There is approximately one billion of passengers in United States, an approximate number which includes domestic, international and private aviation helicopters and planes.
Let's crunch some numbers: 2,700 handguns were discovered for one billion boardings equals to approximately one gun per 370,000 passengers.
Let's take into the prospective:
On average, statistically, in this country there is 1.1 weapon per every person. We do not break down by the type of gun or passenger, but three forgetful citizens out of one million is a really really low number.
Here are some sobering conclusions:
1. None of the passengers had intention of using the weapon. Why? Because nobody used. Because if they wanted to they would have. 2. Even if there would be no TSA, the safety would not deteriorate or decrease. Metal detectors manned by the private screeners could detect all the forgotten weapons. More: currently cockpit doors are locked as such, a handgun inside the plane is pretty much useless. Yes: you can shoot a hole or kill a passenger or two, but the rest of passengers will tear you apart.
So it all boils down to how the question is presented:
" Why so many guns were brought to the airport".
The real questions should have been following:
Question: "In a country with 400 million guns only less than 3,000 guns are brought to the airport. All of the owners meant to leave the gun in a checked in bag? Is existence, the cost, and the false sense of security of TSA justified?"
The real answer: "No. One segment fee of $5.60 is an evidence of mind boggling waste and incompetence. This $5.60 will only increase in the future. TSA should be disbanded and handling of the security should be up to the airports and the carriers".
In Boolean algebra, there are two values 1 and 0. Same with encryption: data is either encrypted or not encrypted.
As such if Boolean algebra could be changed, by law, to have values other than 1 and 0, the the same principle can be applied to encryption. Customers can be told that data is encrypted, but for certain other unwanted parties data is not encrypted.
Americans work so much, on average, not because they are greedy or because the want to work.
They work because there is so many who do not work so hard. Those who do not work so hard are, as a rule, fueled by the taxpayer collected money. It has already been proven, without any doubt, that, on average, governmental job pays way way more than private job.
Have you heard about NJ cops making $100K or $150K? Yes, I agree, that $100K is not that much money, however it needs to be taken into account that cops need to work 20 years and then they get taxpayer funded pension and medical benefits. I am not trying to bash cops, or single them out. If US GAAP rules are used (meaning US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles are used), which means that expenses need to be accrued when incurred, such jobs would need to be accounted as costing not $100K, but $200K, for defined benefits (pension, medical) need to accrue at the same time. It is not even the largest issue. The larger issue is entitlement culture and "social" payments to the population which traditionally keeps voting for politicians who keep promising more freebies and benefits only if you vote for them.
One and only one conclusion comes to my mind: The taxation level. Some might say that those socialist Europeans pay more taxes, however there are some very important differences. For example, in Europe, as a rule, schools are funded from federal budget. In US schools are funded from property taxation, except for low income areas which, logically, cannot afford their schools and get funded from the state or federal funds. This leads to de-facto segregation in United States by school districts, that nobody likes to talk, yet everybody knows. Low income areas have few meaningful jobs, which leads to many non-working Americans living here. Higher income areas do have high property taxes which automatically do add additional hours for higher living standards need to be maintained with additional work.
The truth is that current taxation system is the primary driver of the human behavior. Some people will continue working to death and other part of population will keep continuing voting for the status quo that allows more tax benefits, irrespective of the economic class of the voter, be it Dianne Feinstein's husband ingenuity winning profitable real estate business related contracts, whether it will be teacher's, police or FDA "scientist"'s benefits, or generationally unemployed welfare receivers.
There is a saying in Russia, which says that Russians do not give away Russians.
This is a cliche statement, which reflects the mentality of how some of the Russians are taught and trained themselves to believe of anyting non Russian related. Here is the caricature of Russian mentality which summarizes how they want to view you: https://www.facebook.com/photo...
Jokes aside, in United States if somebody would want some law enforcement to give away their informers, we would say: screw you.
But that is the beginning. Start with Barber license.
Then perhaps stop regulating Marijuana. As we have agreed, I would not use it, but who am I to deny others to smoke what they want.
Then, perhaps, drinking age. Then make other licenses optional: Real Estate agent license, for example. Allow people to choose whether to work with licensed agent, or unlicensed. There are many more regulations to consider...
Would it surprise you, that car insurance is not required. Or wearing seatbelts in NH?
How getting a haircut at barber is any more dangerous than driving the car?
This machine probably already had enough influence to not convict at least one marijuana smoker in the court of law. Marijuana is still illegal in NH, but in the eyes of public opinion, Marijuana should be decriminalized (72% support) and 60% support legalization. I am predicting that Marijuana will be the next thing.
Personally, I do not think that Marijuana is a good thing for most of the people, however you can bet that in 2016 this will be one of the topics on NH agenda.
There are many advantages, there are disadvantages too.
Disadvantages go first:
1. Many people do no like cold, period. You cannot change that, unless you are hell bent on warming the planet so much to increase the temperature of the state bordering with Canada.
2. Not central. Meaning too far and too aside. If one does move here transportation expenses would increase. If, however, New Hampshire would become the richest state, I am sure more and cheaper flights would be made available.
3. Property taxes are really high. Stated needs to finance somehow and property tax is the catch. Has anyone seen free staters' intentions to reduce them? On the other hand, if compared to New Jersey, for example, other states have property AND state income tax. In some ways NH is a low income tax state, though.
I could not think of any other disadvantages
1. Too far and too aside and too cold. That also means one thing: only very dedicated people will go there and is a selection mechanism.
2. Lowest taxes. If not the lowest taxes, then probably within top 3 lowest taxation states. If anyone is thinking of opening the business, this is a good place to consider.
3. Does not require automobile insurance. That being said, state has the lowest car insurance rates and, because the rates are low, most of the people are insured voluntarily.
4. Seat Belts are optional.
5. All in all, this is probably one of the states with the statistical highest living standard and lower costs. The concept "Statistical" is meaningless, but in the long term you will probably be better and you will have more savings.
Conclusion:
If you are starting your own business or you found a job, by all means, move there. I can predict that soon pot will be fully legalized, so this is additional bonus for those who are into it.
Did Clinton unknowingly had a private server? If that could be proved, then someone can claim that all emails are received unknowingly, dear Clinton philes.
For most people, but not all, this is a clear cut question. For those who think it is debatable, there is one way to classify: their love for Clinton is to large to have a clear thinking.
According to wikipedia, Flint is one of the most dangerous cities in the USA, with the violent crime per capita seven times higher than average? Lead can be attributed to the violence.
Also, sort of, explains why Michael Moore is acting the way he is acting, clearly lead in the water of his home town did leave an imprint.
I would say, that 1st amendment has limits. If shouting "fire" in the theater will get you in jail, because of the potential psychosis and stampede, the same way mass hysteria channels CNN, NBC, FOX and MSNBC, would have a right to report only statistically representative events. This should not apply to real mainstream news - Facebook, etc, because that is how many of the people get news, and Facebook is, in a way, glorified gossip club. All television does is promotion of a cheap way to get publicity.
Before one mass shooting is reported on television, there would be a forceful reporting automobile accidents, suicides, drownings, medication overdoses, cardiac arrests, hospital errors. Statistically, death from violent terrorist attack is so statistically rare that in a year there would hardly any re-portable event.
At the same time, this would be eradication of advertising, and an incentive, for those potential mass shooters/terrorists.
For they want nothing else, but fame, glory, to be shown and talked about on the news. This needs to be stopped.
15% Flat rate would level playing ground and make it equal for both individuals, corporations both large and small.
Reality is that Corporations dont like of competition, because middle class is paying upwards of 48% marginal tax (state plus federal plus medicaid/medicare etc).
Legends and myths grow around the historic events.
It is true that a couple of years before 9/11 events CNN/ABC sent a crew to meet Bin Laden's to get the interviews multiple times. Even two months before the events bin Laden was giving interviews to the local journalists.
If journalists could meet, why the fuck do we need electronic surveillance at all and later we hear complains saying that we needed more surveillance, since if we had more surveillance events would have been prevented. If journalists can get interviews freely, then I would be really stupid to believe that US, which has very powerful and most expensive intelligence agencies in the world, really wanted to catch him, because they did not.
Bisphenol in plastics was only banned recently, while scientists were bringing information about BPA more than one decade. Glyphosates.... Some countries banned Glyphosate (roundup), yet our FDA does not want to piss-off Monsanto. I bet that in ten years Roundup will be announced as cancerogenic, together with the Roundup resistant crops. There were also thalidomides, DDT, mercury based ointments, vaginal mesh, quaaludes, asbestos, Vioxx, and multiple other things where "highly informed officials", having "authority", have subsequently banned products due to real health concerns.
Long story short, FDA is not really good at balancing between corporate interests and their direct mandate (protect health). Let's not get started at the vaccination issues.The FDA problem is minor though.
The problem starts when some people within our own population feel entitled to opine about others and impose their own opinions on others on the pretense that other people are less educated. And such people insist that others follow their beliefs. GMO Salmon is one of them. Irrespective whether concerns are rational or irrational, people have a right to know everything there is to know about the products for one reason alone: if something goes wrong people will not be able to sue the government, and there is little point in litigating fish farm in Panama.
I will personally stop buying salmon.... for 30 years, just to be on the safe side.
France has really stringent gun control laws. That did not prevented Charlie Hebdo. That also did not prevented 11/13/2015 events in Paris.
Has somebody noticed that tragedies in free gun zones occur not when people are not armed, but when the right to bear arms is limited. Because criminals do no care about zones.
When one hand pointed to the physical presence of the servers and told "it is mine", servers were moved, just to defend from the legal argument. Then the other hand pays no attention to the physical location of the data, because, you know, it does not that matter where the data is. If it is online it is accessible to Stasi (or whatever the new name is) which, as we already know, shares with others.
Do you expect Retractions? There will be none. Part of the reasons is because those "99% of the scientists were non-existing from the beginning.
What you witnessed is a classical social manipulation, human tendency to conform and to be part of the group. If television tells you that "99% of the scientists" believe that Global warming is real, then you will probably accept additional carbon taxes easier.
The problem is that most of the scientists do agree that humanity is changing the earth. You no longer need to be a scientists to see that. For example, in Europe there are no more large populations of bears, tauruses, wolves and wild horses. These animals became extinct before industrial revolution. Last mammothes on Earth died when humans already knew how to write. Heck, some of the rhinoceros will probably be extinct this decade.
However most of discussions were about a) bankrupting US coal industry and closing coal factories (while China opens new coal electric plant almost every week) and b) imposing additional taxes on the taxpayers of industrialized nations.
Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.
NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...
Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.
I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.
Internal propaganda keeps telling to the Russian audience of 150 million people that Russia does not participate, and that all the weapons, heavy flamethrowers, drones and tanks, are merely bought at military surplus stores.
Entire story would just collapse.
Russia does have a history of keeping the parallel history and making it official.
VW publicly stated that they will going to electric car business.
Wait for Apple competition, Apple Car, in several years.
Hope that Toyota will deliver their water-electric (hydrodgen fuel) cell products.
One needs to assume that Chinese owned Volvo will roll out some models for the western market.
Then American manufacturers will follow. There is room for many manufacturers. I hope that prices will drop and there will no longer be dealers to deal with.
You are right, wealth did not start trickling downwards, just as Obama predicted.
Rather than salivating about raising taxes on rich, there is much easier solution. Much much easier to understand and execute. Stop collecting taxes from the poor and middle class. I would say middle class family is the one which earns less than $300K.
Reduction of the tax burden for the little man and middle class would be felt and would appreciated much more than increase of taxes for super-rich.
But you also say that is "necessary"... You mention following epithets: Debt collection scum, considering anti-trust regulators, calling them a glorified discount program.
Yet all of this "necessary"?
Insurance is a relatively new invention, and like, many new inventions, are not necessarily designed to defend consumers.
In medieval ages Arab medicine was considered one of the best in the world. Chinese medicine was also highly advanced. All of the medicine prior to the XX century, whether advanced or not, had one thing in common and it was pay-as-you-go-basis.
If barbers and hairstylists were smarter, they would start their own hair cut procedure medical plan. After all, you will not start cutting hair yourself. You also need a training too.
German Police made very simple very basic risk assessment. They probably have analyzed the root causes within the cases of bullying, sex predators, and have concluded that FB is one big opening where information is watched by the people you would never want anywhere near you.
It does not matter that you have "adjusted" your privacy settings as "private". Sooner or later children will be tagged and identified.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Hague police warning to the parents is based on more than one instance of actual crimes committed, and that is probably the tip of the iceberg. A photo in a FB is not the end of the world, and statistics is prompting, that chances of being a victim are low, however not insignificant.
Yet, this is a risk and German polizei did the right thing of informing about this risk.
There is a difference between pools and guns. Insurance.
Insurance companies collect significant premiums from pools, and for them it is a significant business. I do not think that insurance companies will give up this profit center that easily.
Guns, on the other hand, are not usually insured. There are more than 300 million guns in US. If a premium is, say, $50 per year, can you imagine, then, $15 Billion gun insurance industry?
In the United States there are approx 310 million guns owned by civilians. Let's not take into account millions of the weapons owned by military, police, Social Security Agency and other similar organizations.
Coincidentally, there is approximately one gun per one person in the US>
If there are 43 cases that involved, per year, that means there is approximately 0.000000143 probability that the toddler will be involved. Let's do some analysis here... There is an estimated number of more than 1,500 per year who win one million or more dollars per year in the United States. Statistically, 30 toddlers will win one million dollars before one of them is involved in accident.
There is one crucial difference. "Involved" does not mean there is a fatality.
Conclusion is very simple: The quoted number is statistically insignificant. Vaccination complications cause higher mortality than there are accidents involving guns. To finalize, there are many issues to be resolved before this topic is escalated. And put that gun to safe away from kids.
Slashdot Mirror
There is approximately one billion of passengers in United States, an approximate number which includes domestic, international and private aviation helicopters and planes.
Let's crunch some numbers: 2,700 handguns were discovered for one billion boardings equals to approximately one gun per 370,000 passengers.
Let's take into the prospective:
On average, statistically, in this country there is 1.1 weapon per every person. We do not break down by the type of gun or passenger, but three forgetful citizens out of one million is a really really low number.
Here are some sobering conclusions:
1. None of the passengers had intention of using the weapon. Why? Because nobody used. Because if they wanted to they would have.
2. Even if there would be no TSA, the safety would not deteriorate or decrease. Metal detectors manned by the private screeners could detect all the forgotten weapons. More: currently cockpit doors are locked as such, a handgun inside the plane is pretty much useless. Yes: you can shoot a hole or kill a passenger or two, but the rest of passengers will tear you apart.
So it all boils down to how the question is presented:
" Why so many guns were brought to the airport".
The real questions should have been following:
Question: "In a country with 400 million guns only less than 3,000 guns are brought to the airport. All of the owners meant to leave the gun in a checked in bag? Is existence, the cost, and the false sense of security of TSA justified?"
The real answer: "No. One segment fee of $5.60 is an evidence of mind boggling waste and incompetence. This $5.60 will only increase in the future. TSA should be disbanded and handling of the security should be up to the airports and the carriers".
In Boolean algebra, there are two values 1 and 0. Same with encryption: data is either encrypted or not encrypted.
As such if Boolean algebra could be changed, by law, to have values other than 1 and 0, the the same principle can be applied to encryption. Customers can be told that data is encrypted, but for certain other unwanted parties data is not encrypted.
We need to assume that hydrogen will be the next element used for cooling? Or is it the end of spinning disc era?
Hydrogen is used, believe it or not, for generator cooling at power plants. Here is the quick link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Americans work so much, on average, not because they are greedy or because the want to work.
They work because there is so many who do not work so hard. Those who do not work so hard are, as a rule, fueled by the taxpayer collected money. It has already been proven, without any doubt, that, on average, governmental job pays way way more than private job.
Have you heard about NJ cops making $100K or $150K? Yes, I agree, that $100K is not that much money, however it needs to be taken into account that cops need to work 20 years and then they get taxpayer funded pension and medical benefits. I am not trying to bash cops, or single them out. If US GAAP rules are used (meaning US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles are used), which means that expenses need to be accrued when incurred, such jobs would need to be accounted as costing not $100K, but $200K, for defined benefits (pension, medical) need to accrue at the same time. It is not even the largest issue. The larger issue is entitlement culture and "social" payments to the population which traditionally keeps voting for politicians who keep promising more freebies and benefits only if you vote for them.
One and only one conclusion comes to my mind: The taxation level. Some might say that those socialist Europeans pay more taxes, however there are some very important differences. For example, in Europe, as a rule, schools are funded from federal budget. In US schools are funded from property taxation, except for low income areas which, logically, cannot afford their schools and get funded from the state or federal funds. This leads to de-facto segregation in United States by school districts, that nobody likes to talk, yet everybody knows. Low income areas have few meaningful jobs, which leads to many non-working Americans living here. Higher income areas do have high property taxes which automatically do add additional hours for higher living standards need to be maintained with additional work.
The truth is that current taxation system is the primary driver of the human behavior. Some people will continue working to death and other part of population will keep continuing voting for the status quo that allows more tax benefits, irrespective of the economic class of the voter, be it Dianne Feinstein's husband ingenuity winning profitable real estate business related contracts, whether it will be teacher's, police or FDA "scientist"'s benefits, or generationally unemployed welfare receivers.
That is taxes, baby!
There is a saying in Russia, which says that Russians do not give away Russians.
This is a cliche statement, which reflects the mentality of how some of the Russians are taught and trained themselves to believe of anyting non Russian related. Here is the caricature of Russian mentality which summarizes how they want to view you: https://www.facebook.com/photo...
Jokes aside, in United States if somebody would want some law enforcement to give away their informers, we would say: screw you.
But that is the beginning. Start with Barber license.
Then perhaps stop regulating Marijuana. As we have agreed, I would not use it, but who am I to deny others to smoke what they want.
Then, perhaps, drinking age. Then make other licenses optional: Real Estate agent license, for example. Allow people to choose whether to work with licensed agent, or unlicensed. There are many more regulations to consider...
Would it surprise you, that car insurance is not required. Or wearing seatbelts in NH?
How getting a haircut at barber is any more dangerous than driving the car?
This machine probably already had enough influence to not convict at least one marijuana smoker in the court of law. Marijuana is still illegal in NH, but in the eyes of public opinion, Marijuana should be decriminalized (72% support) and 60% support legalization. I am predicting that Marijuana will be the next thing.
Personally, I do not think that Marijuana is a good thing for most of the people, however you can bet that in 2016 this will be one of the topics on NH agenda.
There are many advantages, there are disadvantages too.
Disadvantages go first:
1. Many people do no like cold, period. You cannot change that, unless you are hell bent on warming the planet so much to increase the temperature of the state bordering with Canada.
2. Not central. Meaning too far and too aside. If one does move here transportation expenses would increase. If, however, New Hampshire would become the richest state, I am sure more and cheaper flights would be made available.
3. Property taxes are really high. Stated needs to finance somehow and property tax is the catch. Has anyone seen free staters' intentions to reduce them? On the other hand, if compared to New Jersey, for example, other states have property AND state income tax. In some ways NH is a low income tax state, though.
I could not think of any other disadvantages
1. Too far and too aside and too cold. That also means one thing: only very dedicated people will go there and is a selection mechanism.
2. Lowest taxes. If not the lowest taxes, then probably within top 3 lowest taxation states. If anyone is thinking of opening the business, this is a good place to consider.
3. Does not require automobile insurance. That being said, state has the lowest car insurance rates and, because the rates are low, most of the people are insured voluntarily.
4. Seat Belts are optional.
5. All in all, this is probably one of the states with the statistical highest living standard and lower costs. The concept "Statistical" is meaningless, but in the long term you will probably be better and you will have more savings.
Conclusion:
If you are starting your own business or you found a job, by all means, move there. I can predict that soon pot will be fully legalized, so this is additional bonus for those who are into it.
Did Clinton unknowingly had a private server? If that could be proved, then someone can claim that all emails are received unknowingly, dear Clinton philes.
For most people, but not all, this is a clear cut question. For those who think it is debatable, there is one way to classify: their love for Clinton is to large to have a clear thinking.
According to wikipedia, Flint is one of the most dangerous cities in the USA, with the violent crime per capita seven times higher than average? Lead can be attributed to the violence.
Also, sort of, explains why Michael Moore is acting the way he is acting, clearly lead in the water of his home town did leave an imprint.
We really need media control.
I would say, that 1st amendment has limits. If shouting "fire" in the theater will get you in jail, because of the potential psychosis and stampede, the same way mass hysteria channels CNN, NBC, FOX and MSNBC, would have a right to report only statistically representative events. This should not apply to real mainstream news - Facebook, etc, because that is how many of the people get news, and Facebook is, in a way, glorified gossip club. All television does is promotion of a cheap way to get publicity.
Before one mass shooting is reported on television, there would be a forceful reporting automobile accidents, suicides, drownings, medication overdoses, cardiac arrests, hospital errors. Statistically, death from violent terrorist attack is so statistically rare that in a year there would hardly any re-portable event.
At the same time, this would be eradication of advertising, and an incentive, for those potential mass shooters/terrorists.
For they want nothing else, but fame, glory, to be shown and talked about on the news. This needs to be stopped.
__________
I am praying for the victims tonight.
15% Flat rate would level playing ground and make it equal for both individuals, corporations both large and small.
Reality is that Corporations dont like of competition, because middle class is paying upwards of 48% marginal tax (state plus federal plus medicaid/medicare etc).
Legends and myths grow around the historic events.
It is true that a couple of years before 9/11 events CNN/ABC sent a crew to meet Bin Laden's to get the interviews multiple times. Even two months before the events bin Laden was giving interviews to the local journalists.
If journalists could meet, why the fuck do we need electronic surveillance at all and later we hear complains saying that we needed more surveillance, since if we had more surveillance events would have been prevented. If journalists can get interviews freely, then I would be really stupid to believe that US, which has very powerful and most expensive intelligence agencies in the world, really wanted to catch him, because they did not.
Bisphenol in plastics was only banned recently, while scientists were bringing information about BPA more than one decade. Glyphosates.... Some countries banned Glyphosate (roundup), yet our FDA does not want to piss-off Monsanto. I bet that in ten years Roundup will be announced as cancerogenic, together with the Roundup resistant crops. There were also thalidomides, DDT, mercury based ointments, vaginal mesh, quaaludes, asbestos, Vioxx, and multiple other things where "highly informed officials", having "authority", have subsequently banned products due to real health concerns.
Long story short, FDA is not really good at balancing between corporate interests and their direct mandate (protect health). Let's not get started at the vaccination issues.The FDA problem is minor though.
The problem starts when some people within our own population feel entitled to opine about others and impose their own opinions on others on the pretense that other people are less educated. And such people insist that others follow their beliefs. GMO Salmon is one of them. Irrespective whether concerns are rational or irrational, people have a right to know everything there is to know about the products for one reason alone: if something goes wrong people will not be able to sue the government, and there is little point in litigating fish farm in Panama.
I will personally stop buying salmon.... for 30 years, just to be on the safe side.
France has really stringent gun control laws. That did not prevented Charlie Hebdo. That also did not prevented 11/13/2015 events in Paris.
Has somebody noticed that tragedies in free gun zones occur not when people are not armed, but when the right to bear arms is limited. Because criminals do no care about zones.
This is an illusion of combat of the worries.
When one hand pointed to the physical presence of the servers and told "it is mine", servers were moved, just to defend from the legal argument. Then the other hand pays no attention to the physical location of the data, because, you know, it does not that matter where the data is. If it is online it is accessible to Stasi (or whatever the new name is) which, as we already know, shares with others.
Do you expect Retractions? There will be none. Part of the reasons is because those "99% of the scientists were non-existing from the beginning.
What you witnessed is a classical social manipulation, human tendency to conform and to be part of the group. If television tells you that "99% of the scientists" believe that Global warming is real, then you will probably accept additional carbon taxes easier.
The problem is that most of the scientists do agree that humanity is changing the earth. You no longer need to be a scientists to see that. For example, in Europe there are no more large populations of bears, tauruses, wolves and wild horses. These animals became extinct before industrial revolution. Last mammothes on Earth died when humans already knew how to write. Heck, some of the rhinoceros will probably be extinct this decade.
However most of discussions were about a) bankrupting US coal industry and closing coal factories (while China opens new coal electric plant almost every week) and b) imposing additional taxes on the taxpayers of industrialized nations.
Conveniently Global Warming initiative somehow morphed into the Climate Change, or, more accurately, fight against Climate change. I have to believe that every educated person will agree that the only thing that is constant it is change itself, including climate. Climate is changing slowly, also changes in cycles and has many variables. And yes, human are f***king up the biosphere.
NASA has issued new study saying that Antarctica stated that since 1992, a lot of ice has been added to the continent this is the link to NASA: https://www.nasa.gov/content/g...
Most cynical opponents to those who were pushing Global Warming were citing that it was about the money and carbon tax in the particular.
I am convinced that in my lifetime I will see another initiative related to the fight against Global Cooling. As such Climate Change is much more convenient because bureaucrats can fight any change irrespective of the direction of the change.
Internal propaganda keeps telling to the Russian audience of 150 million people that Russia does not participate, and that all the weapons, heavy flamethrowers, drones and tanks, are merely bought at military surplus stores.
Entire story would just collapse.
Russia does have a history of keeping the parallel history and making it official.
VW publicly stated that they will going to electric car business.
Wait for Apple competition, Apple Car, in several years.
Hope that Toyota will deliver their water-electric (hydrodgen fuel) cell products.
One needs to assume that Chinese owned Volvo will roll out some models for the western market.
Then American manufacturers will follow. There is room for many manufacturers. I hope that prices will drop and there will no longer be dealers to deal with.
You are right, wealth did not start trickling downwards, just as Obama predicted.
Rather than salivating about raising taxes on rich, there is much easier solution. Much much easier to understand and execute. Stop collecting taxes from the poor and middle class. I would say middle class family is the one which earns less than $300K.
Reduction of the tax burden for the little man and middle class would be felt and would appreciated much more than increase of taxes for super-rich.
You say insurance is a rip-off. Amen to that.
But you also say that is "necessary"... You mention following epithets: Debt collection scum, considering anti-trust regulators, calling them a glorified discount program.
Yet all of this "necessary"?
Insurance is a relatively new invention, and like, many new inventions, are not necessarily designed to defend consumers.
In medieval ages Arab medicine was considered one of the best in the world. Chinese medicine was also highly advanced. All of the medicine prior to the XX century, whether advanced or not, had one thing in common and it was pay-as-you-go-basis.
_____________________________________________________
If barbers and hairstylists were smarter, they would start their own hair cut procedure medical plan. After all, you will not start cutting hair yourself. You also need a training too.
German Police made very simple very basic risk assessment. They probably have analyzed the root causes within the cases of bullying, sex predators, and have concluded that FB is one big opening where information is watched by the people you would never want anywhere near you.
It does not matter that you have "adjusted" your privacy settings as "private". Sooner or later children will be tagged and identified.
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Hague police warning to the parents is based on more than one instance of actual crimes committed, and that is probably the tip of the iceberg. A photo in a FB is not the end of the world, and statistics is prompting, that chances of being a victim are low, however not insignificant.
Yet, this is a risk and German polizei did the right thing of informing about this risk.
There is a difference between pools and guns. Insurance.
Insurance companies collect significant premiums from pools, and for them it is a significant business. I do not think that insurance companies will give up this profit center that easily.
Guns, on the other hand, are not usually insured. There are more than 300 million guns in US. If a premium is, say, $50 per year, can you imagine, then, $15 Billion gun insurance industry?
In the United States there are approx 310 million guns owned by civilians. Let's not take into account millions of the weapons owned by military, police, Social Security Agency and other similar organizations.
Coincidentally, there is approximately one gun per one person in the US>
If there are 43 cases that involved, per year, that means there is approximately 0.000000143 probability that the toddler will be involved. Let's do some analysis here... There is an estimated number of more than 1,500 per year who win one million or more dollars per year in the United States. Statistically, 30 toddlers will win one million dollars before one of them is involved in accident.
There is one crucial difference. "Involved" does not mean there is a fatality.
Conclusion is very simple: The quoted number is statistically insignificant. Vaccination complications cause higher mortality than there are accidents involving guns. To finalize, there are many issues to be resolved before this topic is escalated. And put that gun to safe away from kids.