"It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary." Winston S. Churchill.
Execution is a deterrent in many places; in others it is not. Various punishments have various effects, influenced by the culture around them. If we forgo execution to save an innocent man, but condemn two more to die, we have failed; it is necessary to accept our flaws and do what is necessary to save lives. If losing one man by our own action is unacceptable, losing two more by our inaction is not a solution; we must necessarily learn better to identify the innocent.
I condone the discomforting terror that sweeps a society when they see a despicable man brutalized by the sheer, violent unleash of hatred upon him for his terrible acts.
You face many concerns considering legal punishment: deterrent effect, risk of harm to innocents, and direct impact of punishment, to name three. These depend largely on the crime, the punishment, and the surrounding culture.
The deterrent effect, for example, has two major factors: perceived severity of the punishment and perceived threat of punishment. A weak punishment, colloquially a "slap on the wrist", carries little deterrent effect; a strong punishment carries high deterrent effect. A punishment lacks threat if it is unlikely to actually occur.
The strength of punishment comes from perception: jail time, pain, execution, fines, and how much the individual fear these personally. Some individuals do not fear prison; others fear it a lot. The poor fear fines more than the rich. Death almost universally incites terror. Pain is unpleasant, but imprisonment may destabilize personal security and provide greater fear.
Punishment carries threat when it is likely. The death penalty is a great example: in drug-riddled ghettos where criminal activity meets its abrupt end 99% by death and 1% by state execution, state execution carries no threat. In peaceful but armed suburbs, attacking someone may get you shot. Either way, someone will probably shoot you in the face before the state gets to you; if the police do catch you, they may simply provide a noose to save you from a bullet. In peaceful suburbs with low justifiable homicide rates, state action is the dominating outcome to murder; execution becomes a looming, subconscious threat.
Putting these together: the death penalty is a deterrent only where death is feared and state execution is a likely consequence of capital crime. In places where the criminal base is used to and does not fear death at a distance, state execution is a laughable thing; the first thing to consider is how to not get killed committing your crimes.
Once it's determined the deterrent effect, you have to consider other consequences. Fines and jail time can destroy lives. Executions kill people. If 4% of the executed are innocent, but executions provide such a deterrent effect as to stave off a hundred murders for each innocent executed, then that is unfortunate. If 4% of the executed are innocent, and executions provide no deterrent, then that is unacceptable.
And of course there are other considerations. I mentioned direct impact of punishment. You will want a punishment which rehabilitates criminals if repeat offense represents a larger proportion of the crime than the additional general deterrent from the next best method. Putting together further conditions, you can increase the severity of punishment as the risk of punishing innocents decreases (it's null if the punishments to innocents is dismissed on appeal 100% of the time before the time is served--increase punishment as much as you like). It gets extremely complex.
Justice is like sex: it feels good, but that doesn't make it wrong. Executing a man who stalks, rapes, and murders a woman feels immensely liberating to some; it is anxiolytic to a society who can distance themselves from the act of killing yet feel that they have participated in punishment. At the same time, such a man has earned his punishment. We may look down on people for enjoying vengeance, but we should not thus assume punishment is wrong.
Wow. Leach is actually a chemistry term. Leech means to drain or draw off; Leach means to dissolve and carry away a chemical content by the passing of water. Didn't know that.
Yeah, but you can hide a microSD card anywhere. You could slip it into the last of your shoe by a tear at the very tip. Into a pen cap or inside a watch band. So if you can copy those 8" floppies onto a MicroSD, you can leave with them.
This takes forever, and it's a lot of work shuffling 8 inch floppies around. If the media were much more dense, you would have a much higher probability of success for copying the same amount of data, blocked off in chunks the size of the media. Gigabyte Jazz drives? You're dealing with one 400KB floppy or one 100,000KB floppy--you now may copy 250 times as much data with the same rate of success. Get it onto a MicroSD, conceal it, and leave. Copy it once, rather than 250 times.
If you own a stock, you own a fractional share of a corporation. If that corporation makes a profit, you own a share of that profit. This manifests, in the simplest case, as a dividend.
Oh, you're right. Basically all stocks pay dividends, and stocks which pay dividends aren't discounted in value by the value of the dividend. It's not like the spot price of a stock rises subtly as it approaches dividend ex date and then drops suddenly after the ex date.
And of course that money comes out of nowhere. It's not injected into the SECURITIES MARKET from other sources like company earnings. The company is doing well, and money just magically manifests due to the Jewon particles colliding with the energy of excitement of a well-performing company with high earnings, and money manifests in the securities market and precipitates out to share holders. It's not like it stats in the company coffers as earnings and is transferred to shareholders.
Exactly. An example of non-zero sum.
Wrong. You own a block of shit you paid $30,000 for. Your $30,000 is now someone else's cash holding. Your $30,000 has gone into the market; you just lost your ability to extract that $30,000 back out. Your $30,000 doesn't evaporate.
The warehouse now burns down, and all its contents. (It is not insured). The value of the corporation (and its stock) is now zero. The value changed from non-zero to zero. Clearly, this is an example of a negative-sum situation. (A negative sum is, of course, not a zero sum).
Why?
You started with some money ($10,000). You paid $10,000 for 100 shares of Hardwood Corp. James now has $10,000, you now have $0. Your shares of Hardwood Corp. become worth $0, but James still has $10,000 and goes on to buy Java Corp shares from Marcus. There's still $10,000 floating around.
Meanwhile James' Java Corp shares become worth twice as much. He sells them to Marcus for $20,000. Marcus... can't buy them. He only has $10,000.
Marcus goes to his bank account, and deposits -$10,000 into the bank (withdraws $10,000). He comes back to the Exchange and deposits $10,000 into the exchange. He then buys your $20,000 of Java Corp. Marcus' external assets are changed -$10,000, while the balance of cash in the market is now +$10,000, totaling $0. As the balance of cash was $10,000 from the money you put into the market earlier, the sum total of money in the market is $20,000.
At this point, $20,000 has gone into the market, and the market has $20,000. Java Corp pays a dividend of $500, making Java Corp's corporate bank accounts -$500 and making the market now hold $20,500. Total $20,500 has gone into the market, and it now holds $20,500.
If we keep looking at the money flowing in and the money flowing out--Marcus sells half his shares, James pays him $10,000, Marcus puts $10,500 into the bank, the market now has $10,000 in play--we see that James has $10,000 from you, Marcus has $10,000 from James which is now in the bank, and Marcus also has $500 from Java Corp dividends which were SUBTRACTED from Java Corp's corporate bank accounts and ADDED to the market.
That's zero-sum.
Contrast this to general economic advancement. In the economy, I may spend $10,000 on labor to make 500 shirts, costing $20 of labor per shirt. Now, I may expend $50,000 of research and development and $20,000 of manufacture to build sewing machines. For that $70,000, I can now expend $980 of labor and $20 of machine cost and maintenance (amortized over the machine's lifetime) to make $500 shirts. The $50,000 doesn't recur (unless I develop a new machine), and the $20,000 is part of the cost and maintenance over lifetime. So now it costs me $2 per shirt rather than $20 for the labor of creating a shirt.
In this scenario, I've created $18 per shirt of wealth. Once I have manufactured 2,778 shirts to meet demand for 2,778 shirts, I've broken even. Beyond that, soc
Stocks aren't value; they are valuation. The only value common stock has is as a trading medium to another person so that you can make money by speculation. The NYSE doesn't price stocks based on corporate performance; it prices them based on what people are buying and selling for. That's why we have Price to Earnings and such measurements: to show how much more valued a stock is than the actual value of the company it's named in.
OH, by the way: I'm filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy. All that common stock you're holding that's worth $30,000? It's canceled, and you get nothing. Have a nice day.
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
These old networks are airgapped in so many ways, not just by removing the CAT6 to the Internet. The disks themselves are airgapped, as they're not constantly in systems which can read them; likewise, there's a huge airgap between a spy and a reader: if the disks are stolen, they need a huge honkin' machine to read them, or they need to use base facilities which have cameras and guards. Further, the media is low-density: you need to physically transport a truckload to get what fits on a modern CD-R, much less on a 64GB microSDHC.
Just as with 1000 iteration hashing, these large systems impose a time limitation on mass copy. If you want to access this top-secret file, it's merely 15kB of text stored on a 40kB disk. If you want to steal the wealth of information archived here, you must find the disks you want and then copy each of them. If you want it all, you must spend weeks if not months copying each individual disk to a portable flash drive.
There are some real difficulties involved in stealing this much data in this form. That provides a layer of security by requiring high-visibility or excessively slow methods of data access, both of which sharply increase risk in espionage. You are more likely to catch and interrupt any significant espionage attempt in this model than in a model where we put all our stuff on a USB drive that's taken to a modern machine in a secure room.
And where does the money come from to purchase the increased value of stocks?
The market has 100 AAPL at $1, so $100 worth of AAPL, which somebody buys for $100. Now AAPL is worth $10, so $1000 of AAPL. Where does the other $900 come from when it's bought? Does it originate from the market, or is it injected from outside such that the sum total of the money paid into the stock market and the money removed from the stock market is still 0?
Where did Bob's $2 come from? Alice only put $1 into the stock market; there is only $1 in the stock market, and a $2 stock that nobody can afford to buy because they only have $1.
Well there's a study somewhere that Times covered horribly which discovered that BPS can leech 20 times as much as BPA, with similar endocrine activity.
Synthetic organic compounds and natural organic compounds are both either benign, helpful, or neutral. It depends what the compound is; lots of things from Nature are more toxic than chemically-adjusted synthetic counterparts made more stable and less toxic.
In high school, they taught us the "scientific method". They can certainly generally educate students to apply decomposition; in fact, the field of Project Management uses Work Breakdown Structures, which are defined by the PMBOK3e (also 5e, latest):
a deliverable-oriented hierarchical decomposition of the work to be executed by the project team to accomplish the project objectives and create the required deliverables. It organizes and defines the total scope of the project. Each descending level represents an increasingly detailed definition of the project work. The WBS is decomposed into work packages. The deliverable orientation of the hierarchy includes both internal and external deliverables.
A work breakdown structure may look something like this. Notice the absence of verbs: all things must be on the WBS (the one shown is incomplete), all things are broken down to understandable and manageable deliverables. Project Scheduling further breaks down work packages (the furthest-decomposed deliverables) into tasks, which are actions and may be assigned to people.
The general method of decomposition of a goal (Project) to individual deliverables and then to tasks to create those deliverables is easily learned. Project management encompasses requirements gathering, negotiation, communication, scheduling, cost management, and so on; the small technical skill of decomposition of work is only a fragment of the whole of Project Management and, as you have astutely noticed, greatly applicable to engineering projects.
This isn't a STEM skill; it's a management skill that most STEM people don't acquire, but imagine that they have simply because they can pick out a task from a huge effort and say "Well I can do this part next." Shearing it off from Project Management and teaching it as an independent skill would be valuable; everyone does not need to be a project manager, but everyone would benefit from the skill of hierarchical decomposition.
Technology degrees are mostly airy and fluffy, and it's well-accepted that once you get out of college most of your vocational training having to do with computers is useless. Science degrees are for researchers; Engineering degrees are for people who create things which can be reproduced; and Mathematics degrees are a sort of jack-of-all degree that allows you to go anywhere with Science or Engineering and learn that. Management degrees are, unfortunately, in-vogue as Technology degrees and, consequentially, airy and fluffy in a field which has so many concrete needs.
You don't seem to make any valid point. Low interest rates drive up sale prices, making a seller's market--while realtors tell you interest rates are low and so it's a great time to buy, especially with home values climbing the way they are. You're going to be stuck in that house when the prices crash back down.
High rates. Buyer's market. Find the monthly payment you'll accept for that house, buy it. If the rate is high, it doesn't matter: the monthly payment means you come out paying the same. If the rate is high, you can pay a little more and save a ton of money and time off your loan; if the rate is low, you have to pay *much* more to achieve the same. You are simply in a better financial position with a $1000/mo payment on a 30 year 14% loan than you are with a $1000/mo payment on a 30 year 2.5% loan.
The tone has shifted to philosophical and away from legal. As such, I will simply re-emphasize that pretending the law says something that it does not is not a good argument and, likewise, argumentum ad populum by pointing at other people who are also wrong is not a good supporting argument. I don't care much about the philosophical issue; it's the constant harping I keep hearing about a non-existent legal clause that bothers me.
This as well; but the fact is low rates are a seller's market, and real estate sale--non-speculative transactions, not "I bought houses and flipped them and got dick-rich in a bubble"--is more sustainable in a buyer's market of high interest rates.
Carbon filter and UV FTW. I like calcium and magnesium carbonate in my water. What gives Bass Pale Ale its unique flavor is a ridiculously high carbonate content in Sheffield water (which they now truck in; they used to brew right next to the spring).
I would totally move somewhere with a well and an exceedingly high content of carbonate in the ground water.
The outcome for those impacted by another's liability is the same: the other party pays. It's a difference in whether they pay by insurance claim or by their own risk funds.
Doctors are sued constantly, and the hospital may require them to have malpractice insurance as a way to redirect lawsuits (suing a doctor could put hospital at liability, unless the doctor is independently insured--legal bullshit). In such cases, it's essentially a continuous risk and the risk is in variation of severity.
The worst possible outcome is your insurer going bankrupt. Look into operational risk management, you'll understand eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
"It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary." Winston S. Churchill.
Execution is a deterrent in many places; in others it is not. Various punishments have various effects, influenced by the culture around them. If we forgo execution to save an innocent man, but condemn two more to die, we have failed; it is necessary to accept our flaws and do what is necessary to save lives. If losing one man by our own action is unacceptable, losing two more by our inaction is not a solution; we must necessarily learn better to identify the innocent.
I condone the discomforting terror that sweeps a society when they see a despicable man brutalized by the sheer, violent unleash of hatred upon him for his terrible acts.
To be more correct, we feel that we should claim a moral superiority by deciding an action is wrong on arbitrary grounds.
It's more complex than that.
You face many concerns considering legal punishment: deterrent effect, risk of harm to innocents, and direct impact of punishment, to name three. These depend largely on the crime, the punishment, and the surrounding culture.
The deterrent effect, for example, has two major factors: perceived severity of the punishment and perceived threat of punishment. A weak punishment, colloquially a "slap on the wrist", carries little deterrent effect; a strong punishment carries high deterrent effect. A punishment lacks threat if it is unlikely to actually occur.
The strength of punishment comes from perception: jail time, pain, execution, fines, and how much the individual fear these personally. Some individuals do not fear prison; others fear it a lot. The poor fear fines more than the rich. Death almost universally incites terror. Pain is unpleasant, but imprisonment may destabilize personal security and provide greater fear.
Punishment carries threat when it is likely. The death penalty is a great example: in drug-riddled ghettos where criminal activity meets its abrupt end 99% by death and 1% by state execution, state execution carries no threat. In peaceful but armed suburbs, attacking someone may get you shot. Either way, someone will probably shoot you in the face before the state gets to you; if the police do catch you, they may simply provide a noose to save you from a bullet. In peaceful suburbs with low justifiable homicide rates, state action is the dominating outcome to murder; execution becomes a looming, subconscious threat.
Putting these together: the death penalty is a deterrent only where death is feared and state execution is a likely consequence of capital crime. In places where the criminal base is used to and does not fear death at a distance, state execution is a laughable thing; the first thing to consider is how to not get killed committing your crimes.
Once it's determined the deterrent effect, you have to consider other consequences. Fines and jail time can destroy lives. Executions kill people. If 4% of the executed are innocent, but executions provide such a deterrent effect as to stave off a hundred murders for each innocent executed, then that is unfortunate. If 4% of the executed are innocent, and executions provide no deterrent, then that is unacceptable.
And of course there are other considerations. I mentioned direct impact of punishment. You will want a punishment which rehabilitates criminals if repeat offense represents a larger proportion of the crime than the additional general deterrent from the next best method. Putting together further conditions, you can increase the severity of punishment as the risk of punishing innocents decreases (it's null if the punishments to innocents is dismissed on appeal 100% of the time before the time is served--increase punishment as much as you like). It gets extremely complex.
Justice is like sex: it feels good, but that doesn't make it wrong. Executing a man who stalks, rapes, and murders a woman feels immensely liberating to some; it is anxiolytic to a society who can distance themselves from the act of killing yet feel that they have participated in punishment. At the same time, such a man has earned his punishment. We may look down on people for enjoying vengeance, but we should not thus assume punishment is wrong.
Wow. Leach is actually a chemistry term. Leech means to drain or draw off; Leach means to dissolve and carry away a chemical content by the passing of water. Didn't know that.
Yeah, but you can hide a microSD card anywhere. You could slip it into the last of your shoe by a tear at the very tip. Into a pen cap or inside a watch band. So if you can copy those 8" floppies onto a MicroSD, you can leave with them.
This takes forever, and it's a lot of work shuffling 8 inch floppies around. If the media were much more dense, you would have a much higher probability of success for copying the same amount of data, blocked off in chunks the size of the media. Gigabyte Jazz drives? You're dealing with one 400KB floppy or one 100,000KB floppy--you now may copy 250 times as much data with the same rate of success. Get it onto a MicroSD, conceal it, and leave. Copy it once, rather than 250 times.
If you own a stock, you own a fractional share of a corporation. If that corporation makes a profit, you own a share of that profit. This manifests, in the simplest case, as a dividend.
Oh, you're right. Basically all stocks pay dividends, and stocks which pay dividends aren't discounted in value by the value of the dividend. It's not like the spot price of a stock rises subtly as it approaches dividend ex date and then drops suddenly after the ex date.
And of course that money comes out of nowhere. It's not injected into the SECURITIES MARKET from other sources like company earnings. The company is doing well, and money just magically manifests due to the Jewon particles colliding with the energy of excitement of a well-performing company with high earnings, and money manifests in the securities market and precipitates out to share holders. It's not like it stats in the company coffers as earnings and is transferred to shareholders.
Exactly. An example of non-zero sum.
Wrong. You own a block of shit you paid $30,000 for. Your $30,000 is now someone else's cash holding. Your $30,000 has gone into the market; you just lost your ability to extract that $30,000 back out. Your $30,000 doesn't evaporate.
The warehouse now burns down, and all its contents. (It is not insured). The value of the corporation (and its stock) is now zero. The value changed from non-zero to zero. Clearly, this is an example of a negative-sum situation. (A negative sum is, of course, not a zero sum).
Why?
You started with some money ($10,000). You paid $10,000 for 100 shares of Hardwood Corp. James now has $10,000, you now have $0. Your shares of Hardwood Corp. become worth $0, but James still has $10,000 and goes on to buy Java Corp shares from Marcus. There's still $10,000 floating around.
Meanwhile James' Java Corp shares become worth twice as much. He sells them to Marcus for $20,000. Marcus... can't buy them. He only has $10,000.
Marcus goes to his bank account, and deposits -$10,000 into the bank (withdraws $10,000). He comes back to the Exchange and deposits $10,000 into the exchange. He then buys your $20,000 of Java Corp. Marcus' external assets are changed -$10,000, while the balance of cash in the market is now +$10,000, totaling $0. As the balance of cash was $10,000 from the money you put into the market earlier, the sum total of money in the market is $20,000.
At this point, $20,000 has gone into the market, and the market has $20,000. Java Corp pays a dividend of $500, making Java Corp's corporate bank accounts -$500 and making the market now hold $20,500. Total $20,500 has gone into the market, and it now holds $20,500.
If we keep looking at the money flowing in and the money flowing out--Marcus sells half his shares, James pays him $10,000, Marcus puts $10,500 into the bank, the market now has $10,000 in play--we see that James has $10,000 from you, Marcus has $10,000 from James which is now in the bank, and Marcus also has $500 from Java Corp dividends which were SUBTRACTED from Java Corp's corporate bank accounts and ADDED to the market.
That's zero-sum.
Contrast this to general economic advancement. In the economy, I may spend $10,000 on labor to make 500 shirts, costing $20 of labor per shirt. Now, I may expend $50,000 of research and development and $20,000 of manufacture to build sewing machines. For that $70,000, I can now expend $980 of labor and $20 of machine cost and maintenance (amortized over the machine's lifetime) to make $500 shirts. The $50,000 doesn't recur (unless I develop a new machine), and the $20,000 is part of the cost and maintenance over lifetime. So now it costs me $2 per shirt rather than $20 for the labor of creating a shirt.
In this scenario, I've created $18 per shirt of wealth. Once I have manufactured 2,778 shirts to meet demand for 2,778 shirts, I've broken even. Beyond that, soc
Nobody is going to report the $100 of porn they bought.
Stocks aren't value; they are valuation. The only value common stock has is as a trading medium to another person so that you can make money by speculation. The NYSE doesn't price stocks based on corporate performance; it prices them based on what people are buying and selling for. That's why we have Price to Earnings and such measurements: to show how much more valued a stock is than the actual value of the company it's named in.
OH, by the way: I'm filing Chapter 13 bankruptcy. All that common stock you're holding that's worth $30,000? It's canceled, and you get nothing. Have a nice day.
I read that as "Oriental Programming".
It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to BASIC: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration.
There's no kind of atmosphere.
Do you remember in Dune they made it illegal to make a computer which thinks in the way of a man? The prequel to Dune was called "The Matrix".
Actually, you're wrong.
These old networks are airgapped in so many ways, not just by removing the CAT6 to the Internet. The disks themselves are airgapped, as they're not constantly in systems which can read them; likewise, there's a huge airgap between a spy and a reader: if the disks are stolen, they need a huge honkin' machine to read them, or they need to use base facilities which have cameras and guards. Further, the media is low-density: you need to physically transport a truckload to get what fits on a modern CD-R, much less on a 64GB microSDHC.
Just as with 1000 iteration hashing, these large systems impose a time limitation on mass copy. If you want to access this top-secret file, it's merely 15kB of text stored on a 40kB disk. If you want to steal the wealth of information archived here, you must find the disks you want and then copy each of them. If you want it all, you must spend weeks if not months copying each individual disk to a portable flash drive.
There are some real difficulties involved in stealing this much data in this form. That provides a layer of security by requiring high-visibility or excessively slow methods of data access, both of which sharply increase risk in espionage. You are more likely to catch and interrupt any significant espionage attempt in this model than in a model where we put all our stuff on a USB drive that's taken to a modern machine in a secure room.
And where does the money come from to purchase the increased value of stocks?
The market has 100 AAPL at $1, so $100 worth of AAPL, which somebody buys for $100. Now AAPL is worth $10, so $1000 of AAPL. Where does the other $900 come from when it's bought? Does it originate from the market, or is it injected from outside such that the sum total of the money paid into the stock market and the money removed from the stock market is still 0?
Where did Bob's $2 come from? Alice only put $1 into the stock market; there is only $1 in the stock market, and a $2 stock that nobody can afford to buy because they only have $1.
Well there's a study somewhere that Times covered horribly which discovered that BPS can leech 20 times as much as BPA, with similar endocrine activity.
Synthetic organic compounds and natural organic compounds are both either benign, helpful, or neutral. It depends what the compound is; lots of things from Nature are more toxic than chemically-adjusted synthetic counterparts made more stable and less toxic.
In high school, they taught us the "scientific method". They can certainly generally educate students to apply decomposition; in fact, the field of Project Management uses Work Breakdown Structures, which are defined by the PMBOK3e (also 5e, latest):
a deliverable-oriented hierarchical decomposition of the work to be executed by the project team to accomplish the project objectives and create the required deliverables. It organizes and defines the total scope of the project. Each descending level represents an increasingly detailed definition of the project work. The WBS is decomposed into work packages. The deliverable orientation of the hierarchy includes both internal and external deliverables.
A work breakdown structure may look something like this. Notice the absence of verbs: all things must be on the WBS (the one shown is incomplete), all things are broken down to understandable and manageable deliverables. Project Scheduling further breaks down work packages (the furthest-decomposed deliverables) into tasks, which are actions and may be assigned to people.
The general method of decomposition of a goal (Project) to individual deliverables and then to tasks to create those deliverables is easily learned. Project management encompasses requirements gathering, negotiation, communication, scheduling, cost management, and so on; the small technical skill of decomposition of work is only a fragment of the whole of Project Management and, as you have astutely noticed, greatly applicable to engineering projects.
This isn't a STEM skill; it's a management skill that most STEM people don't acquire, but imagine that they have simply because they can pick out a task from a huge effort and say "Well I can do this part next." Shearing it off from Project Management and teaching it as an independent skill would be valuable; everyone does not need to be a project manager, but everyone would benefit from the skill of hierarchical decomposition.
Technology degrees are mostly airy and fluffy, and it's well-accepted that once you get out of college most of your vocational training having to do with computers is useless. Science degrees are for researchers; Engineering degrees are for people who create things which can be reproduced; and Mathematics degrees are a sort of jack-of-all degree that allows you to go anywhere with Science or Engineering and learn that. Management degrees are, unfortunately, in-vogue as Technology degrees and, consequentially, airy and fluffy in a field which has so many concrete needs.
You don't seem to make any valid point. Low interest rates drive up sale prices, making a seller's market--while realtors tell you interest rates are low and so it's a great time to buy, especially with home values climbing the way they are. You're going to be stuck in that house when the prices crash back down.
High rates. Buyer's market. Find the monthly payment you'll accept for that house, buy it. If the rate is high, it doesn't matter: the monthly payment means you come out paying the same. If the rate is high, you can pay a little more and save a ton of money and time off your loan; if the rate is low, you have to pay *much* more to achieve the same. You are simply in a better financial position with a $1000/mo payment on a 30 year 14% loan than you are with a $1000/mo payment on a 30 year 2.5% loan.
The tone has shifted to philosophical and away from legal. As such, I will simply re-emphasize that pretending the law says something that it does not is not a good argument and, likewise, argumentum ad populum by pointing at other people who are also wrong is not a good supporting argument. I don't care much about the philosophical issue; it's the constant harping I keep hearing about a non-existent legal clause that bothers me.
This as well; but the fact is low rates are a seller's market, and real estate sale--non-speculative transactions, not "I bought houses and flipped them and got dick-rich in a bubble"--is more sustainable in a buyer's market of high interest rates.
Carbon filter and UV FTW. I like calcium and magnesium carbonate in my water. What gives Bass Pale Ale its unique flavor is a ridiculously high carbonate content in Sheffield water (which they now truck in; they used to brew right next to the spring).
I would totally move somewhere with a well and an exceedingly high content of carbonate in the ground water.
The outcome for those impacted by another's liability is the same: the other party pays. It's a difference in whether they pay by insurance claim or by their own risk funds.
Doctors are sued constantly, and the hospital may require them to have malpractice insurance as a way to redirect lawsuits (suing a doctor could put hospital at liability, unless the doctor is independently insured--legal bullshit). In such cases, it's essentially a continuous risk and the risk is in variation of severity.
The worst possible outcome is your insurer going bankrupt. Look into operational risk management, you'll understand eventually.
The USA won't get that old.