Direct loans were cheap, and the consolidation brought them down to ~5% afair. I know the new loans are not as cheap, but thats because some idiot decided having non-direct loans and promising a profit to everyone who serviced them. Doh!
Really? Because my direct loans are at 6.8% while my non-direct loans are at 2.875%.
That be interesting given that even a war between two nuclear powers is likely to remain non-nuclear for most, if not all, of the conflict. Mind you, this presumes that both sides actually care if they get nuked themselves.
As an individual country, China has the next largest military expenditure rate next to us. If you exclude them, then it is Japan. However, Japan has a few things that reduce their spending, part of which is the treaty we have with them that means we are a significant portion of their defense. If we look at comparable organizations of countries, the European Unions would be the next largest spender at what is currently ~$312B. Current US military expenditures are $515B. (Not including Iraq/Afghanistan)
Part of the problem of doing a straight up comparison is the population of the US combined with our economy. It's difficult to actually do a straight up dollars to dollars comparison because of this. Combine the cost of living differences and the USD as a reserve currency and exchange rates are a useless comparison when doing total spending amounts.
Some of the more relative measures of spending, such as military expenditures as a percentage of GDP (Note: Includes Iraq/Afghanistan) that scale the spending, are much more useful. Under this scale, for instance, the US spending ranks 27th and is comparable to that of Russia.
I just want to double check something, you do realize that most of the US defense budget is not on acquiring new weapons systems, right? That most of it is for parts and maintenance and personnel?
The OP said we should cut our spending to "twice that of China's". How does the purchasing power of $50 billion in China being several times $100 billion in the US not matter?
It matters quite a bit. For one thing, currency exchange rates don't reflect the respective cost of living. For another, China manipulates the currency market to make it's goods seem artificially cheap. If they weren't, the juan would be worth more and the spending in China would be quite a bit more. For example, the average salary in China is $160 per month. In the US, you're looking at probably $3,200 per month (a factor of 20 difference. The cost of living is so much less in China that using the currency markets is very deceptive for any sort of spending.
So lets say we changed the US military budget to double that of China's. Using China's official budget, ($50 billion military spending) that would equate to $100 billion in US military spending at the official exchange rate. Again, China has been manipulating the exchange rate, so if it were actually allowed to float, China's spending would be much more than $50 billion. If we used cost of living (based off of that average office worker), we would be looking at ~$2 Trillion in US military spending.
The purchasing power of one USD in the US is very different from one USD in China.
Would that be with or without taking into account China's currency manipulation and lower cost of living that make their spending seem artificially low compared to that of the US?
You wouldn't happen to have a link to how they calculate the pricing scheme, would you? I'd also recommend leaving CA (No, seriously). VA, my home state, is fairly nice and business friendly. Then again, I'm not sure moving just across the border to Nevada wouldn't accomplish the same thing.
Hm. Why do I get the feeling you're the one who explained that tiered scheme to me in the first place a few months ago. Do you happen to have a link on how they calculate this pricing scheme or something on it?
Don't add much to our small government argument. Its plain to anyone they are ridiculous, CA is like the tenth largest economy in the world. A better argument to make would be how it could be bigger and better than that if run with fewer restrictions.
My one big complaint with Xth largest economy is that it is easy to be a large economy if you have a lot of people. Scale it based on the number of people (GDP per capita) and it gives a much better comparison of things. See here for better comparison. DC ranks #1 due to all the day workers in it that go home at night. But back on topic, CA ranks #11, Virginia ranks #8 and has a lot fewer regulations (although no much more GDP). Hm. We're also going to have to scale this on Cost of Living, aren't we, to see how well off the individuals living in the state are, too.
So what's the problem with restricting if if there have only been "few examples" of it?
If there's only been a "few examples" why pass a law restricting it? Shouldn't the government try to get by with as few laws as possible instead of as many as possible?
And if you think you're actually anonymous, you're an idiot. Slashdot logs the IPs. Your ISP logs who has what IP. You can be traced if someone wants to find you.
So tell me, since Verizon is currently only rolling out Fiber since it would give them sole user status, what reason would Verizon have to continue rolling out fiber if Zipcon can come in and use all their infrastructure?
I'm also curious as to how you know that Zipcon is privately owned. Also interesting to note is how Zipcon is more expensive than Verizon for DSL.
You're comparing a 28" CRT to a 37" LCD. Gee, I wonder why the 37" uses just a few percent more. At least compare it to a 28" LCD to get a good comparison. Comparing one tv to another that has 75% more area without doing any scaling is deceptive. Also, that is peak power consumed, not the average consumed while on. Hell, my 40" LED uses about 85w normally while the power supply is rated for 140w to handle peak loads.
At least increase taxes on energy so that those who use more have to pay more.
Even under a flat rate scheme, those who use more would pay more. In California, they have a tiered scheme based on the size of your house and energy usage. The first 200 or so kwh/month cost 25/kwh, the next 200 or so cost 75/kwh. California already has some of the highest electricity costs in the nation and a tax scheme like you propose.
With all of California's power problems, it's incredibly short sighted. Is the population not increasing? Are they not building new homes?
Actually, it looks like California's population decreased last year. We'll see how long it keeps up. Part of the reason stems from the state continually increasing taxes on the well off. Another reason is the increasing difficulty in getting a job in California and running a business in the state (again, taxes). So, while as other posters have said, they can not consume or produce their way out of this mess, they just might be able to tax their way out of it.
Consider the possibilities of auctioning off the bandwidth to the highest bidder, or in a fixed price scheme, not having sufficient motive to expand bandwidth. i.e. Costs are higher than the relative gain. There is also 'shaving the maintenance to decrease costs'. It's difficult to drop one carrier for another when the physical layer is the one at fault in that situation. Last one I can think of (in a fixed price scheme) the local government not allowing the price to rise to keep prices low, even if the price is below the cost of maintenance. Other than the first, this has all happened in the US before. It's possible the first one has happened and I just don't know about it.
I'm also not sure a return to the time when the company that runs the physical layer has no reason to upgrade to allow more bandwidth is in our best interest.
They graduated in 2004, they started in 2000. I still know others who are working or worked their way through college even now. And yes, while the inflation adjusted costs have gone up, so have the number of scholarships available and other things.
That might be soon enough. Seems global warming is doing it's job, as last winter and a few before that there was maybe couple of weeks with snow - long gone are the >-20c winter days.
It never gets above -20c? Wow, Finland must be another one of those screwy places where global warming causes it to get colder.
It's called student loans, scholarships and jobs. I know people who have managed to pay for there entire college education with nothing but scholarships and one job while going to college full time. Nowhere was any government paying for them to go to school.
Slashdot Mirror
Direct loans were cheap, and the consolidation brought them down to ~5% afair. I know the new loans are not as cheap, but thats because some idiot decided having non-direct loans and promising a profit to everyone who serviced them. Doh!
Really? Because my direct loans are at 6.8% while my non-direct loans are at 2.875%.
That be interesting given that even a war between two nuclear powers is likely to remain non-nuclear for most, if not all, of the conflict. Mind you, this presumes that both sides actually care if they get nuked themselves.
As an individual country, China has the next largest military expenditure rate next to us. If you exclude them, then it is Japan. However, Japan has a few things that reduce their spending, part of which is the treaty we have with them that means we are a significant portion of their defense. If we look at comparable organizations of countries, the European Unions would be the next largest spender at what is currently ~$312B. Current US military expenditures are $515B. (Not including Iraq/Afghanistan)
Part of the problem of doing a straight up comparison is the population of the US combined with our economy. It's difficult to actually do a straight up dollars to dollars comparison because of this. Combine the cost of living differences and the USD as a reserve currency and exchange rates are a useless comparison when doing total spending amounts.
Some of the more relative measures of spending, such as military expenditures as a percentage of GDP (Note: Includes Iraq/Afghanistan) that scale the spending, are much more useful. Under this scale, for instance, the US spending ranks 27th and is comparable to that of Russia.
I just want to double check something, you do realize that most of the US defense budget is not on acquiring new weapons systems, right? That most of it is for parts and maintenance and personnel?
The OP said we should cut our spending to "twice that of China's". How does the purchasing power of $50 billion in China being several times $100 billion in the US not matter?
It matters quite a bit. For one thing, currency exchange rates don't reflect the respective cost of living. For another, China manipulates the currency market to make it's goods seem artificially cheap. If they weren't, the juan would be worth more and the spending in China would be quite a bit more. For example, the average salary in China is $160 per month. In the US, you're looking at probably $3,200 per month (a factor of 20 difference. The cost of living is so much less in China that using the currency markets is very deceptive for any sort of spending.
So lets say we changed the US military budget to double that of China's. Using China's official budget, ($50 billion military spending) that would equate to $100 billion in US military spending at the official exchange rate. Again, China has been manipulating the exchange rate, so if it were actually allowed to float, China's spending would be much more than $50 billion. If we used cost of living (based off of that average office worker), we would be looking at ~$2 Trillion in US military spending.
The purchasing power of one USD in the US is very different from one USD in China.
Would that be with or without taking into account China's currency manipulation and lower cost of living that make their spending seem artificially low compared to that of the US?
You wouldn't happen to have a link to how they calculate the pricing scheme, would you? I'd also recommend leaving CA (No, seriously). VA, my home state, is fairly nice and business friendly. Then again, I'm not sure moving just across the border to Nevada wouldn't accomplish the same thing.
Hm. Why do I get the feeling you're the one who explained that tiered scheme to me in the first place a few months ago. Do you happen to have a link on how they calculate this pricing scheme or something on it?
Given that I weigh under 145lb, not really. My dead-lift weight is currently 135.
Don't add much to our small government argument. Its plain to anyone they are ridiculous, CA is like the tenth largest economy in the world. A better argument to make would be how it could be bigger and better than that if run with fewer restrictions.
My one big complaint with Xth largest economy is that it is easy to be a large economy if you have a lot of people. Scale it based on the number of people (GDP per capita) and it gives a much better comparison of things. See here for better comparison. DC ranks #1 due to all the day workers in it that go home at night. But back on topic, CA ranks #11, Virginia ranks #8 and has a lot fewer regulations (although no much more GDP). Hm. We're also going to have to scale this on Cost of Living, aren't we, to see how well off the individuals living in the state are, too.
2 people can pick it up though. I think it weighs around 150 kilos.
I pray there is a typo in this. Seriously, you can lift 75 kilos?
So what's the problem with restricting if if there have only been "few examples" of it?
If there's only been a "few examples" why pass a law restricting it? Shouldn't the government try to get by with as few laws as possible instead of as many as possible?
And if you think you're actually anonymous, you're an idiot. Slashdot logs the IPs. Your ISP logs who has what IP. You can be traced if someone wants to find you.
So tell me, since Verizon is currently only rolling out Fiber since it would give them sole user status, what reason would Verizon have to continue rolling out fiber if Zipcon can come in and use all their infrastructure?
I'm also curious as to how you know that Zipcon is privately owned. Also interesting to note is how Zipcon is more expensive than Verizon for DSL.
You're comparing a 28" CRT to a 37" LCD. Gee, I wonder why the 37" uses just a few percent more. At least compare it to a 28" LCD to get a good comparison. Comparing one tv to another that has 75% more area without doing any scaling is deceptive. Also, that is peak power consumed, not the average consumed while on. Hell, my 40" LED uses about 85w normally while the power supply is rated for 140w to handle peak loads.
At least increase taxes on energy so that those who use more have to pay more.
Even under a flat rate scheme, those who use more would pay more. In California, they have a tiered scheme based on the size of your house and energy usage. The first 200 or so kwh/month cost 25/kwh, the next 200 or so cost 75/kwh. California already has some of the highest electricity costs in the nation and a tax scheme like you propose.
With all of California's power problems, it's incredibly short sighted. Is the population not increasing? Are they not building new homes?
Actually, it looks like California's population decreased last year. We'll see how long it keeps up. Part of the reason stems from the state continually increasing taxes on the well off. Another reason is the increasing difficulty in getting a job in California and running a business in the state (again, taxes). So, while as other posters have said, they can not consume or produce their way out of this mess, they just might be able to tax their way out of it.
Consider the possibilities of auctioning off the bandwidth to the highest bidder, or in a fixed price scheme, not having sufficient motive to expand bandwidth. i.e. Costs are higher than the relative gain. There is also 'shaving the maintenance to decrease costs'. It's difficult to drop one carrier for another when the physical layer is the one at fault in that situation. Last one I can think of (in a fixed price scheme) the local government not allowing the price to rise to keep prices low, even if the price is below the cost of maintenance. Other than the first, this has all happened in the US before. It's possible the first one has happened and I just don't know about it.
Really? Because dial-up is still limited to 56k and I see Verizon rolling out Fiber that they do not have to share.
I partly wish that the government would just take over the infrastructure and eliminate the suggestion that there is competition in the sector.
Which government? I can think of three off the top of my head yo might be referring to.
I'm also not sure a return to the time when the company that runs the physical layer has no reason to upgrade to allow more bandwidth is in our best interest.
Why would bell have a monopoly? Didn't anyone else lay cable for internet? Or did Canada give Bell a monopoly on physical lines?
They graduated in 2004, they started in 2000. I still know others who are working or worked their way through college even now. And yes, while the inflation adjusted costs have gone up, so have the number of scholarships available and other things.
Lets use a 2km diameter loop, the math is easier.
Acceleration on a loop is V^2/r. So, 6000*6000/1000=6000m/s^2. That's about 612g, in the same area as the space gun proposal.
That might be soon enough. Seems global warming is doing it's job, as last winter and a few before that there was maybe couple of weeks with snow - long gone are the >-20c winter days.
It never gets above -20c? Wow, Finland must be another one of those screwy places where global warming causes it to get colder.
It's called student loans, scholarships and jobs. I know people who have managed to pay for there entire college education with nothing but scholarships and one job while going to college full time. Nowhere was any government paying for them to go to school.