glass-steagall. HR 1489? 44 cosponsors. Return to prudent banking act. G-S came out in 1933 and was fully repealed in 1999. G-S prevents commercial banks from engaging in risky behavior. I need to run but I am happy to comment further if you have an interest herein.
On sept 22, 2011, I sent a letter to the local paper about the disarray going into the DC G-20. The tag was "what will happen". I regard statistical predictions as rather silly for anything interesting, but kind of a dynamic directionality is useful to look at. So looking at the financial collapse, there is a possibility of a lot of non-economic stuff happening. If you go to wikipedia you can find by my last count 17 different definitions of (Goodwin). My definition is (Goodwin) is murderous austerity during an economic collapse. Now here are a few contextual datums.
Drones are not a military weapon. They have no survivability in a contested air space. They are a fine terror weapon. People hear them and know that things are going to be bad. During World II, the Nazi put sirens on the Stuka's for the same reason and as soon as the air space became contested, the Stuka's were gone. Military people are starting to compare drones to roadside IED's. Dishonorable.
Obama has chosen to kill three american citizens, far from any offical battlefield, by secret executive decree., by drone. 20 retired generals are quite unhappy. As the details come out, it looks like JSOC, and no civilians are in the chain of command, and the president gets notified after the fact. One of the dead that was individually targeted was 16 years old. The law professors are now getting enough information to be upset.
Here is one where it looks like the President did make the decision up front. Around the first of the week, I started hearing that a lot of people in the know around the world were wondering if Obama was going down on Quaddafi's death. This was a little hard for me to process. As some details come out, here might be the organizing concept: as far as other countries are concerned, obama can kill as many americans as we let him get away with. On the other hand, assassinating heads of state is bad form. This has nothing to do with the fact that US law prohibits Obama from doing assassinations, more to do with the rules of war. What has been said (NYT?, WP?) is on the 21st Obama was given three options and he ruled out the two non-lethal options. The next day, Quadaffi was dead. And with American and French? commandos on the scene. How did Quadaffi get pinned down?-- by drone and french war plane attacks. And the unconfirmed reports are that his convoy was flying white flags. If true, war crime right there.
Why kill Quadaffi? He has been best buddies with Blair and Obama and did all sort favors. You might note the US is trying to take over Africa for raw material supplies? One thought is Quadaffi knew too much and was not sensible about keeping his mouth shut.
So the interesting directionality here is on one side (Goodwin) and on the other, the name newspapers, the judiciary (imminent law professors), and the retired military generals are all moving. And of course OWS. Wishful people say "no program" in OWS and there is not yet agreement. But I like G-S. Hah, Volker likes G-S, thinks its better than what he proposed, he says today,and October 7, I counted seven newspapers who explicitly cited G-S as a major demand of OWS, but almost all were foreign newspapers.:-)
I did see a good quote though. Something like "mistrust facts that support your position". My version is not simply "mistrust facts" but more like "chose your direction and then cherry pick the facts." Oops, I am having an identity crisis here. Dah, is my name Cheney..or Obama..or... your favorite mass media?
I could not find the cite with a casual look, but historically US food reserves are about 60-90 days, but this time down around 30 days and at the time it was falling further. I am not sure what the cause is. However, we might observe that (Obama) opposes food reserves in less developed nations. Here is a cite http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18377 that in turns reference a french newspaper reporting on G-20 ag stuff about July of this year. I think the Larouche analysis, and reasonably the Chinese analysis, is that this is to put pressure on sovereign nations to NOT hoard food if the world goes into famine. And since in the G-20 context, all G-20 knew how to do a few months ago, was to encourage speculation everywhere, this all holds together. As best as I can see, that is almost all they still know. The additional thing some of them know is that bill has come due. And the US taxpayer is the only source of liquidity to prop up the speculators, largely in this case, big investment banks, for another month or two.
As it happens I am old enough to remember Ike beating Stevenson and the introduction of the Atoms for Peace program. I think we should take care if we try to conclude the subsidies were focused on *developing* nuclear power, per se. The geopolitical issues were the real drivers and I am not thinking precisely of the threat posed by Stalin. Now I did look at your link. The part that really amused me was the proposal to assess nuclear plants for protection against terrorist threats and avoiding nuclear proliferation. This is all so familiar. Post the Kennedy assassination, these sort of policy issues, applied indirectly, made nuclear non-economic, and now you want to put the nails directly into the body of the industry. I guess I could comment on terrorist threats and non-proliferation, but...
Everyone gets to play terror games. Wait till you have UAVs in the hands of the law enforcement types. You hear one above you and will you feel safer? Oh wait. The domestic requests are not yet for *armed* UAV's. Just survellience missions. .
Birmingham 63 Leipzig October 89 US August 2009 Arab Spring 2011 global October 2011
More than memories. I bet that thought upsets you.
Anyway, the policy options being offered by our betters are bailouts, austerity, and police states. But these ideas are bankrupt and even "they" know it. Look at the results of the last G-20 meeting. These wonder ideas are just reflexes of Empire.
On the other hand, in part, HR 1489. (glass-steagall)
Contemporary science has various sources of truth. A common one is experiment. Now the way thermodynamics is demonstrated experimentally, well, half a century ago, is to put the test system in a box, let it get to stable equilibrium and measure whatever goes in and out. So far so good?
Okay, the other thing science gets its truth from is some sort of religious thingy. If you say the universe is going to some sort of heat death hell, then just how are you going to talk about putting the universe in a box and then standing outside it? I am not sure that this even a issue of practice, but of meaning.
And time scale issues are wonderful. Do you really want to say the surface of Earth is in stable equilibrium?
Oh, I know, there is always someone fiddling with "almost, but not quite" stable equilibrium. That has been going for a long time. Looks like it is an intractable problem.
What else. You recall I mentioned measuring "something" going in and out. If you change the meaning of "something", then you are making a deep change in the meaning of the inviolate thermodynamic laws. And applying the laws to themselves, did this just violate the laws? Of course not, except most scientist types like to think funny things about the domain of applicability of that with which they work. See "religion". And realizing that, yes, the thermo laws just got heavily violated.:-) Of course, if the universe is a deterministic state machine I retreat off stage! I really do personally think that machines obey these sort of laws. And the question of whether you, part of the universe, are a machine or not is, of course, religious, which ever side you chose.
Ah, I am using a broad definition of "religious" Who was it who said "I am really very spiritual, but I am not a believer..."? And I am using an odd definition of machine too.
guy wants to go write some code on his own to resell.. He is a salaried programmer. Boss want to help out. Loans him a mini to take home and work on his own time.
Time passes and the greatest thing since sliced bread is created. O
Fact? "really damn deep where there is no light at any wavelength" I repeat, playing careless with absolutes. Finally, the absolute is stated as local in time and space, but in a way that is still fully evasive. I treat few as two or three, (but my cite is to"one or two", so a few billion years is less than the 3.5 billion years oxygen producing from sunshine stuff *may* have been around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria. Also,
few determiner not many, one or two, hardly any, scarcely any, rare, thin, scattered, insufficient, scarce, scant, meagre, negligible, sporadic, sparse, infrequent, scanty, inconsiderable In some districts there are few survivors. not many many, divers (archaic), abundant, plentiful, sundry, manifold, inexhaustible, multifarious, bounteous
So, it seems possible your statement is "factually" correct simply because the evolution took place outside of your time specifications of your "absolute". Who can say, you so,like to be shifty.
I suppose I should have said blue-green stuff. Being "really damn deep where there is no light at any wavelength" suggests strongly there was no light gathering to generate oxygen. So if you are right, I guess I am anaerobic.
Regarding rotten concepts versus eye damage, I reflect on the megadeaths generated by rotten concepts vs a few individuals being damaged. Hee, playing carelessly with claimed absolutes is a lot like the static concept.
The point here is that life evolved before there was an ozone layer and 90% got wiped as part of creating the ozone layer. Thus your absolute statements are challenging to find agreeable. You might well know better about biology, but do you really want to encourage your readers to hold extremely unfortunate ideas about absence of change, which ideas have so often been a hinderance to our species..
Kindle Fire was announce two days ago. Under $200, shipping November 15th. Pre-order now. May still be a long wait. But it is a tablet and color. The back story on the price is that is seems to be the razor, rather than the razor blade. And there are estimates of 5 million being sold quickly. So it is not likely to die on the vine right away as other low priced tabled have done. This note responds to the parent consideration of price.
Maybe pay or do without are the only options.. But I keep thinking DIY. The general high cost is strongly connected to the need to have a prescription? This is at least True for CPAP machines. Also, most of the cost of a hearing aide, IMO, is in the IP, like the software.
HeHe. Consider a blood glucose tester. As for diabetics... Now the device is basically free, because of the razor/razor blade marketing principle. And they have nice internal records of the readings. Now consider the one-touch brand. There is in fact now some FOSS software to get the data and manipulate it. But the proprietary cable costs $40.
Hey, if you want to go for a DIY hearing aid system, drop me a line. I figure if we do not need to miniturize the electronics, then some fpeg or lesser goodie is the core element. HeHe. We can actually do better if we get it so cheap as to be almost a disposeable. Figure the standard tech is challenging in a noisy room. Just give the person you are talking to a wireless fm microphone? Cost for the gizmo could be $5? You have some cpu power on your hip. It bluetooths to your earpiece, which is NOT a medical device. Random thoughts.
Duh is right. The Atlantic economics are shutting down. Side effects are that things are get really really sucky in places like Africa. So, if this goes on etc, we are looking at a 5 billion person die off over the next 40 years. This has nothing much to do with anything material, more with the ideology of monetarism. The current concrete expression is that we need to impose deadly austerity in order to make good speculator's gambling debts. Last I checked we has ~1.4 quadrillion of speculative debts worldwide that needed your blood as income to make them appear to be real.
If your argument was to be somewhat correct, you would push things like food security. Instead your globalization nonsense is part of the problem. Consider the IMF pushes for countries to grow cash crops, rather than food for domestic consumption. This gives the country hard money to pay off the financial types, as long as you can ignore the improvishment of the population, who no longer can afford to eat. Oh, look. Disease. War. What a surprise.
And the result is so obvious, even the IMF types condemn their policies.
Now lets go to a violation of netiquette. What do you call deadly austerity during an economic collapse? Hint: it is one of those political/economic words no one can agree on a definition for.
I am an old guy. Half a century ago, my k-12 teachers might say something like this: the ideal classroom is a tree log for a student to sit on the end of, with Socrates on the other end.
And I have more recent memories: Here is on from '83:
This is nice and official and reasonable sane on what to do to fix the schools. And notable for really really dire language. Read it and curse for a bit.
Being a bit more high-level, we do like to push tech and a lot of us really really like/liked the space program, when we had one. And the money payback on Apollo is quite nice. And the 20 years of world tech leadership was nice. But I want to note that for a young kid the space program was exciting and MOTIVATING. Tell me something about our kids future and their motivations.
And here is the simple *local* cure for your schools: Hire teachers based on their high verbal IQ. You can pretty much ignore everything else you can away with ignoring. This is the only consistent variable that improves learning in schools. Fads we always have and people always wonder why things do not work out for very long.
Oh, here is an extreme. Remember Socrates. You could not hire him for your school in any normal fashion because of state licensing requirements. And just making a wild guess, given classical Greek pedagogical pedophilia, it is likely he cannot even live near your school. Oh well.
okay, but genetic viability is not the gold standard. Reflect on Alice's room, kind of a standard physicalism construct. You get the idea that text and speech communication learning is not the gold standard either. Lots of examples of that. Hmm, the tech transfer of the radar kylston (sp???) from us to uk during wwII. So you get to where you are going and you do not really know much of anything efficient. Or as an example, you do not know how to do science. So maybe you need enough platters for 100k people, who, among other things, continue to do science, hmm, and bake bread, and so on. Go for the 1g space drive and a short hop from our edge to the other system edge. Instead of a big colonization ship, lots of little ships, pretty much doing it just because whatever. Humans go over the next hill for whatever. Part of being human.
You are pretty good then. I wrote accounting software for a living and I was offered that project. I figured it would take me 20 years to do it right because of deep conceptual issues and passed. I suspect you are just proposing scalar scenario stuff. Better, probably the only way, would be Riemannian concepts. Hey, I also have a math degree. I at least recognize the problem with "scalar". Do you?
TARP numbers are amusingly small. The last official report, back in August 2010?, looking back a ways, said, hmm, 13 trillion. The problem with your numbers is that the fed just creates money out of thin air and screams bloody murder if anyone wants to look at the books. I hear that at the moment we are offering *unlimited* bailouts to the ECB for the big eurozone banks. 13T is probably way too small at this point. Actually, there was a recent official report also. Hmm, the Angelines report. I think it looked more at policy and self-dealing than total numbers.
Okay, so I read something obvious once you think about it and I read it on slashdot. If we *owned* the solar system, we would be at the next star also. The reason is that if you are sensible, then the solar system pretty much extend half way to the next star. So the idea of a mile big space ship is questionable just on that basis. And why are you thinking about "artificial" rotational gravity anyway? A nice fusion drive will give you a nice general relativity grav field. We need that anyway to own the solar system. And thinking about research directions, hey, no human has ever lived long in a 1 g relativity acceleration. You really sure that is not going to be full of surprises?.Oh, and the really good ideas will come from getting rid of the idea that space is *empty*. Just because you cannot see it, you do not get to ignore it. I suppose the idea that space is empty is some stupid thing with a theology basis, like the stars are the perfect abode of God. As to why we should work on going out to space and the stars, a very general reason is that walking about is the only to know anything. Anyway, our biosphere gets whacked big time every about 60 million years. One way to keep it around nicely around is to replicate it somewhere else.
The issue is "accounting', really as a scalar math thing. Simpler, the problem is the interest rate. For long term general welfare projects 1% per annum is probably appropriate. Crazy. Sure, of course the fed discount window for banks is I think lower than 1% right now. Here is another way. Consider the Eire canal. First build in 1820's as part of the Federalist canal construction program. It still give straight forward easy to recognize value. Tell me how to write an accounting program to recognize that during planning.
I am not sure the quantization argument fully holds. I read that absurd electric fields can increase the decay rates and absurd mechanical pressure can decrease the decay rates. Thus a really really high power laser of whatever frequency could increase the decay rate. Hehe, he should be talking to the Defense Department.
I am quite positive that connally, treasury secretary under nixon, had us off the gold standard in August 1971. And the people I was playing with then knew today was coming and in real time cited this even as the tolling of the bell.. Hmm, that is true, but not quite to the point. They knew 1986 was coming, but they did not realize how crazed the monetarists are. So we get wonder walls of money and everything you have come to hate. And now there are no more scams and looting and austerity that will give value to a couple quadrillion in worthless unpayable debt. And you start to get concerned new reporting in your local papers.
I have an idea-- put glass-steagall back in. Multiple bills with significant backing to do that are in Congress right now. This would take out most of the political leadership and most of the banks internationally. But it is challenging for me to believe they are not going soon. We should chose to keep ourselves standing. G-S, put in in the 1930's and fully repealed in 1999 separates out commercial banking assets from investment banking assets--that is, speculative "value" has to stand on its own.. Think of it this way: We need to keep commercial banks going. We do not need to keep speculators and their assets around. So, the speculators need to go grow roses or something useful. Their paper assets really do not exist. And we realize this by the simple and moderate tactic of *not* supporting the fictitious values of the assets, as with your tax dollars, etc. Hey, this is why we have bankruptcy courts.
HB 1489?comes to mind. I am pleased that my rep defazio introduced a similar and useful bill. Where is your rep on this?. I look for a link: http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18182
Thank you. Although you need to carefully note that I said money as you think of it. I assert that money, seen in a very unpopular way, can be real and much more and an accounting zero sum scalar. "scalar" is sort of mathy. Do you get any grasp of the word?
And you never ever touch on anything other than "transfers" and I do like to talk about "creating". Hah, the math reference is very much to the point with you.:-)
So let me ask *you* a deep question. Let say we both have the idea that "general welfare" means something necessary and positive. I did treat the concept a little in previous posts. Now propose a development *policy* that you really love and comes under your concept of general welfare. Hopefully something you can or are passionate to implement. Inquiring minds want to know. And then maybe we have a way to talk about money as real. (My concept nets are not simple.)
Slashdot Mirror
glass-steagall. HR 1489? 44 cosponsors. Return to prudent banking act. G-S came out in 1933 and was fully repealed in 1999. G-S prevents commercial banks from engaging in risky behavior. I need to run but I am happy to comment further if you have an interest herein.
Lots of different stories.
On sept 22, 2011, I sent a letter to the local paper about the disarray going into the DC G-20. The tag was "what will happen". I regard statistical predictions as rather silly for anything interesting, but kind of a dynamic directionality is useful to look at. So looking at the financial collapse, there is a possibility of a lot of non-economic stuff happening. If you go to wikipedia you can find by my last count 17 different definitions of (Goodwin). My definition is (Goodwin) is murderous austerity during an economic collapse. Now here are a few contextual datums.
Drones are not a military weapon. They have no survivability in a contested air space. They are a fine terror weapon. People hear them and know that things are going to be bad. During World II, the Nazi put sirens on the Stuka's for the same reason and as soon as the air space became contested, the Stuka's were gone. Military people are starting to compare drones to roadside IED's. Dishonorable.
Obama has chosen to kill three american citizens, far from any offical battlefield, by secret executive decree., by drone. 20 retired generals are quite unhappy. As the details come out, it looks like JSOC, and no civilians are in the chain of command, and the president gets notified after the fact. One of the dead that was individually targeted was 16 years old. The law professors are now getting enough information to be upset.
Here is one where it looks like the President did make the decision up front. Around the first of the week, I started hearing that a lot of people in the know around the world were wondering if Obama was going down on Quaddafi's death. This was a little hard for me to process. As some details come out, here might be the organizing concept: as far as other countries are concerned, obama can kill as many americans as we let him get away with. On the other hand, assassinating heads of state is bad form. This has nothing to do with the fact that US law prohibits Obama from doing assassinations, more to do with the rules of war. What has been said (NYT?, WP?) is on the 21st Obama was given three options and he ruled out the two non-lethal options. The next day, Quadaffi was dead. And with American and French? commandos on the scene. How did Quadaffi get pinned down?-- by drone and french war plane attacks. And the unconfirmed reports are that his convoy was flying white flags. If true, war crime right there.
Why kill Quadaffi? He has been best buddies with Blair and Obama and did all sort favors. You might note the US is trying to take over Africa for raw material supplies? One thought is Quadaffi knew too much and was not sensible about keeping his mouth shut.
So the interesting directionality here is on one side (Goodwin) and on the other, the name newspapers, the judiciary (imminent law professors), and the retired military generals are all moving. And of course OWS. Wishful people say "no program" in OWS and there is not yet agreement. But I like G-S. Hah, Volker likes G-S, thinks its better than what he proposed, he says today,and October 7, I counted seven newspapers who explicitly cited G-S as a major demand of OWS, but almost all were foreign newspapers. :-)
I did see a good quote though. Something like "mistrust facts that support your position". My version is not simply "mistrust facts" but more like "chose your direction and then cherry pick the facts." Oops, I am having an identity crisis here. Dah, is my name Cheney..or Obama ..or ... your favorite mass media?
It is *good* to live now.
I could not find the cite with a casual look, but historically US food reserves are about 60-90 days, but this time down around 30 days and at the time it was falling further. I am not sure what the cause is. However, we might observe that (Obama) opposes food reserves in less developed nations. Here is a cite http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18377 that in turns reference a french newspaper reporting on G-20 ag stuff about July of this year. I think the Larouche analysis, and reasonably the Chinese analysis, is that this is to put pressure on sovereign nations to NOT hoard food if the world goes into famine. And since in the G-20 context, all G-20 knew how to do a few months ago, was to encourage speculation everywhere, this all holds together. As best as I can see, that is almost all they still know. The additional thing some of them know is that bill has come due. And the US taxpayer is the only source of liquidity to prop up the speculators, largely in this case, big investment banks, for another month or two.
As it happens I am old enough to remember Ike beating Stevenson and the introduction of the Atoms for Peace program. I think we should take care if we try to conclude the subsidies were focused on *developing* nuclear power, per se. The geopolitical issues were the real drivers and I am not thinking precisely of the threat posed by Stalin. Now I did look at your link. The part that really amused me was the proposal to assess nuclear plants for protection against terrorist threats and avoiding nuclear proliferation. This is all so familiar. Post the Kennedy assassination, these sort of policy issues, applied indirectly, made nuclear non-economic, and now you want to put the nails directly into the body of the industry. I guess I could comment on terrorist threats and non-proliferation, but ...
Everyone gets to play terror games. Wait till you have UAVs in the hands of the law enforcement types. You hear one above you and will you feel safer? Oh wait. The domestic requests are not yet for *armed* UAV's. Just survellience missions. .
Say something true now that will also be true even if the species, the biosphere, and the planet are gone.
Do you see a difference between "debunking" and "really hard for respected scientists to reproduce". Reminds me of the maser.
current stuff, as I define current
Birmingham 63
Leipzig October 89
US August 2009
Arab Spring 2011
global October 2011
More than memories. I bet that thought upsets you.
Anyway, the policy options being offered by our betters are bailouts, austerity, and police states. But these ideas are bankrupt and even "they" know it. Look at the results of the last G-20 meeting. These wonder ideas are just reflexes of Empire.
On the other hand, in part, HR 1489. (glass-steagall)
Contemporary science has various sources of truth. A common one is experiment. Now the way thermodynamics is demonstrated experimentally, well, half a century ago, is to put the test system in a box, let it get to stable equilibrium and measure whatever goes in and out. So far so good?
Okay, the other thing science gets its truth from is some sort of religious thingy. If you say the universe is going to some sort of heat death hell, then just how are you going to talk about putting the universe in a box and then standing outside it? I am not sure that this even a issue of practice, but of meaning.
And time scale issues are wonderful. Do you really want to say the surface of Earth is in stable equilibrium?
Oh, I know, there is always someone fiddling with "almost, but not quite" stable equilibrium. That has been going for a long time. Looks like it is an intractable problem.
What else. You recall I mentioned measuring "something" going in and out. If you change the meaning of "something", then you are making a deep change in the meaning of the inviolate thermodynamic laws. And applying the laws to themselves, did this just violate the laws? Of course not, except most scientist types like to think funny things about the domain of applicability of that with which they work. See "religion". And realizing that, yes, the thermo laws just got heavily violated. :-) Of course, if the universe is a deterministic state machine I retreat off stage! I really do personally think that machines obey these sort of laws. And the question of whether you, part of the universe, are a machine or not is, of course, religious, which ever side you chose.
Ah, I am using a broad definition of "religious" Who was it who said "I am really very spiritual, but I am not a believer ..."? And I am using an odd definition of machine too.
but enjoy as you can
enjoy
Consider, back in the day
guy wants to go write some code on his own to resell.. He is a salaried programmer. Boss want to help out. Loans him a mini to take home and work on his own time.
Time passes and the greatest thing since sliced bread is created. O
oops, the employer owns it
Fact? "really damn deep where there is no light at any wavelength" I repeat, playing careless with absolutes. Finally, the absolute is stated as local in time and space, but in a way that is still fully evasive. I treat few as two or three, (but my cite is to"one or two", so a few billion years is less than the 3.5 billion years oxygen producing from sunshine stuff *may* have been around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria. Also,
few
determiner
not many, one or two, hardly any, scarcely any, rare, thin, scattered, insufficient, scarce, scant, meagre, negligible, sporadic, sparse, infrequent, scanty, inconsiderable In some districts there are few survivors.
not many many, divers (archaic), abundant, plentiful, sundry, manifold, inexhaustible, multifarious, bounteous
So, it seems possible your statement is "factually" correct simply because the evolution took place outside of your time specifications of your "absolute". Who can say, you so,like to be shifty.
have a great day
Clear answer so let us play some more.
I suppose I should have said blue-green stuff. Being "really damn deep where there is no light at any wavelength" suggests strongly there was no light gathering to generate oxygen. So if you are right, I guess I am anaerobic.
Regarding rotten concepts versus eye damage, I reflect on the megadeaths generated by rotten concepts vs a few individuals being damaged. Hee, playing carelessly with claimed absolutes is a lot like the static concept.
HeeHee. "hostile to biology". Remember when that evil green stuff took out the last biosphere? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
The point here is that life evolved before there was an ozone layer and 90% got wiped as part of creating the ozone layer. Thus your absolute statements are challenging to find agreeable. You might well know better about biology, but do you really want to encourage your readers to hold extremely unfortunate ideas about absence of change, which ideas have so often been a hinderance to our species..
Kindle Fire was announce two days ago. Under $200, shipping November 15th. Pre-order now. May still be a long wait. But it is a tablet and color. The back story on the price is that is seems to be the razor, rather than the razor blade. And there are estimates of 5 million being sold quickly. So it is not likely to die on the vine right away as other low priced tabled have done. This note responds to the parent consideration of price.
Maybe pay or do without are the only options.. But I keep thinking DIY. The general high cost is strongly connected to the need to have a prescription? This is at least True for CPAP machines. Also, most of the cost of a hearing aide, IMO, is in the IP, like the software.
HeHe. Consider a blood glucose tester. As for diabetics... Now the device is basically free, because of the razor/razor blade marketing principle. And they have nice internal records of the readings. Now consider the one-touch brand. There is in fact now some FOSS software to get the data and manipulate it. But the proprietary cable costs $40.
Hey, if you want to go for a DIY hearing aid system, drop me a line. I figure if we do not need to miniturize the electronics, then some fpeg or lesser goodie is the core element. HeHe. We can actually do better if we get it so cheap as to be almost a disposeable. Figure the standard tech is challenging in a noisy room. Just give the person you are talking to a wireless fm microphone? Cost for the gizmo could be $5? You have some cpu power on your hip. It bluetooths to your earpiece, which is NOT a medical device. Random thoughts.
Duh is right. The Atlantic economics are shutting down. Side effects are that things are get really really sucky in places like Africa. So, if this goes on etc, we are looking at a 5 billion person die off over the next 40 years. This has nothing much to do with anything material, more with the ideology of monetarism. The current concrete expression is that we need to impose deadly austerity in order to make good speculator's gambling debts. Last I checked we has ~1.4 quadrillion of speculative debts worldwide that needed your blood as income to make them appear to be real.
If your argument was to be somewhat correct, you would push things like food security. Instead your globalization nonsense is part of the problem. Consider the IMF pushes for countries to grow cash crops, rather than food for domestic consumption. This gives the country hard money to pay off the financial types, as long as you can ignore the improvishment of the population, who no longer can afford to eat. Oh, look. Disease. War. What a surprise.
And the result is so obvious, even the IMF types condemn their policies.
Now lets go to a violation of netiquette. What do you call deadly austerity during an economic collapse? Hint: it is one of those political/economic words no one can agree on a definition for.
.
I am an old guy. Half a century ago, my k-12 teachers might say something like this: the ideal classroom is a tree log for a student to sit on the end of, with Socrates on the other end.
And I have more recent memories: Here is on from '83:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Nation_at_Risk
This is nice and official and reasonable sane on what to do to fix the schools. And notable for really really dire language. Read it and curse for a bit.
Being a bit more high-level, we do like to push tech and a lot of us really really like/liked the space program, when we had one. And the money payback on Apollo is quite nice. And the 20 years of world tech leadership was nice. But I want to note that for a young kid the space program was exciting and MOTIVATING. Tell me something about our kids future and their motivations.
And here is the simple *local* cure for your schools: Hire teachers based on their high verbal IQ. You can pretty much ignore everything else you can away with ignoring. This is the only consistent variable that improves learning in schools. Fads we always have and people always wonder why things do not work out for very long.
Oh, here is an extreme. Remember Socrates. You could not hire him for your school in any normal fashion because of state licensing requirements. And just making a wild guess, given classical Greek pedagogical pedophilia, it is likely he cannot even live near your school. Oh well.
okay, but genetic viability is not the gold standard. Reflect on Alice's room, kind of a standard physicalism construct. You get the idea that text and speech communication learning is not the gold standard either. Lots of examples of that. Hmm, the tech transfer of the radar kylston (sp???) from us to uk during wwII. So you get to where you are going and you do not really know much of anything efficient. Or as an example, you do not know how to do science. So maybe you need enough platters for 100k people, who, among other things, continue to do science, hmm, and bake bread, and so on. Go for the 1g space drive and a short hop from our edge to the other system edge. Instead of a big colonization ship, lots of little ships, pretty much doing it just because whatever. Humans go over the next hill for whatever. Part of being human.
You are pretty good then. I wrote accounting software for a living and I was offered that project. I figured it would take me 20 years to do it right because of deep conceptual issues and passed. I suspect you are just proposing scalar scenario stuff. Better, probably the only way, would be Riemannian concepts. Hey, I also have a math degree. I at least recognize the problem with "scalar". Do you?
TARP numbers are amusingly small. The last official report, back in August 2010?, looking back a ways, said, hmm, 13 trillion. The problem with your numbers is that the fed just creates money out of thin air and screams bloody murder if anyone wants to look at the books. I hear that at the moment we are offering *unlimited* bailouts to the ECB for the big eurozone banks. 13T is probably way too small at this point. Actually, there was a recent official report also. Hmm, the Angelines report. I think it looked more at policy and self-dealing than total numbers.
Okay, so I read something obvious once you think about it and I read it on slashdot. If we *owned* the solar system, we would be at the next star also. The reason is that if you are sensible, then the solar system pretty much extend half way to the next star. So the idea of a mile big space ship is questionable just on that basis. And why are you thinking about "artificial" rotational gravity anyway? A nice fusion drive will give you a nice general relativity grav field. We need that anyway to own the solar system. And thinking about research directions, hey, no human has ever lived long in a 1 g relativity acceleration. You really sure that is not going to be full of surprises? .Oh, and the really good ideas will come from getting rid of the idea that space is *empty*. Just because you cannot see it, you do not get to ignore it. I suppose the idea that space is empty is some stupid thing with a theology basis, like the stars are the perfect abode of God. As to why we should work on going out to space and the stars, a very general reason is that walking about is the only to know anything. Anyway, our biosphere gets whacked big time every about 60 million years. One way to keep it around nicely around is to replicate it somewhere else.
The issue is "accounting', really as a scalar math thing. Simpler, the problem is the interest rate. For long term general welfare projects 1% per annum is probably appropriate. Crazy. Sure, of course the fed discount window for banks is I think lower than 1% right now. Here is another way. Consider the Eire canal. First build in 1820's as part of the Federalist canal construction program. It still give straight forward easy to recognize value. Tell me how to write an accounting program to recognize that during planning.
I am not sure the quantization argument fully holds. I read that absurd electric fields can increase the decay rates and absurd mechanical pressure can decrease the decay rates. Thus a really really high power laser of whatever frequency could increase the decay rate. Hehe, he should be talking to the Defense Department.
I am quite positive that connally, treasury secretary under nixon, had us off the gold standard in August 1971. And the people I was playing with then knew today was coming and in real time cited this even as the tolling of the bell.. Hmm, that is true, but not quite to the point. They knew 1986 was coming, but they did not realize how crazed the monetarists are. So we get wonder walls of money and everything you have come to hate. And now there are no more scams and looting and austerity that will give value to a couple quadrillion in worthless unpayable debt. And you start to get concerned new reporting in your local papers.
I have an idea-- put glass-steagall back in. Multiple bills with significant backing to do that are in Congress right now. This would take out most of the political leadership and most of the banks internationally. But it is challenging for me to believe they are not going soon. We should chose to keep ourselves standing. G-S, put in in the 1930's and fully repealed in 1999 separates out commercial banking assets from investment banking assets--that is, speculative "value" has to stand on its own.. Think of it this way: We need to keep commercial banks going. We do not need to keep speculators and their assets around. So, the speculators need to go grow roses or something useful. Their paper assets really do not exist. And we realize this by the simple and moderate tactic of *not* supporting the fictitious values of the assets, as with your tax dollars, etc. Hey, this is why we have bankruptcy courts.
HB 1489?comes to mind. I am pleased that my rep defazio introduced a similar and useful bill. Where is your rep on this?. I look for a link:
http://www.larouchepac.com/node/18182
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.1489:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.2451:
enjoy
Thank you. Although you need to carefully note that I said money as you think of it. I assert that money, seen in a very unpopular way, can be real and much more and an accounting zero sum scalar. "scalar" is sort of mathy. Do you get any grasp of the word?
And you never ever touch on anything other than "transfers" and I do like to talk about "creating". Hah, the math reference is very much to the point with you. :-)
So let me ask *you* a deep question. Let say we both have the idea that "general welfare" means something necessary and positive. I did treat the concept a little in previous posts. Now propose a development *policy* that you really love and comes under your concept of general welfare. Hopefully something you can or are passionate to implement. Inquiring minds want to know. And then maybe we have a way to talk about money as real. (My concept nets are not simple.)