Since an average day of commerical fight in the US sees about 1.5 million passengers, that means about 0.0000026% of them are carrying firearms. Seems a lot closer to "random accident" than "over-armed". I suspect there isn't another demographic on the planet that is so lightly armed.
The NSA and the CIA are far too busy snooping on domestic traffic to worry about anything as inconsequential as potential terrorists. Besides, most domestic US 'terrorists' are sub-morons being run by the FBI to scare funding out of Congress.
Indeed, which is why the government should buy 200,000 of my highly sophisticated terror-repelling rocks at the bargain price of $149,98 each. (Plus Shipping and Handling. Professional anti-terror rock installation not included.)
So would a bottle of high-proof alcohol, set on fire by a lighter. (Both of which were easily purchasable once past TSA security the last time I flew.)
Yes, terrorism is rare. You can worry about them it if you want, but doing so is about as useful as worrying about slipping in the bathtub, getting hit by lightning, or being shot by law enforcement officers. If you want something to worry about, try cancer or heart disease (which kill over half a million Americans per year, each), or the 30,000+ people dying in car accidents every year.
Sure, have law enforcement take reasonable precautions. Spending trillions of dollars over the course of a decade on something that is about as dangerous as home accidents is not reasonable, it is insane. When a group of people in power continually hype a small threat to justify their actions, that is a textbook exampe of fear-mongering
And while you're remembering the slightly less than 3,000 people killed on 9/11/2001, don't forget the 600,000+ dead in ongoing violence in Columbia, the half-million plus dead in the (still ongoing) Somalia death-spiral, and the quarter-million plus killed to date in the Terrific War.
Exactly. Jobs are a cost we (both individually and collectively) pay in order to have 'good stuff'. If all a company does is acquire wealth for its owners, without providing any public benefit, why the hell should it continue to exist? The difference between a company that does nothing but enrich its owners and a bandit gang is a legal technicality, nothing more.
Private entities in general? No, of course not. Private entitites that are treated as people, yet get special treatment under the law should absolutely only allowed to exist at society's sufferance.
To take your example, of course you ought to be able set up a tent selling business should you so choose. But if your tents turn out to be made of readily flammable cloth that ends up killing a significant number of your customers when they burn down, then any personal insulation from liability for the deaths you've caused does indeed come at the sufferance of the general public.
1) Morale
2) Loyalty
2) Because it's cheaper in the long run to keep experienced staff around for when you do grow.
Businesses exist because we, the body public, choose to let them exist in order to provide a net positive contribuition to our society. Any business that has no reasonable expectation of being good for society, now or in the future, should be eliminated.
The terrorists exist, and you've probably seen them already (on the news or in other media). They're a small fringe group whose members are, by and large, not particularly competent or capable. They got extremely lucky once, but even counting that, they're about as much of a threat to individuals, the United States, or civilization in general as home accidents and bad weather.
One of the best descriptions I can recall reading of terrorists was along the lines of, "criminals who want to be warriors". Terror is probably best handled in a low-key manner by law enforcement. The "War on Terra" has given them exactly what they want, and was probably the worst possible response. America's over-reaction to 9/11 and the terrorism "threat" in general is doing far, far more damage than any terrorist could directly do in their wildest dreams.
Seriously. Is there any real need (beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top) for anyone to be able to sell and buy stock (or commodities) in a tiny fraction of a second, instead of say, once every fifteen minutes or even longer?
Time is money. Time passes as new information is acquired or transmitted. Shorter time intervals will therefore always be desirable for making a market more efficient and to accurately reflect reality. The more time it takes to buy and sell, the more risk there is in buying or holding stock, because the stock is less liquid and its value can change dramatically in very little time.
Wait, wait, wait. I'm grokking some of the other points in favor of high-frequency trading, but are you actually claiming that the stock market reflects reality?
Seriously. Is there any real need (beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top) for anyone to be able to sell and buy stock (or commodities) in a tiny fraction of a second, instead of say, once every fifteen minutes or even longer?
Sadly, I'm coming to around to agreeing with your point of view. On paper, nuclear should be the solution to the world's power needs. In practice, we as a species don't seem to be able to create and sustain the requisite human and material support structures for truly safe nuclear power.
Rule of law in the U.S. is dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet. And when it does act, often it is against the interests of the the public and the country as a whole. The cause of America's legal abomination is the same as many of the country's other ills: massive corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
Not unless you paint it silver and change your name to Frankenstein.
Since an average day of commerical fight in the US sees about 1.5 million passengers, that means about 0.0000026% of them are carrying firearms. Seems a lot closer to "random accident" than "over-armed". I suspect there isn't another demographic on the planet that is so lightly armed.
The NSA and the CIA are far too busy snooping on domestic traffic to worry about anything as inconsequential as potential terrorists. Besides, most domestic US 'terrorists' are sub-morons being run by the FBI to scare funding out of Congress.
Indeed, which is why the government should buy 200,000 of my highly sophisticated terror-repelling rocks at the bargain price of $149,98 each. (Plus Shipping and Handling. Professional anti-terror rock installation not included.)
Their acronym should stand for Terrorism and Sexual Assault.
So would a bottle of high-proof alcohol, set on fire by a lighter. (Both of which were easily purchasable once past TSA security the last time I flew.)
Yes, terrorism is rare. You can worry about them it if you want, but doing so is about as useful as worrying about slipping in the bathtub, getting hit by lightning, or being shot by law enforcement officers. If you want something to worry about, try cancer or heart disease (which kill over half a million Americans per year, each), or the 30,000+ people dying in car accidents every year.
Sure, have law enforcement take reasonable precautions. Spending trillions of dollars over the course of a decade on something that is about as dangerous as home accidents is not reasonable, it is insane. When a group of people in power continually hype a small threat to justify their actions, that is a textbook exampe of fear-mongering
And while you're remembering the slightly less than 3,000 people killed on 9/11/2001, don't forget the 600,000+ dead in ongoing violence in Columbia, the half-million plus dead in the (still ongoing) Somalia death-spiral, and the quarter-million plus killed to date in the Terrific War.
Unless it's the U.S. using it on plant life (that just might happen to have people in, near, or making a living from it) - then poison is just fine.
Wait, chair throwing? Is he auditioning to be Balmer's replacement or something?
Most corporations appear would love to save $325 per employee.
Rent extraction and fraud.
The Facebook users beware. Nobody forced you to use it.
That's the end of USEFUL discussion.
Facebook is reported to have been creating profiles for peoplel who have never signed up. http://www.zdnet.com/anger-mounts-after-facebooks-shadow-profiles-leak-in-bug-7000017167/
Exactly. Jobs are a cost we (both individually and collectively) pay in order to have 'good stuff'. If all a company does is acquire wealth for its owners, without providing any public benefit, why the hell should it continue to exist? The difference between a company that does nothing but enrich its owners and a bandit gang is a legal technicality, nothing more.
Private entities in general? No, of course not. Private entitites that are treated as people, yet get special treatment under the law should absolutely only allowed to exist at society's sufferance.
To take your example, of course you ought to be able set up a tent selling business should you so choose. But if your tents turn out to be made of readily flammable cloth that ends up killing a significant number of your customers when they burn down, then any personal insulation from liability for the deaths you've caused does indeed come at the sufferance of the general public.
That should be: 1) Morale, 2) Loyalty, and 3 experience et al. That's what I get for not using preview. :P
1) Morale 2) Loyalty 2) Because it's cheaper in the long run to keep experienced staff around for when you do grow. Businesses exist because we, the body public, choose to let them exist in order to provide a net positive contribuition to our society. Any business that has no reasonable expectation of being good for society, now or in the future, should be eliminated.
Almost 10 years ago, in Behemoth. http://www.rifters.com/real/Behemoth.htm
The terrorists exist, and you've probably seen them already (on the news or in other media). They're a small fringe group whose members are, by and large, not particularly competent or capable. They got extremely lucky once, but even counting that, they're about as much of a threat to individuals, the United States, or civilization in general as home accidents and bad weather.
One of the best descriptions I can recall reading of terrorists was along the lines of, "criminals who want to be warriors". Terror is probably best handled in a low-key manner by law enforcement. The "War on Terra" has given them exactly what they want, and was probably the worst possible response. America's over-reaction to 9/11 and the terrorism "threat" in general is doing far, far more damage than any terrorist could directly do in their wildest dreams.
The NSA must be installing new taps.
Seriously. Is there any real need (beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top) for anyone to be able to sell and buy stock (or commodities) in a tiny fraction of a second, instead of say, once every fifteen minutes or even longer?
Time is money. Time passes as new information is acquired or transmitted. Shorter time intervals will therefore always be desirable for making a market more efficient and to accurately reflect reality. The more time it takes to buy and sell, the more risk there is in buying or holding stock, because the stock is less liquid and its value can change dramatically in very little time.
Wait, wait, wait. I'm grokking some of the other points in favor of high-frequency trading, but are you actually claiming that the stock market reflects reality?
Seriously. Is there any real need (beyond that for connected players to be able skim money off the top) for anyone to be able to sell and buy stock (or commodities) in a tiny fraction of a second, instead of say, once every fifteen minutes or even longer?
Sadly, I'm coming to around to agreeing with your point of view. On paper, nuclear should be the solution to the world's power needs. In practice, we as a species don't seem to be able to create and sustain the requisite human and material support structures for truly safe nuclear power.
These days I've also been thinking that Bryan Cranston could probably do the role justice. I'd rather see it as a cable series than a movie though.
Rule of law in the U.S. is dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet. And when it does act, often it is against the interests of the the public and the country as a whole. The cause of America's legal abomination is the same as many of the country's other ills: massive corporations.
Spider Jerusalem