That's hardly a fair or relevant comparison. The "boxy oversized 4wd crossover" in many cases can't do better than 20 mph at any speed, in part because it may weight 3 tons. The 1 ton "vehicle well designed with aerodynamics and gearing in mind" should exceed 40 mpg at 70 mph. Gearing is a side issue; a high-revving small engine will probably give better mpg than a big slow-revving engine due to weight differences.
Dolphin & Nautilus are for moving files around, previewing photos, and launching by mime. That's fine if that's your primary need, but that's not what is most critical to serious computer users.
I don't consider my reason the best for serious users either, but the last time around I chose KDE because edge flip worked properly.
Quite to the contrary, Chewbacca is first mate and copilot, he's technically adept and loyal. Your "stupid" claim is demonstrably false; your "annoying" claim reflects badly on you, not the character.
The "diversity" produces a jarring note in the films which distracts from the story. I would have had no problem if every character in all the Star Wars films were British, Mexican, Japanese, Congolese or Eskimo. As soon as a contrasting ethnicity is introduced, it does 2 bad things: it drags in pre-existing stereotypes, and it tars that ethnicity with the bad actions of the character. Nothing good comes of it.
Bloomberg Business is owned, and its editorial direction set by, Michael Bloomberg, lately mayor of New York City and cited by conservative commentators as a major power hungry leftist wingnut. Among a multitude of problems, his third term as mayor was in violation of NYC's term limits law which set the limit at 2 terms.
Why are latino Catholics left wing but evangelical white Christians right wing?
A large portion of latino Catholics are recent (and usually illegal) immigrants from Mexico. Of those, a substantial fraction is here for the freebies promised by the political left.
I don't have a good explanation for why evangelical white Christians are right wing, but they are part of an identifiable cultural block that packages conservative political beliefs with their religion. Since leftist cultural leaders are generally atheistic and need to have an enemy so that they can tell their constituents that the reason the freebies aren't helping is because of the evil $enemy, and the evangelicals are the most diametrically opposed to the leftist leaders, the leftist leaders have chosen $enemy = evangelical. It makes about as much sense as all the different varieties of people hating Jews, but there it is.
Let's see. You're implying that you want the government to tax everyone into poverty, so that when they're no longer able to work, the government can keep them in continuing poverty (SS) as long as they vote Democrat.
As opposed to that, the Republican plan is to allow people to keep what they earn, so that they can provide for their own retirement without caving to political pressure.
Your statement on WIC is too confused to make reply possible.
Fascinating. 2 heads of government, from the opposite parties. Term of office: 6 months. "Once this term is over, citizens have three days in which to file complaints about the Captains' activities. If they warrant it, judicial proceedings against the ex-head(s) of state can be initiated." (wikipedia). What a wonderful mechanism for discouraging entrenched abuse of power.
The customer base MUST have money in capitalism or the whole thing fails.
And that is the sort of lunacy that results when people don't understand economics, when people don't understand what money is. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods. Money is a medium of exchange, a store of value. It facilitates exchanges, making time-offset deliveries easier. But money is not necessary to capitalism.
Hey you! Layabout neighbor number one. Go pick some lemons and bring them to me.
And you! Layabout neighbor number two. Cut some sugar cane and bring it to me.
I'll squeeze the lemons, mash the sugarcane, add some water, and make lemonade for the three of us.
OK, you've managed to obscure the mechanisms and ignore many essential aspects, so let's get it down to 2 basic choices, assuming a total earth population of eleven people. In option 1, you are the only person working, making lemonade you "sell" to the ten leeches. Since there are no builders, there are no houses and everybody who hasn't died of malnutrition freezes to death in January. What a Great Society (tm) !
In option 2, you make lemonade, someone else cuts lumber for housing and fuel, someone else mines metal for tools and runs a small forge, there's a builder, a vegetable farmer, a grain farmer, an orchard owner, a dairy farmer, a mason/glassmaker, a teacher/historian/judge/printer, and a warehouser/doctor/veterinarian/farrier. In this option, people might live through the winter.
The wealth of a society and each person therein is roughly proportional to the fraction of people that work. Option 2 people will be 11 times better off than option 1 people short term, and infinitely better off long term.
And why are you so damn lazy that the only thing you make is lemonade?
The moneyless aspect of the Federation was in Roddenberry's rules for the series' writers, something several of them complained about. That restriction did not apply to the cultures the Enterprise came into contact with.
There's more to hours worked than what the bean counters want, and there's more to the supply-demand curve than Keynes could ever understand.
If I can have an adequate life at 15 hours/week, I can have a terrific life at 30 hours/week. It's worth the additional 15 hours a week to live the remaining 138 hours a week in minor luxury with plenty left over for toys and a family (and that's how it would be if government weren't stealing half of everything.)
It's absolutely astonishing how whenever issues of this kind are addressed (hours/week, automation, bean counters, growth, etc.) that everyone immediately assumes the only businesses are big businesses, and they (in collusion with government) dictate the terms of all financial exchanges. This is probably because the presenter wants to obscure the facts of economic life with the listener's (and the public's) preconceived notions. Instead, consider a small business owner producing (for example) brake rotors. He employs 3 machinists 40 hours a week each and does all the business's other work himself. He has to deal with the nuisances of dealing with their personalities and doing their paperwork (including government forms). He has to schedule their vacation time and safeguard the bits and pieces of personal property that they leave at work. And so forth, and so on. At 40 hours a week, these machinists can make a decent living.
Now consider the same business with a 15 hour workweek, requiring 8 employees to put in the same number of total hours. The employees will not make anywhere near as good a living as they would at 40 hours a week. Since the owner hires only the best workers he can, the 5 additional workers will be inferior to the 3 he'd otherwise have if they worked 40 hours/week. His product will therefor be inferior, hurting his customers and his business. He'll have to deal with the paperwork and individual peculiarities of the 5 additional people, and he'll have to make room for them, and accommodate them with a much more complex schedule. Everybody loses: the machinists, the owner, and the customers. And all this becomes more strikingly visible because we're considering a small business, not some megacorp that most people foolishly believe can do whatever it wants.
And that's why we have a 40 hour work week -- large numbers of Americans understand that it's in their best interest to work as if they're serious about their life, not as if their life is a hobby.
As horrible as this was with 1/3 of the population gone the middle class and freedom started where people didn't have to be a surf anymore and Paris and London had jobs again that paid something.
The USSR destroyed its own resources, particularly farmland. That was a result of communism. The USSR cutting itself off from world markets was also a result of communism.
Of the 6000 top communist honchos worldwide, all of them are jewish...
And you're a vicious idiot. Both Castros were brought up Roman Catholic. I can't find data on Krushchev, but he was probably brought up Russian Orthodox but it didn't stick. Putin is Russian Orthodox. And to think that Mao or Ho Chi Minh were Jewish is beyond funny.
Slashdot Mirror
Neil Young has a whiny voice and writes songs with whiny, fearful, petulant lyrics.
Transonic and supersonic flight break the assumptions of D=c*v^2 very significantly.
You're so smart, you fix it. You'll find that the physical and economic limits are implacable.
That's hardly a fair or relevant comparison. The "boxy oversized 4wd crossover" in many cases can't do better than 20 mph at any speed, in part because it may weight 3 tons. The 1 ton "vehicle well designed with aerodynamics and gearing in mind" should exceed 40 mpg at 70 mph. Gearing is a side issue; a high-revving small engine will probably give better mpg than a big slow-revving engine due to weight differences.
The B-58 (circa 1956) also did dynamic trimming by fuel movement.
Dolphin & Nautilus are for moving files around, previewing photos, and launching by mime. That's fine if that's your primary need, but that's not what is most critical to serious computer users.
I don't consider my reason the best for serious users either, but the last time around I chose KDE because edge flip worked properly.
It's my understanding that in common law anything less than 100 years is considered finite, 100 years is unlimited.
Jean Harlow.
No compromise with murderers. Ever.
And C3PO has to have a sex change - er, excuse me, gender reassignment surgery.
Quite to the contrary, Chewbacca is first mate and copilot, he's technically adept and loyal. Your "stupid" claim is demonstrably false; your "annoying" claim reflects badly on you, not the character.
The "diversity" produces a jarring note in the films which distracts from the story. I would have had no problem if every character in all the Star Wars films were British, Mexican, Japanese, Congolese or Eskimo. As soon as a contrasting ethnicity is introduced, it does 2 bad things: it drags in pre-existing stereotypes, and it tars that ethnicity with the bad actions of the character. Nothing good comes of it.
Bloomberg Business is owned, and its editorial direction set by, Michael Bloomberg, lately mayor of New York City and cited by conservative commentators as a major power hungry leftist wingnut. Among a multitude of problems, his third term as mayor was in violation of NYC's term limits law which set the limit at 2 terms.
A large portion of latino Catholics are recent (and usually illegal) immigrants from Mexico. Of those, a substantial fraction is here for the freebies promised by the political left.
I don't have a good explanation for why evangelical white Christians are right wing, but they are part of an identifiable cultural block that packages conservative political beliefs with their religion. Since leftist cultural leaders are generally atheistic and need to have an enemy so that they can tell their constituents that the reason the freebies aren't helping is because of the evil $enemy, and the evangelicals are the most diametrically opposed to the leftist leaders, the leftist leaders have chosen $enemy = evangelical. It makes about as much sense as all the different varieties of people hating Jews, but there it is.
Let's see. You're implying that you want the government to tax everyone into poverty, so that when they're no longer able to work, the government can keep them in continuing poverty (SS) as long as they vote Democrat.
As opposed to that, the Republican plan is to allow people to keep what they earn, so that they can provide for their own retirement without caving to political pressure.
Your statement on WIC is too confused to make reply possible.
Fascinating. 2 heads of government, from the opposite parties. Term of office: 6 months. "Once this term is over, citizens have three days in which to file complaints about the Captains' activities. If they warrant it, judicial proceedings against the ex-head(s) of state can be initiated." (wikipedia). What a wonderful mechanism for discouraging entrenched abuse of power.
"dialectical reasoning": the fallacy that 2 wrongs make a right.
Status is the goal of the empty mind.
And that is the sort of lunacy that results when people don't understand economics, when people don't understand what money is. Capitalism is the free exchange of goods. Money is a medium of exchange, a store of value. It facilitates exchanges, making time-offset deliveries easier. But money is not necessary to capitalism.
Hey you! Layabout neighbor number one. Go pick some lemons and bring them to me.
And you! Layabout neighbor number two. Cut some sugar cane and bring it to me.
I'll squeeze the lemons, mash the sugarcane, add some water, and make lemonade for the three of us.
That's capitalism, no money required.
OK, you've managed to obscure the mechanisms and ignore many essential aspects, so let's get it down to 2 basic choices, assuming a total earth population of eleven people. In option 1, you are the only person working, making lemonade you "sell" to the ten leeches. Since there are no builders, there are no houses and everybody who hasn't died of malnutrition freezes to death in January. What a Great Society (tm) !
In option 2, you make lemonade, someone else cuts lumber for housing and fuel, someone else mines metal for tools and runs a small forge, there's a builder, a vegetable farmer, a grain farmer, an orchard owner, a dairy farmer, a mason/glassmaker, a teacher/historian/judge/printer, and a warehouser/doctor/veterinarian/farrier. In this option, people might live through the winter.
The wealth of a society and each person therein is roughly proportional to the fraction of people that work. Option 2 people will be 11 times better off than option 1 people short term, and infinitely better off long term.
And why are you so damn lazy that the only thing you make is lemonade?
The moneyless aspect of the Federation was in Roddenberry's rules for the series' writers, something several of them complained about. That restriction did not apply to the cultures the Enterprise came into contact with.
There's more to hours worked than what the bean counters want, and there's more to the supply-demand curve than Keynes could ever understand.
If I can have an adequate life at 15 hours/week, I can have a terrific life at 30 hours/week. It's worth the additional 15 hours a week to live the remaining 138 hours a week in minor luxury with plenty left over for toys and a family (and that's how it would be if government weren't stealing half of everything.)
It's absolutely astonishing how whenever issues of this kind are addressed (hours/week, automation, bean counters, growth, etc.) that everyone immediately assumes the only businesses are big businesses, and they (in collusion with government) dictate the terms of all financial exchanges. This is probably because the presenter wants to obscure the facts of economic life with the listener's (and the public's) preconceived notions. Instead, consider a small business owner producing (for example) brake rotors. He employs 3 machinists 40 hours a week each and does all the business's other work himself. He has to deal with the nuisances of dealing with their personalities and doing their paperwork (including government forms). He has to schedule their vacation time and safeguard the bits and pieces of personal property that they leave at work. And so forth, and so on. At 40 hours a week, these machinists can make a decent living.
Now consider the same business with a 15 hour workweek, requiring 8 employees to put in the same number of total hours. The employees will not make anywhere near as good a living as they would at 40 hours a week. Since the owner hires only the best workers he can, the 5 additional workers will be inferior to the 3 he'd otherwise have if they worked 40 hours/week. His product will therefor be inferior, hurting his customers and his business. He'll have to deal with the paperwork and individual peculiarities of the 5 additional people, and he'll have to make room for them, and accommodate them with a much more complex schedule. Everybody loses: the machinists, the owner, and the customers. And all this becomes more strikingly visible because we're considering a small business, not some megacorp that most people foolishly believe can do whatever it wants.
And that's why we have a 40 hour work week -- large numbers of Americans understand that it's in their best interest to work as if they're serious about their life, not as if their life is a hobby.
Chuckle. You sure you don't mean smurf ?
The USSR destroyed its own resources, particularly farmland. That was a result of communism. The USSR cutting itself off from world markets was also a result of communism.
And you're a vicious idiot. Both Castros were brought up Roman Catholic. I can't find data on Krushchev, but he was probably brought up Russian Orthodox but it didn't stick. Putin is Russian Orthodox. And to think that Mao or Ho Chi Minh were Jewish is beyond funny.