Pay attention: part of being the police is never having to say you're sorry. Especially if you're a prosecutor, you can do anything with the power you have and the worst that can happen is it doesn't work. None of it ever comes back to you.
Read the Geneva Conventions if you don't believe me.
Like the Convention Against Torture, those are very handy for us to use for convicting the petty thugs running penny-ante countries when we catch them.
However, they don't apply to the USA. Or won't, anyway, until some other country has the power to apply them to us.
Actually, you don't need to go to the "drown" state -- drink enough water and you'll screw your electrolyte balance by dilution. Look up "hyponatremia."
However, that's not "pollution" in any sense, including "toxicity." Still, enough water in an area is going to really reduce its habitability, so you're right about water even if the example is not the best.
thing that always annoyed be about the global warming fear mongering is that it puts focus on something that, as the article noted, is not ACTUALLY a pollutant.
Well, it isn't if you define "pollutant" carefully to exclude substances that aren't directly toxic in small quantities. Sort of like formaldehyde -- it's a natural product of human metabolism and is exhaled with every breath. I don't advise breathing large concentrations of either gas. But even if it's harmless to humans doesn't mean you want to fill up the atmosphere with it (e.g. insecticides.)
the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections
Ah, yes. Dr. Curry uses an inappropriate statistical model (simple linear regression) to the team's data set, which ends with two unusually cold months. The result is to nearly eliminate the warming trend in the result (end points have unusual weight in a simple linear regression.) Drop those two months and you get about the same warming trend as the models predicted, or add the following two months (which were unusually warm) and again you match the models.
Impressive work, and the WSJ makes the most of it.
But you and many others also have a "no we can't" attitude.
It's quite possible the the USA can't -- we appear to be stuck rather hard in a mode of "there is nothing that the rest of the world can teach us."
However, American perceptions of our own inferiority aside, other countries seem to be doing quite nicely. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway seem to have combined thriving economies with high median standards of living and more upward social mobility than the US. Perhaps someday we'll decide that we can learn something from them other than "don't be like them."
If you really want to give someone an incentive, it works better to murder their children in front of them. Especially if they have several children, so the first can be an example.
I mean, as long as we're going for Medieval labor practices and all. I'd rather not, thank you.
You can look this one up: median rent compared to median wage.
Thirty years ago it was somewhere around 25%, now it's pretty close to twice that. What that means is that for about half of the working population of the United States, it takes about half a month's work to pay the rent. Back when I was starting my career, you could count on having somewhere around three-quarters of your pay left over after paying the rent; now, half or less.
I'm sure that the failure of the median household to save for things like medical emergencies is just due to lack of character and work ethic, though.
As bad as it may be in a factory, it's better than staying in the village with no electricity or running water and trying to eek out an existence as a subsistence farmer.
Wow, you're absolutely terrible if you think this is a bad thing.
I obviously wasn't clear. FWIW, I have legally-enforcable advance directives (not to mention some kids and a mistress who have heard me rant about it for years) to make sure that nobody can spend what I've saved for my grandchildren on useless ICU charges.
I do trust that you have legally-binding advanced directives on file, with a wallet card and all pointing folk to them. (One of the few things Arizona has done right lately is set up a central AD registry.)
One day, you might be fighting to stay alive too (or maybe you don't think so - but maybe you'll change your mind in 50 years' time).
If I'm still alive at 110, I doubt very much that I'll be all that stressed out about checking out. Plenty of family members have gone peacefully when they got tired of living -- including my maternal (step-)grandmother who basically just withdrew until she shut down and my paternal (step-)grandmother who lived to 97 and got tired of burying children and grandchildren. I think my mother is headed that way soon.
So be it. Give me a good view out over the Rio Grande and some (great-)grandchildren in the house. It's been a blast so far and the rest is gravy.
There are two parts to the "healthcare crisis" in the USA:
1) People who can't afford it and therefore suffer. This includes accidents, communicable diseases, etc. that aren't much dependent on obesity.
2) Huge amounts of resources spent (about half of all healthcare spending) on dragging out the process of dying for people who are, one way or another, going to die soon anyway. Most of them are geriatric patients with incurable progressive conditions: metastatic cancer, congestive heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc.
Better lifestyle practices will give us longer, healthier, and for many of us happier lives. They won't make us invulnerable nor immortal. They won't keep our families from bankrupting themseves trying to add one more week of misery in ICU when our time comes.
Why would we want dirty manufacturing and industry in the US??
Better that we have lawyers and doctors and movie directors and investment bankers and graphics artists and social workers and compliance officers and other good clean people like that.
What makes you think that the world wants to buy the services of our lawyers? Or the doctors? Are you expecting the lawyers to sue the world to support the movie directors, even when the movies are made overseas (to save costs, if nothing else)?
American investment bankers are not in great demand either lately. The world seems to value Japanese graphics artists more than American ones. The Government is cutting back on the social workers -- we need to save money. The rest of the world doesn't seem to want American compliance officers, either.
However, the rest of the world does pay for American coal. We have the largest proven coal reserves on the planet, and if we don't manufacture finished goods to ship overseas to pay for our imports we'll just have to export coal. Well, that and cut our standard of living back to the level that we can afford as a country whose primary enterprise is digging holes in the ground.
Most American parents can't or can hardly afford to send their children to University anymore.
That's what college loans are for: so that you can start your working life far enough in the hole that you could have bought a house with the money. It saves you from buying a house, freeing you to pay rent on top of the loans until you can finally buy a house later for your grandchildren to visit you.
Or at least that seems to be the theory. Me, I paid for all of mine so they can start out clear. That's more important to me than retiring to a place within golf cart distance of the clubhouse.
Slashdot Mirror
A classic tecnology updated!
http://www.national.com/rap/files/datasheet.pdf
I didn't say that the US taxpayers made money. Please don't tell me that you don't think anyone did.
Pay attention: part of being the police is never having to say you're sorry. Especially if you're a prosecutor, you can do anything with the power you have and the worst that can happen is it doesn't work. None of it ever comes back to you.
Read the Geneva Conventions if you don't believe me.
Like the Convention Against Torture, those are very handy for us to use for convicting the petty thugs running penny-ante countries when we catch them.
However, they don't apply to the USA. Or won't, anyway, until some other country has the power to apply them to us.
It's all a matter of priorities. And like water and power systems, there really wasn't much profit to be made from universities.
I'm with Thomas Jefferson on this: the cure for false speech is more speech.
However, it's terrible indictment of our Press that they don't fact-check stuff like this and call out the bullshit.
Actually, you don't need to go to the "drown" state -- drink enough water and you'll screw your electrolyte balance by dilution. Look up "hyponatremia."
However, that's not "pollution" in any sense, including "toxicity." Still, enough water in an area is going to really reduce its habitability, so you're right about water even if the example is not the best.
thing that always annoyed be about the global warming fear mongering is that it puts focus on something that, as the article noted, is not ACTUALLY a pollutant.
Well, it isn't if you define "pollutant" carefully to exclude substances that aren't directly toxic in small quantities. Sort of like formaldehyde -- it's a natural product of human metabolism and is exhaled with every breath. I don't advise breathing large concentrations of either gas. But even if it's harmless to humans doesn't mean you want to fill up the atmosphere with it (e.g. insecticides.)
the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections
Ah, yes. Dr. Curry uses an inappropriate statistical model (simple linear regression) to the team's data set, which ends with two unusually cold months. The result is to nearly eliminate the warming trend in the result (end points have unusual weight in a simple linear regression.) Drop those two months and you get about the same warming trend as the models predicted, or add the following two months (which were unusually warm) and again you match the models.
Impressive work, and the WSJ makes the most of it.
Aside from the rent, that is.
We should definitely learn from them. For example, all of those countries have lower corporate tax rates than the US.
Lower nominal corporate taxes, but higher revenues from them thanks to fewer tax preferences.
And then there's the higher personal income taxes. Which are also "theft."
But you and many others also have a "no we can't" attitude.
It's quite possible the the USA can't -- we appear to be stuck rather hard in a mode of "there is nothing that the rest of the world can teach us."
However, American perceptions of our own inferiority aside, other countries seem to be doing quite nicely. Germany, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway seem to have combined thriving economies with high median standards of living and more upward social mobility than the US. Perhaps someday we'll decide that we can learn something from them other than "don't be like them."
Shorter version: your "idea" is to steal money from people.
Thanks for letting us know.
How is this fundamentally different from, for instance
I mean, as long as we're going for Medieval labor practices and all. I'd rather not, thank you.
Thirty years ago it was somewhere around 25%, now it's pretty close to twice that. What that means is that for about half of the working population of the United States, it takes about half a month's work to pay the rent. Back when I was starting my career, you could count on having somewhere around three-quarters of your pay left over after paying the rent; now, half or less.
I'm sure that the failure of the median household to save for things like medical emergencies is just due to lack of character and work ethic, though.
As bad as it may be in a factory, it's better than staying in the village with no electricity or running water and trying to eek out an existence as a subsistence farmer.
We'll have to fix that, too.
Workers in dormitories
24/7 uncompensated on-call
12-hour shifts
Not mentioned:
worker safety
Triangle Shirtwaist Company
Shorter summary:
All the USA needs to be a better place for companies like Apple is to repeal the last 120 years.
Wow, you're absolutely terrible if you think this is a bad thing.
I obviously wasn't clear. FWIW, I have legally-enforcable advance directives (not to mention some kids and a mistress who have heard me rant about it for years) to make sure that nobody can spend what I've saved for my grandchildren on useless ICU charges.
You have, right?
Ten years ago, there were enough other companies in the game that your chances of finding one supporting "legacy" interfaces was a lot better.
One day, you might be fighting to stay alive too (or maybe you don't think so - but maybe you'll change your mind in 50 years' time).
If I'm still alive at 110, I doubt very much that I'll be all that stressed out about checking out. Plenty of family members have gone peacefully when they got tired of living -- including my maternal (step-)grandmother who basically just withdrew until she shut down and my paternal (step-)grandmother who lived to 97 and got tired of burying children and grandchildren. I think my mother is headed that way soon.
So be it. Give me a good view out over the Rio Grande and some (great-)grandchildren in the house. It's been a blast so far and the rest is gravy.
1) People who can't afford it and therefore suffer. This includes accidents, communicable diseases, etc. that aren't much dependent on obesity.
2) Huge amounts of resources spent (about half of all healthcare spending) on dragging out the process of dying for people who are, one way or another, going to die soon anyway. Most of them are geriatric patients with incurable progressive conditions: metastatic cancer, congestive heart disease, Alzheimer's, etc.
Better lifestyle practices will give us longer, healthier, and for many of us happier lives. They won't make us invulnerable nor immortal. They won't keep our families from bankrupting themseves trying to add one more week of misery in ICU when our time comes.
Now: for a quick assessment of his chances: how many of us are sitting around on our butts reading /. instead of getting some exercise?
Yeah, I thought so. Maybe the genetic screening is worth doing after all.
Why would we want dirty manufacturing and industry in the US??
Better that we have lawyers and doctors and movie directors and investment bankers and graphics artists and social workers and compliance officers and other good clean people like that.
What makes you think that the world wants to buy the services of our lawyers? Or the doctors? Are you expecting the lawyers to sue the world to support the movie directors, even when the movies are made overseas (to save costs, if nothing else)?
American investment bankers are not in great demand either lately. The world seems to value Japanese graphics artists more than American ones. The Government is cutting back on the social workers -- we need to save money. The rest of the world doesn't seem to want American compliance officers, either.
However, the rest of the world does pay for American coal. We have the largest proven coal reserves on the planet, and if we don't manufacture finished goods to ship overseas to pay for our imports we'll just have to export coal. Well, that and cut our standard of living back to the level that we can afford as a country whose primary enterprise is digging holes in the ground.
Most American parents can't or can hardly afford to send their children to University anymore.
That's what college loans are for: so that you can start your working life far enough in the hole that you could have bought a house with the money. It saves you from buying a house, freeing you to pay rent on top of the loans until you can finally buy a house later for your grandchildren to visit you.
Or at least that seems to be the theory. Me, I paid for all of mine so they can start out clear. That's more important to me than retiring to a place within golf cart distance of the clubhouse.