yes, you pay 50% taxes, but that comes with UNIVERSAL health care, real rights to the ones that get unemployed, children support, practically FREE education all the way until the end of college
Free? It's not free. Your education and healthcare are paid for with tax dollars instead of private funding but it's not remotely free. Much of the education here in the US is paid for with tax dollars too even at the university level but Americans tend to prefer the option to choose what they pay for instead of having the government do it for us. Same with health care. You'll find that most Americans follow the principle that whenever possible those who use a service should be the ones paying for it. Sometimes that is not possible (military, infrastructure, primary/secondary education, etc) but it's not a bad concept and certainly no worse in principle than a system run by the government.
There are real unemployment rights in the US too but with an eye toward pushing people to get back to work instead of remaining unemployed. Unemployment rates in have historically been lower in the US than in much of Europe. There is no free lunch here. Greater unemployment benefits create incentives for people to remain unemployed. After all, why work if you can get by without working? Lesser employment benefits are harder on people in the short run but arguable better for everyone in the long run.
And beside, what really kills me, is how you Americans just care about the money.
You don't really know much about Americans do you? Much easier to lump us all together with ridiculous stereotypes than to actually try to understand. I'm sure you have lots of evidence to back up your assertion that Americans care about nothing but accumulating as much money and material wealth as possible. Couldn't possibly be true that we're just a teensy-tiny bit more complicated than that. [/sarcasm]
Man, quality of life is much more than the money.
True enough.
It's support when you need it. It's knowing that you are protected in case something goes wrong and it's not entirely your fault
Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Benefits, Welfare, Insurance, Workers Compensation, WIC, Food Stamps, Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, Nonprofit Humanitarian Groups, and Emergency Response systems are just a few of the support systems we have here in the US. There is literally no part of the social safety net you can point to in Europe that does not have an equivalent here in the US. Not identical and not perfect but it is a system that works. The ones in Europe work fine too but have their flaws as well if you actually care the take an objective look. Different approaches with the same end goal. Americans prefer a different approach that suits our particular sensibilities. If you don't like it, that's your choice and we don't really care.
it's good climate (well, this only applies to Souther Europe)
Yeah, the weather is really shitty in Southern California, Florida, etc. Do you have ANY concept of the geography in the US? The most populous states not coincidentally have pretty good weather. I live in a more northerly area and the weather where I live is absolutely delightful most of the year.
it's culture for free
Are you seriously making the incredibly tired argument that Americans have no culture and not access to it? Do you seriously believe we have no art, no food, no music, no museums, no social outlets and no dance? Do you really think we charge for access to all of it?
it's really good food (once again... only in southern Europe:D)
Then I feel bad for you because I've had truly excellent food throughout the US. I've traveled extensively and US cuisine is as good as anywhere I've been. There are some excellent culinary traditi
Since the only Naval ships which are, currently, nuclear powered are aircraft carriers and submarines
Close but not correct. There have been nuclear powered cruisers in the US navy (since retired) and the Russian navy still operates them. There also are nuclear powered icebreakers operated by the Russians and there also is one nuclear powered merchant ship in operation as well.
You're going to have a pretty hard time doing any targeting at all in heavy rain/fog so that cuts down on the differences between a laser and a shell under those conditions.
You know that goes for the missile targeting the ship as well right? Radar doesn't magically work better for the attacker than for the defender. Granted the ship is an easier target being bigger and slower but missile can and have missed ships before.
They have numerous more advanced fighters than "two old cold war era" fighters, have intermediate range ballistic missiles, and so on.
Before the first gulf war, Iraq had an army of over half a million, 4500 tanks, over 600 jet fighters and among those was a fair amount of pretty modern weaponry. On paper Iraq was pretty tough. In reality not so much. Iran would be a more dangerous foe I think but if the US military decided to attack Iran I think I know which side I'd bet on. Yes Iran has a few (emphasis FEW) state of the art weapons systems. If I was the commander of CENTCOM I wouldn't exactly be shaking in my boots. I have no confidence of the US policy AFTER the US military finishes wiping the floor with Iran's military but I wouldn't doubt the outcome of the fight.
Iran has been building up for a long time now, unmolested but *pissed off* because saddam was the US patsy for an invasion he tried against the Iranians (or do you remember when we armed Iraq?).
Yeah, do you remember why we armed Iraq? Iran wasn't our friend before the Iran Iraq war. I'm old enough to remember it happening and why it happened and why we supported Iraq. Our problems with Iran go back further than that. Iran has legitimate disputes with the US but it's not just that the US attacked the innocent Iranians.
They have a bona fide legit beef against the US now, they suffered one million troops lost in that US sponsored proxy war.
They had a beef long before that. The Islamic revolution occurred before the Iran/Iraq war and prior to that the US sponsored the government of Iran which achieved power courtesy a coup supported by the US in the 1950s. That government abused its power which lead to the islamic revolution. You might recall some hostages during the Carter administration courtesy of that little carnival.
Only a coked up drunk hallucinating steroid hopped complete redneck drooling moron, like the typical rah rah rah war is just like football! cretin would attack Iran today...
I would have said the same thing prior to the US invasion of Iraq. We elected a "redneck drooling moron". Twice.
Yes attacking Iran would be stupid. Hopefully it will never become necessary as well.
If they are not economical, why does the Navy use them(in the case of carriers) over gas turbines?
The Navy's use of them is not strictly an economic question. Nuclear reactors greatly simplify the logistics of refueling and thus is extremely appealing as a power source for certain types of vessels. Furthermore the Navy does not and never has been economically efficient. They don't have to be. Taxpayer dollars pay for those power plants, not a profit seeking entity. The Navy doesn't have to sell the electricity produced and they don't have to choose the most economically efficient technology.
Nuclear energy is probably the best chance we have are breaking our addiction to oil.
Think so? I think you are not considering a few facts.
Nuclear energy is not going to help replace the oil in plastics, fertilizers, adhesives, coatings, paints, cleaning products (did you know Dawn has oil products in it?), fabrics, lubricants, and countless other products.
You are aware as well that oil provides relatively little of our electricity, right? Oil provides about 2% of the electricity we use in the US. We get five times more electricity from hydro than from oil and coal provides about half the electricity used. Most oil is used for transportation and for various products. I like the thought of electric cars but those aren't going to do away with the need for oil anytime soon.
Building nuclear plants takes time. Lots of time. Even if we started today we couldn't bring enough nuclear plants online fast enough to service the anticipated need for electricity solely with nuclear during the next 15 years. If these smaller plants were to work (no idea if they would) that might help but then you have a distribution, cleanup and security problem with nuclear fuels.
If you think people are opposed to a coal plant in their backyard, try putting a nuclear plant there. People are quite fearful of nuclear. Sometimes with good reason and sometimes not but they are fearful nonetheless.
I don't know why the government doesn't just fund the development of a bunch of nuclear power plants and put them on the coast or on the ocean somewhere.
Let's see. First, what coast did you have in mind that is unoccupied yet close to major metropolitan areas? How do you propose to convince the taxpayers that might be fearful of nuclear that it is a good idea? How do you propose to transport the electricity economically to places far from the coast?
We could generate enough power to power the entire country, not to mention we could probably put hundreds of thousands of nuclear power plants in the desert.
First the coast and now the desert. Have you really given this any thought at all? No one lives in the desert and it's expensive to get the power out of the desert. Not to mention that cooling becomes a bigger problem there. While there are nuclear plants that don't require water, most use it because it is cheap and abundant. The entire advantage of a small nuclear plant is that you can place it where it is needed but no one wants to live near a nuclear reactor if they can help it.
Their coverage in the Southwest is pretty good (e.g. I can fly from pretty much anywhere of the same size to San Antonio
Many of the places I fly are often MUCH smaller. Think Toledo OH or Allentown PA. SWA simply isn't going to be flying into these places any time soon. Even many of the bigger cities I fly to aren't serviced by SWA. I'm glad they are there but I probably only use Southwest maybe one out of six flights these days.
I haven't flown enough to tell any (comfort) difference between A320 and the newer 737.
Honestly as a passenger I don't care for either of them. I might prefer the Airbus jet slightly but neither is especially pleasant. I'm partial to the Boeing 777 and smaller regional jets personally.
SWA used aggressive hedging around 2007 and on, but they made impressive profits throughout much of the 2000s
SWA has had an aggressive (possibly speculative) hedging program for much longer than that and has been responsible for much of those same profits. I was looking at it ten years ago. Their fuel hedging has had a LOT more to do with their profits than most people realize. Yes they are efficient in many other ways but don't underestimate the importance of fuel cost to an airline.
I always check in early so I can get a bulkhead seat(More legroom). ALWAYS.
When you are on the road that isn't always an option. I've had many trips which were too busy to get even a few minutes to check in far enough in advance. Maybe you always have that kind of time. I don't.
High Speed Rail is a boondogle that looses money everywhere it is employed. ALL HSR is government subsidized.
So are all roads and airports. Airlines don't begin to fully pay for the cost of airports and other supporting infrastructure. There is NO form of motorized air or land transportation that is not subsidized by tax revenues. Furthermore air travel is actually quite inefficient at shorter distances.
SWA flies only 737 to simplify their fleet and support costs for servicing their fleet.
I'm aware of the reason. It's a good one. But it still isn't my favorite plane to fly in and I've flown in a LOT of planes. Personally I tend to like the Boeing 777 and some of the smaller regional jets. Just personal preference.
and you're not going to get a surprise when you book them.
That works for both upside and downside. Yes I know what I'm getting with SWA. That's not always a good thing.
Bullets and lasers deliver this energy differently
Completely true but there are other factors to consider, the most important of which is actually hitting the target. The most important advantage lasers have is target tracking. With bullets you have to consider two trajectories (the bullet and the target) neither of which is likely to be perfectly straight. With lasers you simply aim directly at the target which is a much simpler tracking problem to solve, especially with modern sensors and vision systems. No need to consider the effects of wind, gravity, aerodynamics, bullet speed, etc. This doesn't make it a trivial problem to solve but it does have advantages.
I think the speed of targeting will be especially interesting and important against hypersonic cruise missiles. I'm curious how long it would take to destroy a missile approaching at 2000 m/s (mach 6). From the time the missile appears on the horizon a close in defense system would have 3-8 seconds to destroy a missile traveling at those speeds depending on how high it was mounted.
Not to say that bullets/shells don't have advantages too. Tricks like proximity fuses obviously aren't possible with lasers.
Of course, the Phalanx shoots 50-75 rounds a second , for a total muzzle energy/second of firing of a whopping 2269kJ.
Only relevant if all the bullets all hit, which they pretty much never do.
Southwest changes with the times and makes a profit.
Southwest is a company I respect and I fly with them sometimes but there is much not to like about their service too. The main thing I think they have going for them is that they have come to grips with the fact that air travel is not a luxury item anymore. It's a bus that flies - nothing more. I don't dislike Southwest but they aren't perfect by any means.
Southwest also doesn't fly many of the places I need to travel, especially longer routes and smaller airports. They've cherry picked their routes (and I don't blame them for it) but they often aren't an option. They only fly to 69 destinations in just 35 states.
You might like the lack of assigned seating but I hate it. I travel enough that early check in is often not an option, especially when on the road. I find their boarding procedure particularly obnoxious and it is designed to save cost but not to make it more convenient or more pleasant. Check in late and you'll be in a middle seat whether you like it or not.
Southwest's ability to make a profit has at times had more to do with their fuel hedging program than with their operational prowess. This bit them in 2008 when they lost money due oil prices moving the wrong way on them.
In 2008 and 2009 it came to light that SWA was not performing required inspections on their planes well beyond required deadlines. Tens of thousands of flights occurred on planes that should have been grounded. (The FAA is equally to blame here btw) I have a problem with any airline that risks safety in pursuit of cash and I don't care what the excuse is.
Not related to actual travel on SWA but SWA has lobbied against development of high speed rail in Texas (not shocking but not behavior I respect either)
SWA only operates the Boeing 737. A fine aircraft but without question not my favorite to fly in.
SWA in my experience doesn't handle the check in process any better than any other airline. They're usually fine but most of the other airlines are usually fine too and the length of the lines has more to do with time of day and the number of flights out of a given airport by that airline. I've had both long and short waits at many ticket counters including those of SWA. I have flown a LOT and have been on almost every decent sized carrier in the US and to/from about 40 states plus international.
Generally I'll look at Southwest as an option but they simply aren't flying many of the places I go.
Sure it is because it leaves room for assumptions about your point. Simply stating that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 carries with it the obvious implication that Republicans are/were more supportive of civil rights than Democrats. I presume your intent was not actually to proclaim the moral superiority of either party but your argument doesn't allow for that. The story of that particular bill is more complicated and facts out of context are dangerous. Without explaining that the republican party of 45 years ago was a different animal you are leaving out a very important part of the story and leave people room to assume you are making arguments that you actually are not.
So stop trying to justify the evils or polarization and vilification.
Huh? You're pulling that out of nowhere because I certainly didn't try to justify any such thing. I pointed out that by you illustrating a fact out of context and without a complete back story, YOU were contributing to polarization. I suspect you did not intend this (nor would I) but if you are going to use facts to support your arguments, make sure the facts are both correct and, just as important, complete.
How does the share price going down cost Apple anything?
It doesn't immediately but it does affect their cost of capital. A high stock price makes it relatively appealing to raise funds (if needed) through equity versus debt markets should the need arise. It also affects the appeal of using stock as currency for acquisitions. The higher the stock price, the less it costs Apple to do an acquisition. This is how AOL was able to buy Time Warner, despite TW being a much larger company. An inflated stock price is useful in the same way that having a strong currency helps consumers buy imports cheaper.
That said, 5% is not a big deal other than maybe a portent of things to come.
Are they borrowing so much money that a 5% drop in their share price has upped the interest rate they pay?
Not really. Apple presently carries no debt (go look at their balance sheet) and has a large pile of cash. But a 5% drop does have a small influence on their cost of capital if they were to try to raise money in equity markets. Nothing to get worked up over at this point. If they do recall the iPhone though I'd expect a fairly substantial (but probably short term) drop.
When I showed him that it was true and showed him that by percentage more Republicans supported Kennedy's Civil Rights reforms than Democrats did he went into a fit of rage!
A true fact but a bit misleading. The party composition was different then. Only a very few southern members of congress voted for the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 (introduced by Kennedy but passed under the Johnson administration) and only a few northern members voted against the bill. Among Northern Democrats a higher percentage supported the bill than Northern Republicans. Furthermore the passage of the bill caused many southerners to switch parties to the Republicans and is directly responsible for both parties respective positions on civil rights today.
You have to be careful comparing different eras. The Republican party of Lincoln's time bears little resemblance to the "same" party 100 years later which in turn bears only a casual resemblance to the Republican party of today.
That's the real trick, getting your music distributed in stores.
Actually that's half the trick and arguably the easier half. I have first hand experience in media distribution as both an industrial engineer and an accountant. First you need the capital to produce the physical media you intend to sell. Not many musicians have this kind of capital and you can't get it from a bank. Unit costs might not be bad but when you plan on selling CDs in the hundred thousands or millions the costs and logistics challenges increase in a non-linear fashion. Even ten thousand units is a pretty big logistical challenge. Second you need to actually sell the music to the stores and into the distribution networks. Try to do it yourself and you won't have much time for making music even if successful. Or you can hire someone to do it for you but this is expensive too regardless of whether it is an RIAA member or not. If you want big scale for selling a physical product (say CDs in Walmart) you'll almost certainly have to go through one or more middlemen who are much bigger than you are and who don't need your business. Your costs to use them will be MUCH higher than the big boys.
The hard part though is actually getting people to be interested in your music. Distribution logistics are a science but marketing and promotion is an art and something of a dark art at that. Few understand how to create a hit better than the RIAA members.
Yes, and even if I can't a publicity firm is a lot cheaper than the RIAA.
Maybe but maybe not. They aren't cheaper if they aren't effective and most publicity firms I've worked with have a pretty low return on investment. If you seek to reach the widest possible audience, it would be hard to compete with the RIAA members. Scummy as they are, they are actually better at promoting musicians than pretty much anyone else. (I'm not talking about how they treat the musicians, just their technical capabilities) You certainly can find cheaper publicity but sadly its pretty difficult to find publicists who specialize in promoting music AND who have the ability to reach as wide an audience. The RIAA members have economies of scale, pre-existing promotional relationships, knows the industry and who is important within it, etc. These are not easy abilities to replicate (a HUGE understatement by the way). Many are trying and the landscape IS shifting thanks to digital distribution but the big labels still matter and aren't going to be easy to push out of the way.
There are a lot of better ways for real musicians to make money than try to get a deal with an RIAA label.
Arguably true if the musician is realistic about the likelihood of success. Very few musicians make a lot of money and the RIAA members feed on the dreams and naivety of the rest. It's definitely possible to make money in music but odds are it will be a pretty modest living.
It is just laziness on the part of companies that do this.
Laziness? Hardly. Neither Windows Vista nor Windows 7 provide any compelling reason for our company to upgrade - not even security. There are literally no features in either Vista or Win7 that are not in XP that we need. So we are lazy for not spending a heaping gob of money to "upgrade" to something that adds cost but no benefit? I think not.
Yet somehow they think MS should have to support their OSes forever.
What support? Aside from the occasional patching of security holes, MS provides no support whatsoever to us. Apparently having billions in profit annually means they can't afford to patch the occasional security bug. Honestly I don't really expect MS to support their products but it would be nice if they did. Hell why not offer to provide it for a fee after some time? Companies that actually need it would pay and those that don't won't. Frankly I don't buy it. It's not the cost of support that is driving this - it is MS attempting to keep people on the upgrade treadmill. It's about revenue (for MS) not cost.
All that matters is that there are ways of mining that don't hurt the environment and that more are in use.
I defy you to name one. Mining is an inherently destructive activity. There is no such thing as a mine that does not hurt the environment. We might decide that the economic benefits outweigh the environmental consequences (and I don't necessarily have a problem with that in many cases) but make no mistake that the environment IS impacted negatively by mining. There are ways to mitigate the consequences and reduce/minimize the impact but there is no such thing as environmentally friendly mining.
sacrifice "bling" features for actual function, such as better features, lower price and business-directed application support.
As an owner of a Nokia smartphone I gotta disagree with the "better features" and realistically with the "lower price" as well. Of course better is subjective and depends on your specific needs but my needs are pretty much businesses - email, web, occasional documents, tethering etc. My Nokia is quite functional - it can do more or less everything an iPhone can do. Give me a feature checklist and they'll be pretty close. However the fact that it can do it doesn't mean you'll want to. Yes it has a web browser but web browsing on my Nokia is painful. Email? Same thing. Only useful for occasional emergencies and not something that is pleasant to use. Frankly there is little that my Nokia does particularly elegantly. It works but it's quite clumsy and irritating and almost never gets updated. My phone was basically abandonware after 3 months.
I haven't found Nokia phones to be any cheaper at the end of the day for phones with comparable feature lists. In fact the higher end Nokias are actually quite expensive. It's easy to find Nokia smartphones that are more expensive than almost any iPhone or Android device. Yes Nokia makes cheaper phones as well but it is doubtful Nokia has meaningfully lower costs than Apple on similar hardware. If Nokia is pricing their phones cheaper (and I don't think they are) it is because they have to, not because they want to. (at least in the US market) I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to phone platforms but I'm not especially impressed with Symbian after fairly extensive first hand experience.
You speak as though the savings account was this guys only account with the bank. It wasn't.
Doesn't necessarily matter. THAT account was unprofitable for the bank. Furthermore he wasn't using it. If he had large accounts elsewhere he might have been in their private banking service but it sounds like he wasn't and so the bank didn't much care if he left.
You also need to consider future potential. Maybe this guy was small-fry, but tomorrow he might want a big loan to start a business or buy a house.
When that happens I'm sure the bank will be happy to consider working with him. In the meantime the bank has no evidence that this will ever be the case.
Because they nickel-and-dimed him on the savings account he closed his checking account with an undisclosed amount in it.
Do you have any idea how expensive it is for a large bank to have policies that are inconsistent? It's unbelievably complicated and expensive. If a large bank is going to change the rules for you they'll need some sort of reason to believe you are worth the hassle and extra cost.
No doubt he'll show this bank the same amount of loyalty that they've shown him.
No doubt. Look, I've worked very closely with bankers for years. It is a relationship business. After all, the banker is selling an undifferentiated product - one money market fund is pretty much the same as any other money market fund. However folks with a $50 savings account don't normally have a personal relationship with an actual banker. They simply don't. As a result the bank has to institute policies that make sense for the sort of business the bank desires. A large bank is not going to spend a lot of effort trying to woo the business of an account holder with a tiny, unprofitable, inactive account. Expecting otherwise is naive.
If my bank tried to take $2 a month from me on my $100 savings account they'd lose all my business - including the mortgage that earns them tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Your mortgage doesn't earn them "tens of thousands of dollars a year" unless you have an absolutely gigantic mortgage. The interest they receive is 5-7% annually. For a typical mortgage of $200K (close to the average in the US) that works out to $7000-15000 in revenue which steadily decreases over time. You also are not considering the cost side of the equation. Chances are good those future interest payments have been securitized and sold already anyway so the bank may already be effectively out of your mortgage anyway.
Sure, most people are too lazy to change but it still generates a lot of ill will and for what? $50 a year in fees?
Yep. Banks are too important to the financial system to be especially concerned about the ill will and they know it. So yes, they can shape the sort of business they want by instituting fees. Don't like it? Take your business elsewhere and you'll both be happier.
Banks get away with this shit because they're about the most profitable industry there is.
Not really. You're confusing investment banking with retail banking. The two have little similarity. Retail banking is actually a pretty low margin business where economies of scale matter hugely. Don't confuse what investment banks Goldman Sachs does with what retail banks like Wells Fargo do. They are incredibly different businesses.
The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements.
That's not the customer's fault.
True but irrelevant. A bank is a business and it exists to make a profit. If you expect them to conduct business in a way that is unprofitable to them you are being naive.
I think you missed the part where he said he switched over to electronic statements. How does that cost the bank anything, exactly?
Statements aren't the only cost to the bank to maintain an account. While it's highly automated there are still labor and other costs as well. Account reconciliation, interest payments (it is a savings account), tax records, and more. Granted the costs are high but they aren't zero either. A small account even with little activity can cost as much to service as a big one. Hence banks tend to actively drive away business from smaller, less profitable customers.
Now I'd never really actually used it, and only had $50 or so in it
So you were providing them basically no money whatsoever to invest. Do you know how a bank works? They take in deposits and then invest the money deposited. In return they provide you security and safe access to your money and perhaps a bit of interest. The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements. Your $50 costs them money. Not a lot and probably not $2.00 but more than zero. Why would the bank want to do business with a customer that costs them money each month? They institute the fee specifically to drive away unprofitable customers.
You'd think things like this would be so destructive to your customer base that they'd have to think twice about it, yet they just do it without batting an eyelash
I'm sure you're a nice guy but think about it for a minute. You were a small fry customer with little capital who cost more to serve than the bank could make off your investments. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but that's what happened. You did the right thing by going to a credit union that wanted your business. But expecting a large bank to care greatly about an unprofitable small customer is naive.
Funny, I forgot to take the money out of savings.
"Funny"? That's not funny, that's dumb. You basically gave the bank $50 and got nothing in return.
Conventional coal is no longer a major source of power generation in the United States.
Yeah right. The US is to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil. I cannot conceive of any scenario by which coal will not be a major player for the next 40 years. I'd love to be wrong but I seriously doubt I am.
why do people work for Raytheon? What sequence of moral thoughts goes through their heads?
Just a few thoughts:
Feeding their families.
Protecting the nation and people like you. Someone has to design and make the weapons the soldiers use and no I don't agree that making weapons is inherently immoral.
Working on/with really interesting technology.
Raytheon does a lot of non-military work such as managing staffing at Antarctic research stations.
Working for Raytheon is voluntary and those who work there clearly are not bothered by Raytheon's business endeavors. In other words they don't see it as immoral. You might disagree but that doesn't make you right.
("To turns swords into ploughshares" is cynical nonsense, of course - why really? Is it just the money?)
It's a business so of course it is mostly about money. Many technologies have civilian and military applications. Why not make some cash on the civilian side of the technology too? The social effects can often be bigger on the civilian side as well.
Slashdot Mirror
yes, you pay 50% taxes, but that comes with UNIVERSAL health care, real rights to the ones that get unemployed, children support, practically FREE education all the way until the end of college
Free? It's not free. Your education and healthcare are paid for with tax dollars instead of private funding but it's not remotely free. Much of the education here in the US is paid for with tax dollars too even at the university level but Americans tend to prefer the option to choose what they pay for instead of having the government do it for us. Same with health care. You'll find that most Americans follow the principle that whenever possible those who use a service should be the ones paying for it. Sometimes that is not possible (military, infrastructure, primary/secondary education, etc) but it's not a bad concept and certainly no worse in principle than a system run by the government.
There are real unemployment rights in the US too but with an eye toward pushing people to get back to work instead of remaining unemployed. Unemployment rates in have historically been lower in the US than in much of Europe. There is no free lunch here. Greater unemployment benefits create incentives for people to remain unemployed. After all, why work if you can get by without working? Lesser employment benefits are harder on people in the short run but arguable better for everyone in the long run.
And beside, what really kills me, is how you Americans just care about the money.
You don't really know much about Americans do you? Much easier to lump us all together with ridiculous stereotypes than to actually try to understand. I'm sure you have lots of evidence to back up your assertion that Americans care about nothing but accumulating as much money and material wealth as possible. Couldn't possibly be true that we're just a teensy-tiny bit more complicated than that. [/sarcasm]
Man, quality of life is much more than the money.
True enough.
It's support when you need it. It's knowing that you are protected in case something goes wrong and it's not entirely your fault
Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Benefits, Welfare, Insurance, Workers Compensation, WIC, Food Stamps, Homeless Shelters, Food Banks, Nonprofit Humanitarian Groups, and Emergency Response systems are just a few of the support systems we have here in the US. There is literally no part of the social safety net you can point to in Europe that does not have an equivalent here in the US. Not identical and not perfect but it is a system that works. The ones in Europe work fine too but have their flaws as well if you actually care the take an objective look. Different approaches with the same end goal. Americans prefer a different approach that suits our particular sensibilities. If you don't like it, that's your choice and we don't really care.
it's good climate (well, this only applies to Souther Europe)
Yeah, the weather is really shitty in Southern California, Florida, etc. Do you have ANY concept of the geography in the US? The most populous states not coincidentally have pretty good weather. I live in a more northerly area and the weather where I live is absolutely delightful most of the year.
it's culture for free
Are you seriously making the incredibly tired argument that Americans have no culture and not access to it? Do you seriously believe we have no art, no food, no music, no museums, no social outlets and no dance? Do you really think we charge for access to all of it?
it's really good food (once again ... only in southern Europe :D)
Then I feel bad for you because I've had truly excellent food throughout the US. I've traveled extensively and US cuisine is as good as anywhere I've been. There are some excellent culinary traditi
Since the only Naval ships which are, currently, nuclear powered are aircraft carriers and submarines
Close but not correct. There have been nuclear powered cruisers in the US navy (since retired) and the Russian navy still operates them. There also are nuclear powered icebreakers operated by the Russians and there also is one nuclear powered merchant ship in operation as well.
You're going to have a pretty hard time doing any targeting at all in heavy rain/fog so that cuts down on the differences between a laser and a shell under those conditions.
You know that goes for the missile targeting the ship as well right? Radar doesn't magically work better for the attacker than for the defender. Granted the ship is an easier target being bigger and slower but missile can and have missed ships before.
They have numerous more advanced fighters than "two old cold war era" fighters, have intermediate range ballistic missiles, and so on.
Before the first gulf war, Iraq had an army of over half a million, 4500 tanks, over 600 jet fighters and among those was a fair amount of pretty modern weaponry. On paper Iraq was pretty tough. In reality not so much. Iran would be a more dangerous foe I think but if the US military decided to attack Iran I think I know which side I'd bet on. Yes Iran has a few (emphasis FEW) state of the art weapons systems. If I was the commander of CENTCOM I wouldn't exactly be shaking in my boots. I have no confidence of the US policy AFTER the US military finishes wiping the floor with Iran's military but I wouldn't doubt the outcome of the fight.
Iran has been building up for a long time now, unmolested but *pissed off* because saddam was the US patsy for an invasion he tried against the Iranians (or do you remember when we armed Iraq?).
Yeah, do you remember why we armed Iraq? Iran wasn't our friend before the Iran Iraq war. I'm old enough to remember it happening and why it happened and why we supported Iraq. Our problems with Iran go back further than that. Iran has legitimate disputes with the US but it's not just that the US attacked the innocent Iranians.
They have a bona fide legit beef against the US now, they suffered one million troops lost in that US sponsored proxy war.
They had a beef long before that. The Islamic revolution occurred before the Iran/Iraq war and prior to that the US sponsored the government of Iran which achieved power courtesy a coup supported by the US in the 1950s. That government abused its power which lead to the islamic revolution. You might recall some hostages during the Carter administration courtesy of that little carnival.
Only a coked up drunk hallucinating steroid hopped complete redneck drooling moron, like the typical rah rah rah war is just like football! cretin would attack Iran today...
I would have said the same thing prior to the US invasion of Iraq. We elected a "redneck drooling moron". Twice.
Yes attacking Iran would be stupid. Hopefully it will never become necessary as well.
If they are not economical, why does the Navy use them(in the case of carriers) over gas turbines?
The Navy's use of them is not strictly an economic question. Nuclear reactors greatly simplify the logistics of refueling and thus is extremely appealing as a power source for certain types of vessels. Furthermore the Navy does not and never has been economically efficient. They don't have to be. Taxpayer dollars pay for those power plants, not a profit seeking entity. The Navy doesn't have to sell the electricity produced and they don't have to choose the most economically efficient technology.
Nuclear energy is probably the best chance we have are breaking our addiction to oil.
Think so? I think you are not considering a few facts.
I don't know why the government doesn't just fund the development of a bunch of nuclear power plants and put them on the coast or on the ocean somewhere.
Let's see. First, what coast did you have in mind that is unoccupied yet close to major metropolitan areas? How do you propose to convince the taxpayers that might be fearful of nuclear that it is a good idea? How do you propose to transport the electricity economically to places far from the coast?
We could generate enough power to power the entire country, not to mention we could probably put hundreds of thousands of nuclear power plants in the desert.
First the coast and now the desert. Have you really given this any thought at all? No one lives in the desert and it's expensive to get the power out of the desert. Not to mention that cooling becomes a bigger problem there. While there are nuclear plants that don't require water, most use it because it is cheap and abundant. The entire advantage of a small nuclear plant is that you can place it where it is needed but no one wants to live near a nuclear reactor if they can help it.
Their coverage in the Southwest is pretty good (e.g. I can fly from pretty much anywhere of the same size to San Antonio
Many of the places I fly are often MUCH smaller. Think Toledo OH or Allentown PA. SWA simply isn't going to be flying into these places any time soon. Even many of the bigger cities I fly to aren't serviced by SWA. I'm glad they are there but I probably only use Southwest maybe one out of six flights these days.
I haven't flown enough to tell any (comfort) difference between A320 and the newer 737.
Honestly as a passenger I don't care for either of them. I might prefer the Airbus jet slightly but neither is especially pleasant. I'm partial to the Boeing 777 and smaller regional jets personally.
SWA used aggressive hedging around 2007 and on, but they made impressive profits throughout much of the 2000s
SWA has had an aggressive (possibly speculative) hedging program for much longer than that and has been responsible for much of those same profits. I was looking at it ten years ago. Their fuel hedging has had a LOT more to do with their profits than most people realize. Yes they are efficient in many other ways but don't underestimate the importance of fuel cost to an airline.
I always check in early so I can get a bulkhead seat(More legroom). ALWAYS.
When you are on the road that isn't always an option. I've had many trips which were too busy to get even a few minutes to check in far enough in advance. Maybe you always have that kind of time. I don't.
High Speed Rail is a boondogle that looses money everywhere it is employed. ALL HSR is government subsidized.
So are all roads and airports. Airlines don't begin to fully pay for the cost of airports and other supporting infrastructure. There is NO form of motorized air or land transportation that is not subsidized by tax revenues. Furthermore air travel is actually quite inefficient at shorter distances.
SWA flies only 737 to simplify their fleet and support costs for servicing their fleet.
I'm aware of the reason. It's a good one. But it still isn't my favorite plane to fly in and I've flown in a LOT of planes. Personally I tend to like the Boeing 777 and some of the smaller regional jets. Just personal preference.
and you're not going to get a surprise when you book them.
That works for both upside and downside. Yes I know what I'm getting with SWA. That's not always a good thing.
Bullets and lasers deliver this energy differently
Completely true but there are other factors to consider, the most important of which is actually hitting the target. The most important advantage lasers have is target tracking. With bullets you have to consider two trajectories (the bullet and the target) neither of which is likely to be perfectly straight. With lasers you simply aim directly at the target which is a much simpler tracking problem to solve, especially with modern sensors and vision systems. No need to consider the effects of wind, gravity, aerodynamics, bullet speed, etc. This doesn't make it a trivial problem to solve but it does have advantages.
I think the speed of targeting will be especially interesting and important against hypersonic cruise missiles. I'm curious how long it would take to destroy a missile approaching at 2000 m/s (mach 6). From the time the missile appears on the horizon a close in defense system would have 3-8 seconds to destroy a missile traveling at those speeds depending on how high it was mounted.
Not to say that bullets/shells don't have advantages too. Tricks like proximity fuses obviously aren't possible with lasers.
Of course, the Phalanx shoots 50-75 rounds a second , for a total muzzle energy/second of firing of a whopping 2269kJ.
Only relevant if all the bullets all hit, which they pretty much never do.
Southwest changes with the times and makes a profit.
Southwest is a company I respect and I fly with them sometimes but there is much not to like about their service too. The main thing I think they have going for them is that they have come to grips with the fact that air travel is not a luxury item anymore. It's a bus that flies - nothing more. I don't dislike Southwest but they aren't perfect by any means.
Generally I'll look at Southwest as an option but they simply aren't flying many of the places I go.
Not really misleading at all.
Sure it is because it leaves room for assumptions about your point. Simply stating that a higher percentage of Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 carries with it the obvious implication that Republicans are/were more supportive of civil rights than Democrats. I presume your intent was not actually to proclaim the moral superiority of either party but your argument doesn't allow for that. The story of that particular bill is more complicated and facts out of context are dangerous. Without explaining that the republican party of 45 years ago was a different animal you are leaving out a very important part of the story and leave people room to assume you are making arguments that you actually are not.
So stop trying to justify the evils or polarization and vilification.
Huh? You're pulling that out of nowhere because I certainly didn't try to justify any such thing. I pointed out that by you illustrating a fact out of context and without a complete back story, YOU were contributing to polarization. I suspect you did not intend this (nor would I) but if you are going to use facts to support your arguments, make sure the facts are both correct and, just as important, complete.
How does the share price going down cost Apple anything?
It doesn't immediately but it does affect their cost of capital. A high stock price makes it relatively appealing to raise funds (if needed) through equity versus debt markets should the need arise. It also affects the appeal of using stock as currency for acquisitions. The higher the stock price, the less it costs Apple to do an acquisition. This is how AOL was able to buy Time Warner, despite TW being a much larger company. An inflated stock price is useful in the same way that having a strong currency helps consumers buy imports cheaper.
That said, 5% is not a big deal other than maybe a portent of things to come.
Are they borrowing so much money that a 5% drop in their share price has upped the interest rate they pay?
Not really. Apple presently carries no debt (go look at their balance sheet) and has a large pile of cash. But a 5% drop does have a small influence on their cost of capital if they were to try to raise money in equity markets. Nothing to get worked up over at this point. If they do recall the iPhone though I'd expect a fairly substantial (but probably short term) drop.
When I showed him that it was true and showed him that by percentage more Republicans supported Kennedy's Civil Rights reforms than Democrats did he went into a fit of rage!
A true fact but a bit misleading. The party composition was different then. Only a very few southern members of congress voted for the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 (introduced by Kennedy but passed under the Johnson administration) and only a few northern members voted against the bill. Among Northern Democrats a higher percentage supported the bill than Northern Republicans. Furthermore the passage of the bill caused many southerners to switch parties to the Republicans and is directly responsible for both parties respective positions on civil rights today.
You have to be careful comparing different eras. The Republican party of Lincoln's time bears little resemblance to the "same" party 100 years later which in turn bears only a casual resemblance to the Republican party of today.
That's the real trick, getting your music distributed in stores.
Actually that's half the trick and arguably the easier half. I have first hand experience in media distribution as both an industrial engineer and an accountant. First you need the capital to produce the physical media you intend to sell. Not many musicians have this kind of capital and you can't get it from a bank. Unit costs might not be bad but when you plan on selling CDs in the hundred thousands or millions the costs and logistics challenges increase in a non-linear fashion. Even ten thousand units is a pretty big logistical challenge. Second you need to actually sell the music to the stores and into the distribution networks. Try to do it yourself and you won't have much time for making music even if successful. Or you can hire someone to do it for you but this is expensive too regardless of whether it is an RIAA member or not. If you want big scale for selling a physical product (say CDs in Walmart) you'll almost certainly have to go through one or more middlemen who are much bigger than you are and who don't need your business. Your costs to use them will be MUCH higher than the big boys.
The hard part though is actually getting people to be interested in your music. Distribution logistics are a science but marketing and promotion is an art and something of a dark art at that. Few understand how to create a hit better than the RIAA members.
Yes, and even if I can't a publicity firm is a lot cheaper than the RIAA.
Maybe but maybe not. They aren't cheaper if they aren't effective and most publicity firms I've worked with have a pretty low return on investment. If you seek to reach the widest possible audience, it would be hard to compete with the RIAA members. Scummy as they are, they are actually better at promoting musicians than pretty much anyone else. (I'm not talking about how they treat the musicians, just their technical capabilities) You certainly can find cheaper publicity but sadly its pretty difficult to find publicists who specialize in promoting music AND who have the ability to reach as wide an audience. The RIAA members have economies of scale, pre-existing promotional relationships, knows the industry and who is important within it, etc. These are not easy abilities to replicate (a HUGE understatement by the way). Many are trying and the landscape IS shifting thanks to digital distribution but the big labels still matter and aren't going to be easy to push out of the way.
There are a lot of better ways for real musicians to make money than try to get a deal with an RIAA label.
Arguably true if the musician is realistic about the likelihood of success. Very few musicians make a lot of money and the RIAA members feed on the dreams and naivety of the rest. It's definitely possible to make money in music but odds are it will be a pretty modest living.
It is just laziness on the part of companies that do this.
Laziness? Hardly. Neither Windows Vista nor Windows 7 provide any compelling reason for our company to upgrade - not even security. There are literally no features in either Vista or Win7 that are not in XP that we need. So we are lazy for not spending a heaping gob of money to "upgrade" to something that adds cost but no benefit? I think not.
Yet somehow they think MS should have to support their OSes forever.
What support? Aside from the occasional patching of security holes, MS provides no support whatsoever to us. Apparently having billions in profit annually means they can't afford to patch the occasional security bug. Honestly I don't really expect MS to support their products but it would be nice if they did. Hell why not offer to provide it for a fee after some time? Companies that actually need it would pay and those that don't won't. Frankly I don't buy it. It's not the cost of support that is driving this - it is MS attempting to keep people on the upgrade treadmill. It's about revenue (for MS) not cost.
I would suggest that you look at the prices without the contracts.
I bought my phone without any contract. In fact I've only once actually bought a subsidized phone.
As with a contract you pay for your phone not in 1 go, but in installments.
I've never seen an installment plan for a non-subsidized phone but perhaps they exist.
All that matters is that there are ways of mining that don't hurt the environment and that more are in use.
I defy you to name one. Mining is an inherently destructive activity. There is no such thing as a mine that does not hurt the environment. We might decide that the economic benefits outweigh the environmental consequences (and I don't necessarily have a problem with that in many cases) but make no mistake that the environment IS impacted negatively by mining. There are ways to mitigate the consequences and reduce/minimize the impact but there is no such thing as environmentally friendly mining.
sacrifice "bling" features for actual function, such as better features, lower price and business-directed application support.
As an owner of a Nokia smartphone I gotta disagree with the "better features" and realistically with the "lower price" as well. Of course better is subjective and depends on your specific needs but my needs are pretty much businesses - email, web, occasional documents, tethering etc. My Nokia is quite functional - it can do more or less everything an iPhone can do. Give me a feature checklist and they'll be pretty close. However the fact that it can do it doesn't mean you'll want to. Yes it has a web browser but web browsing on my Nokia is painful. Email? Same thing. Only useful for occasional emergencies and not something that is pleasant to use. Frankly there is little that my Nokia does particularly elegantly. It works but it's quite clumsy and irritating and almost never gets updated. My phone was basically abandonware after 3 months.
I haven't found Nokia phones to be any cheaper at the end of the day for phones with comparable feature lists. In fact the higher end Nokias are actually quite expensive. It's easy to find Nokia smartphones that are more expensive than almost any iPhone or Android device. Yes Nokia makes cheaper phones as well but it is doubtful Nokia has meaningfully lower costs than Apple on similar hardware. If Nokia is pricing their phones cheaper (and I don't think they are) it is because they have to, not because they want to. (at least in the US market) I'm pretty agnostic when it comes to phone platforms but I'm not especially impressed with Symbian after fairly extensive first hand experience.
You speak as though the savings account was this guys only account with the bank. It wasn't.
Doesn't necessarily matter. THAT account was unprofitable for the bank. Furthermore he wasn't using it. If he had large accounts elsewhere he might have been in their private banking service but it sounds like he wasn't and so the bank didn't much care if he left.
You also need to consider future potential. Maybe this guy was small-fry, but tomorrow he might want a big loan to start a business or buy a house.
When that happens I'm sure the bank will be happy to consider working with him. In the meantime the bank has no evidence that this will ever be the case.
Because they nickel-and-dimed him on the savings account he closed his checking account with an undisclosed amount in it.
Do you have any idea how expensive it is for a large bank to have policies that are inconsistent? It's unbelievably complicated and expensive. If a large bank is going to change the rules for you they'll need some sort of reason to believe you are worth the hassle and extra cost.
No doubt he'll show this bank the same amount of loyalty that they've shown him.
No doubt. Look, I've worked very closely with bankers for years. It is a relationship business. After all, the banker is selling an undifferentiated product - one money market fund is pretty much the same as any other money market fund. However folks with a $50 savings account don't normally have a personal relationship with an actual banker. They simply don't. As a result the bank has to institute policies that make sense for the sort of business the bank desires. A large bank is not going to spend a lot of effort trying to woo the business of an account holder with a tiny, unprofitable, inactive account. Expecting otherwise is naive.
If my bank tried to take $2 a month from me on my $100 savings account they'd lose all my business - including the mortgage that earns them tens of thousands of dollars a year.
Your mortgage doesn't earn them "tens of thousands of dollars a year" unless you have an absolutely gigantic mortgage. The interest they receive is 5-7% annually. For a typical mortgage of $200K (close to the average in the US) that works out to $7000-15000 in revenue which steadily decreases over time. You also are not considering the cost side of the equation. Chances are good those future interest payments have been securitized and sold already anyway so the bank may already be effectively out of your mortgage anyway.
Sure, most people are too lazy to change but it still generates a lot of ill will and for what? $50 a year in fees?
Yep. Banks are too important to the financial system to be especially concerned about the ill will and they know it. So yes, they can shape the sort of business they want by instituting fees. Don't like it? Take your business elsewhere and you'll both be happier.
Banks get away with this shit because they're about the most profitable industry there is.
Not really. You're confusing investment banking with retail banking. The two have little similarity. Retail banking is actually a pretty low margin business where economies of scale matter hugely. Don't confuse what investment banks Goldman Sachs does with what retail banks like Wells Fargo do. They are incredibly different businesses.
The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements.
That's not the customer's fault.
True but irrelevant. A bank is a business and it exists to make a profit. If you expect them to conduct business in a way that is unprofitable to them you are being naive.
I think you missed the part where he said he switched over to electronic statements. How does that cost the bank anything, exactly?
Statements aren't the only cost to the bank to maintain an account. While it's highly automated there are still labor and other costs as well. Account reconciliation, interest payments (it is a savings account), tax records, and more. Granted the costs are high but they aren't zero either. A small account even with little activity can cost as much to service as a big one. Hence banks tend to actively drive away business from smaller, less profitable customers.
Now I'd never really actually used it, and only had $50 or so in it
So you were providing them basically no money whatsoever to invest. Do you know how a bank works? They take in deposits and then invest the money deposited. In return they provide you security and safe access to your money and perhaps a bit of interest. The amount of interest that can be earned on $50.00 is less than the cost to send you your statements. Your $50 costs them money. Not a lot and probably not $2.00 but more than zero. Why would the bank want to do business with a customer that costs them money each month? They institute the fee specifically to drive away unprofitable customers.
You'd think things like this would be so destructive to your customer base that they'd have to think twice about it, yet they just do it without batting an eyelash
I'm sure you're a nice guy but think about it for a minute. You were a small fry customer with little capital who cost more to serve than the bank could make off your investments. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but that's what happened. You did the right thing by going to a credit union that wanted your business. But expecting a large bank to care greatly about an unprofitable small customer is naive.
Funny, I forgot to take the money out of savings.
"Funny"? That's not funny, that's dumb. You basically gave the bank $50 and got nothing in return.
Conventional coal is no longer a major source of power generation in the United States.
Yeah right. The US is to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil. I cannot conceive of any scenario by which coal will not be a major player for the next 40 years. I'd love to be wrong but I seriously doubt I am.
why do people work for Raytheon? What sequence of moral thoughts goes through their heads?
Just a few thoughts:
("To turns swords into ploughshares" is cynical nonsense, of course - why really? Is it just the money?)
It's a business so of course it is mostly about money. Many technologies have civilian and military applications. Why not make some cash on the civilian side of the technology too? The social effects can often be bigger on the civilian side as well.
The original article doesn't even cite the FBI.
You actually read the article? You realize this is slashdot?