I think its better to have population decline than population increase, as indefinite increase is not possible. You need to stop at some point.
I think its better to have population increase than population decline, as infinite decrease is not possible. You need to stop at some point: when there are no people.
How exactly is that supposed to work? They sell their entire portfolio for cash, and put the cash in a bunch of safe deposit boxes, or hide it under a mattress?
Or maybe just sell it all and buy U.S. Treasuries?
Maybe that's not the phenomenally bad idea it seems to be.
That'd certainly provide one strong incentive to preserve and even improve the U.S. government's credit rating, now wouldn't it?
We haven't. We've only changed the process slightly.
"Vote for me and I'll have the government rob other people to pay for the goodies the government is going to give you. But if you don't vote for me, well, I might not win."
(It also comes in another form: "Vote for me and I'll have the government rob you less than you're being robbed now. But if you don't vote for me, well, I might not win.")
That kind of vote-buying is self-enforcing, to a degree.
And that kind of vote-buying is not stoppable, AFAIK.
Does this mean that a lot of electricity comes from solar?
Or does it mean that solar pwer is a labor-intensive way to get electricity?
Sounds like the latter. Maybe someone who cares more than I do will do the math. The metric we're looking for, I think, is human hours per kilowatt-hour. Or something like that.
Is it true that if there's a law that prohibits people from being paid less than a certain amount, it makes it harder -- impossibly, maybe even -- for them to get jobs?
What an amazing notion. And sort of obvious, in retrospect.
That's why I don't recycle paper, and argue against recycling paper. If it goes into a landfill, the carbon in that cellulose will be kept away from oxygen. Old newspapers found in landfills are almost completely untouched by decomposition.
Specifically, I want names at the St. Louis County Library. A lot of important books get weeded out to make sure there is room for a buzillion copies of the latest Lee Child novel and Star Wars/Trek movie, and such.
If I had a name or two at the StLCoLib, I could given them recommendations for "keepers".
Yeah, I like Lee Child novels and popular movies, and check them out. But having one less copy of "Night School" and one more copy of a book like one of Heinlein's "juveniles" (especially if there are zero now) is a pretty damn good trade-off, IMO. Better to still have a copy of David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" and one fewer copies of that Karl Marx biography (in the "Juveniles" collection, no less!), because Friedman's ideas are on the way in, and Marx's are on the way out. Neither is moving fast enough, IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
Why, you could write a whole book about this. And someone did.
Clayton Christensen. _The Innovator's Dilemma_. http://www.claytonchristensen....
It's been quite a while since I've watched CNN, but that sounds about right.
So, the Russians manipulated US voters by discovering and revealing awful truths about a candidate for president?
Suppose this dastardly deed has been done by -- and I'm being deliberately zany here -- the news media doing their damn job?
Would it have been a bad thing then?
How about if it had happened before that nominee had won the nomination? Would that have been a bad thing or a good thing?
Let's hope next time, the Russians (or whoever does it next time) does it before the nomination.
And they do it to all the despicable candidates of the statutory duopoly parties, rather than just the one.
Please define "engage in diplomacy", if you can.
Please consider the First Amendment when you do it, if you can.
I think its better to have population decline than population increase, as indefinite increase is not possible. You need to stop at some point.
I think its better to have population increase than population decline, as infinite decrease is not possible. You need to stop at some point: when there are no people.
The paper companies will do it for him. (Turns out, they sell paper made from trees. Who knew?)
Let's hope that paper is sequestered in a landfill, keeping the carbon in the cellulose away from oxygen.
But if you don't play you can't lose. FTFY.
How exactly is that supposed to work? They sell their entire portfolio for cash, and put the cash in a bunch of safe deposit boxes, or hide it under a mattress?
Or maybe just sell it all and buy U.S. Treasuries?
Maybe that's not the phenomenally bad idea it seems to be.
That'd certainly provide one strong incentive to preserve and even improve the U.S. government's credit rating, now wouldn't it?
Then how do you circumvent vote buying?
We haven't. We've only changed the process slightly.
"Vote for me and I'll have the government rob other people to pay for the goodies the government is going to give you. But if you don't vote for me, well, I might not win."
(It also comes in another form: "Vote for me and I'll have the government rob you less than you're being robbed now. But if you don't vote for me, well, I might not win.")
That kind of vote-buying is self-enforcing, to a degree.
And that kind of vote-buying is not stoppable, AFAIK.
Yeah. If your situation sucks so bad that an employer as bad as Amazon as described here offers you a job ....
Well, you should take it anyway.
Does this mean that a lot of electricity comes from solar?
Or does it mean that solar pwer is a labor-intensive way to get electricity?
Sounds like the latter. Maybe someone who cares more than I do will do the math. The metric we're looking for, I think, is human hours per kilowatt-hour. Or something like that.
Examples, please.
They are lying cause their boss, who has handpicked them, is a liar and a sociopath.
Making him different how, exactly, from a typical top-level polician?
In order to answer this we need to know which meaning of "should" is intended.
Is this a prediction, made according to theory or experience? Apparently not.
Is this a moral imperative, as in "you should do what you agreed to do"? Apparently not.
Is it in a sentence with an implied clause -- "in order to" -- about something to be attained or avoided? Apparently.
Leaving that up to the reader to fill in makes for a more free-ranging discussion, I suppose.
If you want an actual answer, you should not leave that part out.
Housing and land-use policies make housing unnaturally expensive. A lot of unfortunate things follow from that.
Increasing your household size by 50 or 100%, by having a kid or two, is a lot less practical in such places.
Don't worry, evolution is fixing this issue right now.
Come to think of it, that's the answer to a lot of supposed problems that people worry about for no good reason.
So is Herbert Stein's Law. http://duckduckgo.com/?q=herbe...
If Assange's promise was predicated on Manning being pardoned, he need do nothing to keep that promise.
A commutation is not a pardon. The pardon hasn't happened. Not yet, anyway.
And a certain US Senator.
And her hubby.
Is it true that if there's a law that prohibits people from being paid less than a certain amount, it makes it harder -- impossibly, maybe even -- for them to get jobs?
What an amazing notion. And sort of obvious, in retrospect.
I wonder why no one has ever noticed this before?
Golly!
First vinyl records and tube amps. Then somebody started manufacturing Nixie displays. Now this.
What next? Carburetors? Gold standard? Sock hops? Hoop skirts?
That's why I don't recycle paper, and argue against recycling paper. If it goes into a landfill, the carbon in that cellulose will be kept away from oxygen. Old newspapers found in landfills are almost completely untouched by decomposition.
But to be safe, Russia hedged its bets, and donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Semantics
Yeah. Just the meaning. Nothing important.
Beats reporting things that aren't true, or neglecting to mention important things that are true.
Sad to say, that story raised the average quality of news coverage.
Specifically, I want names at the St. Louis County Library. A lot of important books get weeded out to make sure there is room for a buzillion copies of the latest Lee Child novel and Star Wars/Trek movie, and such.
If I had a name or two at the StLCoLib, I could given them recommendations for "keepers".
Yeah, I like Lee Child novels and popular movies, and check them out. But having one less copy of "Night School" and one more copy of a book like one of Heinlein's "juveniles" (especially if there are zero now) is a pretty damn good trade-off, IMO. Better to still have a copy of David Friedman's "The Machinery of Freedom" and one fewer copies of that Karl Marx biography (in the "Juveniles" collection, no less!), because Friedman's ideas are on the way in, and Marx's are on the way out. Neither is moving fast enough, IMO.
And of course, Get off my lawn!