Has anyone done an analysis, using hard numbers, of how much more money would be available for local programs if said money were not first siphoned through the middlemen that make up the tax-collection-and-redistribution segment of our government?
The concept came up in another forum -- State X gets more money from the Feds than it contributes in taxes -- BUT -- if that tax money didn't first get routed through D.C., and at least partly used up by middlemen, would State X actually NEED that Federal contribution?
In my observation of the Real World, you'd find that about half the Reps think the Dems are wackos, and the other half are willing to listen to alternatives, even if they think the Dems are misguided. Conversely, 100% of the Dems will say "the Reps are all stupid. Why? They're just stupid, that's all".
And in my observation, there are a great deal more very insecure people in the Dem camp, who are constantly afraid of the bogeyman and want someone to take care of it for them. The Rep is more likely to just shoot the bogeyman, when and if it appears, rather than beg someone else to protect them.
Very broad generalizations, but such are my observations. Your biases may differ.;)
Modded funny your observation may be, but it's exactly accurate. The question becomes -- do you want the experienced hand in the driver's seat, and the green n00b in the back seat, or do you prefer to be steered by the green n00b and keep the experienced driver in the back seat??
[I don't like either choice, but at least if the green n00b starts off in the observer post, they might learn something BEFORE being called upon to drive.]
Very interesting, and definitely useful to the Real World. Also goes to show the intersection of chemistry, physics, and engineering.
Having learned some low-temp vs high-temp behaviours stuff in chem classes, your examples make instant sense to me (we mostly dealt with water, but the concepts are similar). But I wonder how they appear to folks with absolutely no materials-properties background -- perhaps as some form of evil magic, even if intellectually, they know better.
"If you know what the electrons will do, and why they will do it, you understand organic reactions, and you don't need to memorize everything."
Very well put, and that's pretty much how chemistry was taught (at all levels) at Montana State, when I was there. If you knew what the electrons would do, you could work out everything else on an as-needed basis. We never memorized anything!
"adv. p-chem was like chewing glass"
Heh... P-chem was the only chem class I really hated. Took the advanced class during the short summer session to avoid the subject as much as possible! "Just gimme the damn formula and let me plug it in; why do I need to do it 500 different ways?"
Over 30 years later, me and the average doctor probably remember the same amount of organic and biochem, which is to say, absolutely none of the specifics, but the principles remain... and that's sufficient to figure out how something works at need, or to trigger a "That can't be right" reaction when presented with snake oil. And strangely, the only class I've actually USED for a specific project was... ARGH! P-CHEM!!
Couple years ago someone sent me an email about the "hazards" of fructose. Funny thing, I haven't even looked in my chem books since college, but the right neuron triggered, I ran to the shelf, pulled out the right textbook, and immediately found the section I wanted, on how fructose is metabolized (didn't even have to look in the index). Our brains' filing system is sometimes amazing!!
Very well said. Organic chem and its offspring biochem are fundamental to understanding how medications interact with the body, normal vs abnormal metabolism, and nutrition. Do you really want a doctor who just assumes the pharmaceutical company literature is correct for all patients, because he doesn't know enough to spot conflicts (or for that matter, outright snake oil)??
Sometimes people study a field because in their minds, it supports their underlying biases. I'd guess your prof was a "had to be designed" person from way back, even if she didn't realise it, and studying a complex subject just reinforced that bias. I've seen that sort of thing myself, and yes, it always seems dissonant... til you realise their studies are a form of validation.
The Chem department at Montana State University (at the time considered one of the premier chem research depts. in the world -- we had one of the first gas chromatographs) was very different from your experience, at least when I was there in the mid-1970s. It was all about concepts and fundamentals and underlying theory and how that translates into Real Life. I can't remember EVER doing any rote memorization there. I do remember how the professors would bend over backwards to help any student who needed it, or who showed any genuine interest.
In fact, I drifted into a Biochem major because first-year Organic Chem was so much FUN... I'd certainly had no intention of going that direction when I started college! (I'd started off in Chem Engineering, rather a different focus from pure Chemistry.)
I suppose it helped that we'd come into class and find things on the blackboard like Dr.Olsen's mystery compound of the day... one was "HIOAg":)
It really helps to understand the biochemistry underlying the body's processes (you can't truly understand nutrition without biochem), and the foundation of biochem is organic chem. The thought that physicians might exit school completely ignorant of the foundations of what makes our bodies tick... that's like a mechanic with no understanding of fuel. He can do most jobs same as anyone else, but will fail to find correct solutions for some fundamental problems simply for lack of that basic knowledge.
Oh, the venerable automobile example. Okay, if you insist.... Why is your car's engine "knocking"?? omighod, could be any of a dozen expensive problems!!! or could be simply that cheapo Mexican gas you bought last week.
"Depending on where they live, Montana's paper ballots may be counted in two ways: hand count or with paper ballot optical scan tabulators. Either way ALL Montanans vote on a paper ballot."
An AC says, ====== Securing the Canadian border has nothing to do with Canada being viewed as an enemy. If we go through great pains to make it hard to get into this country on a plane from Europe without us knowing exactly who you are, then they will start going to Canada where the restrictions may be a lot more lax. Then, drive across the border. It's actually showing a little bit of thought on the issue. We simply don't trust Canada to do too much to protect our interests, and that's a fair assumption. Net result is we can not trust people coming in from Canada because someone may be trying to sneak in that way. Not that it matters though, anyone wanting to come in this country bad enough knows that the Mexicans are pro's at penetrating our border and that route will always be open.
(Note: I think pretty much all of our new security measures are useless. There's too many people coming and going and far to much border for us to be totally secure.) =========
All true, and goes to my point: There are so many other routes into the country, why worry about someone taking the indirect route through Canada? They could just as easily fly into New York from London or Berlin, or fly into LAX from Tokyo or Beijing. They'll have perfectly legit IDs and since they won't have a big sign or a tattoo proclaiming them as "TERRORISTS", how are we to know? you can't database every potential perp worldwide!
Seems to me they've opted for a different identifier: [cue Jeff Foxworthy] "Do you travel internationally? Then you MIGHT be a terrorist!"
So why bother restricting entry to and from Canada? They're no worse at protecting our interests than we are ourselves, which is to agree -- it's all useless security theatre anyway.
I prefer this approach: I am not afraid of random "terrorism" which is so rare that I'm far more likely to drown in my own bathtub. And if you attempt to terrorize me, I will defend myself, with deadly force if need be. Only sheep need to be shepherded all the time.
An AC says, "It does not help us. We are becoming police states slowly. People are going to get a shocker wake up call one day when another 9-11 incident type deal happens and ( which was not even terrorist related as we know are supposed to know it ) we will all have our little RFID chips so they think."
And that's a good point. Once we're all microchipped and monitored 24 hours a day, who are they going to blame for the next "terrorist incident"??
Quoth the above... It's getting to the point where I don't think "we need to stop this guy", instead it's "we need to help this guy".
This assumes, of course, that "this guy" is actually here in the first place, in numbers sufficient to accomplish more than small random disruptions. And that "this guy" is on our side.
Rather, I think we need to become "this guys" ourselves, in large enough numbers that the gov't regains its healthy fear of its citizens.
Trouble is, I don't see how that's possible without first getting to a point of about half the populace left with nothing to lose (seems to be the threshold point)... AND the presence of leaders of Jeffersonian quality. That last is a critical factor; without it, a revolution (even one without violence) leaves the people in worse shape than before, and the gov't run by the new little tin gods instead of the stately old gods. This Is Not Progress.
When I first heard of the new Dept. of Homeland Security -- the name alone was enough to inform me that we'd reached the end of the Great American Freedom Experiment.:(
Good points about the ROI. Which goes to prove that this isn't about solving car thefts at all, is it??
Besides, any self-respecting professional car thief would make negating the locator chip his first priority, after snagging the vehicle of choice. Or just ignore the chip and field-strip the car -- I once saw a demo of that; everything worth taking off the car was gone in less than TWO MINUTES, including the doors.
Maybe not. Those redlight cameras are not infallable. If you stop too fast, or the nose of your car just breaks the plane of the white line (which in some places is set too far back so without creeping up -- and getting a ticket -- you cannot see to make a legal right turn after stopping), those both get a ticket too. Occasionally they ticket the car NEXT to the actual offender. Once in a while they ticket an allowed right-turn-on-red. And numerous locations have been caught shortening yellow light duration to increase ticket counts (even tho doing so is a crime in California).
All good examples of how the successful surveillance state, nominally geared to catching ONLY lawbreakers, can make criminals out of law-abiding folks.
I saw a graphic a while back that illustrated your very point: Two generations ago, gradeschool-age kids' average normal range was 7-8 miles from home. One generation ago, it was one mile. Now it's less than 300 yards.
There was an article in the NYTimes a while back (can't find it offhand) about a mom who gave her 9 year old son $20 for subway money and let him work out how to get home for himself -- and how proud the kid was at learning how to manage the public transportation system without help. That's what we should be teaching our kids, how to sensibly fend for themselves. But what was the more-typical reaction? HORRORS! don't you know no 9 year old kid can go anywhere without being abducted? How dare you let your son learn how to get around the town he lives in?? NEGLECT! Call Child Protective Services NOW!
Used to be kids were turned loose in the morning and the only rule was "be back by supper". Now, even if they do go somewhere "out of range", the cellphone umbilicus is active and tracking 'em. How many times lately have you seen teens call mommy to help them make every decision??
Remember a discussion here last year about how under our current nanny state and nanny society, people are no longer *allowed* to truly grow up?
I think these are all related phenomena, and are reflected by government's increasing desire to track us all, as if we're children unable to do anything or go anywhere on our own. We track our kids 24 hours a day, and guess what, those kids will grow up to think it's okay if Big Brother tracks them 24 hours a day, too.
We're doing our kids and our country no service with this paranoia.
Also other laws vary accordingly... frex when I lived in Montana you only needed to have a rear plate, but IF you only had a rear plate, you MUST park so the rear of your vehicle (and therefore your lic.plate) is visible -- no backing into parking spots.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone done an analysis, using hard numbers, of how much more money would be available for local programs if said money were not first siphoned through the middlemen that make up the tax-collection-and-redistribution segment of our government?
The concept came up in another forum -- State X gets more money from the Feds than it contributes in taxes -- BUT -- if that tax money didn't first get routed through D.C., and at least partly used up by middlemen, would State X actually NEED that Federal contribution?
In my observation of the Real World, you'd find that about half the Reps think the Dems are wackos, and the other half are willing to listen to alternatives, even if they think the Dems are misguided. Conversely, 100% of the Dems will say "the Reps are all stupid. Why? They're just stupid, that's all".
And in my observation, there are a great deal more very insecure people in the Dem camp, who are constantly afraid of the bogeyman and want someone to take care of it for them. The Rep is more likely to just shoot the bogeyman, when and if it appears, rather than beg someone else to protect them.
Very broad generalizations, but such are my observations. Your biases may differ. ;)
Modded funny your observation may be, but it's exactly accurate. The question becomes -- do you want the experienced hand in the driver's seat, and the green n00b in the back seat, or do you prefer to be steered by the green n00b and keep the experienced driver in the back seat??
[I don't like either choice, but at least if the green n00b starts off in the observer post, they might learn something BEFORE being called upon to drive.]
Very interesting, and definitely useful to the Real World. Also goes to show the intersection of chemistry, physics, and engineering.
Having learned some low-temp vs high-temp behaviours stuff in chem classes, your examples make instant sense to me (we mostly dealt with water, but the concepts are similar). But I wonder how they appear to folks with absolutely no materials-properties background -- perhaps as some form of evil magic, even if intellectually, they know better.
"If you know what the electrons will do, and why they will do it, you understand organic reactions, and you don't need to memorize everything."
Very well put, and that's pretty much how chemistry was taught (at all levels) at Montana State, when I was there. If you knew what the electrons would do, you could work out everything else on an as-needed basis. We never memorized anything!
"adv. p-chem was like chewing glass"
Heh... P-chem was the only chem class I really hated. Took the advanced class during the short summer session to avoid the subject as much as possible! "Just gimme the damn formula and let me plug it in; why do I need to do it 500 different ways?"
Over 30 years later, me and the average doctor probably remember the same amount of organic and biochem, which is to say, absolutely none of the specifics, but the principles remain... and that's sufficient to figure out how something works at need, or to trigger a "That can't be right" reaction when presented with snake oil. And strangely, the only class I've actually USED for a specific project was... ARGH! P-CHEM!!
Couple years ago someone sent me an email about the "hazards" of fructose. Funny thing, I haven't even looked in my chem books since college, but the right neuron triggered, I ran to the shelf, pulled out the right textbook, and immediately found the section I wanted, on how fructose is metabolized (didn't even have to look in the index). Our brains' filing system is sometimes amazing!!
Very well said. Organic chem and its offspring biochem are fundamental to understanding how medications interact with the body, normal vs abnormal metabolism, and nutrition. Do you really want a doctor who just assumes the pharmaceutical company literature is correct for all patients, because he doesn't know enough to spot conflicts (or for that matter, outright snake oil)??
Sometimes people study a field because in their minds, it supports their underlying biases. I'd guess your prof was a "had to be designed" person from way back, even if she didn't realise it, and studying a complex subject just reinforced that bias. I've seen that sort of thing myself, and yes, it always seems dissonant... til you realise their studies are a form of validation.
Fascinating examples, and yes, I'd be interested in hearing more of 'em. Not the sort of thing an engineer would think of, no....
(I confess to having once upon a long time ago been a biochem major, for no reason other than I got hooked by the entry-level organic chem class!)
The Chem department at Montana State University (at the time considered one of the premier chem research depts. in the world -- we had one of the first gas chromatographs) was very different from your experience, at least when I was there in the mid-1970s. It was all about concepts and fundamentals and underlying theory and how that translates into Real Life. I can't remember EVER doing any rote memorization there. I do remember how the professors would bend over backwards to help any student who needed it, or who showed any genuine interest.
In fact, I drifted into a Biochem major because first-year Organic Chem was so much FUN ... I'd certainly had no intention of going that direction when I started college! (I'd started off in Chem Engineering, rather a different focus from pure Chemistry.)
I suppose it helped that we'd come into class and find things on the blackboard like Dr.Olsen's mystery compound of the day ... one was "HIOAg" :)
It really helps to understand the biochemistry underlying the body's processes (you can't truly understand nutrition without biochem), and the foundation of biochem is organic chem. The thought that physicians might exit school completely ignorant of the foundations of what makes our bodies tick... that's like a mechanic with no understanding of fuel. He can do most jobs same as anyone else, but will fail to find correct solutions for some fundamental problems simply for lack of that basic knowledge.
Oh, the venerable automobile example. Okay, if you insist.... Why is your car's engine "knocking"?? omighod, could be any of a dozen expensive problems!!! or could be simply that cheapo Mexican gas you bought last week.
From the Secretary of State's website, http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/Voting_Tech.asp
"Depending on where they live, Montana's paper ballots may be counted in two ways: hand count or with paper ballot optical scan tabulators. Either way ALL Montanans vote on a paper ballot."
Well, yeah... but after you've uttered that verbiage 10,000 times, you long for the good old days -- when it was just four little words!!
An AC says,
======
Securing the Canadian border has nothing to do with Canada being viewed as an enemy. If we go through great pains to make it hard to get into this country on a plane from Europe without us knowing exactly who you are, then they will start going to Canada where the restrictions may be a lot more lax. Then, drive across the border. It's actually showing a little bit of thought on the issue. We simply don't trust Canada to do too much to protect our interests, and that's a fair assumption. Net result is we can not trust people coming in from Canada because someone may be trying to sneak in that way. Not that it matters though, anyone wanting to come in this country bad
enough knows that the Mexicans are pro's at penetrating our border and that route will always be open.
(Note: I think pretty much all of our new security measures are useless. There's too many people coming and going and far to much border for us to be totally secure.)
=========
All true, and goes to my point: There are so many other routes into the country, why worry about someone taking the indirect route through Canada? They could just as easily fly into New York from London or Berlin, or fly into LAX from Tokyo or Beijing. They'll have perfectly legit IDs and since they won't have a big sign or a tattoo proclaiming them as "TERRORISTS", how are we to know? you can't database every potential perp worldwide!
Seems to me they've opted for a different identifier: [cue Jeff Foxworthy] "Do you travel internationally? Then you MIGHT be a terrorist!"
So why bother restricting entry to and from Canada? They're no worse at protecting our interests than we are ourselves, which is to agree -- it's all useless security theatre anyway.
I prefer this approach: I am not afraid of random "terrorism" which is so rare that I'm far more likely to drown in my own bathtub. And if you attempt to terrorize me, I will defend myself, with deadly force if need be. Only sheep need to be shepherded all the time.
An AC says, "It does not help us. We are becoming police states slowly. People are going to get a shocker wake up call one day when another 9-11 incident type deal happens and ( which was not even terrorist related as we know are supposed
to know it ) we will all have our little RFID chips so they think."
And that's a good point. Once we're all microchipped and monitored 24 hours a day, who are they going to blame for the next "terrorist incident"??
Geez, I know some people hold a grudge, but this is taking it a century or two further than is strictly necessary ;)
Oh, I see. So can we blame all those dreadful Europeans for making us hate Canada??
Yep, that makes just as much sense. :/
Quoth the above... It's getting to the point where I don't think "we need to stop this guy", instead it's "we need to help this guy".
This assumes, of course, that "this guy" is actually here in the first place, in numbers sufficient to accomplish more than small random disruptions. And that "this guy" is on our side.
Rather, I think we need to become "this guys" ourselves, in large enough numbers that the gov't regains its healthy fear of its citizens.
Trouble is, I don't see how that's possible without first getting to a point of about half the populace left with nothing to lose (seems to be the threshold point) ... AND the presence of leaders of Jeffersonian quality. That last is a critical factor; without it, a revolution (even one without violence) leaves the people in worse shape than before, and the gov't run by the new little tin gods instead of the stately old gods. This Is Not Progress.
When I first heard of the new Dept. of Homeland Security -- the name alone was enough to inform me that we'd reached the end of the Great American Freedom Experiment. :(
The Lincoln Park Pirates are alive and well :/
BTW I agree with your tagline!
Yeah, I remember that too. It was a point of pride between the U.S. and Canada that we were friends on that level. WTF has happened to us??
As to another reply "direct flights to Cuba" -- so what?? there are direct flights to/from China available from U.S. soil too.
Good points about the ROI. Which goes to prove that this isn't about solving car thefts at all, is it??
Besides, any self-respecting professional car thief would make negating the locator chip his first priority, after snagging the vehicle of choice. Or just ignore the chip and field-strip the car -- I once saw a demo of that; everything worth taking off the car was gone in less than TWO MINUTES, including the doors.
As I recall, this very scenario has happened a few times; it's probably documented on thenewspaper.com
The fact that the speed cited was vastly over the vehicle's capability is apparently irrelevant.
Maybe not. Those redlight cameras are not infallable. If you stop too fast, or the nose of your car just breaks the plane of the white line (which in some places is set too far back so without creeping up -- and getting a ticket -- you cannot see to make a legal right turn after stopping), those both get a ticket too. Occasionally they ticket the car NEXT to the actual offender. Once in a while they ticket an allowed right-turn-on-red. And numerous locations have been caught shortening yellow light duration to increase ticket counts (even tho doing so is a crime in California).
All good examples of how the successful surveillance state, nominally geared to catching ONLY lawbreakers, can make criminals out of law-abiding folks.
I saw a graphic a while back that illustrated your very point: Two generations ago, gradeschool-age kids' average normal range was 7-8 miles from home. One generation ago, it was one mile. Now it's less than 300 yards.
There was an article in the NYTimes a while back (can't find it offhand) about a mom who gave her 9 year old son $20 for subway money and let him work out how to get home for himself -- and how proud the kid was at learning how to manage the public transportation system without help. That's what we should be teaching our kids, how to sensibly fend for themselves. But what was the more-typical reaction? HORRORS! don't you know no 9 year old kid can go anywhere without being abducted? How dare you let your son learn how to get around the town he lives in?? NEGLECT! Call Child Protective Services NOW!
Used to be kids were turned loose in the morning and the only rule was "be back by supper". Now, even if they do go somewhere "out of range", the cellphone umbilicus is active and tracking 'em. How many times lately have you seen teens call mommy to help them make every decision??
Remember a discussion here last year about how under our current nanny state and nanny society, people are no longer *allowed* to truly grow up?
I think these are all related phenomena, and are reflected by government's increasing desire to track us all, as if we're children unable to do anything or go anywhere on our own. We track our kids 24 hours a day, and guess what, those kids will grow up to think it's okay if Big Brother tracks them 24 hours a day, too.
We're doing our kids and our country no service with this paranoia.
Also other laws vary accordingly ... frex when I lived in Montana you only needed to have a rear plate, but IF you only had a rear plate, you MUST park so the rear of your vehicle (and therefore your lic.plate) is visible -- no backing into parking spots.