Actually, it's the short falls that tend to kill cats.
I remember reading about this study in Science News. Though there was one problem with their summary, as they found when they started getting a lot of mail from shocked readers. In their next issue, they issued the correction, stating that these were accidental falls...
Ironically, it would have been more scientific if the researchers had been dropping the cats on purpose (no selection problems).
Maybe they'd be able to get funding for such a study nowadays, with the Republicans in charge -- I mean, they all love to kill kittens, and kick puppies, right?
... abuselog.org, a site for the development of a generalized protocol for logging internet annoyances and abuses to a set of central servers, which could then be DDOS'd all to hell and back by the perpetrators of said annoyances and abuses.
'I've worked at Microsoft for 14 years and I have always felt like the underdog,' said Hachamovitch.
Of course!
This is a fundamental part of the culture at MS. They nuture the
"underdog feeling" there in order to remain so fiercely competitive -- even when the product is a near-monopoly.
I saw this when I was an intern on the Excel team some 10 years ago -- the team leaders took pride in obsessing over what the competition was doing, and acting almost as if the company were going to go out of business in 3 months if they didn't.
If this applies to the marketing/legal departments too, that would explain a lot of MS's behavior.
Inside the country, the Iraqi Linux User Group is thinking big. Their ambitious goal is to see every server in the country running Linux a year from now.
Bab-5... came from a rejected Star Trek idea pitch.
Uhh, no. JMS pitched B5 itself to Paramount, which happens to own ST. DS9 later appeared, most likely based on JMS's basic ideas.
Though you do acknowledge this in your first sentence, so I'm confused
as to what you're saying.
By the way, this the one of the reasons I became disenchanted with DS9 -- when I found out that, at its core, it was a B5 ripoff. What clinched it for me was when they introduced the Dominion, which were obviously cloned from the Shadows. When B5's Shadow War ended so suddenly, DS9 felt as it it was left hanging. It then proceeded to menader aimlessley for its last few years before finally grinding to a halt. At least that was my impression, though I wasn't watching much of the last few seasons.
Just think how much more it would be if Mao hadn't killed 30-60 million of his own people during "The Great Leap Forward"
I wonder... by reducing the living standards of the country as a whole (of which one side effect was the deaths you speak of), wouldn't that have actually enhanced the birth rate, especially once there was again enough food to go around? That's always the tendency in human populations: the worse the living standard, the higher the birth rate (at least, when the standard is above some minimum).
...and if the current regime didn't perform forced abortions for population control.
That's probably not a significant number (relatively); much bigger effects are likely being attained due to economic and social disincentives they're applying.
Microsoft believes that Longhorn users will no longer think about where information is stored; they will instead see a unified view of documents stored on both the Internet and on the desktop.
I think this will be a big mistake.
I definitely want to know what is my data vs. what it "out there". If
it's "out there", it could disappear at any moment. If it's mine, I have
control over it, I can make backups of it, etc. And there's also that privacy issue -- if I have some personal digital photos on my computer, I want to be damn sure it's not going to somehow "leak" out onto the internet. If my computer doesn't distinguish what's local and what's not, I can never be certain of what's happenning to it.
Memorability: door knobs and light switches do not move or change on their own, making their location and operation easy to remember. For example, after living in a new house for a few months, the locations of all the commonly used light switches have usually been "memorized." I put that word in quotation marks because this process of memory formation happens naturally over time, mostly without conscious thought.
Efficiency: conscious thought is also rarely involved when actually using these everyday spatial interfaces. We simply enter and leave rooms and buildings; the doors open before us, and the lights turn on and off as necessary. Although we physically perform these tasks ourselves, we do not have to dedicate any real brain power to them. Similarly, eating is rarely a process of conscious "tool use."
There's something incredibly ironic here.
These ideas about how our brains deal with objects in the physical world are very true -- huge portions of the brain are devoted to letting our body interact with physical objects. Not just visual subsystems, but motor-control as well. As someone who can juggle 5 balls reasonably well, I can attest to the power available here -- and just how much work this "subconscious" processing can do for you.
However, there's one thing about interacting with the computer that most people seem to ignore: it's the keyboard that makes use of these abilities, not the mouse. The mouse is an incredibly simplistic tool. Sure, there's some spatial operation in moving the mouse around on the screen, but it's only using a tiny fraction of the agility available in your hand. And yet it requires too much precision -- your hand wants to make gestures, and make big movements. Too often, operating a mouse requires you to freeze your hand in a particular position (e.g. while "dragging"), and engage in pixel-precision movements with the rest of your
arm. This is slow and painful. NOT what your hand was built for.
The keyboard, on the other hand, requires less precision -- it doesn't matter whether you hit a key a bit off-center, for example. It also allows for a greater range of movement, and number of movements, AND offers tactile feedback. It's still far from ideal, but it's sufficient to let your motor-control subsystems do enough work for you that you don't really have to think about it (assuming you've had enough practice).
So any kind of "spatial" aspect of a GUI is really wasted. You don't get to take advantage of the brain's and body's abilities that you'd expect. If you go to a real-world example, say walking through your house and turning on or off the lights as you go, imagine doing that where you had no sensation of feeling, and were restricted to standing on a little cart with wheels. In your hand you have a special pencil. To operate the controls on the cart, or to turn on or off the lights, you have to place the end of the pencil on certain, small areas on the cart's control panel or on the light switch, and press a button on the pencil. Now imagine the experience of trying to move around your house and operate the light switches that way.
Now try imagining an alterate interface, where you can instead say "move to the next room", "turn the light on", etc, and it'll just happen instantly. Sounds easier to me than the so-called "spatial" method. Now realize that this is the interface that a commandline-and-keyboard interface gives you -- and that because of your body's spatial abilities, typing on the keyboard can really be as easy as speaking those commands.
And don't forget another thing: there is an additional area of your brain devoted to language! One that has no trouble memorizing hundreds of thousands of words, and attaching meaning to them without having to "think" about it.
So that's the irony: the commandline is actually more of a "spatial interface" -- and makes better use of more of your brain -- than anything you can do with a mouse!!
Jeez, that sounds like a rather sadistic passtime. But hey, what else
are you gonna do with all those leftover Easter chicks
that were sooo cute before they started crapping on the carpet...
The only logical alternative is that the entire universe is conscious and self-aware. Sure, a rock doesn't think anything like us, and it may take a billion years to think much at all, but it's conscious.
This is theory I've arrived at. I've also boiled it down into an equation, of sorts. Actually, I would really have to call it a "series of equivalence relations". Put together, it's:
M = E = I = C
Start with what we know already:
M = E
i.e. matter and energy are equivalent. The actual equation for this is
of course E=Mc^2, but I'm ignoring units conversions (which is why I'm
calling it an "equivalence relation").
Next there's
E = I
That's an equivalence between energy and information. I don't know if
this will ever be proven or disproven at some point, but I'm accepting it
as true for now. As such, I have to consider it a "belief" of mine, not
a scientific fact. But it may become such in the relatively near future. I suspect we still have to nail down precisely what
information is in the first place, and that there may be a way to do it in such a way that it can be proven equivalent to energy.
One interesting consequence of this is that, if you define the universe
as the sum of all matter and energy, then the universe is composed
entirely of information. Take any subset of it, say a rock or a 3-meter
cube of interstellar space, and you can call it a state machine: it has
inputs, outputs, and stores internal state, and all three of these factors
can change over time.
Finally:
I = C
This is an equivalence between information and mind, or consciousness.
This is not saying that consciousness is a property of information --
it is information. And vice-versa.
So take that subset of the universe -- rock, cube of vacuum, or, say, a human brain, and it'll have equivalent claim to being "conscious". When you mention a rock "thinking" over a period of a billion years -- yes, it can change internal state over that time, and receive many inputs and give off outputs (vibrations, heat, etc.). And there is no fundamental difference between that and the i/o and internal-state adjustments of a human brain: both are matters of "consciousness". Or even "spirit".
I have to point out: I don't see how this could ever be something that
can be proven or disproven. As such, I see it as forever remaining essentially a
religious idea. One can choose to believe it or not, and no one else can
question that choice.
To follow on to the "interesting consequence" I mentioned above, an "I=C" relation means that universe, being the sum of all matter and energy, and
therefore information, is also the sum of all mind, or
consciousness. Which, to me, sounds like a definition of God. Which
is one thing that leads me to suspect that I=C will remain in the realm of
"religion".
The Cardassian occupation of Bajor is still in full-swing. The Nexus Ribbon from ST:Generations passes by the planet, and out pops Captain Kirk, wood-chopping axe still in hand. Immediately he is set upon by the Borg Queen, who was disguised as a Bajoran in one of the internment camps. She recognizes him, you see, because... uhh... of what will happen in the *next* Star Trek movie!
Anyways, the two duke it out, the Queen knocks the axe out of Kirk's hand, and is about ready to Borgify him, when a young Kira picks up the axe and beheads her! Kirk then enjoys a hearty meal of Hasparat with Kira's family, has a make-out session with the future Ensign Ro, then is off to kick some Cardassian ass...
Then stay tuned for the sequel to ST:TNG:DS9:KvB... KABUC!
...and resources (you must use 6x12 beams spaced on 12 inch centers here to support this amount of weight), plus the bonus that for whoever stamps the plans that are filed, they are pretty well perpetually liable.
I think you're thinking of the Civil or Structural Engineers. Though perhaps such persons can be sub-contracted by the architect's firm.
Architects are the ones who say "ooh, this would look cool!" The engineers are the ones who reply, "Uh... no, that will collapse under its own weight!" It's the civil engineers you hear about being held accountable when a building collapses. (Actually, I've only heard of this once, in China, and the civil engr. was actually arrested in that case.)
Do you know what happened to the Palestinians when the Jews evicted millions and millions of the local inhabitants?
Not quite correct. The palestinians evacuated on advice from the neighboring Arab states, to get out of the way when they attacked Israel. They'd be able to return soon, after the Jews were defeated.
The second part of that didn't really work out for them.
Incidentally, the palestinians who did not evacuate are now living as full citizens of Israel, with representation in parliment and everything. Though they are a minority, so they don't have the political power to really get the country to move in a more positive direction.
I think the ultimate answer will really be to follow South Africa's lead: just make everyone a citizen; the power will then be split 50-50, or close to it. Of course, with emotions so high on both sides, and with the political agendas involved, it's not going to happen. Not this generation, anyways.
It is neither our moral duty nor our ethical obligation to 'rescue' other countries from their own stupidity.
Well, in both cases, there's a pretty solid argument that it was at least partially our fault that they got into those situations. We abanoned Afghanistan after we helped them force the Soviets out; the resulting sea of anarchy proved fertile ground for Pakistan to improve its power base via the Taliban. Saddam survived his war with Iran with our help; if we hadn't supported him in the 80's, he might have succumbed to any number of things -- who knows, maybe a coup, or an actual defeat in the war.
I had my cat de-uterated a while back. She wasn't happy about it, but damnit, there were just too many kittens to give away. I tried to tell her to stay away from all those creepy male cats that wander by, but noooo...
...they want to replace "assured" retirement with "un-insured" stock ownership.
I notice you put "assured" in quotes. This is appropriate, because the most "assured" investment out there is U.S. Govt. bonds.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all Social Security funds being invested in U.S. Govt. bonds? Can't have it sitting as cash, and it's not being invested in the private sector.
Now bear with me here: this means that S.S. payments are made by cashing out bonds. Which means the money is coming from this year's tax receipts. Which means that, no matter how much money has been "saved up" in the S.S. fund, it's always the case that this year's taxpayers are providing the entirety of this year's S.S. payments. So any year that you have too many SS receipients receiving too much payment relative to the amount of taxes coming in that year, the U.S. government will be bankrupt. It doesn't matter how much you "save up" beforehand; it won't make a difference.
Now to the point: if the above is in fact correct, it seems to me that the only way for SS to not bankrupt the govt. in 20-30 years is for U.S. treasury bonds to not be the sole investment vehicle. (Assuming we won't reduce/stop the SS payments.) Since I imagine it's unacceptable to have it just sitting as cash, letting inflation eat away at it, the only alternative left is the private sector, or the bonds of other governments.
I'd tend to think people would prefer the private-sector for at least a portion of SS investments, since I don't think investing in other govts' bonds would sit well, and especially since it offers the possibility of higher returns.
I'd also note that such non-U.S.-Treasury investments would also force the government to come to terms with its spending, rather than hiding it by counting the SS income as general income.
And as a sidenote, if the money had been left in the fund to gather interest, rather than being stolen by "borrowing" to finance giveaways to the wealthy, it would have generated large amounts of interest on investment over the last 23 years. Enough interest to have lowered Social Security taxes today.
This is something I keep getting confused about -- what exactly does the term "stolen" mean here? Here's my understanding of what happens. Or at least, what makes sense to me:
1. The money collected is supposed to be put into as safe an investment as possible. The stock market, real estate, etc. are not allowed.
2. The safest investment is in bonds, and the safest bonds are U.S. Govt. bonds (according to conventional financial thinking).
3. Therefore, the money all gets put into U.S. Govt. bonds, which means that it's getting lent to the government, just like any other Treasury bond investment.
4. S.S. payments would be made from treasury bonds that have come due and have been cashed out.
Given all this, of course the government is taking this money and using it for other purposes. At the same time, the funds are in fact collecting interest in a "solid" investment -- in bonds.
Of course, since these bonds are paid back from the current year's budget, the gov't is essentially paying the S.S. recipients out of taxes collected from still-working folks in the current year. But, how could it have ever been any other way, without invesment in the private sector, or leaving it as non-interest-bearing cash?
The only way I can think of that it could be called "stolen" is if the govt's accounting practices decided to sort of "zero out" that borrowing, by viewing those bonds lent to S.S. as the government borrowing from itself. Which is definitely a misleading practice along the lines of Enron et al. But the money is still in fact "there", in the sense that it is "there" in any bank account. It's just that, if S.S. ends up trying to cash out too many bonds at once, the govt won't be able to pay them, and will be bankrupt. Which would be bad, but the accounting practices (i.e. whether it was "stolen" or not) wouldn't make any difference, except to make people ignorant in the meantime.
In fairness to the design, I believe that the movie displayed on their page explains that they pump the helium out of the plane while at altitude.
...
Does it require some sort of refuelling? The skeptic in me says yes but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion outright.
If he's actually letting their helium out of the plane in order for it to descend, then you'd have to consider the helium itself as "fuel", since it'd be used up on just one ascend/descend cycle. Expensive fuel, too.
I believe, though, the guy's talking about pumping the helium (or extra external air) into on-board storage tanks, thereby increasing the density in order to descend. But that's going to take a lot of energy. And if he thinks he's going to get that energy from the plane's forward motion using wind turbines, he's definitely thinking about a perpetual-motion machine.
He actually "addresses" this concern (search the page for "perpetual motion"), but only with a series of BS paragraphs that don't actually make any point other than about buoyancy being related to gravity.
No PhD here, but when someone's rambling on for paragraph after long repetitive paragraph about how buoyancy is related to gravity, and never really gets around to a precise description of what the heck this technology is, and keeps referring to "my invention", and alternately refers to himself in the first and third person, this registers pretty high on my BS-o-meter.
I couldn't stand to read too much of it, so maybe I missed something, but this really comes off (to me) as someone who's living in his own little "I know better than all those scientists!" kind of world.
He also talks about building a "cheap" $200k model that works in water in order to prove the airship technology, because it's somehow impossible to build a small-scale model that works in air. I don't think he's thinking too clearly abou this; you can certainly build a cheap model -- just don't expect it to carry people!
Fundamentally, it's still a good idea -- along the lines of the Mars Balloon, and the underwater gliders. But unless he's drawing energy from temperature differences at different altitude, solar heating, or some such, I don't see it working. Trying to get all the energy you need from turbines on the wings is definitely perpetual-motion-machine thinking.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember reading about this study in Science News. Though there was one problem with their summary, as they found when they started getting a lot of mail from shocked readers. In their next issue, they issued the correction, stating that these were accidental falls...
Ironically, it would have been more scientific if the researchers had been dropping the cats on purpose (no selection problems).
Maybe they'd be able to get funding for such a study nowadays, with the Republicans in charge -- I mean, they all love to kill kittens, and kick puppies, right?
In Japan!
You're it!
Of course!
This is a fundamental part of the culture at MS. They nuture the "underdog feeling" there in order to remain so fiercely competitive -- even when the product is a near-monopoly.
I saw this when I was an intern on the Excel team some 10 years ago -- the team leaders took pride in obsessing over what the competition was doing, and acting almost as if the company were going to go out of business in 3 months if they didn't.
If this applies to the marketing/legal departments too, that would explain a lot of MS's behavior.
Two...
Success!
Uhh, no. JMS pitched B5 itself to Paramount, which happens to own ST. DS9 later appeared, most likely based on JMS's basic ideas.
Though you do acknowledge this in your first sentence, so I'm confused as to what you're saying.
By the way, this the one of the reasons I became disenchanted with DS9 -- when I found out that, at its core, it was a B5 ripoff. What clinched it for me was when they introduced the Dominion, which were obviously cloned from the Shadows. When B5's Shadow War ended so suddenly, DS9 felt as it it was left hanging. It then proceeded to menader aimlessley for its last few years before finally grinding to a halt. At least that was my impression, though I wasn't watching much of the last few seasons.
What did you think of the freeware options, e.g. Aqsis?
I wonder... by reducing the living standards of the country as a whole (of which one side effect was the deaths you speak of), wouldn't that have actually enhanced the birth rate, especially once there was again enough food to go around? That's always the tendency in human populations: the worse the living standard, the higher the birth rate (at least, when the standard is above some minimum).
That's probably not a significant number (relatively); much bigger effects are likely being attained due to economic and social disincentives they're applying.
I think this will be a big mistake.
I definitely want to know what is my data vs. what it "out there". If it's "out there", it could disappear at any moment. If it's mine, I have control over it, I can make backups of it, etc. And there's also that privacy issue -- if I have some personal digital photos on my computer, I want to be damn sure it's not going to somehow "leak" out onto the internet. If my computer doesn't distinguish what's local and what's not, I can never be certain of what's happenning to it.
These ideas about how our brains deal with objects in the physical world are very true -- huge portions of the brain are devoted to letting our body interact with physical objects. Not just visual subsystems, but motor-control as well. As someone who can juggle 5 balls reasonably well, I can attest to the power available here -- and just how much work this "subconscious" processing can do for you.
However, there's one thing about interacting with the computer that most people seem to ignore: it's the keyboard that makes use of these abilities, not the mouse. The mouse is an incredibly simplistic tool. Sure, there's some spatial operation in moving the mouse around on the screen, but it's only using a tiny fraction of the agility available in your hand. And yet it requires too much precision -- your hand wants to make gestures, and make big movements. Too often, operating a mouse requires you to freeze your hand in a particular position (e.g. while "dragging"), and engage in pixel-precision movements with the rest of your arm. This is slow and painful. NOT what your hand was built for.
The keyboard, on the other hand, requires less precision -- it doesn't matter whether you hit a key a bit off-center, for example. It also allows for a greater range of movement, and number of movements, AND offers tactile feedback. It's still far from ideal, but it's sufficient to let your motor-control subsystems do enough work for you that you don't really have to think about it (assuming you've had enough practice).
So any kind of "spatial" aspect of a GUI is really wasted. You don't get to take advantage of the brain's and body's abilities that you'd expect. If you go to a real-world example, say walking through your house and turning on or off the lights as you go, imagine doing that where you had no sensation of feeling, and were restricted to standing on a little cart with wheels. In your hand you have a special pencil. To operate the controls on the cart, or to turn on or off the lights, you have to place the end of the pencil on certain, small areas on the cart's control panel or on the light switch, and press a button on the pencil. Now imagine the experience of trying to move around your house and operate the light switches that way.
Now try imagining an alterate interface, where you can instead say "move to the next room", "turn the light on", etc, and it'll just happen instantly. Sounds easier to me than the so-called "spatial" method. Now realize that this is the interface that a commandline-and-keyboard interface gives you -- and that because of your body's spatial abilities, typing on the keyboard can really be as easy as speaking those commands.
And don't forget another thing: there is an additional area of your brain devoted to language! One that has no trouble memorizing hundreds of thousands of words, and attaching meaning to them without having to "think" about it.
So that's the irony: the commandline is actually more of a "spatial interface" -- and makes better use of more of your brain -- than anything you can do with a mouse!!
Jeez, that sounds like a rather sadistic passtime. But hey, what else are you gonna do with all those leftover Easter chicks that were sooo cute before they started crapping on the carpet...
There is speculation that it's due to the Caspian Sea flood, which displaced quite a few people.
Note: that link is just the first one that Google gave me.
This is theory I've arrived at. I've also boiled it down into an equation, of sorts. Actually, I would really have to call it a "series of equivalence relations". Put together, it's:
Start with what we know already: i.e. matter and energy are equivalent. The actual equation for this is of course E=Mc^2, but I'm ignoring units conversions (which is why I'm calling it an "equivalence relation").Next there's
That's an equivalence between energy and information. I don't know if this will ever be proven or disproven at some point, but I'm accepting it as true for now. As such, I have to consider it a "belief" of mine, not a scientific fact. But it may become such in the relatively near future. I suspect we still have to nail down precisely what information is in the first place, and that there may be a way to do it in such a way that it can be proven equivalent to energy.One interesting consequence of this is that, if you define the universe as the sum of all matter and energy, then the universe is composed entirely of information. Take any subset of it, say a rock or a 3-meter cube of interstellar space, and you can call it a state machine: it has inputs, outputs, and stores internal state, and all three of these factors can change over time.
Finally:
This is an equivalence between information and mind, or consciousness. This is not saying that consciousness is a property of information -- it is information. And vice-versa.So take that subset of the universe -- rock, cube of vacuum, or, say, a human brain, and it'll have equivalent claim to being "conscious". When you mention a rock "thinking" over a period of a billion years -- yes, it can change internal state over that time, and receive many inputs and give off outputs (vibrations, heat, etc.). And there is no fundamental difference between that and the i/o and internal-state adjustments of a human brain: both are matters of "consciousness". Or even "spirit".
I have to point out: I don't see how this could ever be something that can be proven or disproven. As such, I see it as forever remaining essentially a religious idea. One can choose to believe it or not, and no one else can question that choice.
To follow on to the "interesting consequence" I mentioned above, an "I=C" relation means that universe, being the sum of all matter and energy, and therefore information, is also the sum of all mind, or consciousness. Which, to me, sounds like a definition of God. Which is one thing that leads me to suspect that I=C will remain in the realm of "religion".
Yes, of course! Why didn't I see it before:
The Cardassian occupation of Bajor is still in full-swing. The Nexus Ribbon from ST:Generations passes by the planet, and out pops Captain Kirk, wood-chopping axe still in hand. Immediately he is set upon by the Borg Queen, who was disguised as a Bajoran in one of the internment camps. She recognizes him, you see, because... uhh... of what will happen in the *next* Star Trek movie!
Anyways, the two duke it out, the Queen knocks the axe out of Kirk's hand, and is about ready to Borgify him, when a young Kira picks up the axe and beheads her! Kirk then enjoys a hearty meal of Hasparat with Kira's family, has a make-out session with the future Ensign Ro, then is off to kick some Cardassian ass...
Then stay tuned for the sequel to ST:TNG:DS9:KvB... KABUC!
Thanks for the idea!
- Rick Berman
I think you're thinking of the Civil or Structural Engineers. Though perhaps such persons can be sub-contracted by the architect's firm.
Architects are the ones who say "ooh, this would look cool!" The engineers are the ones who reply, "Uh... no, that will collapse under its own weight!" It's the civil engineers you hear about being held accountable when a building collapses. (Actually, I've only heard of this once, in China, and the civil engr. was actually arrested in that case.)
So anyways, that's where the other $70k goes.
FRRRRREEEEEEEEEEDOMMMMMM!!!!
[whack]
[splat]
Not quite correct. The palestinians evacuated on advice from the neighboring Arab states, to get out of the way when they attacked Israel. They'd be able to return soon, after the Jews were defeated.
The second part of that didn't really work out for them.
Incidentally, the palestinians who did not evacuate are now living as full citizens of Israel, with representation in parliment and everything. Though they are a minority, so they don't have the political power to really get the country to move in a more positive direction.
I think the ultimate answer will really be to follow South Africa's lead: just make everyone a citizen; the power will then be split 50-50, or close to it. Of course, with emotions so high on both sides, and with the political agendas involved, it's not going to happen. Not this generation, anyways.
Well, in both cases, there's a pretty solid argument that it was at least partially our fault that they got into those situations. We abanoned Afghanistan after we helped them force the Soviets out; the resulting sea of anarchy proved fertile ground for Pakistan to improve its power base via the Taliban. Saddam survived his war with Iran with our help; if we hadn't supported him in the 80's, he might have succumbed to any number of things -- who knows, maybe a coup, or an actual defeat in the war.
I had my cat de-uterated a while back. She wasn't happy about it, but damnit, there were just too many kittens to give away. I tried to tell her to stay away from all those creepy male cats that wander by, but noooo...
I notice you put "assured" in quotes. This is appropriate, because the most "assured" investment out there is U.S. Govt. bonds.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't all Social Security funds being invested in U.S. Govt. bonds? Can't have it sitting as cash, and it's not being invested in the private sector.
Now bear with me here: this means that S.S. payments are made by cashing out bonds. Which means the money is coming from this year's tax receipts. Which means that, no matter how much money has been "saved up" in the S.S. fund, it's always the case that this year's taxpayers are providing the entirety of this year's S.S. payments. So any year that you have too many SS receipients receiving too much payment relative to the amount of taxes coming in that year, the U.S. government will be bankrupt. It doesn't matter how much you "save up" beforehand; it won't make a difference.
Now to the point: if the above is in fact correct, it seems to me that the only way for SS to not bankrupt the govt. in 20-30 years is for U.S. treasury bonds to not be the sole investment vehicle. (Assuming we won't reduce/stop the SS payments.) Since I imagine it's unacceptable to have it just sitting as cash, letting inflation eat away at it, the only alternative left is the private sector, or the bonds of other governments.
I'd tend to think people would prefer the private-sector for at least a portion of SS investments, since I don't think investing in other govts' bonds would sit well, and especially since it offers the possibility of higher returns.
I'd also note that such non-U.S.-Treasury investments would also force the government to come to terms with its spending, rather than hiding it by counting the SS income as general income.
Seems like a win-win to me.
This is something I keep getting confused about -- what exactly does the term "stolen" mean here? Here's my understanding of what happens. Or at least, what makes sense to me:
1. The money collected is supposed to be put into as safe an investment as possible. The stock market, real estate, etc. are not allowed.
2. The safest investment is in bonds, and the safest bonds are U.S. Govt. bonds (according to conventional financial thinking).
3. Therefore, the money all gets put into U.S. Govt. bonds, which means that it's getting lent to the government, just like any other Treasury bond investment.
4. S.S. payments would be made from treasury bonds that have come due and have been cashed out.
Given all this, of course the government is taking this money and using it for other purposes. At the same time, the funds are in fact collecting interest in a "solid" investment -- in bonds. Of course, since these bonds are paid back from the current year's budget, the gov't is essentially paying the S.S. recipients out of taxes collected from still-working folks in the current year. But, how could it have ever been any other way, without invesment in the private sector, or leaving it as non-interest-bearing cash?
The only way I can think of that it could be called "stolen" is if the govt's accounting practices decided to sort of "zero out" that borrowing, by viewing those bonds lent to S.S. as the government borrowing from itself. Which is definitely a misleading practice along the lines of Enron et al. But the money is still in fact "there", in the sense that it is "there" in any bank account. It's just that, if S.S. ends up trying to cash out too many bonds at once, the govt won't be able to pay them, and will be bankrupt. Which would be bad, but the accounting practices (i.e. whether it was "stolen" or not) wouldn't make any difference, except to make people ignorant in the meantime.
So -- what am I missing?
...
Does it require some sort of refuelling? The skeptic in me says yes but I wouldn't jump to that conclusion outright.
If he's actually letting their helium out of the plane in order for it to descend, then you'd have to consider the helium itself as "fuel", since it'd be used up on just one ascend/descend cycle. Expensive fuel, too.
I believe, though, the guy's talking about pumping the helium (or extra external air) into on-board storage tanks, thereby increasing the density in order to descend. But that's going to take a lot of energy. And if he thinks he's going to get that energy from the plane's forward motion using wind turbines, he's definitely thinking about a perpetual-motion machine.
He actually "addresses" this concern (search the page for "perpetual motion"), but only with a series of BS paragraphs that don't actually make any point other than about buoyancy being related to gravity.
This guy's a quack.
Seriously!
No PhD here, but when someone's rambling on for paragraph after long repetitive paragraph about how buoyancy is related to gravity, and never really gets around to a precise description of what the heck this technology is, and keeps referring to "my invention", and alternately refers to himself in the first and third person, this registers pretty high on my BS-o-meter.
I couldn't stand to read too much of it, so maybe I missed something, but this really comes off (to me) as someone who's living in his own little "I know better than all those scientists!" kind of world.
He also talks about building a "cheap" $200k model that works in water in order to prove the airship technology, because it's somehow impossible to build a small-scale model that works in air. I don't think he's thinking too clearly abou this; you can certainly build a cheap model -- just don't expect it to carry people!
Fundamentally, it's still a good idea -- along the lines of the Mars Balloon, and the underwater gliders. But unless he's drawing energy from temperature differences at different altitude, solar heating, or some such, I don't see it working. Trying to get all the energy you need from turbines on the wings is definitely perpetual-motion-machine thinking.
Lets see...
1. Enable the "auto update" feature when first installing SuSE.
2. Each night, go to bed.