The penalties resulting from the immense frauds (which are still happening) have been slim to none. I fear our desire for justice of a sorts will not be satisfied.
As for wealth and prosperity... the language of economics itself is compromised with a lack of distinction. The guy who makes $1M on a round of currency speculation is not particularly differentiated from the guy who raises wheat and makes his own $1M on it. I find myself constrained by society's assumptions about a thing as basic as wealth; so some innovation (i.e. confusion) of terms is apt to occur. This should come as no surprise, since many people are very confused about money itself, even though it has a simple and pervasive presence in our lives.
I agree that I need better terminology.
I finished Korten's book "When Corporations Rule the World" about 2 months ago. It says much of what I (poorly) try to say about the difference between concentration of wealth (COW) and the pursuit of overall prosperity (POOP). We need both, but unfortunately for those of us who can't eat money, the COW part is on a 150% overdrive, leaving dangerously low levels of... er, POOP.
As for the issue of "ignorance"... I specifically used the term "soft pedal". You seem to have the appropriate attitude in place. Why then dance around the topic of our overindulgence in COW? COW that detracts from social fabric is the very definition of criminal behavior.
If you'd bother to do some web surfing with the "Fox Filter" turned OFF, you see everything that you are wholly denying. Abu Ghraib is an instance of the use of rape, period. Photos, reports and testimonials prove it. Senators have admitted this, but you refuse to.
Hence, I accuse you of WILLFUL IGNORANCE, if not OUTRIGHT LYING. Good riddance to your highly biased editiorializing. Wiki is better off without such rightwingnuts like yourself.
Logically, isn't in the interest of a scumbag executive to crash the company if he and he alone can bask in the heat of the impact? Yes.
That's nearly the entire point to my reply and those of others to your posting. We have culturally stopped building wealth, and are now concentrating it. The end result can only be civil war. If anything, THAT'S what industry is really preparing for... WAR... a fight over what's left when the mechanisms of general prosperity have collapsed.
This collapse has occured since "we" chose to honor the ridiculous and destructive ideas of death over life, wealth over prosperity, and privilege over rights. We are going to get what we deserve. Soft-pedaling it like you have, is not particularly honest.
Just speculating freely... look, the whole point hinges on 2 things: harnessing high level winds, and transporting its energy to the earth. You can fool around with many variations on these points.
You can harness with kites that move, but you are simply detaching turbine blades from the rotor when you do that. Why not loft a turbine? Why not combine "attaching cables" and "turbine blades" into a 5-mile-high vertical windmill? Of course, the top hub would have to be supported by a vast He-filled balloon.
Why not loft plastic tubes with plastic rotors inside them, with the walls He-filled? At 30K ft, there will be little weather to bother them, and they can either transport their energy via their cable stays, or via microwave beams.
This is so operationally false in so many ways that I'd say you are indulging in willful ignorance. America's industry is busily eviscerating itself just to make another impossible set of numbers each quarter in response to an investment bubble. I say "impossible" since it cannot be sustained and is in fact is fatal to the continuance of production --- two items which would have led learned and wise men to avoid making those numbers in the first place.
Once enough people are thrown into the working poor, America's very economic heart will utterly collapse and not even a welfare-state mindset will save it. Once people ran out of money, they flocked to credit. That bought a lot of time. But you can't keep extending credit to poor people. The longer this goes on, the bigger the defaults will be.
But one is supposed to see this dire ending before it arrives, and thus avoid it.
You'd better be saving money for your retirement... yes, quite over and above your "social security" (which won't be there) and possibly your "pension" (which again won't be there). If you think there will be anything like the current peaceful financial system supporting the current culture, you're just nuts. The "ownership society" blather only demonstrates the destruction of America's middle class proceeds at the same record pace.
The current economic system has one goal only: concentration of wealth by prioritizing transfers of wealth-tokens (stocks, bonds, derivatives... any "financial instrument") over transfers of wealth-items (energy, ore, water, labor, products... any REAL item). And that cannot be sustained. The other replies to your posting allude similarly. We can sum it up quite simply: YOU CAN'T EAT MONEY.
You're argument is wholly indefensible, which we can only expect from what I suspect (i.e. that you are a religious nutjob who redefines anything that becomes uncomfortable to deal with).
Marriage means sharing your life with someone else, but that also and inescapably means control and accountability (you might also call these rights and responsibilities). You may not "feel" this is a leash, but your "feelings" don't matter when it comes to objective metrics. And the objective metric on marriage clearly demonstrates that each individual is more constrained than before in many dimensions.
Time to call your minister to get his approval on this line of thought. Away with you!
So says the office dweeb who doesn't think this is a problem until his own company docks him for going to the bathroom to piss, or going to the coffee shop for a couple of minutes.
Tracking people is not a real problem until the management decides to use it as another control-freak tool over an above the obvious and dutiful use of stopping time theft. In terms of anecdotes: We DO need to identify and stop drivers who pull over and sleep on "company time"; but we DON'T need to dock a driver for stopping by the Quickie Mart to pick up a coffee for the road.
All joking aside, anyone who let themselves be sent to Iraq by virture of being defrauded by the Bush Administration and US Congress, certainly WOULD find the Iraqi War Zone to be to their liking. Their daddies got to shoot gook kids in Vietnam, so now it's THEIR TURN to have some murderous fun at some darker-skinned person's expense.
Bye bye. Don't let the door hit you on the ass by leaving here too slowly. If cogent analysis bugs you that much, you should run back to church for some warmer and fuzzier thoughts, fucko.
That's a good deconstruction that only reveals why it won't happen. The elites in America do not want households, neighborhoods and towns to become self-sufficient. They want them to become highly dependent. The elites want central controls to essentially make America's workforce into a mass of slaves... but centralized controls are vulnerable to "structure hits" and all the other crap we've labelled "terror risks".
It is almost the easiest thing imaginable in American politics, to take such a thing as a laser weapon and totally reclassify it out of civilian hands. Still, civilians can own things like automatic weapons, even strongly "weapon of war" types like Gatling guns, as long as they follow a bunch of rigmarole regulation... so perhaps civilians will be "allowed" to own clear laser weaponry.
Wow! Are you quoting the Geneva Conventions? Weren't they described as "quaint" by the candidate for America's Attorney General... just when he was writing the memos for justification of torture in Gitmo and other prisons? Wow! How un-fucking-believably pointless was your quote.
America and the "terrorists" will just do whatever they damned well please as they slug it out. No written word matters in a war like this.
There's no rational response to the assertion that commuters are "jerks". If you don't want to respect their right to be on the roadway, then that's your choice. But you should go get that chip on your shoulder looked at by a medical professional.
As for a rancher with a load... I'm confused about what you meant. What possible connection is there between a cargo hauler and an ultralight? If you have 60 head of cattle to haul, then use the appropriate truck. If you just have yourself and a carrybag, then use an ultralight. My point is that both transporters cannot share the same lane scheme. The ultralights must be segregated from the heavies... noting that present traffic considers everything from a 250cc motorcycle to a "wide load" truck to be the same thing, hence "heavy" compared to an ultralight.
As for "giving up" lanes, I noted implicitly that a 1/4-mile corridor is wide enough to ADD ultralight lanes to what I confidently assume is the present plan of wide margins and a median. The ultralight lanes would end up being the equivalent of 1 extra car lane in each traffic direction... and it always seems to be the case that rights-of-way have at least this extra space to spare.
No, I mean like "single-person ultralight vehicles", just like I said. Motorcyles exist now. They are also somewhat heavy, very fast, and quite airflow inefficient... hence are not what I envision. These single-person ultralights I speak of are primarily in the minds of the designers who can't get funding for them for all the overinvestment in cars, cars, cars.
Ultralights exist. Anyone who has taken a bicycle (particularly the reclined versions) and put an enclosure on it has created a Human-powered ultralight. I'm talking about taking the same sort of structure and putting an efficient engine on it, resulting in a kind of glorified go-cart.
There are many people who travel over land singly and with little luggage. To do so in America, you have to either get into a vehicle that weighs on average 1500 pounds and pump gas into it at a rate of 15-30 miles per gallon, or you can get into a collective transporter like a bus, train or aeroplane. This all smells like vast energy expense. In contrast, the ultralight will produce a marked energy savings.
The problem is that an ultralight on any American road is sharing it with vehicles that can utterly destroy it even in a modest accident. And that's lethal. Hence, out of sheer self-defense we are forced to rely on cars.
If a significant fraction of people start driving smaller cars, then they could easily mark off a few lanes [...]
Chicken, egg. People won't drive the ultralights on America's carnage-infested roads. Also, please stop pretending that you can just change the lanes afterward. Traffic increases to fill the lanes provided. If you provide extra lanes to begin with for ultralight traffic, cars and trucks can't use them anyway, and people will finally have the safety from the road monsters that they need to invest in ultralights.
This Texas plan will use a quarter-mile width (I'm hazy on the details; this may be the total right-of-way, which will include things like medians, mergins, etc.). Even with a right-of-way being 1/4 mile, there's plenty of space to stick in 4 total lanes for ultralights.
From the inside view of the mainframe world, there were also the "minicomputers". These would have looked like servers do now. They were a lot smaller than the mainframe cabinets we used, but weren't as compactly designed as the microcomputers were. I recall some VAX minicomputers coming into NORAD in the 80s, and we were also just getting microcomputers (Zenith Z-100s (which used the Intel 8085 microprocessor)) for our desks. Then the Z-248s arrived.. and so by then it was quite apparent that microcomputers would proliferate extensively.
I recall walking around our base exchange store, wondering if I should buy an IBM PC or a Commodore PC, to get away from my Osborne CP/M machine. I don't even remember what the Commodore models were, but it certainly was an exciting time.
By the time my 286 clone showed up at my door, I was completely hooked on microcomputers, and was merrily producing pages of Mandelbrot fractals on an EGA display that took over an hour to generate... and I counted myself fortunate.
We can't deny Apple's influence. However, having personally followed a computer use and education route that included NOT ONE Apple machine:
mainframe/terminals
CV20
C64/128
TI99/4A
Osborne
Z100/Z248
IBM PC, PC/XT, PC/AT
variety of x86 clones
... then I'd have to say that we'd still have a computer industry today even if Apple hadn't existed. The need was there. Someone would have filled it. I'm sure that some Amiga-like thing would have filled the void, perhaps the Amiga itself (pardon me if I show some ignorance at the origin of the Amiga).
If Apple's stylishness is something that you think was fundamental to the computer industry's start, then I can only point out how the "front-panel switch" computers sold like hotcakes when they were introduced. America's educated middle class was more than ready for home computing. Apple was there with the rest, taking a swim in that massive stream once it was uncorked.
Re:Its true.... I've experienced it.
on
Life Interrupted
·
· Score: 1
Sometimes I do that, but since it breaks my "free" time up (day = sleep + travel + work + travel + sleep + play), I incur the overhead costs of waking/sleeping. I seem to end up with less time overall.
"Fiscal conservatives"? Didn't the Neo-cons bump them off in the American version of the Night of the Long Knives on Sep 11th/12th 2001?
If "fiscal conservatives" expect me to pay attention to them, they'd fucking better start opening their goddamn mouths and condemning the profligate spending of ALL politicians, before America is bankrupted by their own Republican Godheads.
I noticed that the 6 replies (at this time) to your posting were negative on this idea, while not ONE of them took into consideration that perhaps, just maybe, single-person ultralight vehicles may come into use in the future and share the right-of-way with the currently-planned monstrosity that caters only to equally monstrous vehicles. Such ultralights would require their own lanes, essentially like bike paths do now.
That's American thinking in a nutshell: cars, cars, trucks, cars... and oh by the way, did we mention cars? Everybody will drive cars, anywhere they go... FOREVER.
Investors in this highway should beware of warping this law. The next property seized and given away might be their own.
Yeah, right. What's the risk of that happening? The investment class in general tends to live in neighborhoods that are at no risk of the usual modern abuse of eminent domain. The poor neighborhoods are the ones that take the hits for being bulldozed for a new Wal*Mart or factory. This is just more of the same... and is also the America that the disappearing middle class still prefers (over any idea of a reformed government disconnected from much of the influence of corporate wealth).
You have to add even three more words: "... by corporate government". I live in Ohio, which is one of the top 5 states for abuse of the privilege of eminent domain. Corporations blatantly "partner" with municipalities to steal private land from the rightful, private owners, just to satisfy some other, private use. The key problem here was in the courts; they started thinking that taking land under eminent domain was OK if it served some "economic development" purpose. It didn't take long for scumbag-capitalist states like Ohio and Michigan to allow corporations to commonly raze entire neighborhoods to build their retail and manfacturing operations.
Eminent domain in America needs to be sternly adjusted back to what it was: roads and waterworks only. But with the still rising corporate governance in America, that's not going to happen soon, if ever.
Re:Its true.... I've experienced it.
on
Life Interrupted
·
· Score: 1
Yes, pathetic, isn't it? Nowadays, all I tend to do when I get home is diffuse into a wide mental fog what usually includes watching movies, reading science fiction, and dicking around with fixing something or another. After 4 hours or so, I can regroup my mentality forces and hit the Internet for some advanced philosophical ass kickin' on K5 and other sites.
I look forward to restructuring my work life so that I can recover a productive home life.
But nobody says it is easy money, you have to work for it.
When you write the words for the RFP that you will "apply" for, I strongly contest your definition of "work for it". Setting up the conditions for the test, that you yourself will undergo, is called "rigging the game". I'm sure that in today's crony-capitalism environment, you probably don't even understand what the hell I'm saying here.
As for conferences... yes, once the company founder started playing the game of "rigging the game", we obtained our funding in due course. But it's not the game that's advertised to the public. It's advertised as a precisely reversed process than what is actually functioning.
That's fraud, you know. You do know what fraud means, right? You do know it's criminal and immoral, right?
As for more criminal behavior, we discovered one government agency was "evaluating" our technology by simply handing it over to our competitors in the aerospace-materials field and letting them look it over. They were more than uncomfortable when we informed them that handing proprietary technology to others outside the NDA is prima facie evidence of a crime. But it just pointed out how the process out of the public view is rife with fraud and other assorted criminal behavior.
Slashdot Mirror
The penalties resulting from the immense frauds (which are still happening) have been slim to none. I fear our desire for justice of a sorts will not be satisfied.
... the language of economics itself is compromised with a lack of distinction. The guy who makes $1M on a round of currency speculation is not particularly differentiated from the guy who raises wheat and makes his own $1M on it. I find myself constrained by society's assumptions about a thing as basic as wealth; so some innovation (i.e. confusion) of terms is apt to occur. This should come as no surprise, since many people are very confused about money itself, even though it has a simple and pervasive presence in our lives.
... er, POOP.
... I specifically used the term "soft pedal". You seem to have the appropriate attitude in place. Why then dance around the topic of our overindulgence in COW? COW that detracts from social fabric is the very definition of criminal behavior.
As for wealth and prosperity
I agree that I need better terminology.
I finished Korten's book "When Corporations Rule the World" about 2 months ago. It says much of what I (poorly) try to say about the difference between concentration of wealth (COW) and the pursuit of overall prosperity (POOP). We need both, but unfortunately for those of us who can't eat money, the COW part is on a 150% overdrive, leaving dangerously low levels of
As for the issue of "ignorance"
If you'd bother to do some web surfing with the "Fox Filter" turned OFF, you see everything that you are wholly denying. Abu Ghraib is an instance of the use of rape, period. Photos, reports and testimonials prove it. Senators have admitted this, but you refuse to.
Hence, I accuse you of WILLFUL IGNORANCE, if not OUTRIGHT LYING. Good riddance to your highly biased editiorializing. Wiki is better off without such rightwingnuts like yourself.
Logically, isn't in the interest of a scumbag executive to crash the company if he and he alone can bask in the heat of the impact? Yes.
... WAR ... a fight over what's left when the mechanisms of general prosperity have collapsed.
That's nearly the entire point to my reply and those of others to your posting. We have culturally stopped building wealth, and are now concentrating it. The end result can only be civil war. If anything, THAT'S what industry is really preparing for
This collapse has occured since "we" chose to honor the ridiculous and destructive ideas of death over life, wealth over prosperity, and privilege over rights. We are going to get what we deserve. Soft-pedaling it like you have, is not particularly honest.
Just speculating freely ... look, the whole point hinges on 2 things: harnessing high level winds, and transporting its energy to the earth. You can fool around with many variations on these points.
You can harness with kites that move, but you are simply detaching turbine blades from the rotor when you do that. Why not loft a turbine? Why not combine "attaching cables" and "turbine blades" into a 5-mile-high vertical windmill? Of course, the top hub would have to be supported by a vast He-filled balloon.
Why not loft plastic tubes with plastic rotors inside them, with the walls He-filled? At 30K ft, there will be little weather to bother them, and they can either transport their energy via their cable stays, or via microwave beams.
This is so operationally false in so many ways that I'd say you are indulging in willful ignorance. America's industry is busily eviscerating itself just to make another impossible set of numbers each quarter in response to an investment bubble. I say "impossible" since it cannot be sustained and is in fact is fatal to the continuance of production --- two items which would have led learned and wise men to avoid making those numbers in the first place.
... yes, quite over and above your "social security" (which won't be there) and possibly your "pension" (which again won't be there). If you think there will be anything like the current peaceful financial system supporting the current culture, you're just nuts. The "ownership society" blather only demonstrates the destruction of America's middle class proceeds at the same record pace.
... any "financial instrument") over transfers of wealth-items (energy, ore, water, labor, products ... any REAL item). And that cannot be sustained. The other replies to your posting allude similarly. We can sum it up quite simply: YOU CAN'T EAT MONEY.
Once enough people are thrown into the working poor, America's very economic heart will utterly collapse and not even a welfare-state mindset will save it. Once people ran out of money, they flocked to credit. That bought a lot of time. But you can't keep extending credit to poor people. The longer this goes on, the bigger the defaults will be.
But one is supposed to see this dire ending before it arrives, and thus avoid it.
You'd better be saving money for your retirement
The current economic system has one goal only: concentration of wealth by prioritizing transfers of wealth-tokens (stocks, bonds, derivatives
You omitted the highly positive consideration that the IRS, BATF, INS and other 3- and 4-letter fascist agencies probably can't find you either.
That seems sensible, and fiscally prudent. And ... if you are a manager that has influence in this area, MAKE SURE IT STAYS THAT WAY.
You're argument is wholly indefensible, which we can only expect from what I suspect (i.e. that you are a religious nutjob who redefines anything that becomes uncomfortable to deal with).
Marriage means sharing your life with someone else, but that also and inescapably means control and accountability (you might also call these rights and responsibilities). You may not "feel" this is a leash, but your "feelings" don't matter when it comes to objective metrics. And the objective metric on marriage clearly demonstrates that each individual is more constrained than before in many dimensions.
Time to call your minister to get his approval on this line of thought. Away with you!
So says the office dweeb who doesn't think this is a problem until his own company docks him for going to the bathroom to piss, or going to the coffee shop for a couple of minutes.
Tracking people is not a real problem until the management decides to use it as another control-freak tool over an above the obvious and dutiful use of stopping time theft. In terms of anecdotes: We DO need to identify and stop drivers who pull over and sleep on "company time"; but we DON'T need to dock a driver for stopping by the Quickie Mart to pick up a coffee for the road.
Obviously, the other 13% were the casualties.
All joking aside, anyone who let themselves be sent to Iraq by virture of being defrauded by the Bush Administration and US Congress, certainly WOULD find the Iraqi War Zone to be to their liking. Their daddies got to shoot gook kids in Vietnam, so now it's THEIR TURN to have some murderous fun at some darker-skinned person's expense.
Bye bye. Don't let the door hit you on the ass by leaving here too slowly. If cogent analysis bugs you that much, you should run back to church for some warmer and fuzzier thoughts, fucko.
That's a good deconstruction that only reveals why it won't happen. The elites in America do not want households, neighborhoods and towns to become self-sufficient. They want them to become highly dependent. The elites want central controls to essentially make America's workforce into a mass of slaves ... but centralized controls are vulnerable to "structure hits" and all the other crap we've labelled "terror risks".
It is almost the easiest thing imaginable in American politics, to take such a thing as a laser weapon and totally reclassify it out of civilian hands. Still, civilians can own things like automatic weapons, even strongly "weapon of war" types like Gatling guns, as long as they follow a bunch of rigmarole regulation ... so perhaps civilians will be "allowed" to own clear laser weaponry.
Wow! Are you quoting the Geneva Conventions? Weren't they described as "quaint" by the candidate for America's Attorney General ... just when he was writing the memos for justification of torture in Gitmo and other prisons? Wow! How un-fucking-believably pointless was your quote.
America and the "terrorists" will just do whatever they damned well please as they slug it out. No written word matters in a war like this.
There's no rational response to the assertion that commuters are "jerks". If you don't want to respect their right to be on the roadway, then that's your choice. But you should go get that chip on your shoulder looked at by a medical professional.
... I'm confused about what you meant. What possible connection is there between a cargo hauler and an ultralight? If you have 60 head of cattle to haul, then use the appropriate truck. If you just have yourself and a carrybag, then use an ultralight. My point is that both transporters cannot share the same lane scheme. The ultralights must be segregated from the heavies ... noting that present traffic considers everything from a 250cc motorcycle to a "wide load" truck to be the same thing, hence "heavy" compared to an ultralight.
... and it always seems to be the case that rights-of-way have at least this extra space to spare.
As for a rancher with a load
As for "giving up" lanes, I noted implicitly that a 1/4-mile corridor is wide enough to ADD ultralight lanes to what I confidently assume is the present plan of wide margins and a median. The ultralight lanes would end up being the equivalent of 1 extra car lane in each traffic direction
You mean like motorcycles?
... hence are not what I envision. These single-person ultralights I speak of are primarily in the minds of the designers who can't get funding for them for all the overinvestment in cars, cars, cars.
No, I mean like "single-person ultralight vehicles", just like I said. Motorcyles exist now. They are also somewhat heavy, very fast, and quite airflow inefficient
Ultralights exist. Anyone who has taken a bicycle (particularly the reclined versions) and put an enclosure on it has created a Human-powered ultralight. I'm talking about taking the same sort of structure and putting an efficient engine on it, resulting in a kind of glorified go-cart.
There are many people who travel over land singly and with little luggage. To do so in America, you have to either get into a vehicle that weighs on average 1500 pounds and pump gas into it at a rate of 15-30 miles per gallon, or you can get into a collective transporter like a bus, train or aeroplane. This all smells like vast energy expense. In contrast, the ultralight will produce a marked energy savings.
The problem is that an ultralight on any American road is sharing it with vehicles that can utterly destroy it even in a modest accident. And that's lethal. Hence, out of sheer self-defense we are forced to rely on cars.
If a significant fraction of people start driving smaller cars, then they could easily mark off a few lanes [...]
Chicken, egg. People won't drive the ultralights on America's carnage-infested roads. Also, please stop pretending that you can just change the lanes afterward. Traffic increases to fill the lanes provided. If you provide extra lanes to begin with for ultralight traffic, cars and trucks can't use them anyway, and people will finally have the safety from the road monsters that they need to invest in ultralights.
This Texas plan will use a quarter-mile width (I'm hazy on the details; this may be the total right-of-way, which will include things like medians, mergins, etc.). Even with a right-of-way being 1/4 mile, there's plenty of space to stick in 4 total lanes for ultralights.
From the inside view of the mainframe world, there were also the "minicomputers". These would have looked like servers do now. They were a lot smaller than the mainframe cabinets we used, but weren't as compactly designed as the microcomputers were. I recall some VAX minicomputers coming into NORAD in the 80s, and we were also just getting microcomputers (Zenith Z-100s (which used the Intel 8085 microprocessor)) for our desks. Then the Z-248s arrived .. and so by then it was quite apparent that microcomputers would proliferate extensively.
... and I counted myself fortunate.
I recall walking around our base exchange store, wondering if I should buy an IBM PC or a Commodore PC, to get away from my Osborne CP/M machine. I don't even remember what the Commodore models were, but it certainly was an exciting time.
By the time my 286 clone showed up at my door, I was completely hooked on microcomputers, and was merrily producing pages of Mandelbrot fractals on an EGA display that took over an hour to generate
If Apple's stylishness is something that you think was fundamental to the computer industry's start, then I can only point out how the "front-panel switch" computers sold like hotcakes when they were introduced. America's educated middle class was more than ready for home computing. Apple was there with the rest, taking a swim in that massive stream once it was uncorked.
Sometimes I do that, but since it breaks my "free" time up (day = sleep + travel + work + travel + sleep + play), I incur the overhead costs of waking/sleeping. I seem to end up with less time overall.
"Fiscal conservatives"? Didn't the Neo-cons bump them off in the American version of the Night of the Long Knives on Sep 11th/12th 2001?
If "fiscal conservatives" expect me to pay attention to them, they'd fucking better start opening their goddamn mouths and condemning the profligate spending of ALL politicians, before America is bankrupted by their own Republican Godheads.
I noticed that the 6 replies (at this time) to your posting were negative on this idea, while not ONE of them took into consideration that perhaps, just maybe, single-person ultralight vehicles may come into use in the future and share the right-of-way with the currently-planned monstrosity that caters only to equally monstrous vehicles. Such ultralights would require their own lanes, essentially like bike paths do now.
... and oh by the way, did we mention cars? Everybody will drive cars, anywhere they go ... FOREVER.
That's American thinking in a nutshell: cars, cars, trucks, cars
Investors in this highway should beware of warping this law. The next property seized and given away might be their own.
... and is also the America that the disappearing middle class still prefers (over any idea of a reformed government disconnected from much of the influence of corporate wealth).
Yeah, right. What's the risk of that happening? The investment class in general tends to live in neighborhoods that are at no risk of the usual modern abuse of eminent domain. The poor neighborhoods are the ones that take the hits for being bulldozed for a new Wal*Mart or factory. This is just more of the same
You have to add even three more words: "... by corporate government". I live in Ohio, which is one of the top 5 states for abuse of the privilege of eminent domain. Corporations blatantly "partner" with municipalities to steal private land from the rightful, private owners, just to satisfy some other, private use. The key problem here was in the courts; they started thinking that taking land under eminent domain was OK if it served some "economic development" purpose. It didn't take long for scumbag-capitalist states like Ohio and Michigan to allow corporations to commonly raze entire neighborhoods to build their retail and manfacturing operations.
Eminent domain in America needs to be sternly adjusted back to what it was: roads and waterworks only. But with the still rising corporate governance in America, that's not going to happen soon, if ever.
Yes, pathetic, isn't it? Nowadays, all I tend to do when I get home is diffuse into a wide mental fog what usually includes watching movies, reading science fiction, and dicking around with fixing something or another. After 4 hours or so, I can regroup my mentality forces and hit the Internet for some advanced philosophical ass kickin' on K5 and other sites.
I look forward to restructuring my work life so that I can recover a productive home life.
But nobody says it is easy money, you have to work for it.
... yes, once the company founder started playing the game of "rigging the game", we obtained our funding in due course. But it's not the game that's advertised to the public. It's advertised as a precisely reversed process than what is actually functioning.
When you write the words for the RFP that you will "apply" for, I strongly contest your definition of "work for it". Setting up the conditions for the test, that you yourself will undergo, is called "rigging the game". I'm sure that in today's crony-capitalism environment, you probably don't even understand what the hell I'm saying here.
As for conferences
That's fraud, you know. You do know what fraud means, right? You do know it's criminal and immoral, right?
As for more criminal behavior, we discovered one government agency was "evaluating" our technology by simply handing it over to our competitors in the aerospace-materials field and letting them look it over. They were more than uncomfortable when we informed them that handing proprietary technology to others outside the NDA is prima facie evidence of a crime. But it just pointed out how the process out of the public view is rife with fraud and other assorted criminal behavior.