According to people I trust, the police officers were not enforcing the law, but rather conducting illegal and dangerous operations against the protesters.
The only airships to actually serve as flying aircraft carriers were the US Akron and Macon. There's no way a modern airship would carry something useful in modern air-to-air warfare, and I'm not sure how useful the F9C parasite fighters would have been in a fight.
Service ceiling on an A-10 would be about 45,000 feet, and that sounds rather high to send an airship.
Bullets also don't go as far up as they do laterally, and they hit with greatly reduced force. I don't know how much force would be needed to get to and penetrate a gas cell.
Typically, I'd buy the device and then agree to a user license agreement. The device would belong to me before I agreed to the user license, and that wouldn't affect ownership. Generally, in US jurisprudence, a sale means ownership transfer, and handing over money for a physical object is a sale unless agreed otherwise, and I haven't seen anyone buying an Apple device and signing a contract to the contrary.
80-hour-weeks are not a good idea, and a worker's productivity will decrease fairly fast on that schedule. Paying people more because they work more, as opposed to paying people more because they get more done, is stupid.
Gender bias is complicated. It's hard for some people to treat men and women strictly equally. If a manager has this deep-down belief that men accomplish more than women, that could bias the manager in handing out raises, completely unconsciously, but illegally.
I believe it's now "autism spectrum disorder", which is rather sweeping, covering people from me to those who simply will never be able to function even semi-independently. I don't know where the "high-functioning" line is. It might be the line between can live independently and needs lifelong help (and I've got a relative on the wrong side of that line).
500 hours is one person for three months. I don't know what stuff that person would have to go into, so I don't know whether that's reasonable or not.
$200/hour is a reasonable figure. If my time were billed out (it has been at some jobs), it would only start with my hourly rate. To start with, there's the misleadingly named employer contribution of FICA, the part of my health insurance that's employer-paid, my 401(k) match, and an estimate of my annual bonus. In addition, it includes a pro-rated part of the cost of this building and parking lot and a slice of management pay, and I don't remember what else. One estimate is twice the hourly pay of the person, or a thousandth of annual pay, and Google pays pretty well. My wife was billed out at about $80/hour quite some time ago in a fairly low cost-of-living city.
Other things that could go into that $100K would be general support that may not be specifically accounted for among other things. I don't know.
I read a review of one of the Altair's near-competitors. It said the assembly was easy and trouble-free, and that the article writer only had to get his oscilloscope out once. I decided to get a Radio Shack TRS-80 instead of a computer kit and an oscilloscope.
Try to pick up a little microeconomics. Prices are determined by the supply-demand curves, and are normally set to maximize profit. Unless something big changed when I wasn't looking, corporate income taxes are a percentage of profit, and the price that optimizes profit is the one that optimizes profit*0.7 or whatever.
To put this another way, if a corporation could increase prices to make up for taxes, in the absence of taxes it could increase prices to make more profit. Unless you think corporations are deliberately leaving customers' money on the table, presumably out of some altruistic impulse, you need to recognize that they can't raise prices to get more money.
(I'm assuming competence in setting prices here. People will price things higher and lower by mistake, or because they're dumb. This doesn't affect the argument.)
We've GOT tax fraud already. That would be nothing new, and we'd use the same tools to deal with it that we do now and accept that some will happen. We're talking about the good old underground cash economy here, nothing more. We would eliminate eligibility fraud, which is a good thing to do.
$12K was about a 20% down payment when we bought our first house in 1981. It was a nice house, nothing special. Prices have changed since then, and savings accounts tend to lose value to inflation over time.
I've gotten that on some investments, but it involves a significant element of risk. Most people like to have some reliable savings, which are going to return far less.
Old people did force tuition up. My son's college degree cost about four times what mine did in real dollars, from the same University. It doesn't seem to be a case of easy money from student loans.
With the erosion of the minimum wage and the big increase in college costs, working one's way through college has become far more difficult. Naturally, a college student is aiming for more after graduation, but that's with a degree and the ability to work full-time without a class load. The "has not slid" is disingenuous at best, since I'm trying to express things in constant dollars.
What they were "sold" was the idea that they needed a degree for a good job. There's the perception (haven't verified how true it is) that a high school diploma doesn't mean as much education as it used to (my son had more rigorous coursework than I did), and there are more people with degrees, so there's at least some truth to that. They were offered loans, rather than jobs that could be made to cover tuition. That meant, for many, either giving up a shot at a good job, or taking on massive college loans, a dichotomy that simply didn't exist when I was young. You don't need a gun when you've got information asymmetry and threats of an entire future working for you.
"The problem is" that people think the current generation is somehow defective, rather than just like any other generation would be in their circumstances. When I was young, the expectation would be that a man could graduate from high school (or maybe not), get a factory job with no particular skill required, work hard, support a wife, modest house, kids, and a used car. People thought they were entitled to a house and a job, and didn't need an education.
You think a sense of entitlement is anything new? It's common to young people, and has been. It gets knocked out of people eventually, and then those people see young people as not having the virtue they think falsely remember they had.
I'm a boomer, and I assure you college was a lot cheaper when I got my BA. Working one's way through college has gotten a lot harder, with minimum wage not keeping pace with inflation and college tuition soaring much higher than inflation.
The key is finding a very good job. That's the hardest. Get started, get a very good job, and you'll get there.
If the younger generation is spending on frivolous things, rather than saving for the future, it's because they don't see a future and are living it up in the present. That isn't their fault; that's the world we're leaving them.
Your parents and grandparents *also* had the option to do dumb shit. Most of them didn't.
Pull the other one. Their parents and grandparents did lots of dumb shit. The difference is that society was more forgiving of mistakes then. I've got a boomer cousin with an American Studies degree, and he wound up being paid pretty well. I'm not going into what a certain other relative did when he was young.
They bought into the heavily advertised concept that you need a college degree for a good job. They used that money to get degrees in things that wouldn't pay well because of changing demand and unretired boomers clogging up the good jobs.
I will condemn the older people who pushed younger people into thinking they needed college educations while forcing tuition up and letting minimum wage slide. I find it hard to condemn someone who was sold a bill of goods and doesn't want to be paying for it for the next twenty years.
Slashdot Mirror
According to people I trust, the police officers were not enforcing the law, but rather conducting illegal and dangerous operations against the protesters.
There are other organizations emphasizing the Second Amendment, and the ACLU has does respect it, although I don't like their interpretation.
The only airships to actually serve as flying aircraft carriers were the US Akron and Macon. There's no way a modern airship would carry something useful in modern air-to-air warfare, and I'm not sure how useful the F9C parasite fighters would have been in a fight.
Service ceiling on an A-10 would be about 45,000 feet, and that sounds rather high to send an airship.
The US Navy used blimps in WWII as convoy escorts, apparently with some success. They aren't real useful for most typical Air Force roles.
Bullets also don't go as far up as they do laterally, and they hit with greatly reduced force. I don't know how much force would be needed to get to and penetrate a gas cell.
Typically, I'd buy the device and then agree to a user license agreement. The device would belong to me before I agreed to the user license, and that wouldn't affect ownership. Generally, in US jurisprudence, a sale means ownership transfer, and handing over money for a physical object is a sale unless agreed otherwise, and I haven't seen anyone buying an Apple device and signing a contract to the contrary.
80-hour-weeks are not a good idea, and a worker's productivity will decrease fairly fast on that schedule. Paying people more because they work more, as opposed to paying people more because they get more done, is stupid.
Gender bias is complicated. It's hard for some people to treat men and women strictly equally. If a manager has this deep-down belief that men accomplish more than women, that could bias the manager in handing out raises, completely unconsciously, but illegally.
I believe it's now "autism spectrum disorder", which is rather sweeping, covering people from me to those who simply will never be able to function even semi-independently. I don't know where the "high-functioning" line is. It might be the line between can live independently and needs lifelong help (and I've got a relative on the wrong side of that line).
500 hours is one person for three months. I don't know what stuff that person would have to go into, so I don't know whether that's reasonable or not.
$200/hour is a reasonable figure. If my time were billed out (it has been at some jobs), it would only start with my hourly rate. To start with, there's the misleadingly named employer contribution of FICA, the part of my health insurance that's employer-paid, my 401(k) match, and an estimate of my annual bonus. In addition, it includes a pro-rated part of the cost of this building and parking lot and a slice of management pay, and I don't remember what else. One estimate is twice the hourly pay of the person, or a thousandth of annual pay, and Google pays pretty well. My wife was billed out at about $80/hour quite some time ago in a fairly low cost-of-living city.
Other things that could go into that $100K would be general support that may not be specifically accounted for among other things. I don't know.
So, I'm not quibbling about the numbers.
I read a review of one of the Altair's near-competitors. It said the assembly was easy and trouble-free, and that the article writer only had to get his oscilloscope out once. I decided to get a Radio Shack TRS-80 instead of a computer kit and an oscilloscope.
Try to pick up a little microeconomics. Prices are determined by the supply-demand curves, and are normally set to maximize profit. Unless something big changed when I wasn't looking, corporate income taxes are a percentage of profit, and the price that optimizes profit is the one that optimizes profit*0.7 or whatever.
To put this another way, if a corporation could increase prices to make up for taxes, in the absence of taxes it could increase prices to make more profit. Unless you think corporations are deliberately leaving customers' money on the table, presumably out of some altruistic impulse, you need to recognize that they can't raise prices to get more money.
(I'm assuming competence in setting prices here. People will price things higher and lower by mistake, or because they're dumb. This doesn't affect the argument.)
Prices go up as the supply-demand curves change.
We've GOT tax fraud already. That would be nothing new, and we'd use the same tools to deal with it that we do now and accept that some will happen. We're talking about the good old underground cash economy here, nothing more. We would eliminate eligibility fraud, which is a good thing to do.
$12K was about a 20% down payment when we bought our first house in 1981. It was a nice house, nothing special. Prices have changed since then, and savings accounts tend to lose value to inflation over time.
I've gotten that on some investments, but it involves a significant element of risk. Most people like to have some reliable savings, which are going to return far less.
Old people did force tuition up. My son's college degree cost about four times what mine did in real dollars, from the same University. It doesn't seem to be a case of easy money from student loans.
With the erosion of the minimum wage and the big increase in college costs, working one's way through college has become far more difficult. Naturally, a college student is aiming for more after graduation, but that's with a degree and the ability to work full-time without a class load. The "has not slid" is disingenuous at best, since I'm trying to express things in constant dollars.
What they were "sold" was the idea that they needed a degree for a good job. There's the perception (haven't verified how true it is) that a high school diploma doesn't mean as much education as it used to (my son had more rigorous coursework than I did), and there are more people with degrees, so there's at least some truth to that. They were offered loans, rather than jobs that could be made to cover tuition. That meant, for many, either giving up a shot at a good job, or taking on massive college loans, a dichotomy that simply didn't exist when I was young. You don't need a gun when you've got information asymmetry and threats of an entire future working for you.
"The problem is" that people think the current generation is somehow defective, rather than just like any other generation would be in their circumstances. When I was young, the expectation would be that a man could graduate from high school (or maybe not), get a factory job with no particular skill required, work hard, support a wife, modest house, kids, and a used car. People thought they were entitled to a house and a job, and didn't need an education.
Except, of course, that you won't be able to get anything with a $10K down payment by the time you're middle-aged.
You think a sense of entitlement is anything new? It's common to young people, and has been. It gets knocked out of people eventually, and then those people see young people as not having the virtue they think falsely remember they had.
I'm a boomer, and I assure you college was a lot cheaper when I got my BA. Working one's way through college has gotten a lot harder, with minimum wage not keeping pace with inflation and college tuition soaring much higher than inflation.
The key is finding a very good job. That's the hardest. Get started, get a very good job, and you'll get there.
Yeah, if they need to call someone they can always use a pay phone like we did when I was young. Right.
If the younger generation is spending on frivolous things, rather than saving for the future, it's because they don't see a future and are living it up in the present. That isn't their fault; that's the world we're leaving them.
Pull the other one. Their parents and grandparents did lots of dumb shit. The difference is that society was more forgiving of mistakes then. I've got a boomer cousin with an American Studies degree, and he wound up being paid pretty well. I'm not going into what a certain other relative did when he was young.
They bought into the heavily advertised concept that you need a college degree for a good job. They used that money to get degrees in things that wouldn't pay well because of changing demand and unretired boomers clogging up the good jobs.
I will condemn the older people who pushed younger people into thinking they needed college educations while forcing tuition up and letting minimum wage slide. I find it hard to condemn someone who was sold a bill of goods and doesn't want to be paying for it for the next twenty years.
Stop perpetuating survivor bias. Not everyone without a college degree has a well-paying job, and it isn't for lack of trying.