I believe the plan is for the gov't to fund the first 695 million euros, then the final trial, which is the riskiest, will be conducted by a private company, which will have exclusive rights to make/sell the vaccine worldwide for more than 10 years, in exchange for ongoing royalties of 1/100 of 1 cent per dose.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. If the public ponies up 695 out of the required 700 how does the spending of the last 5 become "the riskiest"?
Who can blame someone want to rent a residence for not taking plastic? Care lease companies don't do it either. Nor my condo maintenance fees.
But here in Canada at least, all those types support (and prefer) pre-authorized bank withdrawals as payment method.
The ONLY thing I regularly still write cheques for is the kids school stuff - field trips, hot lunch day, etc.
I had to pay the contractor who came to fix the hot water tank by cheque a couple years ago because he wasn't carrying around a mobile cellular enabled credit card machine. (And I can't say I really blame him -- those aren't cheap, and cellular data service isn't ubiquitous. Hell, I live in a hilly area that part of a major metro area, and there are parts of my own street that don't have a good reliable cellular data link. I've had the pizza guy wander around into the middle of the street holding the machine over his head a couple times to get a good enough data signal.:)
There are lots of places that are a lot worse. So I can understand those guys still taking cheques.
Our kids' schools now take almost all of their field trip, etc. fees online: https://www.schoolcashonline.com/ - they do a bunch of Canadian and US schools. I like this a whole lot.
Square does CC processing in Canada as well for the past year or more using a little dongle for your phone/tablet (android or ios) that they will send you for free. I think their service works cross-border if you want to make charges in the US or Canada http://square.ca/ Square will work over wifi or cell data I believe.
You know, in sane countries your bank account number is nowhere near sufficient information to enact a withdrawal from an account. I don't understand the US system where you have to protect your account number at all costs or people can steal all your money at all.
And a system where all that info is printed right on the front of every cheque you use. It is crazy that it is not more abused than it is.
anyone who can intercept the email from square to the recipient can use the link, unless there's a lot more validation than they're mentioning.
Perhaps, but the same can be said for a cheque sent in the mail. Similar worries might be raised for giving your credit card details over your cordless phone - someone could be listening in. In general though, they are not.
you think that US manufacturing would suddenly be competitive on the world stage, just because it became more expensive to manufacture in China?
US imports would either find somewhere else to go for cheap crap, or would build it themselves - but in the latter case, the goods produced would have to be more expensive (its just that they would all become more expensive, no-one could undercut competitors by outsourcing to china anymore) and that would kill off any consumer-led recoveries. And goods not produced in the US (eg electronics) would become more expensive still. And your exports would drop dramatically as the dollar strengthens compounding the problem.
So basically you are trying to say having consumers work in factories that actually produce something would somehow be worse than having them all serve eachothers? The things would be more expensive because the workers(consumers) would get paid more than in chine. The money would end up right back in the local US economy. In history that has only been a great thing. Now the money ends up in China, and in the pockets of some fat cats, who do not spend it. On the other hand, because of those money sinks the US can just keep printing money without inflating it too much.
Long term all of this might be true, but like the outsourcing did not happen overnight, the return of these types of jobs would also take a long time. And there are lots of other "cheap" places beyond China.
The reality: green trees, nice beaches. Very good research institutions and students. Nice nutrition. Nobody is really happy about killing anyone. The youth of most people around me had been wasted mainly on trying to get laid. The weather's too hot though, and research budgets are a bitch.
The approach you feign is as imprecise as describing Texas a state of drug-using, trigger-happy rednecks. Both Israel and Texas are troubled societies; at least everyday lives here rotate around just anything else except that trouble.
I don't think I was "feigning" an approach. I would be interested in any reliable data one way or another that would bear on this issue.
Are you saying that none of the social/political issues has a negative effect on retention? The place does not have to be a wasteland for people to be unhappy with the situation, even if it is fine for the most part. Texas does lose people due to its politics, and it gains people due to its economics. Those are not the only reasons, or probably the main reasons, but they are real.
What's driving the increase in college costs is actually administration, buildings, and sports, because that's what actually attracts students to a lot of colleges rather than the actual education part.
I know I chose my undergraduate institution based on the size of the administration......:-)
OK, buildings and sports maybe, but the growth of the bureaucracy is an unfortunate byproduct of the system rather than a recruitment tool.
"The problem? Large salary gaps between US and Israeli institutions. "
Nothing to do with the social/political situation in the middle east? I know the USA social and political situation is kind of crazy, but it seems to be a bit saner at the level of organized groups trying to kick each other off this or that piece of land. I suspect that this has at least SOME effect on people's decisions to emigrate.
I'm not saying a word to a policeman in any official capacity without my lawyer being present. As others have said, I'm not looking out for the best interests of society; if push comes to shove, I'm exercising whatever rights I can to stay out of trouble. I would expect you and everyone else to do the same, and as a bonus, I think that pattern of behavior as a whole is better for society.
So when the guy in the ski-mask carrying a bloody knife runs past you and ducks down the alley and the uniformed officer comes running along you think that it would be better for society if you don't point out the direction he ran without council? When you kid's bike is stolen from your front yard you are not going to file a report without your lawyer present?
And you think that society is better off if everyone behaves in this manner?
I don't know about that. I think that while this is an understandable position, it is too extreme, and leads to a system that is effectively non-functional. The reason that most first world nations are as lawful as they are is that for the most part the general public follows the law and there is social disapproval directed to those who do not. The extreme position of NEVER talk to the police without a lawyer does much, in my opinion, to undermine that.
To me, regardless of banter and bloviations, it all boils down to Blackstone''s Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," for the suffering of that one individual is an affront to justice, and therefore society, as a whole. Therefore, having the out provided by the 5th, regardless of whether or not it is invoked by guilty parties, is a net positive.
I mean, when you think about the implementation, it's much better IMO to live in a country with a presumption of innocence and a right to not self incriminate, than to live somewhere that the government can beat the living shit out of you until you say what they want you to say.
I would tend to agree. I do kind of like the UK twist which basically says something like: "If you keep silent (after conferring with your lawyer) and then at trial come up with some story explaining away your supposed guilt, we can ask the jury 'why the heck didn't you say this sooner, you lying pack of filth?'"
Of course, all of these types or rules rely on most of the people in the system actually acting in the interest of "justice" (whatever that is) rather than in self promotion or expediency.
a. One where police can compel anyone to give testimony about themselves so that all crimes are solved by someone confessing to them, or
b. One where innocent people have the right to STFU and the state is required to actually do police work, interview witnesses, gather evidence, and otherwise build a case against suspects?
The only way you can be opposed to the 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself is to be completely ignorant of history and utterly devoid of imagination. Frankly, there wasn't a single argument above that wasn't utter bullshit, a troll, or the ramblings of someone who wanted to take a contrary stance just for the sake of being contrary.
"Utter bullshit"? No, tell us what you really think.
There are many places in the world that do not have a constitutional "right to silence" where people are not subject to completely unreasonable pressures to testify. Discussion about the details of these types of rights are not ludicrous. A very valid concern is balancing the ability of investigators to actually interview witnesses and gather evidence against abuse of the corrosive power that police can bring to bear. If absolutely nobody ever talked to the police their investigation job would be almost impossible. If absolutely nobody ever talked to the police without legal counsel it would be almost as difficult.
The problem we are currently facing is that the police have largely lost the trust of the public, which of course makes the investigating job harder and tends to drive behaviour that leads to them losing the public's trust even more. Promoting a "don't talk to the police" type of mindset does not address this issue.
Personally I've spoken to the police on a few occasions - getting traffic tickets, reporting stolen items, found items, neighbourhood problems and once as a witness to an attempted bank robbery even. None of these instances seems likely to have placed me in the position of becoming the subject of suspicion - but it is probably is worth remembering to proceed with caution in the future. Additionally, I am not a young visible minority living in a stereotypical high crime area, so I probably have less risk of being in a situation where talking to the police has much risk.
Obviously he is aware that the right belongs to...the defendant. Obviously an individual right can have a negative effect on society.
I fail to see where the right to not self-incriminate obviates a net negative effect on society. Please expound.
I suspect that you already know this, but I'll say it anyway because I like to hear myself talk. It makes me feel important.
The fact that you need to use the word "net" in the statement shows that there is some amount of good and some amount of bad that need to be calculated. It is "obviously" bad for society that guilty people sometimes get away with illegal activities (at least I hope it is obvious). It is also bad that innocent people sometimes are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. The "right to silence" makes it easier for the guilty to be acquitted - which is "bad" for society, but at the same time it makes it harder for the innocent to be convicted - which is "good" for society. To decide if the "net" result is good or bad we as a society need to decide what value each of those outcomes are and make a judgement based on that. Unfortunately it is hard to decide how much each of the outcomes is "worth", and then also take into account the larger effects on society that either outcome might have (if EVERYONE is fearful of talking to the police, that is probably a negative outcome for example). All of these calculations have different outcomes depending on time and place (different societies and communities within them can have different values of importance placed on these factors, and different reactions to similar or different situations).
Thus it is possible that having the "right to silence" could have a net negative effect on society. The fact that there are fully functional human societies that do not have this right enshrined in their legal systems should act as a counter example to the extreme position that lack of such a right would be completely catastrophic - but of course none of these societies are the same as the USA in every other respect beyond the "right to silence".
To make a real study for it, we could randomly assign half the counties across the USA to being "5th Amendment Free" zones and see how things work out over a few decades. Maybe we should do the same thing with each of the amendments....
Minimum wage, the least someone can if they consistently show up late or stoned, is now three times higher than the average used to be. (Inflation adjusted of course.)
So yes, a rising tide lifts all ships. Please go talk to an old person, complain to them about not being able to fly first class to the Bahamas during your two weeks of paid vacation and see what they can tell you about life just sixty years ago.
From 60 years ago (1953) to today, I can believe there have been gains at most levels, but the upward trend seems to have peaked around the turn of the century/millennium. The peak median income seems to have been (inflation adjusted) $56,080 in 1999
For the last decade and a half it has been dropping, having fallen by more than 10% to $51,017 in in 2012.
Yeah we're better off than grandpa was at this stage of his life, but not so well off as your older cousin was, perhaps. And the trend is not in the right direction. The lower income levels have fared even worse than the median.
The top has done pretty well the whole time however....
Gosh I sound like a whiner self-indulgent liberal socialist or something. I'm probably just mis-interpreting the data and really the middle class is better off earning less money.
I'm more inclined to believe in the second possibility. Social pressure would not permit the former IMO.
"Social" pressure is about right, but "socialist" would be more accurate, you robo-red commie hipster scum. The robot-makers, like the job-creators before them, are the only people who actually contribute to humanity and progress; the rest of you non-robot-owning plebs just sponge off them while you suck up your replicated earl grey tea and tear-ass around the universe in the starships that the robot-makers created for you. Hell, you couldn't even afford your pansy-ass polyester jumpsuits if it weren't for the Stardole: you earn nothing, yet you demand equality with the robot-makers who sustain the Federation.
Thankfully, there will always be a "silent majority" of conservative voters ready to acknowledge the inherent superiority of the robot-makers, despite the fact that the majority of this majority will themselves own no robots, but merely aspire to own robots. The real social pressure of any hierarchical society always comes from the not-quite-upper class, struggling to appear like the upper class.
Lastly, we've actually done it, so we know what happens. In 1870, real per capita income in the US was around $4000. In 1900, $6k. In 1940, $8k, 1970 $20k, 2000 $40k. (All figures adjusted for inflation to 1995 dollars).
As society has become more automated, incomes have gone from $4,000 to $40,000. That's historical fact.
Looks good, but you could have that type of shift if everyone's income stayed the same and one person at the top made an obscene amount of money. How has the income distribution shifted? How has the fraction of the population changed below the poverty line? Has the "rising tide" lifted all ships, or just the mega-yatchs?
And I don't think the argument is that there is no disruption. What is being claimed is that there is no overall loss to the economy. A common flawed argument is: "If we let industry die, we're going to lose jobs and dollars from our economy." This argument is flawed for at least two reasons: 1) the money spent on doesn't disappear, it shifts to other sectors of the economy, and the thing that replaces or disrupts creates new and different jobs and opportunities.
The difficulty is that often when a disruption of this nature occurs, the shift tends to favour a select few (the owners of the automated factory for example) rather than a more broad swath of society: everyone gets (slightly) cheaper goods/services, a bunch of people lose their livelihoods, a few people gain new careers, and a very few people get very wealthy. The total economy might be larger, but the wealth has been concentrated.
I don't believe this one bit. A dozen 120 watt panels, at noon, are going to only put out ~1100 watts. If that. Unless she lives in the place a couple hours a day and has the fridge on 50 degrees and never turns on a tv, the a/c, a light bulb or the water heater or oven for that matter, there's no way she's getting 100% of her consumption covered by the panels.
Source: Me. I own a 5.62kw array and know what's up on consumption and production.
Depending on her usage and the type of "net metering" that is going on, she could be selling her electricity at noon for many multiples of what she is paying for electricity at night when she uses the most. With no AC and water heating done by gas, the only major drain during the day would be the fridge.
But maybe the original poster is making the whole thing up. It is true that sunlight on earth is much closer to 1kW/m^2 than it is to 8 W/m^2 though.
But you can't do this undetected. The BBC article doesn't explain that this is not over by the terminal. This is the east ramp, where private and small commercial operators are parked. You have to cross a huge open area in order to get to the large commercial planes.
And getting a vehicle that would look legit and legit clothing would do nothing to prevent anyone seeing you from thinking you were up to no good, so we are totally safe! Especially now that you cannot bring your nail clippers or bottled water on board.
I don't doubt that this is not a significant risk, but in comparison to the other risks we are guarding against, this seems at least as "dangerous". And accidentally bringing water on board is nowhere near as dangerous as accidental driving across the runway. There should be a physical barrier preventing "civilians" from accidentally getting onto the taxiway.
Thanks! That makes some sense, though it still seems odd that a car on the GA side can get on to the taxiway and cross a big-jet runway without being stopped by some kind of security...
Only if you assume the point of airport security is to keep airports secure, and not to keep morons feeling secure in airports. It's an easy mistake to make.
The moon has been moving out in its orbit since it was formed - it started out closer and thus visually much larger than the sun, will someday be visually smaller than the sun, and will end up a long time hence completely gone away (like in Space 1999, but that was because of a disaster with stored nuclear waste as I recall). At some point between "bigger" and "smaller" it ends up about the same visual size as the sun. What bearing does this have on evolutionary questions? If you don't believe in the time scales that solar system development are thought to have taken (as your Noah comment would tend to paint you as more of a biblical literalist) than probably we don't have a common basis for understanding.
The tree ring data sounds interesting - I would have thought that there would be not enough data to have any particular conclusion but would be fascinated to see your source. I think a planetary flood within the past 5000 years would leave more obvious physical signs, and having the human population reduced to a handful at that time would have clear and obvious genetic effects. Heck, repopulating the Americas and Australia would be a challenge.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the plan is for the gov't to fund the first 695 million euros, then the final trial, which is the riskiest, will be conducted by a private company, which will have exclusive rights to make/sell the vaccine worldwide for more than 10 years, in exchange for ongoing royalties of 1/100 of 1 cent per dose.
I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not. If the public ponies up 695 out of the required 700 how does the spending of the last 5 become "the riskiest"?
Maybe Coral would help: http://jeffreifman.com.nyud.net/2013/10/20/ten-ways-to-make-nsa-spying-popular-with-americans/?sdot
Who can blame someone want to rent a residence for not taking plastic? Care lease companies don't do it either. Nor my condo maintenance fees.
But here in Canada at least, all those types support (and prefer) pre-authorized bank withdrawals as payment method.
The ONLY thing I regularly still write cheques for is the kids school stuff - field trips, hot lunch day, etc.
I had to pay the contractor who came to fix the hot water tank by cheque a couple years ago because he wasn't carrying around a mobile cellular enabled credit card machine. (And I can't say I really blame him -- those aren't cheap, and cellular data service isn't ubiquitous. Hell, I live in a hilly area that part of a major metro area, and there are parts of my own street that don't have a good reliable cellular data link. I've had the pizza guy wander around into the middle of the street holding the machine over his head a couple times to get a good enough data signal. :)
There are lots of places that are a lot worse. So I can understand those guys still taking cheques.
Our kids' schools now take almost all of their field trip, etc. fees online: https://www.schoolcashonline.com/ - they do a bunch of Canadian and US schools. I like this a whole lot.
Square does CC processing in Canada as well for the past year or more using a little dongle for your phone/tablet (android or ios) that they will send you for free. I think their service works cross-border if you want to make charges in the US or Canada http://square.ca/ Square will work over wifi or cell data I believe.
You know, in sane countries your bank account number is nowhere near sufficient information to enact a withdrawal from an account. I don't understand the US system where you have to protect your account number at all costs or people can steal all your money at all.
And a system where all that info is printed right on the front of every cheque you use. It is crazy that it is not more abused than it is.
anyone who can intercept the email from square to the recipient can use the link, unless there's a lot more validation than they're mentioning.
Perhaps, but the same can be said for a cheque sent in the mail. Similar worries might be raised for giving your credit card details over your cordless phone - someone could be listening in. In general though, they are not.
you think that US manufacturing would suddenly be competitive on the world stage, just because it became more expensive to manufacture in China?
US imports would either find somewhere else to go for cheap crap, or would build it themselves - but in the latter case, the goods produced would have to be more expensive (its just that they would all become more expensive, no-one could undercut competitors by outsourcing to china anymore) and that would kill off any consumer-led recoveries. And goods not produced in the US (eg electronics) would become more expensive still. And your exports would drop dramatically as the dollar strengthens compounding the problem.
So basically you are trying to say having consumers work in factories that actually produce something would somehow be worse than having them all serve eachothers? The things would be more expensive because the workers(consumers) would get paid more than in chine. The money would end up right back in the local US economy. In history that has only been a great thing. Now the money ends up in China, and in the pockets of some fat cats, who do not spend it. On the other hand, because of those money sinks the US can just keep printing money without inflating it too much.
Long term all of this might be true, but like the outsourcing did not happen overnight, the return of these types of jobs would also take a long time. And there are lots of other "cheap" places beyond China.
The reality: green trees, nice beaches. Very good research institutions and students. Nice nutrition. Nobody is really happy about killing anyone. The youth of most people around me had been wasted mainly on trying to get laid. The weather's too hot though, and research budgets are a bitch.
The approach you feign is as imprecise as describing Texas a state of drug-using, trigger-happy rednecks. Both Israel and Texas are troubled societies; at least everyday lives here rotate around just anything else except that trouble.
I don't think I was "feigning" an approach. I would be interested in any reliable data one way or another that would bear on this issue.
Are you saying that none of the social/political issues has a negative effect on retention? The place does not have to be a wasteland for people to be unhappy with the situation, even if it is fine for the most part. Texas does lose people due to its politics, and it gains people due to its economics. Those are not the only reasons, or probably the main reasons, but they are real.
What's driving the increase in college costs is actually administration, buildings, and sports, because that's what actually attracts students to a lot of colleges rather than the actual education part.
I know I chose my undergraduate institution based on the size of the administration...... :-)
OK, buildings and sports maybe, but the growth of the bureaucracy is an unfortunate byproduct of the system rather than a recruitment tool.
"The problem? Large salary gaps between US and Israeli institutions. "
Nothing to do with the social/political situation in the middle east? I know the USA social and political situation is kind of crazy, but it seems to be a bit saner at the level of organized groups trying to kick each other off this or that piece of land. I suspect that this has at least SOME effect on people's decisions to emigrate.
I'm not saying a word to a policeman in any official capacity without my lawyer being present. As others have said, I'm not looking out for the best interests of society; if push comes to shove, I'm exercising whatever rights I can to stay out of trouble. I would expect you and everyone else to do the same, and as a bonus, I think that pattern of behavior as a whole is better for society.
So when the guy in the ski-mask carrying a bloody knife runs past you and ducks down the alley and the uniformed officer comes running along you think that it would be better for society if you don't point out the direction he ran without council? When you kid's bike is stolen from your front yard you are not going to file a report without your lawyer present?
And you think that society is better off if everyone behaves in this manner?
I don't know about that. I think that while this is an understandable position, it is too extreme, and leads to a system that is effectively non-functional. The reason that most first world nations are as lawful as they are is that for the most part the general public follows the law and there is social disapproval directed to those who do not. The extreme position of NEVER talk to the police without a lawyer does much, in my opinion, to undermine that.
To me, regardless of banter and bloviations, it all boils down to Blackstone''s Formulation: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," for the suffering of that one individual is an affront to justice, and therefore society, as a whole. Therefore, having the out provided by the 5th, regardless of whether or not it is invoked by guilty parties, is a net positive.
I mean, when you think about the implementation, it's much better IMO to live in a country with a presumption of innocence and a right to not self incriminate, than to live somewhere that the government can beat the living shit out of you until you say what they want you to say.
I would tend to agree. I do kind of like the UK twist which basically says something like: "If you keep silent (after conferring with your lawyer) and then at trial come up with some story explaining away your supposed guilt, we can ask the jury 'why the heck didn't you say this sooner, you lying pack of filth?'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_silence_in_England_and_Wales
Of course, all of these types or rules rely on most of the people in the system actually acting in the interest of "justice" (whatever that is) rather than in self promotion or expediency.
Which society do you want to live in:
a. One where police can compel anyone to give testimony about themselves so that all crimes are solved by someone confessing to them, or
b. One where innocent people have the right to STFU and the state is required to actually do police work, interview witnesses, gather evidence, and otherwise build a case against suspects?
The only way you can be opposed to the 5th amendment right not to incriminate yourself is to be completely ignorant of history and utterly devoid of imagination. Frankly, there wasn't a single argument above that wasn't utter bullshit, a troll, or the ramblings of someone who wanted to take a contrary stance just for the sake of being contrary.
"Utter bullshit"? No, tell us what you really think.
There are many places in the world that do not have a constitutional "right to silence" where people are not subject to completely unreasonable pressures to testify. Discussion about the details of these types of rights are not ludicrous. A very valid concern is balancing the ability of investigators to actually interview witnesses and gather evidence against abuse of the corrosive power that police can bring to bear. If absolutely nobody ever talked to the police their investigation job would be almost impossible. If absolutely nobody ever talked to the police without legal counsel it would be almost as difficult.
The problem we are currently facing is that the police have largely lost the trust of the public, which of course makes the investigating job harder and tends to drive behaviour that leads to them losing the public's trust even more. Promoting a "don't talk to the police" type of mindset does not address this issue.
Personally I've spoken to the police on a few occasions - getting traffic tickets, reporting stolen items, found items, neighbourhood problems and once as a witness to an attempted bank robbery even. None of these instances seems likely to have placed me in the position of becoming the subject of suspicion - but it is probably is worth remembering to proceed with caution in the future. Additionally, I am not a young visible minority living in a stereotypical high crime area, so I probably have less risk of being in a situation where talking to the police has much risk.
At least post your criminal plans anonymously!
Criminals really are stupid....
Obviously he is aware that the right belongs to...the defendant. Obviously an individual right can have a negative effect on society.
I fail to see where the right to not self-incriminate obviates a net negative effect on society. Please expound.
I suspect that you already know this, but I'll say it anyway because I like to hear myself talk. It makes me feel important.
The fact that you need to use the word "net" in the statement shows that there is some amount of good and some amount of bad that need to be calculated. It is "obviously" bad for society that guilty people sometimes get away with illegal activities (at least I hope it is obvious). It is also bad that innocent people sometimes are convicted of crimes that they did not commit. The "right to silence" makes it easier for the guilty to be acquitted - which is "bad" for society, but at the same time it makes it harder for the innocent to be convicted - which is "good" for society. To decide if the "net" result is good or bad we as a society need to decide what value each of those outcomes are and make a judgement based on that. Unfortunately it is hard to decide how much each of the outcomes is "worth", and then also take into account the larger effects on society that either outcome might have (if EVERYONE is fearful of talking to the police, that is probably a negative outcome for example). All of these calculations have different outcomes depending on time and place (different societies and communities within them can have different values of importance placed on these factors, and different reactions to similar or different situations).
Thus it is possible that having the "right to silence" could have a net negative effect on society. The fact that there are fully functional human societies that do not have this right enshrined in their legal systems should act as a counter example to the extreme position that lack of such a right would be completely catastrophic - but of course none of these societies are the same as the USA in every other respect beyond the "right to silence".
To make a real study for it, we could randomly assign half the counties across the USA to being "5th Amendment Free" zones and see how things work out over a few decades. Maybe we should do the same thing with each of the amendments....
Minimum wage, the least someone can if they consistently show up late or stoned, is now three times higher than the average used to be. (Inflation adjusted of course .)
So yes, a rising tide lifts all ships. Please go talk to an old person, complain to them about not being able to fly first class to the Bahamas during your two weeks of paid vacation and see what they can tell you about life just sixty years ago.
From 60 years ago (1953) to today, I can believe there have been gains at most levels, but the upward trend seems to have peaked around the turn of the century/millennium. The peak median income seems to have been (inflation adjusted) $56,080 in 1999
http://www.davemanuel.com/median-household-income.php
For the last decade and a half it has been dropping, having fallen by more than 10% to $51,017 in in 2012.
Yeah we're better off than grandpa was at this stage of his life, but not so well off as your older cousin was, perhaps. And the trend is not in the right direction. The lower income levels have fared even worse than the median.
The top has done pretty well the whole time however....
Gosh I sound like a whiner self-indulgent liberal socialist or something. I'm probably just mis-interpreting the data and really the middle class is better off earning less money.
I'm more inclined to believe in the second possibility. Social pressure would not permit the former IMO.
"Social" pressure is about right, but "socialist" would be more accurate, you robo-red commie hipster scum. The robot-makers, like the job-creators before them, are the only people who actually contribute to humanity and progress; the rest of you non-robot-owning plebs just sponge off them while you suck up your replicated earl grey tea and tear-ass around the universe in the starships that the robot-makers created for you. Hell, you couldn't even afford your pansy-ass polyester jumpsuits if it weren't for the Stardole: you earn nothing, yet you demand equality with the robot-makers who sustain the Federation.
Thankfully, there will always be a "silent majority" of conservative voters ready to acknowledge the inherent superiority of the robot-makers, despite the fact that the majority of this majority will themselves own no robots, but merely aspire to own robots. The real social pressure of any hierarchical society always comes from the not-quite-upper class, struggling to appear like the upper class.
Ya got that right!
Lastly, we've actually done it, so we know what happens. In 1870, real per capita income in the US was around $4000. In 1900, $6k. In 1940, $8k, 1970 $20k, 2000 $40k. (All figures adjusted for inflation to 1995 dollars).
As society has become more automated, incomes have gone from $4,000 to $40,000. That's historical fact.
Looks good, but you could have that type of shift if everyone's income stayed the same and one person at the top made an obscene amount of money. How has the income distribution shifted? How has the fraction of the population changed below the poverty line? Has the "rising tide" lifted all ships, or just the mega-yatchs?
And I don't think the argument is that there is no disruption. What is being claimed is that there is no overall loss to the economy. A common flawed argument is: "If we let industry die, we're going to lose jobs and dollars from our economy." This argument is flawed for at least two reasons: 1) the money spent on doesn't disappear, it shifts to other sectors of the economy, and the thing that replaces or disrupts creates new and different jobs and opportunities.
The difficulty is that often when a disruption of this nature occurs, the shift tends to favour a select few (the owners of the automated factory for example) rather than a more broad swath of society: everyone gets (slightly) cheaper goods/services, a bunch of people lose their livelihoods, a few people gain new careers, and a very few people get very wealthy. The total economy might be larger, but the wealth has been concentrated.
I don't believe this one bit. A dozen 120 watt panels, at noon, are going to only put out ~1100 watts. If that. Unless she lives in the place a couple hours a day and has the fridge on 50 degrees and never turns on a tv, the a/c, a light bulb or the water heater or oven for that matter, there's no way she's getting 100% of her consumption covered by the panels.
Source: Me. I own a 5.62kw array and know what's up on consumption and production.
Depending on her usage and the type of "net metering" that is going on, she could be selling her electricity at noon for many multiples of what she is paying for electricity at night when she uses the most. With no AC and water heating done by gas, the only major drain during the day would be the fridge.
But maybe the original poster is making the whole thing up. It is true that sunlight on earth is much closer to 1kW/m^2 than it is to 8 W/m^2 though.
Any part or no part of the EM spectrum should be factored by Carnot's - "infrared" is just a few lines on a spectrum rather than anything special.
If I can drive up to the airplane. . .
But you can't do this undetected. The BBC article doesn't explain that this is not over by the terminal. This is the east ramp, where private and small commercial operators are parked. You have to cross a huge open area in order to get to the large commercial planes.
And getting a vehicle that would look legit and legit clothing would do nothing to prevent anyone seeing you from thinking you were up to no good, so we are totally safe! Especially now that you cannot bring your nail clippers or bottled water on board.
I don't doubt that this is not a significant risk, but in comparison to the other risks we are guarding against, this seems at least as "dangerous". And accidentally bringing water on board is nowhere near as dangerous as accidental driving across the runway. There should be a physical barrier preventing "civilians" from accidentally getting onto the taxiway.
Thanks! That makes some sense, though it still seems odd that a car on the GA side can get on to the taxiway and cross a big-jet runway without being stopped by some kind of security ...
Only if you assume the point of airport security is to keep airports secure, and not to keep morons feeling secure in airports. It's an easy mistake to make.
Very good point!
I remain sober as a judge.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4228828/Drunk-judge-suspended-for-kissing-lawyer-and-swearing-in-court.html
You've either said something a) profound or b) drug-induced here.
I'm going with mostly b, not much a.
I concur
The moon has been moving out in its orbit since it was formed - it started out closer and thus visually much larger than the sun, will someday be visually smaller than the sun, and will end up a long time hence completely gone away (like in Space 1999, but that was because of a disaster with stored nuclear waste as I recall). At some point between "bigger" and "smaller" it ends up about the same visual size as the sun. What bearing does this have on evolutionary questions? If you don't believe in the time scales that solar system development are thought to have taken (as your Noah comment would tend to paint you as more of a biblical literalist) than probably we don't have a common basis for understanding.
The tree ring data sounds interesting - I would have thought that there would be not enough data to have any particular conclusion but would be fascinated to see your source. I think a planetary flood within the past 5000 years would leave more obvious physical signs, and having the human population reduced to a handful at that time would have clear and obvious genetic effects. Heck, repopulating the Americas and Australia would be a challenge.