Short answer is yes. They have a rather distinguished list of alumni. Some of the ones people here might know of include Bob Metcalf (inventor of ethernet), Dennis Ritchie (inventor of C), Fred Brooks (director of development for OS/360), Steve Balmer (yeah I know), Trip Hawkins (founder of Electronic Arts) and Bill Gates (didn't graduate but attended and yeah I know...)
Harvard engineering might not be on the level with MIT but it doesn't suck.
If you think anyone in the finance industry gives a rat's ass about rantings on slashdot then you are delusional. Go ahead and vent - I might even agree with you. But let's not pretend what we say here has much consequence in the real world.
It has nothing to do with if there is any harm from the food or not.
If it has nothing to do with harm (or concern about potential harm) then it is a non issue unworthy of further discussion.
Some people do not like the idea of putting "franken-food" in their bodies.
Please provide a scientifically useful definition of "franken-food" and a basis for why it is bad. Genetically modified? By what method? Essentially all the food we eat is genetically modified. There is NOTHING in a grocery store you are likely to buy that has not been genetically modified by humans. We've been doing it for thousands of years. There are no wild apples that resemble the cloned ones you get in a grocery store. Same with bananas. You see a lot of wild cows wandering around the wilderness? Chickens? Everything you eat has been genetically modified to make it tastier, last longer, more pest resistant, quicker to market. Everything.
And we do have the right to know and make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies.
Fair enough. However the amount of information relating to that is effectively endless. How far down that rabbit hole do you really want to go? At some point you have to decide that more information is no longer valuable. Unless you can show some reasonable scientific basis for why one technique of genetic modification should be particularly worrisome then such arguments are a waste of everyone's time.
Not in any way that really matters. Technically what you say is true but pretty much nobody except some engineers actually uses it.
About the only thing they could do is post signs in metric, which they have already attempted several times, and the experiments pretty much failed.
Not true at all. They could require all construction documentation and specifications be done in metric. They could require all packaging deprecate or eliminate US Customary units. They could require surveys to be done in metric instead of acres. They could do all sorts of things to force the change but our "leaders" would rather argue about gay marriage and other inconsequential nonsense.
Currently this in the US not using the metric system aren't because there is no reason to and for those who are, there is.
It's NOT true that there is no reason to switch. What is true is that there is insufficient political will to endure the short term inconvenience such a switch would require. The economic benefits are long term and mostly indirect. Well beyond the next election cycle. So nothing happens.
the advantage of metric is that it is a global standard and the units are all divisible by ten. That's it.
"That's it"? That's HUGE. The economic costs alone should easily justify the switch. It won't matter but being on the global standard is a huge deal.
What does this leave us with? The US is not going metric any time soon. Just isn't happening.
I believe you are quite correct. The only way I see it happening is if two things happen. 1) The big manufacturing companies drive it all the way through their supply chains. 2) We require all construction documentation and specifications to be in metric and metric alone by code. Until those things happen we simply aren't going to see a switch. Since both of those things are quite unlikely I don't see the US converting within my lifetime.
People said the exact same thing about Bush the Lesser and that didn't work out so well. I don't give a crap how personable the guy is because that has NOTHING to do with his ability to effectively execute his duties as president.
Why is mandating metrification the government's job?
Because if the government doesn't do it then it will never happen. Construction companies in particular will never switch unless it is mandated by law.
Schoolchildren are ALREADY universally taught the metric system
Which they quickly forget because they never use it in their daily life. I learned to write in cursive too but guess how much I use that? The mere fact that it is covered in school is pretty much meaningless in the real world.
anything the government BUYS is specified in metric
So what? Relatively few companies supply the government directly so that's not going to be a game changer. I run a manufacturing company and maybe 1 out of 5 drawings I see are in metric. Most are in US Customary units and that isn't likely to change. The only way I see it changing is if the biggest manufacturers drive it into their supply chains and construction codes mandate everything going forward be in metric. Otherwise we'll muddle along with this two system fiasco indefinitely.
If I want to make or buy products using Imperial measurements, shouldn't that be my own business?
Of course it is your business. That doesn't make it a good idea however.
So a presidential "candidate" that I've never even heard of is proposing that the US switch to the metric system despite there being NO political will to do so? While I would love to see my country finally switch over this is the very definition of Not News.
You don't count (almost) all the other countries on the planet being metric as a huge push?
Nope. Most people in the US could not possibly care less what other countries are doing. We tried going metric once about 30 years ago and couldn't handle it. I don't expect the US to convert in my lifetime. The longer we wait the less likely conversion becomes.
So there is no demand for getting from point A to point B faster?
You are asking the wrong question. The right question is how much are you willing to pay to get from A to B faster? Of course people would like to reduce travel time but that doesn't mean there is an economically viable way of doing so.
You don't think that these folks who travel all the time do it because they don't like it do you?
You've never traveled a lot for work I take it? I have and it's isn't a grand adventure. "High end hotels and food"? Not working for most companies. Certainly none I've ever worked for unless you consider dinner at Applebee's and a Holiday Inn to be high end. Most people who travel a lot for work do it because it pays well, not because it's particularly fun. Once in a while it has its moments but mostly it's just boring, expensive and tiring. There is a reason most consultants that travel a lot tend to be young. Hard to have a family and be on the road constantly.
This whole globalization crap is a race to the bottom where corporations exert political influence to basically decide they don't like the costs the market has decided on, and instead we'll get someone from a third world to do it for a fraction of the cost.
Do you actually think that is anything new? Production ALWAYS tends to move to the location where the costs are lowest and always have been. Companies that fail to recognize this fact will be replaced by ones that do. Governments can pass protectionist laws but those are demonstrably self defeating in the long run because it raises costs to consumers. If you are making a good that is labor intensive you are going to get it made in the location where labor is cheapest. You would be insane to do otherwise. It's not a "race to the bottom", it's merely the physics of economic playing out exactly as you should expect.
If you don't want to be replaced by an H1B then it is YOUR responsibility to be valuable enough that it isn't a problem. If your skill set is fungible such that someone can be hired to do the same job for half the price then it shouldn't come as a shock when it happens. Folks here on slashdot are constantly arguing that IT makes it unnecessary to be tied to a physical location. What they fail to recognize is the full consequences of that statement. It means you are competing for that job with people from around the globe.
This is corporate interests manipulating the "free" market on their own terms to change the playing field in their favor. This is the exact fucking opposite of a free market.
Exactly what did you think a "free market" actually is? If you want an actual free market then this is EXACTLY what you are arguing for. Take away oversight of corporations (or allow them regulatory capture) and this sort of H1B scheme is exactly what you should expect. Free markets are by definition markets without regulation. They aren't manipulating a free market, they are capturing a regulated one.
In USA, probably 50% of federal tax dollars are wasted
I suppose that depends on what you consider wasted. About 75% of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Most of the rest goes to things you might consider valuable (like NASA) or something close to vital (like infrastructure). Your bridge to nowhere is a rounding error in the federal budget. It's simply not consequential in the big picture. Irritating and wasteful and gets trotted out as a soundbite but it's not a meaningful problem and is barely a symptom of one. 50% of the Federal budget wasted? I don't think so unless you plan to eliminate the defense department and stop providing health care to old people.
Lastly, the government itself is telling that there is so much waste and inefficiency in healthcare in US, however, according to the law, healthcare payments are legally a tax.
There is waste and inefficiency in healthcare because we have this ludicrous cobbled together "free market" system (that really isn't because of Medicare) that no sane person would have ever designed. We don't have a single payer system because a big portion of the US population has an allergy to the notion of the government actually doing anything because they have delusion that governments are never competent. Never mind the fact that virtually every first world economy long ago realized that a single payer system is actually the most efficient and effective system for treating illness because EVERYBODY gets sick sooner or later and traditional market economics don't really work. There is no force to contain costs in the US healthcare system. There are dozens of countries who have lower healthcare costs and better outcomes with the health system being run by the government.
why don't we listen to the owners and managers of the companies that choose to transfer manufacturing and to outsource. Truth to be told outsourcing also takes place even within USA, jobs go where there are skilled people and to the places with the lower cost of living, which highly correlates with the taxes.
I run a manufacturing company. Taxes are a very very minor reason why a company might choose to outsource. Labor costs are almost always the primary reason it happens, not taxes. Taxes are on a percentage of profits. Profits for most manufacturing companies are somewhere between 5-15%. This means taxes at worst amount to maybe 3-8% of revenue. Labor on the other hand is typically about 30-40% or more of the cost of manufacturing. Cut taxes in half and you improve profits 2-4% best case. Cut labor costs in half and you improve profits by 15%+ minimum. Labor costs are FAR more important than taxes even if the taxes were hypothetically set at 99%.
Sticking head into the sand, and pretending that tax and regulatory burden is not part of the problem is very shortsighted.
It IS a problem. But let's keep the scale of the problem in perspective.
Minimize the cost of *owning* the house, in terms of *money*, *time*, and *complexity*.
Yes! Particularly the time and complexity parts of the equation.
Don't install gutters. People put off cleaning gutters and then get water damage or clogging of pipes to drywells. Install french drains under the edges of the roof where the water will drain.
Not allowed by code in some places. There are ways to keep the crap out of gutters. If you go without you'll probably need a gravel perimeter for where the water meets the ground and you'll need extra long overhangs to get it away from the walls. I get what you are saying but I would suggest designing the roofs (if possible) to minimize the need for gutters. It's hard to eliminate them entirely on a residence.
If your municipality lets you, install a septic instead of connecting to city sewer. No sewer fee. (Just get it pumped every few years).
Septic systems come with their own set of problems. I have one and have lived with them most of my life. They require pumping every 1-2 years in most cases. If you have pets or people who shed a lot of hair (read girls) the filters on them can clog pretty quickly. In some cases they do require servicing. If you do get one you want it to be concrete which will last a long time (30-40 years). They also have a capacity limit so depending on the size of the septic tank you sometimes have to be careful how much water you use in a given time period. Make sure the septic tank is sized adequate to your water use needs.
Unless you play in a yard or want on for social reasons or safety reasons (depending on neighborhood), steer clear of having one.
Hell yes. I have a patch of grass to exercise my dogs but if I didn't have dogs I'd let it overgrow in a heartbeat. Manicured lawns are huge wastes of money and time. I also recommend getting an electric rather than gas powered mower if you do need to mow and your yard is small enough. I have one and it's great. Runs for about 30 minutes, does a great job and the only servicing required is the occasional blade change and a battery replacement every 3-5 years. WAY less hassle and pollution and noise than a gas mower.
Overpower it. It's a new house; I would set it up with 400 amp service so you hopefully never need to upgrade the electric. The cost difference between 200 and 400 when you're putting it in is usually relatively small. Also at least a generator interlock; whether you want a permanent generator likely depends on your location.
I would second this particularly if you ever think you'll get an electric car or plug in hybrid. I'd also suggest getting a whole house surge protector. Cost is pretty low and it will protect a lot of your equipment.
1) Whole house wired for gigabit ethernet, stereo, coax, fiber, phone and hdmi 2) Well organized wiring closet (see item 1) 3) Well insulated 4) Solar array or wind turbine with battery bank 5) Cable trays/runs/oversized conduit to useful locations to make updating wiring easy 6) 5V DC USB on outlets 7) Two ovens, well designed pantry 8) Zoned temperature controls 9) Natural gas or propane powered backup generator 10) Useful out-buildings 11) Tankless water heater 12) House designed to minimize need for heating/cooling 13) Attached green house for gardening 14) Workshop with adequate power, shop air, dust collection and tools 15) Garage with extra car bays and car lift 16) Theater room with projector/huge TV and easily updated wiring and equipment closet 17) Water pipes to gardening locations if gardening outside. 18) Low maintenance yard. You do NOT need a lush green grass lawn that requires endless mowing.
It sounds like he got caught lying about a crime he didn't commit, which is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the US judicial system.
If he didn't commit a crime there was no reason to lie about it. He had the option to say nothing under the 5th amendment. He certainly cannot reasonable argue that he didn't know it was a crime to lie to the FBI about his activities especially since he helped write some of the laws pertaining to prosecution of those very same activities.
It's not about sympathy for this slimeball; it's about whether this is an overreach that gives security authorities an interest in: a couple transferring money from one account to another, or a sole-proprietorship transferring money between personal to business accounts, or one person paying another for a car or boat, or any other legitimate transfer of money between people.
Well said. So what is your proposal for catching those engaged in money laundering and other crimes these laws demonstrable aid with? I agree that the laws are imperfect but I'm seeing a lot of complaining about them without much in the way of solutions.
Will you feel sympathy for the next small business owner who gets caught up in this "structuring" bullshit?
I certainly will. It's a tragedy that sometimes innocent people get accused of crimes they didn't commit. However that doesn't make the laws bullshit. If you have a better way to catch criminals engaged in money laundering, by all means let us know. They certainly are imperfect laws. However here we have a guy who apparently was engaging in structuring to avoid detection of a statutory rape. It is unlikely his actions would have been discovered otherwise. This is EXACTLY the sort of crime these laws were intended to deal with.
It is illegal to withdraw money from a bank in a manner designed to avoid detection. It's called structuring. If you withdraw large amounts (over $10,000US) the bank is required by law to investigate whether the transaction might be related to illegal activity. The bank is also obligated to investigate unusual or suspicious patterns of money movement. This is primarily due to laws aimed at combating money laundering and financing criminal and terrorist groups. In this case it appears Mr. Hastert was moving money to cover evidence of other (allegedly) illegal activity. That is exactly what these laws are designed to catch.
lying to the FBI about the purpose of those withdrawals once they detected them and then inquired with him
Lying to a law enforcement officer is always illegal. They may or may not care about why you engaged in the activities you did but lying about it is clearly a crime in our justice system. Realistically it cannot be otherwise if you wish to have effective investigations of crimes.
So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government?
It may be that the statute of limitation on the original crime has expired and these follow on crimes are what is still possible to prosecute. Obviously I don't know what the prosecutors are planning but I'm pretty sure there is a good reason. I doubt they would be worrying about these lesser charges if statutory rape were a charge they could use.
To answer the question however, it's a crime because there is no legitimate reason for him to lie. He (allegedly) was attempting to cover up other illegal activity. If his actions were honest he had the option to either decline to answer in accordance with his 5th amendment rights or to answer truthfully. Saying "none of your business" doesn't apply when we are talking about evidence of rape.
Let nature take its course since that is what the parents wanted.
Stupid argument because the consequences go beyond the idiots who avoid getting vaccinated. There are people cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. There are people who are too young for a particular vaccine. No vaccine is 100% effective either and sometimes the protection disappears over time. By not getting vaccinated people are not only endangering their own family but the families of others.
how is it a public safety issue, the ones who do get vaccinated aren't at risk... so they only endanger themselves and likeminded folks
Wrong. Not everyone can get vaccinated because some people legitimate medical conditions making it inadvisable. Sometimes they are too young. Sometimes they have allergy or other medical conditions that prevent their vaccination. These people depend on herd immunity to avoid the illness. If people start avoiding vaccines for non-medical reasons then these people who cannot be vaccinated are endangered by those who recklessly decide to avoid vaccination for no good reason.
Furthermore diseases have a substantial and measurable cost to society. We have finite resources both financial and time to devote to treating diseases and if we waste them on something that could be solved with a cheap and safe vaccine then we necessarily cannot spend those medical and financial resources on something else. Should we spend a few dollars for a vaccine or thousands on a treatment. THAT is a public health issue.
Good luck going against religious beliefs that curtail vaccinations. That "endangerment" has one hell of an establishment in the community.
Several states in the US have done so successfully. No reason why more couldn't. You do have a fair point though. It's amazing how much nonsense we put up with in the name of "respecting religious rights" even when they are clearly crazy and/or self destructive.
So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?
Completely eradicating a pathogen from the globe is absurdly difficult. So far as I know we've only actually managed to do it once for a pathogen in the wild (smallpox) and even then we still have small stores of it in bio-weapons labs. You have to basically vaccinate the entire human population which is a logistical nightmare to accomplish. It's not too hard in wealthier countries with robust healthcare systems but in poor remote areas with low levels of education it can be extremely difficult to get to every last village and town and person.
Slashdot Mirror
Is Harvard known for engineering?
Short answer is yes. They have a rather distinguished list of alumni. Some of the ones people here might know of include Bob Metcalf (inventor of ethernet), Dennis Ritchie (inventor of C), Fred Brooks (director of development for OS/360), Steve Balmer (yeah I know), Trip Hawkins (founder of Electronic Arts) and Bill Gates (didn't graduate but attended and yeah I know...)
Harvard engineering might not be on the level with MIT but it doesn't suck.
Wow, look at all the paid shills...
If you think anyone in the finance industry gives a rat's ass about rantings on slashdot then you are delusional. Go ahead and vent - I might even agree with you. But let's not pretend what we say here has much consequence in the real world.
It has nothing to do with if there is any harm from the food or not.
If it has nothing to do with harm (or concern about potential harm) then it is a non issue unworthy of further discussion.
Some people do not like the idea of putting "franken-food" in their bodies.
Please provide a scientifically useful definition of "franken-food" and a basis for why it is bad. Genetically modified? By what method? Essentially all the food we eat is genetically modified. There is NOTHING in a grocery store you are likely to buy that has not been genetically modified by humans. We've been doing it for thousands of years. There are no wild apples that resemble the cloned ones you get in a grocery store. Same with bananas. You see a lot of wild cows wandering around the wilderness? Chickens? Everything you eat has been genetically modified to make it tastier, last longer, more pest resistant, quicker to market. Everything.
And we do have the right to know and make informed decisions about what they put in their bodies.
Fair enough. However the amount of information relating to that is effectively endless. How far down that rabbit hole do you really want to go? At some point you have to decide that more information is no longer valuable. Unless you can show some reasonable scientific basis for why one technique of genetic modification should be particularly worrisome then such arguments are a waste of everyone's time.
The US is already metric
Not in any way that really matters. Technically what you say is true but pretty much nobody except some engineers actually uses it.
About the only thing they could do is post signs in metric, which they have already attempted several times, and the experiments pretty much failed.
Not true at all. They could require all construction documentation and specifications be done in metric. They could require all packaging deprecate or eliminate US Customary units. They could require surveys to be done in metric instead of acres. They could do all sorts of things to force the change but our "leaders" would rather argue about gay marriage and other inconsequential nonsense.
Currently this in the US not using the metric system aren't because there is no reason to and for those who are, there is.
It's NOT true that there is no reason to switch. What is true is that there is insufficient political will to endure the short term inconvenience such a switch would require. The economic benefits are long term and mostly indirect. Well beyond the next election cycle. So nothing happens.
the advantage of metric is that it is a global standard and the units are all divisible by ten. That's it.
"That's it"? That's HUGE. The economic costs alone should easily justify the switch. It won't matter but being on the global standard is a huge deal.
What does this leave us with? The US is not going metric any time soon. Just isn't happening.
I believe you are quite correct. The only way I see it happening is if two things happen. 1) The big manufacturing companies drive it all the way through their supply chains. 2) We require all construction documentation and specifications to be in metric and metric alone by code. Until those things happen we simply aren't going to see a switch. Since both of those things are quite unlikely I don't see the US converting within my lifetime.
I would like to sit down and have a pint with.
People said the exact same thing about Bush the Lesser and that didn't work out so well. I don't give a crap how personable the guy is because that has NOTHING to do with his ability to effectively execute his duties as president.
I don't know what to make of this, but he seems better than all the Republicans running so far.
Talk about damning with faint praise... I haven't seen a candidate yet from either party that doesn't have oversized shoes and a red squeaky nose.
Why is mandating metrification the government's job?
Because if the government doesn't do it then it will never happen. Construction companies in particular will never switch unless it is mandated by law.
Schoolchildren are ALREADY universally taught the metric system
Which they quickly forget because they never use it in their daily life. I learned to write in cursive too but guess how much I use that? The mere fact that it is covered in school is pretty much meaningless in the real world.
anything the government BUYS is specified in metric
So what? Relatively few companies supply the government directly so that's not going to be a game changer. I run a manufacturing company and maybe 1 out of 5 drawings I see are in metric. Most are in US Customary units and that isn't likely to change. The only way I see it changing is if the biggest manufacturers drive it into their supply chains and construction codes mandate everything going forward be in metric. Otherwise we'll muddle along with this two system fiasco indefinitely.
If I want to make or buy products using Imperial measurements, shouldn't that be my own business?
Of course it is your business. That doesn't make it a good idea however.
So a presidential "candidate" that I've never even heard of is proposing that the US switch to the metric system despite there being NO political will to do so? While I would love to see my country finally switch over this is the very definition of Not News.
You don't count (almost) all the other countries on the planet being metric as a huge push?
Nope. Most people in the US could not possibly care less what other countries are doing. We tried going metric once about 30 years ago and couldn't handle it. I don't expect the US to convert in my lifetime. The longer we wait the less likely conversion becomes.
So there is no demand for getting from point A to point B faster?
You are asking the wrong question. The right question is how much are you willing to pay to get from A to B faster? Of course people would like to reduce travel time but that doesn't mean there is an economically viable way of doing so.
You don't think that these folks who travel all the time do it because they don't like it do you?
You've never traveled a lot for work I take it? I have and it's isn't a grand adventure. "High end hotels and food"? Not working for most companies. Certainly none I've ever worked for unless you consider dinner at Applebee's and a Holiday Inn to be high end. Most people who travel a lot for work do it because it pays well, not because it's particularly fun. Once in a while it has its moments but mostly it's just boring, expensive and tiring. There is a reason most consultants that travel a lot tend to be young. Hard to have a family and be on the road constantly.
This whole globalization crap is a race to the bottom where corporations exert political influence to basically decide they don't like the costs the market has decided on, and instead we'll get someone from a third world to do it for a fraction of the cost.
Do you actually think that is anything new? Production ALWAYS tends to move to the location where the costs are lowest and always have been. Companies that fail to recognize this fact will be replaced by ones that do. Governments can pass protectionist laws but those are demonstrably self defeating in the long run because it raises costs to consumers. If you are making a good that is labor intensive you are going to get it made in the location where labor is cheapest. You would be insane to do otherwise. It's not a "race to the bottom", it's merely the physics of economic playing out exactly as you should expect.
If you don't want to be replaced by an H1B then it is YOUR responsibility to be valuable enough that it isn't a problem. If your skill set is fungible such that someone can be hired to do the same job for half the price then it shouldn't come as a shock when it happens. Folks here on slashdot are constantly arguing that IT makes it unnecessary to be tied to a physical location. What they fail to recognize is the full consequences of that statement. It means you are competing for that job with people from around the globe.
This is corporate interests manipulating the "free" market on their own terms to change the playing field in their favor. This is the exact fucking opposite of a free market.
Exactly what did you think a "free market" actually is? If you want an actual free market then this is EXACTLY what you are arguing for. Take away oversight of corporations (or allow them regulatory capture) and this sort of H1B scheme is exactly what you should expect. Free markets are by definition markets without regulation. They aren't manipulating a free market, they are capturing a regulated one.
In USA, probably 50% of federal tax dollars are wasted
I suppose that depends on what you consider wasted. About 75% of the federal budget goes to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Defense. Most of the rest goes to things you might consider valuable (like NASA) or something close to vital (like infrastructure). Your bridge to nowhere is a rounding error in the federal budget. It's simply not consequential in the big picture. Irritating and wasteful and gets trotted out as a soundbite but it's not a meaningful problem and is barely a symptom of one. 50% of the Federal budget wasted? I don't think so unless you plan to eliminate the defense department and stop providing health care to old people.
Lastly, the government itself is telling that there is so much waste and inefficiency in healthcare in US, however, according to the law, healthcare payments are legally a tax.
There is waste and inefficiency in healthcare because we have this ludicrous cobbled together "free market" system (that really isn't because of Medicare) that no sane person would have ever designed. We don't have a single payer system because a big portion of the US population has an allergy to the notion of the government actually doing anything because they have delusion that governments are never competent. Never mind the fact that virtually every first world economy long ago realized that a single payer system is actually the most efficient and effective system for treating illness because EVERYBODY gets sick sooner or later and traditional market economics don't really work. There is no force to contain costs in the US healthcare system. There are dozens of countries who have lower healthcare costs and better outcomes with the health system being run by the government.
why don't we listen to the owners and managers of the companies that choose to transfer manufacturing and to outsource. Truth to be told outsourcing also takes place even within USA, jobs go where there are skilled people and to the places with the lower cost of living, which highly correlates with the taxes.
I run a manufacturing company. Taxes are a very very minor reason why a company might choose to outsource. Labor costs are almost always the primary reason it happens, not taxes. Taxes are on a percentage of profits. Profits for most manufacturing companies are somewhere between 5-15%. This means taxes at worst amount to maybe 3-8% of revenue. Labor on the other hand is typically about 30-40% or more of the cost of manufacturing. Cut taxes in half and you improve profits 2-4% best case. Cut labor costs in half and you improve profits by 15%+ minimum. Labor costs are FAR more important than taxes even if the taxes were hypothetically set at 99%.
Sticking head into the sand, and pretending that tax and regulatory burden is not part of the problem is very shortsighted.
It IS a problem. But let's keep the scale of the problem in perspective.
Because the native worker can legally own a gun.
And do what with it? Do you have a point or are you just being belligerent? Do you make a habit of insinuating hints of bodily harm to others?
Minimize the cost of *owning* the house, in terms of *money*, *time*, and *complexity*.
Yes! Particularly the time and complexity parts of the equation.
Don't install gutters. People put off cleaning gutters and then get water damage or clogging of pipes to drywells. Install french drains under the edges of the roof where the water will drain.
Not allowed by code in some places. There are ways to keep the crap out of gutters. If you go without you'll probably need a gravel perimeter for where the water meets the ground and you'll need extra long overhangs to get it away from the walls. I get what you are saying but I would suggest designing the roofs (if possible) to minimize the need for gutters. It's hard to eliminate them entirely on a residence.
If your municipality lets you, install a septic instead of connecting to city sewer. No sewer fee. (Just get it pumped every few years).
Septic systems come with their own set of problems. I have one and have lived with them most of my life. They require pumping every 1-2 years in most cases. If you have pets or people who shed a lot of hair (read girls) the filters on them can clog pretty quickly. In some cases they do require servicing. If you do get one you want it to be concrete which will last a long time (30-40 years). They also have a capacity limit so depending on the size of the septic tank you sometimes have to be careful how much water you use in a given time period. Make sure the septic tank is sized adequate to your water use needs.
Unless you play in a yard or want on for social reasons or safety reasons (depending on neighborhood), steer clear of having one.
Hell yes. I have a patch of grass to exercise my dogs but if I didn't have dogs I'd let it overgrow in a heartbeat. Manicured lawns are huge wastes of money and time. I also recommend getting an electric rather than gas powered mower if you do need to mow and your yard is small enough. I have one and it's great. Runs for about 30 minutes, does a great job and the only servicing required is the occasional blade change and a battery replacement every 3-5 years. WAY less hassle and pollution and noise than a gas mower.
Overpower it. It's a new house; I would set it up with 400 amp service so you hopefully never need to upgrade the electric. The cost difference between 200 and 400 when you're putting it in is usually relatively small. Also at least a generator interlock; whether you want a permanent generator likely depends on your location.
I would second this particularly if you ever think you'll get an electric car or plug in hybrid. I'd also suggest getting a whole house surge protector. Cost is pretty low and it will protect a lot of your equipment.
In no particular order:
1) Whole house wired for gigabit ethernet, stereo, coax, fiber, phone and hdmi
2) Well organized wiring closet (see item 1)
3) Well insulated
4) Solar array or wind turbine with battery bank
5) Cable trays/runs/oversized conduit to useful locations to make updating wiring easy
6) 5V DC USB on outlets
7) Two ovens, well designed pantry
8) Zoned temperature controls
9) Natural gas or propane powered backup generator
10) Useful out-buildings
11) Tankless water heater
12) House designed to minimize need for heating/cooling
13) Attached green house for gardening
14) Workshop with adequate power, shop air, dust collection and tools
15) Garage with extra car bays and car lift
16) Theater room with projector/huge TV and easily updated wiring and equipment closet
17) Water pipes to gardening locations if gardening outside.
18) Low maintenance yard. You do NOT need a lush green grass lawn that requires endless mowing.
It sounds like he got caught lying about a crime he didn't commit, which is one of the more ridiculous aspects of the US judicial system.
If he didn't commit a crime there was no reason to lie about it. He had the option to say nothing under the 5th amendment. He certainly cannot reasonable argue that he didn't know it was a crime to lie to the FBI about his activities especially since he helped write some of the laws pertaining to prosecution of those very same activities.
It's not about sympathy for this slimeball; it's about whether this is an overreach that gives security authorities an interest in: a couple transferring money from one account to another, or a sole-proprietorship transferring money between personal to business accounts, or one person paying another for a car or boat, or any other legitimate transfer of money between people.
Well said. So what is your proposal for catching those engaged in money laundering and other crimes these laws demonstrable aid with? I agree that the laws are imperfect but I'm seeing a lot of complaining about them without much in the way of solutions.
Will you feel sympathy for the next small business owner who gets caught up in this "structuring" bullshit?
I certainly will. It's a tragedy that sometimes innocent people get accused of crimes they didn't commit. However that doesn't make the laws bullshit. If you have a better way to catch criminals engaged in money laundering, by all means let us know. They certainly are imperfect laws. However here we have a guy who apparently was engaging in structuring to avoid detection of a statutory rape. It is unlikely his actions would have been discovered otherwise. This is EXACTLY the sort of crime these laws were intended to deal with.
It isn't illegal to withdraw money from the bank
It is illegal to withdraw money from a bank in a manner designed to avoid detection. It's called structuring. If you withdraw large amounts (over $10,000US) the bank is required by law to investigate whether the transaction might be related to illegal activity. The bank is also obligated to investigate unusual or suspicious patterns of money movement. This is primarily due to laws aimed at combating money laundering and financing criminal and terrorist groups. In this case it appears Mr. Hastert was moving money to cover evidence of other (allegedly) illegal activity. That is exactly what these laws are designed to catch.
lying to the FBI about the purpose of those withdrawals once they detected them and then inquired with him
Lying to a law enforcement officer is always illegal. They may or may not care about why you engaged in the activities you did but lying about it is clearly a crime in our justice system. Realistically it cannot be otherwise if you wish to have effective investigations of crimes.
So why should it be a crime to hide those actions from the U.S. government?
It may be that the statute of limitation on the original crime has expired and these follow on crimes are what is still possible to prosecute. Obviously I don't know what the prosecutors are planning but I'm pretty sure there is a good reason. I doubt they would be worrying about these lesser charges if statutory rape were a charge they could use.
To answer the question however, it's a crime because there is no legitimate reason for him to lie. He (allegedly) was attempting to cover up other illegal activity. If his actions were honest he had the option to either decline to answer in accordance with his 5th amendment rights or to answer truthfully. Saying "none of your business" doesn't apply when we are talking about evidence of rape.
Let nature take its course since that is what the parents wanted.
Stupid argument because the consequences go beyond the idiots who avoid getting vaccinated. There are people cannot get vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons. There are people who are too young for a particular vaccine. No vaccine is 100% effective either and sometimes the protection disappears over time. By not getting vaccinated people are not only endangering their own family but the families of others.
how is it a public safety issue, the ones who do get vaccinated aren't at risk... so they only endanger themselves and likeminded folks
Wrong. Not everyone can get vaccinated because some people legitimate medical conditions making it inadvisable. Sometimes they are too young. Sometimes they have allergy or other medical conditions that prevent their vaccination. These people depend on herd immunity to avoid the illness. If people start avoiding vaccines for non-medical reasons then these people who cannot be vaccinated are endangered by those who recklessly decide to avoid vaccination for no good reason.
Furthermore diseases have a substantial and measurable cost to society. We have finite resources both financial and time to devote to treating diseases and if we waste them on something that could be solved with a cheap and safe vaccine then we necessarily cannot spend those medical and financial resources on something else. Should we spend a few dollars for a vaccine or thousands on a treatment. THAT is a public health issue.
Good luck going against religious beliefs that curtail vaccinations. That "endangerment" has one hell of an establishment in the community.
Several states in the US have done so successfully. No reason why more couldn't. You do have a fair point though. It's amazing how much nonsense we put up with in the name of "respecting religious rights" even when they are clearly crazy and/or self destructive.
So did it go hide out for a while in Africa or something?
Completely eradicating a pathogen from the globe is absurdly difficult. So far as I know we've only actually managed to do it once for a pathogen in the wild (smallpox) and even then we still have small stores of it in bio-weapons labs. You have to basically vaccinate the entire human population which is a logistical nightmare to accomplish. It's not too hard in wealthier countries with robust healthcare systems but in poor remote areas with low levels of education it can be extremely difficult to get to every last village and town and person.