Citation? Wikipedia says March 2001, still certainly attributable to Clinton, though he was not in office. It's not hard to check facts on the internet, you should try it sometime.
Higher marginal rates do not guarantee a good economy, but they do not guarantee a bad one, either, contrary to Ryan's assertion, and contrary to conservative predictions when Bush Sr. and Clinton passed their respective tax increases.
You point out that "we never really recovered", despite all of Bush's tax cuts. How does this make a case for keeping high-end marginal rates low, if they did not revive the economy?
Isn't that exactly the sort of thing that higher taxes are supposed to keep from happening (in Ryan's economics) because who would invest in a world where so much of their gains are confiscated? Recall all the startup investment; people don't sink money into startups hoping to land in anything other than the highest tax brackets.
And kept the higher taxes. This is about tax policy, not the flavor of politician making it. Bush Sr raised taxes, so did Clinton, conservative Republicans hated it and predicted disaster, but instead it turned out exactly opposite. Conservatives have a pretty crappy record of economic prediction when it comes to the results of raising taxes.
Logic fail. Counterexample, not correlation/causation. If higher taxes = bad economics, how do we manage to have a good economy (again, and again, and again) when top-end marginal rates are high?
Do you wonder why educated people think tea party conservatives are idiots?
When Clinton was president, income taxes were higher than now (raised by both Bush Sr and by Clinton). The economy recovered from a recession and hummed along nicely. The issue is, if higher taxes (especially on the wealthy) are such economy-killers, how could this ever have happened? It's about the tax rates, not the president.
Wow. I didn't know he had balanced it even with the SS surplus excluded (shows what I get for EVER listening to conservatives; never more than half-true, at least in my experience).
Whoosh! You make my point for me -- higher taxes during the Clinton years, compatible with a growing happy economy. Doesn't matter who passed the taxes, does it?
Bush Sr. also raised taxes. Remember all the heat he took for that?
I remain baffled that so many people (not you in particular, but all the sibling-reply ACs) are unable to apply the Goldilocks rule. Too hot (too high), not good. To cold (too low), not good. There's a good spot somewhere in the middle. The tricky bit is finding it.
Remember how awful the economy was when Clinton was president? Eight horrible years of peace and prosperity, thank God that's long gone. Going back as far as 1950, higher top marginal rates are (weakly) correlated with improved economic growth, not reduced economic growth ( http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/002279.html ).
The circuit looks like it falls in the free zone; I have some cheapo version of eagle ($149 is what I think I paid) that includes minor bells and whistles, and the board is smaller than the ones that I am allowed to build.
It's also not a very complicated board; you could copy that in an afternoon, if you were so motivated.
I think there's much more to worry about here than with a vaccination, seeing as how the cancer is a lot more like us than some random bacteria or virus. However, don't forget "compared to what". People were willing to do some scary shit to avoid Smallpox ("here, I'll infect you from this pus-filled sore on a cow"). Someone who's already got bad cancer is in an even worse place than that.
There's a big difference between actually monochromatic, and essentially monochromatic. The phosphors, as I was told by a physicist carpooling on a boy scout ski trip, are wavelength multipliers of some sort. You can see this when you look at a fluorescent light through a diffraction grating; you'll see 6-12 images of the light, each an exact different color, offset from one another. 2-3 spectral lines get multiplied out to 6-12 lines.
An LED emits a continuous range of frequencies tightly clustered around a particular wavelength; fed through wavelength multipliers, you get multiple overlapping smears, making a good-sized blob of frequencies. Through a diffraction grating, you do not get multiple images, you get rainbow smears.
I don't know exactly what the wavelength multiples are; I only know what I see with my eyes through a diffraction grating. I also took pictures for comparison: http://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/spectrum-led-vs-fluorescent/ (and I just rechecked it again). The LEDs emit a continuous smear; the compact fluorescents (and presumably, the phosphor-enhanced truly monochromatic lasers) do not.
Materials Science is a weird one. Where I went to school, it was closer to the Mech E Department. My son was interested in it, but where he went to school, Materials Science was a part of Chem E. It is mighty important stuff to know, but Chem E is a darn hard degree (was where I went to school, seems to be a lot of work for my son, also).
So if you pursue that route, be aware that different schools do it differently.
Yeah, we're doing a shitload of fiddling. I look at claims of "80% reduction of CO2 emissions by whenever", and I start listing all the things I know we would have to change in our own life, and it's a hell of a lot. That 30mpg car, would need to be a 150mpg car. Or a 75mpg car driven half as much, or carpooled constantly. The house has to be re-insulated to a fare-the-well, not sure what to do for heat.
True, but the LED guys are all busting their asses to find a cheaper substrate, and I've seen a few academic blurbs (not unlike this one) suggesting that some material or another looked "promising".
Cle-ver, plotting it in Kelvin, with so many gray dots that I can't check for a rise on the order of 1 degree C. This would make an excellent "bad example" for one of Tufte's books.
I could similarly plot a chart of the ocean's depth (taken at a variety of locations), and on that chart we would surely not notice a 0.1% increase. By similar logic, I take it you would be unsure whether we had a problem with rising sea levels, given such a graph. But at the beach I think you would reach a different conclusion, given a 12 foot rise in the sea level.
I realize that one guy's anecdote is not an epidemiological study, but I get immediate and days-sustained relief from some joint aches, from time spent on the bicycle. This correlation goes back decades; I am willing to bet on causation at this point.
As far as the dietary stuff goes, doing that already. It alone is not sufficient. Anything easy, I do. It helps that I like fish.
So for me at least, your advice about the relative effectiveness of exercise vs diet w.r.t. joint pain, is exactly backwards. I am well aware that I am not necessarily typical.
I think you are a little quick to dismiss the HDL/LDL/TG stuff, too. Though we don't know the exact mechanisms involved, the conclusions about good/bad/bad are also derived from epidemiological studies, not unlike the one that you cite. Some of the methods for changing them have been shown to be bogus (Zetia, Niacin -- change the measures, but not the outcomes), which raises the distinct possibility that these are symptoms, not causes, but for the moment, still not sure.
On the other hand, exercise (of many kinds, not just intervals) is well-correlated with reduced mortality, so, duh. And yes, I know about intervals within a larger exercise program -- I raced bicycles as a kid, intervals are what you do to get stronger.
I'm not sure there's much point in your giving me much more medical advice, since about half of what you recommend, is bass-ackwards for me.
I just read that abstract -- you've got to be careful, because those were young men. Speaking as a former young man, I remember when I could grow muscles carrying groceries into the house. That might not generalize to old farts (which is to say, I no longer grow muscles carrying groceries into the house). There were things I could do then that I would not even attempt to do now, for fear of damaging myself in some dire way. I was also, right around that age, denser than water, even with a full breath of air. Nowadays, I float handily.
Could be (which is to say, an occasional hill climb on the bike seems to make me faster for a week or so afterwards, and I've read something positive about old people and weight training), but what about the other stuff exercise gets you? That would include aerobic capacity (much harder for me to grow than muscles), blood chemistry improvements (+HDL, -LDL, -triglycerides), and making stiff (perhaps arthritic) joints feel better?
It is, strictly speaking, drivers that cause the accidents. The traffic camera is not involved in the collision, and it is even stationary, located at a signal with a well-known reputation for turning from from green, to yellow, to red. People should be grateful it isn't a moose trotting out into the road. If drivers cannot graciously accept responsibility for these trivial consequences of their behavior, I'm really quite okay with them not driving. (Ever been hit by a car? It hurts. A lot.)
Slashdot Mirror
Citation? Wikipedia says March 2001, still certainly attributable to Clinton, though he was not in office. It's not hard to check facts on the internet, you should try it sometime.
Higher marginal rates do not guarantee a good economy, but they do not guarantee a bad one, either, contrary to Ryan's assertion, and contrary to conservative predictions when Bush Sr. and Clinton passed their respective tax increases.
You point out that "we never really recovered", despite all of Bush's tax cuts. How does this make a case for keeping high-end marginal rates low, if they did not revive the economy?
Isn't that exactly the sort of thing that higher taxes are supposed to keep from happening (in Ryan's economics) because who would invest in a world where so much of their gains are confiscated? Recall all the startup investment; people don't sink money into startups hoping to land in anything other than the highest tax brackets.
And kept the higher taxes. This is about tax policy, not the flavor of politician making it. Bush Sr raised taxes, so did Clinton, conservative Republicans hated it and predicted disaster, but instead it turned out exactly opposite. Conservatives have a pretty crappy record of economic prediction when it comes to the results of raising taxes.
Logic fail. Counterexample, not correlation/causation. If higher taxes = bad economics, how do we manage to have a good economy (again, and again, and again) when top-end marginal rates are high?
Do you wonder why educated people think tea party conservatives are idiots?
When Clinton was president, income taxes were higher than now (raised by both Bush Sr and by Clinton). The economy recovered from a recession and hummed along nicely. The issue is, if higher taxes (especially on the wealthy) are such economy-killers, how could this ever have happened? It's about the tax rates, not the president.
Wow. I didn't know he had balanced it even with the SS surplus excluded (shows what I get for EVER listening to conservatives; never more than half-true, at least in my experience).
Whoosh! You make my point for me -- higher taxes during the Clinton years, compatible with a growing happy economy. Doesn't matter who passed the taxes, does it?
Bush Sr. also raised taxes. Remember all the heat he took for that?
I remain baffled that so many people (not you in particular, but all the sibling-reply ACs) are unable to apply the Goldilocks rule. Too hot (too high), not good. To cold (too low), not good. There's a good spot somewhere in the middle. The tricky bit is finding it.
Didn't say that would happen, did I? What is clear is that a higher top marginal tax rate is compatible with robust economic growth.
Remember how awful the economy was when Clinton was president? Eight horrible years of peace and prosperity, thank God that's long gone.
Going back as far as 1950, higher top marginal rates are (weakly) correlated with improved economic growth, not reduced economic growth ( http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/002279.html ).
The circuit looks like it falls in the free zone; I have some cheapo version of eagle ($149 is what I think I paid) that includes minor bells and whistles, and the board is smaller than the ones that I am allowed to build.
It's also not a very complicated board; you could copy that in an afternoon, if you were so motivated.
I think there's much more to worry about here than with a vaccination, seeing as how the cancer is a lot more like us than some random bacteria or virus. However, don't forget "compared to what". People were willing to do some scary shit to avoid Smallpox ("here, I'll infect you from this pus-filled sore on a cow"). Someone who's already got bad cancer is in an even worse place than that.
Could be audio, and frequency-specific. Big fan might avoid the annoying frequencies.
There's a big difference between actually monochromatic, and essentially monochromatic. The phosphors, as I was told by a physicist carpooling on a boy scout ski trip, are wavelength multipliers of some sort. You can see this when you look at a fluorescent light through a diffraction grating; you'll see 6-12 images of the light, each an exact different color, offset from one another. 2-3 spectral lines get multiplied out to 6-12 lines.
An LED emits a continuous range of frequencies tightly clustered around a particular wavelength; fed through wavelength multipliers, you get multiple overlapping smears, making a good-sized blob of frequencies. Through a diffraction grating, you do not get multiple images, you get rainbow smears.
I don't know exactly what the wavelength multiples are; I only know what I see with my eyes through a diffraction grating. I also took pictures for comparison: http://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2008/05/08/spectrum-led-vs-fluorescent/ (and I just rechecked it again). The LEDs emit a continuous smear; the compact fluorescents (and presumably, the phosphor-enhanced truly monochromatic lasers) do not.
Materials Science is a weird one. Where I went to school, it was closer to the Mech E Department. My son was interested in it, but where he went to school, Materials Science was a part of Chem E. It is mighty important stuff to know, but Chem E is a darn hard degree (was where I went to school, seems to be a lot of work for my son, also).
So if you pursue that route, be aware that different schools do it differently.
Depends a lot on how they overlap. EE, CS, and Applied Math (Mathematical Science, some places) have a lot of courses in common.
Yeah, we're doing a shitload of fiddling. I look at claims of "80% reduction of CO2 emissions by whenever", and I start listing all the things I know we would have to change in our own life, and it's a hell of a lot. That 30mpg car, would need to be a 150mpg car. Or a 75mpg car driven half as much, or carpooled constantly. The house has to be re-insulated to a fare-the-well, not sure what to do for heat.
I can think of two off-hand -- a good friend from high school (very bright), and my freshman honors calc prof.
However, neither one was especially in-your-face about it; they did a really excellent job of leading by example.
True, but the LED guys are all busting their asses to find a cheaper substrate, and I've seen a few academic blurbs (not unlike this one) suggesting that some material or another looked "promising".
Cle-ver, plotting it in Kelvin, with so many gray dots that I can't check for a rise on the order of 1 degree C. This would make an excellent "bad example" for one of Tufte's books.
I could similarly plot a chart of the ocean's depth (taken at a variety of locations), and on that chart we would surely not notice a 0.1% increase. By similar logic, I take it you would be unsure whether we had a problem with rising sea levels, given such a graph. But at the beach I think you would reach a different conclusion, given a 12 foot rise in the sea level.
I'm thinking, "insightful".
I realize that one guy's anecdote is not an epidemiological study, but I get immediate and days-sustained relief from some joint aches, from time spent on the bicycle. This correlation goes back decades; I am willing to bet on causation at this point.
As far as the dietary stuff goes, doing that already. It alone is not sufficient. Anything easy, I do. It helps that I like fish.
So for me at least, your advice about the relative effectiveness of exercise vs diet w.r.t. joint pain, is exactly backwards. I am well aware that I am not necessarily typical.
I think you are a little quick to dismiss the HDL/LDL/TG stuff, too. Though we don't know the exact mechanisms involved, the conclusions about good/bad/bad are also derived from epidemiological studies, not unlike the one that you cite. Some of the methods for changing them have been shown to be bogus (Zetia, Niacin -- change the measures, but not the outcomes), which raises the distinct possibility that these are symptoms, not causes, but for the moment, still not sure.
On the other hand, exercise (of many kinds, not just intervals) is well-correlated with reduced mortality, so, duh. And yes, I know about intervals within a larger exercise program -- I raced bicycles as a kid, intervals are what you do to get stronger.
I'm not sure there's much point in your giving me much more medical advice, since about half of what you recommend, is bass-ackwards for me.
I just read that abstract -- you've got to be careful, because those were young men. Speaking as a former young man, I remember when I could grow muscles carrying groceries into the house. That might not generalize to old farts (which is to say, I no longer grow muscles carrying groceries into the house). There were things I could do then that I would not even attempt to do now, for fear of damaging myself in some dire way. I was also, right around that age, denser than water, even with a full breath of air. Nowadays, I float handily.
Could be (which is to say, an occasional hill climb on the bike seems to make me faster for a week or so afterwards, and I've read something positive about old people and weight training), but what about the other stuff exercise gets you? That would include aerobic capacity (much harder for me to grow than muscles), blood chemistry improvements (+HDL, -LDL, -triglycerides), and making stiff (perhaps arthritic) joints feel better?
It is, strictly speaking, drivers that cause the accidents. The traffic camera is not involved in the collision, and it is even stationary, located at a signal with a well-known reputation for turning from from green, to yellow, to red. People should be grateful it isn't a moose trotting out into the road. If drivers cannot graciously accept responsibility for these trivial consequences of their behavior, I'm really quite okay with them not driving. (Ever been hit by a car? It hurts. A lot.)