"Monasteries and convents didnt have "serving girls"
At least that is what their PR was all about. A monastery which handled works using lapis lazuli might well have allowed exceptions for rock star artists. This is how things have worked from the dawn of time. Also there are other perks that might well have been unofficially afforded such a monk as well that would explain how something he handled ended up in her mouth.
"But wait, this article says nice things about how women were treated and that triggers my insecurities and the researchers might be feminists"
Saying nice things about how women were treated and especially suggesting that women were educated and literate is definitely NOT consistent with the bias of feminists. Granted these agendas have no problem with contradictory positions "equal orgasms, women have sex drives just as strong as men" vs "men are obviously the primary drivers of all the sexual assault and rape."
Literate and educated women makes it more difficult to put the overall lack of accomplishment and overall position of women in society on men and outright conflicts with the argument that women weren't allowed education by the evil menfolk.
While crude, I think I think a valid point was made. This discovery could just as easily and more plausibly be explained by the woman performing sexual favors for a monk.
I'm extremely skeptical about the implication that people know more about how cars work on average than people in the 70's, 80's, and even 90's... when everyone knew about and worked on cars or their dicks would fall off.
In fairness android tablets and chromebooks (tablets with a dock) are also fairly useless. They are too big to replace a phone and not powerful or functional enough to replace a laptop.
The only people who have no use for a laptop are people who do nothing productive, even for recreation. Laptops are easy to sell because people love the idea of mobility, tablets get sold because laptops don't end up delivering on being a desktop that is mobile because you have to lug around bags and backpacks. The problem is that a desktop interface, full size keyboard, numpad, mouse, large screen, and multiple physical screens all actually bring substantial usability benefits to the table. Using that compared to slapping a mouse on a 10" tablet with a portable keyboard and touchscreen is like having a an all electric flying limo with bar, wifi, massage seats and lumbar support, self-driving capability vs a scooter. Nobody would want that trade-off unless they've just gotten used to a scooter being their only option.
Mobile devices are great for mobility but make unavoidable tradeoffs in usability to get it and in a world that gets LESS mobile due to advances in technology every day... it really just doesn't make all that much sense. Remote workers are not mobile workers, people who travel to work every day are MORE mobile and there are less of them. People travel for business less and less, students actually have to be physically present for classes less and less, people socialize virtually more and more, activities are virtual more and more. People are less mobile than ever.
Obviously no sane person considers hampering education to be a big win but the real world is more complicated than just the immediate and obvious kneejerk.
There is a great reason to close these loopholes, doing so makes the current broken and horrible model of forcing teachers to buy these supplies untenable and will ultimately force it to change... unless some idiot steps in and reinstates these tax breaks in time for things to resume, business as usual. Sometimes you have to endure hardships or do something that makes things worse to bring out a better end result.
No, the whoosh is still yours. You were arguing with an obviously sarcastic post:
"Actually, "Tax Reform" under Trump did manage to close loopholes that allowed teachers to write off school supplies. For opponents of "Big Teach" this could be considered a big win."
You were "correcting" the attitude of someone by preaching the same stance they were already taking.
Not really, alcohol is actually harmful to humans. Marijuana is better compared with garlic, rose oil, or any other edible herb sold in a health food store.
Seriously with all the money and effort put into finding negative effects for decades all they could manage to come up with were results from asphyxiating primates in sealed chambers and a correlation with increased symptoms in people who already have schizophrenia. I doubt most of the other herbs on the shelf would have fared so well. Before that you had widespread availability and informal usage around the globe for thousands of years without any known ill effects or addiction. I am speaking of the substance itself, not smoking it. I'm sure you'll find inhaling combustion byproducts is a bad idea in general and it isn't a good idea to smoke most of the things we know as safe in society.
If you were to compare to aspirin to Marijuana you'd have to call aspirin a deadly toxin. There were a number of lobbies that took advantage of "drugs" and the PR at the time to get competition outlawed. Relabeling hemp as Marijuana and spreading fear amongst people who had hemp throughout their homes and no idea they were one and the same was a huge win for a number of industries including the oil industry (hemp reinforced corn plastics were a threat to petroleum based plastics) and of course the all powerful southern cotton and tobacco industries. It isn't some great conspiracy just business. It also didn't hurt that hash was far more popular among foreigners. Of course the bird seed industry got a last minute exemption because it wasn't believed a healthy seed blend was even possible without hemp seed. This is actually how the plant was saved in the US. Natural seed blends still contain hemp seed but the seeds are steam blasted to sterilize them.
Another loser in the same wars was coca. At that point the leaves were brewed into tea. The big lobby behind that being the tea and coffee trades obviously and it was a double win for them with caffeine being added to coca-cola as the new addictive stimulant. With chemicals concentration is extremely important, cocaine wasn't typically concentrated in the way it is now, therefore it lacked the same health risks and addictive properties. Highly concentrated powdered cocaine became widespread as a smuggling technique later. What is interesting is that the reason caffeine addicts aren't running around purifying the stuff and snorting lines is that caffeine is actually far more dangerous and would kill you outright with consistency if you snorted a big line. Cocaine certainly has more negative effects than marijuana though even aside from addiction, but those effects are pretty similar to what we've found with any stimulant we've given reasonable study. Logically the same would probably be true of the positive effects we've found from caffeine but nobody does studies looking for positive effects of cocaine use.
Agreed with you and the GP but isn't the 1%, the 1% includes the top end professions which work their asses off to overachieve like engineers, doctors, lawyers (jokes aside), yes even middle management and sales people.
There are over 300,000,000 people in this country, using a value of 100th's is all about masking out the real divisions. The 1% are only part of the problem in that they are overtaxed and punished. They include all the people who really did work harder and earn their place looking at all the slackers around them. They also include the children of those who did so a few generations back.
The issue isn't the 1%, the issue is the top 0.1% by wealth not income and those who control an equivalent amount of wealth in any corporation.
I'm sure they would love this plan. Here is a thought for the top 20 tech companies, stop discriminating based on degrees, diversity, and racism in favor of asians and young people and go back to focusing on actual skills and on the job training. You can pay some money by simply not paying people more for having degrees or only counting degrees more realistically as being maybe 1/2 years of experience.
Also stop encouraging churn. Cycling people out every six months means you have more options with more skillsets but those skillsets came at the expense of learning on the job at the last place and those people will spend the next six months learning on the job at your workplace. The difference between that and just training your damn people (possibly even by having this cycle into tangent positions within your company so people have different jobs every six months) is that when you train your people they are still around with whatever knowledge would have otherwise been lost, they have job security and some basis for loyalty especially if you give raises to existing staff to match equivalent experience level for incoming hires.
In the paragraph "It's no different than cell phones" I was referring to the collaborative/competitive dynamic between the existing players and not the engineering. By syncing up for the most part and competing on marginal adjustments they make more profit than by releasing a market upset increment to try to steal the market outright.
Although, for that side of it I could have said "it is little different than the chips in cell phones."
I absolutely do not dispute the need for very deep pockets to enter this field. But there are people who have them and also have primary businesses that could make enough use of the output to justify that outlay, even with a break-even or loss leader target for that particular segment. There are already some tech companies inching in this direction for certain needs already.
A new player would have some big advantages. They can utilize technology that lends to mass production but isn't necessary consistent with current process lines and equipment. They build a structure from the ground up to target commodity supply and never become dependent on revenue streams which depend on overcharging at the high end or classifying flexible features as "enterprise."
There are mega wealthy billionaires who are blowing obscene amounts of money just to play with rockets and there are no shortage of people in that category with tech dependent business. Is it really so far fetched that one might use that economic power to liberate chip fabrication?
Maybe, but not the way most places are doing it. Instead of legalizing and letting the market work they are attaching all kinds of ridiculous fees and taxes on to it that will prop up black market level pricing and keep the cartels around.
Marijuana is cheap and easy to produce in large quantities if it can be grown outdoors without any restriction beyond what you'd have on a rosemary bush. Marijuana would be maybe $1-2/lb at most if grown without restriction or special taxes and you'd need acreage to make any money off it. Just like any other produce people would grow their own only because they wanted something better than mass market. There would be no room for cartels (including domestic ones) to make a worthwhile profit.
Illegal immigrants cost the US a huge amount of money each year. If they are prevented from coming Mexico would pay that bill. If I say I'll pay your electric bill there is really no difference between reducing an amount you owe me by the amount of the bill, paying you the cash, and sending the check to the electric company notated for your account, or even sending that amount to your mortgage company so you only send them the difference. Money is money is money.
Also he is currently gathering up illegal immigrants at the border, no doubt having them do the work as community service for their crime is part of how he intends to build the wall for so little relative to the 40+ billion spent in previous efforts. Afterward they'll be deported and the millions we save on their use of public services, wear and tear on public infrastructure, and healthcare costs will be the second concrete example of Mexico paying for the wall.
Any money actually spent on construction is infrastructure spending directly into the US economy, that is at worst a net zero expenditure and at best stimulus. Afterward thousands of new border jobs will be created and easily paid for by reduced healthcare costs and public services costs.
Of course it isn't all downhill for Mexico. If we deport them all we'll likely import more Mexican produce and fruit. That sucks for California but really isn't that big a deal for the national economy. Actually what remains of the California fruit industry will probably end up employing more Americans from those rural communities.
You do know there is a hell of a lot more to the states rights issue than slavery right? We were all fucked on so many levels by the changes Lincoln imposed to centralize federal (aka his) power. Slavery is just the reason there was enough money threatened by his move to mobilize the wealthy to fight it and at the same time an excellent PR vocal point he could use to rally support.
Let other people argue whether the civil war was about states rights, money, or slavery. The very question oversimplifies the situation and pretends there was some kind of single universal answer. However, given the mans history and actions it is highly unlikely ending slavery lived alone as the motivation in the dark corners of Lincoln's thoughts.
The states which formed a United Alliance were not all intended to be one place with a uniform set of rules. They were intended to be a bunch of separate places you could freely migrate between if the one you were in happened to suck in some way fundamental to you. The whole point is that you don't have to have the lowest common denominator that is most fair to everyone in any one place because that best overall solution is rarely the best solution for anyone. Maybe where you are people have abused certain freedoms to the point where something had to be done to stop the abusers and they were lost, you could relocate somewhere that wasn't yet the case. You know what is really tough? Accomplishing your agenda everywhere in a single stroke. But then, that is the point.
Slavery was a special one off case in this system because the science and culture of the day didn't classify them as human and therefore they didn't have rights. Without that special situation (which is no longer the case, law or no) they have a federally protected right to travel freely between states and could simply move to a state with more favorable laws and the laws of the south don't really matter that much. Of course, with the science and knowledge of today the policies of the southern states could never come to be in the first place. Lets not forget, excluding the slaves from citizenship was a political can of worms the British saddled the founders with. It was an oddball footnote in the framework they devised, the whole framework works just fine without slavery.
Complete with spreading hysteria about the Russians. As if citizens united doesn't let countries all over world influence our elections via contributions and advocacy through corporations they own and the Russians were special.
$46 billion or $5.6 billion could easily do it. I suspect we'll find that step two is using illegals as unpaid criminal laborers allowing them to work off their crime with public service and then when the project is complete releasing them on the Mexican side.
"But Trump was very clear on numerous occasions that Mexico was going to pay for the wall."
Oh please. That logic is easy to follow. Undocumented workers are expensive, extremely expensive. They cause billions in wear and tear on infrastructure, public services, and increased medical and insurance costs. If it actually prevents some significant number of illegal immigrants from crossing then Mexico will pay those costs rather than us and thus Mexico will have paid for it. It's debatable whether or not that will happen.
The construction cost to build the wall just goes right back into the US economy. That isn't hypothetical economic growth like a tax cut, infrastructure spending is well proven out and easily projected economic boost. Normally this sort of thing has bi-partisan support for that reason. The cherry on the Sundae would be using unpaid illegal immigrant labor to build it and then tossing them on the wrong side at the end. That doesn't seem completely unlikely since Trump has been gathering them up in camps.
"These are not the crowds that are abusing the national parks because there is no oversight. The ones doing it are running around in their redneck crap mobile bush whackers."
Riiiiggghhhhttt... because it is people from the country who primarily vacation by visiting federal parks... you know, instead of their alternative of going outside or camping on their friends private land 20 minutes away. People from the country just love to camp at national parks with their fake campsites and other people less than 20 yards away.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't hold your breath. This probably has some troubling interactions with RF.
"Monasteries and convents didnt have "serving girls"
At least that is what their PR was all about. A monastery which handled works using lapis lazuli might well have allowed exceptions for rock star artists. This is how things have worked from the dawn of time. Also there are other perks that might well have been unofficially afforded such a monk as well that would explain how something he handled ended up in her mouth.
"But wait, this article says nice things about how women were treated and that triggers my insecurities and the researchers might be feminists"
Saying nice things about how women were treated and especially suggesting that women were educated and literate is definitely NOT consistent with the bias of feminists. Granted these agendas have no problem with contradictory positions "equal orgasms, women have sex drives just as strong as men" vs "men are obviously the primary drivers of all the sexual assault and rape."
Literate and educated women makes it more difficult to put the overall lack of accomplishment and overall position of women in society on men and outright conflicts with the argument that women weren't allowed education by the evil menfolk.
"so this woman was an illustrator of some very high end texts"
Or her mouth interacted with the illustrator of some very high end texts.
While crude, I think I think a valid point was made. This discovery could just as easily and more plausibly be explained by the woman performing sexual favors for a monk.
"Most people still could not"
I'm extremely skeptical about the implication that people know more about how cars work on average than people in the 70's, 80's, and even 90's... when everyone knew about and worked on cars or their dicks would fall off.
In fairness android tablets and chromebooks (tablets with a dock) are also fairly useless. They are too big to replace a phone and not powerful or functional enough to replace a laptop.
The only people who have no use for a laptop are people who do nothing productive, even for recreation. Laptops are easy to sell because people love the idea of mobility, tablets get sold because laptops don't end up delivering on being a desktop that is mobile because you have to lug around bags and backpacks. The problem is that a desktop interface, full size keyboard, numpad, mouse, large screen, and multiple physical screens all actually bring substantial usability benefits to the table. Using that compared to slapping a mouse on a 10" tablet with a portable keyboard and touchscreen is like having a an all electric flying limo with bar, wifi, massage seats and lumbar support, self-driving capability vs a scooter. Nobody would want that trade-off unless they've just gotten used to a scooter being their only option.
Mobile devices are great for mobility but make unavoidable tradeoffs in usability to get it and in a world that gets LESS mobile due to advances in technology every day... it really just doesn't make all that much sense. Remote workers are not mobile workers, people who travel to work every day are MORE mobile and there are less of them. People travel for business less and less, students actually have to be physically present for classes less and less, people socialize virtually more and more, activities are virtual more and more. People are less mobile than ever.
Obviously no sane person considers hampering education to be a big win but the real world is more complicated than just the immediate and obvious kneejerk.
There is a great reason to close these loopholes, doing so makes the current broken and horrible model of forcing teachers to buy these supplies untenable and will ultimately force it to change... unless some idiot steps in and reinstates these tax breaks in time for things to resume, business as usual. Sometimes you have to endure hardships or do something that makes things worse to bring out a better end result.
No, the whoosh is still yours. You were arguing with an obviously sarcastic post:
"Actually, "Tax Reform" under Trump did manage to close loopholes that allowed teachers to write off school supplies. For opponents of "Big Teach" this could be considered a big win."
You were "correcting" the attitude of someone by preaching the same stance they were already taking.
Not really, alcohol is actually harmful to humans. Marijuana is better compared with garlic, rose oil, or any other edible herb sold in a health food store.
Seriously with all the money and effort put into finding negative effects for decades all they could manage to come up with were results from asphyxiating primates in sealed chambers and a correlation with increased symptoms in people who already have schizophrenia. I doubt most of the other herbs on the shelf would have fared so well. Before that you had widespread availability and informal usage around the globe for thousands of years without any known ill effects or addiction. I am speaking of the substance itself, not smoking it. I'm sure you'll find inhaling combustion byproducts is a bad idea in general and it isn't a good idea to smoke most of the things we know as safe in society.
If you were to compare to aspirin to Marijuana you'd have to call aspirin a deadly toxin. There were a number of lobbies that took advantage of "drugs" and the PR at the time to get competition outlawed. Relabeling hemp as Marijuana and spreading fear amongst people who had hemp throughout their homes and no idea they were one and the same was a huge win for a number of industries including the oil industry (hemp reinforced corn plastics were a threat to petroleum based plastics) and of course the all powerful southern cotton and tobacco industries. It isn't some great conspiracy just business. It also didn't hurt that hash was far more popular among foreigners. Of course the bird seed industry got a last minute exemption because it wasn't believed a healthy seed blend was even possible without hemp seed. This is actually how the plant was saved in the US. Natural seed blends still contain hemp seed but the seeds are steam blasted to sterilize them.
Another loser in the same wars was coca. At that point the leaves were brewed into tea. The big lobby behind that being the tea and coffee trades obviously and it was a double win for them with caffeine being added to coca-cola as the new addictive stimulant. With chemicals concentration is extremely important, cocaine wasn't typically concentrated in the way it is now, therefore it lacked the same health risks and addictive properties. Highly concentrated powdered cocaine became widespread as a smuggling technique later. What is interesting is that the reason caffeine addicts aren't running around purifying the stuff and snorting lines is that caffeine is actually far more dangerous and would kill you outright with consistency if you snorted a big line. Cocaine certainly has more negative effects than marijuana though even aside from addiction, but those effects are pretty similar to what we've found with any stimulant we've given reasonable study. Logically the same would probably be true of the positive effects we've found from caffeine but nobody does studies looking for positive effects of cocaine use.
Agreed with you and the GP but isn't the 1%, the 1% includes the top end professions which work their asses off to overachieve like engineers, doctors, lawyers (jokes aside), yes even middle management and sales people.
There are over 300,000,000 people in this country, using a value of 100th's is all about masking out the real divisions. The 1% are only part of the problem in that they are overtaxed and punished. They include all the people who really did work harder and earn their place looking at all the slackers around them. They also include the children of those who did so a few generations back.
The issue isn't the 1%, the issue is the top 0.1% by wealth not income and those who control an equivalent amount of wealth in any corporation.
I'm sure they would love this plan. Here is a thought for the top 20 tech companies, stop discriminating based on degrees, diversity, and racism in favor of asians and young people and go back to focusing on actual skills and on the job training. You can pay some money by simply not paying people more for having degrees or only counting degrees more realistically as being maybe 1/2 years of experience.
Also stop encouraging churn. Cycling people out every six months means you have more options with more skillsets but those skillsets came at the expense of learning on the job at the last place and those people will spend the next six months learning on the job at your workplace. The difference between that and just training your damn people (possibly even by having this cycle into tangent positions within your company so people have different jobs every six months) is that when you train your people they are still around with whatever knowledge would have otherwise been lost, they have job security and some basis for loyalty especially if you give raises to existing staff to match equivalent experience level for incoming hires.
In the paragraph "It's no different than cell phones" I was referring to the collaborative/competitive dynamic between the existing players and not the engineering. By syncing up for the most part and competing on marginal adjustments they make more profit than by releasing a market upset increment to try to steal the market outright.
Although, for that side of it I could have said "it is little different than the chips in cell phones."
I absolutely do not dispute the need for very deep pockets to enter this field. But there are people who have them and also have primary businesses that could make enough use of the output to justify that outlay, even with a break-even or loss leader target for that particular segment. There are already some tech companies inching in this direction for certain needs already.
A new player would have some big advantages. They can utilize technology that lends to mass production but isn't necessary consistent with current process lines and equipment. They build a structure from the ground up to target commodity supply and never become dependent on revenue streams which depend on overcharging at the high end or classifying flexible features as "enterprise."
There are mega wealthy billionaires who are blowing obscene amounts of money just to play with rockets and there are no shortage of people in that category with tech dependent business. Is it really so far fetched that one might use that economic power to liberate chip fabrication?
Not an issue for federal employees, they have unions which prevent laying off unneeded workers.
Maybe, but not the way most places are doing it. Instead of legalizing and letting the market work they are attaching all kinds of ridiculous fees and taxes on to it that will prop up black market level pricing and keep the cartels around.
Marijuana is cheap and easy to produce in large quantities if it can be grown outdoors without any restriction beyond what you'd have on a rosemary bush. Marijuana would be maybe $1-2/lb at most if grown without restriction or special taxes and you'd need acreage to make any money off it. Just like any other produce people would grow their own only because they wanted something better than mass market. There would be no room for cartels (including domestic ones) to make a worthwhile profit.
True, legalizing the pot grows seems like the answer here. Why are we treating this any differently than planting a tree?
Illegal immigrants cost the US a huge amount of money each year. If they are prevented from coming Mexico would pay that bill. If I say I'll pay your electric bill there is really no difference between reducing an amount you owe me by the amount of the bill, paying you the cash, and sending the check to the electric company notated for your account, or even sending that amount to your mortgage company so you only send them the difference. Money is money is money.
Also he is currently gathering up illegal immigrants at the border, no doubt having them do the work as community service for their crime is part of how he intends to build the wall for so little relative to the 40+ billion spent in previous efforts. Afterward they'll be deported and the millions we save on their use of public services, wear and tear on public infrastructure, and healthcare costs will be the second concrete example of Mexico paying for the wall.
Any money actually spent on construction is infrastructure spending directly into the US economy, that is at worst a net zero expenditure and at best stimulus. Afterward thousands of new border jobs will be created and easily paid for by reduced healthcare costs and public services costs.
Of course it isn't all downhill for Mexico. If we deport them all we'll likely import more Mexican produce and fruit. That sucks for California but really isn't that big a deal for the national economy. Actually what remains of the California fruit industry will probably end up employing more Americans from those rural communities.
"You should be asking states why they're not dealing with those problems. They ARE state problems after all."
States are by and large impoverished due to the money extracted by federal income taxes. They would be asking for their citizens money back.
You do know there is a hell of a lot more to the states rights issue than slavery right? We were all fucked on so many levels by the changes Lincoln imposed to centralize federal (aka his) power. Slavery is just the reason there was enough money threatened by his move to mobilize the wealthy to fight it and at the same time an excellent PR vocal point he could use to rally support.
Let other people argue whether the civil war was about states rights, money, or slavery. The very question oversimplifies the situation and pretends there was some kind of single universal answer. However, given the mans history and actions it is highly unlikely ending slavery lived alone as the motivation in the dark corners of Lincoln's thoughts.
The states which formed a United Alliance were not all intended to be one place with a uniform set of rules. They were intended to be a bunch of separate places you could freely migrate between if the one you were in happened to suck in some way fundamental to you. The whole point is that you don't have to have the lowest common denominator that is most fair to everyone in any one place because that best overall solution is rarely the best solution for anyone. Maybe where you are people have abused certain freedoms to the point where something had to be done to stop the abusers and they were lost, you could relocate somewhere that wasn't yet the case. You know what is really tough? Accomplishing your agenda everywhere in a single stroke. But then, that is the point.
Slavery was a special one off case in this system because the science and culture of the day didn't classify them as human and therefore they didn't have rights. Without that special situation (which is no longer the case, law or no) they have a federally protected right to travel freely between states and could simply move to a state with more favorable laws and the laws of the south don't really matter that much. Of course, with the science and knowledge of today the policies of the southern states could never come to be in the first place. Lets not forget, excluding the slaves from citizenship was a political can of worms the British saddled the founders with. It was an oddball footnote in the framework they devised, the whole framework works just fine without slavery.
And they all immigrated across the land bridge where they stole it from the creatures that lived in it naturally.
Not if they don't include sensors to detect tunneling it won't.
Complete with spreading hysteria about the Russians. As if citizens united doesn't let countries all over world influence our elections via contributions and advocacy through corporations they own and the Russians were special.
$46 billion or $5.6 billion could easily do it. I suspect we'll find that step two is using illegals as unpaid criminal laborers allowing them to work off their crime with public service and then when the project is complete releasing them on the Mexican side.
"But Trump was very clear on numerous occasions that Mexico was going to pay for the wall."
Oh please. That logic is easy to follow. Undocumented workers are expensive, extremely expensive. They cause billions in wear and tear on infrastructure, public services, and increased medical and insurance costs. If it actually prevents some significant number of illegal immigrants from crossing then Mexico will pay those costs rather than us and thus Mexico will have paid for it. It's debatable whether or not that will happen.
The construction cost to build the wall just goes right back into the US economy. That isn't hypothetical economic growth like a tax cut, infrastructure spending is well proven out and easily projected economic boost. Normally this sort of thing has bi-partisan support for that reason. The cherry on the Sundae would be using unpaid illegal immigrant labor to build it and then tossing them on the wrong side at the end. That doesn't seem completely unlikely since Trump has been gathering them up in camps.
"These are not the crowds that are abusing the national parks because there is no oversight. The ones doing it are running around in their redneck crap mobile bush whackers."
Riiiiggghhhhttt... because it is people from the country who primarily vacation by visiting federal parks... you know, instead of their alternative of going outside or camping on their friends private land 20 minutes away. People from the country just love to camp at national parks with their fake campsites and other people less than 20 yards away.