Only the person who owns the machine gets the profits of it.
And the sales guy who sold the machine, and the receptionist at the company where the sales guy works, and the engineer who designed the machine, and the workers who manufactured the machine (or the engineers who designed the automation of the manufacturing of the machine), and the programmer who programmed the machine, and the software engineer who designed the programming, and the tech writer who wrote the tech specs, and the trainers who trained the product, and the all of those peoples' managers.
You would greatly increase the job market (and raise the median income significantly) in this country with every one burger flipper replaced by technology.
I wonder why Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget, it would appear the potential savings are enormous?
I'm no liberterian... but it appears to me, as president, slashing the military budget would be easy. He's made the point that "on day one" he would bring all of our troop’s home. He's talked a lot about the cost of the military overseas. These things, as president, are a lot easier to do than cutting government programs.
Because otherwise we will have "Teachers" teaching kids about how Jesus rode around on dinosaurs and how the gays are the products of Satan.
Yes there will be... in small, fundamentalist Christian towns. I seriously doubt, even the small town in Florida that I am from, that any of the teachers I had would be spouting off wildly ridiculous and offensive material such as that. I can't argue that no one would *start* teaching pure nonsense (but most who want to teach that probably already are - just in a more underhanded manner), but the fact is - most will not. So the down side to making education more local and specific to the needs of the area... is that some fundamentalist towns will teach their students things that they are probably already getting outside of the classroom? I am more liberal than most, but even I don’t buy that one.
Yeah! Lower profits for the car companies means more innovation - innovation in things we need, like electric cars.
Hey if the logic works for healthcare, it has to work for everything right?:)
Which means that the US supply of thorium could provide the equivalent of 21,751 years of gasoline usage in the U.S.
I think it's plentiful enough.
This post is preposterous - assuming the absolute best case scenario. Call me skeptical of this thorium lobbyist, but I bet we barely get half that... which by my calculations, would put us right back in the same boat ~10,000 years from now... with a lot more clouds... and a lot less Thorium.
Now Clean Wood... that's a renewable energy we can ALL can get behind.
Rule 0: Freedom means governments are free to restrict the freedoms of its citizens, brazenly rig elections, and threaten the security of their neighbors.
Actually, you are almost right. Our system of government where most of the power has been transferred to a central authority away from the states is what does not scale.
Originally the system was designed with Federalism that distributed power. That is almost entirely gone now with nearly all power residing in D.C.
As an avid centrist (and frankly, an Obama supporter) - I couldn't agree with you more here (weird right?).
Repeal the 17th Amendment (let states decide for themselves if they want to elect Senators by popular vote in their states, many will do so on their own and some will not)
What is the problem with the 17th Amendment exactly? I feel like the Senate is a lot less dysfunctional than the House. I attribute this to 6 year terms, so they aren't as worried about short term political gains. Maybe you have some good examples for me? I grant the fact that the states 'lose rights' here to a federal mandate, but isn't a popular vote the epitome of a republic? Lets not forget the Blago scandal.
Get rid of the Federal Reserve system. Competitive banking instead of a monopoly cartel where the same commercial banks who in many circumstances have their CEO's running Federal Reserve regional banks that control the money.
There is obviously something that needs to be adjusted in the federal reserve. If for nothing else, than to allow for more transparency so we can have confidence that they are doing the right things for our country. But really.... I do NOT want the stability of our economy in the hands of elected representatives.... nor do I want a bunch of people (with no understanding about any of the prevailing financial theories) calling up their representatives to tell them they should raise/lower interest rates because some talk show host made them feel like an expert.
I'm not insane for wanting what Jefferson and Madison wanted and designed instead of what Alexander Hamilton and John Adams thought would be cool (American Empire)
I believe from time to time, the responsibilities of the federal government will need to be shifted in order to benefit our nation as a whole. Even the most right wing among us, believe we should all have clean food and water, and a national effort to prevent the spread of diseases when they outbreak. We can either have 50 different organizations, each tasked with doing these tasks... and hope they work together... or we could have some sort of central command to make things run more efficiently.
Question to you: For each of the situations you believe the government is overstepping... Is your stance based on what you believe will run the most efficiently, and be the most effective (bang for your buck), or is it based on a belief that just because it worked in the past, it is the best and only solution to every problem?
BTW I'm not a US citizen, a US visa holder, or in US controlled territory. I suspect that any US citizen or anyone in US controlled territory who assists Iran in any way is committing a criminal act. US export laws.. land of the free.. my arse.
While there may be a number of valid arguments to be made about why the label "land of the free" should not apply to the US.... but doing our part (even if it is through laws) to prevent the rise of a fascist regime does not, to me, constitute one of them.
PS... nice way to ruin a decent post with trolling.
Yeah, the same way you "lost privacy" when they first installed metal detectors. And luggage scanners. And security cameras.
Enough already. Either give a good reason why your privacy is more important than airline security, or go find a new topic to complain about.
Let us break it down then... How many terrorist attacks have we really gotten on American soil? Let's assume (outrageously I would probably say) that every year, there is an attack on the scale of 9/11. 3,000 people tragically died that day, and lets assume that happens EVERY YEAR (crazy right?). With 300,000,000 people in the US, the odds of this affecting you are, frankly, quite small. Even if you take a 100 year lifespan, we are talking about a 1% chance of you EVER being a victim (Compare this with the risk of dying in a car accidents for an interesting perspective:). With that said....
There are currently 1,430,895 US active duty military in this country.
The oath these fantastic men and women take, says nothing about making American citizens safe.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
With 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, and many more in other countries risking their lives and personal security (and families, really) to defend the constitution... what are YOU willing to give up for the same cause? Would you be willing to take the extremely small percentage chance YOU personally will be affected by terrorist activity in order to defend our constitution? Or are you going to give up your rights written directly in the constitution in order to hide behind the idea of (false) security?
Is that a good enough reason? (Now... how can I mod myself up so people stop asking stupid questions?:)
The less secure people feel on the Internet, the more we will lose anonymizing proxies and the more public everything we do on the Internet will be.
I'm sorry... but unfortunately, the internet is NOT secure. That is the problem. These people are not making us FEEL that the internet is insecure...we're being shown just how insecure it really is. Not that I attribute any altruistic intentions to this group - but I don't understand the 'get rid of these guys, so we can put our heads in the sand' mentality.
I would, frankly, prefer using this recent publicity to push the corporate sector to actually fund their IT and Security department(s), instead of trying to undermine the only silver lining we can find in all of this nonsense. I know there is a fine line between 'pushing people to get something done' and 'giving an opening for the government to take move power'... but if we can figure out how to walk that line, we'd all be better off for it. Can we discuss how to do that, instead of giving ourselves a false ultimatum of insecurity and helplessness versus loss of freedom?
It really is an interesting fact - but really proves little about what really was the correct path for the crisis. The real question I'd like to know is, who is investing in Ireland now and how close are they connected to the banks that were bailed out? I would find it hard to believe Ireland would be growing today if all those bailed out (both in the US and Europe) were allowed to fail. The situation would have been drastically different, and the results likely so as well. Game theory - bah! who needs it.
"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again. " Pierian Spring
It's so easy to know a little about science (as well as anything) and think you know it all, isn't it? Don't let 'just enough knowledge to feel satisfied' be equivalent to 'feeling the need to correct someone'
I am so surprised to hear everyone here speaking so matter-of-fact about this. I believe the book is far from closed on these matters. While it is true that genetics has a large hand in the way the brain forms - it is also quite possible (and I would say probable - with the exception of certain mental disorders) that this is just our brains default configurations. The brain is extremely adaptable - and while certain tasks are naturally easier for some, it rarely makes them impossible for others.
The climb may be uphill, and the speed bumps more often and difficult - but this does not exclude someone from an activity. Its not that I _can't_ learn to play the guitar, it's simply that the amount of work I'd spend mastering that skill is substantially larger than it would be for many other people - so large it may not be worth it to me. I find, when learning something new, the classic "ah-ha" moments seem to, for me personally, confirm this idea.
The brain, however, seems to be much less adaptable the older we get. Can't teach an old dog new tricks I suppose:)
Slashdot Mirror
Only the person who owns the machine gets the profits of it.
And the sales guy who sold the machine, and the receptionist at the company where the sales guy works, and the engineer who designed the machine, and the workers who manufactured the machine (or the engineers who designed the automation of the manufacturing of the machine), and the programmer who programmed the machine, and the software engineer who designed the programming, and the tech writer who wrote the tech specs, and the trainers who trained the product, and the all of those peoples' managers.
You would greatly increase the job market (and raise the median income significantly) in this country with every one burger flipper replaced by technology.
Yeah, but what if one guy did all of that? eh?
Glad I could put that to rest...
Well said.
I wonder why Ron Paul doesn't talk about slashing the military budget, it would appear the potential savings are enormous?
I'm no liberterian... but it appears to me, as president, slashing the military budget would be easy. He's made the point that "on day one" he would bring all of our troop’s home. He's talked a lot about the cost of the military overseas. These things, as president, are a lot easier to do than cutting government programs.
You're right... move all these federal programs to the UN. :)
Because otherwise we will have "Teachers" teaching kids about how Jesus rode around on dinosaurs and how the gays are the products of Satan.
Yes there will be... in small, fundamentalist Christian towns. I seriously doubt, even the small town in Florida that I am from, that any of the teachers I had would be spouting off wildly ridiculous and offensive material such as that. I can't argue that no one would *start* teaching pure nonsense (but most who want to teach that probably already are - just in a more underhanded manner), but the fact is - most will not. So the down side to making education more local and specific to the needs of the area... is that some fundamentalist towns will teach their students things that they are probably already getting outside of the classroom? I am more liberal than most, but even I don’t buy that one.
Yeah! Lower profits for the car companies means more innovation - innovation in things we need, like electric cars. Hey if the logic works for healthcare, it has to work for everything right? :)
errr, so THATS why there is a forced preview, eh?
Yeah! Lower profits for the car companies means more innovation - innovation in things we need, like electric cars.
:)
Hey if the logic works for healthcare, it has to work for everything right?
sp3d2orbit's words are a metaphor... not to be taken literally... That's how you know they're true.
Agreed +1
Which means that the US supply of thorium could provide the equivalent of 21,751 years of gasoline usage in the U.S.
I think it's plentiful enough.
This post is preposterous - assuming the absolute best case scenario. Call me skeptical of this thorium lobbyist, but I bet we barely get half that... which by my calculations, would put us right back in the same boat ~10,000 years from now... with a lot more clouds... and a lot less Thorium.
Now Clean Wood... that's a renewable energy we can ALL can get behind.
Rule 0: Freedom means governments are free to restrict the freedoms of its citizens, brazenly rig elections, and threaten the security of their neighbors.
There, fixed that for you
Actually, you are almost right. Our system of government where most of the power has been transferred to a central authority away from the states is what does not scale.
Originally the system was designed with Federalism that distributed power. That is almost entirely gone now with nearly all power residing in D.C.
As an avid centrist (and frankly, an Obama supporter) - I couldn't agree with you more here (weird right?).
Repeal the 17th Amendment (let states decide for themselves if they want to elect Senators by popular vote in their states, many will do so on their own and some will not)
What is the problem with the 17th Amendment exactly? I feel like the Senate is a lot less dysfunctional than the House. I attribute this to 6 year terms, so they aren't as worried about short term political gains. Maybe you have some good examples for me? I grant the fact that the states 'lose rights' here to a federal mandate, but isn't a popular vote the epitome of a republic? Lets not forget the Blago scandal.
Get rid of the Federal Reserve system. Competitive banking instead of a monopoly cartel where the same commercial banks who in many circumstances have their CEO's running Federal Reserve regional banks that control the money.
There is obviously something that needs to be adjusted in the federal reserve. If for nothing else, than to allow for more transparency so we can have confidence that they are doing the right things for our country. But really.... I do NOT want the stability of our economy in the hands of elected representatives.... nor do I want a bunch of people (with no understanding about any of the prevailing financial theories) calling up their representatives to tell them they should raise/lower interest rates because some talk show host made them feel like an expert.
I'm not insane for wanting what Jefferson and Madison wanted and designed instead of what Alexander Hamilton and John Adams thought would be cool (American Empire)
I believe from time to time, the responsibilities of the federal government will need to be shifted in order to benefit our nation as a whole. Even the most right wing among us, believe we should all have clean food and water, and a national effort to prevent the spread of diseases when they outbreak. We can either have 50 different organizations, each tasked with doing these tasks... and hope they work together... or we could have some sort of central command to make things run more efficiently.
Question to you: For each of the situations you believe the government is overstepping... Is your stance based on what you believe will run the most efficiently, and be the most effective (bang for your buck), or is it based on a belief that just because it worked in the past, it is the best and only solution to every problem?
BTW I'm not a US citizen, a US visa holder, or in US controlled territory. I suspect that any US citizen or anyone in US controlled territory who assists Iran in any way is committing a criminal act. US export laws.. land of the free.. my arse.
While there may be a number of valid arguments to be made about why the label "land of the free" should not apply to the US.... but doing our part (even if it is through laws) to prevent the rise of a fascist regime does not, to me, constitute one of them.
PS... nice way to ruin a decent post with trolling.
Yeah, it would be a shame if they started getting some rain in the desert...
Yeah, the same way you "lost privacy" when they first installed metal detectors. And luggage scanners. And security cameras.
Enough already. Either give a good reason why your privacy is more important than airline security, or go find a new topic to complain about.
Let us break it down then... How many terrorist attacks have we really gotten on American soil? Let's assume (outrageously I would probably say) that every year, there is an attack on the scale of 9/11. 3,000 people tragically died that day, and lets assume that happens EVERY YEAR (crazy right?). With 300,000,000 people in the US, the odds of this affecting you are, frankly, quite small. Even if you take a 100 year lifespan, we are talking about a 1% chance of you EVER being a victim (Compare this with the risk of dying in a car accidents for an interesting perspective :). With that said....
There are currently 1,430,895 US active duty military in this country.
The oath these fantastic men and women take, says nothing about making American citizens safe.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
With 85,600 military personnel deployed in Iraq, the 103,700 in Afghanistan, and many more in other countries risking their lives and personal security (and families, really) to defend the constitution... what are YOU willing to give up for the same cause? Would you be willing to take the extremely small percentage chance YOU personally will be affected by terrorist activity in order to defend our constitution? Or are you going to give up your rights written directly in the constitution in order to hide behind the idea of (false) security?
:)
Is that a good enough reason? (Now... how can I mod myself up so people stop asking stupid questions?
Great article, and I think this solution is just excellent!
The less secure people feel on the Internet, the more we will lose anonymizing proxies and the more public everything we do on the Internet will be.
I'm sorry... but unfortunately, the internet is NOT secure. That is the problem. These people are not making us FEEL that the internet is insecure...we're being shown just how insecure it really is. Not that I attribute any altruistic intentions to this group - but I don't understand the 'get rid of these guys, so we can put our heads in the sand' mentality.
I would, frankly, prefer using this recent publicity to push the corporate sector to actually fund their IT and Security department(s), instead of trying to undermine the only silver lining we can find in all of this nonsense. I know there is a fine line between 'pushing people to get something done' and 'giving an opening for the government to take move power'... but if we can figure out how to walk that line, we'd all be better off for it. Can we discuss how to do that, instead of giving ourselves a false ultimatum of insecurity and helplessness versus loss of freedom?
Wheres an extra mod point when you need it?
It really is an interesting fact - but really proves little about what really was the correct path for the crisis. The real question I'd like to know is, who is investing in Ireland now and how close are they connected to the banks that were bailed out? I would find it hard to believe Ireland would be growing today if all those bailed out (both in the US and Europe) were allowed to fail. The situation would have been drastically different, and the results likely so as well. Game theory - bah! who needs it.
Don't stop your criticisms too short! I can tell you didn't notice that the fonts aren't the exact came color, and the text is slightly misaligned...
Good got man, it's not magic.
you know... you really were unnecessarily rude.
... Somehow I don't see a startup needing NoSQL unless they specialized in processing huge amounts of data...
Can we pretend that he does - and actually offer some useful information? Thanks
From the guy who knows nothing about NoSQL other than what wikipedia just provided him.
"A little learning is a dang'rous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again. "
Pierian Spring
It's so easy to know a little about science (as well as anything) and think you know it all, isn't it? Don't let 'just enough knowledge to feel satisfied' be equivalent to 'feeling the need to correct someone'
Shhhh! Dont tell them about BitTorrent... :\
I am so surprised to hear everyone here speaking so matter-of-fact about this. I believe the book is far from closed on these matters. While it is true that genetics has a large hand in the way the brain forms - it is also quite possible (and I would say probable - with the exception of certain mental disorders) that this is just our brains default configurations. The brain is extremely adaptable - and while certain tasks are naturally easier for some, it rarely makes them impossible for others.
:)
The climb may be uphill, and the speed bumps more often and difficult - but this does not exclude someone from an activity. Its not that I _can't_ learn to play the guitar, it's simply that the amount of work I'd spend mastering that skill is substantially larger than it would be for many other people - so large it may not be worth it to me. I find, when learning something new, the classic "ah-ha" moments seem to, for me personally, confirm this idea.
The brain, however, seems to be much less adaptable the older we get. Can't teach an old dog new tricks I suppose