Jupiter is about 0.0009 solar masses. Current models of nuclear fusion predict that if an object has mass of about 0.07 solar masses it will begin a fusion reaction. So Jupiter would need to swell to 80 times its current mass.
Well, then you have a really poor view of who gets things done. Sometime, you have to put it long hours to get something done. But those putting in long hours week in and week out are generally not productive people. When I was a programmer years back, I was having lunch with some coworkers and my boss. One co-worker referred to me and said that I "Work 4 hours a day". My boss responded, "yeah, but he gets more done in those four hours than YOU do all day". I just smiled to myself and didn't say a word.
Now I am in management with a new company. My first two years were rough as I built an IT department from nothing in a growing company. Once I had an employee leave 2/3 through a project and I worked 80 hours to pick up the slack. Today, things run like a top (most of the time), and frankly I could work 25 hours and things would run well. I am thinking about leaving for bigger challenges, but the point is that it isn't raw hours that get a job done, it is planning and executing well. When I see someone burning them out, I'm not impressed.
Not an erratic orbit at all. Picture Jupiter. If it suddenly increased its mass by a factor of 20, it might have enough mass to become a star, but would have virtually no impact on the orbit of Mercury, and very little on Earth or Venus. Just because a body becomes a star does not require planets to orbit both stars. In actuality, all planets orbit the center of mass of the solar system. In our solar system's case that resides inside the sphere of our sun.
You are rude. The title of your post is 'Idiot'. I can assure you I am not, but you are in fact a very rude, narrow mined person.
You make an idiotic comment about the color of a ribbon, which I have no idea what it has to do with prostate research. Then you make another idiotic comment about focusing on "fluffy cuddly animals". So basically, women and their breasts are cuter and therefore more worthy of being saved. That is just wrong.
And yes, there may be some carry over from one type of cancer research to another, but that doesn't justify focusing predominantly on one type of research. I take care of myself so have a very low risk of lung cancer. My risk of heart disease is lower because I take care of my weight, diet and cholesterol. But prostate cancer is something I have very little control of and am at an elevated risk (I'm in my 30's) due to other medical issues. Yet, you tell me to sit at the back of the bus.
From your sig, I'm guessing you are female. You are biased toward your own gender, and feel you can shout down people who disagree. You are disgusting.
And I'm not the only one you exhibit this behavior with. Another post you say the following "No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
Absolutely brilliant. You have the maturity of a middle school child.
* Breast cancer is the second leading cancer killer of women, behind lung cancer * Prostate cancer is the second leading cancer killer of men, behind lung cancer * Death rate for prostate cancer is slightly higher in men than breast cancer is for women * Median death age for breast cancer is 68, median death age for prostate is 80 * Prostate cancer tends to be detected later and develops slower. * Prostate cancer is likely underreported because men don't go to Doctor as often.
Anyone else feel like men get the sort end of the stick in cancer research? Yes, I could technically get breast cancer. But I am a lot more likely to get prostate cancer. Yet everyone from the NFL to the WWE have their pink ribbons on and I've never seen a benefit for prostate cancer. While I am happy for the funding and interest, I just wish money were allocated according to reason, not just "I like boobies".
Why would I believe it existed just because I saw it in a movie? i can't say I gave it a lot of thought, but I generally don't go "Gosh, I saw it in a james Bond movie, it must exist in real lifte."
Ah, you are one of those people who use the term ownership incorrectly and then use it to confuse other points. Your friends who have mortgages own their houses. Your definition is wrong if you think a mortgage means I don't own something.
Your frieds own their house. They also have a loan that uses the house that they own as collateral. If they didn't own the house, they would not be able to use the house as collateral. The bank or other institution cannot interfere with your friends' ownership or enjoyment of the house in any way. if your friends fail to pay, then there is a process by which the bank starts a foreclosure in order to take the house away.
Saying your friends don't own a house because of a mortgage is like saying I don't own a house because the government could claim imminent domain. Both would be incorrect.
None of your family own homes? Over 2/3rd of housing units in America are owned not rented.
And if a person can't find 1,000 people willing to pony up $50, that is not a sign of a strong candidate. 70% of American households have cable TV with an average bill of $128/month. So, please don't tell me how the average citizen can't afford anything...
1. $50,000 is not a high amount and doesn't require corporate donations. I've seen missionaires collect more money from friends and family than that. 2. Why are you posting to Slashdot about this? I may not like ABC's position, but have no control over it. 3. Why did Slashdot accept this? They aren't even close to their mission statement on this
So anonymous is a group that is not a group but acts like a group when the group wants to exert its influence on topics that the group finds interesting. But since the group is not a group but a movement, it cannot give or take away support from Wikileaks.
Hello, Pie. I am afraid I can't pay you full price for this review. Our contract clearly states a 300 word minimum, first post, and at least one real life example of someone using the product. You met one of the three criteria, but this isn't enough. Please try harder next time.
You hit on it right there. I understand that diesel engines get 40% more distance per gallon than gasoline, so my 35mpg highway would be almost 50mpg if it were diesel. I've never understood why we in the States use gasoline for our engines. Everything else seems trivial compared to the efficiencies gained from diesel.
We have a trade imbalance because there is a global demand for dollars. Countries use our dollar for their reserves. As long as this is the case, we will have an artificially high dollar. In a floating currency, there is absolutely nothing that would support a long term trade imbalance. Should countries decide to abandon the dollar as a reserve currency, and you will see the US standard of living pop like a balloon, but this has nothing to do with having a service economy.
America cannot be viable long term on a service-based economy.
Why not? There is only so much I need in terms of physical goods. As I make more money, that becomes a smaller percentage of my income. Frankly, I think we need some manufacturing, but that should become a smaller and smaller percentage of our economy.
How are you calculating this? Because the work done by each generation benefits the next beyond just the taxes paid. How much did productivity increase during working life of the current generation of Social Security recipients?
You cannot seriously use productivity gains to justify under funding social security. There is no rationale basis for doing so.
What does that mean - that your grandkids will be hopelessly indepted to themselves?
Another "deficits don't matter" proponent. I stopped voting Republican after Bush pulled this crap and sure can't vote for Obama after his four years. This line of reasoning is so anti-common sense that I cannot understand how anyone believes it. Why the hell don't we run up a 100 Trillion dollar deficit if that is the case.
There is a shortfall that will require hiking taxes an enormous amount to make up. No matter how you jiggle the numbers, you either have to raise taxes and/or devalue the currency. You cannot continue to have deficit spending like we have the last 12 years.
One point: "so millionaires (who do receive SS benefits when they retire) ". Those millionaires don't receive a benefit past the point they stop paying taxes. Really it comes down to a philosophical debate. Who is responsible for paying for my retirement? But you are 100% correct that this would fix the problem immediately.
Frankly, at this point, I'm not sure I care about the philosophical debate. I just want the hole plugged.
1) That the money being spent earns a higher (or at least equal) return. I don't think this is true. This money will never be repaid. The key word is 'refinanced'. The people buying the new debt are the same that held the old. 2) Interest rates will remain low. Bonds get auctioned, and the the rates are fixed for the lifetime of the bond.
The refinancing occurs continually, and there is no guarantee rates will remain this low.
You will have to explain to me why Japan can borrow basically for free with a lot more debt than GDP, and a bad rating by the agencies.
Right now the world is aflush with investible money due to the emergence of China and other developing countries. People in these countries are suddenly becoming more wealthy and looking for a way to reinvest their cash. When you have a ton of money looking for a place to get invested, it is a good time for borrowers. Wait until China matures into a more stable country and the same holds true for India. Rates will go back up. And in the case of Japan, they have negative inflation, so this means your nominal interest rateis higher... a minor point though as we are really witnessing the results of China and India, 1/3 of the world's population, entering the modern world
While you clearly have a handle on economic concepts, essentially your argument is that we can borrow without consequences. Dick Cheney got laughed at when he suggested this, and I laugh when I hear it today... or at least I would if it weren't my kids that will pay for it.
You are correct that techically Congress passes the budget. However, the President doesn't simply "suggest" a budget and then that is the end. His budget has a huge amount of authority behind it and you'll find that his proposed budgets are far beyond our revenues. Do I give congress a pass? Of course not.
Ultimately, barring a congressional override, the President does have authority over appropriations bills in terms of veto powers. So if you issue is over my using a term incorrectly, you got me. If your point is that the President is powerless in the spending realm, you are incorrect. Please take your snarky better-than-you attitude elsewhere.
Spending more would not a problem at the moment, for example, as borrowing costs for the US are so ridiculously low.
This makes a couple of prseumptions. 1) That the money being spent earns a higher (or at least equal) return. I don't think this is true. 2) Interest rates will remain low. I fail to see how this is possible long-term 3) We are able to repay the debt. We can do so any time by increasing money supply, but then inflation goes through the roof.
Zero debt is not desirable, but neither is debt that is larger than one's GDP. We will be there soon. And if you argue that debt isn't relevant then you will have to explain the Asian debt crisis and the Latin American debt crisis.
Slashdot Mirror
For those who care
Jupiter is about 0.0009 solar masses. Current models of nuclear fusion predict that if an object has mass of about 0.07 solar masses it will begin a fusion reaction. So Jupiter would need to swell to 80 times its current mass.
Well, then you have a really poor view of who gets things done. Sometime, you have to put it long hours to get something done. But those putting in long hours week in and week out are generally not productive people. When I was a programmer years back, I was having lunch with some coworkers and my boss. One co-worker referred to me and said that I "Work 4 hours a day". My boss responded, "yeah, but he gets more done in those four hours than YOU do all day". I just smiled to myself and didn't say a word.
Now I am in management with a new company. My first two years were rough as I built an IT department from nothing in a growing company. Once I had an employee leave 2/3 through a project and I worked 80 hours to pick up the slack. Today, things run like a top (most of the time), and frankly I could work 25 hours and things would run well. I am thinking about leaving for bigger challenges, but the point is that it isn't raw hours that get a job done, it is planning and executing well. When I see someone burning them out, I'm not impressed.
Why is this modded down? Stephen Hawking would agree.
Not an erratic orbit at all. Picture Jupiter. If it suddenly increased its mass by a factor of 20, it might have enough mass to become a star, but would have virtually no impact on the orbit of Mercury, and very little on Earth or Venus. Just because a body becomes a star does not require planets to orbit both stars. In actuality, all planets orbit the center of mass of the solar system. In our solar system's case that resides inside the sphere of our sun.
You are rude. The title of your post is 'Idiot'. I can assure you I am not, but you are in fact a very rude, narrow mined person.
You make an idiotic comment about the color of a ribbon, which I have no idea what it has to do with prostate research. Then you make another idiotic comment about focusing on "fluffy cuddly animals". So basically, women and their breasts are cuter and therefore more worthy of being saved. That is just wrong.
And yes, there may be some carry over from one type of cancer research to another, but that doesn't justify focusing predominantly on one type of research. I take care of myself so have a very low risk of lung cancer. My risk of heart disease is lower because I take care of my weight, diet and cholesterol. But prostate cancer is something I have very little control of and am at an elevated risk (I'm in my 30's) due to other medical issues. Yet, you tell me to sit at the back of the bus.
From your sig, I'm guessing you are female. You are biased toward your own gender, and feel you can shout down people who disagree. You are disgusting.
And I'm not the only one you exhibit this behavior with. Another post you say the following "No? Then SHUT THE FUCK UP!"
Absolutely brilliant. You have the maturity of a middle school child.
A little more info
* Breast cancer is the second leading cancer killer of women, behind lung cancer
* Prostate cancer is the second leading cancer killer of men, behind lung cancer
* Death rate for prostate cancer is slightly higher in men than breast cancer is for women
* Median death age for breast cancer is 68, median death age for prostate is 80
* Prostate cancer tends to be detected later and develops slower.
* Prostate cancer is likely underreported because men don't go to Doctor as often.
Anyone else feel like men get the sort end of the stick in cancer research? Yes, I could technically get breast cancer. But I am a lot more likely to get prostate cancer. Yet everyone from the NFL to the WWE have their pink ribbons on and I've never seen a benefit for prostate cancer. While I am happy for the funding and interest, I just wish money were allocated according to reason, not just "I like boobies".
Oh, please don't tell me what device they'll use to monitor my prostate 24x7....
Why would I believe it existed just because I saw it in a movie? i can't say I gave it a lot of thought, but I generally don't go "Gosh, I saw it in a james Bond movie, it must exist in real lifte."
Ah, you are one of those people who use the term ownership incorrectly and then use it to confuse other points. Your friends who have mortgages own their houses. Your definition is wrong if you think a mortgage means I don't own something.
Your frieds own their house. They also have a loan that uses the house that they own as collateral. If they didn't own the house, they would not be able to use the house as collateral. The bank or other institution cannot interfere with your friends' ownership or enjoyment of the house in any way. if your friends fail to pay, then there is a process by which the bank starts a foreclosure in order to take the house away.
Saying your friends don't own a house because of a mortgage is like saying I don't own a house because the government could claim imminent domain. Both would be incorrect.
None of your family own homes? Over 2/3rd of housing units in America are owned not rented.
And if a person can't find 1,000 people willing to pony up $50, that is not a sign of a strong candidate. 70% of American households have cable TV with an average bill of $128/month. So, please don't tell me how the average citizen can't afford anything...
I dropped a phone book on my foot once.
There are a couple problems with your story
1. $50,000 is not a high amount and doesn't require corporate donations. I've seen missionaires collect more money from friends and family than that.
2. Why are you posting to Slashdot about this? I may not like ABC's position, but have no control over it.
3. Why did Slashdot accept this? They aren't even close to their mission statement on this
So anonymous is a group that is not a group but acts like a group when the group wants to exert its influence on topics that the group finds interesting. But since the group is not a group but a movement, it cannot give or take away support from Wikileaks.
Makes sense to me.
Hello, Pie. I am afraid I can't pay you full price for this review. Our contract clearly states a 300 word minimum, first post, and at least one real life example of someone using the product. You met one of the three criteria, but this isn't enough. Please try harder next time.
Also do think about diesel instead of 'gas':
You hit on it right there. I understand that diesel engines get 40% more distance per gallon than gasoline, so my 35mpg highway would be almost 50mpg if it were diesel. I've never understood why we in the States use gasoline for our engines. Everything else seems trivial compared to the efficiencies gained from diesel.
We have a trade imbalance because there is a global demand for dollars. Countries use our dollar for their reserves. As long as this is the case, we will have an artificially high dollar. In a floating currency, there is absolutely nothing that would support a long term trade imbalance. Should countries decide to abandon the dollar as a reserve currency, and you will see the US standard of living pop like a balloon, but this has nothing to do with having a service economy.
America cannot be viable long term on a service-based economy.
Why not? There is only so much I need in terms of physical goods. As I make more money, that becomes a smaller percentage of my income. Frankly, I think we need some manufacturing, but that should become a smaller and smaller percentage of our economy.
Tell ya what, you and your kids can pay the interest payments and leave me and mine out of it.
How are you calculating this? Because the work done by each generation benefits the next beyond just the taxes paid. How much did productivity increase during working life of the current generation of Social Security recipients?
You cannot seriously use productivity gains to justify under funding social security. There is no rationale basis for doing so.
What does that mean - that your grandkids will be hopelessly indepted to themselves?
Another "deficits don't matter" proponent. I stopped voting Republican after Bush pulled this crap and sure can't vote for Obama after his four years. This line of reasoning is so anti-common sense that I cannot understand how anyone believes it. Why the hell don't we run up a 100 Trillion dollar deficit if that is the case.
There is a shortfall that will require hiking taxes an enormous amount to make up. No matter how you jiggle the numbers, you either have to raise taxes and/or devalue the currency. You cannot continue to have deficit spending like we have the last 12 years.
One point: "so millionaires (who do receive SS benefits when they retire) ". Those millionaires don't receive a benefit past the point they stop paying taxes. Really it comes down to a philosophical debate. Who is responsible for paying for my retirement? But you are 100% correct that this would fix the problem immediately.
Frankly, at this point, I'm not sure I care about the philosophical debate. I just want the hole plugged.
1) That the money being spent earns a higher (or at least equal) return. I don't think this is true.
This money will never be repaid. The key word is 'refinanced'. The people buying the new debt are the same that held the old.
2) Interest rates will remain low.
Bonds get auctioned, and the the rates are fixed for the lifetime of the bond.
The refinancing occurs continually, and there is no guarantee rates will remain this low.
You will have to explain to me why Japan can borrow basically for free with a lot more debt than GDP, and a bad rating by the agencies.
Right now the world is aflush with investible money due to the emergence of China and other developing countries. People in these countries are suddenly becoming more wealthy and looking for a way to reinvest their cash. When you have a ton of money looking for a place to get invested, it is a good time for borrowers. Wait until China matures into a more stable country and the same holds true for India. Rates will go back up. And in the case of Japan, they have negative inflation, so this means your nominal interest rateis higher... a minor point though as we are really witnessing the results of China and India, 1/3 of the world's population, entering the modern world
While you clearly have a handle on economic concepts, essentially your argument is that we can borrow without consequences. Dick Cheney got laughed at when he suggested this, and I laugh when I hear it today... or at least I would if it weren't my kids that will pay for it.
Oh dear God....
You are correct that techically Congress passes the budget. However, the President doesn't simply "suggest" a budget and then that is the end. His budget has a huge amount of authority behind it and you'll find that his proposed budgets are far beyond our revenues. Do I give congress a pass? Of course not.
Ultimately, barring a congressional override, the President does have authority over appropriations bills in terms of veto powers. So if you issue is over my using a term incorrectly, you got me. If your point is that the President is powerless in the spending realm, you are incorrect. Please take your snarky better-than-you attitude elsewhere.
Spending more would not a problem at the moment, for example, as borrowing costs for the US are so ridiculously low.
This makes a couple of prseumptions. 1) That the money being spent earns a higher (or at least equal) return. I don't think this is true. 2) Interest rates will remain low. I fail to see how this is possible long-term 3) We are able to repay the debt. We can do so any time by increasing money supply, but then inflation goes through the roof.
Zero debt is not desirable, but neither is debt that is larger than one's GDP. We will be there soon. And if you argue that debt isn't relevant then you will have to explain the Asian debt crisis and the Latin American debt crisis.
A revolt doesn't define the end state, simply dissatisfaction with the current state. Try again, please.