There's plenty of money. The second most expensive medical system on the planet costs, per capita, roughly two-thirds of what the US system does. The US government already spends a lot on medical care (VA, Medicare, etc.), and that per capita amount is about the same as the total expenses in some pretty healthy countries.
California's housing prices are a huge part of their affordable housing problem.
Well, yes. The next question is why California housing prices are so high - or, at least, in certain areas. I doubt all houses in California are that expensive, but in the San Francisco area they are.
The cost of a house is pretty much the cost of the building(s) plus the cost of the land. In rural areas, land is cheap, so raising the price of constructing a house has a relatively large effect on the overall price. In San Francisco, it's a matter of limited real estate, so the lot is really really expensive, and raising the cost of building a house has a relatively small effect.
'They' bugged a presidential candidate (for the appointed successor and using fiction produced by that same crook's campaign to get the warrant) less than 2 years ago.
And the source for your information would be? The only thing I've seen that discusses that is the evasive Nunes memo, and even that doesn't say what you claim.
Also, there is no US public school system. Most countries do have national school systems, but in the US the Federal government has no authority aside from being able to hand out money. Each state has a school system, and each of those school systems is more or less decentralized. Funding for schools tends to be local, which means it varies dramatically. Private school systems aren't going to educate every single child in the country. That takes government. You're taking the actual failings and assuming they're necessary, while ruling out the only solution that can work.
I haven't lived in New York City. Have you lived in a major inland metro area? Nobody's going to want to live near the facility, and it really isn't going to add all that many workers to the metro area.
The regulations being used against AirBnB make it worse for the everybody except a small number of special interests.
Or anybody who wants to live in a stable residential neighborhood. Hotels bring in large numbers of transients, and transients generally don't care about their neighbors. They can throw loud parties late at night, litter, and make the neighborhood less safe, and I'm not even talking about the malicious ones. When these people are packed into hotels, the hotel needs to keep some sort of lid on them and can be held responsible. Moreover, they're in commercially zoned areas, not residential.
Slave markets were a creation of the US government,
Actually, no. Slavery was enforced by the US government, which didn't create it. Slave markets were typically private sector.
both Marx and you like to equivocate about the term "capitalist", using it in different meanings
Not in different meanings, but "capitalism" is the economic system that has won. Private ownership of the means of production, and economic progress by individual initiative rewarded by money. There's different varieties of capitalist systems, of course. Similarly, if I were to refer to "precipitation", you'd doubtless be complaining that I used it to describe gentle rain, hard rain, hail, snow, and freezing rain.
And the criminalization of drugs, sex work, some firearms, and many other things has hurt people badly, in particular minorities. It has been a major driver of racial disparities and inequality. That is what you advocate: screwing over minorities in the name of progressive ideology.
Sex work has been largely illegal for a long time. The prohibition of drugs may have started as part of progressive ideology, but it isn't now. Progressive idealism currently means at least decriminalizing sex work and allowing more access to drugs. Legalization of marijuana, in particular, has been a progressive stance all my life.
I have heard that expression. I sang songs on that theme when I was in college. Realistically, however, large numbers of people will enlist.
Also, in the real world, that depends on nobody from either side showing up, and that's a lot harder to arrange. It's a good thing people from all over the world showed up in WWII.
My point is that there's a difference between making CO2 out of long-sequestered carbon (like fossil fuels) and carbon in the carbon cycle that doesn't happen to be CO2 at the moment. Plants take CO2 and make C out of it. Animals eat plants and other animals that eat plants. Animals breathe out CO2 from C atoms that were recently taken out of the air by plants.
If we're taking rocks and baking them to get CO2 out, that is also carbon that wasn't in the carbon cycle, and is better compared to burning fossil fuels than breathing.
I'd say that the difference here is that a professional mathematician will exist in a certain environment. A math professor will read certain journals, associate with other math professors, teach certain things to students, etc. An amateur will be outside this environment.
Currently, it's really difficult to get up to speed in a science without being a professional (this wasn't the case if you go back far enough), and it's really difficult to make contributions without knowing the existing science very well. Einstein was working as a patent examiner, we all know that, but he had seriously studied what was then modern physics in an academic environment. He would have been a professional physicist then if he hadn't pissed people off.
So, we're not going to see many significant contributions by amateurs, so this is noteworthy.
Humans are carbon-neutral. (Actually, they're a bit better than that if you put the dead ones in sufficiently sealed caskets.) Plants fix carbon, animals eat plants (and other animals), and then they exhale while alive and decay when they're dead and release all of it again.
It purports to convert electricity into momentum change. Assuming Special Relativity holds, you can get more energy out of such a thing than you put in. Seriously, free energy. (This shouldn't be surprising. By Noether's Theorem, the conservation of momentum is linked to physical laws not changing through space, and the conservation of energy is linked to physical laws not changing through time. Except that there is no such independent things as space and time, since they're how we see spacetime from a given reference frame. Therefore, if conservation of momentum is broken, odds are conservation of energy also is.)
In the Magic: the Gathering newsgroup, there was a lot of joking around, since Magic cards were generally black, white, red, blue, or green. It took a while for me to figure what had happened, since the spam message had been canceled by the time I logged in.
I've got a friend who followed his passion and got a degree in medieval history. After a rather unpleasant attempt at a career, he went back and got his MBA, and things improved. Fortunately, my passion when young was mathematics, which is a heck of a lot more salable in the job market.
Which means that, if large groups of the population are oppressed for long periods of time, it's fine with you as long as it's not government-enforced. That's not a universally shared view.
No, this is about a company making a market more efficient, by bringing together buyers and sellers.
And ignoring regulations that make it better for the rest of us.
No, you could not. Capitalism means free markets, and outlawing AirBnB is incompatible with free markets.
Capitalism doesn't mean everything is a free market. We've outlawed slave markets, for example, and historical records don't show a complete failure of capitalism. There's lots of things whose markets are restricted in the US, including sex workers, various drugs, some firearms and other weapons, and to a certain extent things that are falsely advertised. Yet we seem to be in a capitalist economy.
There's good reason for people to want to protect their real estate investments. Once you own a house, moving is very expensive. (A couple of friends of mine had a financial problem and looked into moving to a smaller home. Turned out that, when they went through the details, they wouldn't save any money for the time they were concerned about.) Anything that lowers the value of living in the neighborhood either has to be endured or the homeowners have to spend a lot of money.
As a society, it seems we favor home ownership, and making people more secure in their home purchases helps that. Also, making residential neighborhoods in general less pleasant to live with isn't a good thing.
No a hazardous waste facility opening in a residential area is going to push rents down. Nobody wants to live near it. If it hires more people, they'll be willing to commute farther rather than living next to the facility.
Slashdot Mirror
There's plenty of money. The second most expensive medical system on the planet costs, per capita, roughly two-thirds of what the US system does. The US government already spends a lot on medical care (VA, Medicare, etc.), and that per capita amount is about the same as the total expenses in some pretty healthy countries.
Well, yes. The next question is why California housing prices are so high - or, at least, in certain areas. I doubt all houses in California are that expensive, but in the San Francisco area they are.
The cost of a house is pretty much the cost of the building(s) plus the cost of the land. In rural areas, land is cheap, so raising the price of constructing a house has a relatively large effect on the overall price. In San Francisco, it's a matter of limited real estate, so the lot is really really expensive, and raising the cost of building a house has a relatively small effect.
And the source for your information would be? The only thing I've seen that discusses that is the evasive Nunes memo, and even that doesn't say what you claim.
In my experience, women working in tech are overall pretty good-looking, often with nice boobs.
In other words, astronomy is largely pseudo-science. Got it.
Reading comprehension can be your friend.
Also, there is no US public school system. Most countries do have national school systems, but in the US the Federal government has no authority aside from being able to hand out money. Each state has a school system, and each of those school systems is more or less decentralized. Funding for schools tends to be local, which means it varies dramatically. Private school systems aren't going to educate every single child in the country. That takes government. You're taking the actual failings and assuming they're necessary, while ruling out the only solution that can work.
Beyond that, there's no point in proceeding.
I haven't lived in New York City. Have you lived in a major inland metro area? Nobody's going to want to live near the facility, and it really isn't going to add all that many workers to the metro area.
Or anybody who wants to live in a stable residential neighborhood. Hotels bring in large numbers of transients, and transients generally don't care about their neighbors. They can throw loud parties late at night, litter, and make the neighborhood less safe, and I'm not even talking about the malicious ones. When these people are packed into hotels, the hotel needs to keep some sort of lid on them and can be held responsible. Moreover, they're in commercially zoned areas, not residential.
Actually, no. Slavery was enforced by the US government, which didn't create it. Slave markets were typically private sector.
Not in different meanings, but "capitalism" is the economic system that has won. Private ownership of the means of production, and economic progress by individual initiative rewarded by money. There's different varieties of capitalist systems, of course. Similarly, if I were to refer to "precipitation", you'd doubtless be complaining that I used it to describe gentle rain, hard rain, hail, snow, and freezing rain.
Sex work has been largely illegal for a long time. The prohibition of drugs may have started as part of progressive ideology, but it isn't now. Progressive idealism currently means at least decriminalizing sex work and allowing more access to drugs. Legalization of marijuana, in particular, has been a progressive stance all my life.
I have heard that expression. I sang songs on that theme when I was in college. Realistically, however, large numbers of people will enlist.
Also, in the real world, that depends on nobody from either side showing up, and that's a lot harder to arrange. It's a good thing people from all over the world showed up in WWII.
My point is that there's a difference between making CO2 out of long-sequestered carbon (like fossil fuels) and carbon in the carbon cycle that doesn't happen to be CO2 at the moment. Plants take CO2 and make C out of it. Animals eat plants and other animals that eat plants. Animals breathe out CO2 from C atoms that were recently taken out of the air by plants.
If we're taking rocks and baking them to get CO2 out, that is also carbon that wasn't in the carbon cycle, and is better compared to burning fossil fuels than breathing.
I'd say that the difference here is that a professional mathematician will exist in a certain environment. A math professor will read certain journals, associate with other math professors, teach certain things to students, etc. An amateur will be outside this environment.
Currently, it's really difficult to get up to speed in a science without being a professional (this wasn't the case if you go back far enough), and it's really difficult to make contributions without knowing the existing science very well. Einstein was working as a patent examiner, we all know that, but he had seriously studied what was then modern physics in an academic environment. He would have been a professional physicist then if he hadn't pissed people off.
So, we're not going to see many significant contributions by amateurs, so this is noteworthy.
A US fluid ounce is defined as 1/128th of a US gallon, and The US gallon is legally defined as 231 cubic inches, which is exactly 3.785411784 litres., so the 67.3 Fluid Ounces is an exact number of liters. The "2 liter" proclamation on the bottle is probably an approximation, but the actual contents are legally defined in liters.
Humans are carbon-neutral. (Actually, they're a bit better than that if you put the dead ones in sufficiently sealed caskets.) Plants fix carbon, animals eat plants (and other animals), and then they exhale while alive and decay when they're dead and release all of it again.
Me? I think it's a great attempt at a troll. Most entertaining thing I've seen out of our binary friend.
It purports to convert electricity into momentum change. Assuming Special Relativity holds, you can get more energy out of such a thing than you put in. Seriously, free energy. (This shouldn't be surprising. By Noether's Theorem, the conservation of momentum is linked to physical laws not changing through space, and the conservation of energy is linked to physical laws not changing through time. Except that there is no such independent things as space and time, since they're how we see spacetime from a given reference frame. Therefore, if conservation of momentum is broken, odds are conservation of energy also is.)
Heck, if we went by that, I would have been talking about fusion-powered neighborhoods decades ago.
I'd absolutely love to have a Mr. Fusion, of course.
Mostly in 1943 and 1944 (or so the jokes went).
We also supplied the Soviets with a whole lot of Spam
In the Magic: the Gathering newsgroup, there was a lot of joking around, since Magic cards were generally black, white, red, blue, or green. It took a while for me to figure what had happened, since the spam message had been canceled by the time I logged in.
I've got a friend who followed his passion and got a degree in medieval history. After a rather unpleasant attempt at a career, he went back and got his MBA, and things improved. Fortunately, my passion when young was mathematics, which is a heck of a lot more salable in the job market.
That's not really relevant to someone enlisting. The strife will happen, and one more or less recruit will have approximately no effect.
Hotels sometimes do have long-term tenants. You'd want exceptions for them.
Which means that, if large groups of the population are oppressed for long periods of time, it's fine with you as long as it's not government-enforced. That's not a universally shared view.
And ignoring regulations that make it better for the rest of us.
Capitalism doesn't mean everything is a free market. We've outlawed slave markets, for example, and historical records don't show a complete failure of capitalism. There's lots of things whose markets are restricted in the US, including sex workers, various drugs, some firearms and other weapons, and to a certain extent things that are falsely advertised. Yet we seem to be in a capitalist economy.
There's good reason for people to want to protect their real estate investments. Once you own a house, moving is very expensive. (A couple of friends of mine had a financial problem and looked into moving to a smaller home. Turned out that, when they went through the details, they wouldn't save any money for the time they were concerned about.) Anything that lowers the value of living in the neighborhood either has to be endured or the homeowners have to spend a lot of money.
As a society, it seems we favor home ownership, and making people more secure in their home purchases helps that. Also, making residential neighborhoods in general less pleasant to live with isn't a good thing.
No a hazardous waste facility opening in a residential area is going to push rents down. Nobody wants to live near it. If it hires more people, they'll be willing to commute farther rather than living next to the facility.