In the UK you also believe that throwing your own citizens under the bus for the sake of unwashed immigrants who make no effort to adapt to your society is a good idea, while at the same time surrendering your rights to the very same government that lets it happen.
Actually, everything wrong with our state and federal budgets can be neatly pinned on overspending. The country ran just fine without an income tax before the governments decided to start spending everything they could and then some.
If it doesn't directly relate to national defense, national highways, or day to day governing, it's probably not the federal government's goddamned business and shouldn't be funded by the taxpayers. The same goes for the state level, but they have a little more leeway as to what's their business. Either way, entitlements aren't any government's job.
When you can get a diesel generator running on a spacecraft, then we can argue those semantics. Until then, the rest of us will continue working under the assumption that the spacecraft are powered by solar, fission, or batteries and refer to the only consumables needed for locomotion as fuel.
It's a lot cheaper to build something in space with materials you get from space than it is to build it on the ground and launch the whole thing up. Once you're in orbit, fuel for maneuvering is insignificant compared to the fuel it took to launch the object itself.
Hell, there's water on the moon that can be used for fuel.
That's my point. NASA should have already had the capability and a plan to intercept and capture a near Earth asteroid. We should have already had real space stations and moon bases. Hell, by all rights we should have been on Mars decades ago.
Unfortunately, NASA hasn't done much of anything since we put a man on the moon.
This would be a prime opportunity to capture an asteroid and place it into a stable orbit so it can be harvested for raw materials for orbital construction projects, even if only as a proof of concept.
The victims are the ones to blame. If you know something bad is going to happen to your stuff if you do nothing to protect it or if you actively put it into danger and it gets destroyed, you only have yourself to blame.
While I'm not going to try to justify the actions of criminals, if you leave your car parked in a bad area of town with the keys in the ignition and it gets stolen, you only have yourself to blame.
Parking your BMW in downtown Vancouver, a city known for rioting when it loses the Stanley Cup, during game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals, is flat out retarded. That goes for everyone else who parked down there yesterday as well.
The owners of the storefronts in the area may not have been able to avoid the riot, but they could have prevented damage. You wouldn't have any sympathy for someone who lost property because they didn't bother to board up their windows and clear debris from their yard before a hurricane that they knew was coming hit, would you?
The cause of the riots was 1) corralling 100,000 fans downtown to watch the game on outdoor screens, and 2) a large portion of those fans being drunk suburban kids looking to get their riot on. Blame lackluster police presence if you want. It was hooliganism pure and simple. Look at the photos. Look at their expensive shoes. Those Canucks jerseys they're all wearing aren't cheap. They're young, middle-class drunks having fun.
That's an awful lot of words to say "Roberto Luongo".
All they do is give people who have no business going to college in the first place an engine to devalue college educations to the point that they're just another high school diploma.
Once the only people going to college are the people going to learn things that actually matter, we'll start seeing more people go for worthwhile degrees like engineering and science.
That and switch to a civil law system instead of the common law clusterfuck that we currently have. That'll make lawyers far less necessary and their wages will drop accordingly.
There's more to building cars than bolting on wheels. UAW was created when they didn't have robots to build the things automagically. Their contract and political power is what keeps them in business now.
If I advertised a job that pays $3/hr to shovel shit, the market itself would determine if $3/hr is enough compensation for shoveling shit for an hour. The employer isn't determining anything. He merely puts out an offer. If someone likes that offer, they apply for that job. If they feel that $3 won't cut it, they won't.
If I have that job available for a while and don't get any takers or qualified takers, that's the market telling me that $3 isn't the value of that labor. I'd be left with the choice of putting out a better offer or going without that position filled.
At the moment, there's a massive surplus of labor and there are millions of people who would be glad to do this kid's job at the Apple store for half of what he's making and no benefits. If he continues to press the issue, he might find that out the hard way.
Unions only work when the job takes a trained skill or physical effort that any moron off the street can't do. Scarcity of labor is the only thing that makes them viable.
A retail store could fire its entire workforce and be back in business to an extent the next day.
And now decades later, unions now only serve to reduce production, increase costs, protect worthless employees, and funnel money to pro-union politicians.
The time when most unions actually did any good is long past.
Slashdot Mirror
http://volcanochaser.smugmug.com/Nature/Man-vs-Wild/3444749_tfamk#240930193_HWive
Use Google next time, you lazy shit.
He also films less than a hundred yards from the highway.
Seconded.
In the UK you also believe that throwing your own citizens under the bus for the sake of unwashed immigrants who make no effort to adapt to your society is a good idea, while at the same time surrendering your rights to the very same government that lets it happen.
Your opinions are invalid.
Actually, everything wrong with our state and federal budgets can be neatly pinned on overspending. The country ran just fine without an income tax before the governments decided to start spending everything they could and then some.
If it doesn't directly relate to national defense, national highways, or day to day governing, it's probably not the federal government's goddamned business and shouldn't be funded by the taxpayers. The same goes for the state level, but they have a little more leeway as to what's their business. Either way, entitlements aren't any government's job.
But once you have that infrastructure, the steel is cheap. lern2economyofscale
I'm not suggesting some one-off thing here. We have to expand into space to survive as a species.
Then someone in NASA should have told Bush that the moon is full of oil.
When you can get a diesel generator running on a spacecraft, then we can argue those semantics. Until then, the rest of us will continue working under the assumption that the spacecraft are powered by solar, fission, or batteries and refer to the only consumables needed for locomotion as fuel.
Heat it until it becomes a gas.
Better the orbit you know than the orbit you don't.
Especially when you have control over that orbit.
It's a lot cheaper to build something in space with materials you get from space than it is to build it on the ground and launch the whole thing up. Once you're in orbit, fuel for maneuvering is insignificant compared to the fuel it took to launch the object itself.
Hell, there's water on the moon that can be used for fuel.
That's my point. NASA should have already had the capability and a plan to intercept and capture a near Earth asteroid. We should have already had real space stations and moon bases. Hell, by all rights we should have been on Mars decades ago.
Unfortunately, NASA hasn't done much of anything since we put a man on the moon.
This would be a prime opportunity to capture an asteroid and place it into a stable orbit so it can be harvested for raw materials for orbital construction projects, even if only as a proof of concept.
The victims are the ones to blame. If you know something bad is going to happen to your stuff if you do nothing to protect it or if you actively put it into danger and it gets destroyed, you only have yourself to blame.
Personal responsibility. Try it.
You can't blame the NHL for Roberto Luongo sucking a billion dicks all series long.
While I'm not going to try to justify the actions of criminals, if you leave your car parked in a bad area of town with the keys in the ignition and it gets stolen, you only have yourself to blame.
Parking your BMW in downtown Vancouver, a city known for rioting when it loses the Stanley Cup, during game seven of the Stanley Cup Finals, is flat out retarded . That goes for everyone else who parked down there yesterday as well.
The owners of the storefronts in the area may not have been able to avoid the riot, but they could have prevented damage. You wouldn't have any sympathy for someone who lost property because they didn't bother to board up their windows and clear debris from their yard before a hurricane that they knew was coming hit, would you?
I take it that you don't follow soccer or the shenanigans of its fans.
That's an awful lot of words to say "Roberto Luongo".
A better idea would be to just ban arts degrees.
All they do is give people who have no business going to college in the first place an engine to devalue college educations to the point that they're just another high school diploma.
Once the only people going to college are the people going to learn things that actually matter, we'll start seeing more people go for worthwhile degrees like engineering and science.
That and switch to a civil law system instead of the common law clusterfuck that we currently have. That'll make lawyers far less necessary and their wages will drop accordingly.
Just what does Notepad++ do that Notepad can't?
Notepad does everything I need it to.
There's more to building cars than bolting on wheels. UAW was created when they didn't have robots to build the things automagically. Their contract and political power is what keeps them in business now.
If I advertised a job that pays $3/hr to shovel shit, the market itself would determine if $3/hr is enough compensation for shoveling shit for an hour. The employer isn't determining anything. He merely puts out an offer. If someone likes that offer, they apply for that job. If they feel that $3 won't cut it, they won't.
If I have that job available for a while and don't get any takers or qualified takers, that's the market telling me that $3 isn't the value of that labor. I'd be left with the choice of putting out a better offer or going without that position filled.
At the moment, there's a massive surplus of labor and there are millions of people who would be glad to do this kid's job at the Apple store for half of what he's making and no benefits. If he continues to press the issue, he might find that out the hard way.
Unions only work when the job takes a trained skill or physical effort that any moron off the street can't do. Scarcity of labor is the only thing that makes them viable.
A retail store could fire its entire workforce and be back in business to an extent the next day.
And now decades later, unions now only serve to reduce production, increase costs, protect worthless employees, and funnel money to pro-union politicians.
The time when most unions actually did any good is long past.
Anonymous already released her email into the wild back when anyone cared, and didn't redact anything in the process.