It also decreases your productivity by 50%, which is most commonly spent between writing class definitions, untangling inheritance trees and maintaining conversion functions between functionally identical but differently named types.
There's no need for the government to get involved at all. Businesses will slowly transition to email because it's cheaper for them. If consumers hate it because it takes much longer to check out, then they will find some way to improve that experience, such as tying your email to your credit card or just switch over to mobile payments.
I agree with you that a wall is not the ideal choice, but it's the only one that has any political backing. Employers do need those workers, but nobody's looking at revamping the temporary work visa program.
Another way is to simply deny all government-funded services to illegal immigrants. But that's also a political non-starter. Once they've crossed the border, a lot of sympathetic people demand that they be given the same treatment as Americans, including the right to work, subsidized health care and free education.
As for legalizing hard drugs, that won't happen because the costs are simply too high. Many of those drugs will quickly ruin a person and the costs of rehab are in the thousands if not tens of thousands. To tax it sufficiently to pay for treatment would add several hundred dollars to each dose. Not many people can afford that and they'll turn to illegal sources again.
Ironic how you call my numbers bad, when you don't have any better ones.
Maintenance of a wall in the desert is basically nothing. There's no corrosion to speak of. Maybe you're thinking of people to man the wall. Yes, that costs money, but it's a cost we already pay for, through the existing border patrols. A wall is not going to make that more expensive, if anything, it'll let even fewer people patrol a much longer stretch of it.
By that logic it's also entirely reasonable for Trump to continue to veto any bills that don't include a border wall. He promised it on his campaign after all.
I think the real stupidity here is how the government budget isn't just defaulting to what they approved last year. Maybe another few years of shutdown and people will get a clue.
Would you be supportive of immigration controls that are effective, such as random ID checks and fines for employers of illegal immigrants?
Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants. Even the liberal politifact says the costs is between $43 to $279 billion per year. Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%.
So the wall only has to be 0.005% effective to save us money, which it certainly will be. Heck, even Trump's rhetoric about building the wall is more than 0.005% effective.
I think normally that would be the case, but what happens when the ethics committee has common interests with the investigative target (in this case, other university faculty who publish in those journals)?
Using the search warrant analogy, you might imagine a judge would refuse to issue a search warrant against his own spouse, but thankfully we have other impartial judges who can do that instead.
That's not the case for the ethics committee. There's only one, and they will be under significant pressure to reject any study that might embarrass the university or any of its departments.
If it were totally 100% left up to the free market, the REAL situation we'd have with food supplies is that they'd wildly thrash back and forth between abundance and scarcity.
No they won't. Any smart farmer or investor will see it happening once or twice and buy up farms that are going out of business. When supply falls far enough, they'll restart production and be the first to make a huge profit. If they're a food distributor, they'll be buying a lot of freezers to store food when it's cheap, selling it when it gets expensive.
This happens so often that people invented the entire futures market to deal with this problem before it even occurs.
Taxes are different. If you received education in one city, but move to another for work, your taxes don't go to the original city (or schools) that educated you. Likewise at the state level if you move states. This disincentivizes cities and states from investing in education and incentivizes them to attract already-educated people.
By turning it into a contract obligation (or debt), you ensure that the schools directly responsible for your success are rewarded.
Even if it makes money, why the heck are colleges in the business of running sports teams?
If you don't care about whether the business has anything to do with higher education, then are millions of other things a college can do to make money, why not pursue those?
How about starting a software consulting company? Or a hedge fund? Or a health insurance business? Or just plain investing? If Stanford bought 10% of every startup created by their alumni, they'd have a sizable chunk of the tech industry in their pocket by now (read: hundreds of billions of dollars). Sports teams are terrible investments by comparison.
According to a report from what appears to be a very anti-fossil-fuel organization*, the US spends $20 billion per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Sounds like a lot right? But it turns out the US collects $35 billion in fuel taxes.
Now there's probably some non-monetary benefits that's not being counted, but if the government is making $15 billion a year from it, I don't think it's a subsidy overall.
* Their mission is apparently "exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the coming transition towards clean energy"
The problem is that you can't be 100% sure that the car in front of you will clear the intersection until it's actually clear of it. It can suddenly slow down without notice or even fully stop for reasons that you cannot foresee.
So to actually obey the law, the intersection can only have one car per lane at any time. Unfortunately, that also effectively turns them into stop signs. Instead of every car accelerating at the same time when the light turns green, now only the first car can accelerate. The second could only scoot up to the edge of the intersection, then wait until the first is completely clear before proceeding. Same for every car after that.
22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.
Note that it's still possible to enter when the light is green, have sufficient space to clear the intersection, but still be moving too slow to exit before the light turns red. This can easily happen when the cars in front of you are moving slowly, perhaps due to a red light further ahead.
Fun fact. Until July of 2017 Oregon was one of the states that did require aircraft pilots to register with the state and pay an annual fee for the privilege of being a pilot.
So when an airliner overflies Oregon, does it become un-piloted? Or does the entire world's pilots register with Oregon?
This statistic is seriously flawed. It only counts those who can afford to stay despite being unemployed, which is unlikely if you worked at very low-wage job and had little or no savings.
Presumably it takes one person to copy the data out of the database and send it over, but that one person is on leave due to the shutdown.
And this is a task that would've taken a day or two at most. If it was a week-long effort, then it wouldn't have been sent quickly enough to help even if the government was operational.
Slashdot Mirror
Counter-example: static typing can reduce your bugs by 15%
It also decreases your productivity by 50%, which is most commonly spent between writing class definitions, untangling inheritance trees and maintaining conversion functions between functionally identical but differently named types.
There's no need for the government to get involved at all. Businesses will slowly transition to email because it's cheaper for them. If consumers hate it because it takes much longer to check out, then they will find some way to improve that experience, such as tying your email to your credit card or just switch over to mobile payments.
I'm guessing that's to prevent tax evasion?
Paper receipts are not a pollution problem though. They turn to dirt quickly enough that it really doesn't matter.
I agree with you that a wall is not the ideal choice, but it's the only one that has any political backing. Employers do need those workers, but nobody's looking at revamping the temporary work visa program.
Another way is to simply deny all government-funded services to illegal immigrants. But that's also a political non-starter. Once they've crossed the border, a lot of sympathetic people demand that they be given the same treatment as Americans, including the right to work, subsidized health care and free education.
As for legalizing hard drugs, that won't happen because the costs are simply too high. Many of those drugs will quickly ruin a person and the costs of rehab are in the thousands if not tens of thousands. To tax it sufficiently to pay for treatment would add several hundred dollars to each dose. Not many people can afford that and they'll turn to illegal sources again.
Ironic how you call my numbers bad, when you don't have any better ones.
Maintenance of a wall in the desert is basically nothing. There's no corrosion to speak of. Maybe you're thinking of people to man the wall. Yes, that costs money, but it's a cost we already pay for, through the existing border patrols. A wall is not going to make that more expensive, if anything, it'll let even fewer people patrol a much longer stretch of it.
By that logic it's also entirely reasonable for Trump to continue to veto any bills that don't include a border wall. He promised it on his campaign after all.
I think the real stupidity here is how the government budget isn't just defaulting to what they approved last year. Maybe another few years of shutdown and people will get a clue.
Would you be supportive of immigration controls that are effective, such as random ID checks and fines for employers of illegal immigrants?
Besides, even if it's not perfect, a one-time $5 billion is peanuts compared to the cost of hosting illegal immigrants. Even the liberal politifact says the costs is between $43 to $279 billion per year. Over the lifetime of the wall, which is probably 20 years or more, that's 0.0008% to 0.005%.
So the wall only has to be 0.005% effective to save us money, which it certainly will be. Heck, even Trump's rhetoric about building the wall is more than 0.005% effective.
I think normally that would be the case, but what happens when the ethics committee has common interests with the investigative target (in this case, other university faculty who publish in those journals)?
Using the search warrant analogy, you might imagine a judge would refuse to issue a search warrant against his own spouse, but thankfully we have other impartial judges who can do that instead.
That's not the case for the ethics committee. There's only one, and they will be under significant pressure to reject any study that might embarrass the university or any of its departments.
The police does not need a warrant to start a stake out.
"Hi! I'd like to run an experiment on you to prove you're stupid!"
"Yes, please go right ahead!"
Yeah, that'll totally work... not.
If it were totally 100% left up to the free market, the REAL situation we'd have with food supplies is that they'd wildly thrash back and forth between abundance and scarcity.
No they won't. Any smart farmer or investor will see it happening once or twice and buy up farms that are going out of business. When supply falls far enough, they'll restart production and be the first to make a huge profit. If they're a food distributor, they'll be buying a lot of freezers to store food when it's cheap, selling it when it gets expensive.
This happens so often that people invented the entire futures market to deal with this problem before it even occurs.
Taxes are different. If you received education in one city, but move to another for work, your taxes don't go to the original city (or schools) that educated you. Likewise at the state level if you move states. This disincentivizes cities and states from investing in education and incentivizes them to attract already-educated people.
By turning it into a contract obligation (or debt), you ensure that the schools directly responsible for your success are rewarded.
Income taxes aren't tied to receiving some benefit beforehand.
Have you been robbed? Pressed into slavery? Conquered by Mongols?
No? Well that's a benefit you received before you paid taxes.
Even if it makes money, why the heck are colleges in the business of running sports teams?
If you don't care about whether the business has anything to do with higher education, then are millions of other things a college can do to make money, why not pursue those?
How about starting a software consulting company? Or a hedge fund? Or a health insurance business? Or just plain investing? If Stanford bought 10% of every startup created by their alumni, they'd have a sizable chunk of the tech industry in their pocket by now (read: hundreds of billions of dollars). Sports teams are terrible investments by comparison.
What makes you think they would crash and burn?
According to a report from what appears to be a very anti-fossil-fuel organization*, the US spends $20 billion per year on fossil fuel subsidies. Sounds like a lot right? But it turns out the US collects $35 billion in fuel taxes.
Now there's probably some non-monetary benefits that's not being counted, but if the government is making $15 billion a year from it, I don't think it's a subsidy overall.
* Their mission is apparently "exposing the true costs of fossil fuels and facilitating the coming transition towards clean energy"
The problem is that you can't be 100% sure that the car in front of you will clear the intersection until it's actually clear of it. It can suddenly slow down without notice or even fully stop for reasons that you cannot foresee.
So to actually obey the law, the intersection can only have one car per lane at any time. Unfortunately, that also effectively turns them into stop signs. Instead of every car accelerating at the same time when the light turns green, now only the first car can accelerate. The second could only scoot up to the edge of the intersection, then wait until the first is completely clear before proceeding. Same for every car after that.
22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.
Note that it's still possible to enter when the light is green, have sufficient space to clear the intersection, but still be moving too slow to exit before the light turns red. This can easily happen when the cars in front of you are moving slowly, perhaps due to a red light further ahead.
Pretty sure doctors don't sign anything before they start treatment. At most they might sign one with the hospital regarding pay and such.
Fun fact. Until July of 2017 Oregon was one of the states that did require aircraft pilots to register with the state and pay an annual fee for the privilege of being a pilot.
So when an airliner overflies Oregon, does it become un-piloted? Or does the entire world's pilots register with Oregon?
Yes.
There are no two foods that tastes the same. Even 2 pieces of bacon would be different if they come from different pigs.
Does salted and smoked pork belly taste as good as bacon?
This statistic is seriously flawed. It only counts those who can afford to stay despite being unemployed, which is unlikely if you worked at very low-wage job and had little or no savings.
Presumably it takes one person to copy the data out of the database and send it over, but that one person is on leave due to the shutdown.
And this is a task that would've taken a day or two at most. If it was a week-long effort, then it wouldn't have been sent quickly enough to help even if the government was operational.