Actually, the social security system would have a MASSIVE influx of income tax into it.
The idea behind this "eternal life" theory is not that we simply sustain old people in a decrepit, fragile state indefinately, but rather that we prevent them from getting there at all. If we can maintain our "youthful vigour" for a period of time relative to our total lifespan, then the social security system can work exactly the same, as the increased amount of retirement would come along with an increased amount of "work life".
The average f1 car revs to 18,000 rpm.
So, letting it drop below 6000 rpm would basically mean you just lost the race/lap.
If you ever watched one of those f1 races with "from the cockpit" views, with the g-force meters, and tachometers, you can watch them rev those things pretty much from 12-18grand all day long.
I agree with your point that these drivers are incredibly skilled, but your examples are way to extreme/entirely wrong (the fuel/air mixture thing, as someone already corrected)
Aaaah... am i the only that is painfully reminded about that article on "corporate e-mail making no sense"
I'm not even gonna try and decrypt this one. Just turn my eyes away before i go blind and/or stupid.
I think the key here is the "responsibility" issue. Just because you don't have a government agency looking out for you doesn't mean that we are gonna have thousands of people handing over money without thinking. The reason slum lords can get away with what they get away with, is because people have come to expect something from houses. They expect the government agency, and it's rules, to be able to prevent them from getting ripped off. They know of the existence of this agency, and of it's rules (how could you NOT, with how restrictive they can be) and they say "Well, if my buddy had so many problems with that upgrade that even I thought to be fairly safe because it wasn't up to code, it must be nearly impossible to get away with anything genuinely unsafe, or poor in quality." They are re-assured by the fact that this government agency "runs things". If you did away with this government agency, all of a sudden, the responsibility of checking up on a house that you bought/rented would fall solely on YOU. You're the one investing the money in it, therefore, it would be in YOUR best interests to check it out, get a friend to check it out, hire a local handyman to check it out etc.
I think the problem is that people are scared of the responsibility. When they have this big government body reassuring them that they will be okay, they feel totally abdicated of any responsiblity. They get fucked, and it's not THEIR problem, they can just shift the blame over to someone else.
You want to talk about thousands of deaths from houses that wouldn't survive an earthquake? Gee, living in a house that isn't earthquake proof in an earthquake prone area? Hmmm... Called survival of the fittest last time i checked.
If you want to argue that millions of idiots would go out and buy lethal/unsafe houses if we didn't have a government agency, then sure, i'll say that might even be true. Does that mean we need to pat these idiots on the head, and lead them off in the direction of something safe? Not necessarily. I think we should leave these idiots to their own devices, and 20-40 years down the road, we might have a slightly higher quality of gene pool.
Government agencies don't need to tell smart people what to do, they tell stupid people what NOT to do.
Slashdot Mirror
You're assuming he's used the ipod firmware update, of course! :P
Actually, the social security system would have a MASSIVE influx of income tax into it.
The idea behind this "eternal life" theory is not that we simply sustain old people in a decrepit, fragile state indefinately, but rather that we prevent them from getting there at all. If we can maintain our "youthful vigour" for a period of time relative to our total lifespan, then the social security system can work exactly the same, as the increased amount of retirement would come along with an increased amount of "work life".
Uhmmm... dark fibre for a space elevator?
Somehow i doubt that unused fibre-optic cable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_fibre is going to be useful for construction of a space elevator.
Maybe you are thinking of carbon nano-tubes? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_nanotubes
I dunno, could be me, but i don't think fibre-op cable is especially strong.
The average f1 car revs to 18,000 rpm. So, letting it drop below 6000 rpm would basically mean you just lost the race/lap. If you ever watched one of those f1 races with "from the cockpit" views, with the g-force meters, and tachometers, you can watch them rev those things pretty much from 12-18grand all day long. I agree with your point that these drivers are incredibly skilled, but your examples are way to extreme/entirely wrong (the fuel/air mixture thing, as someone already corrected)
Aaaah... am i the only that is painfully reminded about that article on "corporate e-mail making no sense" I'm not even gonna try and decrypt this one. Just turn my eyes away before i go blind and/or stupid.
Amen.
I think the key here is the "responsibility" issue. Just because you don't have a government agency looking out for you doesn't mean that we are gonna have thousands of people handing over money without thinking. The reason slum lords can get away with what they get away with, is because people have come to expect something from houses. They expect the government agency, and it's rules, to be able to prevent them from getting ripped off. They know of the existence of this agency, and of it's rules (how could you NOT, with how restrictive they can be) and they say "Well, if my buddy had so many problems with that upgrade that even I thought to be fairly safe because it wasn't up to code, it must be nearly impossible to get away with anything genuinely unsafe, or poor in quality." They are re-assured by the fact that this government agency "runs things". If you did away with this government agency, all of a sudden, the responsibility of checking up on a house that you bought/rented would fall solely on YOU. You're the one investing the money in it, therefore, it would be in YOUR best interests to check it out, get a friend to check it out, hire a local handyman to check it out etc.
I think the problem is that people are scared of the responsibility. When they have this big government body reassuring them that they will be okay, they feel totally abdicated of any responsiblity. They get fucked, and it's not THEIR problem, they can just shift the blame over to someone else.
You want to talk about thousands of deaths from houses that wouldn't survive an earthquake? Gee, living in a house that isn't earthquake proof in an earthquake prone area? Hmmm... Called survival of the fittest last time i checked. If you want to argue that millions of idiots would go out and buy lethal/unsafe houses if we didn't have a government agency, then sure, i'll say that might even be true. Does that mean we need to pat these idiots on the head, and lead them off in the direction of something safe? Not necessarily. I think we should leave these idiots to their own devices, and 20-40 years down the road, we might have a slightly higher quality of gene pool.
Government agencies don't need to tell smart people what to do, they tell stupid people what NOT to do.