I'd argue that those problems are different. The concern with the apples is that they are radioactive due to contamination from radioactive elements in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant. You then would ingest the radiation source directly. The radiation that would pose a problem in space has a source very, very far away but you lack the shielding of a magnetic field and atmosphere. Ingestion should pose no danger if you can get the thing to grow at all.
If I were given the sudden power of legislative ability, I would simply change the regulation of pistols so that they are treated in a similar way to sawed-off shotguns. If you really want one, you can have one: just pay the tax and register it. Yeah, it means the big bad government will know you have a gun - but that gun is pretty useless against the government anyway. Long guns are objectively a non-issue, even if they get used in the occasional high-profile mass murder. Countries with massive numbers of long guns per-capita have very little gun crime relative to the US.
That said, I have no such power and I refuse to get sucked into a "them vs. us" style war over an issue that may cost a few thousand lives over the course of a year. It sounds cavalier, but we really truly can go on like that indefinitely... there are something like 2.5 million deaths per year from all causes, of which gun deaths make up about 1% even if you include suicide. Banning guns would naturally knock that down, but best case I bet you can't knock more than another half percent off.
And that's the trick. Most of the time you are on the road to go somewhere, and those somewheres usually have other people going to them. The rare fun, twisty road is a lot less fun when stuck in traffic.
I don't think you've spent much time gardening. Plants are very finicky things, and if you handed me a pile of random dust and asked if I could grow something in it, I would not be able to answer you - I'd have to run some tests. I'm sure there will be challenges with gravity and radiation, but that doesn't mean that the soil is going to be the easy part.
Domestic spying? Your republic will boldly march on.
Maybe, or maybe the next president will be a Richard Nixon and he'll abuse the power.
Is it really that different to propose laws (from an extreme religious motivation) that control women's fertility and ban stem cell research
Yes - I'd put that in the same camp as cigarette and soda taxes. It's all overbearing nanny state stuff. But at the end of the day, the character of America will not really change just because someone can smoke or abort a fetus. We've been there before, and life went on. Government-funded stem cell research definitely is not in the same class, as I think we'd be just hunky dory without any government research at all. Sure, I support it, but honestly I don't think it's that big of a deal. I certainly wouldn't swing a vote for a guy based on what narrow field of research gets favored. I like space exploration, but I'm still open to vote for a guy who votes to gut NASA... it's just not a big deal.
Building the framework for an authoritarian state? That's a big deal.
I agree with you - he latched onto some important issues where Cantor is no different than his Democratic colleagues. Reforming the corporate-political sphere is important and not simply a wedge issue. Immigration affects a huge number of people living in the US, and something like 1 in 10 Americans are immigrants themselves. It is decidedly not a simple wedge issue and it is blatantly in the federal domain.
I sort of agree with you. But at the same time, the number of people impacted here is in the low single digit percentages. There are lots of issues that affect everyone that don't elicit anywhere near the rage. If you are gay, I totally get it and empathize with you. I have gay friends who have gotten married, and I'm delighted for them. That doesn't change the fact that it is a pretty minor issue.
Your points about gun control have merit, but the issue still doesn't really matter very much in the grand scheme of things. Life in the USA will not change significantly whatever the change in gun control.
Thing is, just about all of those things you listed are so-called "wedge" issues that have very little bearing on most people, even if they deeply affect some consequential number of people. Remember that we are mostly talking about federal government here, which is supposed to be tackling things that make sense on a federal level: - Public funding of stem cell research: While it might be promising, there aren't any real therapies as of yet and the republic will boldly march on in any event. - Abortion: The republic will boldly march on. - Same sex marriage: Almost completely inconsequential to the health of the republic. - Discrimination based on sexual orientation: There is probably some meat to this one, as it is difficult to call yourself a democracy with a repressed minority. - Flag Burning: This would probably have zero practical impact on free speech. - Affirmative action (well, technically use of quotas): another inflammatory issue, but probably some meat to it as we do need to decide what criteria needs to be met to measure the success and need for these programs. - Gun control: 30,000 traffic deaths per year shows that society can function perfectly well with a similar number of gun deaths.
Notably absent from your list are things like: - Debt, government spending, taxes, budget, etc. - Domestic spying - Foreign policy - Military policy - The role of federal vs state government - Using the federal government to alter people's behaviors.
And on those issues, I bet he looks surprisingly similar to his Democratic colleagues. Even on wedge issues, I'd bet he's not far off. For instance, I'd wager that for every politician you can find who supports curtailing free speech by restricting flag burning, I can find another who would like to ban hate speech. I'd argue those people are both the same kind of politician, even if they have different motives.
Most of our driving is straight-line interstate. The market here values straight-line performance and a smooth ride. I think that without exception, cars with exceptional handling are niche players in the US market, regardless of national origin. Sometimes the EU market screws up our fun, too. For instance, the original Neon - while crappy in almost every way - did pretty well on the autocross circuit because it was so short and fat. However, in their effort to make it a "world car" suitable for narrow EU streets, they slimmed it down and it was upgraded to crappy in every way.
Bunk. The reason science doesn't emphasize racial differences is that there is no scientific basis for race. Sure, there's a gene that makes your skin brown - but it's been independently selected anywhere that the sun is bright. Sure, there's a curly hair gene - but again this has arisen spontaneously. And of course you have intermixing... if humans can travel to a place to initially populate it, then they can travel there later to mix it up with the natives. Science would not be able to classify most black Americans, including the President, according to some definition of "race". It is a societal concept only.
You must have missed the part about not being able to use those shares for other activities
I don't think you've thought this through. Who in the world would invest in US companies if their capital was tied up like this? Even real estate is more liquid.
And you've vastly expanded government regulation by restricting contracts between private individuals. If I'm understanding you correctly, you'd eliminate options. Options are critical for mitigating risk. For an obvious example, try to imagine a farmer planning his crop without someone on the hook to purchase said crop. Imagine a trucking company trying to put a fuel budget together without the ability to lock-in a price for diesel. Now I realize that those are options on commodities and you are talking about equities, but the effect is similar.
Are you talking about regulating private companies or only those traded on the exchanges? I'm pretty sure all you would do is drive trading to the private side, which would be terrible for the little guy. I would have almost no way to buy into the capital markets. Transparency would suck, too, since private companies don't report. Would you want your retirement dollars invested in a company that doesn't need to report to the SEC?
And all of this to prevent HF traders from taking advantage of gigantic trades? I'm sorry but that is (a) not really a big problem and (b) a ridiculously disproportionate response.
North Korea has Seoul in artillery range and a Chinese protector. They didn't need nukes from 1953 through 2009, and they weren't invaded even when it was well-known that they were developing nukes. See also: Iran.
Exactly right. Most of the people complaining about HFT are these managers of funds who blame the HF traders for preying upon their huge orders. Because, you know, they have a divine right to buy thousands of shares without affecting the price!
I've thought about your "solution" for all of 12 seconds and already I'm buying up stocks on a daily basis so that I can lease shares to people for as long as they would like to hold them.
Congratulations on creating another, more complicated financial product.
It certainly is not anti-trust territory, but I did in fact leave Sprint because of their appalling customer service. I've been with T-Mobile for probably 10 years or so, though on prepay for the last 2.
Slashdot Mirror
In TFA, they mention simpler life.
That would defeat their ability to use the patents defensively. For example, Toyota coming after them for violating some Prius patent.
I'd argue that those problems are different. The concern with the apples is that they are radioactive due to contamination from radioactive elements in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant. You then would ingest the radiation source directly. The radiation that would pose a problem in space has a source very, very far away but you lack the shielding of a magnetic field and atmosphere. Ingestion should pose no danger if you can get the thing to grow at all.
If I were given the sudden power of legislative ability, I would simply change the regulation of pistols so that they are treated in a similar way to sawed-off shotguns. If you really want one, you can have one: just pay the tax and register it. Yeah, it means the big bad government will know you have a gun - but that gun is pretty useless against the government anyway. Long guns are objectively a non-issue, even if they get used in the occasional high-profile mass murder. Countries with massive numbers of long guns per-capita have very little gun crime relative to the US.
That said, I have no such power and I refuse to get sucked into a "them vs. us" style war over an issue that may cost a few thousand lives over the course of a year. It sounds cavalier, but we really truly can go on like that indefinitely... there are something like 2.5 million deaths per year from all causes, of which gun deaths make up about 1% even if you include suicide. Banning guns would naturally knock that down, but best case I bet you can't knock more than another half percent off.
Damn, you know you are right! I confused my Samsung with an iPhone because of the rounded corners.
Thanks! My Android phone is starting to fritz out and this would be fun to play with.
Um, yeah? What is your point?
If you dont get stuck behind a mum-tank (SUV).
And that's the trick. Most of the time you are on the road to go somewhere, and those somewheres usually have other people going to them. The rare fun, twisty road is a lot less fun when stuck in traffic.
So you aren't Irish, then? :p
I don't think you've spent much time gardening. Plants are very finicky things, and if you handed me a pile of random dust and asked if I could grow something in it, I would not be able to answer you - I'd have to run some tests. I'm sure there will be challenges with gravity and radiation, but that doesn't mean that the soil is going to be the easy part.
Domestic spying? Your republic will boldly march on.
Maybe, or maybe the next president will be a Richard Nixon and he'll abuse the power.
Is it really that different to propose laws (from an extreme religious motivation) that control women's fertility and ban stem cell research
Yes - I'd put that in the same camp as cigarette and soda taxes. It's all overbearing nanny state stuff. But at the end of the day, the character of America will not really change just because someone can smoke or abort a fetus. We've been there before, and life went on. Government-funded stem cell research definitely is not in the same class, as I think we'd be just hunky dory without any government research at all. Sure, I support it, but honestly I don't think it's that big of a deal. I certainly wouldn't swing a vote for a guy based on what narrow field of research gets favored. I like space exploration, but I'm still open to vote for a guy who votes to gut NASA... it's just not a big deal.
Building the framework for an authoritarian state? That's a big deal.
I agree with you - he latched onto some important issues where Cantor is no different than his Democratic colleagues. Reforming the corporate-political sphere is important and not simply a wedge issue. Immigration affects a huge number of people living in the US, and something like 1 in 10 Americans are immigrants themselves. It is decidedly not a simple wedge issue and it is blatantly in the federal domain.
I sort of agree with you. But at the same time, the number of people impacted here is in the low single digit percentages. There are lots of issues that affect everyone that don't elicit anywhere near the rage. If you are gay, I totally get it and empathize with you. I have gay friends who have gotten married, and I'm delighted for them. That doesn't change the fact that it is a pretty minor issue.
Your points about gun control have merit, but the issue still doesn't really matter very much in the grand scheme of things. Life in the USA will not change significantly whatever the change in gun control.
Thing is, just about all of those things you listed are so-called "wedge" issues that have very little bearing on most people, even if they deeply affect some consequential number of people. Remember that we are mostly talking about federal government here, which is supposed to be tackling things that make sense on a federal level:
- Public funding of stem cell research: While it might be promising, there aren't any real therapies as of yet and the republic will boldly march on in any event.
- Abortion: The republic will boldly march on.
- Same sex marriage: Almost completely inconsequential to the health of the republic.
- Discrimination based on sexual orientation: There is probably some meat to this one, as it is difficult to call yourself a democracy with a repressed minority.
- Flag Burning: This would probably have zero practical impact on free speech.
- Affirmative action (well, technically use of quotas): another inflammatory issue, but probably some meat to it as we do need to decide what criteria needs to be met to measure the success and need for these programs.
- Gun control: 30,000 traffic deaths per year shows that society can function perfectly well with a similar number of gun deaths.
Notably absent from your list are things like:
- Debt, government spending, taxes, budget, etc.
- Domestic spying
- Foreign policy
- Military policy
- The role of federal vs state government
- Using the federal government to alter people's behaviors.
And on those issues, I bet he looks surprisingly similar to his Democratic colleagues. Even on wedge issues, I'd bet he's not far off. For instance, I'd wager that for every politician you can find who supports curtailing free speech by restricting flag burning, I can find another who would like to ban hate speech. I'd argue those people are both the same kind of politician, even if they have different motives.
By "straight line", I mean you don't need any real cornering ability.
Most of our driving is straight-line interstate. The market here values straight-line performance and a smooth ride. I think that without exception, cars with exceptional handling are niche players in the US market, regardless of national origin. Sometimes the EU market screws up our fun, too. For instance, the original Neon - while crappy in almost every way - did pretty well on the autocross circuit because it was so short and fat. However, in their effort to make it a "world car" suitable for narrow EU streets, they slimmed it down and it was upgraded to crappy in every way.
Bunk. The reason science doesn't emphasize racial differences is that there is no scientific basis for race. Sure, there's a gene that makes your skin brown - but it's been independently selected anywhere that the sun is bright. Sure, there's a curly hair gene - but again this has arisen spontaneously. And of course you have intermixing... if humans can travel to a place to initially populate it, then they can travel there later to mix it up with the natives. Science would not be able to classify most black Americans, including the President, according to some definition of "race". It is a societal concept only.
I don't think 2nd grade spelling is covered in most humanities courses. The damage was done by age 8 here.
You must have missed the part about not being able to use those shares for other activities
I don't think you've thought this through. Who in the world would invest in US companies if their capital was tied up like this? Even real estate is more liquid.
And you've vastly expanded government regulation by restricting contracts between private individuals. If I'm understanding you correctly, you'd eliminate options. Options are critical for mitigating risk. For an obvious example, try to imagine a farmer planning his crop without someone on the hook to purchase said crop. Imagine a trucking company trying to put a fuel budget together without the ability to lock-in a price for diesel. Now I realize that those are options on commodities and you are talking about equities, but the effect is similar.
Are you talking about regulating private companies or only those traded on the exchanges? I'm pretty sure all you would do is drive trading to the private side, which would be terrible for the little guy. I would have almost no way to buy into the capital markets. Transparency would suck, too, since private companies don't report. Would you want your retirement dollars invested in a company that doesn't need to report to the SEC?
And all of this to prevent HF traders from taking advantage of gigantic trades? I'm sorry but that is (a) not really a big problem and (b) a ridiculously disproportionate response.
Just a handful of nukes is all you need.
North Korea has Seoul in artillery range and a Chinese protector. They didn't need nukes from 1953 through 2009, and they weren't invaded even when it was well-known that they were developing nukes. See also: Iran.
Exactly right. Most of the people complaining about HFT are these managers of funds who blame the HF traders for preying upon their huge orders. Because, you know, they have a divine right to buy thousands of shares without affecting the price!
I've thought about your "solution" for all of 12 seconds and already I'm buying up stocks on a daily basis so that I can lease shares to people for as long as they would like to hold them.
Congratulations on creating another, more complicated financial product.
It certainly is not anti-trust territory, but I did in fact leave Sprint because of their appalling customer service. I've been with T-Mobile for probably 10 years or so, though on prepay for the last 2.
Yeah, that's pretty much the secret sauce of hybrids. Might not work on a long grade, though.