I really don't understand why they want this. Is it just plain out right corporate greed? Do the legislators really believe that, in doing this, US tech workers won't be negatively effected, as if there are all these tech jobs out there that US workers can't or won't fill?
Why would legislators care about people who aren't large campaign contributors?
What is needed is jobs and education. Sitting home all day doing nothing helps no one.
You're assuming that all individuals have a level of potential productivity that exceeds the minimum wage. There is no rule that untrained labor must be able to create more value than the cost of their subsistence let alone the statutory minimum. In fact, it's easily possible that some people could create negative value, in that employing them would actually be more expensive than having them live off of transfer payments.
Neither does rule of law, a necessary pre-condition for any civilized society, libertarian or not. Only anarchists think that we can do away with the state and not end up with Mad Max / Somalia instead of happy peaceful cooperation land. Yes, government involvement does tend to favor larger players, no that effect cannot be completely eliminated, yes where possible we should try to create rules and systems that limit the damage. Less regulation is better until it's not, there is a certain minimum level of rules required to ensure a level playing field and orderly operation.
Pretty simple rule for any supplement: If it doesn't have at least three human studies by different researchers showing benefit and statistical significance then you're wasting your time.
I don't know--it's community colleges, which should be relatively appealing to Republicans who like supporting hard workers.
It should appeal to Republicans, but it won't. The Republican party has shifted farther to the right over the years and no longer supports many positions they used to consider a core part of their platform, infrastructure investment for example.
In the era, "effects" meant "possessions". Indeed, that meaning is sometimes still used, for example "personal effects".
Also, in that era, "papers" was the common term for documents, because documents were "stored" on paper, which, in turn, was often stored in filing boxes or cabinets. The fact that documents are now more often stored and sent electronically should not diminish or block them from 4th amendment protections.
Privacy of my stuff is not the same as privacy of my person. While the court has ruled that there effectively exists a right to privacy, I'd prefer something a bit more concrete than mere precedence.
That would actually cause quite a few problems. I would like to see an explicit right to privacy as a well as a rule that prohibits bulk collection of data without specific cause and a warrant.
Certainly, and they all currently suck. In very specific cases they can, with a lot of work, be made to work semi-acceptably but for the most part the experience is dirty, crowded, slow, dangerous, inconvenient or all of the above.
You're mis-understanding how a letter of marque works. They're a legitimate use of state power, essentially the state sub-contracts military operations against a designated enemy to a private force. Nothing shady there and fully supported by the laws of war.
letting them have coal-fired power plants to lift them out of poverty
There are plenty of reasons why coal sucks beside CO2 emissions. Even if CO2 is a total non-issue coal is poor choice of power source given today's options, which is why you don't see any new coal plants being built in the US and even China has decided to move away from them going forward.
That depends on what data you're looking at and how you slice it. For the moment, let us suppose that your conclusion is correct and that global temperatures are indeed not rising. That leads to one of two conclusions: 1) The original theory was wrong, CO2 doesn't trap additional solar energy despite the fact that it does so in all laboratory testing or 2) The extra energy is going somewhere else since the climate is a complex system, for example it could be dumping all the heat into the ocean where we don't have a lot of monitoring equipment. Given the rising trend of extreme weather events, melting of the ice caps, extended droughts and other symptoms possibility two seems much more likely.
The real question isn't whether CO2 emissions are trapping additional energy which can result in a variety of climate changes, it's how long will the changes take, and what's the cost/benefit tradeoff of either dealing with them or attempting to prevent them.
Mercenaries can be useful though somewhat less reliable, you really only get into trouble when they're more numerous/powerful than your regular armed forces.
Or perhaps just increase the incentives. If for example the job payed seven figures you'd have applicants beating down the doors to get in despite the high requirements. Heck, for that kind of money I'd consider re-enlisting even if I had to go back to boot camp a 2nd time, of course in my case they'd have to waive the age limits as well. Recruitment is always a tradeoff between the benefits and the downsides of the position.
The limiting factors for recruitment of this type of individual are rarely the boot camp / combat training portion. The two main issues are pay, which is abysmal compared to what they could make elsewhere, and more importantly the culture. The people who are really really good at hacking and naturally interested are the exact kind that would find a top down hierarchy under military discipline to be intolerable. This is a solvable problem, but they're going to have to be willing to invest more time and resources than scooping some ready made folks off the street.
For automation to replace all people you will have to develop a robot or other automation that is as capable as a person AND less costly. We are no where close to that occurring.
You're assuming it's an all or nothing situation. Instead, it's more likely they'll just figure out how to automate half of it, and then half of that, and then half of that, and then half of that..... This is exactly what occurred in the agricultural sector, is well along the way in the manufacturing sector and is just starting to really pick up steam in the service sector. The main problem is there aren't any other large sectors of the economy for workers to move to. Suppose for a moment that manufacturing and service become as automated as agriculture is now, so we would have 3% of the populace employed doing all the agriculture, manufacturing and service. What is everyone else going to do?
You sound like a Luddite. Employment is rising, not falling.
According to official numbers the Civilian Employment-Population Ratio for the US peaked in 2000 and has been trending downwards ever since. Were you talking about some other kind of employment?
Slashdot Mirror
I really don't understand why they want this. Is it just plain out right corporate greed? Do the legislators really believe that, in doing this, US tech workers won't be negatively effected, as if there are all these tech jobs out there that US workers can't or won't fill?
Why would legislators care about people who aren't large campaign contributors?
"Free market forces can suck very much."
Exactly that. The sooner the people understand this, the sooner they'll be ready to accept corretive actions.
The problem is that so far everything else we've tried has sucked more.
Here in Texas we have a booming economy with lots of jobs.
Given the recent trend in oil prices I wouldn't expect that to last much longer.
I did actually, which is why I said "potential productivity" instead of "current productivity".
What is needed is jobs and education. Sitting home all day doing nothing helps no one.
You're assuming that all individuals have a level of potential productivity that exceeds the minimum wage. There is no rule that untrained labor must be able to create more value than the cost of their subsistence let alone the statutory minimum. In fact, it's easily possible that some people could create negative value, in that employing them would actually be more expensive than having them live off of transfer payments.
Monopolies do not exist without a gun.
Neither does rule of law, a necessary pre-condition for any civilized society, libertarian or not. Only anarchists think that we can do away with the state and not end up with Mad Max / Somalia instead of happy peaceful cooperation land. Yes, government involvement does tend to favor larger players, no that effect cannot be completely eliminated, yes where possible we should try to create rules and systems that limit the damage. Less regulation is better until it's not, there is a certain minimum level of rules required to ensure a level playing field and orderly operation.
Anecdotal.
Pretty simple rule for any supplement: If it doesn't have at least three human studies by different researchers showing benefit and statistical significance then you're wasting your time.
I pray to electronic Jebus you're right. I couldn't stand the idea of Paris Hilton or Brittany fucking Spears living another hundred years or so.
Get ready for a world where they will, and you won't.
I don't know--it's community colleges, which should be relatively appealing to Republicans who like supporting hard workers.
It should appeal to Republicans, but it won't. The Republican party has shifted farther to the right over the years and no longer supports many positions they used to consider a core part of their platform, infrastructure investment for example.
In the era, "effects" meant "possessions". Indeed, that meaning is sometimes still used, for example "personal effects".
Also, in that era, "papers" was the common term for documents, because documents were "stored" on paper, which, in turn, was often stored in filing boxes or cabinets. The fact that documents are now more often stored and sent electronically should not diminish or block them from 4th amendment protections.
Privacy of my stuff is not the same as privacy of my person. While the court has ruled that there effectively exists a right to privacy, I'd prefer something a bit more concrete than mere precedence.
That would actually cause quite a few problems. I would like to see an explicit right to privacy as a well as a rule that prohibits bulk collection of data without specific cause and a warrant.
Certainly, and they all currently suck. In very specific cases they can, with a lot of work, be made to work semi-acceptably but for the most part the experience is dirty, crowded, slow, dangerous, inconvenient or all of the above.
You're mis-understanding how a letter of marque works. They're a legitimate use of state power, essentially the state sub-contracts military operations against a designated enemy to a private force. Nothing shady there and fully supported by the laws of war.
letting them have coal-fired power plants to lift them out of poverty
There are plenty of reasons why coal sucks beside CO2 emissions. Even if CO2 is a total non-issue coal is poor choice of power source given today's options, which is why you don't see any new coal plants being built in the US and even China has decided to move away from them going forward.
That depends on what data you're looking at and how you slice it. For the moment, let us suppose that your conclusion is correct and that global temperatures are indeed not rising. That leads to one of two conclusions: 1) The original theory was wrong, CO2 doesn't trap additional solar energy despite the fact that it does so in all laboratory testing or 2) The extra energy is going somewhere else since the climate is a complex system, for example it could be dumping all the heat into the ocean where we don't have a lot of monitoring equipment. Given the rising trend of extreme weather events, melting of the ice caps, extended droughts and other symptoms possibility two seems much more likely.
The real question isn't whether CO2 emissions are trapping additional energy which can result in a variety of climate changes, it's how long will the changes take, and what's the cost/benefit tradeoff of either dealing with them or attempting to prevent them.
Mercenaries can be useful though somewhat less reliable, you really only get into trouble when they're more numerous/powerful than your regular armed forces.
If you're willing to bring civilians into it, why not letters of marque, after all they're already authorized by the constitution.
Or perhaps just increase the incentives. If for example the job payed seven figures you'd have applicants beating down the doors to get in despite the high requirements. Heck, for that kind of money I'd consider re-enlisting even if I had to go back to boot camp a 2nd time, of course in my case they'd have to waive the age limits as well. Recruitment is always a tradeoff between the benefits and the downsides of the position.
Isn't that the truth? Grunts can break anything.
The limiting factors for recruitment of this type of individual are rarely the boot camp / combat training portion. The two main issues are pay, which is abysmal compared to what they could make elsewhere, and more importantly the culture. The people who are really really good at hacking and naturally interested are the exact kind that would find a top down hierarchy under military discipline to be intolerable. This is a solvable problem, but they're going to have to be willing to invest more time and resources than scooping some ready made folks off the street.
Yes. I was talking about the other 95% of the world, where, other than Europe and Japan, employment has risen dramatically.
So the undeveloped part where automated manufacturing isn't a problem yet? I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion.
For automation to replace all people you will have to develop a robot or other automation that is as capable as a person AND less costly. We are no where close to that occurring.
You're assuming it's an all or nothing situation. Instead, it's more likely they'll just figure out how to automate half of it, and then half of that, and then half of that, and then half of that..... This is exactly what occurred in the agricultural sector, is well along the way in the manufacturing sector and is just starting to really pick up steam in the service sector. The main problem is there aren't any other large sectors of the economy for workers to move to. Suppose for a moment that manufacturing and service become as automated as agriculture is now, so we would have 3% of the populace employed doing all the agriculture, manufacturing and service. What is everyone else going to do?
Even in Feudalism most people weren't servants, they were serfs (agricultural labor).
You sound like a Luddite. Employment is rising, not falling.
According to official numbers the Civilian Employment-Population Ratio for the US peaked in 2000 and has been trending downwards ever since. Were you talking about some other kind of employment?