The banks created the housing crisis when they switched from holding loans to selling them as mortgage backed securities. Despite warnings from heroes like Brooksley E. Born at the CFTC powerful interests quashed any attempt to head off the disaster. Try reading "The handbook of fixed income securities", if you manage to make it through that extremely dry tome you'll wonder how anyone who knew what they were doing could have not seen it coming.
Land however will remain expensive until we invent some newer, faster mode of transport, or somehow eliminate people's need to travel on a regular basis.
Humans are status seeking animals, we have never managed to build a society that doesn't include some kind of status differentiation. Frankly, without genetic engineering of a fairly scary kind I don't think that's ever going away.
It's time for the leisure society with resources for all.
I think that's where we're headed eventually but we're definitely not there yet. I'd support a basic income but it would need to be scaled appropriately to GDP.
Yeah, as a Libertarian I don't understand why other people in my party aren't more upset about that. At the very least we should move to double liability.
Sort of, but in typical Libertarian fashion he's ignoring the big picture. If he had proposed a bill that blocked the new regulations & also fixed the problem in a free market fashion, then I'd be a lot more in favor. As it is this proposal just panders to corporate interests.
Replacing the government boot, which has to at least pretend to care about me, with the corporate boot, which is legally obligated not to care, doesn't seem like a good trade.
Support of large corporations: check
Support of big government spending: check
Support of intrusive government surveillance: check
Poor understanding of economics: check
Favor policies that benefit the rich: check
Support of gerrymandering: check
I'm sure they're trying to pull a fast one of some kind but I admit to not seeing the problem with this idea in general. Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?
Where the heck would you put it? Besides, a gun system like that has a lot of requirements in terms of ship structure, magazine space, crew overhead, power systems etc. Trying to tack all of that on to an amphibious assault vessel just doesn't make any sense. I'm pro big guns, and I think there may still be some role for a battleship of some kind, but it's definitely not going to be the same as something like the Iowa class.
The biggest issue is engagement range and projectile flight time. The mark 7 16" gun had a maximum range of just under 24 miles, the striking distance of a Ford class carrier is measured in hundreds of miles. It's really hard to hit something with an unguided projectile at extreme ranges, and when you add guidance, well now we're really talking about missiles aren't we?
That's mostly because the show is mostly about the officers not the daily lives of the enlisted crew. There are a variety of failure modes aboard a starship that would require you to have a physical non-voice activated access for repair activities, and for that I'm sure a keyboard is still the optimal choice. They've probably got a few pads with cable connectors stashed in equipment lockers for oddball cases and extreme emergencies. Additionally, given the touch controls they used in many cases I suspect they're still typing for a variety of activities.
However that would require that we have big gun warships which as you pointed out aren't much use for other roles. It's easier to just make use of missile cruisers and air strikes to fill the same role. As a former Marine, yeah I'd prefer naval gunfire, but that's just not an efficient choice for the navy.
Missiles are better due to longer engagement ranges. There are a few narrow applications where naval bombardment would still be the optimum choice, amphibious landing support for example, but those cases can generally be dealt with using a combination of other weapons. Don't get me wrong, main gun fire kicks ass, but it's just not as useful as it used to be for ship to ship combat.
While in the Marines I had to take regular rifle qualification tests. One year I was in Okinawa for the test and the weather was crazy that day. There are wind flags on the range that are supposed to help you adjust. For the 500 yard shots there are three flags between you and the target. On that day they were all blowing in different directions, which I could have dealt with, but they also kept changing directions. Normally a high scoring expert (the top of three possible qualifications) I barely passed that day and honestly had no idea where some of those rounds ended up. A round that adjusted mid flight to compensate for those conditions would have made a huge difference.
Plenty of people are rich because they worked hard for it (maybe with a little luck added, but still..)
Of course mommy and daddy paid for school, they had family connections that got them a high paying first job and subsequent promotions that moved their career along nicely, and then family loaned them money to start their first business, but it was all just hard work that anyone else could do if they'd just stop being a slacker.
I realize this is correlation vs causation but have their been any studies linking obesity with the widespread use of corn syrup in place of real sugar?
When compared with "real sugar", sucrose in other words, it doesn't make much difference. It's 55% fructose instead of 50%. There are two main problems:
1) HFCS replaced Dextrose as the main industrial sweetener, which vastly increased fructose consumption
2) Overall added sugar levels have risen dramatically
The problem is that fructose can only be processed in the liver and when you get too much it increases triglyceride levels in the bloodstream which helps to create leptin resistance, which in turn makes you hungrier. All this is great for profits but not so good for human health. It's not that fructose is bad, it's just that our consumption levels have risen to a point our bodies aren't really ready for.
Yeah, I'm amazed Netflix doesn't have a "Show me something you think I'd like" button. I mean you're already rating stuff, it would be pretty trivial for them to add.
Right, which works out to 2/3rds of the rest subsidizing the experience for the 1/3rd that like it. That's why I dumped cable completely, I got tired of paying outrageous bills for channels I don't even use.
Except weight is determined by how many calories you intake, vs. how many calories you expend.
Sort of. It also depends on how many you absorb vs. excrete. Additionally, the effect of those calories on the composition of your tissue can be profound depending on the type. Don't believe me, stop eating protein or fat for three months and let me know how that goes for you.
That would be because sugar is a portion of the carbohydrate total. Therefore, it already has a % daily value.
True but misleading. Your total sugar consumption should be MUCH lower than your total carbohydrate consumption. This is especially true when the sugar source contains fructose, as that can only be metabolized in the liver which has a lower total capacity.
Slashdot Mirror
The banks created the housing crisis when they switched from holding loans to selling them as mortgage backed securities. Despite warnings from heroes like Brooksley E. Born at the CFTC powerful interests quashed any attempt to head off the disaster. Try reading "The handbook of fixed income securities", if you manage to make it through that extremely dry tome you'll wonder how anyone who knew what they were doing could have not seen it coming.
Land however will remain expensive until we invent some newer, faster mode of transport, or somehow eliminate people's need to travel on a regular basis.
Humans are status seeking animals, we have never managed to build a society that doesn't include some kind of status differentiation. Frankly, without genetic engineering of a fairly scary kind I don't think that's ever going away.
It's time for the leisure society with resources for all.
I think that's where we're headed eventually but we're definitely not there yet. I'd support a basic income but it would need to be scaled appropriately to GDP.
Yeah, as a Libertarian I don't understand why other people in my party aren't more upset about that. At the very least we should move to double liability.
Sort of, but in typical Libertarian fashion he's ignoring the big picture. If he had proposed a bill that blocked the new regulations & also fixed the problem in a free market fashion, then I'd be a lot more in favor. As it is this proposal just panders to corporate interests.
Wow, I'd actually have to think at election time, how refreshing.
Jackbooted thugs are expensive, those functions have been outsourced to government in order to improve margins.
Replacing the government boot, which has to at least pretend to care about me, with the corporate boot, which is legally obligated not to care, doesn't seem like a good trade.
'Threatened' gun rights are a red herring
I have to disagree. Free citizens own weapons, slaves don't. I prefer to be in category one.
Support of large corporations: check
Support of big government spending: check
Support of intrusive government surveillance: check
Poor understanding of economics: check
Favor policies that benefit the rich: check
Support of gerrymandering: check
They look pretty similar to me.
I'm sure they're trying to pull a fast one of some kind but I admit to not seeing the problem with this idea in general. Shouldn't we want them to be basing policy on publicly available data?
Where the heck would you put it? Besides, a gun system like that has a lot of requirements in terms of ship structure, magazine space, crew overhead, power systems etc. Trying to tack all of that on to an amphibious assault vessel just doesn't make any sense. I'm pro big guns, and I think there may still be some role for a battleship of some kind, but it's definitely not going to be the same as something like the Iowa class.
The biggest issue is engagement range and projectile flight time. The mark 7 16" gun had a maximum range of just under 24 miles, the striking distance of a Ford class carrier is measured in hundreds of miles. It's really hard to hit something with an unguided projectile at extreme ranges, and when you add guidance, well now we're really talking about missiles aren't we?
That's mostly because the show is mostly about the officers not the daily lives of the enlisted crew. There are a variety of failure modes aboard a starship that would require you to have a physical non-voice activated access for repair activities, and for that I'm sure a keyboard is still the optimal choice. They've probably got a few pads with cable connectors stashed in equipment lockers for oddball cases and extreme emergencies. Additionally, given the touch controls they used in many cases I suspect they're still typing for a variety of activities.
When they call something "bullet proof" they're usually discussing handgun rounds and smaller sizes of rifle ammunition like 5.56x45mm NATO rounds.
However that would require that we have big gun warships which as you pointed out aren't much use for other roles. It's easier to just make use of missile cruisers and air strikes to fill the same role. As a former Marine, yeah I'd prefer naval gunfire, but that's just not an efficient choice for the navy.
Missiles are better due to longer engagement ranges. There are a few narrow applications where naval bombardment would still be the optimum choice, amphibious landing support for example, but those cases can generally be dealt with using a combination of other weapons. Don't get me wrong, main gun fire kicks ass, but it's just not as useful as it used to be for ship to ship combat.
While in the Marines I had to take regular rifle qualification tests. One year I was in Okinawa for the test and the weather was crazy that day. There are wind flags on the range that are supposed to help you adjust. For the 500 yard shots there are three flags between you and the target. On that day they were all blowing in different directions, which I could have dealt with, but they also kept changing directions. Normally a high scoring expert (the top of three possible qualifications) I barely passed that day and honestly had no idea where some of those rounds ended up. A round that adjusted mid flight to compensate for those conditions would have made a huge difference.
Plenty of people are rich because they worked hard for it (maybe with a little luck added, but still..)
Of course mommy and daddy paid for school, they had family connections that got them a high paying first job and subsequent promotions that moved their career along nicely, and then family loaned them money to start their first business, but it was all just hard work that anyone else could do if they'd just stop being a slacker.
So if drinking it is so good for you, why do you rinse and spit at the dentists office instead of rinse and swallow?
I realize this is correlation vs causation but have their been any studies linking obesity with the widespread use of corn syrup in place of real sugar?
When compared with "real sugar", sucrose in other words, it doesn't make much difference. It's 55% fructose instead of 50%. There are two main problems:
1) HFCS replaced Dextrose as the main industrial sweetener, which vastly increased fructose consumption
2) Overall added sugar levels have risen dramatically
The problem is that fructose can only be processed in the liver and when you get too much it increases triglyceride levels in the bloodstream which helps to create leptin resistance, which in turn makes you hungrier. All this is great for profits but not so good for human health. It's not that fructose is bad, it's just that our consumption levels have risen to a point our bodies aren't really ready for.
Yeah, I'm amazed Netflix doesn't have a "Show me something you think I'd like" button. I mean you're already rating stuff, it would be pretty trivial for them to add.
Right, which works out to 2/3rds of the rest subsidizing the experience for the 1/3rd that like it. That's why I dumped cable completely, I got tired of paying outrageous bills for channels I don't even use.
Except weight is determined by how many calories you intake, vs. how many calories you expend.
Sort of. It also depends on how many you absorb vs. excrete. Additionally, the effect of those calories on the composition of your tissue can be profound depending on the type. Don't believe me, stop eating protein or fat for three months and let me know how that goes for you.
That would be because sugar is a portion of the carbohydrate total. Therefore, it already has a % daily value.
True but misleading. Your total sugar consumption should be MUCH lower than your total carbohydrate consumption. This is especially true when the sugar source contains fructose, as that can only be metabolized in the liver which has a lower total capacity.