The source is just reality of numbers. The government spends everything it takes in, and then some. Poorer people with less money spend a larger fraction of their income than rich people (who can afford to save / hold back).
You're allowed to be as anti-competitive as you want until you have a monopoly position and the government gets involved. Facebook hardly has a monopoly on social networking, there are literally dozens of competitors in the space, and at least 5 of them have substantial market share.
I always have to wonder. Where do the anti tax hikes people think the money goes? It's not like the government isn't going to spend it, and that the people they give it to aren't going to spend it (at least not significantly less so than the people who held it in the first place, and in most cases, they are more likely to spend it).
Which means... taxes create jobs. More jobs than you would get without taxes. I think the success of the stimulus has pretty much proven that to all but the very stupid.
The point of the gp (IMO) is not that terrorists don't do these things, but that every 'legitimate' military force on earth does them too. For example, the US has been making drone strikes in pakistan that target civilian populations in the HOPE of MAYBE getting a terrorist too.
Real psychotherapy is empirically proven. And there are plenty of empirically proven treatments. Sadly, there are indeed many 'psychotherapists' out there who know nothing about them.
I'm lucky to be even better off, I'm now in the position where jobs are coming begging for me. My 'boss' knows the line of recruiters knocking at my door is a mile long, and I'm staying because I get to do what interests me.
Also this idea is a self-fulfilling prophecy. A child who is abused and manipulated is far more likely to abuse and manipulate others as an adult. If you stick a kid in a classroom and humiliate and punish him for any deviance from "the plan", they will try to punish and humiliate those they find who have deviated because they have integrated a fear of deviation into their personalty in order to survive the humiliation and punishment of their teachers..
This is exactly why the wealthy send their kids to private school. Public school is for the sheep, private school the wolves.
It's not in any nation's interest to have a major nuclear exchange. There's not a single nation that would survive it. The utter chaos afterward as the food supplies dwindled would be guaranteed to topple everyone.
The Japanese used very few nuclear weapons at Pearl Harbor. If they had used more, our losses would likely have reached 95% of our materiel at that site.
Only half of the missiles reach their target because in the very limited history of missiles, to reach even that level would be generous.
Well, yes, a tech reset, and the chance of civilization rising again would be small given that there wouldn't be any accessible oil the second time around. It would also stand a pretty good chance of killing most of the vegetation, which while not a direct kill for us might still completely wipe out humanity.
As others have pointed out, you have to assume that we lose 95% of whatever we have during the first strike, and that only half of the remainder will reach their targets, and still have enough to devastate our opponent.
Indeed, we are clearly past the point where we'd be vastly better off investing in better delivery systems for half or a quarter of the number of weapons instead of maintaining the current weapons.
I don't agree that that is more likely. The market does a terrible job of considering both the long term and externalities. This has been proven, again and again. So the claim that it does a better job is well... just a bit ludicrous.
Slashdot Mirror
The source is just reality of numbers. The government spends everything it takes in, and then some. Poorer people with less money spend a larger fraction of their income than rich people (who can afford to save / hold back).
You're allowed to be as anti-competitive as you want until you have a monopoly position and the government gets involved. Facebook hardly has a monopoly on social networking, there are literally dozens of competitors in the space, and at least 5 of them have substantial market share.
I always have to wonder. Where do the anti tax hikes people think the money goes? It's not like the government isn't going to spend it, and that the people they give it to aren't going to spend it (at least not significantly less so than the people who held it in the first place, and in most cases, they are more likely to spend it).
Which means ... taxes create jobs. More jobs than you would get without taxes. I think the success of the stimulus has pretty much proven that to all but the very stupid.
So if the CIA operates out of the WTC, that made it a legitimate target?
The point of the gp (IMO) is not that terrorists don't do these things, but that every 'legitimate' military force on earth does them too. For example, the US has been making drone strikes in pakistan that target civilian populations in the HOPE of MAYBE getting a terrorist too.
He's actually either a troll or an anti-chiropractor himself. He could only be driving people away from chiropractic treatment with these posts.
Absolutely.
http://www.abct.org/sccap/?m=sPro&fa=pro_ESToptions
Empirically proven in psychotherapy means proven better outcomes than not doing psychotherapy.
Oh yeah, the US is a nation of failures if ever there was one. You can see how self actualization was an abject failure alright.
</sarcasm>
The article, if you FRTA, claims 20M prescriptions. That'd be about 5% of Americans being psychotic.
Real psychotherapy is empirically proven. And there are plenty of empirically proven treatments. Sadly, there are indeed many 'psychotherapists' out there who know nothing about them.
I'm lucky to be even better off, I'm now in the position where jobs are coming begging for me. My 'boss' knows the line of recruiters knocking at my door is a mile long, and I'm staying because I get to do what interests me.
Also this idea is a self-fulfilling prophecy. A child who is abused and manipulated is far more likely to abuse and manipulate others as an adult. If you stick a kid in a classroom and humiliate and punish him for any deviance from "the plan", they will try to punish and humiliate those they find who have deviated because they have integrated a fear of deviation into their personalty in order to survive the humiliation and punishment of their teachers..
This is exactly why the wealthy send their kids to private school. Public school is for the sheep, private school the wolves.
Indeed, it is way more interesting than insightful.
It's not in any nation's interest to have a major nuclear exchange. There's not a single nation that would survive it. The utter chaos afterward as the food supplies dwindled would be guaranteed to topple everyone.
The Japanese used very few nuclear weapons at Pearl Harbor. If they had used more, our losses would likely have reached 95% of our materiel at that site.
Only half of the missiles reach their target because in the very limited history of missiles, to reach even that level would be generous.
Well, yes, a tech reset, and the chance of civilization rising again would be small given that there wouldn't be any accessible oil the second time around. It would also stand a pretty good chance of killing most of the vegetation, which while not a direct kill for us might still completely wipe out humanity.
The 5k includes about 500 tactical.
31k peak to about 5k now. Can't see any reason we couldn't get down to 2k with absolute confidence in our ability to destroy all of humanity.
As others have pointed out, you have to assume that we lose 95% of whatever we have during the first strike, and that only half of the remainder will reach their targets, and still have enough to devastate our opponent.
Indeed, we are clearly past the point where we'd be vastly better off investing in better delivery systems for half or a quarter of the number of weapons instead of maintaining the current weapons.
Read any history book about China. They've done a lot of violent warfare.
We could pretty much destroy the whole world even after decimating our current nuclear arsenal five times over.
"It was the best of times, it was
blurst of times."
You stupid monkey!
I don't agree that that is more likely. The market does a terrible job of considering both the long term and externalities. This has been proven, again and again. So the claim that it does a better job is well ... just a bit ludicrous.
Still less hassle than Hulu.