That may just be in your area. The only time they haven't delivered on time or early for me is when there was severe flooding in the region, which makes sense.
If you pre-package rounds into metal clips to reload faster, yeah, that's certainly doable. Harder than with a semiautomatic gun, sure, but doable. Have you every actually shot a gun before? You could kill 30 people in 30 minutes with a muzzle-loaded musket if you had ideal conditions and had practiced with it.
So what you're saying is that you have nothing to fear unless you're an assault weapon owning, racist homophobe.
I don't like the concept diiscussed, as I most certainly do have an expectation of privacy. As for not being allowed to use known derrogatory terms in a public space, well, you have every right to use whatever words you want, but get ready to bear the consequences. Your right to free speech only protects political speech form censorship from the gov't. It most certainly doesn't someone from being offended.
Your right to swing your fist ends where it intersects my nose. Your use of juvenile and puerile language ends if I can hear it.
If you only support freedom of speech for people you like or who agree with you, you don't support freedom of speech. Free speech covers offensive speech too. It generally doesn't cover libel, slander, or threats, but just making a statement other people find offensive? That has to be allowed, partly because your suggestion that we should ban offensive speech offends me. No, my use of whatever (non-libelous, not explicitly a threat) words I want to use is unaffected by whether or not you can hear it. That's how rights work.
The problem with the people making your argument is that you assume you'll be the only ones to use this power. If Trump becomes the next US President, do you really want him being able to ban speech *he* finds offensive?
CRISPR/Cas9 is generally not very error-prone, and they're searching for more specific variants quite often. Penn recently put a lot of effort and money into setting up a robotic assembly line-type facility, so if they can get that working, each patient shouldn't require much effort from specialists. It'll probably still be expensive, of course, but so far the CAR T cell therapies have also been very effective.
They're also already doing clinical trials using integrating gene therapy vectors (usually a lentiviral vector) for the same purpose as the proposed CRISPR trial, but CRISPR will probably let them do it more precisely. Both of these approaches can be applicable to specific types of cancer, so it's the same procedure for each patient, using the same reagents, but they're probably specific enough that the market can't really be called "mass".
Didn't the FBI talk to him a few times as part of their earlier investigations? I mean, sure, they should have followed up on him again, but having the FBI show up might have made him desperate. Desperate people do crazy things. He might have just attacked sooner or something.
Very well said. Banning guns tends to not decrease the murder rate more than the historical trend - gun deaths go down, of course, but murders generally don't (at least, not by more than they probably would have anyway, according to historical trends). Most gun deaths in the US are suicides, and banning guns doesn't meaningfully change the long-term suicide rate either.
(remember, housing prices have to come down to what renters could afford, which is where they would naturally be without rent anyway, otherwise the "landlords" just lose everything)
Not necessarily; depending on local zoning laws, they could convert it to retail or commercial space, or combine several units into one for them to live in themselves - might as well, right? Since they can't make money off of it any more. Alternatively, they split up existing units so that they don't lose a bunch of money from selling it - now people can afford to buy, but it's lower-quality (smaller) housing.
You're also overlooking the long-term impact; even if current housing prices fell due to government action, new housing wouldn't likely be any cheaper, since construction costs wouldn't go down. There would also be less incentive to build more housing, thus pushing prices back up in the long run. You're still pricing people out.
I think you're missing several crucial things in your analysis. First, the existence of a rental market drives production of new housing, which places a downward pressure on housing prices; this at least partially counterbalances the upward pressure from renting, and I'd argue actually overcompensates for it. If the only way to make money on building housing was to sell it right away, they're going to charge more up front to recoup those costs, and won't build as many new dwellings in the first place. In addition, there often aren't efficient economies of scale when renting out properties - the more you own and rent out, the more people you have to hire to take care of them. Unless that's one large apartment building, it does become more and more of a hassle, and you spend more and more on property management. Some people still do it, but then they usually aren't working a normal job at that point either; they're getting paid to take care of housing.
Second, many people don't have the capital necessary for outright purchase, even if housing costs were significantly lower. Renting allows one to work in a higher-salary environment (compared to, say, rural areas) while saving money to purchase a house or apartment. This isn't always easy, of course, but it is much easier than the alternative.
Third, renting makes it easier to move around the country more, which is good for both workers and the economy as a whole. If you know you're only going to stay in a city for a year or two, buying housing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given the hassle of buying and selling (and down payments too, of course).
Fourth, renting isolates some poor families from maintenance-based financial shocks; it is hard being poor, and financial shocks are one big reason why. If a pipe bursts suddenly, the landlord pays for that so they don't have to. It is, in a sense, insurance; technically worse for the renters, but much safer.
"Fee for a use" is not in and of itself a problem. If something is mine, and you want to use it, we should be able to come to an agreement about why I should let you. Interest is crucial for the function of any good economy; the time value of money is real. If a bank can't make interest on loans, guess what they aren't going to do any more? The result of that is that only people who already have money can afford to start businesses, build things, etc. so they end up much better off. Eliminating interest makes the poor worse off, not better.
The *Republicans* in SF are to blame? Now that's a new one. No, SF has mostly itself to blame, between city government allowing people to block construction near them and requiring lots of environmental impact studies, rejecting most new building proposals...
I wouldn't call many of the public housing projects in NYC "good housing". They're cheap housing, and sometimes that's enough, to be sure.
I think it would be a mistake for them to do so; while he may well give them more power to spy (especially if it's on illegal immigrants), he's also got a temper, is somewhat unpredictable, and generally doesn't care if people are angry with him. They'd be far better off supporting Hillary, since we already know she's pretty comfortable with how things are.
Many libertarians would just argue that it's not the federal government's place to tell states what they can and cannot do about licenses; that would be an issue for people in each state to address.
No, you can only get a license in the state you live in. Other states accept out of state licenses, but they often have different driving laws; the process for getting (and keeping) one is also usually somewhat different between states.
Yes. If you have relevant expertise for both companies and both companies are willing to have you, then go for it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal.
If you think what they're doing is immoral, don't support that company.
Oh definitely, we need to be smarter about how we spend on our social programs. I will say that free university would require changing our system quite a bit; as it stands, American colleges are so expensive partly because they do a lot more than most European ones for their students - clubs, social things, gyms, dorms, etc. and then of course there's always the question of how do you determine who gets to go, can they major in something that's unlikely to provide them a job, how long do we pay, etc. but we could, in principle, do it well. We are also, unfortunately, discouraging people from going to trade schools, and for a lot of people that's probably a better decision anyways.
Smart investments, yes, but we already spend a whole lot of money on education. We've been spending more and more, and not getting anything more out of it - there are certainly problems with American education, but by and large, the amount of money going in is not the problem. Where that money is actually going is far more likely to be the problem. In addition, dumb government spending during a recession can also significantly reduce future revenues - not all government spending is good.
I hadn't heard that she said that; it's especially funny because she is under FBI investigation. By her logic, maybe she shouldn't be able to run for President until the investigation is over.
Slashdot Mirror
Paying dividends versus investing doesn't change Kickstarter's taxes, only (potentially) the taxes that the individual shareholders pay.
That may just be in your area. The only time they haven't delivered on time or early for me is when there was severe flooding in the region, which makes sense.
As more people get Prime accounts, Amazon focuses on them more. This should be obvious.
If you pre-package rounds into metal clips to reload faster, yeah, that's certainly doable. Harder than with a semiautomatic gun, sure, but doable. Have you every actually shot a gun before? You could kill 30 people in 30 minutes with a muzzle-loaded musket if you had ideal conditions and had practiced with it.
So what you're saying is that you have nothing to fear unless you're an assault weapon owning, racist homophobe. I don't like the concept diiscussed, as I most certainly do have an expectation of privacy. As for not being allowed to use known derrogatory terms in a public space, well, you have every right to use whatever words you want, but get ready to bear the consequences. Your right to free speech only protects political speech form censorship from the gov't. It most certainly doesn't someone from being offended. Your right to swing your fist ends where it intersects my nose. Your use of juvenile and puerile language ends if I can hear it.
If you only support freedom of speech for people you like or who agree with you, you don't support freedom of speech. Free speech covers offensive speech too. It generally doesn't cover libel, slander, or threats, but just making a statement other people find offensive? That has to be allowed, partly because your suggestion that we should ban offensive speech offends me. No, my use of whatever (non-libelous, not explicitly a threat) words I want to use is unaffected by whether or not you can hear it. That's how rights work.
The problem with the people making your argument is that you assume you'll be the only ones to use this power. If Trump becomes the next US President, do you really want him being able to ban speech *he* finds offensive?
CRISPR/Cas9 is generally not very error-prone, and they're searching for more specific variants quite often. Penn recently put a lot of effort and money into setting up a robotic assembly line-type facility, so if they can get that working, each patient shouldn't require much effort from specialists. It'll probably still be expensive, of course, but so far the CAR T cell therapies have also been very effective.
They're also already doing clinical trials using integrating gene therapy vectors (usually a lentiviral vector) for the same purpose as the proposed CRISPR trial, but CRISPR will probably let them do it more precisely. Both of these approaches can be applicable to specific types of cancer, so it's the same procedure for each patient, using the same reagents, but they're probably specific enough that the market can't really be called "mass".
Didn't the FBI talk to him a few times as part of their earlier investigations? I mean, sure, they should have followed up on him again, but having the FBI show up might have made him desperate. Desperate people do crazy things. He might have just attacked sooner or something.
Very well said. Banning guns tends to not decrease the murder rate more than the historical trend - gun deaths go down, of course, but murders generally don't (at least, not by more than they probably would have anyway, according to historical trends). Most gun deaths in the US are suicides, and banning guns doesn't meaningfully change the long-term suicide rate either.
30 people in 30 minutes? That's pretty much any gun. How is that sensible?
(remember, housing prices have to come down to what renters could afford, which is where they would naturally be without rent anyway, otherwise the "landlords" just lose everything)
Not necessarily; depending on local zoning laws, they could convert it to retail or commercial space, or combine several units into one for them to live in themselves - might as well, right? Since they can't make money off of it any more. Alternatively, they split up existing units so that they don't lose a bunch of money from selling it - now people can afford to buy, but it's lower-quality (smaller) housing.
You're also overlooking the long-term impact; even if current housing prices fell due to government action, new housing wouldn't likely be any cheaper, since construction costs wouldn't go down. There would also be less incentive to build more housing, thus pushing prices back up in the long run. You're still pricing people out.
I think you're missing several crucial things in your analysis. First, the existence of a rental market drives production of new housing, which places a downward pressure on housing prices; this at least partially counterbalances the upward pressure from renting, and I'd argue actually overcompensates for it. If the only way to make money on building housing was to sell it right away, they're going to charge more up front to recoup those costs, and won't build as many new dwellings in the first place. In addition, there often aren't efficient economies of scale when renting out properties - the more you own and rent out, the more people you have to hire to take care of them. Unless that's one large apartment building, it does become more and more of a hassle, and you spend more and more on property management. Some people still do it, but then they usually aren't working a normal job at that point either; they're getting paid to take care of housing.
Second, many people don't have the capital necessary for outright purchase, even if housing costs were significantly lower. Renting allows one to work in a higher-salary environment (compared to, say, rural areas) while saving money to purchase a house or apartment. This isn't always easy, of course, but it is much easier than the alternative.
Third, renting makes it easier to move around the country more, which is good for both workers and the economy as a whole. If you know you're only going to stay in a city for a year or two, buying housing doesn't make a whole lot of sense, given the hassle of buying and selling (and down payments too, of course).
Fourth, renting isolates some poor families from maintenance-based financial shocks; it is hard being poor, and financial shocks are one big reason why. If a pipe bursts suddenly, the landlord pays for that so they don't have to. It is, in a sense, insurance; technically worse for the renters, but much safer.
"Fee for a use" is not in and of itself a problem. If something is mine, and you want to use it, we should be able to come to an agreement about why I should let you. Interest is crucial for the function of any good economy; the time value of money is real. If a bank can't make interest on loans, guess what they aren't going to do any more? The result of that is that only people who already have money can afford to start businesses, build things, etc. so they end up much better off. Eliminating interest makes the poor worse off, not better.
The *Republicans* in SF are to blame? Now that's a new one. No, SF has mostly itself to blame, between city government allowing people to block construction near them and requiring lots of environmental impact studies, rejecting most new building proposals...
I wouldn't call many of the public housing projects in NYC "good housing". They're cheap housing, and sometimes that's enough, to be sure.
Yep, it burns pretty much anything that can, in theory, burn. Scary stuff.
I think it would be a mistake for them to do so; while he may well give them more power to spy (especially if it's on illegal immigrants), he's also got a temper, is somewhat unpredictable, and generally doesn't care if people are angry with him. They'd be far better off supporting Hillary, since we already know she's pretty comfortable with how things are.
Many libertarians would just argue that it's not the federal government's place to tell states what they can and cannot do about licenses; that would be an issue for people in each state to address.
No, you can only get a license in the state you live in. Other states accept out of state licenses, but they often have different driving laws; the process for getting (and keeping) one is also usually somewhat different between states.
Yes. If you have relevant expertise for both companies and both companies are willing to have you, then go for it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it should be illegal.
If you think what they're doing is immoral, don't support that company.
Liquid helium.
Also, I rather suspect you meant "chlorine trifluoride", not F2Cl2. It's also much scarier than just burning sand; it burns glass and Teflon too.
Sure you can, it's just not easy or practical in most cases.
Oh definitely, we need to be smarter about how we spend on our social programs. I will say that free university would require changing our system quite a bit; as it stands, American colleges are so expensive partly because they do a lot more than most European ones for their students - clubs, social things, gyms, dorms, etc. and then of course there's always the question of how do you determine who gets to go, can they major in something that's unlikely to provide them a job, how long do we pay, etc. but we could, in principle, do it well. We are also, unfortunately, discouraging people from going to trade schools, and for a lot of people that's probably a better decision anyways.
Smart investments, yes, but we already spend a whole lot of money on education. We've been spending more and more, and not getting anything more out of it - there are certainly problems with American education, but by and large, the amount of money going in is not the problem. Where that money is actually going is far more likely to be the problem. In addition, dumb government spending during a recession can also significantly reduce future revenues - not all government spending is good.
She was adding cream and sugar to it while driving, yes? Not exactly a safe practice.
Are you just replying to my sig, or the comment itself?
I hadn't heard that she said that; it's especially funny because she is under FBI investigation. By her logic, maybe she shouldn't be able to run for President until the investigation is over.