All of these split-state movements make no sense as long as we're keeping Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands in territory hell. If anyone deserves statehood, it's these places, not some disgruntled counties in a long-established state.
Fuck that. Hawaii showed the island nations don't want to be states, if anything we should revoke Hawaii's statehood, it's what they want anyway.
Splitting California's electoral votes is a right wing wet dream. Makes you wonder if it's the Koch family or the Mercers behind this push. Or some combination of billionaires and Russian foreign intelligence.
It's also the wet dream of everyone in the area desiring it, to be free of the oppressive liberal extremism running rampant in Commifornia.
Is the obvious solution here: use the cars as bait inside of giant humane traps for rats, then periodically collect the rats and throw them into a blender and use the subsequent green Soy-fed rats as a high protein feed for the third world.
The hard part, of course, would be keeping the really large fuckers from just moving their operations overseas to friendlier nations. They do that even now. This would probably have to be a global initiative... but even just starting with the most dominant nation (ie. The USA) would be a great start.
That doesn't seem that hard to solve, don't let them do business with the US unless their profits are taxed taking the entire operations of the company into account. E.g. Apple can't simply move overseas without getting taxed on everything they make unless they want to get droned. The legitimate purpose of the government is national defense and economic warfare is for cowards, cowards are vulnerable to drones.
I was thinking more taking a scale where everything over 1b results in taxes greater than 100%. E.g. fix the tax rate to the tens of millions earned, if they make 1m in revenue they have a 0.1% tax rate (that would encourage the shit out of small businesses,) if they make 1b in revenue they don't get to keep a dime of it,
Yeah, amazing how they got to a worldwide consortium/monopoly only to use the excess funds from gutting their consumers to lobby worldwide against alternative energies, kill private inventors, fund terrorism across the globe, build unsustainable cities on sand dunes with islands that need to constantly be supplied with new sand least the city drowns, and resulted in nonstop war over decades with every nation with even the smallest hint of power involved to try to break the monopoly. That totally didn't fleece the customers, oh wait, that's probably the single worst example you could have given. Did you just forget the "/s"
You mean one of the shitty mega-airlines? No thanks, I'll stick to the smaller airlines who don't cram you together like sardines and still provide free drinks sans the TSA beatings.
Pretty sure anyone running a government would see the advantages of it and therefore strongly prefer our current system of "lobbying" (corruption and kickbacks) over something which would work more efficiently, at least if they cared to act as opposition.
A) The economy is up under Trump more than any president since FDR. B) Even Apple is bringing back jobs. C) The Democrats and RiNO (McCain) caused the shutdown, the Republicans passed the budget. D) Figure out what's going on before speaking, you might come off as less of a moron.
A) You are the product, you aren't using Google Maps, Google is using you and you're too dim to see it. B) Multiple corporations fucking their customers doesn't mean the one with the best consolidation and therefore best pricing isn't doing so, it just means they're more efficient at doing so to more people. C) We aren't a global economy, we have never been a global economy, and most other nations hate us - only Americans count.
Your logic is faulty - you're assuming that the only way a company can get big is by ripping people off which is simply not true. So many companies got big by selling revolutionary products that changed the world.
Name one. I know for a fact they all got rich by selling products (revolutionary or otherwise) for far above cost, so far above cost it constitutes swindling their customers and so far above cost they gained the spare cash to lobby and as a direct result break our democracy.
Disclaimer: I think the idea of nationalizing these companies is insane. I trust Google way more than I trust the NSA.
Kind of assuming everyone already knows the government would run them into the ground between the bureaucracy and the greed, they can't even keep the parks services people actually want to pay and generate revenue running in the midst of political bickering over a budget. The point is more to A) prevent companies from reaching that level B) break up the ones that do and most importantly C) ensure no corporation or rich shitbag has the expendable cashflow to lobby for anything without going under.
The NSA already has everything Google has, and both parties are funding them (likely because Google and Facebook and friends pay to lobby on behalf in exchange for the contracts obtained as a result.) Breaking up Google by sticking them directly under the bureaucratic thumb would just result in lost (mostly or completely) market share until it's too much of a burden to maintain and a thousand smaller companies step in to fill their shoes without the ability to be evil fuckers.
In other words, your contribution is about Identity Politics. You don't like Google so they shouldn't get the benefits of Trump's tax bill.
While Google are among the apex of parasitic marketing people claiming to be nerds, you'd have to be functionally retarded to interpret "a company worth more than 9 figures" as "limited to Google."
There's no reason for a company like Google to even exist (or more recently, a company like Alphabet - the whole concept of umbrella corporations are a prime example of the BAADD acronym used.) If a company is with over 9 figures in a modern-day valuation they should simply be nationalized (and I'm far from a liberal, full-blown Trump supporter with zero regrets thus far, so please keep that in mind because I know that idea goes against the party divide pretty significantly.) This isn't to say the government should exist to fund other nations or wage wars (that we start,) but if a corporation makes it to that level it can only mean that they are gutting consumers, at which point the government can't really do much worse and it's a damned-good deterrent.
Speaking of facts, the markets are up more than any time since FDR - even the sellout traitors at Apple are bringing jobs back to the US, expressly because of Trump's policies. If you're being objective Trump is definitively the best thing to happen for the US economy since FDR, but of course there wouldn't be any cognitive dissonance if you were capable of accepting that basic fact. Hell, I bet you think Bill Gates is a hero instead of a traitor for siphoning money out of our economy with the sleaziest of business tactics only to give it, along with that of many other US billionaires, to third world nations without a hope of doing more than having unsustainable birthrates with it.
Maybe they presume that you live in the 21st century, and in the unlikely case that you actually care about exactly where that is, you have tools available at your fingertips.
Nah, SF is the world's largest open-air insane asylum. Most of them aren't aware other things exist.
There's not going to be a generic 3D "molecular printer" for a long, long time. For one thing, lots of interesting reactions require special conditions that won't sit well with generic "3D printing" stuff: heat, catalysts, pressure, nasty precursors.
As someone who tried to DIY a molecular printer/synthesis machine about a decade ago, the concepts are easy and the gear is proven (Hell, you don't need the 3D printer aspect, you can make all the components out of borosilicate tubing and some scrap electronics like heater elements, thermoelectric coolers, and parts from Digikey.) The issue comes from two parts:
Reactions: you have to have all the reactions pre-planned, data would be a huge help in this area because as it stands chemical reactions don't exist in a uniformly formatted database which is easy to handle (e.g. you have x inputs, you want y output, figure out how to make it happen - if you have the data is merely a simple pathfinding algorithm, if you lack the data it's a doctorate in chemistry and years of work for every reaction in your decide with all it's little quirks.
Cleaning: this is the bigger issue, because even someone without formal chemistry training but with enough focus can import known synthesis procedures into the software driving the device (I did it a decade ago for a half dozen different complex organic compounds while testing.) Chemistry labware is an unholy mother fucker to clean after certain reactions, especially when you can't agitate the glassware with solvents in it and use obscene amounts of solvent. This means you have to either flush your single-digit-milliliter glassware with liters of solvent specific to the reaction you're flushing out to ensure there's no residue left before the next completely unrelated reaction or you have to stick the whole contraption on a high power shaker (remember, it's all a bunch of super tiny components because it has to fit in a space about the size of a refrigerator while encompassing all organic chem reactions to be useful - you're talking about reaction vessels on the order of 10mL at most with all the supporting hardware like microliter autosyringes attached, which themselves are pretty delicate and have to be subjected to the aforementioned shaker or liters of solvents.) Cleaning is a pain in an actual organic chem setting, when you're talking about a fully autonomous printer it is absurdly obtuse.
The beam of light has the same speed... but not necessarily the same velocity.
It doesn't even have the same speed. If it did you would see scattering instead of just diffraction when white light entered a prism or any other thing which retards the propagation rate. It's an inductive effect, not a thing in itself - that's why light seems to slow down in some materials like prisms (or in the extreme cases of BECs) without scattering. If it always had the same speed it wouldn't be able to be slowed down save for group velocity effects (all of which would cause scattering.)
Slashdot Mirror
Go to Hawaii, talk to them. They hate being part of the US.
More like from a "goofy secessionism dept"
You're why people don't want to be in the same state as you.
6 would be gerrymandering as fuck, the only parts in CA which are liberal are the cities, everyone else is just forced along for the ride.
All of these split-state movements make no sense as long as we're keeping Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa and the US Virgin Islands in territory hell. If anyone deserves statehood, it's these places, not some disgruntled counties in a long-established state.
Fuck that. Hawaii showed the island nations don't want to be states, if anything we should revoke Hawaii's statehood, it's what they want anyway.
Splitting California's electoral votes is a right wing wet dream. Makes you wonder if it's the Koch family or the Mercers behind this push. Or some combination of billionaires and Russian foreign intelligence.
It's also the wet dream of everyone in the area desiring it, to be free of the oppressive liberal extremism running rampant in Commifornia.
Don't name it "New California," keep the name "California" and make the SF+LA part take the name "Commifornia."
Is the obvious solution here: use the cars as bait inside of giant humane traps for rats, then periodically collect the rats and throw them into a blender and use the subsequent green Soy-fed rats as a high protein feed for the third world.
The hard part, of course, would be keeping the really large fuckers from just moving their operations overseas to friendlier nations. They do that even now. This would probably have to be a global initiative ... but even just starting with the most dominant nation (ie. The USA) would be a great start.
That doesn't seem that hard to solve, don't let them do business with the US unless their profits are taxed taking the entire operations of the company into account. E.g. Apple can't simply move overseas without getting taxed on everything they make unless they want to get droned. The legitimate purpose of the government is national defense and economic warfare is for cowards, cowards are vulnerable to drones.
If they're reinvesting all their revenue into R&D they aren't generating positive revenue.
I was thinking more taking a scale where everything over 1b results in taxes greater than 100%. E.g. fix the tax rate to the tens of millions earned, if they make 1m in revenue they have a 0.1% tax rate (that would encourage the shit out of small businesses,) if they make 1b in revenue they don't get to keep a dime of it,
Every oil company in existence.
Yeah, amazing how they got to a worldwide consortium/monopoly only to use the excess funds from gutting their consumers to lobby worldwide against alternative energies, kill private inventors, fund terrorism across the globe, build unsustainable cities on sand dunes with islands that need to constantly be supplied with new sand least the city drowns, and resulted in nonstop war over decades with every nation with even the smallest hint of power involved to try to break the monopoly. That totally didn't fleece the customers, oh wait, that's probably the single worst example you could have given. Did you just forget the "/s"
You mean one of the shitty mega-airlines? No thanks, I'll stick to the smaller airlines who don't cram you together like sardines and still provide free drinks sans the TSA beatings.
Pretty sure anyone running a government would see the advantages of it and therefore strongly prefer our current system of "lobbying" (corruption and kickbacks) over something which would work more efficiently, at least if they cared to act as opposition.
A) The economy is up under Trump more than any president since FDR. B) Even Apple is bringing back jobs. C) The Democrats and RiNO (McCain) caused the shutdown, the Republicans passed the budget. D) Figure out what's going on before speaking, you might come off as less of a moron.
A) You are the product, you aren't using Google Maps, Google is using you and you're too dim to see it. B) Multiple corporations fucking their customers doesn't mean the one with the best consolidation and therefore best pricing isn't doing so, it just means they're more efficient at doing so to more people. C) We aren't a global economy, we have never been a global economy, and most other nations hate us - only Americans count.
Your logic is faulty - you're assuming that the only way a company can get big is by ripping people off which is simply not true. So many companies got big by selling revolutionary products that changed the world.
Name one. I know for a fact they all got rich by selling products (revolutionary or otherwise) for far above cost, so far above cost it constitutes swindling their customers and so far above cost they gained the spare cash to lobby and as a direct result break our democracy.
The bottom company in the S&P 500 is worth $3.6B.
Disclaimer: I think the idea of nationalizing these companies is insane. I trust Google way more than I trust the NSA.
Kind of assuming everyone already knows the government would run them into the ground between the bureaucracy and the greed, they can't even keep the parks services people actually want to pay and generate revenue running in the midst of political bickering over a budget. The point is more to A) prevent companies from reaching that level B) break up the ones that do and most importantly C) ensure no corporation or rich shitbag has the expendable cashflow to lobby for anything without going under.
The NSA already has everything Google has, and both parties are funding them (likely because Google and Facebook and friends pay to lobby on behalf in exchange for the contracts obtained as a result.) Breaking up Google by sticking them directly under the bureaucratic thumb would just result in lost (mostly or completely) market share until it's too much of a burden to maintain and a thousand smaller companies step in to fill their shoes without the ability to be evil fuckers.
In other words, your contribution is about Identity Politics. You don't like Google so they shouldn't get the benefits of Trump's tax bill.
While Google are among the apex of parasitic marketing people claiming to be nerds, you'd have to be functionally retarded to interpret "a company worth more than 9 figures" as "limited to Google."
There's no reason for a company like Google to even exist (or more recently, a company like Alphabet - the whole concept of umbrella corporations are a prime example of the BAADD acronym used.) If a company is with over 9 figures in a modern-day valuation they should simply be nationalized (and I'm far from a liberal, full-blown Trump supporter with zero regrets thus far, so please keep that in mind because I know that idea goes against the party divide pretty significantly.) This isn't to say the government should exist to fund other nations or wage wars (that we start,) but if a corporation makes it to that level it can only mean that they are gutting consumers, at which point the government can't really do much worse and it's a damned-good deterrent.
Speaking of facts, the markets are up more than any time since FDR - even the sellout traitors at Apple are bringing jobs back to the US, expressly because of Trump's policies. If you're being objective Trump is definitively the best thing to happen for the US economy since FDR, but of course there wouldn't be any cognitive dissonance if you were capable of accepting that basic fact. Hell, I bet you think Bill Gates is a hero instead of a traitor for siphoning money out of our economy with the sleaziest of business tactics only to give it, along with that of many other US billionaires, to third world nations without a hope of doing more than having unsustainable birthrates with it.
Hillary didn't win, you moron.
Of course it was political. How stupid do they think we are?
Pretty fucking stupid considering all the data people hand them in spite of what they do with it and the power granted by it.
Maybe they presume that you live in the 21st century, and in the unlikely case that you actually care about exactly where that is, you have tools available at your fingertips.
Nah, SF is the world's largest open-air insane asylum. Most of them aren't aware other things exist.
There's not going to be a generic 3D "molecular printer" for a long, long time. For one thing, lots of interesting reactions require special conditions that won't sit well with generic "3D printing" stuff: heat, catalysts, pressure, nasty precursors.
As someone who tried to DIY a molecular printer/synthesis machine about a decade ago, the concepts are easy and the gear is proven (Hell, you don't need the 3D printer aspect, you can make all the components out of borosilicate tubing and some scrap electronics like heater elements, thermoelectric coolers, and parts from Digikey.) The issue comes from two parts:
The beam of light has the same speed... but not necessarily the same velocity.
It doesn't even have the same speed. If it did you would see scattering instead of just diffraction when white light entered a prism or any other thing which retards the propagation rate. It's an inductive effect, not a thing in itself - that's why light seems to slow down in some materials like prisms (or in the extreme cases of BECs) without scattering. If it always had the same speed it wouldn't be able to be slowed down save for group velocity effects (all of which would cause scattering.)