Prosperity causes fewer children. Fewer children lower population growth rates.
To the point where in the most prosperous parts of the planet (US, the EU, China (for different reasons, but the prosperity part is coming along there)), population growth rates are negative absent immigration.
If the entire world were raised to EU standards of living, population would decline to rather lower than current populations, and stay there forever....
Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...
The US is the only highly developed nation without national universal health coverage as a human right. Here in the US it is much more important for insurance companies to be highly profitable than it is to take care of everyone.
And do you know why we don't have a National Health System?
Hint: it has nothing to do with the EEEVIL Insurance Companies, and a great deal to do with a piece of government interference in the marketplace that happened before most of us were born (probably before a lot of our parents were born.
Once upon a time, there was a War. It was so big it was commonly referred to as a "World War". Specifically, it was World War Two.
In that war, the government pretty much took control of the economy, so as to make the "armored cars and tanks and jeeps and rigs of every size" that were needed to fight that war. Part of this was "wage and price controls".
Now, wage and price controls were arguably necessary. We were fighting a war, after all. But it became impossible to hire talent, since you couldn't offer them more money to work for you (wage controls, remember?).
Then some bright guy started offering company-paid health insurance as a fringe benefit not covered by the wage controls. By the time the war was over, health insurance as a fringe benefit (at the professional level) was pretty well entrenched. And it's been getting more entrenched in society every year.
Frankly, a National Health System is needed. But blasting that particular fringe benefit out of existence is going to be a royal pain, and likely take a long time and probably a long period of a really crappy economy (think Great Depression Part Deux)....
OK, so how about offering some good, constructive and effective ideas to deal with the problem? As far as I can see, with the problems we are facing: terrorism, unsustainable growth, climate change etc - we don't have the option of not making any sacrifices at all.
So, why should I offer ideas to deal with someone else's problems thousands of miles away?
I should also note that I disagree with your list of insurmountable problems.
That said...
As to things like the Paris incident, it occurs to me to wonder how easy it would have been to wander through a crowded venue shooting people at random if some of those people had been armed themselves...
Climate change is easy to deal with - issue licenses (and money, if needed), to build a nuclear power plant to replace every coal plant on the planet. Then issue more licenses (and money) as needed to allow replacement of gasoline burning automobiles with Teslas for everyone.
Unsustainable growth? How about just raising everyone's standard of living to match the EU/USA? Both of those places are negative population growth absent immigration. And all the evidence shows that the best way to slow population growth is to make people prosperous enough that they don't need to crank out babies to make ends meet.
Easy to do? Not really. It'll take a century to sort out the prosperity thing, more or less. The Nukes are a 20 year solution, but could be started tomorrow if we were willing to pay the price (seems to me that half the DoD's budget would cover the costs for the Western Hemisphere, but the EU would have to come up with the money for the Eastern Hemisphere). The guns? Change a few laws, and deal....
So, could I use that same device (or a pirate copy) to figure out what's in a man's wallet? That would make it much easier to decide who to mug (do they still use that word?)....
In short, this is a witch-hunt support tool and it will be sued as such.
I find myself curious whether you meant "used". Because I expect that the sentence is true either way. It will be used, and the lawsuits will be flying over its use....
More likely because their anti-nuke hysterics are as bad as our anti-nuke hysterics.
Just remember, the one thing that can turn an AGW fanatic into a proponent of coal is the thought that the easiest zero-CO2 replacement for a coal plant is a nuclear power plant....
Russia's boosters have always been first rate, and that's what gave them the early lead.
What gave the Russians an early lead was a willingness to use modified ICBMs as boosters.
In the very earliest days of NASA, since NASA was a civilian agency, NASA had a policy of using "civilian" rockets. Which meant that they had to develop their rockets from scratch rather than using modified ICBMs.
And then Russia put Sputnik up. And Gagarin. And NASA found itself forced to use ICBMs to play catchup. Which they did, as you noted.
But the problem was never the superiority of Russian rockets, but the self-imposed blinders NASA operated under....
One point: it is not "wrong" for a lawyer to defend his client to the best of his ability, and do his best to get an acquittal, EVEN IF THE CLIENT IS GUILTY.
The criminal defense lawyer's purpose in life is to ensure that the government plays by the rules. Period. So anything he does to that end is, by definition, "right".
For the rest: all the calculations that were done previously using Newton's laws: the force needed to change the speed of an (not relativistic) object (cars, trains, elements of a machine...) are STILL calculated using newtons law.
I take it you are unaware that you have to take Relativity into account when determining satellite orbits?
Preview is your friend. As is being able to spell "blockquote" reliably....
do your fucking job. spying on suspects
not hoovering everything from everyone
Your mistake is not understanding that to "national security personnel" EVERYONE is a suspect.
The question is not whether you've done something wrong, but exactly what you've done wrong, and whether they want to prosecute you for it, far as they're concerned....
Your mistake is not understanding that to "national security personnel" EVERYONE is a suspect.
The question is not whether you've done something wrong, but exactly what you've done wrong, and whether they want to prosecute you for it, far as they're concerned....
It should also be noted that in the late 1800's, the temp measurements were not made to modern standards of either accuracy or precision on a worldwide basis. Your point was?
he tech industry did all of this as a direct response to government abuse, mostly by major first-world governments like those in the U.S. and Britain, rather than by all the third-world governments that you might ordinarily imagine would be guilty of spying on their citizens.
Why would anyone think that Third-Worlders would be doing this? Third World governments seldom have the power (read: money and resources) to do something like this. Only wealthy governments could do this, or have an interest in doing this.
And before anyone brings it up, this isn't at all like gun control.
Actually, it's exactly like that. Go after something that's pretty much harmless in the hands of the law-biding because a very tiny fraction of the population abuses it. Gun control to a T....
Slashdot Mirror
could've
would've
Oh, and "harnessing" might have been more appropriate than "harassing". Depending on your intent, of course.
Where I live, 2" of snow would mark the coming of the next Ice Age....
Yes, Malthus will pretty much always be wrong.
Prosperity causes fewer children. Fewer children lower population growth rates.
To the point where in the most prosperous parts of the planet (US, the EU, China (for different reasons, but the prosperity part is coming along there)), population growth rates are negative absent immigration.
If the entire world were raised to EU standards of living, population would decline to rather lower than current populations, and stay there forever....
Realistically, if orbit is their goal, then the stage they landed today could easily serve as a Second Stage atop a full-grown First Stage.
He wasn't. He was thinking of Spaceship One. Look it up.
Umm, we're backing the Kurds. Who are NOT "Islamist"....
Note, of course, that the "owners" are anyone who owns Disney stock. Which includes a large chunk of the 401k's and IRA's in the country. Certainly it includes mine...
Of course they wouldn't! Only a moron would believe something so silly.
Elephants, as any sensible person well knows, wear boxer-briefs...
Would've. It's a contraction of "would have".
When did this new form of illiteracy take hold? And how did it ever get past Eighth Grade?
And do you know why we don't have a National Health System?
Hint: it has nothing to do with the EEEVIL Insurance Companies, and a great deal to do with a piece of government interference in the marketplace that happened before most of us were born (probably before a lot of our parents were born.
Once upon a time, there was a War. It was so big it was commonly referred to as a "World War". Specifically, it was World War Two.
In that war, the government pretty much took control of the economy, so as to make the "armored cars and tanks and jeeps and rigs of every size" that were needed to fight that war. Part of this was "wage and price controls".
Now, wage and price controls were arguably necessary. We were fighting a war, after all. But it became impossible to hire talent, since you couldn't offer them more money to work for you (wage controls, remember?).
Then some bright guy started offering company-paid health insurance as a fringe benefit not covered by the wage controls. By the time the war was over, health insurance as a fringe benefit (at the professional level) was pretty well entrenched. And it's been getting more entrenched in society every year.
Frankly, a National Health System is needed. But blasting that particular fringe benefit out of existence is going to be a royal pain, and likely take a long time and probably a long period of a really crappy economy (think Great Depression Part Deux)....
SIxty years into the railroad age, we were still using rather primitive steam locomotives.
Forty years later, the early automobiles were on the roads (such roads as existed).
Fifty years after that, we were taking our cars to the airport....
Actually, it won't hurt the fission research community in any way. The FUSION research community, on the other hand....
So, why should I offer ideas to deal with someone else's problems thousands of miles away?
I should also note that I disagree with your list of insurmountable problems.
That said...
As to things like the Paris incident, it occurs to me to wonder how easy it would have been to wander through a crowded venue shooting people at random if some of those people had been armed themselves...
Climate change is easy to deal with - issue licenses (and money, if needed), to build a nuclear power plant to replace every coal plant on the planet. Then issue more licenses (and money) as needed to allow replacement of gasoline burning automobiles with Teslas for everyone.
Unsustainable growth? How about just raising everyone's standard of living to match the EU/USA? Both of those places are negative population growth absent immigration. And all the evidence shows that the best way to slow population growth is to make people prosperous enough that they don't need to crank out babies to make ends meet.
Easy to do? Not really. It'll take a century to sort out the prosperity thing, more or less. The Nukes are a 20 year solution, but could be started tomorrow if we were willing to pay the price (seems to me that half the DoD's budget would cover the costs for the Western Hemisphere, but the EU would have to come up with the money for the Eastern Hemisphere). The guns? Change a few laws, and deal....
Hmm...
So, could I use that same device (or a pirate copy) to figure out what's in a man's wallet? That would make it much easier to decide who to mug (do they still use that word?)....
I find myself curious whether you meant "used". Because I expect that the sentence is true either way. It will be used, and the lawsuits will be flying over its use....
More likely because their anti-nuke hysterics are as bad as our anti-nuke hysterics.
Just remember, the one thing that can turn an AGW fanatic into a proponent of coal is the thought that the easiest zero-CO2 replacement for a coal plant is a nuclear power plant....
What gave the Russians an early lead was a willingness to use modified ICBMs as boosters.
In the very earliest days of NASA, since NASA was a civilian agency, NASA had a policy of using "civilian" rockets. Which meant that they had to develop their rockets from scratch rather than using modified ICBMs.
And then Russia put Sputnik up. And Gagarin. And NASA found itself forced to use ICBMs to play catchup. Which they did, as you noted.
But the problem was never the superiority of Russian rockets, but the self-imposed blinders NASA operated under....
Many years ago, I was on one of the boomers.
The upper brass knows not much more than which ocean the boomer is when it's at sea.
The Captain and Navigator (and the Nav's CPO) know where the boat is. The rest of us generally knew which ocean we were in....
One point: it is not "wrong" for a lawyer to defend his client to the best of his ability, and do his best to get an acquittal, EVEN IF THE CLIENT IS GUILTY.
The criminal defense lawyer's purpose in life is to ensure that the government plays by the rules. Period. So anything he does to that end is, by definition, "right".
I take it you are unaware that you have to take Relativity into account when determining satellite orbits?
In the USA, "treason" is defined in the Constitution, and has a very narrow meaning. Do keep that in mind when tossing the word about.
Preview is your friend. As is being able to spell "blockquote" reliably....
Your mistake is not understanding that to "national security personnel" EVERYONE is a suspect.
The question is not whether you've done something wrong, but exactly what you've done wrong, and whether they want to prosecute you for it, far as they're concerned....
It should also be noted that in the late 1800's, the temp measurements were not made to modern standards of either accuracy or precision on a worldwide basis. Your point was?
Why would anyone think that Third-Worlders would be doing this? Third World governments seldom have the power (read: money and resources) to do something like this. Only wealthy governments could do this, or have an interest in doing this.
Actually, it's exactly like that. Go after something that's pretty much harmless in the hands of the law-biding because a very tiny fraction of the population abuses it. Gun control to a T....