I'm aware that NASA doesn't directly build rockets. They run a long and complex bidding process to figure out who will build each part, fund the construction, collaborate on the R&D, manage the process, coordinate work being done by dozens of contractors and subcontractors, and so forth.
SpaceX is privately funded; designed, built and tested their rockets in-house and for it's own reasons, and now hires them out to NASA.
Except that the Federal Reserve is in charge of monetary policy, not the Federal Government. The Fed's Open Market Committee regulates the supply of money through buying and selling bonds and T-Bills in order to fulfill its twin mandates to manage inflation and promote full employment. Making sure the Federal government has enough cash is a fiscal, not a monetary, issue and thus a matter for the Treasury not the Fed.
As for your obvious feelings about fiat currency, the one thing people never seem to recognize is that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is an entirely human, thus subjective, concept. Every form of currency is fiat because it is based on a common agreement that something represents value - be it gold or paper. The gold standard just puts an intermediate step between the currency itself and its imagined value.
Baseline budgeting is BS. I don't know if that has anything to do with why private enterprise can build a rocket for a third of what it would cost the government, but it probably doesn't hurt.
It may be quicker and easier than zero-based budgeting, but I doubt that represents much in the way of savings from efficiency over time. Maybe mix it up with a zero based budget once every four years, with baseline budgeting in between?
Should we go back and force them to sell off NBC Universal? I say yes, especially since AT&T is probably going to say something like, "Hey, you let Comcast do it!"
Are they the same ones who got positive and negative charges backwards or the ones who thought it would be okay for modernism to come after futurism, then have a post-modernism that somehow isn't futurism, followed by neo-futurism which isn't either of those, and isn't even modern despite being the modern style?
Obviously when we dump shit into the atmosphere, it creates a net positive increase in temperature. Even if it's not the primary contributor, why the fuck are you retards so hell bent on doing nothing about it?
There are a few reasons, some are economic like the direct costs and concerns about competitiveness, but there's also the problem of how it was presented. Concerns about pollution impacting the climate began to rise back in the late '60's and early '70's. At first they gained real traction among conservatives (Nixon even created the EPA), but rather quickly the messaging was taken over by some real wackos who wanted massive, immediate, de-industrialization. Suddenly instead of, "we need to clean things up or we'll make a mess of the climate", the message was, "OH DEAR GOD THE WORLD WILL END IN 15 YEARS IF WE DON'T TEAR DOWN ALL THE POWER PLANTS AND STOP DRIVING!!!! AAAHHHHHHH!!!!"
So, that closed a lot of ears real quick. Nobody wanted to hear a lot of crazy nonsense from a bunch of dirty, tree-hugging hippies. And it didn't help that every single prediction was totally wrong for decades. According to the early warnings, the planet should have frozen solid before Reagan was out of office. Then runaway greenhouse was supposed to render the planet uninhabitable 20 years ago. Given all that, it shouldn't be a surprise people would have a hard time accepting climate change arguments. The people making them turned it into a whole "Chicken Little"/"boy who cried wolf" situation.
First, it's not really a voter ID system if you aren't getting the ID beforehand. But the States that implemented ID requirements had to work out ways to facilitate getting an ID in order to get the laws through the courts, so it's moot anyhow. I think for the most part they made it free to do, just show up with your paperwork (birth certificate, social security card...) and get your picture taken. If getting there is a burden, that's just life. Everything is a burden except recreation and we all live with it. Going to a government office is not an unreasonable burden for anyone but invalids and agoraphobic shut-ins and they aren't voting in person anyhow.
"The point is, lots of people are getting along fine without one."
Except they clearly are not. They're going to greater lengths to work around not having one than would be involved in getting one, incurring greater costs and exposing themselves to greater risk. Not to mention missing out on the government benefits they, being poor, are likely entitled to.
I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing with aging, and teenagers are still growing. And if an adult starts growing again, the result is an agonizing disaster as bones start trying to grow into each other. Despite all that, I think your point still holds. If nothing else, someone in their early 20's is done growing, not quite aging, and definitely not just a bag of cancer.
The way I see it, at most we just have to make sure cells still get killed off when other cells need to replace them. If we're already keeping them artificially young, it shouldn't be that hard to artificially kill some off.
"Yeah, people living paycheck to paycheck are going to be hurt more by giving up some time on the clock. And they likely work for employers who won't give them the time off."
I've been there. I managed. I lived below the poverty line for longer than I care to admit. Figuring out how to get to the DMV or Post Office was far from the greatest inconvenience I faced. If it's important, you find the time or you make the time. If it's absolutely necessary for living in a modern society, which a photo ID is, you absolutely make the time.
So think about what you're saying. If acquiring a photo ID is such a huge burden, then why are you only talking about it in relation to voting? Think of all the things that require a photo ID, renting anything, buying some things, entering a Federal building, boarding a plane, GETTING A JOB, cashing a check, opening a bank account, collecting government benefits, etc, etc. If having a photo ID is such a burden, all that needs to go and we need to go back to trusting people to honestly identify themselves.
Oh, and in the end the argument is sounding an awful lot like "black people are too poor, lazy and irresponsible to get an ID so let's not require them to have one", which is both total BS and actually racist.
I'm saying flat out that when something is important, you find or make the time for it. I've been there. I've been poor, I've had that life, and I managed to maintain a current photo ID and voter registration.
The truly absurd part of the argument is that at its core is a racist stereotype - that people of color are too lazy or stupid to figure out how to get to the office, so we can't risk burdening them with the need even if a photo ID is already functional necessity for everyday life. I don't buy it for a second.
color? Are they more likely to share a name with someone born on the same day?
Is it because white people have been giving their kids ridiculous names like jobs they'll never have (Tailor? Even misspelled, not a name), or surnames as given names (McKenzie means Son of Ken, not an appropriate first name for a girl idiots!), or they throw random letters in because not knowing how to spell names is a sign of being wealthy and white? (Megyn, really?)
Rich folks would breeze through because they have drivers licenses?? Poor people don't? People of color don't?
I don't buy that for a second. Nor do I accept the argument that the office hours represent an insurmountable obstacle to any group. Every employed person is likely to be working between 9 and 5, Monday through Friday. Is it inconvenient to give up a lunch break, or lose a bit of time on the clock? Sure. It's inconvenient for anyone, yet somehow everyone has always managed to deal with it.
Think about it, if getting to a government office is a problem for getting an ID, then it's a problem to get to any office for any reason. Yet people manage every day no matter what they do or how much they make.
"Age"? You say that like it's a new idea and not as old as corporations! In fact it's a necessity. Incorporated entities couldn't carry out their functions without it. And it's not just businesses that are incorporated and require that legal treatment to function. Churches, municipalities (towns, cities, villages...), unions, political activist groups, and many other types of organizations incorporate. The United States literally would not exist without corporations as the colonial charters that defined the first 13 colonies were themselves articles of incorporation.
That must be why they gave it rights - the "virtues" thugs who enforce the rules can't push around a robot with tit-guns. Not successfully or repeatedly anyhow.
This doesn't require new regulations. There are already regulations for dealing with devices that leak toxic materials or ingestible fluids contaminated with them. The problem is that people are looking at the wrong thing, much like how some people are afraid that a microwave oven will give them cancer because radiation is involved. Because vapes/ecigs involve nicotine, people mistakenly assume the liquid and its vapor are like cigarette smoke in other ways.
Unlike cigarettes, vape juices have labeled ingredients. There are all sorts of regulations already applied to it. Unlike cigarettes, the vapes and eciggs are battery powered consumer devices, subject to a host of regulations.
Cshell? There's already something called cshell, and it isn't part of Windows. It's bad enough that their naming conventions leave my users unable to tell the difference between a local copy of Outlook and the Outlook Web App, now they have to steal names from linux?
because the cops are too busy staring at their phones to notice. I'm pretty sure that's why I've never seen anyone get pulled over for texting while driving.
Seems like the heavy metals would be coming from the device, not the liquid. Nickel, lead and cadmium are all found in batteries, while the liquid is made from common food additives. Or maybe something in the heating element or wick.
Still, that's a product safety issue not inherent to the product, so the remedy isn't a ban on public use, it's quality control, inspections, lawsuits, bans on specific faulty devices, etc. This approach is just ridiculous. First, you don't ban a class of product because of an issue with one example of it. When some imported baby products were found to contain lead, we didn't ban the public use of teething rings. Second, it shifts all the attention from the manufacturer's negligence (possibly criminal) and makes it a stupid argument over blowing water vapor around.
How many people will you walk past that smell like they poured a gallon of aftershave on themselves? Or patchouli drenched hippies? Or are cooking something that smells disgusting?
What if you're the one wearing too much aftershave and nauseating everyone else? It's a city. It's full of smells. Live with it.
Slashdot Mirror
SpaceX is privately funded; designed, built and tested their rockets in-house and for it's own reasons, and now hires them out to NASA.
I know, that's why I never said it was.
As for your obvious feelings about fiat currency, the one thing people never seem to recognize is that there is no such thing as intrinsic value. Value is an entirely human, thus subjective, concept. Every form of currency is fiat because it is based on a common agreement that something represents value - be it gold or paper. The gold standard just puts an intermediate step between the currency itself and its imagined value.
It may be quicker and easier than zero-based budgeting, but I doubt that represents much in the way of savings from efficiency over time. Maybe mix it up with a zero based budget once every four years, with baseline budgeting in between?
Really? What I took away was, "Look how much more efficient and effective private enterprise is!"
Should we go back and force them to sell off NBC Universal? I say yes, especially since AT&T is probably going to say something like, "Hey, you let Comcast do it!"
Are they the same ones who got positive and negative charges backwards or the ones who thought it would be okay for modernism to come after futurism, then have a post-modernism that somehow isn't futurism, followed by neo-futurism which isn't either of those, and isn't even modern despite being the modern style?
There are a few reasons, some are economic like the direct costs and concerns about competitiveness, but there's also the problem of how it was presented. Concerns about pollution impacting the climate began to rise back in the late '60's and early '70's. At first they gained real traction among conservatives (Nixon even created the EPA), but rather quickly the messaging was taken over by some real wackos who wanted massive, immediate, de-industrialization. Suddenly instead of, "we need to clean things up or we'll make a mess of the climate", the message was, "OH DEAR GOD THE WORLD WILL END IN 15 YEARS IF WE DON'T TEAR DOWN ALL THE POWER PLANTS AND STOP DRIVING!!!! AAAHHHHHHH!!!!"
So, that closed a lot of ears real quick. Nobody wanted to hear a lot of crazy nonsense from a bunch of dirty, tree-hugging hippies. And it didn't help that every single prediction was totally wrong for decades. According to the early warnings, the planet should have frozen solid before Reagan was out of office. Then runaway greenhouse was supposed to render the planet uninhabitable 20 years ago. Given all that, it shouldn't be a surprise people would have a hard time accepting climate change arguments. The people making them turned it into a whole "Chicken Little"/"boy who cried wolf" situation.
It takes time to overcome that history.
I thought we were still in a glacial period. We still have ice caps and high altitude glaciers.
I'm pretty sure a question can't be contradicted, only answered with some form of, "you're wrong".
"The point is, lots of people are getting along fine without one."
Except they clearly are not. They're going to greater lengths to work around not having one than would be involved in getting one, incurring greater costs and exposing themselves to greater risk. Not to mention missing out on the government benefits they, being poor, are likely entitled to.
The way I see it, at most we just have to make sure cells still get killed off when other cells need to replace them. If we're already keeping them artificially young, it shouldn't be that hard to artificially kill some off.
I've been there. I managed. I lived below the poverty line for longer than I care to admit. Figuring out how to get to the DMV or Post Office was far from the greatest inconvenience I faced. If it's important, you find the time or you make the time. If it's absolutely necessary for living in a modern society, which a photo ID is, you absolutely make the time.
So think about what you're saying. If acquiring a photo ID is such a huge burden, then why are you only talking about it in relation to voting? Think of all the things that require a photo ID, renting anything, buying some things, entering a Federal building, boarding a plane, GETTING A JOB, cashing a check, opening a bank account, collecting government benefits, etc, etc. If having a photo ID is such a burden, all that needs to go and we need to go back to trusting people to honestly identify themselves.
Oh, and in the end the argument is sounding an awful lot like "black people are too poor, lazy and irresponsible to get an ID so let's not require them to have one", which is both total BS and actually racist.
The truly absurd part of the argument is that at its core is a racist stereotype - that people of color are too lazy or stupid to figure out how to get to the office, so we can't risk burdening them with the need even if a photo ID is already functional necessity for everyday life. I don't buy it for a second.
Is it because white people have been giving their kids ridiculous names like jobs they'll never have (Tailor? Even misspelled, not a name), or surnames as given names (McKenzie means Son of Ken, not an appropriate first name for a girl idiots!), or they throw random letters in because not knowing how to spell names is a sign of being wealthy and white? (Megyn, really?)
I don't buy that for a second. Nor do I accept the argument that the office hours represent an insurmountable obstacle to any group. Every employed person is likely to be working between 9 and 5, Monday through Friday. Is it inconvenient to give up a lunch break, or lose a bit of time on the clock? Sure. It's inconvenient for anyone, yet somehow everyone has always managed to deal with it.
Think about it, if getting to a government office is a problem for getting an ID, then it's a problem to get to any office for any reason. Yet people manage every day no matter what they do or how much they make.
"Age"? You say that like it's a new idea and not as old as corporations! In fact it's a necessity. Incorporated entities couldn't carry out their functions without it. And it's not just businesses that are incorporated and require that legal treatment to function. Churches, municipalities (towns, cities, villages...), unions, political activist groups, and many other types of organizations incorporate. The United States literally would not exist without corporations as the colonial charters that defined the first 13 colonies were themselves articles of incorporation.
That must be why they gave it rights - the "virtues" thugs who enforce the rules can't push around a robot with tit-guns. Not successfully or repeatedly anyhow.
Unlike cigarettes, vape juices have labeled ingredients. There are all sorts of regulations already applied to it. Unlike cigarettes, the vapes and eciggs are battery powered consumer devices, subject to a host of regulations.
Cshell? There's already something called cshell, and it isn't part of Windows. It's bad enough that their naming conventions leave my users unable to tell the difference between a local copy of Outlook and the Outlook Web App, now they have to steal names from linux?
because the cops are too busy staring at their phones to notice. I'm pretty sure that's why I've never seen anyone get pulled over for texting while driving.
Still, that's a product safety issue not inherent to the product, so the remedy isn't a ban on public use, it's quality control, inspections, lawsuits, bans on specific faulty devices, etc. This approach is just ridiculous. First, you don't ban a class of product because of an issue with one example of it. When some imported baby products were found to contain lead, we didn't ban the public use of teething rings. Second, it shifts all the attention from the manufacturer's negligence (possibly criminal) and makes it a stupid argument over blowing water vapor around.
I don't know who modded you as a troll, I guess they couldn't see what they were doing with their head lodged in such a dark and smelly place.
Your argument might work better if the article wasn't an example of you being wrong.
What if you're the one wearing too much aftershave and nauseating everyone else? It's a city. It's full of smells. Live with it.