"Inferior" and "Superior" are subjective. It might give an inferior cleaning but still be a superior product for other reasons. My Nook Color is a technically inferior product to my mother's Nexus 10, but I consider it a superior product because it costs significantly less. Likewise, my car has an inferior engine when comparing power, but it's far superior in terms of mileage. Canada may be inferior because they invented Justin Bieber, but they're actually superior because they got rid of him.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say they don't give a fuck what you (a Slashdot user, typically separate from their main demographic) *want* to use it for.
SPOILERS: The Slashdot demographic is a bit off center of the XBox/PS4's main target demographic. (In other words, MS and Sony don't give a fuck what you use it for)
If you're talking heat output, the lightbulb would be 90%, not 10%, and a lot of people have older furnaces that are fairly inefficient. Obviously, almost every house is different in terms of how high people turn up the heat, whether they heat the whole house or certain zones (and how well the heating system matches how they try to use it), how insulated the house is, how efficient the ductwork is, whether is forced air, etc for conveying the heat to rooms, whether the windows are insulated, if the owner adds additional insulation to the windows during winter, whether rats/mice have eaten holes in the insulation, whether the house was constructed correctly, etc. Change some of those variables around and you'll see that incandescent bulbs can be relatively efficient for one person and horribly inefficient for their next-door neighbor.
"such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition"
I propose an exception - if the violation happens before take-off, they should have to wait until the plane reaches a certain minimum altitude before the forcible disembarkation.
Healthcare.gov is estimated to cost up to $677 million, or about $2.16 per capita for a brand new system. A $5 million tweak in Estonia works out to be about $3.76 per capita... for a tweak.
"That's one of the benefits of a small country - we'll never have to cope with a third of a billion people wanting to use a system."
Something many people overlook when saying we should adapt X country's Y system to the US. Estonia has 1.33 million people. Finland has 5.4 million people. The US has 20 states with larger populations than Finland (40 larger than Estonia)... it makes a big difference when trying to scale.
You're assuming I was placing the company as the man in the analogy. I was placing a man as the man, the $50,000 as eating for a day and a steady job as eating for a lifetime. I said exactly diddly-squat about giving the money to the failing company instead, I just said giving a lump sum to people is a poor strategy.
It's great that you'd use it as a downpayment, but then you'd be stuck with an asset with low liquidity in a location with no jobs... so once the downpayment is made, you have no way to pay the mortgage. If the government wants to stimulate the economy, it would seem that stabilizing jobs from which to provide long-term income that consumers can spend is a much better game plan than a one-time infusion directly into the consumer base.
Individuals can move or find new jobs, but if you have an entire industry out of work at once, then that ain't happening. Moving is very expensive, especially if your income is suddenly gone - and that's before you consider non-employment-related reasons for why people live where they do. As for finding new jobs, most of these people have skills only directly applicable to their now-gone industry and require training to apply their skills elsewhere. The job market is going to be saturated with job seekers very quickly, leaving hundreds of thousands high and dry. Even if they do find a new job, it's very likely that their income will be significantly lower as they start over with no seniority and little relevant experience, but they'll still be on the hook for any debts they already have.
I'm all for your philosophy on the small scale, but once you start putting hundreds of thousands or millions of people in that boat at the same time, it turns into economic armageddon. That said, I don't think that the government's approach was the best choice by far but it was still far better than doing nothing.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime?" That's exactly what's wrong with your proposal.
Give a man $50,000 and he'll be set for another year - maybe two. But, if instead you use that many to provide him a job, then he'll have a much better chance of being set for a lifetime. A steady source of income is much, much more important than just giving people a short-term amount of money (and $50,000 really isn't a lot of money for a one-time payment in lieu of other income). And if you think he can just use that money until he finds another job, then you have a pretty poor understanding of how entrenched the auto industry is in the entire region's economics.
You can! All you need to do is create a large business that directly employs hundreds of thousands of people, and millions more indirectly. Once you reach that step, the rest of your plan is a cinch.
The auto industry has a massive supply chain with dozens of companies involved at each stage from collecting raw materials all the way up to manufacturing finished parts, as well as a massive dealership organization. If any of the major automakers were to just shut down, their own employees would be a drop in the bucket compared to the overall employment effects. Many of those supporting companies would be forced to close altogether.
Panspermia has a few big implications. If it's true, then we can't be 100% sure Earth ever had conditions that could create life (rather than just allowing the proliferation of existing life). It also has huge implications towards finding life elsewhere, such as on Mars, and maybe even future terraforming projects on distant worlds. The great thing about science is that we can find crazy ways to make the most ridiculous facts useful in developing new techniques or technologies, or towards creating models that help advance our knowledge in other areas.
That one shows Gallifrey in front of Earth... without knowing how close either one is, Gallifrey could be the size of an asteroid. The link I provided shows Gallifrey behind Earth... and as it still appears larger in spite of being more distant, that's the basis of everything else I posted.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying that it isn't space if there's something there. It might be in space, but it is not space.
"Inferior" and "Superior" are subjective. It might give an inferior cleaning but still be a superior product for other reasons. My Nook Color is a technically inferior product to my mother's Nexus 10, but I consider it a superior product because it costs significantly less. Likewise, my car has an inferior engine when comparing power, but it's far superior in terms of mileage. Canada may be inferior because they invented Justin Bieber, but they're actually superior because they got rid of him.
"why you don't see wipers on jets as they land"
Not a lot of jets are doing 150mph - 180mph the entire time they're landing. Nor do they generally land at 10,000+ feet.
If there's a solid there, then it isn't space, is it?
Teenagers are programmed to only hear things that have been turned up to 11.
I suppose it would be more accurate to say they don't give a fuck what you (a Slashdot user, typically separate from their main demographic) *want* to use it for.
SPOILERS: The Slashdot demographic is a bit off center of the XBox/PS4's main target demographic. (In other words, MS and Sony don't give a fuck what you use it for)
Being a politician carries a worse social stigma than being on welfare, but gives you enough money to make it worth it.
If you're talking heat output, the lightbulb would be 90%, not 10%, and a lot of people have older furnaces that are fairly inefficient. Obviously, almost every house is different in terms of how high people turn up the heat, whether they heat the whole house or certain zones (and how well the heating system matches how they try to use it), how insulated the house is, how efficient the ductwork is, whether is forced air, etc for conveying the heat to rooms, whether the windows are insulated, if the owner adds additional insulation to the windows during winter, whether rats/mice have eaten holes in the insulation, whether the house was constructed correctly, etc. Change some of those variables around and you'll see that incandescent bulbs can be relatively efficient for one person and horribly inefficient for their next-door neighbor.
Just take them out through the unpressurized cargo hold, or else we can begin equipping planes with airlocks.
"such as being able to forcibly disembark a passenger immediately upon violating a voice-call prohibition"
I propose an exception - if the violation happens before take-off, they should have to wait until the plane reaches a certain minimum altitude before the forcible disembarkation.
Healthcare.gov is estimated to cost up to $677 million, or about $2.16 per capita for a brand new system.
A $5 million tweak in Estonia works out to be about $3.76 per capita... for a tweak.
Just something to consider.
IRC: 1988
Linux: 1991
Erwise: 1992
SSH: 1995
But what has the next generation done?
"That's one of the benefits of a small country - we'll never have to cope with a third of a billion people wanting to use a system."
Something many people overlook when saying we should adapt X country's Y system to the US. Estonia has 1.33 million people. Finland has 5.4 million people. The US has 20 states with larger populations than Finland (40 larger than Estonia)... it makes a big difference when trying to scale.
Erwise: Started March 1992, Released April, 1992
WorldWideWeb: Proposed in 1989, Started late 1990, Released August 1991
I don't think "before" means what you think it means, but I'll accept the other three.
You're assuming I was placing the company as the man in the analogy. I was placing a man as the man, the $50,000 as eating for a day and a steady job as eating for a lifetime. I said exactly diddly-squat about giving the money to the failing company instead, I just said giving a lump sum to people is a poor strategy.
It's great that you'd use it as a downpayment, but then you'd be stuck with an asset with low liquidity in a location with no jobs... so once the downpayment is made, you have no way to pay the mortgage. If the government wants to stimulate the economy, it would seem that stabilizing jobs from which to provide long-term income that consumers can spend is a much better game plan than a one-time infusion directly into the consumer base.
Because unions were totally the only thing affecting the economy in those 50 years...
Individuals can move or find new jobs, but if you have an entire industry out of work at once, then that ain't happening. Moving is very expensive, especially if your income is suddenly gone - and that's before you consider non-employment-related reasons for why people live where they do. As for finding new jobs, most of these people have skills only directly applicable to their now-gone industry and require training to apply their skills elsewhere. The job market is going to be saturated with job seekers very quickly, leaving hundreds of thousands high and dry. Even if they do find a new job, it's very likely that their income will be significantly lower as they start over with no seniority and little relevant experience, but they'll still be on the hook for any debts they already have.
I'm all for your philosophy on the small scale, but once you start putting hundreds of thousands or millions of people in that boat at the same time, it turns into economic armageddon. That said, I don't think that the government's approach was the best choice by far but it was still far better than doing nothing.
Have you ever heard the phrase "Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime?" That's exactly what's wrong with your proposal.
Give a man $50,000 and he'll be set for another year - maybe two. But, if instead you use that many to provide him a job, then he'll have a much better chance of being set for a lifetime. A steady source of income is much, much more important than just giving people a short-term amount of money (and $50,000 really isn't a lot of money for a one-time payment in lieu of other income). And if you think he can just use that money until he finds another job, then you have a pretty poor understanding of how entrenched the auto industry is in the entire region's economics.
You can! All you need to do is create a large business that directly employs hundreds of thousands of people, and millions more indirectly. Once you reach that step, the rest of your plan is a cinch.
The auto industry has a massive supply chain with dozens of companies involved at each stage from collecting raw materials all the way up to manufacturing finished parts, as well as a massive dealership organization. If any of the major automakers were to just shut down, their own employees would be a drop in the bucket compared to the overall employment effects. Many of those supporting companies would be forced to close altogether.
Star Trek's proliferation of humanoids was explained by a sort of intelligent panspermia.
See http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/The_Chase_(episode)
Panspermia has a few big implications. If it's true, then we can't be 100% sure Earth ever had conditions that could create life (rather than just allowing the proliferation of existing life). It also has huge implications towards finding life elsewhere, such as on Mars, and maybe even future terraforming projects on distant worlds. The great thing about science is that we can find crazy ways to make the most ridiculous facts useful in developing new techniques or technologies, or towards creating models that help advance our knowledge in other areas.
Panspermia gets support because the longer life has been around, the greater the chance it could have happened.
That one shows Gallifrey in front of Earth... without knowing how close either one is, Gallifrey could be the size of an asteroid. The link I provided shows Gallifrey behind Earth... and as it still appears larger in spite of being more distant, that's the basis of everything else I posted.