There are a lot of people out in the sticks who'd disagree with you about the forest service. You are probably just not familiar with them enough to know.
The powers that be in China basically view the working class as economic cannon fodder. They couldn't care less what happens to those people because they don't think their lives are important. In other countries, someone is expected to provide health care to people as a consequence of this, but in China it is OK if they die because the only externality they have to consider is a loss of productive capacity (and they don't presently have a shortage of that).
The solution is not that US companies should take their business elsewhere, that's not how the system is supposed to work. The solution is we should take our business elsewhere, because we are the ones who care about the human cost. We can't afford to be so complacent. There will come a day (or perhaps it is already here) when our "leaders" will view us the same way. This is a situation that can not be tolerated.
The reason we were balanced in the '90s was because income was growing faster than expenses, now it's shrinking while expenses rise. Whom was in congress during each time period is entirely incidental because the groundwork for the deficit was laid decades ago.
For the most part social security is driving the deficit, and it has been growing as an expense since it's inception. In a couple years, they will have no choice but to cut benefits. So they'll do that, congress will turn over (for doing such a terrible thing) and the cycle will begin again. At this point it's basically on auto-pilot.
By way of explanation???, the Clark County Registrar says that when voters choose English instead of Spanish, Reid's Republican opponent, Sharron Reid's name is checked by default.
Ignoring the fact that the name was wrong, this is not the explanation given in the article. The article says that the problem is the voter lingering on the previously selected area for too long. Does anybody test these things before they use them? It also says they should have faith in the system. Honestly, why does anyone vote anymore?
Corporations are not real. They can't possibly make use of public works, since they don't exist. I would submit to you that every time you would say a corporation is using a public service, I can actually find a real person who is making use of it. That is the person who should pay for it, so that he will be aware of what it costs. The corporation should not pay for it because it is not aware, and it does not care what it costs.
As far as I know, corporate person-hood has only been established by legal precedent (specifically in regards to whether or not corporations have a right to enforce contracts). So you would really have to write a new law saying that corporations don't have a right to enforce contracts. I don't see the point in doing that, but I can't say that I'd have a problem with it either.
A corporation is simply an organization. It's not a person out there living it up, enjoying the benefits of all the money it's made. All the money is headed somewhere else (either to shareholders as dividends, or to pay operating expenses such as wages).
The corporation itself won't enjoy the benefit from any of the money because it is imaginary. The corporation itself won't weight the benefits of government services against the cost of the taxes, and even if it did it wouldn't complain about it because it can't care and can't speak (only people may speak for it).
It makes no sense to tax corporations because they have no stake in the matter. They are imaginary. People are real, they have a stake. Corporate taxes hide the costs of government from the people who really have a stake in it. That is not a good way of doing business because there is no accountability.
Every tax is paid by the individual at the end of the day. Taxing corporations is a way of hiding taxes from the people who actually end up paying them.
I'm a little disappointed that they're saying that they're sticking with track-pad and mouse input verses touch-screen because "touch screen doesn't work well in front of the user".
It's true that you wouldn't want to reach out and touch your monitor in order to navigate, but I often find myself printing things out so I can work with them directly. My brother has an app on his iPad that he can use like a remote control for his mac mini (which he has plugged into his TV) it basically turns his iPad into a track-pad for his TV. I can imagine a way to use your display as just that (a window to look at information) while using an iPad like device to do work or select information for viewing on the display and navigate on the display if there's 3D or video content. I'd really like to see someone bring multitouch (on a touch-screen) to the desktop, I think it would be a lot easier to work with.
This has always bothered me about the Slashdot crowd. You can't have both openness and privacy.
Someone will now come out and say "I want personal privacy, but openness from government and business." The distinction is false. Governments and businesses are made up of people who often want the same kind of privacy as other people.
Someone else will say that the difference is that powerful CEOs and government bureaucrats (and celebrities) need to be accountable while the ordinary man can keep his privacy. This also is false. The only true power anyone has is the ability to do work with their own hands, everything else is people trading responsibility and negotiating benefits. That means government officials need to trust ordinary people as much as ordinary people to need trust them for the system to work.
But in reality there is almost no trust, so the ordinary man demands privacy for himself and openness from the government, and the politicians and bureaucrats and CEOs do the same.
The Slashdot crowd is very much like a bunch of voyeurs. They like to watch a woman undress, but at the same time they want to remain completely unseen.
A lot of people seem to think that in order to be a saint, you must be "nice". You almost never see the kind of behavior (Mother Theresa, if you will) coming from the main protagonists in the Bible, not Jesus, not any of the saints, not the profits, not Moses, not David. The only one I can think of that didn't run afoul of established authority was Ruth.
To be a saint, you must stand for what is right and good and true (and you don't have to be perfect either). That usually means engaging in behavior that is not socially acceptable at some point in your life.
This might finally convince Apple to make their own graphics suite. Adobe hasn't been an innovator for a long time, and they don't write good software.
They've dumped billions of dollars into the constellation program, which was a failure. Private companies don't have that kind of money to throw away on projects that aren't likely to succeed. So the government has to contract out the work under cost-plus contracts or else no one in their right mind would take the work.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Is there something about people that makes them prefer a rosy lie to the honest truth? Most people become very upset when they find out they've been lied to, though they should have seen it coming.
I wonder if it's just a lack of familiarity with the truth that makes people fall into this kind of thinking. Whenever someone tells me a lie, or I find out I'm wrong about something, I do want to accept the lie or deny the truth. But at the same time, I am curious about the truth and ultimately that wins out (at least, I like to think it does).
I can't imagine that anyone else feels differently, but so many people seem to be uninterested in science and scientific investigation (scientists often don't seem very interested in it either). You don't often see something if you aren't looking for it, so as a result, most people don't end up finding the truth.
Still, a COTS contract is significantly different from business as usual in government spending because it doesn't pay out unless you meet milestones within an acceptable time frame. A conventional contract pays out regardless.
That's not necessarily true. From an accounting perspective, you are correct. But when you move a lot of money around like that, the ultimate economic effect is uncertain because the people you move the money to won't spend it the same way the people you took it from were spending it. The money will be used to balance the budget (not lower taxes). That means it will ultimately end up going to support Social Security obligations (which have been growing at an alarming rate). Likely, that means the economy will shrink, because paying living expenses does not cause growth.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a lot of people out in the sticks who'd disagree with you about the forest service. You are probably just not familiar with them enough to know.
The powers that be in China basically view the working class as economic cannon fodder. They couldn't care less what happens to those people because they don't think their lives are important. In other countries, someone is expected to provide health care to people as a consequence of this, but in China it is OK if they die because the only externality they have to consider is a loss of productive capacity (and they don't presently have a shortage of that).
The solution is not that US companies should take their business elsewhere, that's not how the system is supposed to work. The solution is we should take our business elsewhere, because we are the ones who care about the human cost. We can't afford to be so complacent. There will come a day (or perhaps it is already here) when our "leaders" will view us the same way. This is a situation that can not be tolerated.
The reason we were balanced in the '90s was because income was growing faster than expenses, now it's shrinking while expenses rise. Whom was in congress during each time period is entirely incidental because the groundwork for the deficit was laid decades ago.
For the most part social security is driving the deficit, and it has been growing as an expense since it's inception. In a couple years, they will have no choice but to cut benefits. So they'll do that, congress will turn over (for doing such a terrible thing) and the cycle will begin again. At this point it's basically on auto-pilot.
Ignoring the fact that the name was wrong, this is not the explanation given in the article. The article says that the problem is the voter lingering on the previously selected area for too long. Does anybody test these things before they use them? It also says they should have faith in the system. Honestly, why does anyone vote anymore?
Corporations are not real. They can't possibly make use of public works, since they don't exist. I would submit to you that every time you would say a corporation is using a public service, I can actually find a real person who is making use of it. That is the person who should pay for it, so that he will be aware of what it costs. The corporation should not pay for it because it is not aware, and it does not care what it costs.
No, all the celebrities live on the beach. So it's both or neither. Also, they don't exactly live there. It's their vacation home.
If you are against corporations being treated as a legal entity, why are you for taxing them?
As far as I know, corporate person-hood has only been established by legal precedent (specifically in regards to whether or not corporations have a right to enforce contracts). So you would really have to write a new law saying that corporations don't have a right to enforce contracts. I don't see the point in doing that, but I can't say that I'd have a problem with it either.
A corporation is simply an organization. It's not a person out there living it up, enjoying the benefits of all the money it's made. All the money is headed somewhere else (either to shareholders as dividends, or to pay operating expenses such as wages).
The corporation itself won't enjoy the benefit from any of the money because it is imaginary. The corporation itself won't weight the benefits of government services against the cost of the taxes, and even if it did it wouldn't complain about it because it can't care and can't speak (only people may speak for it).
It makes no sense to tax corporations because they have no stake in the matter. They are imaginary. People are real, they have a stake. Corporate taxes hide the costs of government from the people who really have a stake in it. That is not a good way of doing business because there is no accountability.
Every tax is paid by the individual at the end of the day. Taxing corporations is a way of hiding taxes from the people who actually end up paying them.
I thought the whole point of facebook was that you could put all your information online. You can't have your cake and eat it too, right?
I'm a little disappointed that they're saying that they're sticking with track-pad and mouse input verses touch-screen because "touch screen doesn't work well in front of the user".
It's true that you wouldn't want to reach out and touch your monitor in order to navigate, but I often find myself printing things out so I can work with them directly. My brother has an app on his iPad that he can use like a remote control for his mac mini (which he has plugged into his TV) it basically turns his iPad into a track-pad for his TV. I can imagine a way to use your display as just that (a window to look at information) while using an iPad like device to do work or select information for viewing on the display and navigate on the display if there's 3D or video content. I'd really like to see someone bring multitouch (on a touch-screen) to the desktop, I think it would be a lot easier to work with.
This has always bothered me about the Slashdot crowd. You can't have both openness and privacy.
Someone will now come out and say "I want personal privacy, but openness from government and business." The distinction is false. Governments and businesses are made up of people who often want the same kind of privacy as other people.
Someone else will say that the difference is that powerful CEOs and government bureaucrats (and celebrities) need to be accountable while the ordinary man can keep his privacy. This also is false. The only true power anyone has is the ability to do work with their own hands, everything else is people trading responsibility and negotiating benefits. That means government officials need to trust ordinary people as much as ordinary people to need trust them for the system to work.
But in reality there is almost no trust, so the ordinary man demands privacy for himself and openness from the government, and the politicians and bureaucrats and CEOs do the same.
The Slashdot crowd is very much like a bunch of voyeurs. They like to watch a woman undress, but at the same time they want to remain completely unseen.
A lot of people seem to think that in order to be a saint, you must be "nice". You almost never see the kind of behavior (Mother Theresa, if you will) coming from the main protagonists in the Bible, not Jesus, not any of the saints, not the profits, not Moses, not David. The only one I can think of that didn't run afoul of established authority was Ruth.
To be a saint, you must stand for what is right and good and true (and you don't have to be perfect either). That usually means engaging in behavior that is not socially acceptable at some point in your life.
The difference is rigorous scientific investigation. Just because it works doesn't mean it's science.
In the short term. . .
This might finally convince Apple to make their own graphics suite. Adobe hasn't been an innovator for a long time, and they don't write good software.
It is possible to change your settings so it won't show posts from certain people in your news feed.
They've dumped billions of dollars into the constellation program, which was a failure. Private companies don't have that kind of money to throw away on projects that aren't likely to succeed. So the government has to contract out the work under cost-plus contracts or else no one in their right mind would take the work.
The problem i have with your agrument is that you're assuming we know everything about interstellar travel, while admitting we know nothing about it.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Is there something about people that makes them prefer a rosy lie to the honest truth? Most people become very upset when they find out they've been lied to, though they should have seen it coming.
I wonder if it's just a lack of familiarity with the truth that makes people fall into this kind of thinking. Whenever someone tells me a lie, or I find out I'm wrong about something, I do want to accept the lie or deny the truth. But at the same time, I am curious about the truth and ultimately that wins out (at least, I like to think it does).
I can't imagine that anyone else feels differently, but so many people seem to be uninterested in science and scientific investigation (scientists often don't seem very interested in it either). You don't often see something if you aren't looking for it, so as a result, most people don't end up finding the truth.
I stand corrected.
Still, a COTS contract is significantly different from business as usual in government spending because it doesn't pay out unless you meet milestones within an acceptable time frame. A conventional contract pays out regardless.
Space X has launched satellites into orbit. You don't know what you are talking about.
That's not necessarily true. From an accounting perspective, you are correct. But when you move a lot of money around like that, the ultimate economic effect is uncertain because the people you move the money to won't spend it the same way the people you took it from were spending it. The money will be used to balance the budget (not lower taxes). That means it will ultimately end up going to support Social Security obligations (which have been growing at an alarming rate). Likely, that means the economy will shrink, because paying living expenses does not cause growth.