And I don't have much use for voicemail either. If I don't want to talk to you, leaving voicemail won't change my mind. If I do, I'll answer the phone....
I suspect that when I am in my eighties, I will have
much less desire to communicate with the world or check the news on a minute by minute basis.
Unlikely.
You have grown up in a world where instant access to communications/news is "normal".
The current crop of elderly grew up in a world where they got their news on TV or in the newspaper, and are perfectly happy with that.
When you are elderly, you'll probably still want your news and communications to be instantly accessible. But you won't have any use at all for some of the as yet undreamed of things that your grandchildren will be doing with the internet.
They, of course, will spend much time debating why old farts like you don't have a burning need for terabit internet access....
Of course they want it. They just don't want to pay scary fees for it.
Umm, no. My mother-in-law has had internet access for 20 years. She didn't get broadband till this past year, when my wife changed her over to broadband without letting on she'd done it.
At the time of the switchover, broadband had been CHEAPER than dialup for three years where mom-in-law lived. She just never really had enough use for it to matter - email doesn't take much bandwidth, and that's all she used her computer for.
Me thinks it's great that this "work toward curing disease such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes." is finally getting the approval it deserves.
It should be noted that, since this study is privately funded, it could have been done at any time during the Bush or Clinton Presidencies.
It should be further noted that, since this study uses one of the "approved" stem cell lines, it could have acquired Federal funding during the Bush Presidency (but not during the Clinton Presidency, since when Clinton was President NO stem cell research was getting Federal funding).
In other words, this particular study provides no evidence whatsoever that anything has changed in any way, however slight.
But what Obama wants, presumably, is the common good,
What Obama wants is what Obama believes to be the common good. Not quite the same thing.
What Rush wants is what Rush believes to be the common good. Also not quite the same thing.
Is Obama correct in believing that what he believes is the common good really is the common good? On some things, probably, on others, probably not.
Ditto for Rush.
And for everyone else. We all want what we believe to be the common good. Some of us are right most of the time, some of us some of the time, some rarely. Noone is right all the time, and I doubt seriously anyone is right none of the time.
So, unplug and replug your TV every time you want to watch it. I honestly don't care if my TV uses 20 Watts when it isn't turned on or not, that is a rather insignificant part of my electric bill for a major part of my (and most people's) life.
No it not rather insignificant. The devices add up. And you don't know shit about most people. You are just stating that out of your ass. Show me someone who does not want to save money.
Let's see. 20w for a month is 21.6 kw-hours. About $2.00 for most people. About 1% of my summer electric bill. I can think of more important things in my life to waste time worrying about.
The government overdoing something based on a popular misconception? I am shocked and appalled!
Last time I cared about government standards for this sort of thing, I got the NSA document describing standards for the government. It basically reduced down to "take the hard drive platters, and grind them to dust".
While I may doubt the government in general, if NSA says wiping isn't sufficient, I'm inclined to agree with them.
Talk to Orson Scott Card who thinks the only way to settle the gay marriage issue is to criminalize homosexuality.
...But even a so-called open mind like his wants to see people put behind bars for sex between consenting adults.
I'll take your word that he's said this.
However, one must keep in mind that this may not be a position he supports. Stating that "the only way to solve [insert problem of choice here] is [insert unpalatable solution of choice here]" doesn't actually imply support for the solution (nor does it imply that he does NOT support the solution). It may be a realistic estimate of what needs to be done to resolve the issue (especially since the alternative, while it would be popular among one segment of society, would be repugnant to another segment of society - the status quo ante at least has the virtue of being what we're all used to).
Personally, I'd suspect that he'd be in favour of gay marriage, since the arguments floated to support the idea work equally well to support polygamy.
I'm straight, and a Christian and I'm all for allowing any consulting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of their bedroom. My marriage isn't less valid because two men or two women decide to have sex with each other.
Frankly I'm alarmed by the millions of people in this country who want Uncle Sam to regulate what is acceptable in their bedroom.
Of course, this isn't about Uncle Sam. Nor is it about what is acceptable in your bedroom.
What it is about is "marriage", which has nothing to do with "sex".
Doesn't that language, emphasizing the mandatory nature of the restriction, take care of the issue you raised?
No. Prior law does not prevent the making of new law. And each bill is "new law". So no bill that you can write can prevent the Congress from making another law, even one that contradicts the older law. You'd need a Constitutional Amendment to deal with this.
Well, sure. But the law would stick out like a sore thumb, especially since it would necessarily be titled something like "Repeal of the One Subject at a Time Act." If (joy of joys) the Read The Bills Act (or at least the full-text-online provision) had also been passed beforehand, the public's reaction to such a measure would keep it from passing.
Umm, you misunderstood me.
You don't have to repeal the law to render it invalid, if you're Congress. You can just act as if it's not there for purposes of passing other laws.
For the "One Subject at a Time Law", all you'd need to do is pass a law dealing with two subjects. Since that law came after the "One Subject" law, it would automatically be valid (even though it didn't have only one subject).
As for doomed from day one, he already saved quite a bit of money from it, and will probably save more.
While I expect that he'll save money in the long run, he hasn't saved any yet. A one-time $36K expense that has reduced his yearly expenses by ~$3500 leaves him better than $34K in the hole still. If you amortize the cost at a reasonable rate, he'll probably break even in 12-15 years.
The other bill they're pushing for, which I'll mention here because it also represents another process to improve our quality of legislation, is the One Subject at a Time Act [downsizedc.org]. It's pretty self-explanatory, and would end the use of "riders" - sneaking unpopular chunks of legislation (or pork) into other popular or necessary bills.
If you want to see these changes made, one of the best things you can do is to raise awareness of these bills, call your congressmen, and convince your friends and family to do the same.
This one won't work.
It is an unfortunate characteristic of laws that a later one supersedes an earlier one. In this case, that means that even if this were passed, any subsequent law which dealt with riders would, by definition, supersede the One Subject at a Time Act, and render it null and void.
This, by the way, is what happened to all the Balanced Budget laws that have been passed over the years - the Budget is a Law, just like anything else the Congress does, and automatically supersedes previous laws. Such as Balanced Budget Laws previously enacted....
We're in the Information Age, and presidents can't be cut off from the world forever. Someone has to keep them connected,
The President has been connected for a long time. He has more ways to communicate with pretty much anyone anywhere than RIM can begin to imagine, I expect.
I worked at a place that did this. Very nice, really. Easier to schedule things like dentist appointment and whatnot without taking time off, since I had a three-day weekend 26 times a year.
And I could make a nine-day vacation on 36 hours vacation time, as long as I picked an off Friday week for the vacation.
I can only remember once I had to work on an off Friday in a couple years there. And I got the following Monday off that time.
What if you forget, or need to travel at short notice?
Well, since "nearly all applications would be approved in less than 10 seconds", then I imagine that you'd have no problems at all.
Unless, of course, your application would be rejected (they didn't want you at all), or "pending" (they can't check up on you as quickly as they'd like, for whatever reason).
In which case it's pretty safe to say that you'd be delayed by more than 72 hours under the OLD process.
In addition "The U.S. Homeland Security Department said in a statement that it will take a reasonable approach to travelers who have not obtained an approved travel authorization, but warned that travelers without authorization do risk being delayed or denied entry to the U.S.". This suggests that you'd probably get in just fine after the usual paperwork is filled out on arrival, and some clerk enters it online in the same way you should have done 72 hours earlier.
Really, this potential issue is only meaningful if you fall into the "pending" classification (however you get there). Approval comes almost instantly, or you're rejected almost instantly, and only "pending" gives you a meaningful delay. And if you suspect you might be classified as "pending", go apply right now, and find out. The approval is good for two years, and you'll know for future reference whether you need to apply five minutes in advance, or three days in advance, or not bother at all.
Problem is the narrowness of the vehicle. Up to 273 tons concentrated in a narrow band.
Width of the undercarriage might be an issue, but probably not. The entire vehicle puts a load on a narrow strip of runway only slightly higher than the load that either side of a 747's undercarriage put on a runway (273 tons versus 220 tons per side). While reinforcement might be desirable, doesn't look to be mandatory.
And an abort and return to airport shortly after takeoff would result in a fully loaded landing. That has to be part of the design as well.
Not really. You can dump fuel if necessary. If you don't have time to dump fuel, then you probably don't have time to turn around and get back to the airport.
If this can save so much money why isn't the health care industry already doing it? Are they really that stupid or are all the promises of big savings not likely to pan out?
It won't save any money for the healthcare industry. If it were really going to save $200 billion per year, then the cost ($10 billion per year) would be so trivial that it would have been done already.
It might save some money for the health insurance companies, but the big draw seems to be that it'll create 212,000 jobs. At a cost of $100 billion. $500,000 per job over ten years. If the jobs are permanent, then it'll cost the healthcare industry an additional $10 billion per year forever. If not, then at the end of ten years, we get a bunch of new unemployed.
Fortunately, that'll be after Obama is out of office, so noone will blame him for it.
it looks like they can use a convention runway (though it might need to be reinforced, apparently a loaded vehicle generates a lot of impact on landing).
Even fully loaded, this vehicle is better than 150 tons lighter than a 747. Much less at its designed landing weight (about 1/8th the takeoff weight of a 747). So I doubt the runway will need reinforcement.
Though, historically/traditionally, there are only three branches - AF, Navy, Army.
Only if your history/tradition stops with the Key West Accords. Those of us whose tradition goes back a bit further know that historically/traditionally there were TWO branches - Army and Navy.
Slashdot Mirror
Ditto.
And I don't have much use for voicemail either. If I don't want to talk to you, leaving voicemail won't change my mind. If I do, I'll answer the phone....
Okay, explain the benefits of broadband for a person who does nothing but email with her computer.
Unlikely.
You have grown up in a world where instant access to communications/news is "normal".
The current crop of elderly grew up in a world where they got their news on TV or in the newspaper, and are perfectly happy with that.
When you are elderly, you'll probably still want your news and communications to be instantly accessible. But you won't have any use at all for some of the as yet undreamed of things that your grandchildren will be doing with the internet.
They, of course, will spend much time debating why old farts like you don't have a burning need for terabit internet access....
Umm, no. My mother-in-law has had internet access for 20 years. She didn't get broadband till this past year, when my wife changed her over to broadband without letting on she'd done it.
At the time of the switchover, broadband had been CHEAPER than dialup for three years where mom-in-law lived. She just never really had enough use for it to matter - email doesn't take much bandwidth, and that's all she used her computer for.
It should be noted that, since this study is privately funded, it could have been done at any time during the Bush or Clinton Presidencies.
It should be further noted that, since this study uses one of the "approved" stem cell lines, it could have acquired Federal funding during the Bush Presidency (but not during the Clinton Presidency, since when Clinton was President NO stem cell research was getting Federal funding).
In other words, this particular study provides no evidence whatsoever that anything has changed in any way, however slight.
Well, he didn't actually close Gitmo. He ordered that it be closed within a year. Assuming he can find a place to put the prisoners there....
What Obama wants is what Obama believes to be the common good. Not quite the same thing.
What Rush wants is what Rush believes to be the common good. Also not quite the same thing.
Is Obama correct in believing that what he believes is the common good really is the common good? On some things, probably, on others, probably not.
Ditto for Rush.
And for everyone else. We all want what we believe to be the common good. Some of us are right most of the time, some of us some of the time, some rarely. Noone is right all the time, and I doubt seriously anyone is right none of the time.
What? You think we'd have called off all the usual air raids and invasions and whatnot if we'd not had the Bomb?
The Japanese lost more people in the firebombing raids on Tokyo than they did to the Atom Bombs.
An invasion of the home islands by the US Army would have cost them FAR more casualties than the Atomic Bombing of two cities.
Let's see. 20w for a month is 21.6 kw-hours. About $2.00 for most people. About 1% of my summer electric bill. I can think of more important things in my life to waste time worrying about.
Last time I cared about government standards for this sort of thing, I got the NSA document describing standards for the government. It basically reduced down to "take the hard drive platters, and grind them to dust".
While I may doubt the government in general, if NSA says wiping isn't sufficient, I'm inclined to agree with them.
I'll take your word that he's said this.
However, one must keep in mind that this may not be a position he supports. Stating that "the only way to solve [insert problem of choice here] is [insert unpalatable solution of choice here]" doesn't actually imply support for the solution (nor does it imply that he does NOT support the solution). It may be a realistic estimate of what needs to be done to resolve the issue (especially since the alternative, while it would be popular among one segment of society, would be repugnant to another segment of society - the status quo ante at least has the virtue of being what we're all used to).
Personally, I'd suspect that he'd be in favour of gay marriage, since the arguments floated to support the idea work equally well to support polygamy.
Of course, this isn't about Uncle Sam. Nor is it about what is acceptable in your bedroom.
What it is about is "marriage", which has nothing to do with "sex".
Well, other than the 1930's, which had a much larger foreclosure rate than we're having now.
No. Prior law does not prevent the making of new law. And each bill is "new law". So no bill that you can write can prevent the Congress from making another law, even one that contradicts the older law. You'd need a Constitutional Amendment to deal with this.
Umm, you misunderstood me.
You don't have to repeal the law to render it invalid, if you're Congress. You can just act as if it's not there for purposes of passing other laws.
For the "One Subject at a Time Law", all you'd need to do is pass a law dealing with two subjects. Since that law came after the "One Subject" law, it would automatically be valid (even though it didn't have only one subject).
While I expect that he'll save money in the long run, he hasn't saved any yet. A one-time $36K expense that has reduced his yearly expenses by ~$3500 leaves him better than $34K in the hole still. If you amortize the cost at a reasonable rate, he'll probably break even in 12-15 years.
After that, he'll save some money.
This one won't work.
It is an unfortunate characteristic of laws that a later one supersedes an earlier one. In this case, that means that even if this were passed, any subsequent law which dealt with riders would, by definition, supersede the One Subject at a Time Act, and render it null and void.
This, by the way, is what happened to all the Balanced Budget laws that have been passed over the years - the Budget is a Law, just like anything else the Congress does, and automatically supersedes previous laws. Such as Balanced Budget Laws previously enacted....
Which I should have known, since the daughter forced me to sit through all six Star Wars movies over the last couple weekends.
The President has been connected for a long time. He has more ways to communicate with pretty much anyone anywhere than RIM can begin to imagine, I expect.
Cue Han Solo "I can imagine an awful lot".
And I could make a nine-day vacation on 36 hours vacation time, as long as I picked an off Friday week for the vacation.
I can only remember once I had to work on an off Friday in a couple years there. And I got the following Monday off that time.
Well, since "nearly all applications would be approved in less than 10 seconds", then I imagine that you'd have no problems at all.
Unless, of course, your application would be rejected (they didn't want you at all), or "pending" (they can't check up on you as quickly as they'd like, for whatever reason).
In which case it's pretty safe to say that you'd be delayed by more than 72 hours under the OLD process.
In addition "The U.S. Homeland Security Department said in a statement that it will take a reasonable approach to travelers who have not obtained an approved travel authorization, but warned that travelers without authorization do risk being delayed or denied entry to the U.S.". This suggests that you'd probably get in just fine after the usual paperwork is filled out on arrival, and some clerk enters it online in the same way you should have done 72 hours earlier.
Really, this potential issue is only meaningful if you fall into the "pending" classification (however you get there). Approval comes almost instantly, or you're rejected almost instantly, and only "pending" gives you a meaningful delay. And if you suspect you might be classified as "pending", go apply right now, and find out. The approval is good for two years, and you'll know for future reference whether you need to apply five minutes in advance, or three days in advance, or not bother at all.
Width of the undercarriage might be an issue, but probably not. The entire vehicle puts a load on a narrow strip of runway only slightly higher than the load that either side of a 747's undercarriage put on a runway (273 tons versus 220 tons per side). While reinforcement might be desirable, doesn't look to be mandatory.
Not really. You can dump fuel if necessary. If you don't have time to dump fuel, then you probably don't have time to turn around and get back to the airport.
It won't save any money for the healthcare industry. If it were really going to save $200 billion per year, then the cost ($10 billion per year) would be so trivial that it would have been done already.
It might save some money for the health insurance companies, but the big draw seems to be that it'll create 212,000 jobs. At a cost of $100 billion. $500,000 per job over ten years. If the jobs are permanent, then it'll cost the healthcare industry an additional $10 billion per year forever. If not, then at the end of ten years, we get a bunch of new unemployed.
Fortunately, that'll be after Obama is out of office, so noone will blame him for it.
Even fully loaded, this vehicle is better than 150 tons lighter than a 747. Much less at its designed landing weight (about 1/8th the takeoff weight of a 747). So I doubt the runway will need reinforcement.
Only if your history/tradition stops with the Key West Accords. Those of us whose tradition goes back a bit further know that historically/traditionally there were TWO branches - Army and Navy.