It doesn't matter though. The money can be got in and out easily and it's REAL money. The guy stole 5 million real dollars whether or not you personally happen to like that kind of value.
And we can make him give it back and work on rehabilitation.
Making an example of him won't work: criminals aren't deterred by punishment, but rather by the perceived likelihood of getting caught. Harsher punishments don't reduce crime.
Even if it did, harsh punishment as an example to others is inflicting harm upon someone for purpose other than their own transgression, which is the opposite of justice, so much as one could call punishment "justice" in the first place. It's like gangraping some guy's wife because he didn't pay back a loan, except that not only did she not commit the crime, but the punishment is targeted at crimes not yet committed but supposed to be committed by folks who should take the demonstration as a warning to not do those things.
The relative merits of prison vs non custodial sentances is irrelevant to you not liking the money he stole.
Also punitive versus restorative justice. People are products of their environments, and crime is essentially a result of society. Schools and prisons serve the same functions: they help people to become thriving members of society.
Rote memorization is the foundation of memory. It's memorization by repeat exposure.
People who study don't simply learn the ins and outs of a system because they didn't memorize it. You learn the ins and outs because you're learning how it works. That exposure repeatedly brings certain facts to mind, which takes way too much memory, and so those facts become readily-accessible by deep association.
In other words: after you've derived the formula for measuring a pyramid 500 times because you know the calculus for the integration of progressively-smaller cross sections, you stop doing all that because your brain sees a pyramid or a cone and immediately says V=bh/3. You can forget the derivation and still remember that, since it's burned into your memory.
The ability to rapidly access this information allows you to do more-complex things. Rote memorization is the basis of strong arithmetic education, for example: by memorizing single-digit addition and multiplication tables, you gain the ability to perform complex multi-digit addition, multiplication, and division in your head--after practicing the correct procedures. Addition eventually becomes full-scope memorization, since each calculation produces a consistent result and you eventually memorize every pair of addends and their sum anyway, allowing you to add numbers faster than you can enter them into a calculator.
In my district, we used to teach addition and subtraction by counting. This resulted in generations of adults who will look at numbers and begin counting on their fingers. 16 + 5 = "17 18 19 20 21". The new method of "Friendly Numbers" invokes a preprocessing stage of 15+5+1 to give 5+5=10 and 20+1, which requires surveying the space first and then computing 6-5 just to begin.
The individual who has the {6,4} pair and {4,1} pair memorized will carry out 5-4=1 and emit 21, although eventually they just see 6+5=11 because they've done that one a thousand times and the pairs here are a two-step pair. This leads to computations like 475 + 915 + 3718 reading immediately as 4+9+7 => 13 + 7 => 20 => 50, 7+1+1 => 9 => 509, 5+5+8 => 10+8 => 18 => 5108. The whole computation is a rote action.
Surgeons need to know the inside of a body like the back of their hand. That's a lot of rote memorization. When something strange happens, they have hundreds of thousands of facts at-hand that they can then rapidly combine to analyze what is going on and how to respond. They don't sit there and begin enumerating the situation and discussing possibilities with staff, breaking out into groups to work on the problem for 10 minutes; they react before they're even aware of what they're doing. They couldn't do that without an enormous cache of rote-memorized knowledge.
This is always the case with foundational knowledge. When you step into what is called "skills", you need to learn the application of knowledge. So, for example, the ability to rapidly compute arithmetic only requires knowing the technique; the ability to investigate algebra requires understanding the mathematical relationships which make the rapid arithmetic technique possible.
When you get to algebra, you can learn to operate the pythagorean theorem and the quadratic equation. We can teach you about conic sections to help you understand how all of this works; however, when you sit down to compute things, you'll need equations.
You can derive these equations from your understanding of conic sections...if you can remember the foundational math that lets you then derive a path to the quadratic equation, or one of the other equations. If you can't, you will fail. Something has to be memorized by rote. Even then, it's quite slow (I know: this is how I did math my whole life).
If, on the other hand, you have rote-memorized all of your equations, you can approach a problem of geometry by citing all the relationships you see--you can cite that something is a con
Think about a GM automotive factory. They make 13 types of Chevrolets, 9 models of Buick, 6 models of Cadillac, 11 models of GMC, and 4 models of Holden.
Now imagine GM has these factories in Canada, Mexico, China, Australia, Sweden, and France.
Now: these factories suddenly start making the similar models on their lines, with parallel lines for the variations on each platform. They may specialize in one or two engines. They ship for final assembly to one or two specialized factories.
You start with factories that keep stopping lines and retooling to make inventory for the different models they're producing. You end up with factories that instead produce the models they can run continuously, and ship parts and finished cars around in trade.
The second model is more-efficient: fewer stoppages and a simplified operating platform means the factories can churn out more product in the same time and with the same labor.
It's not just that you built a manufacturing base and someone else didn't; it's that you specialized and increased efficiency in what each of you manufacture, instead of trying to produce everything in the world. This is also why standardized parts are so important: a Chinese screw factory can make billions of a certain type of screw in a continuous run by dedicating a number of its lines to that tooling based on the demand, and reallocating capacity between lines as demand shifts. Because demand is so god damned high, they aren't running small batches and then retooling; they're pumping out screws like crazy. The computer manufacturers all over the world use those screws because they're cheap and highly-available, which is a result of this standardization.
There is a lot more to the cost equation than just the cost of the container
That's not the container cost; it's the cost of getting a container full of stuff from China to a dock in the United States. It's the whole cost of moving it between those two points. Cartridge cost is another $500 or so, and is from the dock to your warehouse, which I didn't count: things made in the USA will move from your factory to a warehouse, same deal.
Mind you, you can pack like 20,000 pairs of trousers into the damned thing.
I'm a cost accountant and I've worked doing global sourcing for a living out of Mexico, China, and India.
You're also using 90% word-for-word the same explanation as published by a well-respected Australian business consulting firm.
Those products are made in China instead of the US because making clothing is a labor intensive process which means that labor costs are paramount.
Interestingly, Chinese factory workers make about 110% GNI/C (2016). American workers's median household income is 101% GNI/C as of 2016.
Basically, China has accumulated factors of production and so are more labor-effective at manufacturing than their US counterparts, plus Chinese are relatively more-effective at making things like clothes and other stuff they manufacture than many other things. That means China would sacrifice more to make other things than they do to simply import those other things in trade for what they make, so they become richer on a per-capita basis by manufacturing what they do for the export market.
the actual weaving and sewing that goes into making large volumes of clothing is only cost effective in very low labor cost countries.
Weaving is an automated process with little labor involved. The American textile industry produces one hell of a lot of fabric, notably in cotton; the Chinese industry is more known for silk, and more for the raw material.
Essentially, making fabric is cost-effective here because we could make 1,000 yards of fabric or 50 shirts, whereas e.g. China could make 600 yards of fabric or 50 shirts. Even if we can make those shirts with half the labor that China uses, we're both better off with the US making fabric and China making shirts.
Consider if the US makes 100 shirts and China makes 1,800 yards of fabric.
Now China instead can make 150 shirts, while the US can instead make 2,000 yards of fabric. We're looking at 50 more shirts in total and more 200 yard of fabric in total, yet we're expending the same amount of labor. This despite China using its labor less-efficiently than the US would in making those shirts. Every arrangement in which the US tries to leverage its more-efficient labor to make shirts ends up losing out because we have to sacrifice more fabric production than China does per shirt produced.
So you have an arbitrage: China can make 150 shirts, and the US can trade with them to reallocate the labor of making 50 shirts.
If the American cost is $10 of inputs and $6 to produce a shirt ($16 shirt), then the Chinese cost is $10 of inputs plus $6 to make a shirt ($16). If the Chinese spend 3x as much labor on that process, then their wage is 1/3 as much as an American's wage.
Yes, that's the point: China can't go to war with the US because China's economy would collapse before it gets off the ground.
Bringing it all back in-house here means our economy loses a sizable bit of GDP. Imagine America, the impoverished, sitting 20% lower in economic power than anyone else, unable to raise a military capable of defending against the modern military of Russia and China. That's a huge national security issue.
We have blue-collar workers; they're just working on different things. Our nation has a limited amount of labor available, and you have to allocate it by demand. What you propose is essentially just increasing poverty and putting strain on working Americans, which is morally wrong.
You know what else is morally wrong? Not giving the workers a fair share. The minimum wage was 67% of per-capita income in the 50s and 60s. As we got wealthier per person, we adjusted it to inflation...meaning I get 10% wealthier, you get 0% wealthier because you're the least-paid worker. Had we adjusted it properly to follow per-capita income growth, the minimum wage in 2016 would have been $19.33/hr.
The population would also have been around 270 million.
Minimum wage falling as a percentage of per-capita income means all incomes from lower-middle up can purchase more low-wage labor--your fast food workers and retail shelf stockers. That means an expansion in the poverty sector, as jobs are available. A labor shortage draws up wages, and encourages expansion of population and labor force...which then satisfies the shortage and creates competition, allowing wages to reduce again to that minimum wage level, always giving you a growing poverty base.
Every way you slice it, the attempt at United States Communism won't work. We cannot build a planned economy and expect it to lead to anything but systemic collapse.
That's Mescaline and Psilocybin. I thought LSD is a kappa opioid receptor agonist (KORA not KORN), but a second look turns up a lot of literature comparing Salvinorin-A to LSD in terms of its active dose (200mcg vs LSD at 20mcg). Looks like it may have some impacts at mu, but not kappa.
LSD makes you hallucinate for like 12-18 hours. No thanks. Besides, I have pretty bad reactions to drugs that increase SER.
When you have to do that often then it makes more sense to just assemble the product in China rather than blowing up your supply chain and incurring huge freight and logistics costs and hassles.
It costs less than $2,000 to import a 40-foot shipping container. When I ran the math in 2015, it was $1,300, making the shipping cost of a pair of men's cotton trousers from China to the dock at the US six cents.
You know how we make clothes in China? Well, those clothes are made of cotton grown in Egypt or the United States, shipped to Indonesia for processing and spinning, shipped to the United States again for weaving, shipped to India for dying, shipped to China for manufacture into clothing, and then shipped to America for selling.
It's cheaper and more-efficient to do that than to make American jeans from American cotton spun and dyed in America.
Why would we want to bring back manufacturing to the US? Do you want to waste our resources when we can enjoy greater wealth and higher standards of living engaging in open trade?
Instead of nurses, we can have factory workers. Seems legit.
$2.15/hr was the 2003 rate. Chinese workers made $3.20/hr in 2006, and a fair bit more now, plus government-provided social insurances.
Besides that, the Chinese are just better manufacturers due to accumulated factors of production. It's more-efficient for regions to specialize and trade.
Here's a question: if 1 second seems like 5 seconds, wouldn't you perceive the image to exist for 5 seconds, then perceive yourself to be holding the button for 5 seconds, even though both were only 1 second?
The impacts of KORNs is well-known, and so powerful that e.g. salvinorin-A (about 5 minute activity time) can cause changes in thought patterns for days, including what folks describe as "increased insight". I'll pass on LSD, thanks; that just looks like bad juju.
I remember how he whipped her in the beginning of the SNES game, so it fits.
He tortured, murdered, and ate her parents in front of her when she was like six years old. While mocking her.
On the other hand, she already killed him several times.
Honestly, though, Ridley's entire species was wiped out by the GF because they were "too dangerous". He can regenerate from cells. I'm not surprised he's a vindictive sadist.
In the design of electronic voting machines, I've suggested that the machines need to not have wireless networking capabilities, not connect to networks, and...be sourced at least a year before any election in which they're used.
Hardware-level attacks aren't very effective when you don't know the exact software, data formats, and goals of your attack, and have no communication channel.
This is also why parallel testing and, yes, selling off a random sample of your stock after the elections is helpful. Even at a level of zero identifiable mechanisms for compromise, it'd be nice to get some of this stuff back out in the wild where tinkerers might actually discover the attempt. Federal government's assets (i.e. the NSA) are also useful here, only on the grounds that a larger conspiracy becomes more-difficult to conceal (i.e. you're most-likely to have State boards involved in attacks on our elections, therefor other States and the Federal government will be at opposition with them and will be unhappy with and loud about discovered attempts to tamper).
Besides that we're moving to electronic voting anyway, the unhappy truth nobody wants to admit is paper ballot voting is simply insecure. You place paper ballots on a truck with State-selected actors in the handling; your State may be corrupt, the people with the ballots can reverse seals with a paper clip and modify the ballots, and the ballots are the source-of-truth. That's a black box.
People talk about paper audit trails and bring up morphine pills. Thing is you have a log that says "500 Pills" at every hand-off. With paper ballots, you have 500 pills, and a log that says "Handed off" at every hand-off, and if you want to check the number of pills you open up the bottle and count and you have no real record of how many pills you had, so you just assume however many pills are there are the amount that you had when you left.
That doesn't hold up when you realize we counted the votes before we left...except we recount all the ballots, which means if the count is different we assume we counted them wrong the first time. Also, with ranked ballots, you actually need either a full duplicate of all the ballots or a strong hash, so...yeah. You can hijack non-ranked (and some types of ranked) elections by adding candidates to manipulate the outcome, and ranked elections will be critical to the next major advancement in democracies.
So what you have with paper ballots is a hole in a wall where you put ballots in, and then the benevolent election staff carries out a box that allegedly contains all the ballots the voters cast and counts them.
Providing for a computerized function with an untrusted supply chain became a critical task for me long ago. It only works when you don't need the computer networked, and when the computer's software and data are of unknown format to the supply chain attacker. If we're talking about servers plugged into the Internet, or cell phones, or anything else, there is no defense.
Maryland code is different than Oregon code. IEC and NEC apply everywhere; but you know, in California, you need to have an air gap for a dishwasher (plumbing), while in Maryland you need a high loop (which actually doesn't help because it will not break a siphon sucking sewage into the mains). The same has been true of electrical wiring; California even had differing methods of wiring 3-way switches than other states at one point in history, and individual cities had their own code, so something NEC compliant could be local-noncompliant.
Lawyers can't simply practice in other states, either.
Actually, that's not how unions work. I've brought this up with SEIU in designing a union for IT workers. I have a laundry list of things you see in old factory unions that won't mesh with IT workers, and how to design and operate an IT Workers Union.
Meritocracy and a lack of job protectionism were the first things identified for this type of union body.
I've actually proposed trimming working hours to 4 days of 7 hours. That's in response to an economic policy that severely-overheats the economy as a side-effect (it ends all poverty, but causes hyperinflation by making the middle- and lower-classes too rich), the correction for which is to make people poorer by reducing their productive labor time (working hours).
It's not TV and video games. I've done that: I stayed up until 5am reading books before. The metronome is employment, and employment sucks up a large portion of daily life. People wake up too early and work too late.
How in God's name is an IPO going to cause depression 2.0? If Goldman and the other Banks underwrite a junk business that's on them and I recall a few IPOs that went under the open price. No depression there.
The original Great Depression had many factors, one of which was Goldman Sachs figuring out they could IPO shell corporations, get tons of investors, shift the money out to themselves, take huge loans, then pull the plug. Eventually this giant pyramid of investments did the dot-com bust thing on a much larger scale.
The 2008 Depression was a result of "financial innovation" by banks playing games to get around the financial industry safeguards. By the law of averages, if you pile thousands of loans together and a few dozen are bad, your package is overall profitable. This stops working when an abnormal situation occurs, such as when people start losing jobs, folks start pulling back, ARM loans adjust out of people's reach, and suddenly NOBODY can pay their NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans.
The bigger problem will be the loss of jobs from the loss of liquidity around these government employees who are no longer spending.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a trend.
It's a downward trend.
Projecting that trend forever, this is what will happen.
It's like saying I got paid today, and I'm now getting $2,000/day versus the earlier trend, and so in a year and some change I'll be a millionaire.
It doesn't matter though. The money can be got in and out easily and it's REAL money. The guy stole 5 million real dollars whether or not you personally happen to like that kind of value.
And we can make him give it back and work on rehabilitation.
Making an example of him won't work: criminals aren't deterred by punishment, but rather by the perceived likelihood of getting caught. Harsher punishments don't reduce crime.
Even if it did, harsh punishment as an example to others is inflicting harm upon someone for purpose other than their own transgression, which is the opposite of justice, so much as one could call punishment "justice" in the first place. It's like gangraping some guy's wife because he didn't pay back a loan, except that not only did she not commit the crime, but the punishment is targeted at crimes not yet committed but supposed to be committed by folks who should take the demonstration as a warning to not do those things.
The relative merits of prison vs non custodial sentances is irrelevant to you not liking the money he stole.
Also punitive versus restorative justice. People are products of their environments, and crime is essentially a result of society. Schools and prisons serve the same functions: they help people to become thriving members of society.
Rote memorization is the foundation of memory. It's memorization by repeat exposure.
People who study don't simply learn the ins and outs of a system because they didn't memorize it. You learn the ins and outs because you're learning how it works. That exposure repeatedly brings certain facts to mind, which takes way too much memory, and so those facts become readily-accessible by deep association.
In other words: after you've derived the formula for measuring a pyramid 500 times because you know the calculus for the integration of progressively-smaller cross sections, you stop doing all that because your brain sees a pyramid or a cone and immediately says V=bh/3. You can forget the derivation and still remember that, since it's burned into your memory.
The ability to rapidly access this information allows you to do more-complex things. Rote memorization is the basis of strong arithmetic education, for example: by memorizing single-digit addition and multiplication tables, you gain the ability to perform complex multi-digit addition, multiplication, and division in your head--after practicing the correct procedures. Addition eventually becomes full-scope memorization, since each calculation produces a consistent result and you eventually memorize every pair of addends and their sum anyway, allowing you to add numbers faster than you can enter them into a calculator.
In my district, we used to teach addition and subtraction by counting. This resulted in generations of adults who will look at numbers and begin counting on their fingers. 16 + 5 = "17 18 19 20 21". The new method of "Friendly Numbers" invokes a preprocessing stage of 15+5+1 to give 5+5=10 and 20+1, which requires surveying the space first and then computing 6-5 just to begin.
The individual who has the {6,4} pair and {4,1} pair memorized will carry out 5-4=1 and emit 21, although eventually they just see 6+5=11 because they've done that one a thousand times and the pairs here are a two-step pair. This leads to computations like 475 + 915 + 3718 reading immediately as 4+9+7 => 13 + 7 => 20 => 50, 7+1+1 => 9 => 509, 5+5+8 => 10+8 => 18 => 5108. The whole computation is a rote action.
Surgeons need to know the inside of a body like the back of their hand. That's a lot of rote memorization. When something strange happens, they have hundreds of thousands of facts at-hand that they can then rapidly combine to analyze what is going on and how to respond. They don't sit there and begin enumerating the situation and discussing possibilities with staff, breaking out into groups to work on the problem for 10 minutes; they react before they're even aware of what they're doing. They couldn't do that without an enormous cache of rote-memorized knowledge.
This is always the case with foundational knowledge. When you step into what is called "skills", you need to learn the application of knowledge. So, for example, the ability to rapidly compute arithmetic only requires knowing the technique; the ability to investigate algebra requires understanding the mathematical relationships which make the rapid arithmetic technique possible.
When you get to algebra, you can learn to operate the pythagorean theorem and the quadratic equation. We can teach you about conic sections to help you understand how all of this works; however, when you sit down to compute things, you'll need equations.
You can derive these equations from your understanding of conic sections...if you can remember the foundational math that lets you then derive a path to the quadratic equation, or one of the other equations. If you can't, you will fail. Something has to be memorized by rote. Even then, it's quite slow (I know: this is how I did math my whole life).
If, on the other hand, you have rote-memorized all of your equations, you can approach a problem of geometry by citing all the relationships you see--you can cite that something is a con
I'll keep that in mind.
It's not just that.
Think about a GM automotive factory. They make 13 types of Chevrolets, 9 models of Buick, 6 models of Cadillac, 11 models of GMC, and 4 models of Holden.
Now imagine GM has these factories in Canada, Mexico, China, Australia, Sweden, and France.
Now: these factories suddenly start making the similar models on their lines, with parallel lines for the variations on each platform. They may specialize in one or two engines. They ship for final assembly to one or two specialized factories.
You start with factories that keep stopping lines and retooling to make inventory for the different models they're producing. You end up with factories that instead produce the models they can run continuously, and ship parts and finished cars around in trade.
The second model is more-efficient: fewer stoppages and a simplified operating platform means the factories can churn out more product in the same time and with the same labor.
It's not just that you built a manufacturing base and someone else didn't; it's that you specialized and increased efficiency in what each of you manufacture, instead of trying to produce everything in the world. This is also why standardized parts are so important: a Chinese screw factory can make billions of a certain type of screw in a continuous run by dedicating a number of its lines to that tooling based on the demand, and reallocating capacity between lines as demand shifts. Because demand is so god damned high, they aren't running small batches and then retooling; they're pumping out screws like crazy. The computer manufacturers all over the world use those screws because they're cheap and highly-available, which is a result of this standardization.
There is a lot more to the cost equation than just the cost of the container
That's not the container cost; it's the cost of getting a container full of stuff from China to a dock in the United States. It's the whole cost of moving it between those two points. Cartridge cost is another $500 or so, and is from the dock to your warehouse, which I didn't count: things made in the USA will move from your factory to a warehouse, same deal.
Mind you, you can pack like 20,000 pairs of trousers into the damned thing.
I'm a cost accountant and I've worked doing global sourcing for a living out of Mexico, China, and India.
You're also using 90% word-for-word the same explanation as published by a well-respected Australian business consulting firm.
Those products are made in China instead of the US because making clothing is a labor intensive process which means that labor costs are paramount.
Interestingly, Chinese factory workers make about 110% GNI/C (2016). American workers's median household income is 101% GNI/C as of 2016.
Basically, China has accumulated factors of production and so are more labor-effective at manufacturing than their US counterparts, plus Chinese are relatively more-effective at making things like clothes and other stuff they manufacture than many other things. That means China would sacrifice more to make other things than they do to simply import those other things in trade for what they make, so they become richer on a per-capita basis by manufacturing what they do for the export market.
the actual weaving and sewing that goes into making large volumes of clothing is only cost effective in very low labor cost countries.
Weaving is an automated process with little labor involved. The American textile industry produces one hell of a lot of fabric, notably in cotton; the Chinese industry is more known for silk, and more for the raw material.
Essentially, making fabric is cost-effective here because we could make 1,000 yards of fabric or 50 shirts, whereas e.g. China could make 600 yards of fabric or 50 shirts. Even if we can make those shirts with half the labor that China uses, we're both better off with the US making fabric and China making shirts.
Consider if the US makes 100 shirts and China makes 1,800 yards of fabric.
Now China instead can make 150 shirts, while the US can instead make 2,000 yards of fabric. We're looking at 50 more shirts in total and more 200 yard of fabric in total, yet we're expending the same amount of labor. This despite China using its labor less-efficiently than the US would in making those shirts. Every arrangement in which the US tries to leverage its more-efficient labor to make shirts ends up losing out because we have to sacrifice more fabric production than China does per shirt produced.
So you have an arbitrage: China can make 150 shirts, and the US can trade with them to reallocate the labor of making 50 shirts.
If the American cost is $10 of inputs and $6 to produce a shirt ($16 shirt), then the Chinese cost is $10 of inputs plus $6 to make a shirt ($16). If the Chinese spend 3x as much labor on that process, then their wage is 1/3 as much as an American's wage.
Yes, that's the point: China can't go to war with the US because China's economy would collapse before it gets off the ground.
Bringing it all back in-house here means our economy loses a sizable bit of GDP. Imagine America, the impoverished, sitting 20% lower in economic power than anyone else, unable to raise a military capable of defending against the modern military of Russia and China. That's a huge national security issue.
We have blue-collar workers; they're just working on different things. Our nation has a limited amount of labor available, and you have to allocate it by demand. What you propose is essentially just increasing poverty and putting strain on working Americans, which is morally wrong.
You know what else is morally wrong? Not giving the workers a fair share. The minimum wage was 67% of per-capita income in the 50s and 60s. As we got wealthier per person, we adjusted it to inflation...meaning I get 10% wealthier, you get 0% wealthier because you're the least-paid worker. Had we adjusted it properly to follow per-capita income growth, the minimum wage in 2016 would have been $19.33/hr.
The population would also have been around 270 million.
Minimum wage falling as a percentage of per-capita income means all incomes from lower-middle up can purchase more low-wage labor--your fast food workers and retail shelf stockers. That means an expansion in the poverty sector, as jobs are available. A labor shortage draws up wages, and encourages expansion of population and labor force...which then satisfies the shortage and creates competition, allowing wages to reduce again to that minimum wage level, always giving you a growing poverty base.
Every way you slice it, the attempt at United States Communism won't work. We cannot build a planned economy and expect it to lead to anything but systemic collapse.
That's Mescaline and Psilocybin. I thought LSD is a kappa opioid receptor agonist (KORA not KORN), but a second look turns up a lot of literature comparing Salvinorin-A to LSD in terms of its active dose (200mcg vs LSD at 20mcg). Looks like it may have some impacts at mu, but not kappa.
LSD makes you hallucinate for like 12-18 hours. No thanks. Besides, I have pretty bad reactions to drugs that increase SER.
When you have to do that often then it makes more sense to just assemble the product in China rather than blowing up your supply chain and incurring huge freight and logistics costs and hassles.
It costs less than $2,000 to import a 40-foot shipping container. When I ran the math in 2015, it was $1,300, making the shipping cost of a pair of men's cotton trousers from China to the dock at the US six cents.
You know how we make clothes in China? Well, those clothes are made of cotton grown in Egypt or the United States, shipped to Indonesia for processing and spinning, shipped to the United States again for weaving, shipped to India for dying, shipped to China for manufacture into clothing, and then shipped to America for selling.
It's cheaper and more-efficient to do that than to make American jeans from American cotton spun and dyed in America.
You also got tons of labor freed up for healthcare and using commercial electronics to build high-speed Internet and Netflix.
Why would we want to bring back manufacturing to the US? Do you want to waste our resources when we can enjoy greater wealth and higher standards of living engaging in open trade?
Instead of nurses, we can have factory workers. Seems legit.
$2.15/hr was the 2003 rate. Chinese workers made $3.20/hr in 2006, and a fair bit more now, plus government-provided social insurances.
Besides that, the Chinese are just better manufacturers due to accumulated factors of production. It's more-efficient for regions to specialize and trade.
Here's a question: if 1 second seems like 5 seconds, wouldn't you perceive the image to exist for 5 seconds, then perceive yourself to be holding the button for 5 seconds, even though both were only 1 second?
Don't drive while intoxicated.
The impacts of KORNs is well-known, and so powerful that e.g. salvinorin-A (about 5 minute activity time) can cause changes in thought patterns for days, including what folks describe as "increased insight". I'll pass on LSD, thanks; that just looks like bad juju.
I remember how he whipped her in the beginning of the SNES game, so it fits.
He tortured, murdered, and ate her parents in front of her when she was like six years old. While mocking her.
On the other hand, she already killed him several times.
Honestly, though, Ridley's entire species was wiped out by the GF because they were "too dangerous". He can regenerate from cells. I'm not surprised he's a vindictive sadist.
In the design of electronic voting machines, I've suggested that the machines need to not have wireless networking capabilities, not connect to networks, and...be sourced at least a year before any election in which they're used.
Hardware-level attacks aren't very effective when you don't know the exact software, data formats, and goals of your attack, and have no communication channel.
This is also why parallel testing and, yes, selling off a random sample of your stock after the elections is helpful. Even at a level of zero identifiable mechanisms for compromise, it'd be nice to get some of this stuff back out in the wild where tinkerers might actually discover the attempt. Federal government's assets (i.e. the NSA) are also useful here, only on the grounds that a larger conspiracy becomes more-difficult to conceal (i.e. you're most-likely to have State boards involved in attacks on our elections, therefor other States and the Federal government will be at opposition with them and will be unhappy with and loud about discovered attempts to tamper).
Besides that we're moving to electronic voting anyway, the unhappy truth nobody wants to admit is paper ballot voting is simply insecure. You place paper ballots on a truck with State-selected actors in the handling; your State may be corrupt, the people with the ballots can reverse seals with a paper clip and modify the ballots, and the ballots are the source-of-truth. That's a black box.
People talk about paper audit trails and bring up morphine pills. Thing is you have a log that says "500 Pills" at every hand-off. With paper ballots, you have 500 pills, and a log that says "Handed off" at every hand-off, and if you want to check the number of pills you open up the bottle and count and you have no real record of how many pills you had, so you just assume however many pills are there are the amount that you had when you left.
That doesn't hold up when you realize we counted the votes before we left...except we recount all the ballots, which means if the count is different we assume we counted them wrong the first time. Also, with ranked ballots, you actually need either a full duplicate of all the ballots or a strong hash, so...yeah. You can hijack non-ranked (and some types of ranked) elections by adding candidates to manipulate the outcome, and ranked elections will be critical to the next major advancement in democracies.
So what you have with paper ballots is a hole in a wall where you put ballots in, and then the benevolent election staff carries out a box that allegedly contains all the ballots the voters cast and counts them.
Providing for a computerized function with an untrusted supply chain became a critical task for me long ago. It only works when you don't need the computer networked, and when the computer's software and data are of unknown format to the supply chain attacker. If we're talking about servers plugged into the Internet, or cell phones, or anything else, there is no defense.
You should see what happened to minimum wage since the 50s and 60s.
What does geography have to do with a skillset?
Maryland code is different than Oregon code. IEC and NEC apply everywhere; but you know, in California, you need to have an air gap for a dishwasher (plumbing), while in Maryland you need a high loop (which actually doesn't help because it will not break a siphon sucking sewage into the mains). The same has been true of electrical wiring; California even had differing methods of wiring 3-way switches than other states at one point in history, and individual cities had their own code, so something NEC compliant could be local-noncompliant.
Lawyers can't simply practice in other states, either.
Modern union security contracts require new hires to join the union after 30 days.
Actually, that's not how unions work. I've brought this up with SEIU in designing a union for IT workers. I have a laundry list of things you see in old factory unions that won't mesh with IT workers, and how to design and operate an IT Workers Union.
Meritocracy and a lack of job protectionism were the first things identified for this type of union body.
They want someone else to do the work of rallying everyone to do it.
I'm on it.
I've actually proposed trimming working hours to 4 days of 7 hours. That's in response to an economic policy that severely-overheats the economy as a side-effect (it ends all poverty, but causes hyperinflation by making the middle- and lower-classes too rich), the correction for which is to make people poorer by reducing their productive labor time (working hours).
It's not TV and video games. I've done that: I stayed up until 5am reading books before. The metronome is employment, and employment sucks up a large portion of daily life. People wake up too early and work too late.
There are infinite cameras and projectors, then.
How in God's name is an IPO going to cause depression 2.0? If Goldman and the other Banks underwrite a junk business that's on them and I recall a few IPOs that went under the open price. No depression there.
The original Great Depression had many factors, one of which was Goldman Sachs figuring out they could IPO shell corporations, get tons of investors, shift the money out to themselves, take huge loans, then pull the plug. Eventually this giant pyramid of investments did the dot-com bust thing on a much larger scale.
The 2008 Depression was a result of "financial innovation" by banks playing games to get around the financial industry safeguards. By the law of averages, if you pile thousands of loans together and a few dozen are bad, your package is overall profitable. This stops working when an abnormal situation occurs, such as when people start losing jobs, folks start pulling back, ARM loans adjust out of people's reach, and suddenly NOBODY can pay their NINJA (no income, no job, no assets) loans.
The bigger problem will be the loss of jobs from the loss of liquidity around these government employees who are no longer spending.
Yes and they'll still have to pay fixed costs, but not variable costs. $25 million of variable costs at $60k annual average salary is...416 jobs.