I studied the Ford Pinto case in depth for an Engineering Ethics class. The irony of Ford's cost-benefit analysis was that it ultimately turned out to be flawed - the jury awards were much higher than "the average case", because they forgot that a possible lawsuit WOULDN'T BE an "average case". If they had taken into account what their actual damages would be, they would have fixed the design problems, because it would have been cheaper. (And Lee Iaccoca is a scumbag).
There's also a type of Heisenberg principle when it comes to theoretical cost benefit analyses and actual jury cases - the mere fact that a company looks at the value of human life when making decisions affects how people view those decisions. So using "average" numbers in the calculations is invalid, because the existence of those calculations distinguishes the situation and defines it as outside "normal" behavior.
This discussion started about "why" the US shot down the satellite. If we don't factor in that HUMANS make those decisions, then the analysis is flawed, on BOTH sides. Why is it so hard to believe that the decision was made for the reasons stated despite contrary mathematical analysis? The common meme here is that Bush is a borderline retard and the government is full of hacks that ignore mathematical and scientific analysis. But now when there is evidence that they maybe got the math wrong, all of a sudden they are Machiavellian manipulators of the truth. It's funny how the mental capabilities of our leaders vary in direct proportion to the needs of the opposition.
"30% shows me there is obviously some form of survival benefit to this for it to be so high."
Not really. When humans developed the trait of compassion (i.e. caring for those who would not otherwise survive), combined witgh tool using (altering the environment to make survival easier), it allowed a whole slew of otherwise "survival-negative" traits to continue and flourish.
Take nearsightedness. I am very myopic, and I would have been dead at an early age if we were still hanging out on the savanna. But because my family cared for me enough not to let me go through life blind, and because someone over a thousand years ago discovered that glass could bend light, I began wearing glasses and could function relatively well. And someone else invented contact lenses, so now I appear as if I don't have any genetic defect at all, making my odds of reproduction higher. So now I get to pass on my genetic defects with minimal evolutionary costs.
Just because a genetic trait is widespread doesn't mean it is an evolutionary advantage.
Finally - real math. But you are still starting from the wrong premises.
When the Feds calculate $$/life, it is in a regulatory environment. They are not calculating the cost that the Government has to pay per life saved, but rather the cost that the government imposes on others to pay. So, when the EPA passed tighter diesel emissions standards, it was calculating the cost to everyone else - engine manufacturers, refiners, trucking companies. It has nothing to do with direct costs that the Government pays.
Second, the EPA estimates view "life" in a funny way. Let's go back to the diesel emissions standards. The main problem with particulates - the main emission the EPA regulated - is that is exacerbates problems with pre-existing conditions. So, the math said it would *statistically* shorten the life of people with asthma or other lung ailments, or the elderly. So, if someone dies of emphysema at 77 instead of 78, that counts as a life lost due to particulates.. Since one could argue that hydrazine exposure might shorten the lives of those exposed, you would need to use the 1% number (remember, we are using EPA logic here).
Third, the EPA and other Government numbers are based on a theoretical model where they take surveys that measure a person's willingness to risk (I heard the same NPR story). But it is not a "real" number, in that it is unlikely that number would be accepted on the market as a value for an ACTUAL life. If the government were to have let the satellite fall, and it killed someone, the jury award would have been FAR in excess of what was spent to shoot it down.
From the link about why the satellite was no threat:
"The hydrazine tank is a 1-meter sphere containing about 400 liters of hydrazine. The stated hazard area is about 2 hectares, something like 1/10,000,000,000 of the area under the orbit," he adds. The potential for actual harm in unbelievably small. Which means the hydrazine rationale just doesn't hold up, literally not within orders of magnitude."
That's it for any analysis - the rest of the article was devoted to analyzing the political and military reasons why the explanation was bogus. And most of the analysis seemed to be delivered with substantial chips of the speakers shoulders. As for the numbers, while they may be *statistically* insignificant, that is pretty irrelevant next to the political consequences to a military that says "Yeah, we could have shot it down, but the odds were so small it wasn't worth the money. Our bad."
Then the "analysis" with the post - sounds good, until you get to the end: "Posted anonymously". Sorry, but that's a fail right there. He could be a 13year old in his Mom's basement, or Feynman blogging from the grave, but without attribution I just can't take it seriously.
It sounds like you are doing customer service work at home, which is exactly what my wife does. So here's a hint regarding watching or listening to other media during your scheduled work hours - don't. First, your call volume is likely to be such that, unless you can comprehend media in 5 second increments, the experience is likely to be unsatisfying. Second, assuming you do run into some slack time, changing over from media to active customer service can be mentally jarring, and you are likely to fumble through your first few seconds of the call while you reorient yourself. My wife sticks to diversions on the computer - [alt-tab] is like a mental switch for her, and she doesn't get into anything too in depth.
As for hardware, buy the best CONVENTIONAL setup you can afford. A decent wireless handset and good headset isn't really that expensive, and it is equipment you are relying on to make your money - your customers (and employer) aren't going to take "hold on while I fix my software config" as an excuse. You emphasized that VOIP is NOT an option - my guess is that's an employer mandate? the reason for that is that they do not want their users to get to cute with the fancy getups.
There's a reason it's called PLAIN Old Telephone Service - running it through hardware and software so you can fill time with entertainment sort of defeats the purpose, does it not?
"However, dont get them wrong: its completely harmless and they dont go publizicing them all over."
Riiight. It harms ME. It is an embarrassment to ME. The thought of them popping photos of ME up on their screen and laughing/criticising/masturbating while viewing those photos harms ME.
The Japanese social taboo against people looking at their own houses is because the thought of someone else doing that harms them, not harms society or harms culture - INDIVIDUALS are harmed by invasion of privacy. The fact that, while not in their own country they seem to care not one whit about other's privacy speaks volumes about their sense of cultural superiority. Likewise, your apology of their actions says a great deal about how little you value your own dignity.
"why would the most popular pornography be all about humiliation, violence, and torture?"
Really? Source? I mean a real academic one, not "I saw some guy choking a girl on the internets, so it must be popular."
Yes, there is violent porn, and some people like it - I find it revolting. So I guess I'm abnormal, according to your world view.
Oh, yeah - where does gay porn fit into your facile analysis? Or porn where the female is dominant? I'm sure that woman wearing the 10" strapon stuck in some guy's orifice is feeling really "punished".
"Personally, I'd rather just see biodegradable "plastic" bags than anything else. My wife and I reuse all shopping bags as trash bags, and although paper is a nice idea and all, it is basically useless for that or any other bag purpose, because it's not waterproof."
- Bag for holding other paper for recycling - Oven bag for your turkey - Making kites out of the Cub Scout handbook
Of course, I need to figure out what to do with the other 97 bags I have...
This is/. - Debate doesn't happen here. If it did, you would have taken the time to discover what they are talking about. Since you did not, you are by definition ignorant on the topic. Since, you have chosen to ignore those who have provided you on the correct definition of a gravity tractor and continued to hold to your misguided definition, you are a blowhard.
It stopped being a debate when you refused to acknowledge your incorrect assumptions. After that, it's an open field. And really, how hard is it to say "Nevermind; should have RTFA'd"?
"I'm thinking dinosaur killer when I say punched through to the mantle because that is what that one did. It rang the planet like a bell. That would very likely kills us as a species."
Well, one good thing about that is it would take care of the "ignorant blowhards on the Internet problem". Might even be worth it.
"We can't use fantastic technology like this because we can't. We don't know how. We have theories but that is all they are. We have nukes and rockets, and that is it."
Do you have any idea what a "gravity tug" or "gravity tractor" is? I have the primary component of one in my back yard - a big fuckin' rock. Use the mass of the rock to change the course of the larger mass of the asteroid. Newtons law care of high school physics.
As for "we don't know how" and "theories", guess what? We've never blown up an asteroid using nukes either. It's ALL theory. Except for the fact that we know EXACTLY how gravity affects objects - we've been watching it's effects for thousands of years, probably hundreds of thousands.
You bare the guy who sits in teh back of the movie yelling "That's impossible - it just doesn't work that way!" aren't you?
"Not completely but I know enough to know the difference between a rifle slug and a light scattering of small buckshot from a distance."
More like "a rifle slug and a full load of 000 buck at 10'" Because the nuclear explosions you propose will not blow an asteroid into such small bits and scatter them so widely that most will miss.
Congratulations! You have discovered the secret of Instant +5 Insightful here in our happy community:
"[Catholic Church|US Government] sucks and [Catholics|US Citizens] are [ignorant|corrupt]." Followed by "I'm sure [Jesus|the Constitution] is great, but no one really does what they want."
Instant gratification and celebrity! I'd patent it, but there's WAY too much prior art.
See, real professionals WILL work past midnight when the job really needs to be done - not because the Boss said so, but because when they commit to do something, they do what it takes.
All those bastards took an oath of office, swearing in front of God and man that they would do their job. So they need to do it, if it takes working through the summer.
"Most congressmen go to their home districts and then spend all their time raising money to better get themselves reelected and keep accumulating power."
"It's unbelievable how pathetic our national politics has become. This embarrassment is why we need the grownups back in charge. And every media outlet that fails to make clear why the stunt is pathetic is part of the problem. Sadly, I include Slashdot in this."
WHAT grownups? The Democrats?
You are leaving something out of your analysis: Speaker Pelosi has not allowed a vote to be held on that amendment because it will PASS - a number of Democrats want it to. So, instead of letting the House vote and the majority get it's way (note, not Majority), she is taking her gavel and going home.
She thinks offshore drilling is bad. Fine - she can vote against it. But most of her colleagues think it's a good idea. So instead of treating them like colleagues, she is treating them like subjects, or flunkies.
Oh, btw - the Democrats have had control of the house for most of the history of this country, and for an overwhelming preponderance of years in the last century, and they have ALWAYS treated the House, and to a lesser extent the Senate, as their private playground. The only difference is the development of Cspan and the 24 hour news channels - now all the shenanigans are on film, so the politicians are acting different than they did in the past. It's kind of like acting for the stage vs. film - loud speech, broad gestures, soliloquy's.
Whoever these "grownups" are that you refer to, they are not to be found in politics today.
I'll only bother demolishing 1 of your "arguments" (for lack of a better term). You say that: "He hated MLK and campaigned against the civil rights movement."
From Wikipedia:
"McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he nearly lost his life in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Later that year while on a bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese. He was held from 1967 to 1973,"
From 54-58, he was in the Naval Academy, where the midshipmen don't have time to jerk off, much less "campaign". 58-67, he was flying planes from aircraft carriers - not exactly a hotbed of political reactionaries. And then from 67-73, he was in a POW camp. When and how, exactly, did he "campaign" against MLK? Got any references? I assume the rest of your screed is similarly well researched.
Yes, but an "accidental" contamination is a good cover for an intentional removal of samples to weaponize elsewhere. So they find spores outside of containment in your lab? "Oh, I had an accidental release a month ago - I got it right away with bleach, so I didn't botehr reporting it. Must have missed some."
The president doesn't have the power to run the administration however he sees fit.
The president doesn't even have the power to have an administration without Congress.
Constitutionally, it's just him and the VP, standing around outside somewhere. He does have the constitutional power to sign bills into law, so legally he probably demand, in the courts, that Congress budget him a pen or other writing utensil. But that's it.
Does none of these 'Bush has the right to run the executive how he sees fit' people ever read the constitution? Congress buys everything. Congress creates every single cabinet position, and every single executive agency. (And the entire military, while we're at it.)
Without Congress creating things for him to run, the president is essentially just some guy with a veto pen."
Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Congress doesn't "buy" anything - they appropriate the money, the President spends it. They may "create" positions and agencies, but the President fills the positions - if the President fails to nomimate someone, the position stands empty, and there isn't jack shit Congress can do about it. And they fund the military, but they are constitutionally precluded from any command role - the Joint Chiefs report (in the military sense) to the President, not Congress.
Oh, yeah - there's that third branch, the Judicial. Congress didn't "create" any of it. And they get to tell Congress, and the President, "No".
You are thinking of a Parliamentary system, where there is only a legislature and the Executive derives it's power solely from them. The US system is definitely NOT that - whether it is superior or not can be debated, but equating the President of the US to a Prime Minister of another country with a parliamentary system is just incorrect.
Slashdot Mirror
I studied the Ford Pinto case in depth for an Engineering Ethics class. The irony of Ford's cost-benefit analysis was that it ultimately turned out to be flawed - the jury awards were much higher than "the average case", because they forgot that a possible lawsuit WOULDN'T BE an "average case". If they had taken into account what their actual damages would be, they would have fixed the design problems, because it would have been cheaper. (And Lee Iaccoca is a scumbag).
There's also a type of Heisenberg principle when it comes to theoretical cost benefit analyses and actual jury cases - the mere fact that a company looks at the value of human life when making decisions affects how people view those decisions. So using "average" numbers in the calculations is invalid, because the existence of those calculations distinguishes the situation and defines it as outside "normal" behavior.
This discussion started about "why" the US shot down the satellite. If we don't factor in that HUMANS make those decisions, then the analysis is flawed, on BOTH sides. Why is it so hard to believe that the decision was made for the reasons stated despite contrary mathematical analysis? The common meme here is that Bush is a borderline retard and the government is full of hacks that ignore mathematical and scientific analysis. But now when there is evidence that they maybe got the math wrong, all of a sudden they are Machiavellian manipulators of the truth. It's funny how the mental capabilities of our leaders vary in direct proportion to the needs of the opposition.
"30% shows me there is obviously some form of survival benefit to this for it to be so high."
Not really. When humans developed the trait of compassion (i.e. caring for those who would not otherwise survive), combined witgh tool using (altering the environment to make survival easier), it allowed a whole slew of otherwise "survival-negative" traits to continue and flourish.
Take nearsightedness. I am very myopic, and I would have been dead at an early age if we were still hanging out on the savanna. But because my family cared for me enough not to let me go through life blind, and because someone over a thousand years ago discovered that glass could bend light, I began wearing glasses and could function relatively well. And someone else invented contact lenses, so now I appear as if I don't have any genetic defect at all, making my odds of reproduction higher. So now I get to pass on my genetic defects with minimal evolutionary costs.
Just because a genetic trait is widespread doesn't mean it is an evolutionary advantage.
Finally - real math. But you are still starting from the wrong premises.
When the Feds calculate $$/life, it is in a regulatory environment. They are not calculating the cost that the Government has to pay per life saved, but rather the cost that the government imposes on others to pay. So, when the EPA passed tighter diesel emissions standards, it was calculating the cost to everyone else - engine manufacturers, refiners, trucking companies. It has nothing to do with direct costs that the Government pays.
Second, the EPA estimates view "life" in a funny way. Let's go back to the diesel emissions standards. The main problem with particulates - the main emission the EPA regulated - is that is exacerbates problems with pre-existing conditions. So, the math said it would *statistically* shorten the life of people with asthma or other lung ailments, or the elderly. So, if someone dies of emphysema at 77 instead of 78, that counts as a life lost due to particulates.. Since one could argue that hydrazine exposure might shorten the lives of those exposed, you would need to use the 1% number (remember, we are using EPA logic here).
Third, the EPA and other Government numbers are based on a theoretical model where they take surveys that measure a person's willingness to risk (I heard the same NPR story). But it is not a "real" number, in that it is unlikely that number would be accepted on the market as a value for an ACTUAL life. If the government were to have let the satellite fall, and it killed someone, the jury award would have been FAR in excess of what was spent to shoot it down.
Well, that settles it then - Thak GOD there's a competent linguist to explain international relations and politico military doctrine.
BTW, I'm a trained engineer, and in my expert opinion you have a vaginal yeast infection. Please read my blog.
"I wouldn't bet surprised if in the next Olympics they get some other "enhancements" to look better in bathing suits. "
Yeah, like maybe surgery to shave down that one swimmer's Adam's apple. Yeesh - I could smell the testosterone through the screen.
And yes, it was the *women's* swimming event.
From the link about why the satellite was no threat:
"The hydrazine tank is a 1-meter sphere containing about 400 liters of hydrazine. The stated hazard area is about 2 hectares, something like 1/10,000,000,000 of the area under the orbit," he adds. The potential for actual harm in unbelievably small. Which means the hydrazine rationale just doesn't hold up, literally not within orders of magnitude."
That's it for any analysis - the rest of the article was devoted to analyzing the political and military reasons why the explanation was bogus. And most of the analysis seemed to be delivered with substantial chips of the speakers shoulders. As for the numbers, while they may be *statistically* insignificant, that is pretty irrelevant next to the political consequences to a military that says "Yeah, we could have shot it down, but the odds were so small it wasn't worth the money. Our bad."
Then the "analysis" with the post - sounds good, until you get to the end: "Posted anonymously". Sorry, but that's a fail right there. He could be a 13year old in his Mom's basement, or Feynman blogging from the grave, but without attribution I just can't take it seriously.
It sounds like you are doing customer service work at home, which is exactly what my wife does. So here's a hint regarding watching or listening to other media during your scheduled work hours - don't. First, your call volume is likely to be such that, unless you can comprehend media in 5 second increments, the experience is likely to be unsatisfying. Second, assuming you do run into some slack time, changing over from media to active customer service can be mentally jarring, and you are likely to fumble through your first few seconds of the call while you reorient yourself. My wife sticks to diversions on the computer - [alt-tab] is like a mental switch for her, and she doesn't get into anything too in depth.
As for hardware, buy the best CONVENTIONAL setup you can afford. A decent wireless handset and good headset isn't really that expensive, and it is equipment you are relying on to make your money - your customers (and employer) aren't going to take "hold on while I fix my software config" as an excuse. You emphasized that VOIP is NOT an option - my guess is that's an employer mandate? the reason for that is that they do not want their users to get to cute with the fancy getups.
There's a reason it's called PLAIN Old Telephone Service - running it through hardware and software so you can fill time with entertainment sort of defeats the purpose, does it not?
"However, dont get them wrong: its completely harmless and they dont go publizicing them all over."
Riiight. It harms ME. It is an embarrassment to ME. The thought of them popping photos of ME up on their screen and laughing/criticising/masturbating while viewing those photos harms ME.
The Japanese social taboo against people looking at their own houses is because the thought of someone else doing that harms them, not harms society or harms culture - INDIVIDUALS are harmed by invasion of privacy. The fact that, while not in their own country they seem to care not one whit about other's privacy speaks volumes about their sense of cultural superiority. Likewise, your apology of their actions says a great deal about how little you value your own dignity.
Sigh...apparently the Spaceballs reference was too subtle.
"why would the most popular pornography be all about humiliation, violence, and torture?"
Really? Source? I mean a real academic one, not "I saw some guy choking a girl on the internets, so it must be popular."
Yes, there is violent porn, and some people like it - I find it revolting. So I guess I'm abnormal, according to your world view.
Oh, yeah - where does gay porn fit into your facile analysis? Or porn where the female is dominant? I'm sure that woman wearing the 10" strapon stuck in some guy's orifice is feeling really "punished".
Maybe the world isn't so black and white?
"Does this count as being a private dick?"
No, but he's definitely a Major Asshole.
"Personally, I'd rather just see biodegradable "plastic" bags than anything else. My wife and I reuse all shopping bags as trash bags, and although paper is a nice idea and all, it is basically useless for that or any other bag purpose, because it's not waterproof."
- Bag for holding other paper for recycling
- Oven bag for your turkey
- Making kites out of the Cub Scout handbook
Of course, I need to figure out what to do with the other 97 bags I have...
This is /. - Debate doesn't happen here. If it did, you would have taken the time to discover what they are talking about. Since you did not, you are by definition ignorant on the topic. Since, you have chosen to ignore those who have provided you on the correct definition of a gravity tractor and continued to hold to your misguided definition, you are a blowhard.
It stopped being a debate when you refused to acknowledge your incorrect assumptions. After that, it's an open field. And really, how hard is it to say "Nevermind; should have RTFA'd"?
"I'm thinking dinosaur killer when I say punched through to the mantle because that is what that one did. It rang the planet like a bell. That would very likely kills us as a species."
Well, one good thing about that is it would take care of the "ignorant blowhards on the Internet problem". Might even be worth it.
"We can't use fantastic technology like this because we can't. We don't know how. We have theories but that is all they are. We have nukes and rockets, and that is it."
Do you have any idea what a "gravity tug" or "gravity tractor" is? I have the primary component of one in my back yard - a big fuckin' rock. Use the mass of the rock to change the course of the larger mass of the asteroid. Newtons law care of high school physics.
As for "we don't know how" and "theories", guess what? We've never blown up an asteroid using nukes either. It's ALL theory. Except for the fact that we know EXACTLY how gravity affects objects - we've been watching it's effects for thousands of years, probably hundreds of thousands.
You bare the guy who sits in teh back of the movie yelling "That's impossible - it just doesn't work that way!" aren't you?
"Not completely but I know enough to know the difference between a rifle slug and a light scattering of small buckshot from a distance."
More like "a rifle slug and a full load of 000 buck at 10'" Because the nuclear explosions you propose will not blow an asteroid into such small bits and scatter them so widely that most will miss.
Congratulations! You have discovered the secret of Instant +5 Insightful here in our happy community:
"[Catholic Church|US Government] sucks and [Catholics|US Citizens] are [ignorant|corrupt]." Followed by "I'm sure [Jesus|the Constitution] is great, but no one really does what they want."
Instant gratification and celebrity! I'd patent it, but there's WAY too much prior art.
See, real professionals WILL work past midnight when the job really needs to be done - not because the Boss said so, but because when they commit to do something, they do what it takes.
All those bastards took an oath of office, swearing in front of God and man that they would do their job. So they need to do it, if it takes working through the summer.
"Both parties need to f***ing grow up."
Sorry, but I have taking that seriously from someone who uses asterisks in a swear word so that they can be "civil" but yet display their outrage.
It's "Fucking". Swearing may be mature or immature, but pretending to swear while feigning innocence is truly grade school.
"Most congressmen go to their home districts and then spend all their time raising money to better get themselves reelected and keep accumulating power."
Fixed that for ya'
"It's unbelievable how pathetic our national politics has become. This embarrassment is why we need the grownups back in charge. And every media outlet that fails to make clear why the stunt is pathetic is part of the problem. Sadly, I include Slashdot in this."
WHAT grownups? The Democrats?
You are leaving something out of your analysis: Speaker Pelosi has not allowed a vote to be held on that amendment because it will PASS - a number of Democrats want it to. So, instead of letting the House vote and the majority get it's way (note, not Majority), she is taking her gavel and going home.
She thinks offshore drilling is bad. Fine - she can vote against it. But most of her colleagues think it's a good idea. So instead of treating them like colleagues, she is treating them like subjects, or flunkies.
Oh, btw - the Democrats have had control of the house for most of the history of this country, and for an overwhelming preponderance of years in the last century, and they have ALWAYS treated the House, and to a lesser extent the Senate, as their private playground. The only difference is the development of Cspan and the 24 hour news channels - now all the shenanigans are on film, so the politicians are acting different than they did in the past. It's kind of like acting for the stage vs. film - loud speech, broad gestures, soliloquy's.
Whoever these "grownups" are that you refer to, they are not to be found in politics today.
Yeah, yeah, Nancy: Congress's historically low approval rating is ALL the President's and the Republicans' fault.
I'll only bother demolishing 1 of your "arguments" (for lack of a better term). You say that: "He hated MLK and campaigned against the civil rights movement."
From Wikipedia:
"McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and became a naval aviator, flying ground-attack aircraft from aircraft carriers. During the Vietnam War, he nearly lost his life in the 1967 USS Forrestal fire. Later that year while on a bombing mission over North Vietnam, he was shot down, badly injured, and captured as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese. He was held from 1967 to 1973,"
From 54-58, he was in the Naval Academy, where the midshipmen don't have time to jerk off, much less "campaign". 58-67, he was flying planes from aircraft carriers - not exactly a hotbed of political reactionaries. And then from 67-73, he was in a POW camp. When and how, exactly, did he "campaign" against MLK? Got any references? I assume the rest of your screed is similarly well researched.
Yes, but an "accidental" contamination is a good cover for an intentional removal of samples to weaponize elsewhere. So they find spores outside of containment in your lab? "Oh, I had an accidental release a month ago - I got it right away with bleach, so I didn't botehr reporting it. Must have missed some."
"
The president doesn't have the power to run the administration however he sees fit.
The president doesn't even have the power to have an administration without Congress.
Constitutionally, it's just him and the VP, standing around outside somewhere. He does have the constitutional power to sign bills into law, so legally he probably demand, in the courts, that Congress budget him a pen or other writing utensil. But that's it.
Does none of these 'Bush has the right to run the executive how he sees fit' people ever read the constitution? Congress buys everything. Congress creates every single cabinet position, and every single executive agency. (And the entire military, while we're at it.)
Without Congress creating things for him to run, the president is essentially just some guy with a veto pen."
Have you ever actually READ the Constitution? Congress doesn't "buy" anything - they appropriate the money, the President spends it. They may "create" positions and agencies, but the President fills the positions - if the President fails to nomimate someone, the position stands empty, and there isn't jack shit Congress can do about it. And they fund the military, but they are constitutionally precluded from any command role - the Joint Chiefs report (in the military sense) to the President, not Congress.
Oh, yeah - there's that third branch, the Judicial. Congress didn't "create" any of it. And they get to tell Congress, and the President, "No".
You are thinking of a Parliamentary system, where there is only a legislature and the Executive derives it's power solely from them. The US system is definitely NOT that - whether it is superior or not can be debated, but equating the President of the US to a Prime Minister of another country with a parliamentary system is just incorrect.