I asked because most folks that talk about the crash at the end of the Bush era, and seem to forget that Democrats controlled congress and did nothing to help the situation for two years prior.
Not many complain about jobs in the earlier years. the tech slowdown was just part of a typical cycle, exacerbated by an unusually large growth bubble in the late 90s.
Glad you found more work. It sucks to be out of a job, and worse not to have many good paying options.
Fast Reactors are considered proliferation risks, and it is that stance of the anti-nuclear establishment that really prohibits their development. The nuclear industry would be quite happy with development of fast reactors. They have several designs proposed, developed with their own investment $$.
No, you can't sue them unless they give it to someone else and then in turn you suffer some type of loss.
Most desks will ask for a photo ID. Some will call the room to make sure nobody is in it. But asking for a room key to enter a room illegally is a good way to get caught.
If parts survived on impact, surely both pilots could have parachuted to safety?
I don't follow that logic, but certainly one of the things that needs to be investigated is why a pilot could not survive. It is possible the safety/escape features were not adequate.
you just were looking for an excuse to say "I don't believe these numbers"
No where did I say that. You are just feeling a little too defensive of skepticism, and using an age old tactic of assigning intent to make our own argument.
We can't forget that space flight is a challenging, dangerous, risky affair for private industry as well as governments. It will be interesting to see how the private side deals with these setbacks.
Yes, this needs to extend to all colleges and universities. But unfortunately someone will claim discrimination or some 'right' is being violated and this will all get caught up in legal muck.
While I agree there could be some cost reduction if ER visits for benign stuff were eliminated, it really appears to be a very small percent of the care costs we see as a whole, and in those cases where emergency care is needed, costs are the same. But even with the new laws, ERs are still required to provide care.
I believe in a safety net, but one that doesn't drag down its own support system unnecessarily.
You seem to decide to disagree or assume before we even get started, so first accept that and the starting place is much better.
Who pays how much, and who pays more will never be a question that can be agreed on. If the answer is the wealthier always pay more regardless of the cost, then I'd say we are on the wrong track. The wealthy pay more for many things, and don't seem to mind that philosophy. When costs are unnecessarily high and the fundamental causes not addressed, don't keep asking for more money. That's the root of it. Putting a percentage on how much each pays, thinking the solution lies there, is a mindless approach.
You are not worth conversing with, as you put words in other's mouths (like you are told to do, undoubtedbly).
FWIW, a strong economy helps. But things like liability limits, opening insurers to consolidate policies accross state lines, are just some fundamental things that can change the fundamentals rather than playing with the symptoms.
I think you make the simple mistake of characterizing the intent of conservatives in the manner that you are told to. Maybe you should introduce yourself to more of them and have a conversation.
Health care for all is best when it is affordable and provides quality care for the masses, and keeps improving with the latest technologies. Those are long term goals and various folks have different paths that they think are best to achieve those goals. As we have not reached either at this point, there is still much work to do.
Slashdot Mirror
I asked because most folks that talk about the crash at the end of the Bush era, and seem to forget that Democrats controlled congress and did nothing to help the situation for two years prior.
Not many complain about jobs in the earlier years. the tech slowdown was just part of a typical cycle, exacerbated by an unusually large growth bubble in the late 90s.
Glad you found more work. It sucks to be out of a job, and worse not to have many good paying options.
Fast Reactors are considered proliferation risks, and it is that stance of the anti-nuclear establishment that really prohibits their development. The nuclear industry would be quite happy with development of fast reactors. They have several designs proposed, developed with their own investment $$.
The economy was rolling along quite well at that time... hope you found other work like most folks could.
No, you can't sue them unless they give it to someone else and then in turn you suffer some type of loss.
Most desks will ask for a photo ID. Some will call the room to make sure nobody is in it. But asking for a room key to enter a room illegally is a good way to get caught.
And the upcoming robotic, soon to be world dominating geniuses at http://grillbots.com/
The Great WALL-E of China
These turbines will kill all the fishies!
But, this is the power source "of the future". So, as long as the fish are in the present, they are safe.
Who had majority control of Congress at that time?
Definitely don't get in a car.
I hope they are working on their tsunami drills. That's what would have saved lives in 2011.
If you look at the true risks involved in mass evacuations vs expected exposure for most situations, its safer to stay home.
This is about industrial espionage and secret stealing, not hacking and damaging equipment. The idea is to try and go undetected.
If parts survived on impact, surely both pilots could have parachuted to safety?
I don't follow that logic, but certainly one of the things that needs to be investigated is why a pilot could not survive. It is possible the safety/escape features were not adequate.
Now you have done it. Expect to be audited.
you just were looking for an excuse to say "I don't believe these numbers"
No where did I say that. You are just feeling a little too defensive of skepticism, and using an age old tactic of assigning intent to make our own argument.
No, I just said consider the source when reading the numbers. If you blindly accept them, fine with me.
Apparently, in space flight, "anomalies" can lead to disaster.
Who knew?
Sadness for the casualties and their families.
We can't forget that space flight is a challenging, dangerous, risky affair for private industry as well as governments. It will be interesting to see how the private side deals with these setbacks.
Yes, this needs to extend to all colleges and universities. But unfortunately someone will claim discrimination or some 'right' is being violated and this will all get caught up in legal muck.
While I agree there could be some cost reduction if ER visits for benign stuff were eliminated, it really appears to be a very small percent of the care costs we see as a whole, and in those cases where emergency care is needed, costs are the same. But even with the new laws, ERs are still required to provide care.
I believe in a safety net, but one that doesn't drag down its own support system unnecessarily.
You seem to decide to disagree or assume before we even get started, so first accept that and the starting place is much better.
Who pays how much, and who pays more will never be a question that can be agreed on. If the answer is the wealthier always pay more regardless of the cost, then I'd say we are on the wrong track. The wealthy pay more for many things, and don't seem to mind that philosophy. When costs are unnecessarily high and the fundamental causes not addressed, don't keep asking for more money. That's the root of it. Putting a percentage on how much each pays, thinking the solution lies there, is a mindless approach.
You are not worth conversing with, as you put words in other's mouths (like you are told to do, undoubtedbly).
FWIW, a strong economy helps. But things like liability limits, opening insurers to consolidate policies accross state lines, are just some fundamental things that can change the fundamentals rather than playing with the symptoms.
I think you make the simple mistake of characterizing the intent of conservatives in the manner that you are told to. Maybe you should introduce yourself to more of them and have a conversation.
Health care for all is best when it is affordable and provides quality care for the masses, and keeps improving with the latest technologies. Those are long term goals and various folks have different paths that they think are best to achieve those goals. As we have not reached either at this point, there is still much work to do.
In my information world, I still don't care about your beer, only mine.
Are you asking me? I think health care for everyone is a wonderful goal. I don't think I know of anyone who doesn't. Not sure what you think.