Agreed. Also, Invaders from Mars (1953), the original The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951), This Island Earth (1955), and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).
Obscene, but the coverage is excellent. In the past year, between my wife and I, we've had two cornea transplants and two cataract surgeries, with zero out of pocket expense. I'm curious, because I really have no idea -- what's the coverage like in the Canadian system for elderly patients with problems that aren't life-threatening but impact quality of life? My cornea transplants were to treat Fuch's dystrophy, which isn't life-threatening but causes a slow, inexorable deterioration of visual acuity.
I'm not fixated on the word "entitlement". I used it because its dictionary definition is, "the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program," and because it's a useful term to describe the bulk of the Federal government's non-discretionary spending. A lot of people seem to think it means "an unearned benefit", which is why they get all lathered up when someone refers to Social Security as an entitlement program, and why I added the "before someone goes off on a rant" comment.
For the record -- I am not opposed to social safety net programs, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything in my previous post to give the impression that I am, unless you think that pointing out that something is expensive means you don't like it. I agree that it's a social contract, but it will be out of money in another 17 years or so unless something dramatic is done to save it.
We wouldn't need the world's largest standing military, so a lot of those expenses go away.
As the world's 6th largest economy, you might want the world's 10th or so largest military though, putting you right back where you started. Unless of course you think the US is going to rescue you.
We could bill the USA government for the land and naval bases they'd want to still have access to, which would bring us yet more money.
Maybe, maybe not. The US maintains foreign military bases where its national interests lie. This does raise a couple of interesting questions, though: (1) would all the civilian employees at California military bases be fired and replaced by US citizens; and (2) would all the "California citizens" in the military be discharged because they're no longer US citizens?
We'd legalize all drugs, making us a tourism Meca. We might have to set up a yuuge wall though, to keep out all the desperate USians wanting to immigrate to the land of milk and honey.
I think you meant "Mecca" and "emigrate", but whatever. Like all the desperate UAians wanting to emigrate to The Netherlands for the legal drugs? It's one thing to visit for a few days for the high; another to decide you want to live in the People's Republic of California. I suppose it would be a boon to all the emergency room operators, like it's been in Colorado.
And the majority of the revenue for those comes from taxes specifically laid to collect revenue for those.
Only if your definition of "majority" is "significantly less than half". Social net outlays: $2.4 Trillion. Payroll tax revenue: $1.1 Trillion. And in case you missed it in the fine print on that Wiki page I liked to, the expenditures on the "Medicare" and "Other" slices of the social net pie are AFTER offsets from premiums and other "offsetting receipts" are applied, so it's even worse than these figures make it look.
If you want to complain about accountability, how about finding out where the $12 Trillion in Quantitative Easing since 2008 has gone?
Can you explain how this state can function without money from Uncle Sugar??
Because with the exception of a couple of bad years, California has consistently given the feds more than it has gotten back, which means the state would have more money without the rest of the country, not less.
The people who live in California pay Federal taxes. The state government gets some of that (not all for sure, but a very large number) back in Federal grants, military base spending, Federal employee salaries, etc. If California were to secede, the people who live there stop paying Federal taxes and the state stops getting Federal money. How does that result in the state government having more money? Unless of course the state executes a massive increase in its income tax, which of course they'll have to because it's going to need its own military, its own intelligence apparatus, and a lot of other very expensive departments and agencies currently provided by the Federal government.
I suppose, though, that the folks supporting Calexit have thought all these things through and have solutions at hand for all the potential problems. Sorry; you're going to need a passport and visa to visit your relatives in the US, and you'll have to go through this new "extreme vetting" process. Sorry, retired people, your Social Security and Medicare benefits are cut off. Sorry, poor people; no more Medicaid for you. Sorry, 150,000 former Federal employees; your pension is forfeit, and those of you who can't find an equivalent state job are out of a job.
Long-time residents of California are leaving the state in increasing numbers year over year. I doubt if Calexit will do anything to reverse that trend.
Yeah its awful the way we don't let sick and retired people eat dog food and die
Who said that? Certainly not me. Regardless of how you, I, or anyone else feels about these things, the fact remains that we spend far more money on social safety nets than we do on defense.
According to my latest W-2, my company spent just over $20,000 on my health insurance last year (in addition to my contribution, which was about 1/3 of the total). I am very confident that if the US went to a single-payer system, I would not be getting a $20,000 raise to help me pay my increased tax burden.
most of the money I pay in taxes goes to buying more military hardware and endless wars.
People keep saying this, despite the fact that it just isn't true. Most of your Federal tax dollars are spent on non-discretionary areas generally referred to as "entitlements" In 2016, Defense spending was $584 Billion. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other non-discretionary spending totalled $2.4 Trillion. And please, before someone goes off on a rant about "Social Security isn't an entitlement 'cause I've paid into it all my life and I've earned it", go look up the definition of entitlement.
Depends if they're actually travelling or just remoting in. If they travel I would expect accommodations are paid for as well as food and other expenses on top. And if you're doing 40 hours a week steady of that $100/hr contracting you're making close to 200K US per year. That's not bad no matter how you look at it.
As a contractor, you're also paying the "employer's" share of Social Security, as well as buying your own health and life insurance. Those two items alone were worth about $25K untaxed to me last year, and I don't make anywhere near $100/hr. Other things to consider when comparing captive vs. consultant compensation: paid holidays, paid vacation, and 401(k) matching. Accommodations might be provided if travel is involved, but this doesn't represent savings unless you're not also maintaining your regular residence, which you generally would be. As for food and other expenses -- maybe you could negotiate some sort of per diem, but it's not a given.
"featuritus" ??? What's that? Is it like featuritis? -itis, as in a disease?
Nice try. -itis indicates inflammation; -osis indicates disease. -itus sometimes shows up as the suffix for a medical condition, such as tinnitus (ringing in the ear); this may have been what led the OP astray, though it was probably just a typo.
But it is good for you - a mix of fats, proteins, and sugars, plus high levels of calcium and magnesium, all frozen so your body knows it hasn't spoiled.
The problem isn't the ice cream. The problem is eating a day's worth of Calories in ice cream in one sitting.
4 ounces of vanilla ice cream is 137 Calories. Assuming a normal intake of 2000 Calories/day, you'd have to eat almost 1/2 gallon of ice cream in one sitting to do that. Not sure a normal human being could accomplish that on a steady basis, although I've seen a few people at Walmart for whom that might be possible.
So what they're saying is that if you introduce a workaround to bypass government anti-competitive restrictions on the supply of something, people will be able to purchase more of it.
What a shocking result....
Or maybe they're saying that if drunks can take advantage of people who have been duped (or have fooled themselves) into providing a service at starvation wages, they will do it. That's shocking as well.
Yes... and why do you think something happens to taste good to a certain species? Evolution shaped those senses to pick up beneficial foodstuffs preferentially.
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream. Because it's good for us.
Huh...I had no idea that adult human males had only 125 Calories. Talk about very low calorie density with good micronutrient content.
Nice try at pedantry, with the implied "calories vs. Calories".The article says, "enough to meet the 1-day dietary requirements of more than 60 people." Unless you think a person can get by on 2 Calories per day, in which case it doesn't even rise to pendantry.
Now, dont curl up into a feeble position, or run around like a bowl in a china shop. No need for ad homonym attacks. Its the 21st century, and for all intensive purposes, its a far-gone conclusion that society has bid ado to gramer; speling - and punkshuation (ect). As long as you can pack up the meening from contacts, you shouldnt go on and nauseum about this sort of thing. In the end, its all for knot anyways, so dont ball your eyes out over it. In stead, you should cease the opportunity to except the inevitable and be internally grateful at being liberated.
On the contrary, there's a lot of fierce competition in academia. The problem is that it's all about grant money or politics, and has little to do with academic excellence.
This article on the evolution of the Sun says, "The energy output of the Sun has not fluctuated by more than perhaps 0.1% to 0.2% in human history – not bad for a nuclear reactor that has no regulatory committee, no engineers, and hasn't had a safety check in nearly five billion years." Granted, human history doesn't stretch back 50 million years, but 50 million years is an eye-blink compared to the billions of years ago when the Sun is theorized to have been 70% dimmer than today.
I wish TFA had cited a source for that claim rather than just stating it as if it was something "everybody knows".
So, for the actual article, was "Student Loan Debt Has raised by 70% in 10 years" that hard?
No, not hard. Also, ambiguous. "Total student loan debt nearly tripled in ten years" or "Average individual student loan debt increased 70% in ten years." Both correct; neither ambiguous.
Slashdot Mirror
Forbidden Planet
Agreed. Also, Invaders from Mars (1953), the original The Day The Earth Stood Still (1951), This Island Earth (1955), and Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956).
why exactly are they paying drivers more than they charge the customer?
So they'll have drivers?
Who said it was a long haul truck?
It's implied by the descriptive term "semi truck".
It's tainted for anyone who doesn't want to invest in using the Unity desktop when it is going away.
You could just get the Gnome3 or Mate version and avoid the hand-wringing.
"in tact"?
Nice editing CNN.
Well, yeah. No one benefits from tactless rules and regulations.
Obscene, but the coverage is excellent. In the past year, between my wife and I, we've had two cornea transplants and two cataract surgeries, with zero out of pocket expense. I'm curious, because I really have no idea -- what's the coverage like in the Canadian system for elderly patients with problems that aren't life-threatening but impact quality of life? My cornea transplants were to treat Fuch's dystrophy, which isn't life-threatening but causes a slow, inexorable deterioration of visual acuity.
I'm not fixated on the word "entitlement". I used it because its dictionary definition is, "the right to guaranteed benefits under a government program," and because it's a useful term to describe the bulk of the Federal government's non-discretionary spending. A lot of people seem to think it means "an unearned benefit", which is why they get all lathered up when someone refers to Social Security as an entitlement program, and why I added the "before someone goes off on a rant" comment.
For the record -- I am not opposed to social safety net programs, and I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything in my previous post to give the impression that I am, unless you think that pointing out that something is expensive means you don't like it. I agree that it's a social contract, but it will be out of money in another 17 years or so unless something dramatic is done to save it.
Because we're not dicks
Citation needed
We wouldn't need the world's largest standing military, so a lot of those expenses go away.
As the world's 6th largest economy, you might want the world's 10th or so largest military though, putting you right back where you started. Unless of course you think the US is going to rescue you.
We could bill the USA government for the land and naval bases they'd want to still have access to, which would bring us yet more money.
Maybe, maybe not. The US maintains foreign military bases where its national interests lie. This does raise a couple of interesting questions, though: (1) would all the civilian employees at California military bases be fired and replaced by US citizens; and (2) would all the "California citizens" in the military be discharged because they're no longer US citizens?
We'd legalize all drugs, making us a tourism Meca. We might have to set up a yuuge wall though, to keep out all the desperate USians wanting to immigrate to the land of milk and honey.
I think you meant "Mecca" and "emigrate", but whatever. Like all the desperate UAians wanting to emigrate to The Netherlands for the legal drugs? It's one thing to visit for a few days for the high; another to decide you want to live in the People's Republic of California. I suppose it would be a boon to all the emergency room operators, like it's been in Colorado.
And the majority of the revenue for those comes from taxes specifically laid to collect revenue for those.
Only if your definition of "majority" is "significantly less than half". Social net outlays: $2.4 Trillion. Payroll tax revenue: $1.1 Trillion. And in case you missed it in the fine print on that Wiki page I liked to, the expenditures on the "Medicare" and "Other" slices of the social net pie are AFTER offsets from premiums and other "offsetting receipts" are applied, so it's even worse than these figures make it look.
If you want to complain about accountability, how about finding out where the $12 Trillion in Quantitative Easing since 2008 has gone?
Because with the exception of a couple of bad years, California has consistently given the feds more than it has gotten back, which means the state would have more money without the rest of the country, not less.
The people who live in California pay Federal taxes. The state government gets some of that (not all for sure, but a very large number) back in Federal grants, military base spending, Federal employee salaries, etc. If California were to secede, the people who live there stop paying Federal taxes and the state stops getting Federal money. How does that result in the state government having more money? Unless of course the state executes a massive increase in its income tax, which of course they'll have to because it's going to need its own military, its own intelligence apparatus, and a lot of other very expensive departments and agencies currently provided by the Federal government.
I suppose, though, that the folks supporting Calexit have thought all these things through and have solutions at hand for all the potential problems. Sorry; you're going to need a passport and visa to visit your relatives in the US, and you'll have to go through this new "extreme vetting" process. Sorry, retired people, your Social Security and Medicare benefits are cut off. Sorry, poor people; no more Medicaid for you. Sorry, 150,000 former Federal employees; your pension is forfeit, and those of you who can't find an equivalent state job are out of a job.
Long-time residents of California are leaving the state in increasing numbers year over year. I doubt if Calexit will do anything to reverse that trend.
Yeah its awful the way we don't let sick and retired people eat dog food and die
Who said that? Certainly not me. Regardless of how you, I, or anyone else feels about these things, the fact remains that we spend far more money on social safety nets than we do on defense.
According to my latest W-2, my company spent just over $20,000 on my health insurance last year (in addition to my contribution, which was about 1/3 of the total). I am very confident that if the US went to a single-payer system, I would not be getting a $20,000 raise to help me pay my increased tax burden.
most of the money I pay in taxes goes to buying more military hardware and endless wars.
People keep saying this, despite the fact that it just isn't true. Most of your Federal tax dollars are spent on non-discretionary areas generally referred to as "entitlements" In 2016, Defense spending was $584 Billion. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and other non-discretionary spending totalled $2.4 Trillion. And please, before someone goes off on a rant about "Social Security isn't an entitlement 'cause I've paid into it all my life and I've earned it", go look up the definition of entitlement.
Returning Alaska will also finally help prove that Sara Palin can actually see Russia from her house.
Here, let me help you with that:
Returning Alaska will also finally help prove that Tina Fey can actually see Russia from Sara Palin's house.
Depends if they're actually travelling or just remoting in. If they travel I would expect accommodations are paid for as well as food and other expenses on top. And if you're doing 40 hours a week steady of that $100/hr contracting you're making close to 200K US per year. That's not bad no matter how you look at it.
As a contractor, you're also paying the "employer's" share of Social Security, as well as buying your own health and life insurance. Those two items alone were worth about $25K untaxed to me last year, and I don't make anywhere near $100/hr. Other things to consider when comparing captive vs. consultant compensation: paid holidays, paid vacation, and 401(k) matching. Accommodations might be provided if travel is involved, but this doesn't represent savings unless you're not also maintaining your regular residence, which you generally would be. As for food and other expenses -- maybe you could negotiate some sort of per diem, but it's not a given.
"featuritus" ??? What's that? Is it like featuritis? -itis, as in a disease?
Nice try. -itis indicates inflammation; -osis indicates disease. -itus sometimes shows up as the suffix for a medical condition, such as tinnitus (ringing in the ear); this may have been what led the OP astray, though it was probably just a typo.
But it is good for you - a mix of fats, proteins, and sugars, plus high levels of calcium and magnesium, all frozen so your body knows it hasn't spoiled.
The problem isn't the ice cream. The problem is eating a day's worth of Calories in ice cream in one sitting.
4 ounces of vanilla ice cream is 137 Calories. Assuming a normal intake of 2000 Calories/day, you'd have to eat almost 1/2 gallon of ice cream in one sitting to do that. Not sure a normal human being could accomplish that on a steady basis, although I've seen a few people at Walmart for whom that might be possible.
So what they're saying is that if you introduce a workaround to bypass government anti-competitive restrictions on the supply of something, people will be able to purchase more of it.
What a shocking result....
Or maybe they're saying that if drunks can take advantage of people who have been duped (or have fooled themselves) into providing a service at starvation wages, they will do it. That's shocking as well.
Yes... and why do you think something happens to taste good to a certain species? Evolution shaped those senses to pick up beneficial foodstuffs preferentially.
I scream, you scream, we all scream for ice cream. Because it's good for us.
Huh...I had no idea that adult human males had only 125 Calories. Talk about very low calorie density with good micronutrient content.
Nice try at pedantry, with the implied "calories vs. Calories".The article says, "enough to meet the 1-day dietary requirements of more than 60 people." Unless you think a person can get by on 2 Calories per day, in which case it doesn't even rise to pendantry.
Learn how to spell, you fucking retards.
Now, dont curl up into a feeble position, or run around like a bowl in a china shop. No need for ad homonym attacks. Its the 21st century, and for all intensive purposes, its a far-gone conclusion that society has bid ado to gramer; speling - and punkshuation (ect). As long as you can pack up the meening from contacts, you shouldnt go on and nauseum about this sort of thing. In the end, its all for knot anyways, so dont ball your eyes out over it. In stead, you should cease the opportunity to except the inevitable and be internally grateful at being liberated.
There's very little real competition in academia.
On the contrary, there's a lot of fierce competition in academia. The problem is that it's all about grant money or politics, and has little to do with academic excellence.
This article on the evolution of the Sun says, "The energy output of the Sun has not fluctuated by more than perhaps 0.1% to 0.2% in human history – not bad for a nuclear reactor that has no regulatory committee, no engineers, and hasn't had a safety check in nearly five billion years." Granted, human history doesn't stretch back 50 million years, but 50 million years is an eye-blink compared to the billions of years ago when the Sun is theorized to have been 70% dimmer than today.
I wish TFA had cited a source for that claim rather than just stating it as if it was something "everybody knows".
Is "reduced by half" anything like "increased by a factor of 2"?
So, for the actual article, was "Student Loan Debt Has raised by 70% in 10 years" that hard?
No, not hard. Also, ambiguous. "Total student loan debt nearly tripled in ten years" or "Average individual student loan debt increased 70% in ten years." Both correct; neither ambiguous.