The lameness of my analogies also nicely highlights the ridiculousness of applying location based laws to something that doesn't have 'location'; i.e. the web.
if I had to choose between no gambling and unregulated gambling, I'd likely choose the former.
Which is perfectly reasonable. The bans on online gambling sites effectively border on having a government agent prevent you from entering a casino in Morocco because your local laws prohibit gambling.
I'm perfectly fine with the US gov't preventing gambling companies from being located in the US. But the internet is like someone in Canada making a sign that we can see from the US. You can try to put up walls to block the sign, but all I have to do is drive down the road and I can see it again. It doesn't work.
But hey, freedom is like air, it's only important when you aren't getting any.
China is experiencing amazing growth; that's the part I mention where the lower class starts to accumulate wealth. The next part is when the government starts cracking down on this new found wealth.
Try to think about more than 'right now' sometime...
It expressly isn't meant to be 'bang-for-buck' competitive. Because it does things that the private sector does not. Like cover *everyone* - *no matter what*.
If we had privatized social security and then had the recession...what would you do about those people who lost the bulk of their savings? I'll be waiting intently for an answer to this...
Medicare and the VA are heads and tails more efficient than private medical insurance. Why? Because they don't have profits and salaries of executives running to $20 million or have to pay $2 billion fines for defrauding the government. Kinda hard for a government program to defraud itself.
"yes... I'd call this progression "stupid design" rather than evolution." I'd say calling it stupid isn't exactly a resounding endorsement.
I mean, space travel aside, wouldn't it be preferable to sell technology than pizza chains?
If 'pizza chains' were anything more than an example you'd have a point. It's an example nothing more but one that proves my point that raising your neighbors up, allows them to then buy your stuff.
See the thing about China is that once you give your working poor, something to actually value if taken away? Those working 'poor', now your middle class, tend to get upset and throw you out of power.
Poor, oppressed people generally don't revolt, or succeed at it. They are too busy trying to survive. Once they are middle class, like China is creating, forcing them to give up what they have gets dicey for the people in power.
The great firewall of china is a perfect example. They are desperate for the people to not find out the truth about many things. Except they can't stop the internet. As more people learn the truth about, say, Tiananmen Square, it's funny how people tend to decide those rulers aren't acceptable anymore. Bloody, and sometimes taking decades, freedom will win out. And then we don't have a China problem, but a partner in the world economy. Right now China is much as you say, a bully throwing its weight around because it isn't accountable to its own people.
As far as Mexico, is it perfect? no. Corruption is a problem and we should be doing what we can about it. Same thing as with China applies. Get the prosperity to the people, even through corruption, and pretty soon the people will throw out the corrupt. And again it may be bloody and take a while, but time and time again it works.
Understood, but I'm saying the reverse.
Are their any without basic services and infrastructure that are making scientific advancements? I posit those are very few and far between, hence services and infrastructure are generally required before you get continued scientific advancements. Doesn't guarantee you'll get advancements, but without the basics you can't get to the advanced stuff.
So what's your point? that we shouldn't get that 25%?
My point was those 3 dollars overseas are raising the standard of living over there so that in the future those people will have more money to buy our 'stuff'. Its called investment, and we're still making money in the process as you so noted.
yes lots of money comes in from over seas as a result of their activities but it ends up in a very small number of American hands
You mean like the Apple shareholders? Apple is a single example. They are building something (even if overseas) and selling it world wide. That money does get into the US economy and multiplies as it does.
My point is that good ideas still win out and I think we can produce good ideas that the rest of the world will want to pay for even at a premium. We're America, people still want to be like us, though perhaps you aren't the most gung-ho. The rest of the world still looks up to us, even after the last decade.
Yes Apple makes a lot of money for Apple. Who else would they pay for it? You know who buys iPhones? the *entire* world. That money comes back to us too. It pays taxes (or rather it *should* - a whole different argument). It pays salaries for 50k people, who spend it and it goes into *our* economy.
Furthermore, goods and products next door mean nothing if Japan and Europe have the best ones
I'm just saying that providing assistance in whatever form to the rest of the world has benefits. You still have to be able to compete. And yes that requires investment at home too.
I'm saying that infrastructure and basic services are the building blocks to societies advancing. When people aren't spending time trying to get clean water and power and such things, they are now more able to focus on advancement rather than just subsistence.
Ideas are cheap? Sure they are. 'Good' ideas however, and the ability to implement them are decided not cheap or common. If we can't come up with ideas, well then perhaps the article is right, we are in decline. I prefer to believe we have plenty of talented people who will come up with the 'next big thing' that we can sell to the world.
Apple tends to be good at this and they are an American company. Sure the manufacture and such is done overseas, but I'd say they bring in a fair amount of money to the US wouldn't you?
Excuse me? Can you please repeat? I didn't quite get the idea of "our goods". What goods? Fast pizza delivery?
Kinda hard to send pizza to India. But it would be something a franchise could do. That brings money into the US. Our 'goods' are whatever we can produce - Music, art, software, games, Levi's blue jeans, Coca-Cola. Isolationism is the worst thing we could do.
Well, I'd be happy to hear how US helped Mexico and Canada.
Well for starters if Mexico has a thriving economy, we don't have the immigration problem. That sounds like something you would want no? Compare Canada and Mexico. Which is the better trading partner right now? And which is the more 'modern' economy? Lift up Mexico and now you have 2 big trading partners looking to consume your goods. How is that bad?
I did say there might be short term losses associated with it and I don't deny that. But long term this is investment in future demand for our goods and services.
I think it also comes from the rest of the world simply achieving many of the same gains we already did. When the rest of the world has the same tools and conditions, invariably they will start to come to par with us. From our perspective maybe it looks like we're losing our ability, but perhaps its just that other nations are just catching up rather than completely overtaking us.
And unlike many other historical world power, we actively encourage people to come here, learn, and go back home and create. There are those that argue that's bad for us. In the short term, perhaps it is, but as more of the world achieves our standard of living, there are more consumers for our goods as well. Long term, raising up your neighbors only helps you.
Actually no it wouldn't. Because oil/liquid distributes heat much more efficiently than air, when the pumps or fans aren't running the system is left with only the natural properties of the medium it is in for cooling.
Air is bad, hence why you have directional fans in cases to force air onto the CPU and other chips within the cases.
Liquids are great heat conductors so the heat will be pulled away from the components much faster. So the heat load is distributed faster, keeping the individual components (which is what 'fails') cooler than if they were left in open air.
To be fair, the HVAC failure is not the same as the pump failure. Pumps are more akin to the fans inside the cases since they are moving stuff through cases. In the end though, oil/liquid is much better for heat distribution and when left to fend for themselves, components will survive longer in uncooled non-moving oil than even moving but non-cooled air.
Slashdot Mirror
Call me back when the models explain the Maunder minimum.
What if by then it's too late to fix the catastrophic damage to our environment? Waiting until you have all the answers isn't always the best idea...
The lameness of my analogies also nicely highlights the ridiculousness of applying location based laws to something that doesn't have 'location'; i.e. the web.
if I had to choose between no gambling and unregulated gambling, I'd likely choose the former.
Which is perfectly reasonable. The bans on online gambling sites effectively border on having a government agent prevent you from entering a casino in Morocco because your local laws prohibit gambling.
I'm perfectly fine with the US gov't preventing gambling companies from being located in the US. But the internet is like someone in Canada making a sign that we can see from the US. You can try to put up walls to block the sign, but all I have to do is drive down the road and I can see it again. It doesn't work.
But hey, freedom is like air, it's only important when you aren't getting any.
China is experiencing amazing growth; that's the part I mention where the lower class starts to accumulate wealth. The next part is when the government starts cracking down on this new found wealth.
Try to think about more than 'right now' sometime...
It expressly isn't meant to be 'bang-for-buck' competitive. Because it does things that the private sector does not. Like cover *everyone* - *no matter what*.
If we had privatized social security and then had the recession...what would you do about those people who lost the bulk of their savings? I'll be waiting intently for an answer to this...
Medicare and the VA are heads and tails more efficient than private medical insurance. Why? Because they don't have profits and salaries of executives running to $20 million or have to pay $2 billion fines for defrauding the government. Kinda hard for a government program to defraud itself.
So keep them downtrodden and poor you say? how downright 'neighborly' of you
And... where did I say that?
"yes... I'd call this progression "stupid design" rather than evolution." I'd say calling it stupid isn't exactly a resounding endorsement.
I mean, space travel aside, wouldn't it be preferable to sell technology than pizza chains?
If 'pizza chains' were anything more than an example you'd have a point. It's an example nothing more but one that proves my point that raising your neighbors up, allows them to then buy your stuff.
See the thing about China is that once you give your working poor, something to actually value if taken away? Those working 'poor', now your middle class, tend to get upset and throw you out of power.
Poor, oppressed people generally don't revolt, or succeed at it. They are too busy trying to survive. Once they are middle class, like China is creating, forcing them to give up what they have gets dicey for the people in power.
The great firewall of china is a perfect example. They are desperate for the people to not find out the truth about many things. Except they can't stop the internet. As more people learn the truth about, say, Tiananmen Square, it's funny how people tend to decide those rulers aren't acceptable anymore. Bloody, and sometimes taking decades, freedom will win out. And then we don't have a China problem, but a partner in the world economy. Right now China is much as you say, a bully throwing its weight around because it isn't accountable to its own people.
As far as Mexico, is it perfect? no. Corruption is a problem and we should be doing what we can about it. Same thing as with China applies. Get the prosperity to the people, even through corruption, and pretty soon the people will throw out the corrupt. And again it may be bloody and take a while, but time and time again it works.
Understood, but I'm saying the reverse. Are their any without basic services and infrastructure that are making scientific advancements? I posit those are very few and far between, hence services and infrastructure are generally required before you get continued scientific advancements. Doesn't guarantee you'll get advancements, but without the basics you can't get to the advanced stuff.
Yep and destroying the social safety nets we've created are a *great* way to head for 3rd world status.
So what's your point? that we shouldn't get that 25%?
My point was those 3 dollars overseas are raising the standard of living over there so that in the future those people will have more money to buy our 'stuff'. Its called investment, and we're still making money in the process as you so noted.
yes lots of money comes in from over seas as a result of their activities but it ends up in a very small number of American hands
You mean like the Apple shareholders? Apple is a single example. They are building something (even if overseas) and selling it world wide. That money does get into the US economy and multiplies as it does.
My point is that good ideas still win out and I think we can produce good ideas that the rest of the world will want to pay for even at a premium. We're America, people still want to be like us, though perhaps you aren't the most gung-ho. The rest of the world still looks up to us, even after the last decade.
Yes Apple makes a lot of money for Apple. Who else would they pay for it? You know who buys iPhones? the *entire* world. That money comes back to us too. It pays taxes (or rather it *should* - a whole different argument). It pays salaries for 50k people, who spend it and it goes into *our* economy.
Are you saying 50k jobs should go away?
How is enabling American businesses to do business overseas a bad thing?
I posit there's a lot more money is basic business services than there is in space travel at the moment and for the foreseeable future.
Agree completely. I'm just saying that investment abroad also pays dividends, never said we shouldn't be investing at home as well.
Furthermore, goods and products next door mean nothing if Japan and Europe have the best ones
I'm just saying that providing assistance in whatever form to the rest of the world has benefits. You still have to be able to compete. And yes that requires investment at home too.
I'm saying that infrastructure and basic services are the building blocks to societies advancing. When people aren't spending time trying to get clean water and power and such things, they are now more able to focus on advancement rather than just subsistence.
Probably should have said health 'care'. Our health care system has its flaws, but it is still pretty good.
Ideas are cheap? Sure they are. 'Good' ideas however, and the ability to implement them are decided not cheap or common. If we can't come up with ideas, well then perhaps the article is right, we are in decline. I prefer to believe we have plenty of talented people who will come up with the 'next big thing' that we can sell to the world.
Apple tends to be good at this and they are an American company. Sure the manufacture and such is done overseas, but I'd say they bring in a fair amount of money to the US wouldn't you?
Reliable health insurance, clean water, trash pickup, electrical service. The things we take for granted that make our economy actually work.
Excuse me? Can you please repeat? I didn't quite get the idea of "our goods". What goods? Fast pizza delivery?
Kinda hard to send pizza to India. But it would be something a franchise could do. That brings money into the US. Our 'goods' are whatever we can produce - Music, art, software, games, Levi's blue jeans, Coca-Cola. Isolationism is the worst thing we could do.
Well, I'd be happy to hear how US helped Mexico and Canada.
Well for starters if Mexico has a thriving economy, we don't have the immigration problem. That sounds like something you would want no? Compare Canada and Mexico. Which is the better trading partner right now? And which is the more 'modern' economy? Lift up Mexico and now you have 2 big trading partners looking to consume your goods. How is that bad?
I did say there might be short term losses associated with it and I don't deny that. But long term this is investment in future demand for our goods and services.
I think it also comes from the rest of the world simply achieving many of the same gains we already did. When the rest of the world has the same tools and conditions, invariably they will start to come to par with us. From our perspective maybe it looks like we're losing our ability, but perhaps its just that other nations are just catching up rather than completely overtaking us.
And unlike many other historical world power, we actively encourage people to come here, learn, and go back home and create. There are those that argue that's bad for us. In the short term, perhaps it is, but as more of the world achieves our standard of living, there are more consumers for our goods as well. Long term, raising up your neighbors only helps you.
No I'm saying it will take significantly longer to get that hot than if you had the same failure of an HVAC system.
If you experience such an outage in a data center, time is one thing you definitely want a good amount of.
Actually no it wouldn't. Because oil/liquid distributes heat much more efficiently than air, when the pumps or fans aren't running the system is left with only the natural properties of the medium it is in for cooling.
Air is bad, hence why you have directional fans in cases to force air onto the CPU and other chips within the cases.
Liquids are great heat conductors so the heat will be pulled away from the components much faster. So the heat load is distributed faster, keeping the individual components (which is what 'fails') cooler than if they were left in open air.
To be fair, the HVAC failure is not the same as the pump failure. Pumps are more akin to the fans inside the cases since they are moving stuff through cases. In the end though, oil/liquid is much better for heat distribution and when left to fend for themselves, components will survive longer in uncooled non-moving oil than even moving but non-cooled air.
Crap, now you want to argue Tastes Great vs Less Filling?
;-)
talk about a holy war...