If social security did act like a mandated savings/ investment retirement account, the complaints would be far fewer.
The problem is that it wasn't set up that way. When social security was started, it was meant to care for the elderly who weren't looked after- benefits started at age 65. Incidentally, that was also the life expectancy.
Now the life expectancy is significantly longer, but the age when benefits start is only moving to 67, slowly over twenty years. I think we're at 65 and 4 months now.
It's sort of set up so that the more you pay into the system, the more you can get out of it- but the funds always come from current workers, not money set aside in your name. Hence, the ponzi scheme aspect of it.
I agree that we cannot break our promises to those anywhere near retirement, but we can phase the program out over the next 30 years or so.
Some decent proposals I've seen advocate gradually shifting the use of SS tax so that some of it starts to go into a mutual fund of some sort, and gradually shifting it so that all funds go into individual retirement accounts in 30-40 years. Combined with moving the age when benefits start back 1 year every five, we could eliminate social security without breaking any promises to people who don't have the time to take the change into account.
Begin Rant Our future is a positive future. We assume that things are basically going to get better, progress will continue,' Zuckerman says. 'There will be problems -- new inventions, new technologies will bring with them difficulties -- but it's a bright future.'
You know one huge improvement in our lives that this show likely won't consider? Erasing every single law on the books every 5-10 years.
Does anyone find it odd that we have to live, for fear of imprisonment, under a set of laws and regulations so conflicting, non-intuitive, and complex, that one needs a 6 year education to begin to understand the law?
Need an example? Look at Martha Stewart, soon to be imprisoned for basically lying to cops about a crime they couldn't prove she did anyway. Over an amount of money that was a fraction of what it probably cost to prosecute her. And she wasn't under oath. I care nothing about Martha Stewart personally, but the scenario stinks to me.
The US Code is hundreds of thousands of pages. Most of it is rot, laws set by legislatures to grant special priveleges to certain constituencies- or a sketchy, contrived delegation of Congress' lawmaking power- The EPA, anyone?- that we could dispense with and make the country a better place. I doubt anyone can go a full year without breaking a good half dozen laws, even with the best intentions.
So many laws and regulations could only come from a body who is deluded into thinking that the cure to any percieved societal ill is even more government. I suppose I can't blame them too much- when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail- but it's far past time to clean house.
Oh yeah, another lawyer show- woo-fucking-hoo. No, I did not read the FA./Rant
Oh yeah, vote for me when I'm old enough to be a Senator, so I can try- likely in vain- to fix it. Thank you.
In my home state of New South Wales, it is illegal to be carrying a knife without a reasonable excuse such as 'the lawful pursuit of the person's occupation'. I got me a reasonable excuse now!"
Tell me, do the people there, by and large, enjoy being prey to crooks who ignore laws about weapons, as they do every other law?
However, it shows that US will withdraw from any security agreement if they sense that the other part has become weaker.
Of course, because it would be no longer in our self interest. We bind ourselves in agreements when we have something to gain by another party doing the same. When the other party is bound by other means than their promise, it longer makes sense for the US to wear those same shackles. The US isn't in the business of winning international popularity contests- it's in the business of making the world a better place for Americans, which is the only justifiable use of US tax dollars.
to sign new agreements with... weak ones like North Korea that feels that they needs neuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but treaties with North Korea aren't worth the paper they're written on. Kim cannot be trusted, and he's already proven that to us. Please remove your head from the clouds.
A smart person on slashdot! you're on the friends list for sure.
Ah, class warfare- the old divide and conquer. Demonize the rich so as to justify robbing them of the money they earned, under the guise of "helping out your fellow man." And generosity is all fine and good, except under the gun- which is what taxation is.
I bought a T-shirt from www.protestwarrior.com- says "Communism has only killed 100 million people- let's give it another shot!"
Thompson:"..especially as the parent of two children who both use the net a lot"
Hedgehogbrains:"...As an parent of two children - if you don't like it - pull the plug."
Right on.
Ever notice that half this shit about government taking control of X service or institution is based on parents not wanting to bother with raising their own children?
You had the kids, Thompson, YOU raise them. I'll not have my rights restricted or the internet neutered because you don't want to put in the effort you signed up for when you spermed up your woman. Twice.
three times more likely to get raped in NYC than in London. Where did the ability to dispense lethal force help out there ?
You haven't been paying attention. NYC gun control is almost as bad as the UK- only the rich and famous can carry guns legally. So the common, law abiding citizen is left defenseless to criminals who don't obey gun laws, or any other. Again, proves my point. Banning guns make an area more dangerous because crooks don't fear for their lives from honest folk.
America is just basically a much more brutal and violent society than than the rest of the civilised world.
Parts of America are uncivilised- specifically, large parts of black america in specific geographical locations. Save the racist accusation and look in the rest of this thread for more info. Take out the uncivilized portion, and the crime rates are rather comparable. Most of America is probably more civilized than your precious european countries.
Access to healthcare and education throughout life removes the desperation that seems to purvey whole sections of American society
Do you mean to tell me that because folks can't go see a ritzy doctor when they have a cold, they're driven to crime? That's a load of horseshit. Emergency rooms already have to take care of anyone who shows up, regardless of ability to pay.
As for education, the worst performing schools are often the best funded. It's not money, it's the dedication of the students, and of the parents to make the students work hard. Many inner city schools have degraded into teenage daycare because no one cares to learn. They have plenty of access, but by and large refuse to step through the door.
...Years of backbreaking grind to even start to get ahead...
Pathetic. Now you're whining because success is too hard? Buddy, if it wasn't hard, it wouldn't be worth anything. If you just simply care to exist, then that can be accomplished rather cheaply. Just ask the bums under the bridge. If you care to have basic housing, hygene, and healthy food, that can be had for as cheap as $400-500 a month. The greater lifestyle you wish to lead, the more you have to work for it. Cry me a fuckin river if you think it's too much work to have a house and two cars.
Trouble is, crooks don't want to work for it, they just want it. So they decide your wallet is just as valuable as your life, and sell you your life- which isn't theirs- for your wallet- which they haven't earned. That's what's called a 'mugging' You seem to be trying to understand what drives people to crime. Tell me how their behaviour is even remotely justifiable, and why this perverted social contract shouldn't be struck the moment it's proposed by some thug on the street.
Political connections? I think not. Criminal connections maybe. It's common for celebrities to get a concealed carry license- for handguns- in New York. It's common for politicians to be protected by those wielding firearms in DC. I meant legally. It goes without saying that criminals- people who violate laws about robbery and murder- also wouldn't have a problem violating laws about guns. Gun laws only disarm the law-abiding.
When you speak of marginal benefit- society as a whole- I have to wonder- whats the 'marginal benefit' when your sister or wife gets raped and murdered by someone five times her size, when she could have evened the odds and defended herself with a firearm?
It's not about 'marginal benefit' to society. That leaves a rather sour taste in my mouth, to be honest. It's about using your natural right to defend yourself against those who would do you harm.
Guns are easy to use. Point. Click. repeat as needed. They make years spent in the gym or martial arts training to get the upper hand in physical fights irrelevant. It enables anyone to dispense lethal force as they see fit.
Some people are afraid of this responsibility. Some folks are afraid to have others with this responsibility. I am not.
The laws of the UK basically demand that you let the state protect you, which it cannot. It leaves the citizen unable to defend himself with the most effective means available, and leaves them fodder to strong thugs or those with no compunction about violating firearm laws.
It's not about usefulness to society, though arguably it is useful. I leave you with this:
Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians (read criminals) by necessity, communities by tradition; and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself," wrote the great Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero. "They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all the means within their power."
Racist prick. So, blacks dying isn't all that big a deal?
If they're gang-banging thugs- most of the murder victims, to be honest- no, it's not a big deal. Dead crooks don't bother me.
The sad truth is that blacks commit crimes at a far higher rate than whites- see elsewhere in this thread for substantiation.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Fuck them.
Now, I know a number of blacks who function perfectly well in American society, and their black peers probably fit into white models of crime pretty well. They're civilized people.
There is a huge problem with black America, and it hinges on the destructive culture perpetuated by thugs, gangsters, rappers, welfare, etc. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson earn their millions by blaming these sad facts on white people, but it's something that only the black community can fix.
It's not racists to point out the truth. It would be racist to think that blacks are incapable of integrating into american society, or becoming civilized, or that they are destined to be crooks, gangbangers, etc. I don't think that, but it seems a large part of black america does.
BTW, I did not post the parent, but I support him.
It's been said that the worst thing to happen to black america was welfare. Somehow the decline in morality and personal responsibility (illegitimate children, etc) hit blacks far harder than whites.
You are FAR MORE LIKELY to get killed in the USA capital than in the UK capital.
I can't deny this. I can't deny the stats about getting killed in NY either. But they do have one thing in common with London.
Guns are completely, and utterly, banned. Well, okay, you can get them legally with the right political connections, but essentially they're banned. So again, only criminals have them.
Thank you for proving my point. You're worse off were guns are banned than not.
Go here and tell me that actual poster of the metro police isn't the creepiest thing you've seen in a while.
Crime in London has skyrocketed in the past few years, pretty much because it's illegal to defend yourself with any conviction over there, with any weapon. The state will keep you safe, they say- except they can't.
The cameras are a joke on the populus- they live under constant survellience because of the promise it will make them safer, yet there aren't- and can never be- enough police to act on what occurs on and off camera. It's a way for the government and the police to say they're doing something about the crime, instead of actually going out and putting boot to ass- their cops aren't even armed. But the biggest problem is that the citizens are not armed.
The Government of the United Kingdom evidently thinks it's people are an untrustworthy bunch of morons, uncapable of wielding deadly force in a just manner. So they remove every lawful means of defending oneself and one's property, saying they'll protect you instead. Except they can't. They often don't even come afterwards to file the paperwork.
If criminals were made to fear for their lives when they plied their trade, you might see a big drop in crime. But crooks are the only ones with guns, and have nothing to fear from the people they rob- unlike the United States, where in several states, a crook breaking into an occupied home has a good chance of meeting a violent, immediate end, for example.
The cameras are not a panacea, they aren't even a band-aid. The people of the UK are fucked- sheep left to the slaughter of criminals. Good luck over there.
Well, there are plenty of people who are wasting their money getting degrees, and plenty of degrees where it's still a good idea.
Take me, for example. I'm $69k in debt, having just graduated with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. My job, open to me because of my degree, pays $60k a year- a good $30k a year more than I could get under best circumstances without a degree. For various loans with various terms, I pay $550 a month, or $6600 a year- so in the short term view of things, for that $550 a month, I take home an extra thousand or so a month even after taxes. Each year in school there was a good $20-25k opportunity cost as well, but overall it seems to have been a decent investment to me. So I guess I well fit into your 'double' rule.
Now, I pity the psychology majors at my school, who paid every bit as much as I did, but get paid a lot less afterwards. Well, not pity- more I think of them as morons.
Here's my point: Consider wether or not it's worth it for you to get a degree. Wether you should get into heavy debt to get a degree which will result in dogshit for pay. Sure, you may go to school for knowledge and education, not money, but if you can't capitilize off of the knowledge and education, you ought to go to the cheapest school possible, and not take out any loans.
Now, as to your political comments: Can you point out to me where, in the constitution, it's the presidents job to ensure a healthy economy? It shouldn't even be an issue in the elections- but it is, because our government is so obnoxiously big, it's taxation and expenditures have a drastic effect on the economy. Taxes are deadweight loss- the government has no ability to create wealth, only to destroy it by taxation. The less taxes, the better, and eventually spending WILL have to come down if taxes don't increase- and guess which I prefer.
BTW, I think Bush's domestic policy sucks, as being too spendthrift and socialistic. But any viable democratic alternative on the horizon would only be more spendthrift, while begging for mercy from foreign belligerents we could easily kill.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. Don't go hunting for politicians to solve your problems, you'll regret it later.
Of course it's pro-capitilist, becaus it's the system the US has used to propel itself to the most wealthy and powerful nation in a short 250 years.
IE, fantastic, measurable real world results. Communism, Socialism, Monarchies, and any other form of government you can think of haven't had nearly the same success, and the text supporting those systems never take into account their continued, repeated failures.
on why the intellectual/academic types are full of shit- which basically seems to have been Morningstar's point- read USS Clueless
Some excepts:
....All academics face the problem of "publish or perish"; in addition to any duties they may have in teaching, they're expected to do "research" in their field. But if their field of study is not rigorous, and not really subject to real-world test, and has no practical application anyway, then there's really nothing to keep it from spinning out of control, as errors and mistakes accumulate and compound within the field. It ultimately doesn't matter whether your paper was right or wrong, if indeed it even makes sense to talk about whether it was right/wrong.
...The worst thing you can do to a proud man is to ignore him; and increasingly the "men of letters" found themselves being ignored or treated as curiosities.
Increasingly isolated, frustrated, useless on a practical level, and with prestige declining, they became intellectually inbred. Since no one else respected them, they "respected" each other and decided no one else's opinion really mattered. The swelling spiral of comment-on-comment continued, divorced from reality. Over the course of maybe thirty years, a form of intellectual "pseudoscience" developed.
...This is the question of equality in its starkest terms. In an academic environment, equality of opportunity" had previously been represented by the freedom for any academic to propose ideas, and for others in turn to criticize those ideas if they didn't stand up to the light of day. That's how it was generally done in mathematics and science and engineering. But for those dedicated to equality of result, that was intolerable. Sensing that their own ideas could not survive such scrutiny, they denied that such scrutiny was even a valid way to evaluate ideas.
It was not enough to permit everyone to say what they thought. All of them had to be given equal respect afterwards and all the ideas had to be treated as if they were equally valid. To say to someone that their idea was nonsense was censorship, one of many words that they redefined in strange and wonderful ways.
If you have an extra 20 minutes or so, it's a great read.
"I am nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, and the world will no longer need or want for the meds that will stem world suffering." Most drug research happens in the United States, because drug companies are still able to profit from the deal. Socialization has killed drug research in Europe. So if you don't want any new drugs, go ahead and push your plan.
"I have decided to walk the walk, and get rid of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the United States has both developed and proliferated to mankind." The genie is out of the bottle, kid, and there's no stuffing it back in. The best we can do is make sure our enemies respect our power. We are not in a post-modern peaceful era, though many in Europe have become deluded that this is the case, by being under our protection for two generations.
"I have decided to fund new technologies that will free us from the chains of fossil fuels, and bring about a new era in sustainable energy."
Fossil fuels are a cheap and easily transportable &usable source of energy. As long is this is the case, they will dominate. When this is no longer the case, the market will offer new solutions, or society will adapt. The government can do all the research it wants, but it will never be used unless it can beat gas in terms of price and transportability.
I'm not neccesarily a fan of Bush, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think that government can solve the worlds problems best.
And I don't think it will work. This is the kind of system you'd see on an airbus, and probably not a boeing- unless it could be defeated easily, like all the autopilot-type systems boeing installs.
Many others have posted great reasons why taking control away from a pilot is a bad thing, so you can read them- but if it's terrorists you're worried about, they now have much more to fear from the passengers than from a computer system. The stakes couldn't be higher now for airline hijackings, and knowing the stakes, no US group of passengers will allow any hijackers to carry out their mission. (Flight 93) This, incidentally, is a social solution to a social problem.
Sure, this kind of thing would be great for terrain avoidance. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. Between jamming, spoofing, misplaced confidence, programming errors and the like, it can be quite problematic.
Basically, you're swapping your trust in the pilot for your trust in the programmer. Not necessarily a good trade.
Since we cool off the ocean, and draw water from 60' below low tide, I'm not particularly worried about it. The water temp is pretty cold, and pretty constant all year round.
It is a concern for some US nuclear plants, though.
If you want detail, go look in the financial reports of companies that own nuke plants. Unless, of course, you think I should post a 50-100 page report on slashdot. The costs are there, and they are paid.
As for the rant- it should be obvious that's my opinion- so what's your point? Do you think your fellow readers are unable to distinguish fact from opinion?
You're right, in that there's no fundamental design reason that we must be limited to base loading. We do, in fact, have equipment to change load over the course of the day. As a practical matter, though, changing loads frequently, and running at partial loads, has the tendancy to make things break early. This is what I'm told anyway, as I've only been at the plant half a year. I'm guessing that the engineers, in all the marvelous work they did getting the plant together, didn't evaluate all that many power levels for long term operation, or maybe their were just some different effects at different temperatures that were unanticipated. Also, cycling power levels would seem to me to cause more wear than running at the same level all the time, as you've got significant temperature and pressure transients.
Regardless, you're correct about the usage of a huge capital investment.
I do work with a few Navy guys, and navy plants are built quite a bit more robustly that commercial plants. The fastest recovery from a scram one of my coworkers did on his carrier (I think it was the Enterprise) was 12 minutes. The fastest we can do at the power plant is around 8 hours, though if it was a matter of life and death, we may be able to do it quicker.
Although all the physics and fundamentals are the same, in Navy nuke plants, without power, you're dead in the water, vulnerable, and possibly under attack. In commercial plants, you're just not making as much money as you'd like to. So there are some construction diferences.
Slashdot Mirror
If social security did act like a mandated savings/ investment retirement account, the complaints would be far fewer.
The problem is that it wasn't set up that way. When social security was started, it was meant to care for the elderly who weren't looked after- benefits started at age 65. Incidentally, that was also the life expectancy.
Now the life expectancy is significantly longer, but the age when benefits start is only moving to 67, slowly over twenty years. I think we're at 65 and 4 months now.
It's sort of set up so that the more you pay into the system, the more you can get out of it- but the funds always come from current workers, not money set aside in your name. Hence, the ponzi scheme aspect of it.
I agree that we cannot break our promises to those anywhere near retirement, but we can phase the program out over the next 30 years or so.
Some decent proposals I've seen advocate gradually shifting the use of SS tax so that some of it starts to go into a mutual fund of some sort, and gradually shifting it so that all funds go into individual retirement accounts in 30-40 years. Combined with moving the age when benefits start back 1 year every five, we could eliminate social security without breaking any promises to people who don't have the time to take the change into account.
Begin Rant
/Rant
Our future is a positive future. We assume that things are basically going to get better, progress will continue,' Zuckerman says. 'There will be problems -- new inventions, new technologies will bring with them difficulties -- but it's a bright future.'
You know one huge improvement in our lives that this show likely won't consider? Erasing every single law on the books every 5-10 years.
Does anyone find it odd that we have to live, for fear of imprisonment, under a set of laws and regulations so conflicting, non-intuitive, and complex, that one needs a 6 year education to begin to understand the law?
Need an example? Look at Martha Stewart, soon to be imprisoned for basically lying to cops about a crime they couldn't prove she did anyway. Over an amount of money that was a fraction of what it probably cost to prosecute her. And she wasn't under oath. I care nothing about Martha Stewart personally, but the scenario stinks to me.
The US Code is hundreds of thousands of pages. Most of it is rot, laws set by legislatures to grant special priveleges to certain constituencies- or a sketchy, contrived delegation of Congress' lawmaking power- The EPA, anyone?- that we could dispense with and make the country a better place. I doubt anyone can go a full year without breaking a good half dozen laws, even with the best intentions.
So many laws and regulations could only come from a body who is deluded into thinking that the cure to any percieved societal ill is even more government. I suppose I can't blame them too much- when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail- but it's far past time to clean house.
Oh yeah, another lawyer show- woo-fucking-hoo. No, I did not read the FA.
Oh yeah, vote for me when I'm old enough to be a Senator, so I can try- likely in vain- to fix it. Thank you.
In my home state of New South Wales, it is illegal to be carrying a knife without a reasonable excuse such as 'the lawful pursuit of the person's occupation'. I got me a reasonable excuse now!"
Tell me, do the people there, by and large, enjoy being prey to crooks who ignore laws about weapons, as they do every other law?
However, it shows that US will withdraw from any security agreement if they sense that the other part has become weaker.
Of course, because it would be no longer in our self interest. We bind ourselves in agreements when we have something to gain by another party doing the same. When the other party is bound by other means than their promise, it longer makes sense for the US to wear those same shackles. The US isn't in the business of winning international popularity contests- it's in the business of making the world a better place for Americans, which is the only justifiable use of US tax dollars.
to sign new agreements with... weak ones like North Korea that feels that they needs neuclear weapons as a deterrent.
Maybe you haven't noticed, but treaties with North Korea aren't worth the paper they're written on. Kim cannot be trusted, and he's already proven that to us. Please remove your head from the clouds.
A smart person on slashdot! you're on the friends list for sure.
Ah, class warfare- the old divide and conquer. Demonize the rich so as to justify robbing them of the money they earned, under the guise of "helping out your fellow man." And generosity is all fine and good, except under the gun- which is what taxation is.
I bought a T-shirt from www.protestwarrior.com- says "Communism has only killed 100 million people- let's give it another shot!"
Hedgehogbrains:"...As an parent of two children - if you don't like it - pull the plug."
Right on.
Ever notice that half this shit about government taking control of X service or institution is based on parents not wanting to bother with raising their own children?
You had the kids, Thompson, YOU raise them. I'll not have my rights restricted or the internet neutered because you don't want to put in the effort you signed up for when you spermed up your woman. Twice.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away.
-Ronald Reagan
You haven't been paying attention. NYC gun control is almost as bad as the UK- only the rich and famous can carry guns legally. So the common, law abiding citizen is left defenseless to criminals who don't obey gun laws, or any other. Again, proves my point. Banning guns make an area more dangerous because crooks don't fear for their lives from honest folk.
America is just basically a much more brutal and violent society than than the rest of the civilised world.
Parts of America are uncivilised- specifically, large parts of black america in specific geographical locations. Save the racist accusation and look in the rest of this thread for more info. Take out the uncivilized portion, and the crime rates are rather comparable. Most of America is probably more civilized than your precious european countries.
Access to healthcare and education throughout life removes the desperation that seems to purvey whole sections of American society
Do you mean to tell me that because folks can't go see a ritzy doctor when they have a cold, they're driven to crime? That's a load of horseshit. Emergency rooms already have to take care of anyone who shows up, regardless of ability to pay.
As for education, the worst performing schools are often the best funded. It's not money, it's the dedication of the students, and of the parents to make the students work hard. Many inner city schools have degraded into teenage daycare because no one cares to learn. They have plenty of access, but by and large refuse to step through the door.
Pathetic. Now you're whining because success is too hard? Buddy, if it wasn't hard, it wouldn't be worth anything. If you just simply care to exist, then that can be accomplished rather cheaply. Just ask the bums under the bridge. If you care to have basic housing, hygene, and healthy food, that can be had for as cheap as $400-500 a month. The greater lifestyle you wish to lead, the more you have to work for it. Cry me a fuckin river if you think it's too much work to have a house and two cars.
Trouble is, crooks don't want to work for it, they just want it. So they decide your wallet is just as valuable as your life, and sell you your life- which isn't theirs- for your wallet- which they haven't earned. That's what's called a 'mugging' You seem to be trying to understand what drives people to crime. Tell me how their behaviour is even remotely justifiable, and why this perverted social contract shouldn't be struck the moment it's proposed by some thug on the street.
nah. as long as they comply when they get a dmca notification to delete it, slashdot is fine.
Political connections? I think not. Criminal connections maybe.
It's common for celebrities to get a concealed carry license- for handguns- in New York. It's common for politicians to be protected by those wielding firearms in DC. I meant legally. It goes without saying that criminals- people who violate laws about robbery and murder- also wouldn't have a problem violating laws about guns. Gun laws only disarm the law-abiding.
When you speak of marginal benefit- society as a whole- I have to wonder- whats the 'marginal benefit' when your sister or wife gets raped and murdered by someone five times her size, when she could have evened the odds and defended herself with a firearm?
It's not about 'marginal benefit' to society. That leaves a rather sour taste in my mouth, to be honest. It's about using your natural right to defend yourself against those who would do you harm.
Guns are easy to use. Point. Click. repeat as needed. They make years spent in the gym or martial arts training to get the upper hand in physical fights irrelevant. It enables anyone to dispense lethal force as they see fit.
Some people are afraid of this responsibility. Some folks are afraid to have others with this responsibility. I am not.
The laws of the UK basically demand that you let the state protect you, which it cannot. It leaves the citizen unable to defend himself with the most effective means available, and leaves them fodder to strong thugs or those with no compunction about violating firearm laws.
It's not about usefulness to society, though arguably it is useful. I leave you with this:
Civilized people are taught by logic, barbarians (read criminals) by necessity , communities by tradition; and the lesson is inculcated even in wild beasts by nature itself," wrote the great Roman orator Marcus Tullius Cicero. "They learn that they have to defend their own bodies and persons and lives from violence of any and every kind by all the means within their power."
I've never seen an article on this that says tony martin shot his robbers in the back.
Support this assertation.
Racist prick. So, blacks dying isn't all that big a deal?
If they're gang-banging thugs- most of the murder victims, to be honest- no, it's not a big deal. Dead crooks don't bother me.
The sad truth is that blacks commit crimes at a far higher rate than whites- see elsewhere in this thread for substantiation.
Live by the sword, die by the sword. Fuck them.
Now, I know a number of blacks who function perfectly well in American society, and their black peers probably fit into white models of crime pretty well. They're civilized people.
There is a huge problem with black America, and it hinges on the destructive culture perpetuated by thugs, gangsters, rappers, welfare, etc. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson earn their millions by blaming these sad facts on white people, but it's something that only the black community can fix.
It's not racists to point out the truth. It would be racist to think that blacks are incapable of integrating into american society, or becoming civilized, or that they are destined to be crooks, gangbangers, etc. I don't think that, but it seems a large part of black america does.
BTW, I did not post the parent, but I support him.
It's been said that the worst thing to happen to black america was welfare. Somehow the decline in morality and personal responsibility (illegitimate children, etc) hit blacks far harder than whites.
You are FAR MORE LIKELY to get killed in the USA capital than in the UK capital.
I can't deny this. I can't deny the stats about getting killed in NY either. But they do have one thing in common with London.
Guns are completely, and utterly, banned. Well, okay, you can get them legally with the right political connections, but essentially they're banned. So again, only criminals have them.
Thank you for proving my point. You're worse off were guns are banned than not.
Go here and tell me that actual poster of the metro police isn't the creepiest thing you've seen in a while.
Crime in London has skyrocketed in the past few years, pretty much because it's illegal to defend yourself with any conviction over there, with any weapon. The state will keep you safe, they say- except they can't.
You're six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York City.
The cameras are a joke on the populus- they live under constant survellience because of the promise it will make them safer, yet there aren't- and can never be- enough police to act on what occurs on and off camera. It's a way for the government and the police to say they're doing something about the crime, instead of actually going out and putting boot to ass- their cops aren't even armed. But the biggest problem is that the citizens are not armed.
The Government of the United Kingdom evidently thinks it's people are an untrustworthy bunch of morons, uncapable of wielding deadly force in a just manner. So they remove every lawful means of defending oneself and one's property, saying they'll protect you instead. Except they can't. They often don't even come afterwards to file the paperwork.
If criminals were made to fear for their lives when they plied their trade, you might see a big drop in crime. But crooks are the only ones with guns, and have nothing to fear from the people they rob- unlike the United States, where in several states, a crook breaking into an occupied home has a good chance of meeting a violent, immediate end, for example.
The cameras are not a panacea, they aren't even a band-aid. The people of the UK are fucked- sheep left to the slaughter of criminals. Good luck over there.
Well, there are plenty of people who are wasting their money getting degrees, and plenty of degrees where it's still a good idea.
Take me, for example. I'm $69k in debt, having just graduated with a BS in Mechanical Engineering. My job, open to me because of my degree, pays $60k a year- a good $30k a year more than I could get under best circumstances without a degree. For various loans with various terms, I pay $550 a month, or $6600 a year- so in the short term view of things, for that $550 a month, I take home an extra thousand or so a month even after taxes. Each year in school there was a good $20-25k opportunity cost as well, but overall it seems to have been a decent investment to me. So I guess I well fit into your 'double' rule.
Now, I pity the psychology majors at my school, who paid every bit as much as I did, but get paid a lot less afterwards. Well, not pity- more I think of them as morons.
Here's my point: Consider wether or not it's worth it for you to get a degree. Wether you should get into heavy debt to get a degree which will result in dogshit for pay. Sure, you may go to school for knowledge and education, not money, but if you can't capitilize off of the knowledge and education, you ought to go to the cheapest school possible, and not take out any loans.
Now, as to your political comments: Can you point out to me where, in the constitution, it's the presidents job to ensure a healthy economy? It shouldn't even be an issue in the elections- but it is, because our government is so obnoxiously big, it's taxation and expenditures have a drastic effect on the economy.
Taxes are deadweight loss- the government has no ability to create wealth, only to destroy it by taxation. The less taxes, the better, and eventually spending WILL have to come down if taxes don't increase- and guess which I prefer.
BTW, I think Bush's domestic policy sucks, as being too spendthrift and socialistic. But any viable democratic alternative on the horizon would only be more spendthrift, while begging for mercy from foreign belligerents we could easily kill.
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away. Don't go hunting for politicians to solve your problems, you'll regret it later.
Of course it's pro-capitilist, becaus it's the system the US has used to propel itself to the most wealthy and powerful nation in a short 250 years.
IE, fantastic, measurable real world results. Communism, Socialism, Monarchies, and any other form of government you can think of haven't had nearly the same success, and the text supporting those systems never take into account their continued, repeated failures.
Some excepts:
If you have an extra 20 minutes or so, it's a great read.
"I am nationalizing the pharmaceutical industry, and the world will no longer need or want for the meds that will stem world suffering."
Most drug research happens in the United States, because drug companies are still able to profit from the deal. Socialization has killed drug research in Europe. So if you don't want any new drugs, go ahead and push your plan.
"I have decided to walk the walk, and get rid of all the Weapons of Mass Destruction that the United States has both developed and proliferated to mankind." The genie is out of the bottle, kid, and there's no stuffing it back in. The best we can do is make sure our enemies respect our power. We are not in a post-modern peaceful era, though many in Europe have become deluded that this is the case, by being under our protection for two generations.
"I have decided to fund new technologies that will free us from the chains of fossil fuels, and bring about a new era in sustainable energy."
Fossil fuels are a cheap and easily transportable &usable source of energy. As long is this is the case, they will dominate. When this is no longer the case, the market will offer new solutions, or society will adapt. The government can do all the research it wants, but it will never be used unless it can beat gas in terms of price and transportability.
I'm not neccesarily a fan of Bush, but you're living in a fantasy world if you think that government can solve the worlds problems best.
And I don't think it will work. This is the kind of system you'd see on an airbus, and probably not a boeing- unless it could be defeated easily, like all the autopilot-type systems boeing installs.
Many others have posted great reasons why taking control away from a pilot is a bad thing, so you can read them- but if it's terrorists you're worried about, they now have much more to fear from the passengers than from a computer system. The stakes couldn't be higher now for airline hijackings, and knowing the stakes, no US group of passengers will allow any hijackers to carry out their mission. (Flight 93) This, incidentally, is a social solution to a social problem.
Sure, this kind of thing would be great for terrain avoidance. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. Between jamming, spoofing, misplaced confidence, programming errors and the like, it can be quite problematic.
Basically, you're swapping your trust in the pilot for your trust in the programmer. Not necessarily a good trade.
Since we cool off the ocean, and draw water from 60' below low tide, I'm not particularly worried about it. The water temp is pretty cold, and pretty constant all year round.
It is a concern for some US nuclear plants, though.
If you want detail, go look in the financial reports of companies that own nuke plants. Unless, of course, you think I should post a 50-100 page report on slashdot. The costs are there, and they are paid.
As for the rant- it should be obvious that's my opinion- so what's your point? Do you think your fellow readers are unable to distinguish fact from opinion?
no
You're right, in that there's no fundamental design reason that we must be limited to base loading. We do, in fact, have equipment to change load over the course of the day. As a practical matter, though, changing loads frequently, and running at partial loads, has the tendancy to make things break early. This is what I'm told anyway, as I've only been at the plant half a year. I'm guessing that the engineers, in all the marvelous work they did getting the plant together, didn't evaluate all that many power levels for long term operation, or maybe their were just some different effects at different temperatures that were unanticipated. Also, cycling power levels would seem to me to cause more wear than running at the same level all the time, as you've got significant temperature and pressure transients.
Regardless, you're correct about the usage of a huge capital investment.
I do work with a few Navy guys, and navy plants are built quite a bit more robustly that commercial plants. The fastest recovery from a scram one of my coworkers did on his carrier (I think it was the Enterprise) was 12 minutes. The fastest we can do at the power plant is around 8 hours, though if it was a matter of life and death, we may be able to do it quicker.
Although all the physics and fundamentals are the same, in Navy nuke plants, without power, you're dead in the water, vulnerable, and possibly under attack. In commercial plants, you're just not making as much money as you'd like to. So there are some construction diferences.
Do your homework and come back, boy.
Chernobyl has nothing in common with US, or any non-russian plant. Take TMI. Destroyed the core, but released no appreciable radiation to the public.
Come back when you can tell me all the differences between TMI and Chernobyl.