That is a ridiculous statement. Too concerned with how things should be, and not how they are? So, things should be like X, but we are too lame and are causing bigger problems by doing Y as a feel-good measure, we shouldn't worry about that and should just deal with the stupidity?
The definition of progress is figuring out how things should be, comparing them with how they are, and somehow getting from here to there.
You can't save everyone, and you can't save everyone from their own stupidity. It's like saying if we install cameras and microphones in every room in every house and monitor citizens 24/7, we could save 100 lives per year. If that were absolutely true, would you allow it? Or would you say those 100 people are better off dead, or at least we're all far better off without them than we are with them and the cameras? (it's more the latter, really; you're not much better off dead, barring extreme circumstances)
I think we should let the uninsured bleed to death on the street; Obamacare is a mistake. What we need is a sane free clinic system, maybe a couple other simple things, spend 10% of the cost fix 90% of the problem and be better off.
Mismanaged, overspending. Yes, I would, of course. I'd have it audited, I'd have questions asked, and I'd have changes made. There may be spending increases at first--spend more to spend less, you know? For example, improve training and move from Interceptor to Dragonskin armor. Now you only need 50% of the troops (you can penetrate Interceptor armor with two good shots--it's ceramic plate mail, basically, and I've seen people take three hit bursts concentrated and have two bullets in them, one in the armor). We're also having a company design anti-RPG systems for tanks to protect infantry, because the one Israel has (that they'll happily supply us) is 96% effective and "that's not enough" so we're having an American company design one from scratch, which takes years, tons of money, etc. Fuck that, 96% is great, they have to fire 20 times as many missiles to cause the same damage.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
If you want to eliminate social security, then yes, this is the plan. It's short term vs long term: employers pay 6% and employees pay 6% (now 4%) into social security per employee wage. That means you free up 12% of the economy by eliminating social security, plus the system is always going to have growing problems due to inflation and population aging. The only way to support those already paying in is to keep taxing the workforce while telling new entrants (say, people under 18) that they must manage their own retirement because they WILL NOT have social security coverage when they get old. If you think there is a definite long term benefit to eliminating social security, then you must realize the cost is taxing people for no benefit.
Stop looking at problems like "We can't we can't we can't" and start looking at problems like "how do we do this, what would the cost be, the benefit, is the short term problem too crippling, is the long term problem worth the pain...." Social security is a great example: maybe it's better for the next generation if we eliminate it, but it's "not fair" to the current generation. Is it fair to the rest of the people born under this government for all eternity to subject them to the economic hardship of supporting a social security system? What if we raise the retirement age again, to 72... then to 84... then 92... is it still fair to anyone?
The military is another great example, because a lot of people like to put up "our military is wasteful" and a lot of other people like to put up "got a better idea?" like they think it's so efficient. If you honestly believe our military is the most efficient machine ever, you're really clueless. The fact of the matter is we don't have a good plan for addressing it--which is point number one: we don't have a good plan, which means we should start examining the problem to determine what problems we have, then try to fix them.
20% is the defense department, which I consider mismanaged. We could reduce that efficiently, but it's too beurocratic to run an efficient defense department.
I actually want a 10-years-later on The Gap Cycle, a new series for The Amnion Wars or such. Banking on the idea that Morn is now healthy again, an office-style higher-up under Min, but refuses to stay in the office--i.e. she has an executive position that would normally be earth-staffed, but spends a lot of her time captaining her own ship, which is assigned to another "captain" given a sort of intermediate rank (i.e. she is the official captain, but he holds a rank above the typical captain's second, and holds captain's rank when she isn't on board). Davies has his own ship.
10 years later, the Amnion decide to follow up with their direct assault. War.
The only problem is there's no Holt Fasner anymore. Holt Fasner was the only character in the series that could possibly be Holt Fasner. The series was great because of all the trouble he caused on one end of the universe while all this action was going on at the other, with both of these things being so deeply intertwined yet so very independent: the political bullshit was an annoyance to Morn and company (and anyone who physically got far away--Min was tied to politics hard, then only irritated by them when she physically got Morn on her ship), and the actions of Morn and crew were an annoyance to Holt Fasner and the dealings of the senate. Neither was on-edge gasping in anticipation at the very next precision actions of the other; they were occasionally stumbling over vague and formless bullshit from the opposite end of the universe.
The illegals never had much of a super-organization. Even the lab they blew up was just a minor player with only self-concern. Mainly those people want to stay out of your way, occasionally rob you but overall let you get on with your life. They're now concerned with stealing and black-marketing anti-mutagen, if anything; but they have no care over anything deeper than that.
Holt wanted to control everything. Everything. He wanted to control the Amnion, wanted to live forever and take control of the senate, security forces across the whole universe, all of everything, everywhere. He had the drive and the power to do so. Warden was the best counter-play possible, and Hashi Lebohl was an excellent balancing tool for this. The entire cast was amazing.
Following up a decade later to see what happens next--I'm certain there's more hostility coming from the Amnion, as their entire existence has always been at a cold war with Humanity--makes sense. But I don't see how the story could ever come across as deep and rich as the original series, which is a pity.
You mean the gun design where a large explosive charge fired a fissile projectile (hollow tube) onto a fissile cylinder (spike) at high speed to produce critical mass on coupling? That design was abandoned so long ago... only 1% of the fissile material actually explodes, the rest scatters. Even an implosion bomb only produces a 20% yield; how much blast do you expect to get out of a pool of liquid uranium? Maybe certain parts will get hot and bubble a little?
The idea that the whole thing will suddenly light up with the double-flash of black magic and then turn into the white light pillar of cleansing fire as a million-megaton mixed metal oxide slag bomb detonates and blows a quarter of the earth's mass off (and shatters the rest into an asteroid field) is so ridiculously laughable I don't even know how to address it. An M80 sized explosion would be a massive nuclear event.
No kidding. Motorola is far better off outsourcing their OS (to Android), their chips (to nVidia), and sticking to phone design. I want that chip, this touch screen, that OS, 64 gig flash, 256M DDR on-board, PCI Express northbridge so we can just solder in the hardware as expansion cards (no "card" but the chips are wired up as devices on a board connected to PCI-E, then we load a driver for the 3G and GSM/CDMA radio cards and the Wifi card and we're good). Why design all that when you can just piece it together?
Instead they tried to make their own OS (Motoblur on top Andriod), which turned into trash that they tried to label "Android," and failed; and now they're going to fail harder.
To induce a supercritical chain reaction, you actually have to make a solid metal ball smaller. You know, it's a foot in diameter you make it 11.9975 inches in diameter. It takes 4500 pounds of C4 high explosive in an implosion shaped charge to do this to a softball-sized chunk of uranium. The risk of this happening spontaneously without the use of carefully placed high explosives around a carefully shaped (and relatively cool--these are hot) uranium core is similar to the risk of Schrodinger's Cat spontaneously detonating when Schrodinger reaches toward him intending to put him in the box.
You got it best in the end. You're old, but not too old to be a useless cripple? Who cares if you get massive radiation exposure and develop cancer in 40 years? You'll be dead in 20 years anyway, have fun with that.
Firefly was really a Western. That made it more general interest in a way. Although Westerns themselves are dated and most people would not be able to get past the whole "space" thing.
Mark Chadbourn (Age of Misrule, first of 3 trilogies) would be the only other great, well-written epic I can name. Deepgate Codex (trilogy) is another I liked, but the writing is... eh read it, reading something so good but so bad in that way is quite an experience. Joseph Nassise "The Templar Chronicles" is more base, but also very good.
I like to use the magical 10/90 number, completely made up but the law of diminishing returns is what's illustrated.
Let's say we implemented a different healthcare system than what we have. Instead of spending the money on an effective health insurance plan for everyone--a huge money sink--we spend the money on free clinics. So let's imagine this right?
Let's say we outline this plan as follows: free clinics are non-OR and non-ER providers that perform check-ups, lab work, and prescription writing. You can get STD tests there, blood tests (cholesterol, blood sugar, diabeetus checks), general diagnosis. Insurance companies must treat these as in-network and out-of-network doctors (can't negotiate specific pricing), and the doctors cannot exceed standard medical rates (can't screw the system). Things like EKG (this is expensive, yet essential preventative care, right?) are allowed one case per patient per year, up to three tests (sorry, but this is cost-saving).
If you have insurance, great! You have coverage for ER and OR procedures, and can go to a genuine family doctor! Also, you are required to pay with your insurance. Your insurer pays the doctor fees like any other doctor; but the free clinic care system pays the deductible. That means it's "free." If you're not insured, then the free clinic care system pays 100% of the cost.
This system provides non-OR and non-ER care to... basically everyone, for free. It's advantageous to have good insurance: if you need surgery, you pay your $250/mo insurance fee instead of the $190/mo fee and you only pay 15% up to $2000 deductible rather than 30% up to $15000 deductible. Having insurance is advantageous to the public because your insurance pays part of what would otherwise be a tax payment (this is not really much of a tax because you're directly paying for service). The care providers at free clinics must adhere to market guides because they'd otherwise charge excessively and screw the system; likely they'll be rather expensive when insurance isn't involved, since it's government money, but only "top of the market" or "top 90% of the market."
What this system gets you is good preventative care for everyone: poor and middle-class citizens can access quality essential healthcare for free, reducing the amount of actual care they need. This actually reduces pressure on the economy, because it reduces pressure on the healthcare system while also reducing the need for healthcare (i.e. the need for the poor to pay money for further healthcare, as they'll be healthier with regular doctor's visits--if they follow any doctor's advice, of course). It's only the cheap stuff: bi-annual dental visits, fillings, quarterly voluntary doctor's check-ups, prescribed doctor's visits (follow-up visits should be exempted), the like. So "10%" of the cost, but "90%" of the benefit (healthy people are less likely to need serious medical care).
The remaining 90% of the total cost of healthcare could go to, for example, public use housing. These would be facilities that provide showers, kitchens (places to cook), and laundry services. Perhaps locker service could also be provided--enough to store a few canned goods, money, and 3-4 changes of clothes. Use would be monitored, of course; you will be evicted and banned if you cause excess damage or don't clean up your mess. Now the homeless can be clean, and keep a little clothing around, and have a place to cook, which will generally improve public health. Another "10%" (we're not buying you all free houses; a bed to sleep in, even military bunker style, comes at a premium, and we'll call that a separate service).
You see the benefit gained by not fully addressing a problem with the limited resources you have? You address a small part of a problem to provide a substantial gain proportionally larger than the cost--i.e. the proportion of cost accepted to total cost (say 10%) is smaller than the proportion of benefit produced to total benefit of complete a
This is of course the exact behavior that I prefer. I mean, you donate $300M to Haiti. Haiti is 70% stabilized in $120M, and it will take $20BN to make a full recovery. Now Chile gets hit; Chile is 70% stabilized in $150M, and they have $180M on hand BUT it's earmarked for Haiti. Red Cross knows the most effective way to use these funds is to immediately stabilize Chile, minimizing human life and livelihood loss in total; but it's not allowed to do so, and must wastefully spend money continuing to help Haiti.
Kenaustin Ardenol lol... the Ak-Haru was not Haruchai. Does Kenaustin Ardenol sound like a Haruchai name to you? Bannor, Cale, Galt... bam, Ak-Haru Kenaustin Ardenol.
Fox News has segments where they stick pundits together from different parties and let them dog fight, then people who don't like Fox News go "no the Conservative always wins" when they're both making ridiculous asses of themselves. (In other words, they consistently argue that the conservative has better arguments and the liberal is a retard, and thus Fox News is run by conservatives with a strong bias, and conservatives are retards so it's misinformation... see the logical disconnect between one point and another?)
It's still sensationalist bullshit coming from two idiots who know nothing.
And while we can debate endlessly about where exactly the optimal balance between capitalism and socialism is
This is where my point landed. It is subtle, like the playing of Go Seigen: there is no exactly optimal balance, and the system must continuously adjust for the economic climate. An error is an error; we must be willing to sacrifice one thing to gain another. Protectionism hinders prosperity, and greed destroys all; the fine line between is hard to find.
You should play Go. You'll find that all crude, low-level games end vastly imbalanced-- B+30 points, W+178 points, an "even" handicap cannot be won and it's W+60 points, etc. Higher level games, however, tend to fall within 2-4 points; occasionally a mistake is made, and a large loss is sustained, B+186 after White plays the tiger's mouth instead of the solid connection and loses a vital point in his wall.
What is interesting about Go, however, is that the manner of play must be flexible. The openings are vast and provide an open, but not really solid, foundation. Attacks here lead to defenses here, or maybe passive responses here; you can protect, or you can concede 30 points here but take 30 points over there in exchange. So while every high-level game comes within 2 points because of near-perfect play on the part of both parties, no two games are even vaguely similar.
Economics works the same way. Capitalism won't work, just like playing all your stones along one side and trying viciously to collect territory won't work. Communism won't work either, just like scattering your stones all over the board as thin as possible right in the opening won't work. Aggressively attacking won't work, neither will aggressively defending; individual moves have to both defend and expand, or defend and attack something else.
A working economic system must be extremely flexible, and it must be a blend between communism and capitalism. Communism and capitalism are simply endpoints on a continuum; the Free Enterprise Market system is near-capitalism, but shifted a little to communism. Sometimes the government has to tell you, hey, you can't use your monopolistic position abusively to stifle competition or strangle other markets you want a foothold in. Patent protection is good, but endless patents and copyrights are not; in a fast-changing technological climate, you want shorter IP terms to avoid outright stifling innovation by making it dependent on the patent chain.
Maybe we should provide healthcare, but it's expensive. Maybe we should provide free clinics (check-ups, lab test, prescription writing, everything but OR and ER) to reduce the healthcare burden, sort of pay 10% to get 90% of the benefit. If you have insurance, it pays just like it pays in-network and out-of-network doctors; but the free clinic healthcare system pays the difference, instead of out-of-pocket payments. That's a good attempt between "Pay everything" and "Pay nothing." So was medicare and medicaid (socialized medicine for old people, not workforce).
As the economic climate changes, the optimal balance shifts. If you're greedy and want everything, you will fuck it up. Things need constant adjustment, attention, evaluation. You must know when to concede to gain more, or more often to lose less.
My preferences are my own and not the core point, which I thought I pointed out. I don't want to astro turf here. Paying $50 for a brand name on something you can get for $25 is okay if that brand name is stamped on something decent. A $60 (made up number) Polo shirt that looks near-new 3 years later is different than a $25 Lands' End shirt that looks near-new for 3 years; I hate Polo's style, but if you prefer the look to the look of Lands' End, that's great, you got a good shirt. If you spend $50 on an Ambercrombie shirt and it falls apart in 5 months, you wasted $50 on crap.
How would this help either the phone manufacturer or the carriers that want to lock you into a new 2 year contract by selling you a $600 phone for $50 + $800 of additional contract fees?
Slashdot Mirror
That is a ridiculous statement. Too concerned with how things should be, and not how they are? So, things should be like X, but we are too lame and are causing bigger problems by doing Y as a feel-good measure, we shouldn't worry about that and should just deal with the stupidity?
The definition of progress is figuring out how things should be, comparing them with how they are, and somehow getting from here to there.
You can't save everyone, and you can't save everyone from their own stupidity. It's like saying if we install cameras and microphones in every room in every house and monitor citizens 24/7, we could save 100 lives per year. If that were absolutely true, would you allow it? Or would you say those 100 people are better off dead, or at least we're all far better off without them than we are with them and the cameras? (it's more the latter, really; you're not much better off dead, barring extreme circumstances)
I think we should let the uninsured bleed to death on the street; Obamacare is a mistake. What we need is a sane free clinic system, maybe a couple other simple things, spend 10% of the cost fix 90% of the problem and be better off.
Would you cut spending on military and defense?
Mismanaged, overspending. Yes, I would, of course. I'd have it audited, I'd have questions asked, and I'd have changes made. There may be spending increases at first--spend more to spend less, you know? For example, improve training and move from Interceptor to Dragonskin armor. Now you only need 50% of the troops (you can penetrate Interceptor armor with two good shots--it's ceramic plate mail, basically, and I've seen people take three hit bursts concentrated and have two bullets in them, one in the armor). We're also having a company design anti-RPG systems for tanks to protect infantry, because the one Israel has (that they'll happily supply us) is 96% effective and "that's not enough" so we're having an American company design one from scratch, which takes years, tons of money, etc. Fuck that, 96% is great, they have to fire 20 times as many missiles to cause the same damage.
Would you tell young people that Social Security won't be there for them when they are elderly, and then tell them to keep paying in anyway?
If you want to eliminate social security, then yes, this is the plan. It's short term vs long term: employers pay 6% and employees pay 6% (now 4%) into social security per employee wage. That means you free up 12% of the economy by eliminating social security, plus the system is always going to have growing problems due to inflation and population aging. The only way to support those already paying in is to keep taxing the workforce while telling new entrants (say, people under 18) that they must manage their own retirement because they WILL NOT have social security coverage when they get old. If you think there is a definite long term benefit to eliminating social security, then you must realize the cost is taxing people for no benefit.
Stop looking at problems like "We can't we can't we can't" and start looking at problems like "how do we do this, what would the cost be, the benefit, is the short term problem too crippling, is the long term problem worth the pain...." Social security is a great example: maybe it's better for the next generation if we eliminate it, but it's "not fair" to the current generation. Is it fair to the rest of the people born under this government for all eternity to subject them to the economic hardship of supporting a social security system? What if we raise the retirement age again, to 72 ... then to 84 ... then 92 ... is it still fair to anyone?
The military is another great example, because a lot of people like to put up "our military is wasteful" and a lot of other people like to put up "got a better idea?" like they think it's so efficient. If you honestly believe our military is the most efficient machine ever, you're really clueless. The fact of the matter is we don't have a good plan for addressing it--which is point number one: we don't have a good plan, which means we should start examining the problem to determine what problems we have, then try to fix them.
20% is the defense department, which I consider mismanaged. We could reduce that efficiently, but it's too beurocratic to run an efficient defense department.
I actually want a 10-years-later on The Gap Cycle, a new series for The Amnion Wars or such. Banking on the idea that Morn is now healthy again, an office-style higher-up under Min, but refuses to stay in the office--i.e. she has an executive position that would normally be earth-staffed, but spends a lot of her time captaining her own ship, which is assigned to another "captain" given a sort of intermediate rank (i.e. she is the official captain, but he holds a rank above the typical captain's second, and holds captain's rank when she isn't on board). Davies has his own ship.
10 years later, the Amnion decide to follow up with their direct assault. War.
The only problem is there's no Holt Fasner anymore. Holt Fasner was the only character in the series that could possibly be Holt Fasner. The series was great because of all the trouble he caused on one end of the universe while all this action was going on at the other, with both of these things being so deeply intertwined yet so very independent: the political bullshit was an annoyance to Morn and company (and anyone who physically got far away--Min was tied to politics hard, then only irritated by them when she physically got Morn on her ship), and the actions of Morn and crew were an annoyance to Holt Fasner and the dealings of the senate. Neither was on-edge gasping in anticipation at the very next precision actions of the other; they were occasionally stumbling over vague and formless bullshit from the opposite end of the universe.
The illegals never had much of a super-organization. Even the lab they blew up was just a minor player with only self-concern. Mainly those people want to stay out of your way, occasionally rob you but overall let you get on with your life. They're now concerned with stealing and black-marketing anti-mutagen, if anything; but they have no care over anything deeper than that.
Holt wanted to control everything. Everything. He wanted to control the Amnion, wanted to live forever and take control of the senate, security forces across the whole universe, all of everything, everywhere. He had the drive and the power to do so. Warden was the best counter-play possible, and Hashi Lebohl was an excellent balancing tool for this. The entire cast was amazing.
Following up a decade later to see what happens next--I'm certain there's more hostility coming from the Amnion, as their entire existence has always been at a cold war with Humanity--makes sense. But I don't see how the story could ever come across as deep and rich as the original series, which is a pity.
You mean the gun design where a large explosive charge fired a fissile projectile (hollow tube) onto a fissile cylinder (spike) at high speed to produce critical mass on coupling? That design was abandoned so long ago... only 1% of the fissile material actually explodes, the rest scatters. Even an implosion bomb only produces a 20% yield; how much blast do you expect to get out of a pool of liquid uranium? Maybe certain parts will get hot and bubble a little?
The idea that the whole thing will suddenly light up with the double-flash of black magic and then turn into the white light pillar of cleansing fire as a million-megaton mixed metal oxide slag bomb detonates and blows a quarter of the earth's mass off (and shatters the rest into an asteroid field) is so ridiculously laughable I don't even know how to address it. An M80 sized explosion would be a massive nuclear event.
No kidding. Motorola is far better off outsourcing their OS (to Android), their chips (to nVidia), and sticking to phone design. I want that chip, this touch screen, that OS, 64 gig flash, 256M DDR on-board, PCI Express northbridge so we can just solder in the hardware as expansion cards (no "card" but the chips are wired up as devices on a board connected to PCI-E, then we load a driver for the 3G and GSM/CDMA radio cards and the Wifi card and we're good). Why design all that when you can just piece it together?
Instead they tried to make their own OS (Motoblur on top Andriod), which turned into trash that they tried to label "Android," and failed; and now they're going to fail harder.
"It's time to call a spade a fucking shovel" brilliant.
To induce a supercritical chain reaction, you actually have to make a solid metal ball smaller. You know, it's a foot in diameter you make it 11.9975 inches in diameter. It takes 4500 pounds of C4 high explosive in an implosion shaped charge to do this to a softball-sized chunk of uranium. The risk of this happening spontaneously without the use of carefully placed high explosives around a carefully shaped (and relatively cool--these are hot) uranium core is similar to the risk of Schrodinger's Cat spontaneously detonating when Schrodinger reaches toward him intending to put him in the box.
You got it best in the end. You're old, but not too old to be a useless cripple? Who cares if you get massive radiation exposure and develop cancer in 40 years? You'll be dead in 20 years anyway, have fun with that.
Firefly was really a Western. That made it more general interest in a way. Although Westerns themselves are dated and most people would not be able to get past the whole "space" thing.
Cowboy Bebop?
Mark Chadbourn (Age of Misrule, first of 3 trilogies) would be the only other great, well-written epic I can name. Deepgate Codex (trilogy) is another I liked, but the writing is ... eh read it, reading something so good but so bad in that way is quite an experience. Joseph Nassise "The Templar Chronicles" is more base, but also very good.
One word is now a phrase.
I like to use the magical 10/90 number, completely made up but the law of diminishing returns is what's illustrated.
Let's say we implemented a different healthcare system than what we have. Instead of spending the money on an effective health insurance plan for everyone--a huge money sink--we spend the money on free clinics. So let's imagine this right?
Let's say we outline this plan as follows: free clinics are non-OR and non-ER providers that perform check-ups, lab work, and prescription writing. You can get STD tests there, blood tests (cholesterol, blood sugar, diabeetus checks), general diagnosis. Insurance companies must treat these as in-network and out-of-network doctors (can't negotiate specific pricing), and the doctors cannot exceed standard medical rates (can't screw the system). Things like EKG (this is expensive, yet essential preventative care, right?) are allowed one case per patient per year, up to three tests (sorry, but this is cost-saving).
If you have insurance, great! You have coverage for ER and OR procedures, and can go to a genuine family doctor! Also, you are required to pay with your insurance. Your insurer pays the doctor fees like any other doctor; but the free clinic care system pays the deductible. That means it's "free." If you're not insured, then the free clinic care system pays 100% of the cost.
This system provides non-OR and non-ER care to ... basically everyone, for free. It's advantageous to have good insurance: if you need surgery, you pay your $250/mo insurance fee instead of the $190/mo fee and you only pay 15% up to $2000 deductible rather than 30% up to $15000 deductible. Having insurance is advantageous to the public because your insurance pays part of what would otherwise be a tax payment (this is not really much of a tax because you're directly paying for service). The care providers at free clinics must adhere to market guides because they'd otherwise charge excessively and screw the system; likely they'll be rather expensive when insurance isn't involved, since it's government money, but only "top of the market" or "top 90% of the market."
What this system gets you is good preventative care for everyone: poor and middle-class citizens can access quality essential healthcare for free, reducing the amount of actual care they need. This actually reduces pressure on the economy, because it reduces pressure on the healthcare system while also reducing the need for healthcare (i.e. the need for the poor to pay money for further healthcare, as they'll be healthier with regular doctor's visits--if they follow any doctor's advice, of course). It's only the cheap stuff: bi-annual dental visits, fillings, quarterly voluntary doctor's check-ups, prescribed doctor's visits (follow-up visits should be exempted), the like. So "10%" of the cost, but "90%" of the benefit (healthy people are less likely to need serious medical care).
The remaining 90% of the total cost of healthcare could go to, for example, public use housing. These would be facilities that provide showers, kitchens (places to cook), and laundry services. Perhaps locker service could also be provided--enough to store a few canned goods, money, and 3-4 changes of clothes. Use would be monitored, of course; you will be evicted and banned if you cause excess damage or don't clean up your mess. Now the homeless can be clean, and keep a little clothing around, and have a place to cook, which will generally improve public health. Another "10%" (we're not buying you all free houses; a bed to sleep in, even military bunker style, comes at a premium, and we'll call that a separate service).
You see the benefit gained by not fully addressing a problem with the limited resources you have? You address a small part of a problem to provide a substantial gain proportionally larger than the cost--i.e. the proportion of cost accepted to total cost (say 10%) is smaller than the proportion of benefit produced to total benefit of complete a
This is of course the exact behavior that I prefer. I mean, you donate $300M to Haiti. Haiti is 70% stabilized in $120M, and it will take $20BN to make a full recovery. Now Chile gets hit; Chile is 70% stabilized in $150M, and they have $180M on hand BUT it's earmarked for Haiti. Red Cross knows the most effective way to use these funds is to immediately stabilize Chile, minimizing human life and livelihood loss in total; but it's not allowed to do so, and must wastefully spend money continuing to help Haiti.
Yes, yes I did. I also had the last book in my hands the day it was released (October 18), and had it finished within 2 days.
By the way, have you read The Gap Cycle?
Kenaustin Ardenol lol... the Ak-Haru was not Haruchai. Does Kenaustin Ardenol sound like a Haruchai name to you? Bannor, Cale, Galt... bam, Ak-Haru Kenaustin Ardenol.
Haruchai?
I could kick your ass.
Fox News has segments where they stick pundits together from different parties and let them dog fight, then people who don't like Fox News go "no the Conservative always wins" when they're both making ridiculous asses of themselves. (In other words, they consistently argue that the conservative has better arguments and the liberal is a retard, and thus Fox News is run by conservatives with a strong bias, and conservatives are retards so it's misinformation ... see the logical disconnect between one point and another?)
It's still sensationalist bullshit coming from two idiots who know nothing.
And while we can debate endlessly about where exactly the optimal balance between capitalism and socialism is
This is where my point landed. It is subtle, like the playing of Go Seigen: there is no exactly optimal balance, and the system must continuously adjust for the economic climate. An error is an error; we must be willing to sacrifice one thing to gain another. Protectionism hinders prosperity, and greed destroys all; the fine line between is hard to find.
You should play Go. You'll find that all crude, low-level games end vastly imbalanced-- B+30 points, W+178 points, an "even" handicap cannot be won and it's W+60 points, etc. Higher level games, however, tend to fall within 2-4 points; occasionally a mistake is made, and a large loss is sustained, B+186 after White plays the tiger's mouth instead of the solid connection and loses a vital point in his wall.
What is interesting about Go, however, is that the manner of play must be flexible. The openings are vast and provide an open, but not really solid, foundation. Attacks here lead to defenses here, or maybe passive responses here; you can protect, or you can concede 30 points here but take 30 points over there in exchange. So while every high-level game comes within 2 points because of near-perfect play on the part of both parties, no two games are even vaguely similar.
Economics works the same way. Capitalism won't work, just like playing all your stones along one side and trying viciously to collect territory won't work. Communism won't work either, just like scattering your stones all over the board as thin as possible right in the opening won't work. Aggressively attacking won't work, neither will aggressively defending; individual moves have to both defend and expand, or defend and attack something else.
A working economic system must be extremely flexible, and it must be a blend between communism and capitalism. Communism and capitalism are simply endpoints on a continuum; the Free Enterprise Market system is near-capitalism, but shifted a little to communism. Sometimes the government has to tell you, hey, you can't use your monopolistic position abusively to stifle competition or strangle other markets you want a foothold in. Patent protection is good, but endless patents and copyrights are not; in a fast-changing technological climate, you want shorter IP terms to avoid outright stifling innovation by making it dependent on the patent chain.
Maybe we should provide healthcare, but it's expensive. Maybe we should provide free clinics (check-ups, lab test, prescription writing, everything but OR and ER) to reduce the healthcare burden, sort of pay 10% to get 90% of the benefit. If you have insurance, it pays just like it pays in-network and out-of-network doctors; but the free clinic healthcare system pays the difference, instead of out-of-pocket payments. That's a good attempt between "Pay everything" and "Pay nothing." So was medicare and medicaid (socialized medicine for old people, not workforce).
As the economic climate changes, the optimal balance shifts. If you're greedy and want everything, you will fuck it up. Things need constant adjustment, attention, evaluation. You must know when to concede to gain more, or more often to lose less.
The US is not capitalism though, it's Free Enterprise Market.
My preferences are my own and not the core point, which I thought I pointed out. I don't want to astro turf here. Paying $50 for a brand name on something you can get for $25 is okay if that brand name is stamped on something decent. A $60 (made up number) Polo shirt that looks near-new 3 years later is different than a $25 Lands' End shirt that looks near-new for 3 years; I hate Polo's style, but if you prefer the look to the look of Lands' End, that's great, you got a good shirt. If you spend $50 on an Ambercrombie shirt and it falls apart in 5 months, you wasted $50 on crap.
How would this help either the phone manufacturer or the carriers that want to lock you into a new 2 year contract by selling you a $600 phone for $50 + $800 of additional contract fees?
No, the phones have the hardware to support both. It's a radio chip running different firmware.