Yes. The Catholic creed (Latin from I Believe) starts "We believe in One God" and is said at ever Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation service. Unfortunately, as you imply, plenty of people don't seem to understand what that belief implies.
As for the GP post, Dawkins acts more like an atheist fundamentalist, who likes to use evolution as his preferred weapon, than a scientist who is defending himself from misguided Fundamentalist Creationists. There was a pretty revealing cover story about him in Discover Magazine in 2005, and he chooses to try to destroy Christian evolutionists over religion instead of siding with them on evolution.
Actually, I think the Democrats in Congress voted with the Republicans 89-11 to prevent the FCC from re-instating the Fairness Doctrine. However, they're planning on forcing radio stations toward local minority ownership (read 'Democrat supporters'). Once they've forced the radios to sell to Democrat friendly owners, the decision to cut Limbaugh and Hannity became a 'business decision' instead of government censorship.
What I'd like to see (but never will): Every year a copyrighted work has been out, the copyright holder should have to pay 1% of lifetime sales as a renewal fee, and when they decide to not renew the copyright, it enters the public domain.
Example:
New song is released on May 1st. Song sells 1 million digital downloads, album sells 200,000 copies, making 1.02million dollars in sales. Renewal of the copyright on the next May 1st is $10,200 (1% of the lifetime sales). If future sales are unlikely to reach this value, the company won't pay. If they do renew, then on the second renewal, the renewal will be 20,400 +2% of year 2 sales.
Consider that now days, most music, movies, books, etc. are sold in the first year after release, and if it sells well enough up until the renewal date, 1% of sales on a big work (even half a million for a blockbuster movie) should be a pretty small price to carry over and protect prices for the second year. Beyond that, most works leave the public consciousness, and should become part of the culture.
The Catholic Church prohibits any method of fertility treatment that does achieve pregnancy through intercourse. Artificial insemination and IVF (including surrogate motherhood) are opposed on the ground that they break the natural man-woman relationship, of which procreation is a natural end. Methods of fertility treatment that work within the restriction that conception is accomplished through sexual intercourse are allowed. This would include any medications or surgeries that restore or improve fertility for people that have problem conceiving.
It's not ironic. Anti-abortionists have all the compassion in the world for the sick. We just don't believe that one person should be healed based on the death of another person, and in our eyes, the embryo is a person. Killing an innocent person (even one that doesn't yet have a brain) to save somebody else is not a good outcome. Depending on the variety of anti-abortionist, some (especially Catholics) reject the creation of these embryos outside of the womb in all cases because of all the moral problems that crop up because most of them will be destroyed, which is an act of violence even if most don't recognize it as such.
Anytime the union decides to strike, the auto companies have a choice to let the unions have their way or go out of business, because they can't produce anything (strikebreakers are against the law), so they accept the contract that the UAW dictates to them. Because of the capital intensive nature of the automobile business (factories, supply lines for Steel, etc.) the big 3 have always given in to the union instead of moving to a state that will allow them to negotiate with the union on equal terms.
I was thinking about this yesterday, and came up with a bit of an idea about copyrights.
I think many of us here recognize copyright and patents are designed to serve a good, to protect an artist or inventor, for a limited period of time, and then release the work of art or invention into the public domain so that people may benefit from it without being held hostage by the creator indefinitely, but that the current time frame for both patents is probably too long.
My new recommendation for copyright is that anybody who wishes to maintain a copyright should have to pay every year to maintain the copyright. The amount paid has to be equal to n% of the accumulated lifetime revenue the work has generated, where n is the number of years since the item was created. For instance, with the movie, The Dark Knight, released last year, on the one year anniversary, Warner Brothers would have to pay 1% of the so far, 1 billion dollars of income, or 10 million dollars, to retain the copyright for one year. If the revenue for the next year is 20 million dollars, and the company sees the 2% bill of approximately 20 million dollars, and balks that they won't be able to make enough money going forward to justify maintaining the copyright, they don't have to pay it, and it becomes public property. They are of course allowed to sell it and make money off of it, just not exclusively.
The point of a patent, is to give the creator a head start over competitors by means of a temporary monopoly in order to develop name recognition, first mover benefits and so on. Once upon a time, it could easily take a decade for the creator get a product off the ground, like for a steam locomotive. Now days, that's no longer the case. We need to reduce the effective time for most patents to 3-5 years before expiration. Maybe a similar idea to my copyright idea. To maintain a patent, the company (or individual) would have to pay a percentage of the revenues equal to 5xn% of accumulated revenues for the invention, and it will expire after 3 or 5 years even if the inventor still would like to lengthen it further. In that much time, either the company will either be doing well, and should be ready to face competition, or the patent will expire, and the rest of us can take advantage of the technology.
With the shortened time frame, the company should have increased protection of the patent or copyright, in exchange for the loss of time.
As regards Rambus, I'm glad to see their efforts were in vain because they basically killed the technology with their actions. Too bad they won this case which might encourage bad behavior in the future.
Just because it may not cause autism, at least according to this study, doesn't mean that people should get all shots prescribed by their doctor. I went to a talk by Dr. Bob Sears, son of Dr. Bill Sears who has written many top books on pediatric medicine.
Dr. Bob has a book of his own, as a medical professional, with his own altered schedule of immunizations. He looked at each immunization, the disease it protects against including the likelihood of contraction, if the results are serious or not, if the immunization is timely (if a disease never occurs before sexual activity, it's not needed for several years, conversely, a disease that is only serious for the 1st six months should be administered sooner if at all).
He recommends a slightly revised schedule that requires a couple of immunization-only trips to the office, but should reduce any chances of side effects. He also recommends where multiple sources are available, which one to take, because of how some are produced with animal parts. A good doctor should welcome a parent who has done this research and isn't rejecting immunizations out of hand, but just the traditional schedule of how they are admitted, which many doctors have just taken a schedule from somebody else without doing any work to develop one on their own.
Dan Glickman, CEO of the MPAA is a former House Democrat, who (after being Clinton's secretary of agriculture because he's from Kansas) became the MPAA's top lobbyist.
California is a Democratic state, and Hollywood is the signature industry in the state. Probably not a coincidence.
Liberal Celebrities are some of the biggest donors and campaigners for Democrats, but the Republicans despite tax policies that would benefit them don't get near as much support.
Of course the Democrats pay all this back with legislation that is favorable to Hollywood's copyright stance.
Sure the Republicans outlaw acts and crackdown on crime including some that some people would rather be legal, but the Democrats are out to control thoughts by liberal teachers in public schools and universities, journalists in papers and on TV, legal actions by the ACLU and politically correct thought.
You know, increasing government spending increases corruption. If the government budget was a few billion dollars, their would be very little corruption, because their would be very little way for corrupt businesses or civil servants to get surplus cash out of the government, because it would be like trying to squeeze water out of a dried piece of leather.
The Democrats rant and rave about corporations making profit, and Republicans and business' preference for working together, and corruption on the Republican side of government. But the Democrats are going to spend $800 billion on 4million jobs ($200,000/job!!!!) per Obama's numbers last night, and how much of that money is going to people doing nothing? I don't know, but it could sure be a whole lot. But if we were cutting spending, and taxes, how much money NOT BEING SPENT can end up in the hands of those that aren't doing anything for it? NONE!!!
Does that mean their isn't corruption on the Republican side? Of course not, but what the Republicans consider necessary in the budget is much smaller than what the Democrats want, and most of it goes to scientists for military research, or producing tangible assets like military hardware and roads by Americans. Much of what the Democrats want is to pay somebody more for something they would be doing anyway, for instance paying a teacher $50k instead of $40k, but if they are going to teach at $40k, why should we pay them more? I mean, do you go and pay the car dealer $30k if he'll take $25k for the same car? No. Teachers, and other public servants should have their pay set by performance, and if they out-perform, and the principal and school board think a teacher should make more if they threaten to leave, they should be able to bid that teacher's salary up over the wishes of the teacher's union, and conversely, if a teacher doesn't perform, their pay should drop or they should be fired, which is near impossible in public schools.
Do you know what organization in all of Detroit is doing better than any other? It's the Auto Workers Union! It does nothing, except bill workers for dues after creating inefficiency in the job market. You know what, I bet a whole bunch of people would take a job at an auto plant for half the money that the big 3 currently pay their workers (I would if I lost my job), but they are prohibited from doing so because of union friendly legislation and judges (put in place for decades of power by Democrats ruling Washington for 50 years after WWII). All of the problems with the big 3 have been building for decades, and this recession could put the final nail in the coffin if the Big 3 aren't freed of their union shackles, and allowed to go out and compete on level footing with their Japanese competitors. If it happens, the names Ford, Chevy, General Motors, Dodge, Jeep, Chrysler are going to be bought by Toyota or Honda.
Couldn't certain basic necessary expenses be exempted? Healthy non-luxury food items, educational expenses, house payments or rent below a certain dollar value, necessary utilities. If you do that, people making very little would be mostly exempt, and you'd still get the benefits of simplicity.
Also, it's important to realize that prices of many things are determined by the amount of income (or available funds) people have (as a group, not for individuals). For instance, with high dollar houses, the best price will to some degree be set by what other buyers think it's worth, which should gravitate towards what the second best offer would be. With rent, the price will be set at whatever level fills all of the units. If you raise the minimum wage, people prices go up, and the people making that pay rate will be no better off than they were before the wage hike. If taxes go up on poor people, they will be able to afford less, prices of other things will compensate downward (it will take awhile, but it will happen), and they will be as well off as they were before.
People have been feeling the pinch of this poor economy for years, and the reason is that almost everybody locks in prices higher than they should for certain negotiable expenses (house, car) or are willing to spend money they shouldn't (expensive coffee, $50-200/month cable bills, going to the theater or other entertainment options, and eating out more often than they need, cell phone service, etc.)
If somebody is frugal and saves their money, why should they be taxed more? Maybe they have luxuries in mind that they don't want to borrow to enjoy (say a trip worth a year's income), or they are saving to stay off social security to save us all having to pay for them in their old age. All raising the taxes on somebody saving money does is discourage saving, which is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing.
I live beyond the boundary of DSL service (2 miles out side of Topeka, Kansas, less than 10 miles from my state capital) so my only option for high speed service is Cox Communications. We were looking at houses on the other side of town, where the richest folks outside of town are concentrated, and most of them have no high speed options.
But wouldn't this be a short term investment (that would require hiring people to lay lines) that would cut costs and provide increased benefits long term?
If we're going to spend money, and unfortunately it looks like a lot is going to be spent, I want it INVESTED in infrastructure that saves money long term or is overdue in being spent.
Unfortunately, all of this rewards those who haven't been paying their own way all along, because they get to pass off what they should have done themselves to the rest of the country.
Why does that have to be a downfall of this system? The people that build the transportation don't have any power over what the city or power utility has decided to use for electricity any more than you or I, so it's out of their control. Is it the fault of somebody that lives in an apartment that the apartment has electricity from a coal plant instead of a wind farm since solar and wind are probably not feasible on site?
This is a better option, because of efficiency, than other options, with a chance to being upgraded to renewable sources when it is feasible. Many places in the US already are moving toward more renewable sources, but do you expect even them to all scrap any investment they'd already made in carbon based electricity before renewables became viable options?
Do what works but campaign for improvement in the next upgrade.
The quality disparity has nothing to do with US military. It has everything to do with laziness and greed. Post World War II, W. Edwards Deming applied statistics to improve productivity and quality. When US companies disregarded his teachings, because they were profitable and making improvements would cost money, he worked with the Japanese to improve their processes since the had to rebuild everything anyway. 60 years later, the things he taught are ingrained in Japanese business, and we are 40-50 years behind in developing a business culture of excellence.
As for the laziness of U.S. companies, think of how IBM once controlled the market, and lost it to Microsoft. Once upon a time, Microsoft was once constantly derided here on Slashdot, because Windows crashed constantly while Unix rarely did. Now, it's seen as good enough, but still is considered far from perfect. American auto makers had a huge advantage, but ignored the rising Japanese threat, and didn't react until far too late (their other downfall being not improving fuel economy).
I learned all of this in business school about 12 years ago, and was told it was the wave of the future, but I don't work in manufacturing, so I don't know how much progress was made. But then, a lot of the stuff we make is produced overseas, even brands that we think of as American.
Islam was at war with Christianity from the very start , and while Christians no longer have forced conversions, Muslims have no problem with coercion to force conversion. As outsiders, we are all enemies or future converts in the Islamic mindset, and any display of diplomacy on the part of Muslim leaders should be looked on as an attempt to further their goals of converting us all, or if not us, getting in position to convert our children in the future. Muslims have been at this for almost 1400, and they aren't going to stop just because they have a current (temporary) technological disadvantage.
You probably aren't aware, but individuals who publicly convert from Islam to Christianity (and maybe even renounce Islam to become atheist) are subject to the death penalty, and doing so in a western society invites death threats. Note that link to Google is about Muslim conversion to Christianity, and almost every link is about somebody being killed or threatened. The Islamic religion will only be peaceful when everybody is Muslim.
But we're not really confronting Russia any more. Sure, they are a concern, but they aren't THE concern. 2 dozen Islamic run nations that aren't particularly friendly, because their religion dictates that they should be at war with non-Muslims.
They've been at this for 1300 years, controlled all of Spain, and sacked Rome once and threatened it on another occasion despite the efforts of many Christian countries. Their primary objective is to see the entire world turned into Muslims, so they can institute Muslim style social laws in every country in the world, which prohibits converting to being non-Muslim. It's not known if they will force conversion, or allow Christians, Jews, etc to stay non-Muslim. Because of low birth rates, much of Europe has high amounts of Muslim immigration. Eventually, the Muslims will be on par with Non-Muslims population wise. The Muslims will then dictate either a peaceful gradual implementation of their rules, or if they choose not to wait, they will do so by revolution. Eventually, they will begin to do this in other places (Russia, US, China, Japan, India), and if they get their way, in 500 years, their will probably only be Islam, with various levels of observance and minor differences in belief.
Christianity has been fighting this war for 1300 years. Secularists need to recognize this threat, and realize that Christianity is on the side freedom of religion, and Muslims are not, and if you don't choose to side with Christians against the Muslim threat, then we will all lose.
This smacks to me of gun control. If law abiding citizens don't have guns, how does that reduce the incidence of violence, when criminals can enter any situation knowing that the other party is unarmed.
How do we trust that Iran, Russia and China not to put anti-satellite weapons in space? The only way to keep space free of weapons would be to require independant international inspectors access to every item launched, before and during the launch.
If we don't have defensive weapons in space, then we'll look like the guy on the toilet with our pants around our ankles should one of those three sneak puts weapons in space and takes out our space assets (GPS, spy satellites, etc.) in a conflict.
The ethical concern is that a cloned person is manufactured, as opposed to being the result of an act of love between two people (most of us anyway). Ideally, each of us comes to be as a result of somebody choosing to allow nature to take it's course, and the couple has to accept who they get, and know that they will love the resulting progeny regardless of the result. With cloning, and genetic modification, that is no longer the case. Instead, as a clone, someone has gone to the extraordinary measure of having an exact duplicate of themselves made, clearly with some sort of egocentrical goal that couldn't be accomplished through the typical procreative process. That, or the point is to create somebody who you can harvest for organs at a later date if stem cell research doesn't yield the promised fruits.
As a father of two, let me say this. A huge part of being a parent is getting to see bits and pieces of your physical, intellectual, and social self mingle with those of the person you love in a mix that yields wonderful surprises. And even more amazing is the variety that can come from the multiple children of the same two people. With cloning, you intent is to end up pretty much with a copy of the original. What really results is a significantly different relationship with the child. With a traditional birth, you have created a unique person (or people even in the case of twins) and their growth and joy is paramount in raising them. With a clone, it seems that the end is to duplicate the original, and it's done out of a egocentric self importance that indicates that 'my worth is so great, the world needs another." If you thought kids have issues with their parents under regular situations, imagine the 'My Dad said he was programming assembly at age 12, why can't you be more like me?'
Also think of the Darwinist implications of allowing people to procreate through cloning instead of through biological processes. Cloning would lead to stagnation, so I'd just as soon see it never come to pass.
There is another value, and that is at the negotiating table. If you have a very good defense (which we are no way near), you basically discount the military value of the other guy's weapon, which can give you an edge in negotiations. Unfortunately, the amount of coverage necessary to protect every target might make the cost hugely preventative, unless you can put the defense near the launch point, which is probably unlikely in the case of defending against Iranian nukes.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. The Catholic creed (Latin from I Believe) starts "We believe in One God" and is said at ever Sunday or Holy Day of Obligation service. Unfortunately, as you imply, plenty of people don't seem to understand what that belief implies.
As for the GP post, Dawkins acts more like an atheist fundamentalist, who likes to use evolution as his preferred weapon, than a scientist who is defending himself from misguided Fundamentalist Creationists. There was a pretty revealing cover story about him in Discover Magazine in 2005, and he chooses to try to destroy Christian evolutionists over religion instead of siding with them on evolution.
Actually, I think the Democrats in Congress voted with the Republicans 89-11 to prevent the FCC from re-instating the Fairness Doctrine. However, they're planning on forcing radio stations toward local minority ownership (read 'Democrat supporters'). Once they've forced the radios to sell to Democrat friendly owners, the decision to cut Limbaugh and Hannity became a 'business decision' instead of government censorship.
Opps, thats 1% * number of years since release, which you should be able to tell from the example.
What I'd like to see (but never will): Every year a copyrighted work has been out, the copyright holder should have to pay 1% of lifetime sales as a renewal fee, and when they decide to not renew the copyright, it enters the public domain.
Example:
New song is released on May 1st.
Song sells 1 million digital downloads, album sells 200,000 copies, making 1.02million dollars in sales.
Renewal of the copyright on the next May 1st is $10,200 (1% of the lifetime sales). If future sales are unlikely to reach this value, the company won't pay. If they do renew, then on the second renewal, the renewal will be 20,400 +2% of year 2 sales.
Consider that now days, most music, movies, books, etc. are sold in the first year after release, and if it sells well enough up until the renewal date, 1% of sales on a big work (even half a million for a blockbuster movie) should be a pretty small price to carry over and protect prices for the second year. Beyond that, most works leave the public consciousness, and should become part of the culture.
Disclaimer: Former Catholic seminarian.
The Catholic Church prohibits any method of fertility treatment that does achieve pregnancy through intercourse. Artificial insemination and IVF (including surrogate motherhood) are opposed on the ground that they break the natural man-woman relationship, of which procreation is a natural end. Methods of fertility treatment that work within the restriction that conception is accomplished through sexual intercourse are allowed. This would include any medications or surgeries that restore or improve fertility for people that have problem conceiving.
It's not ironic. Anti-abortionists have all the compassion in the world for the sick. We just don't believe that one person should be healed based on the death of another person, and in our eyes, the embryo is a person. Killing an innocent person (even one that doesn't yet have a brain) to save somebody else is not a good outcome. Depending on the variety of anti-abortionist, some (especially Catholics) reject the creation of these embryos outside of the womb in all cases because of all the moral problems that crop up because most of them will be destroyed, which is an act of violence even if most don't recognize it as such.
Anytime the union decides to strike, the auto companies have a choice to let the unions have their way or go out of business, because they can't produce anything (strikebreakers are against the law), so they accept the contract that the UAW dictates to them. Because of the capital intensive nature of the automobile business (factories, supply lines for Steel, etc.) the big 3 have always given in to the union instead of moving to a state that will allow them to negotiate with the union on equal terms.
I was thinking about this yesterday, and came up with a bit of an idea about copyrights.
I think many of us here recognize copyright and patents are designed to serve a good, to protect an artist or inventor, for a limited period of time, and then release the work of art or invention into the public domain so that people may benefit from it without being held hostage by the creator indefinitely, but that the current time frame for both patents is probably too long.
My new recommendation for copyright is that anybody who wishes to maintain a copyright should have to pay every year to maintain the copyright. The amount paid has to be equal to n% of the accumulated lifetime revenue the work has generated, where n is the number of years since the item was created. For instance, with the movie, The Dark Knight, released last year, on the one year anniversary, Warner Brothers would have to pay 1% of the so far, 1 billion dollars of income, or 10 million dollars, to retain the copyright for one year. If the revenue for the next year is 20 million dollars, and the company sees the 2% bill of approximately 20 million dollars, and balks that they won't be able to make enough money going forward to justify maintaining the copyright, they don't have to pay it, and it becomes public property. They are of course allowed to sell it and make money off of it, just not exclusively.
The point of a patent, is to give the creator a head start over competitors by means of a temporary monopoly in order to develop name recognition, first mover benefits and so on. Once upon a time, it could easily take a decade for the creator get a product off the ground, like for a steam locomotive. Now days, that's no longer the case. We need to reduce the effective time for most patents to 3-5 years before expiration. Maybe a similar idea to my copyright idea. To maintain a patent, the company (or individual) would have to pay a percentage of the revenues equal to 5xn% of accumulated revenues for the invention, and it will expire after 3 or 5 years even if the inventor still would like to lengthen it further. In that much time, either the company will either be doing well, and should be ready to face competition, or the patent will expire, and the rest of us can take advantage of the technology.
With the shortened time frame, the company should have increased protection of the patent or copyright, in exchange for the loss of time.
As regards Rambus, I'm glad to see their efforts were in vain because they basically killed the technology with their actions. Too bad they won this case which might encourage bad behavior in the future.
Just because it may not cause autism, at least according to this study, doesn't mean that people should get all shots prescribed by their doctor. I went to a talk by Dr. Bob Sears, son of Dr. Bill Sears who has written many top books on pediatric medicine.
Dr. Bob has a book of his own, as a medical professional, with his own altered schedule of immunizations. He looked at each immunization, the disease it protects against including the likelihood of contraction, if the results are serious or not, if the immunization is timely (if a disease never occurs before sexual activity, it's not needed for several years, conversely, a disease that is only serious for the 1st six months should be administered sooner if at all).
He recommends a slightly revised schedule that requires a couple of immunization-only trips to the office, but should reduce any chances of side effects. He also recommends where multiple sources are available, which one to take, because of how some are produced with animal parts. A good doctor should welcome a parent who has done this research and isn't rejecting immunizations out of hand, but just the traditional schedule of how they are admitted, which many doctors have just taken a schedule from somebody else without doing any work to develop one on their own.
Dan Glickman, CEO of the MPAA is a former House Democrat, who (after being Clinton's secretary of agriculture because he's from Kansas) became the MPAA's top lobbyist.
California is a Democratic state, and Hollywood is the signature industry in the state. Probably not a coincidence.
Liberal Celebrities are some of the biggest donors and campaigners for Democrats, but the Republicans despite tax policies that would benefit them don't get near as much support.
Of course the Democrats pay all this back with legislation that is favorable to Hollywood's copyright stance.
Sure the Republicans outlaw acts and crackdown on crime including some that some people would rather be legal, but the Democrats are out to control thoughts by liberal teachers in public schools and universities, journalists in papers and on TV, legal actions by the ACLU and politically correct thought.
Is there an exemption for librarians or teachers that read to small children in either a school or library setting?
I'd like to see them try to shut down those public performances.
You know, increasing government spending increases corruption. If the government budget was a few billion dollars, their would be very little corruption, because their would be very little way for corrupt businesses or civil servants to get surplus cash out of the government, because it would be like trying to squeeze water out of a dried piece of leather.
The Democrats rant and rave about corporations making profit, and Republicans and business' preference for working together, and corruption on the Republican side of government. But the Democrats are going to spend $800 billion on 4million jobs ($200,000/job!!!!) per Obama's numbers last night, and how much of that money is going to people doing nothing? I don't know, but it could sure be a whole lot. But if we were cutting spending, and taxes, how much money NOT BEING SPENT can end up in the hands of those that aren't doing anything for it? NONE!!!
Does that mean their isn't corruption on the Republican side? Of course not, but what the Republicans consider necessary in the budget is much smaller than what the Democrats want, and most of it goes to scientists for military research, or producing tangible assets like military hardware and roads by Americans. Much of what the Democrats want is to pay somebody more for something they would be doing anyway, for instance paying a teacher $50k instead of $40k, but if they are going to teach at $40k, why should we pay them more? I mean, do you go and pay the car dealer $30k if he'll take $25k for the same car? No. Teachers, and other public servants should have their pay set by performance, and if they out-perform, and the principal and school board think a teacher should make more if they threaten to leave, they should be able to bid that teacher's salary up over the wishes of the teacher's union, and conversely, if a teacher doesn't perform, their pay should drop or they should be fired, which is near impossible in public schools.
Do you know what organization in all of Detroit is doing better than any other? It's the Auto Workers Union! It does nothing, except bill workers for dues after creating inefficiency in the job market. You know what, I bet a whole bunch of people would take a job at an auto plant for half the money that the big 3 currently pay their workers (I would if I lost my job), but they are prohibited from doing so because of union friendly legislation and judges (put in place for decades of power by Democrats ruling Washington for 50 years after WWII). All of the problems with the big 3 have been building for decades, and this recession could put the final nail in the coffin if the Big 3 aren't freed of their union shackles, and allowed to go out and compete on level footing with their Japanese competitors. If it happens, the names Ford, Chevy, General Motors, Dodge, Jeep, Chrysler are going to be bought by Toyota or Honda.
Couldn't certain basic necessary expenses be exempted? Healthy non-luxury food items, educational expenses, house payments or rent below a certain dollar value, necessary utilities. If you do that, people making very little would be mostly exempt, and you'd still get the benefits of simplicity.
Also, it's important to realize that prices of many things are determined by the amount of income (or available funds) people have (as a group, not for individuals). For instance, with high dollar houses, the best price will to some degree be set by what other buyers think it's worth, which should gravitate towards what the second best offer would be. With rent, the price will be set at whatever level fills all of the units. If you raise the minimum wage, people prices go up, and the people making that pay rate will be no better off than they were before the wage hike. If taxes go up on poor people, they will be able to afford less, prices of other things will compensate downward (it will take awhile, but it will happen), and they will be as well off as they were before.
People have been feeling the pinch of this poor economy for years, and the reason is that almost everybody locks in prices higher than they should for certain negotiable expenses (house, car) or are willing to spend money they shouldn't (expensive coffee, $50-200/month cable bills, going to the theater or other entertainment options, and eating out more often than they need, cell phone service, etc.)
If somebody is frugal and saves their money, why should they be taxed more? Maybe they have luxuries in mind that they don't want to borrow to enjoy (say a trip worth a year's income), or they are saving to stay off social security to save us all having to pay for them in their old age. All raising the taxes on somebody saving money does is discourage saving, which is the exact opposite of what we need to be doing.
I live beyond the boundary of DSL service (2 miles out side of Topeka, Kansas, less than 10 miles from my state capital) so my only option for high speed service is Cox Communications. We were looking at houses on the other side of town, where the richest folks outside of town are concentrated, and most of them have no high speed options.
But wouldn't this be a short term investment (that would require hiring people to lay lines) that would cut costs and provide increased benefits long term?
If we're going to spend money, and unfortunately it looks like a lot is going to be spent, I want it INVESTED in infrastructure that saves money long term or is overdue in being spent.
Unfortunately, all of this rewards those who haven't been paying their own way all along, because they get to pass off what they should have done themselves to the rest of the country.
Why does that have to be a downfall of this system? The people that build the transportation don't have any power over what the city or power utility has decided to use for electricity any more than you or I, so it's out of their control. Is it the fault of somebody that lives in an apartment that the apartment has electricity from a coal plant instead of a wind farm since solar and wind are probably not feasible on site?
This is a better option, because of efficiency, than other options, with a chance to being upgraded to renewable sources when it is feasible. Many places in the US already are moving toward more renewable sources, but do you expect even them to all scrap any investment they'd already made in carbon based electricity before renewables became viable options?
Do what works but campaign for improvement in the next upgrade.
3. Work at McDonalds?
Muslims got to pilgrimage somewhere.
It may have been in his contract that he stay on for a year?
My uncle sold his insurance agency for 7 figures, but has to run the place for 3 years before he can retire.
The quality disparity has nothing to do with US military. It has everything to do with laziness and greed. Post World War II, W. Edwards Deming applied statistics to improve productivity and quality. When US companies disregarded his teachings, because they were profitable and making improvements would cost money, he worked with the Japanese to improve their processes since the had to rebuild everything anyway. 60 years later, the things he taught are ingrained in Japanese business, and we are 40-50 years behind in developing a business culture of excellence.
As for the laziness of U.S. companies, think of how IBM once controlled the market, and lost it to Microsoft. Once upon a time, Microsoft was once constantly derided here on Slashdot, because Windows crashed constantly while Unix rarely did. Now, it's seen as good enough, but still is considered far from perfect. American auto makers had a huge advantage, but ignored the rising Japanese threat, and didn't react until far too late (their other downfall being not improving fuel economy).
I learned all of this in business school about 12 years ago, and was told it was the wave of the future, but I don't work in manufacturing, so I don't know how much progress was made. But then, a lot of the stuff we make is produced overseas, even brands that we think of as American.
Islam was at war with Christianity from the very start , and while Christians no longer have forced conversions, Muslims have no problem with coercion to force conversion. As outsiders, we are all enemies or future converts in the Islamic mindset, and any display of diplomacy on the part of Muslim leaders should be looked on as an attempt to further their goals of converting us all, or if not us, getting in position to convert our children in the future. Muslims have been at this for almost 1400, and they aren't going to stop just because they have a current (temporary) technological disadvantage.
You probably aren't aware, but individuals who publicly convert from Islam to Christianity (and maybe even renounce Islam to become atheist) are subject to the death penalty, and doing so in a western society invites death threats. Note that link to Google is about Muslim conversion to Christianity, and almost every link is about somebody being killed or threatened. The Islamic religion will only be peaceful when everybody is Muslim.
But we're not really confronting Russia any more. Sure, they are a concern, but they aren't THE concern. 2 dozen Islamic run nations that aren't particularly friendly, because their religion dictates that they should be at war with non-Muslims.
They've been at this for 1300 years, controlled all of Spain, and sacked Rome once and threatened it on another occasion despite the efforts of many Christian countries. Their primary objective is to see the entire world turned into Muslims, so they can institute Muslim style social laws in every country in the world, which prohibits converting to being non-Muslim. It's not known if they will force conversion, or allow Christians, Jews, etc to stay non-Muslim. Because of low birth rates, much of Europe has high amounts of Muslim immigration. Eventually, the Muslims will be on par with Non-Muslims population wise. The Muslims will then dictate either a peaceful gradual implementation of their rules, or if they choose not to wait, they will do so by revolution. Eventually, they will begin to do this in other places (Russia, US, China, Japan, India), and if they get their way, in 500 years, their will probably only be Islam, with various levels of observance and minor differences in belief.
Christianity has been fighting this war for 1300 years. Secularists need to recognize this threat, and realize that Christianity is on the side freedom of religion, and Muslims are not, and if you don't choose to side with Christians against the Muslim threat, then we will all lose.
This smacks to me of gun control. If law abiding citizens don't have guns, how does that reduce the incidence of violence, when criminals can enter any situation knowing that the other party is unarmed.
How do we trust that Iran, Russia and China not to put anti-satellite weapons in space? The only way to keep space free of weapons would be to require independant international inspectors access to every item launched, before and during the launch.
If we don't have defensive weapons in space, then we'll look like the guy on the toilet with our pants around our ankles should one of those three sneak puts weapons in space and takes out our space assets (GPS, spy satellites, etc.) in a conflict.
The ethical concern is that a cloned person is manufactured, as opposed to being the result of an act of love between two people (most of us anyway). Ideally, each of us comes to be as a result of somebody choosing to allow nature to take it's course, and the couple has to accept who they get, and know that they will love the resulting progeny regardless of the result. With cloning, and genetic modification, that is no longer the case. Instead, as a clone, someone has gone to the extraordinary measure of having an exact duplicate of themselves made, clearly with some sort of egocentrical goal that couldn't be accomplished through the typical procreative process. That, or the point is to create somebody who you can harvest for organs at a later date if stem cell research doesn't yield the promised fruits.
As a father of two, let me say this. A huge part of being a parent is getting to see bits and pieces of your physical, intellectual, and social self mingle with those of the person you love in a mix that yields wonderful surprises. And even more amazing is the variety that can come from the multiple children of the same two people. With cloning, you intent is to end up pretty much with a copy of the original. What really results is a significantly different relationship with the child. With a traditional birth, you have created a unique person (or people even in the case of twins) and their growth and joy is paramount in raising them. With a clone, it seems that the end is to duplicate the original, and it's done out of a egocentric self importance that indicates that 'my worth is so great, the world needs another." If you thought kids have issues with their parents under regular situations, imagine the 'My Dad said he was programming assembly at age 12, why can't you be more like me?'
Also think of the Darwinist implications of allowing people to procreate through cloning instead of through biological processes. Cloning would lead to stagnation, so I'd just as soon see it never come to pass.
There is another value, and that is at the negotiating table. If you have a very good defense (which we are no way near), you basically discount the military value of the other guy's weapon, which can give you an edge in negotiations. Unfortunately, the amount of coverage necessary to protect every target might make the cost hugely preventative, unless you can put the defense near the launch point, which is probably unlikely in the case of defending against Iranian nukes.