Please count the number of casulaties that have fallen in those 'minor' wars for the resources that make our financial elite even more rich than they already are, and then tell me again it's only 'minor'.
It's worth doing that exercise. The author of the linked webpage claims about 22 million war deaths including genocide and non state-based warfare from after the end of the Second World War through to 2007. That's about what the First World War killed in four years (not counting the 1918 influenza epidemic which was greatly expedited by the war). And of course, the Second World War killed at least three times as many people in an eight year period.
If we look at per capita, war deaths in the current period of peace are even more pronounced. The Second World War is thought to have killed at least 3% of the people alive at the time. That would be well over 200 million people now. We are nowhere near that.
I was going to argue for some CS being a perfectly applicable for high school, but couldn't think of a sub field which wouldn't require a lot more mathematical rigor than a typical high school student has.
Combinatorics, brute force strategies like the Monte Carlo method, basic numerical methods (finite difference, trapezoid method for integration), basic computer graphics, describing and solving computer puzzles, making games, etc.
Those databases usually involve a very high-level declarative programming languages with a limited scope.
And there we go. We were speaking of "some coding" after all.
So you and Kendall are simply acknowledging that regular users have no interest into delving into the depths of programming (despite having plenty of opportunity).
We're pointing out that regular users still have need for coding skills even if they have no interest in delving into the depths. There's two points that have been made so far. First, even a rudimentary coding skill allows one to do some good stuff with spreadsheets, databases, etc. Second, such a coding skill extends to other aspects of life, not just computers. Many things are structured in similar ways, such as procedures for cooking food or functional descriptions of job requirements.
It's a lot more than just using software. It's involves learning the principles of software creation, and in-depth knowledge about computer hardware and OS architecture. Just because you know how to use a fork and knife does not mean you have same skillset as a surgeon.
No, it's not. The car analogy here is learning about basics of car maintenance and what that funny looking stuff in the innards of your car are. Things go a lot smoother if you have some understanding of that (like why the oil needs to be changed) and the capability to change the tires. And if cars are something you'd be interested in, now you are exposed to cars and might be interested in going all the way and becoming a mechanic or an engineer.
Yes they are bad at it, but look how useful just knowing how to work excel is to tons of people.
Also over time, look how many personal database products have come and gone... in their time, each of those was very, very useful to a lot of people that did no other programming.
Each of those classes of products can do amazing things even in the hands of people who stumble around computer operating systems.
Maybe you should break tradition and read posts before asking stupid questions?
For those needs, you only need to know how use software, not create it. Just download or buy the software you need for the hobby or finance use, instead of creating it from scratch.
Woosh. It's worth noting, for example, that programming is just using software too. And programming usually doesn't create stuff from scratch (you use libraries and reuse your code, right?).
Apparently you've been reading some pretty slanted crap if you think that volcanic pockets don't exist.
Google volcanic pocket. All you'll get is hits on pistols and PDAs.
For starters, check out Yellowstone.
I live at Yellowstone. It's not a volcanic pocket. It's sitting on a tremendous surge of magma from deep in the Earth's crust. And humanity isn't doing a thing to depressurize that.
Humans don't amount tp shit when it comes to the planet's atmosphere. If we were to stop all gas emissions right now, the planet would be completely equalised within a year.
Some stuff that would take longer: CO2, methane, and the variety of CFCs.
They don't take into account that there are other gases that do the same, AND WORSE, that we don't contribute to.
No, there is no such gas. We contribute to methane, CFCs, water, etc. Everything which could significantly contribute to global warming and is in our atmosphere has a human contribution to it.
Also, if the pressure in the crust weren't relieved by Human use, it would release itself, and probably follow pathways in the crust (as it does) and meet up with volcanic pockets.
It's not relieved by human use, volcanic pockets aren't a real thing, and the only reason there's less volcanism now is because the last glacial period ended 12k or so years ago and that triggered a bump in volcanic activity which is mostly done by now.
You misunderstand the issue. The issue isn't about debating what government needs or should pay for. EVERYTHING - has become more expensive. No matter what you think the government should spend on, it has become more expensive to pay for it. Even if you somehow freeze the basket of goods government pays for (which doesn't happen), the cost of that basket has risen over time.
"The researchers conducted the work through a statistical analysis of a 2,497 different marine animal groups at one taxonomic level higher than the level of species -- called "genera." And they found that increases in an organism's body size were strongly linked to an increased risk of extinction in the present period -- but that this was not the case in the Earth's distant past.
Their claim is even stronger:
âoeWhat to us was surprising was that we did not see a similar kind of pattern in any of the previous mass extinction events that we studied,â said geoscientist Jonathan Payne of Stanford University, the studyâ(TM)s lead author. âoeSo that indicated that there really is no good ecological analogueâ¦this pattern has not happened before in the half billion years of the animal fossil record.â
The obvious rebuttal is the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event where almost every vertebrate animal over 25 kg went extinct (the few that didn't had a very particular niche - aquatic and cold-blooded). If they aren't seeing statistical evidence then they aren't doing it right.
Further, fossil species and genera are not directly comparable to modern species and genera. They are by necessity a far more coarse measurement since we only know about organisms that were fossilized and for the most part, we only know morphology of these organisms rather than DNA. So an extinction of a species common enough to be fossilized and observed by us is a much bigger deal that several niche large animals which might never get into the fossil record.
By your reasoning, nobody would do basic research, and that would, sometime down the line, cripple applied research.
Why would that happen? The definition of basic research is not research that appears useless in the present.
Basic research is systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind.
But OTOH, specific applications routinely create short term incentives for basic research. For example, the Black-Scholes model of option pricing created an incentive to study stochastic differential equations. The communications industry created a huge incentive to study digital signal processing, information theory and thermodynamics, and a huge amount of supporting mathematics. Construction and mineral/fossil fuel extraction created a huge incentive for basic geology and paleontology research. The need for better ocean navigation created a huge incentive for accurate time measurement and better astronomy observations.
Quantum mechanics looked absolutely useless when we researched it initially
Like using X rays to see inside the human body? Better understanding of physics, chemistry, or materials science? Better and brighter luminescent materials? It wasn't a long jump, for example, from quantum mechanics to broadcast television or plastics manufacture.
The idea that we need researchers to grope in the darkness for very long periods of time in order to find novel basic science results has never been supported in reality. And it should be readily apparent to be absurd because in addition to the tremendous opportunity costs, it ignores that we can cut the amount of effort required to do distant future research by merely doing a lot of productive near future science that happens to cut down on the obstruction to this more distance science.
It's like claiming that we should launch right now a probe towards Alpha Centauri (and other nearby stars) at Voyager level speeds (a few tens of kilometers per second), taking thousands to tens of thousands of years to complete the journey. This ignores that there probably will be advances of technology in the next few decades and centuries which will greatly reduce the travel time (and increase the capabilities of any probe you send).
So we could spend a lot of time and effort on a long shot today. Or we could develop near future technologies and research (with significant ROI I might add) that greatly curbs the difficulty and cost of the project in the future.
Population growth has continued to the present, mostly these days through immigration of relatively high fertility people. And one doesn't need government to pay for expensive people. Not really seeing your point.
Now, that is not to say I think government spending as % of GDP will grow until 100%. I do think it'll stabilize at some point. Far too high for you and many other people's tastes, but it will stabilize.
And what is this expensive government doing to justify those costs? Sounds to me like it's just a parasite expanding to consume available resources. Yes, that's far too high for my "tastes", but it's also far too for society to function freely and dynamically too.
That is incorrect. There are a number of people such as Obama and the heads of several intelligence agencies who have the authority to do so even if the evidence is classified.
Learning more about how the Universe works tends to pay off very well in the more distant future.
Unless, of course, you're just burning money and not actually learning more about how the universe works. Big projects which take money, people, and resources away from better approaches can be worse than doing nothing at all IMHO.
Disregarding those benefits because they're not easy to quantify is short-sighted and leads to bad decisions.
Who said anything about disregarding future benefits? My point is to use near returns as a proxy for those distant benefits. If you're not generating near future benefits, you're probably not generate far future benefits either.
If someone actually bothered to compute the gravitational force on the Earth by both the sun and moon, you would find the force of the moon is about 1E6 times larger than that of the sun.
The Sun is roughly 400 times further way than the Moon. The Sun masses roughly 30 million times more than the Moon, We have that gravitational force is proportional (using the pretty accurate point mass Newtonian model of gravity) to the mass of the object and inversely proportional to the square of its distance. Hence, the Sun's gravitational force is crudely 200 times stronger than that of the Moon.
By a similar calculation one would get that the tidal force of the Sun is roughly half that of the Moon since tidal force under the above model is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.
So maybe there was a reason your highly accurate motion platform wasn't.
Why do you think spending $400 million just to raise the low cost of Alaska a little is anything other than profoundly stupid?
You want to abandon the rural areas
That's just smart. If you want to live rural, then you live with being far away from stuff and not having someone throw $400 million into your neighborhood for a really dumb reason.
And there were two bridges to nowhere, the Ketchikan one (Gravina Island) and the Knik one. Both proposed and supported by those liberal Republicans, and defeated by those conservative Democrats.
And your point is?
put no such constraints or limitations on there, why would you choose to require a political viewpoint?
Because obviously we shouldn't have teaching of bad belief systems. Only correct systems should be taught. Fortunately, the funding mechanism you describe is close enough to the present one that we can continue to teach correct belief systems.
So you don't actually have examples. Snowden was able to point to several cases where NSA whistle blowers were punished. For example:
Edward Snowden has called for a complete overhaul of US whistleblower protections after a new source from deep inside the Pentagon came forward with a startling account of how the system became a "trap" for those seeking to expose wrongdoing.
The account of John Crane, a former senior Pentagon investigator, appears to undermine Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other major establishment figures who argue that there were established routes for Snowden other than leaking to the media.
Crane, a longtime assistant inspector general at the Pentagon, has accused his old office of retaliating against a major surveillance whistleblower, Thomas Drake, in an episode that helps explain Snowden's 2013 National Security Agency disclosures. Not only did Pentagon officials provide Drake's name to criminal investigators, Crane told the Guardian, they destroyed documents relevant to his defence.
And yes, there have been whistle blowers that were abused and persecuted unjustly, and some of the people that engaged in that abuse are under investigation now.
Perhaps it would be educational for you to point out NSA whistle blowers who haven't been abused and persecuted unjustly?
"The wrist radio had obvious, significant value not "cartoonish nonsense". It just wasn't possible for decades."
That was rather my point. Elude you much?
Then why not say that rather than "Dick Tracy's Wrist Radio in 1946 was just cartoon nonsense for decades"? It wasn't cartoon nonsense ever as I noted.
And of course, your rebuttal to my point about being ignorant of economics is non sequitur derping about Trump. Why aren't you voting for Trump? Deliberate stupidity and all that.
My take on this continues to be that we don't have to be economically stupid about R&D. We can't evaluate the far future impact of most scientific research or engineering efforts. But we can evaluate the near future usefulness of such R&D (which need not be an explicit profit despite common assertions to the contrary), how much impact we get for the money spent, and the near future opportunity costs of that effort (both in funding less of other research and in drawing researchers and resources away from other endeavors).
We need sane economics and accountability in scientific research just like anything else particularly when other peoples' money is being spent. The rules don't go away because the universal economic problems don't go away.
The bridge to nowhere was linking the largest airport in the area to the largest population center in the area. That both are small by NYC standards doesn't mean they are insignificant to the largest state in the Union.
In other words, Alaska and the US were going to spend $400 million to connect a town of 8,000 people to an airport. They already had ferries. That was good enough.
But if the area wants a bridge, maybe they ought to pay for it themselves?
That's a first. A complaint about public education that didn't mention unions.
Good thing you mentioned it then. We shouldn't forget that particular bit of widespread corruption.
Fund all schools, public or private, based on enrollment.
Conditional on them teaching the correct political viewpoint, of course.
There is a government in Somalia: a crappy one, in a string of crappy provisional governments.
It's worth noting here that the informal crappy governments of Somalia today are better than when Somalia had an official one with Marxist-Leninist ideology and the usual resulting lethal pathologies.
Quality of governence is a different issue entirely.
Of course, that's wrong. First, there wouldn't be so much support for tax reduction, if the government was doing high quality stuff with those taxes since more peoples' interests would be supported by government activity and there would be far less graft to generate negative publicity. Second, there would be far more bang for the buck which means a given level of taxes does more.
My point was in reference to the parent, that claimed that they don't use these services and therefor he shouldn't pay taxes, and that the IRS is illegal.
Well, does that poster have a cushy, cost plus defense contract? Are they getting back several times what they put in for Medicare? Do they have a sinecure in some federal bureaucracy that'll only go away, if they die or commit a brazen felony? If not, then maybe they don't use as much federal government service as you might think.
Even if we took your 40% at face value, that's still the difference between 20+% of the US's GDP and 8-9% of GDP being consumed by the federal government.
Of course that's excessive, we could abolish Medicare and Medicaid and the VA and housing programs and just support a team of waste disposal specialists who pick up the corpses and incinerate them, that would be quite a lot cheaper. But it might have other consequences, who knows.
And there we go. We don't need to spend 40% of the federal government's budget, including "off budget" to prevent bodies in the street. Notice the pattern: an enormously expensive solution to a cheap problem.
Then there's "social security, unemployment and labor", that's the biggest single tranche of the whole budget. Of course we could do without those things, we did just fine up until 1933, give or take. But I'll just say - right or wrong, there was a reason why they were introduced, and it wasn't a commie plot.
It's a pyramid scheme bribe to the voters to look the other way. Anyone of voting age alive in 1933 got considerably more out of those programs than they put in (which was a great deal for themselves, but not for posterity). In exchange, they ignored a massive increase in government spending, part which was funded directly by Social Security.
Let us note that federal spending was well under 5% of GDP for most of the life of the US prior to 1933 except for two wars, the Civil War and the First World War. After the FDR era and the end of the Second World War, US government spending never went below 11% and is now above 20% of GDP.
but he also acted indiscriminately and betrayed American intelligence-gathering methods to foreign powers
So why shouldn't he be pardoned for that? People keep forgetting that it was that or not say anything at all. Legal whistle blowing doesn't work. That means there will always be some legal angle like the one you espouse that allows the powers-that-be to punish anyone that steps out of line.
Slashdot Mirror
Please count the number of casulaties that have fallen in those 'minor' wars for the resources that make our financial elite even more rich than they already are, and then tell me again it's only 'minor'.
It's worth doing that exercise. The author of the linked webpage claims about 22 million war deaths including genocide and non state-based warfare from after the end of the Second World War through to 2007. That's about what the First World War killed in four years (not counting the 1918 influenza epidemic which was greatly expedited by the war). And of course, the Second World War killed at least three times as many people in an eight year period.
If we look at per capita, war deaths in the current period of peace are even more pronounced. The Second World War is thought to have killed at least 3% of the people alive at the time. That would be well over 200 million people now. We are nowhere near that.
Do the numbers. See for yourself.
I was going to argue for some CS being a perfectly applicable for high school, but couldn't think of a sub field which wouldn't require a lot more mathematical rigor than a typical high school student has.
Combinatorics, brute force strategies like the Monte Carlo method, basic numerical methods (finite difference, trapezoid method for integration), basic computer graphics, describing and solving computer puzzles, making games, etc.
Those databases usually involve a very high-level declarative programming languages with a limited scope.
And there we go. We were speaking of "some coding" after all.
So you and Kendall are simply acknowledging that regular users have no interest into delving into the depths of programming (despite having plenty of opportunity).
We're pointing out that regular users still have need for coding skills even if they have no interest in delving into the depths. There's two points that have been made so far. First, even a rudimentary coding skill allows one to do some good stuff with spreadsheets, databases, etc. Second, such a coding skill extends to other aspects of life, not just computers. Many things are structured in similar ways, such as procedures for cooking food or functional descriptions of job requirements.
It's a lot more than just using software. It's involves learning the principles of software creation, and in-depth knowledge about computer hardware and OS architecture. Just because you know how to use a fork and knife does not mean you have same skillset as a surgeon.
No, it's not. The car analogy here is learning about basics of car maintenance and what that funny looking stuff in the innards of your car are. Things go a lot smoother if you have some understanding of that (like why the oil needs to be changed) and the capability to change the tires. And if cars are something you'd be interested in, now you are exposed to cars and might be interested in going all the way and becoming a mechanic or an engineer.
Need it for what?
SuperKendall answered that question:
Yes they are bad at it, but look how useful just knowing how to work excel is to tons of people.
Also over time, look how many personal database products have come and gone... in their time, each of those was very, very useful to a lot of people that did no other programming.
Each of those classes of products can do amazing things even in the hands of people who stumble around computer operating systems.
Maybe you should break tradition and read posts before asking stupid questions?
For those needs, you only need to know how use software, not create it. Just download or buy the software you need for the hobby or finance use, instead of creating it from scratch.
Woosh. It's worth noting, for example, that programming is just using software too. And programming usually doesn't create stuff from scratch (you use libraries and reuse your code, right?).
Apparently you've been reading some pretty slanted crap if you think that volcanic pockets don't exist.
Google volcanic pocket. All you'll get is hits on pistols and PDAs.
For starters, check out Yellowstone.
I live at Yellowstone. It's not a volcanic pocket. It's sitting on a tremendous surge of magma from deep in the Earth's crust. And humanity isn't doing a thing to depressurize that.
Humans don't amount tp shit when it comes to the planet's atmosphere. If we were to stop all gas emissions right now, the planet would be completely equalised within a year.
Some stuff that would take longer: CO2, methane, and the variety of CFCs.
They don't take into account that there are other gases that do the same, AND WORSE, that we don't contribute to.
No, there is no such gas. We contribute to methane, CFCs, water, etc. Everything which could significantly contribute to global warming and is in our atmosphere has a human contribution to it.
Also, if the pressure in the crust weren't relieved by Human use, it would release itself, and probably follow pathways in the crust (as it does) and meet up with volcanic pockets.
It's not relieved by human use, volcanic pockets aren't a real thing, and the only reason there's less volcanism now is because the last glacial period ended 12k or so years ago and that triggered a bump in volcanic activity which is mostly done by now.
You misunderstand the issue. The issue isn't about debating what government needs or should pay for. EVERYTHING - has become more expensive. No matter what you think the government should spend on, it has become more expensive to pay for it. Even if you somehow freeze the basket of goods government pays for (which doesn't happen), the cost of that basket has risen over time.
No, I simply don't believe that's true.
"The researchers conducted the work through a statistical analysis of a 2,497 different marine animal groups at one taxonomic level higher than the level of species -- called "genera." And they found that increases in an organism's body size were strongly linked to an increased risk of extinction in the present period -- but that this was not the case in the Earth's distant past.
Their claim is even stronger:
âoeWhat to us was surprising was that we did not see a similar kind of pattern in any of the previous mass extinction events that we studied,â said geoscientist Jonathan Payne of Stanford University, the studyâ(TM)s lead author. âoeSo that indicated that there really is no good ecological analogueâ¦this pattern has not happened before in the half billion years of the animal fossil record.â
The obvious rebuttal is the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event where almost every vertebrate animal over 25 kg went extinct (the few that didn't had a very particular niche - aquatic and cold-blooded). If they aren't seeing statistical evidence then they aren't doing it right.
Further, fossil species and genera are not directly comparable to modern species and genera. They are by necessity a far more coarse measurement since we only know about organisms that were fossilized and for the most part, we only know morphology of these organisms rather than DNA. So an extinction of a species common enough to be fossilized and observed by us is a much bigger deal that several niche large animals which might never get into the fossil record.
By your reasoning, nobody would do basic research, and that would, sometime down the line, cripple applied research.
Why would that happen? The definition of basic research is not research that appears useless in the present.
Basic research is systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or products in mind.
But OTOH, specific applications routinely create short term incentives for basic research. For example, the Black-Scholes model of option pricing created an incentive to study stochastic differential equations. The communications industry created a huge incentive to study digital signal processing, information theory and thermodynamics, and a huge amount of supporting mathematics. Construction and mineral/fossil fuel extraction created a huge incentive for basic geology and paleontology research. The need for better ocean navigation created a huge incentive for accurate time measurement and better astronomy observations.
Quantum mechanics looked absolutely useless when we researched it initially
Like using X rays to see inside the human body? Better understanding of physics, chemistry, or materials science? Better and brighter luminescent materials? It wasn't a long jump, for example, from quantum mechanics to broadcast television or plastics manufacture.
The idea that we need researchers to grope in the darkness for very long periods of time in order to find novel basic science results has never been supported in reality. And it should be readily apparent to be absurd because in addition to the tremendous opportunity costs, it ignores that we can cut the amount of effort required to do distant future research by merely doing a lot of productive near future science that happens to cut down on the obstruction to this more distance science.
It's like claiming that we should launch right now a probe towards Alpha Centauri (and other nearby stars) at Voyager level speeds (a few tens of kilometers per second), taking thousands to tens of thousands of years to complete the journey. This ignores that there probably will be advances of technology in the next few decades and centuries which will greatly reduce the travel time (and increase the capabilities of any probe you send).
So we could spend a lot of time and effort on a long shot today. Or we could develop near future technologies and research (with significant ROI I might add) that greatly curbs the difficulty and cost of the project in the future.
Now, that is not to say I think government spending as % of GDP will grow until 100%. I do think it'll stabilize at some point. Far too high for you and many other people's tastes, but it will stabilize.
And what is this expensive government doing to justify those costs? Sounds to me like it's just a parasite expanding to consume available resources. Yes, that's far too high for my "tastes", but it's also far too for society to function freely and dynamically too.
That is incorrect. There are a number of people such as Obama and the heads of several intelligence agencies who have the authority to do so even if the evidence is classified.
Learning more about how the Universe works tends to pay off very well in the more distant future.
Unless, of course, you're just burning money and not actually learning more about how the universe works. Big projects which take money, people, and resources away from better approaches can be worse than doing nothing at all IMHO.
Disregarding those benefits because they're not easy to quantify is short-sighted and leads to bad decisions.
Who said anything about disregarding future benefits? My point is to use near returns as a proxy for those distant benefits. If you're not generating near future benefits, you're probably not generate far future benefits either.
So there's a noticeable tidal change once every 24 hours from the sun?
Yes. There's even centuries old names for these effects, spring and neap tide.
Just because you can't see it now doesn't mean that sailors centuries ago couldn't see it.
What you see is motion of the oceans and tectonic plates that match the period of the moon's position.
The Moon's position relative to the Sun.
Government nationalized electricity, now electricity rates are substantially lower than the US.
Which country is this again?
If someone actually bothered to compute the gravitational force on the Earth by both the sun and moon, you would find the force of the moon is about 1E6 times larger than that of the sun.
The Sun is roughly 400 times further way than the Moon. The Sun masses roughly 30 million times more than the Moon, We have that gravitational force is proportional (using the pretty accurate point mass Newtonian model of gravity) to the mass of the object and inversely proportional to the square of its distance. Hence, the Sun's gravitational force is crudely 200 times stronger than that of the Moon.
By a similar calculation one would get that the tidal force of the Sun is roughly half that of the Moon since tidal force under the above model is proportional to mass and inversely proportional to the cube of the distance.
So maybe there was a reason your highly accurate motion platform wasn't.
Why do you hate the low cost of Alaska?
Why do you think spending $400 million just to raise the low cost of Alaska a little is anything other than profoundly stupid?
You want to abandon the rural areas
That's just smart. If you want to live rural, then you live with being far away from stuff and not having someone throw $400 million into your neighborhood for a really dumb reason.
And there were two bridges to nowhere, the Ketchikan one (Gravina Island) and the Knik one. Both proposed and supported by those liberal Republicans, and defeated by those conservative Democrats.
And your point is?
put no such constraints or limitations on there, why would you choose to require a political viewpoint?
Because obviously we shouldn't have teaching of bad belief systems. Only correct systems should be taught. Fortunately, the funding mechanism you describe is close enough to the present one that we can continue to teach correct belief systems.
Edward Snowden has called for a complete overhaul of US whistleblower protections after a new source from deep inside the Pentagon came forward with a startling account of how the system became a "trap" for those seeking to expose wrongdoing.
The account of John Crane, a former senior Pentagon investigator, appears to undermine Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other major establishment figures who argue that there were established routes for Snowden other than leaking to the media.
Crane, a longtime assistant inspector general at the Pentagon, has accused his old office of retaliating against a major surveillance whistleblower, Thomas Drake, in an episode that helps explain Snowden's 2013 National Security Agency disclosures. Not only did Pentagon officials provide Drake's name to criminal investigators, Crane told the Guardian, they destroyed documents relevant to his defence.
And yes, there have been whistle blowers that were abused and persecuted unjustly, and some of the people that engaged in that abuse are under investigation now.
Perhaps it would be educational for you to point out NSA whistle blowers who haven't been abused and persecuted unjustly?
It was a revolt not whistle blowing. Unlike this case, Snowden didn't have the support of 50 coworkers.
"The wrist radio had obvious, significant value not "cartoonish nonsense". It just wasn't possible for decades."
That was rather my point. Elude you much?
Then why not say that rather than "Dick Tracy's Wrist Radio in 1946 was just cartoon nonsense for decades"? It wasn't cartoon nonsense ever as I noted.
And of course, your rebuttal to my point about being ignorant of economics is non sequitur derping about Trump. Why aren't you voting for Trump? Deliberate stupidity and all that.
My take on this continues to be that we don't have to be economically stupid about R&D. We can't evaluate the far future impact of most scientific research or engineering efforts. But we can evaluate the near future usefulness of such R&D (which need not be an explicit profit despite common assertions to the contrary), how much impact we get for the money spent, and the near future opportunity costs of that effort (both in funding less of other research and in drawing researchers and resources away from other endeavors).
We need sane economics and accountability in scientific research just like anything else particularly when other peoples' money is being spent. The rules don't go away because the universal economic problems don't go away.
The bridge to nowhere was linking the largest airport in the area to the largest population center in the area. That both are small by NYC standards doesn't mean they are insignificant to the largest state in the Union.
In other words, Alaska and the US were going to spend $400 million to connect a town of 8,000 people to an airport. They already had ferries. That was good enough.
But if the area wants a bridge, maybe they ought to pay for it themselves?
That's a first. A complaint about public education that didn't mention unions.
Good thing you mentioned it then. We shouldn't forget that particular bit of widespread corruption.
Fund all schools, public or private, based on enrollment.
Conditional on them teaching the correct political viewpoint, of course.
There is a government in Somalia: a crappy one, in a string of crappy provisional governments.
It's worth noting here that the informal crappy governments of Somalia today are better than when Somalia had an official one with Marxist-Leninist ideology and the usual resulting lethal pathologies.
Quality of governence is a different issue entirely.
Of course, that's wrong. First, there wouldn't be so much support for tax reduction, if the government was doing high quality stuff with those taxes since more peoples' interests would be supported by government activity and there would be far less graft to generate negative publicity. Second, there would be far more bang for the buck which means a given level of taxes does more.
My point was in reference to the parent, that claimed that they don't use these services and therefor he shouldn't pay taxes, and that the IRS is illegal.
Well, does that poster have a cushy, cost plus defense contract? Are they getting back several times what they put in for Medicare? Do they have a sinecure in some federal bureaucracy that'll only go away, if they die or commit a brazen felony? If not, then maybe they don't use as much federal government service as you might think.
Of course that's excessive, we could abolish Medicare and Medicaid and the VA and housing programs and just support a team of waste disposal specialists who pick up the corpses and incinerate them, that would be quite a lot cheaper. But it might have other consequences, who knows.
And there we go. We don't need to spend 40% of the federal government's budget, including "off budget" to prevent bodies in the street. Notice the pattern: an enormously expensive solution to a cheap problem.
Then there's "social security, unemployment and labor", that's the biggest single tranche of the whole budget. Of course we could do without those things, we did just fine up until 1933, give or take. But I'll just say - right or wrong, there was a reason why they were introduced, and it wasn't a commie plot.
It's a pyramid scheme bribe to the voters to look the other way. Anyone of voting age alive in 1933 got considerably more out of those programs than they put in (which was a great deal for themselves, but not for posterity). In exchange, they ignored a massive increase in government spending, part which was funded directly by Social Security.
Let us note that federal spending was well under 5% of GDP for most of the life of the US prior to 1933 except for two wars, the Civil War and the First World War. After the FDR era and the end of the Second World War, US government spending never went below 11% and is now above 20% of GDP.
but he also acted indiscriminately and betrayed American intelligence-gathering methods to foreign powers
So why shouldn't he be pardoned for that? People keep forgetting that it was that or not say anything at all. Legal whistle blowing doesn't work. That means there will always be some legal angle like the one you espouse that allows the powers-that-be to punish anyone that steps out of line.