A wall is a passive defense; it requires little manpower to keep people from ever entering the US.
Drones and cameras require active and violent backup. Either the trespassers are shot dead, or they're rounded up at high manpower expense and then (because they're already in the US) they're into the legal system with gigantic manpower expense. A fair amount of border fence can be built with the money that would be spent on 100 hours of legal fees, and the money would be going to a more honorable class of people.
People need stuff to live, and want stuff to live pleasantly. This is half the basis of the economy (the other half being supply), and by the very fact of being human, people cannot be "economically redundant".
The problem with "comprehensive" reforms is that "Fix this, fix that, fix the other thing" is replaced with leftist "destroy everything".
To use your immigration example, "comprehensive reform" would be advertising for and providing luxury cruises from Somalia to Cape Cod, with cash incentives given to those with ebola or flesh-eating infections.
New Orleans is already hopeless, the land is subsiding much faster than the ocean is rising. Even if the sea level remains unchanged, New Orleans will be as dry as Atlantis in a century.
Trump thinks that the problem with Obamacare is that it's being managed badly, not that it is fundamentally evil. The chance that he'd eliminate this horrid program is very small. If you want to understand Trump and his followers, watch the "Meet John Brain" episode of Pinky and the Brain.
Most people have to do something with their lives, otherwise they end up being unhappy and Democrats. A sense of providing value for value received should not be sneered at.
Your citation is nonsense. Just how many prostitutes can a nation with 150 million men support, given that most men aren't in the market and a prostitute has many customers? Then consider that most of the men who wanted prostitutes 10 years ago could find them, how many additional women would have been drawn into the field due to changing conditions? Not "millions".
a world where you'll need a 4 year college degree to bag groceries
If you don't understand that the economics of that situation are impossible - that the investment of a 4 year college education can never improve grocery bagging by enough to make the education worth the effort - you're not competent to discuss economic issues.
100 units of 2.2 sq meter each has a total solar input of 220 kW peak, roughly. They're claiming 150 kW. That's 68% efficiency, which nobody has achieved.
It's fortunate you're not a professional historian, because South Vietnam was independent, relatively free, and barely able to hold its own when the U.S. left. It took an infusion of Red Chinese money and arms to turn the tide against S.V., while the U.S. Congress refused to provide any help.
Read and learn, and don't accept the revisionist lies. The U.S. was not defeated in Vietnam. South Vietnam fell well after the U.S. left.
Stable families benefit children and civilization. Organizations and belief systems that want to gain power or destroy their enemies frequently try to destroy stable family structure - you can see this in the U.S. Democratic party, and various leftist governments that remove children from their parents to provide state education / indoctrination.
There are political aspects to any arrangement of men and women, and implying that monogamy is unique is this regard (worse yet, implying that it is founded on dark motives) is a dishonest attempt to disparage monogamy. Being an arrangement that forms stronger bonds among a small group of related people, stable families resist external political pressure and tend away from tyranny.
Just looking at the screwed up families that raised Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is enough to predict their sociopathic behaviour and the damage they've done.
"Passengers" are 5X what they were in 1980, and they've increased 23% in just the last 4 years. (I'm impressed, I had no idea the growth was so great.) Perhaps the trend is that airports serving moderate populations (say, 1 million) now make economic sense for point-to-point travel if medium-size aircraft are used.
Airplanes per hour isn't the only traffic limit that airports face. Cars, vans, and buses create traffic jams in places like Los Angeles and New York.
Pan Am's failure was due to many factors, of which the 747s were only one. Pan Am had an inefficient business structure and high operating costs. Most of Pan Am's business was transoceanic, competing against nationally owned airlines that got subsidies and discounted airport fees.
Slashdot Mirror
Ughh, it sounds like you are a capitalist.
A wall is a passive defense; it requires little manpower to keep people from ever entering the US.
Drones and cameras require active and violent backup. Either the trespassers are shot dead, or they're rounded up at high manpower expense and then (because they're already in the US) they're into the legal system with gigantic manpower expense. A fair amount of border fence can be built with the money that would be spent on 100 hours of legal fees, and the money would be going to a more honorable class of people.
People need stuff to live, and want stuff to live pleasantly. This is half the basis of the economy (the other half being supply), and by the very fact of being human, people cannot be "economically redundant".
The problem with "comprehensive" reforms is that "Fix this, fix that, fix the other thing" is replaced with leftist "destroy everything".
To use your immigration example, "comprehensive reform" would be advertising for and providing luxury cruises from Somalia to Cape Cod, with cash incentives given to those with ebola or flesh-eating infections.
Storms change beaches a lot faster than the alleged ocean level change.
New Orleans is a human sewer, not worth preserving.
New Orleans is already hopeless, the land is subsiding much faster than the ocean is rising. Even if the sea level remains unchanged, New Orleans will be as dry as Atlantis in a century.
Winky Dink and You with a touchpad.
Fight efforts to prevent election fraud. FTFY.
Trump thinks that the problem with Obamacare is that it's being managed badly, not that it is fundamentally evil. The chance that he'd eliminate this horrid program is very small. If you want to understand Trump and his followers, watch the "Meet John Brain" episode of Pinky and the Brain.
Most people have to do something with their lives, otherwise they end up being unhappy and Democrats. A sense of providing value for value received should not be sneered at.
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/hsp/soaiv_07_ch10.pdf
22 million inn 1905, peaking at 26 million in 1915. There was a low in the equine population of 3 million probably in the 1960s, and it's above 9 million today.
Your citation is nonsense. Just how many prostitutes can a nation with 150 million men support, given that most men aren't in the market and a prostitute has many customers? Then consider that most of the men who wanted prostitutes 10 years ago could find them, how many additional women would have been drawn into the field due to changing conditions? Not "millions".
If you don't understand that the economics of that situation are impossible - that the investment of a 4 year college education can never improve grocery bagging by enough to make the education worth the effort - you're not competent to discuss economic issues.
If nobody's willing to pay for it, then it doesn't need to be done.
House brands sell for half the price of Coke. If Coke's profits are marginal in the US, they're incompetent.
100 units of 2.2 sq meter each has a total solar input of 220 kW peak, roughly. They're claiming 150 kW. That's 68% efficiency, which nobody has achieved.
The irony is that Bradbury was strongly religious.
It's fortunate you're not a professional historian, because South Vietnam was independent, relatively free, and barely able to hold its own when the U.S. left. It took an infusion of Red Chinese money and arms to turn the tide against S.V., while the U.S. Congress refused to provide any help.
Read and learn, and don't accept the revisionist lies. The U.S. was not defeated in Vietnam. South Vietnam fell well after the U.S. left.
If it weren't for Borland, nobody would care about Pascal or have investigated further to find Modula*. Waste of time and effort.
You've never seen a tomato flower? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Solanum_lycopersicum_-_Tomato_flower_(aka).jpg
Stable families benefit children and civilization. Organizations and belief systems that want to gain power or destroy their enemies frequently try to destroy stable family structure - you can see this in the U.S. Democratic party, and various leftist governments that remove children from their parents to provide state education / indoctrination.
There are political aspects to any arrangement of men and women, and implying that monogamy is unique is this regard (worse yet, implying that it is founded on dark motives) is a dishonest attempt to disparage monogamy. Being an arrangement that forms stronger bonds among a small group of related people, stable families resist external political pressure and tend away from tyranny.
Just looking at the screwed up families that raised Bill Clinton and Barack Obama is enough to predict their sociopathic behaviour and the damage they've done.
"Passengers" are 5X what they were in 1980, and they've increased 23% in just the last 4 years. (I'm impressed, I had no idea the growth was so great.) Perhaps the trend is that airports serving moderate populations (say, 1 million) now make economic sense for point-to-point travel if medium-size aircraft are used.
Airplanes per hour isn't the only traffic limit that airports face. Cars, vans, and buses create traffic jams in places like Los Angeles and New York.
Pan Am's failure was due to many factors, of which the 747s were only one. Pan Am had an inefficient business structure and high operating costs. Most of Pan Am's business was transoceanic, competing against nationally owned airlines that got subsidies and discounted airport fees.
I bet you've never heard of that airline that flies out of Paris, either: Air Chance.