, or some other tax it's not enough in some way. For those folks, why not just calculate the increase you feel is better and personally pay the government the delta? There is no law against it and nothing to stop one from doing it. Don't feel 9.5% in sales tax? Think 11% is better? You have the tools to calculate the delta, pay a bit extra. Want the income tax to go through? Pay out the extra at the end of each year and feel better knowing you're making the government better. For the rest who don't feel that way, we'll keep it to the minimum. Everyone wins!
You got some of that right but you left out a couple of things....
> Under the government plan you can't CHOOSE to leave it no matter how shitty it gets. You get what you get. Under a private plan, if you are dissatisfied you can choose one of the other 1,300 insurance providers in the US.
> Under the government plan you will get all the great service you currently get under the DMV, IRS, Medicare/Medicade, Veterans Administration, DHS, Social Security, Dept of Education, Welfare, etc, oh and lets not forget how great they treat abused children at the various "human" services departments around the country. Those institutions are so well run, efficient, effective, inexpensive to the tax payer and always keep you as the most important thing you do! What? You think you'll get super service because it's healthcare related and "free"?
Actually it has more to do with surviving in a hostile environment. Malaria kills millions and especially children under 5. When children have such a high probability of passing in the first few years of life, you tend to have more children. How would you like to survive drought, famine, and disease in a grass hut infested with malaria carrying mosquitos and then raise a family and keep them your defenseless children alive longer than 5 years? When you don't have to fend off such crippling disease, starvation, etc you could probably find the time to work, educate yourself, and live in something better than a grass hut.
I don't think you have any comprehension on this. The toll from malaria on a society is HORRENDOUS
But there are no "modern" nuke reactors in the US. There haven't been any new ones since 3 Mile Island. All those "old" reactors that eco-freaks were worried about are the ones still going today (very safely). The Greenpeace crowd shot their own cause in the foot by going after an irrationaly emotional fear that wasn't supported by any data. As a result we've been through nearly 3 decades of nuclear energy stagnation. What would the % Energy Production by Source picture look like today if that wasn't the case? How many billions of tons LESS CO2 would we have been saved from today if we weren't cowed by their "nuclear technology is evil" propaganda?
Talk about evironmental disaster. I would bet that if they hadn't gone after nuclear power generation that they would have saved more CO2 production than ANY environmental compaign they have had since! If they hadn't deomonized the technology, nuclear energy could have been their crown jewel of envirnomental success in terms of CO2 production.
While they all had valid licenses, they all had expired visas which they used to get them. Withe RealID, they would not have been able to get those drivers licenses.
Knowing that you really are who you say you are isn't such a bad idea. Having that drivers license is an open door to getting access to all kinds of things and services, not just driving cars. Its a breeder document to getting a job, opening up a bank account, buying a house, etc.
What's so bad about making the standard uniform, rigerous, reliable, and easy to share? Why would it be a bad thing to prove that you are who you say you are? Why would it be a bad thing to make it easy to identify that you have an outstanding warrent, an expired visa, etc?
How does it make society safer for law abidding citizens if we keep the current loose and un-uniform standards of identification?
None of the terrorists would have been able to have gotten a Real ID with the expired Visa they all had. So no, none of the terrorists would have gotton a Real ID.
Putting all of that info together in shareable formate with uniform standards provides for the ability to indentify people with expired visas, are here illegally, have outstanding warrents, etc and prevent them from getting services they should not get or use.
I would argue that having an id that really does prove who you say you are IS a good thing.
For that price, you actually get two (2) G5s at 2.5 Ghz a piece. The Mac doesn't have a gigabit nic card because it is built in. I am sure that adding second Xeon 2.66, a motherboard that supports 2 Xeons, Firewire 400/800, optical audio, etc narrows the gap somewhat.
Slashdot Mirror
It's always hard to know if money is well spent or not but a good question or two to ask is: What are the consequences of not spending it vs the consequences of spending it and not needing it
I meant to say "women, or a non-muslim living in a any eastern muslim theocracy"
I don't think your very familiar with Iranian history, US history, what a theocracy is and isn't, and most assuredly not with Iranian intentions. You would not be saying these things if you were a women, a non-muslim, or have lived in any eastern muslim theocracy.
You mean they wouldn't be able to put a nuke in a shipping container? Or perhaps hand a few over to Hezbolla and or Hamas? There is more than one way to "touch" America and missiles would probably be the last method used.
yes, but the next one may not fizzle and they don't need an working ICBM... just a "cargo" ship and a skeleton crew
Oh yes, it was the US that is escalating everything... The Norks shelling a South Korean island and sinking an SK Navy ship with a torpedo are not provocative in any way shape or form, but video of a weapon in testing and years away from actual deployment is. Wow
There are plenty of very smart liberals out there that strongly feel that government just doesn't take enough in taxes. Be it income, sales, or some other tax it's not enough in some way. For those folks, why not just calculate the increase you feel is better and personally pay the government the delta? There is no law against it and nothing to stop one from doing it. Don't feel 9.5% in sales tax? Think 11% is better? You have the tools to calculate the delta, pay a bit extra. Want the income tax to go through? Pay out the extra at the end of each year and feel better knowing you're making the government better. For the rest who don't feel that way, we'll keep it to the minimum. Everyone wins!
You got some of that right but you left out a couple of things....
> Under the government plan you can't CHOOSE to leave it no matter how shitty it gets. You get what you get. Under a private plan, if you are dissatisfied you can choose one of the other 1,300 insurance providers in the US.
> Under the government plan you will get all the great service you currently get under the DMV, IRS, Medicare/Medicade, Veterans Administration, DHS, Social Security, Dept of Education, Welfare, etc, oh and lets not forget how great they treat abused children at the various "human" services departments around the country. Those institutions are so well run, efficient, effective, inexpensive to the tax payer and always keep you as the most important thing you do! What? You think you'll get super service because it's healthcare related and "free"?
Actually it has more to do with surviving in a hostile environment. Malaria kills millions and especially children under 5. When children have such a high probability of passing in the first few years of life, you tend to have more children. How would you like to survive drought, famine, and disease in a grass hut infested with malaria carrying mosquitos and then raise a family and keep them your defenseless children alive longer than 5 years? When you don't have to fend off such crippling disease, starvation, etc you could probably find the time to work, educate yourself, and live in something better than a grass hut.
0 6074841.htm
I don't think you have any comprehension on this. The toll from malaria on a society is HORRENDOUS
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/0108
http://junkscience.com/malaria_cost.htm
But there are no "modern" nuke reactors in the US. There haven't been any new ones since 3 Mile Island. All those "old" reactors that eco-freaks were worried about are the ones still going today (very safely). The Greenpeace crowd shot their own cause in the foot by going after an irrationaly emotional fear that wasn't supported by any data. As a result we've been through nearly 3 decades of nuclear energy stagnation. What would the % Energy Production by Source picture look like today if that wasn't the case? How many billions of tons LESS CO2 would we have been saved from today if we weren't cowed by their "nuclear technology is evil" propaganda?
Talk about evironmental disaster. I would bet that if they hadn't gone after nuclear power generation that they would have saved more CO2 production than ANY environmental compaign they have had since! If they hadn't deomonized the technology, nuclear energy could have been their crown jewel of envirnomental success in terms of CO2 production.
While they all had valid licenses, they all had expired visas which they used to get them. Withe RealID, they would not have been able to get those drivers licenses.
Knowing that you really are who you say you are isn't such a bad idea. Having that drivers license is an open door to getting access to all kinds of things and services, not just driving cars. Its a breeder document to getting a job, opening up a bank account, buying a house, etc.
What's so bad about making the standard uniform, rigerous, reliable, and easy to share? Why would it be a bad thing to prove that you are who you say you are? Why would it be a bad thing to make it easy to identify that you have an outstanding warrent, an expired visa, etc?
How does it make society safer for law abidding citizens if we keep the current loose and un-uniform standards of identification?
While they all had valid state issued IDs, under the RealID system, they would not have been able to have gotten them on the expired visas they used.
None of the terrorists would have been able to have gotten a Real ID with the expired Visa they all had. So no, none of the terrorists would have gotton a Real ID.
Putting all of that info together in shareable formate with uniform standards provides for the ability to indentify people with expired visas, are here illegally, have outstanding warrents, etc and prevent them from getting services they should not get or use.
I would argue that having an id that really does prove who you say you are IS a good thing.
For that price, you actually get two (2) G5s at 2.5 Ghz a piece. The Mac doesn't have a gigabit nic card because it is built in. I am sure that adding second Xeon 2.66, a motherboard that supports 2 Xeons, Firewire 400/800, optical audio, etc narrows the gap somewhat.