They do not commit murder in the performance of their duties.
When they commit murder the public gets upset, the city that hires them loses millions, they lose their jobs and sometimes (not often enough) they go to jail.
The situation actually analogous to your situation is if the police murdered a person when told to while undercover. That would be murder.
Police in large scale undercover operations are allowed to consume drugs (they have to report it as soon as possible and get treatment after the undercover operation is over). Vice police are allowed to solicit prostitution. Normal police are not allowed to consume drugs or solicit prostitution. No police are allowed to murder people.
Police are allowed to shoot suspects if they fear for their safety or if the criminal poses a danger to the public.
That's why you see the police saying that the 16 year old kid with a 4" blade who was walking away from them that they shot a full clip into the kid's back made them fear for their safety. Or how the guy tasered and spasming face down on the ground who they shot in the back multiple times (after a traffic stop) made them feel in fear for their life.
Child porn is treated as very evil to ludicrous lengths (i.e. where a person is flagged as a sexual predator for life for having a picture of bart simpson with a fingerlike undetailed cartoon penis). I'm not sure if it is bad as murder.
I'm not sure if they should have been allowed to operate the site for two weeks. It seems dubious to me. It probably depends on if people who were actively hurting children (as opposed to trading old pictures of people who are probably of age now). It's a terrible crime tho so I guess I'd cut them some slack in this case. Sort of a slippery slope tho.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... http://cs.stanford.edu/people/... http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-... McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.
Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:
* The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
* More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
* Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
* Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/... http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-... The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.
Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/... http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-... The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:
"We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment."....
Take their gross revenues and divide by $10. ( about 8 bucks for 2 screen streaming up to a small number at $52 for high bandwidth high disk plans that are probably 1%'ers).
Their gross revenues in 2015 were 1.5 billion. So about 150 million viewers.
Let's see. I've been irritated by the lack of editing (conservatively) fifty to eighty times. No.. really probably over 100 times over the last 6 years. And I can't even quickly post a correction note.
The number of times someone has edited their post to make me look like a troll on ANY SITE that allows edit... is zero times.
What is it with this concern? Did that used to happen somewhere a lot? I've seen that objection before but I've never seen the problem occur.
Usually there is an "edited X times" inline text at sites that allow editing.
If you are really concerned put the changes in colored text. Perhaps indicate how much the article was changed with a percentage.
Include the original text at the bottom of the message in italics.
Basically, I used to refactor constantly whenever I maintained code.
When sarbaynes oxley was passed, every change had to be approved by lower, then mid, then upper management in a series of 6 meetings. Doing anything except exactly the enhancement they wanted was virtually impossible. There is never a good cost/benefit for cleaning code when you think that way. Any change outside exactly what was approved would get you written up.
I went into management. Programming ceased to be engaging. it was easier to argue for code cleanup a couple times a year as a team lead than as a programmer because we had two people saying it would be beneficial.
But...
*Changing non-meaningful variable names acnum to AccountingCustomerNumber This was the number one way I helped other programmer's fix their bugs. I would just ask- what's this- okay rename it. what's that- okay rename it. And after a short time (20? 30?) minutes they would see the bug themselves. After comments like, "Why do I need a long name- we only use this variable a few times.
Refactoring any routine where the actual code was over a page in size into subroutines.
Wow. You know... and I mean this in the nicest way, there are some decaffeinated alternatives that are equally tasty on the market.
The parent poster says that the average millionaire is based on dynastic wealth and it's not true of about 3/4 of millionaires. What he said is true of about 1/4 of millionaires.
About 95 percent of millionaires in America have a net worth of between $1 million and $10 million. https://www.nytimes.com/books/...
A million 1950 dollars is worth $9,847,966.80 today. (CPI calculator)
However, the average wealth (net worth) of the top 1% is 19.1 million dollars. (IRS)
That's the wealthy elite.
4% of americans have a net worth of a million dollars or higher. But 3% of them have small amounts of money compared to the wealthy elite.
People can *easily* have a million dollars for retirement. I did. My mom was a high school drop out. My best income never exceeded low six figures and that only for about 5 years. My net worth is well over a million dollars. I retired at 51.
I think this article is more to the point the pp was trying to make:
Actually the average american has a very good chance of entering the "millionaires" club. All they have to do is work at an average job and save at above average rates while spending at lower than average rates.
But... a million dollars ain't what it used to be. It's only 10 years income for many college degreed jobs (and many non-degreed jobs too).
It's only 20 years pay for a completely average job and most people work 40 years.
And that completely ignores investment growth.
What you probably mean these days is 10million dollars. Very few people have any chance of going from poor to 10 million dollars except one group of the top 1% who occasionally takes all their losses and defer their income in the same year (so they flip flop from 'poor' back to top 1% in the space of one year.)
I'm all for building one (india is working on one).. one! to see if they can be made safe and commercially viable. But, it's not nearly as safe as enthusiasts claim. And because it's not safe, so far it's too expensive to be commercially viable. And while it consumes some radioactive waste, it produces new highly radioactive waste with much longer half lives which must be geologically sequestered for longer than humans have existed as a species.
Peter Karamoskos, 'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'
http://www.nnl.co.uk/assets/_f... A 2010 National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) report concluded the thorium fuel cycle 'does not currently have a role to play in the UK context [and] is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead' â" in short, it concluded, the claims for thorium were 'overstated'.
Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 â" 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.
This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.
Proponents claim that thorium fuel significantly reduces the volume, weight, and long-term radiotoxicity of spent fuel. Using thorium in a nuclear reactor creates radioactive waste that proponents claim would only have to be isolated from the environment for 500 years, as opposed to the irradiated uranium-only fuel that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long-lived fission products like technetium-99 (half-life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository.
If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium-232 is very-long lived (half-life:14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium-232 or thorium-228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium-232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing an amount (mass) of insoluble thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium.
Research and development of thorium fuel has been undertaken in Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the U.S. for more than half a century.
Along these lines, local solar in africa combined with fans and LED provides a much bigger bang for buck (and is less of a target) than any large centralized distribution plant with wires strung all over the country.
Anything done to excess has long term effects. Even playing video games, eating food, even exercise.
The figures for psychological impairment are currently pretty twisted since no real research was permitted for a long time.
For example, only very recently are studies done which show that schizophrenia is genetically linked to higher pot use not the other way around. I.e. people with mental health issue self medicate and use more pot than average.
Pot is illegal where I live and I won't risk a comfy retired life over it. But alcohol is terrible for me and I do like to get mildly intoxicated at parties. It would be much more healthy for me to use pot. Since have tried it and didn't have a strong need for it, I'm willing to risk the very tiny (.11%) risk that it would cause a problem (which will resolve itself 80% of the time- so the serious risk is only ~.03%)
I know people who are high functioning pot users. I haven't known a "loser" pot user since high school. No one I know has ever developed mental problems from pot. One person developed a problem with the fake pot. But it looked like he was smoking a dozen bags a week for several months and smoked over 20 bags the week before he lost it. He did lose it badly (scribbling on the walls about colors). He's 90% recovered and has a job again but will probably never be normal again.
But who knows what they put on illegal pot and in illegal fake pot.
That appeared to be true in 2010 but more recent research has shown the opposite effect may be in play. I.e. classical correlation may not be causation.
People who are at risk of having schizophrenia use more pot. (i.e. the pot isn't causing the psychosis... the oncoming psychosis is causing self medication with pot).
Good point on the bronchitus... as I mentioned, I'd prefer the consumables myself.
A VERY good point that you'll find out there is that as pot use increased in the 60's and 70's, incidence of schizophrenia and psychosis fell in the 70's, 80's and 90s. The reverse should have been true.
Even so (and addressing your point).. based on the old research, experts estimated that pot only increased the incidence of schizophrenia from 1% to 1.11%. Among those, many have mild symptoms.
15% commit suicide within 30 years. So about.15%. Of course, 90%+ of those do not use pot. So 2 million schizophrenia * 15% = 300,000 suicides over 30 years = 30,000 suicides per year *.1 = 3,000 suicides per year you could generously say were related to pot induced schizophrenia.
Weed, especially as a consumable, is healthier than alcohol.
Weed has a LD50 of about 1000 pounds at 50mph. I.e. the only person who was killed by too much pot was transporting a half ton in the back seat and had a wreck and was crushed.
Alcohol raises risk of certain types of cancer by about 40% (from 12/100,000 to 17 or 18/10000). Alcohol reduce risk of certain types of stroke by 40% but raises the risk of fatal strokes.. Alcohol (at 1-3 drinks per day) reduces risk of coronary death (which accounts for 25% of all deaths) compared to both abstainers and heavy drinkers (4+). Alcohol increases risk of damage to the liver in a linear way.
All this is per research over the last decade. If anyone has more current data (2014/15) that contradicts this, then just link it.
It sounds like the risk change is very low to me and you should look at your relatives deaths to see what you are at risk from. In the case of fatal strokes it seems to push forward strokes that would have occurred anyway by 3 to 5 years. -- She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Weed, especially as a consumable, is healthier than alcohol.
Weed has a LD50 of about 1000 pounds at 50mph. I.e. the only person who was killed by too much pot was transporting a half ton in the back seat and had a wreck and was crushed.
Alcohol raises risk of certain types of cancer by about 40% (from 12/100,000 to 17 or 18/10000). Alcohol reduce risk of certain types of stroke by 40% but raises the risk of fatal strokes.. Alcohol (at 1-3 drinks per day) reduces risk of coronary death (which accounts for 25% of all deaths) compared to both abstainers and heavy drinkers (4+). Alcohol increases risk of damage to the liver in a linear way.
All this is per research over the last decade. If anyone has more current data (2014/15) that contradicts this, then just link it.
It sounds like the risk change is very low to me and you should look at your relatives deaths to see what you are at risk from. In the case of fatal strokes it seems to push forward strokes that would have occurred anyway by 3 to 5 years.
And the three times that he mind controlled the queen or her captain to say things.
I mean... that's right out there on the screen.
let's see....
About 120 seconds for major hand waving mind control. * Boss Nas says Jar Jar should go with the Jedi as a guide (with massive handcuffed handwaving by Jar jar) * Promotion to General by the guy who's yacht he destroyed. * Promotion to Senate * Convincing the entire senate to vote down democracy and give all power to Palpatine
Maybe 25 seconds for force leaps (including the bridge ambush) * The "In your face jedi's" jump in the water complete with somersault at the top (which no other gungun is ever observed doing). * The "I'm on the right... oh wait, I'm really on the left you stupid droids" patented Luke/Obiwan fake fall/force bounce at the bridge ambush queen rescue. * Various arbitrary leaps during the battle onto tanks and so on.
About 20 seconds for mind control voicing. * "The queen wishes it... she's curious about the plan" * "The queen will not approve"... Q: She doesn't need to know... "Well, I don't approve"
About 45 seconds of various other mind control The Bigger Fish The evil Pod Racer ( 2 seconds but so obvious on slow mo it's incredible. easy to miss otherwise) Weesa Warrior...we got Grand Army hand waving behind queens back....she decides to return to Nabboo.
Maybe another 35 seconds of scenes where it's obvious he's either sensing other force users or knows what's going to happen. * Going to meet Obiwan and Quigon at the elevaor... waiting for door to open.. then being "suprised" to see them.
So...3m:25s for Jar Jar.
George Lucas created a legendary character Using an ancient mythological Storytelling tradition
In which a "master wizard" is someone least expected. - (Tim Swan)
--- "Looking....he he... found someone I would say.. me he he ha ha he"
Luke: "Right" (skeptically)
Help you I can...mmm.. yes.
Luke: I don't think so. I'm looking for a great warrior.
"Oh... ho hoe he he... great warrior... mm hehehe ho... the force not make one great..."
---
All we lacked was the reveal... which lucas saved for the second film. And he wrote it out after the racism scandal and pressing financial needs (from his divorce) left Lucas vulnerable to merchandising financial pressures such that he gave up his vision and simply wrote for the masses. The working title for the second movie was "Jar Jar's Great Adventure".
Was Jar Jar a sith? (The red skin vs all the other yellowish and greenish gungan's is interesting and yellow sith eyes are easy to hide in a race with naturally yellow eyes). And if he was... was he a survivor from the time of Darth Bane... predating the rule of two? Someone so good at hiding that he avoided the fratricidal slaughter the other sith engaged in?
We know lucas was a fan of martial arts films. Was Jar Jar the monkey god? There are also some indications he might have paralleled the "Mule" from the foundation serious by asimov.
A cinematic analysis showed that George chose to protray Jar Jar as always encroaching on Qui Gon's third of the frame. He wasn't framed as a comedic character. And that smile at the Qui Gon's funeral while standing next to palpatine was pretty chilling. I would have liked to have seen the only non-stupid sith lord in the last 1,000 years to have talked to Yoda before they fought (drunken fist vs whatever the hell yoda was doing). And I would have liked to have seen Jar Jar escape. It's interesting despite his power (using the force on and in front of "master" jedi who were maybe 40 years old) he stayed in the background and manipulated things. Was he the real father of Anakin... responsible for the "virgin" birth?
Could the Jedi have been more wrong about how "balancing" the force was going to play out for them. Hmmm. We have 2 sith lords and a couple thousand Jedi. Let
Donald trump has alienated enough voters that he's unelectable. And he's actually motivating democrats to vote (and vote against him) which is an important factor in the next race.
fwiw, I considered Hillary Clinton unelectable. The republicans have had to work hard to get so far to the right that she's a plausible candidate. It's very rare to get three presidents from the same party in a row.
I've seen the exact opposite. Where the people who had key skills worked 40 hours a week and were retained while those who worked 60-70 hours a week but who lacked key skills were let go.
And in many cases, no one had any control over whether they obtained a key skill or not. It was almost random.
The 70 year old guy that supported the obsolete system was retained. The 35 year old guy who had solid skills but who could be replaced by an indian was let go. The daughter of the senior director who was pretty useless was retained. The guy who did great work and put in long hours on holidays and weekends but who pissed off a director the prior year was let go.
Okay, I'll grant that a couple obvious stubborn people who really lacked any skills were let go so if you are an actively bad employee then you were probably toast.
The department went from 70% male / 30 % female to 50% male/50% female... so bringing into gender balance was probably part of the equation too. But the team leaders went from 70% female/30% male to 80% female/20% male... but they needed to promote females to bring the upper levels into balance (the VP level was 7male, 1 female and the ceo, cio, and coo were all 50+ year old white males).
Working hard must help some. If the manager likes you. If you work hard and the manager doesn't obviously like you- it's pointless. If another person is getting the plum assignments and you are getting the dead technology assignments- then working hard is just dumb. You should go work somewhere else.
And if Infosys or some other large indian house is brought in to "help" you or "partner" with you and you are asked to document your job- you should immediately find employment elsewhere. It always ends badly and (as in 90% staff layoffs).
Slashdot Mirror
They do not commit murder in the performance of their duties.
When they commit murder the public gets upset, the city that hires them loses millions, they lose their jobs and sometimes (not often enough) they go to jail.
The situation actually analogous to your situation is if the police murdered a person when told to while undercover. That would be murder.
Police in large scale undercover operations are allowed to consume drugs (they have to report it as soon as possible and get treatment after the undercover operation is over). Vice police are allowed to solicit prostitution. Normal police are not allowed to consume drugs or solicit prostitution. No police are allowed to murder people.
Police are allowed to shoot suspects if they fear for their safety or if the criminal poses a danger to the public.
That's why you see the police saying that the 16 year old kid with a 4" blade who was walking away from them that they shot a full clip into the kid's back made them fear for their safety. Or how the guy tasered and spasming face down on the ground who they shot in the back multiple times (after a traffic stop) made them feel in fear for their life.
Child porn is treated as very evil to ludicrous lengths (i.e. where a person is flagged as a sexual predator for life for having a picture of bart simpson with a fingerlike undetailed cartoon penis). I'm not sure if it is bad as murder.
I'm not sure if they should have been allowed to operate the site for two weeks. It seems dubious to me. It probably depends on if people who were actively hurting children (as opposed to trading old pictures of people who are probably of age now). It's a terrible crime tho so I guess I'd cut them some slack in this case. Sort of a slippery slope tho.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Ohio statute that prohibits anonymous political or campaign literature is unconstitutional. Writing for the Court, Justice Stevens asserted that such action is protected by the First Amendment, and therefore violated the constitutional principle of freedom of speech.
Mrs. McIntyre was fined $100 dollars for distributing anonymous election materials against a levy tax. In the case the Ohio Election commission vs McIntyre, the federal supreme court overturned the fine because:
* The decision in favor of anonymity may be motivated by fear of economic or official retaliation, by concern about social ostracism, or merely by a desire to preserve as much of one's privacy as possible.
* More-over, in the case of a handbill written by a private citizen who is not known to the recipient, the name and address of the author adds little, if anything, to the reader's ability to evaluate the document's message.
* Thus, Ohio's informational interest is plainly insufficient to support the constitutionality of its disclosure require-ment.
* Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Doe v. Cahill represented another victory for the protection of free anonymous speech on the internet. The precedent was notably applied in Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe in 2007[6] and still serves as the standard for anonymous internet speech and defamation "in the context of a case involving political criticism of a public figure."[2]
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The 1960 case Talley v California , was the first major win for anonymous speech advocates. Mr.Talley was arrested for distributing a handbill that was calling for a boycott of certain businesses in the area because the businesses did not hire minorities.
Justice Black reason for repealing the Los Angeles Ordinance was:
"Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all."
http://cs.stanford.edu/people/...
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-...
The final watershed case on this topic is NAACP v Alabama . The issue was whether the NAACP had to give a list of its members to the State of Alabama before it could operate there. In the end, the NAACP was not required to give a list of its members because:
"We hold that the immunity from state scrutiny of membership lists which the Association claims on behalf of its members is here so related to the right of the members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in so doing as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment." ....
Next!
This says 69 million subscribers worldwide.
http://www.statista.com/chart/...
So I was off by about 40 million high and yours is off by about 15 million lower.
Your estimate is much closer! On the Price is Right, you'd get the free Netflix Subscription.
Take their gross revenues and divide by $10. ( about 8 bucks for 2 screen streaming up to a small number at $52 for high bandwidth high disk plans that are probably 1%'ers).
Their gross revenues in 2015 were 1.5 billion.
So about 150 million viewers.
Let's see. I've been irritated by the lack of editing (conservatively) fifty to eighty times. No.. really probably over 100 times over the last 6 years. And I can't even quickly post a correction note.
The number of times someone has edited their post to make me look like a troll on ANY SITE that allows edit... is zero times.
What is it with this concern? Did that used to happen somewhere a lot? I've seen that objection before but I've never seen the problem occur.
Usually there is an "edited X times" inline text at sites that allow editing.
If you are really concerned put the changes in colored text. Perhaps indicate how much the article was changed with a percentage.
Include the original text at the bottom of the message in italics.
I hate the current system.
Agree entirely. I've used timed editing systems elsewhere and any reasonable window makes a huge difference. 10 to 15 minutes is fine.
The current system is stupid and irritating.
So you are saying there won't be a final solution?
Basically, I used to refactor constantly whenever I maintained code.
When sarbaynes oxley was passed, every change had to be approved by lower, then mid, then upper management in a series of 6 meetings. Doing anything except exactly the enhancement they wanted was virtually impossible. There is never a good cost/benefit for cleaning code when you think that way. Any change outside exactly what was approved would get you written up.
I went into management. Programming ceased to be engaging. it was easier to argue for code cleanup a couple times a year as a team lead than as a programmer because we had two people saying it would be beneficial.
But...
*Changing non-meaningful variable names
acnum to AccountingCustomerNumber
This was the number one way I helped other programmer's fix their bugs. I would just ask- what's this- okay rename it. what's that- okay rename it. And after a short time (20? 30?) minutes they would see the bug themselves. After comments like, "Why do I need a long name- we only use this variable a few times.
Refactoring any routine where the actual code was over a page in size into subroutines.
Running performance tools to locate "hot spots".
Wow. You know... and I mean this in the nicest way, there are some decaffeinated alternatives that are equally tasty on the market.
The parent poster says that the average millionaire is based on dynastic wealth and it's not true of about 3/4 of millionaires. What he said is true of about 1/4 of millionaires.
About 95 percent of millionaires in America have a net worth of between $1 million and $10 million.
https://www.nytimes.com/books/...
A million 1950 dollars is worth $9,847,966.80 today. (CPI calculator)
However, the average wealth (net worth) of the top 1% is 19.1 million dollars. (IRS)
That's the wealthy elite.
4% of americans have a net worth of a million dollars or higher. But 3% of them have small amounts of money compared to the wealthy elite.
People can *easily* have a million dollars for retirement. I did. My mom was a high school drop out. My best income never exceeded low six figures and that only for about 5 years. My net worth is well over a million dollars. I retired at 51.
I think this article is more to the point the pp was trying to make:
http://inequality.org/selfmade...
I think he set the bar too low on wealth. That was my entire point.
It was not my intent to piss in his or your cheerios so take a chill pill.
Actually the average american has a very good chance of entering the "millionaires" club. All they have to do is work at an average job and save at above average rates while spending at lower than average rates.
But... a million dollars ain't what it used to be. It's only 10 years income for many college degreed jobs (and many non-degreed jobs too).
It's only 20 years pay for a completely average job and most people work 40 years.
And that completely ignores investment growth.
What you probably mean these days is 10million dollars. Very few people have any chance of going from poor to 10 million dollars except one group of the top 1% who occasionally takes all their losses and defer their income in the same year (so they flip flop from 'poor' back to top 1% in the space of one year.)
We had to work 29 hours a day and pay for permission and crawl across a field of broken glass to get in the back door to work...
But you tell the young folks that and they'll never believe you.
This would be like passing a law you can't look at the accident for an hour after it happens.
This is illegal and won't pass a trivial constitutional test.
Can I keep it?
I'm all for building one (india is working on one) .. one! to see if they can be made safe and commercially viable. But, it's not nearly as safe as enthusiasts claim. And because it's not safe, so far it's too expensive to be commercially viable. And while it consumes some radioactive waste, it produces new highly radioactive waste with much longer half lives which must be geologically sequestered for longer than humans have existed as a species.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...
Peter Karamoskos,
'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'
http://www.nnl.co.uk/assets/_f...
A 2010 National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) report concluded the thorium fuel cycle 'does not currently have a role to play in the UK context [and] is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead' â" in short, it concluded, the claims for thorium were 'overstated'.
Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 â" 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.
This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.
More here:
http://cleantechnica.com/2012/...
Proponents claim that thorium fuel significantly reduces the volume, weight, and long-term radiotoxicity of spent fuel. Using thorium in a nuclear reactor creates radioactive waste that proponents claim would only have to be isolated from the environment for 500 years, as opposed to the irradiated uranium-only fuel that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long-lived fission products like technetium-99 (half-life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository.
If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium-232 is very-long lived (half-life:14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium-232 or thorium-228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium-232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing an amount (mass) of insoluble thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium.
Research and development of thorium fuel has been undertaken in Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the U.S. for more than half a century.
Along these lines, local solar in africa combined with fans and LED provides a much bigger bang for buck (and is less of a target) than any large centralized distribution plant with wires strung all over the country.
Anything done to excess has long term effects. Even playing video games, eating food, even exercise.
The figures for psychological impairment are currently pretty twisted since no real research was permitted for a long time.
For example, only very recently are studies done which show that schizophrenia is genetically linked to higher pot use not the other way around. I.e. people with mental health issue self medicate and use more pot than average.
Pot is illegal where I live and I won't risk a comfy retired life over it. But alcohol is terrible for me and I do like to get mildly intoxicated at parties. It would be much more healthy for me to use pot. Since have tried it and didn't have a strong need for it, I'm willing to risk the very tiny (.11%) risk that it would cause a problem (which will resolve itself 80% of the time- so the serious risk is only ~.03%)
I know people who are high functioning pot users. I haven't known a "loser" pot user since high school. No one I know has ever developed mental problems from pot. One person developed a problem with the fake pot. But it looked like he was smoking a dozen bags a week for several months and smoked over 20 bags the week before he lost it. He did lose it badly (scribbling on the walls about colors). He's 90% recovered and has a job again but will probably never be normal again.
But who knows what they put on illegal pot and in illegal fake pot.
That appeared to be true in 2010 but more recent research has shown the opposite effect may be in play. I.e. classical correlation may not be causation.
People who are at risk of having schizophrenia use more pot. (i.e. the pot isn't causing the psychosis... the oncoming psychosis is causing self medication with pot).
Good point on the bronchitus... as I mentioned, I'd prefer the consumables myself.
A VERY good point that you'll find out there is that as pot use increased in the 60's and 70's, incidence of schizophrenia and psychosis fell in the 70's, 80's and 90s. The reverse should have been true.
Even so (and addressing your point).. based on the old research, experts estimated that pot only increased the incidence of schizophrenia from 1% to 1.11%. Among those, many have mild symptoms.
http://www.schizophrenia.com/s...
15% commit suicide within 30 years. So about .15%. Of course, 90%+ of those do not use pot. So 2 million schizophrenia * 15% = 300,000 suicides over 30 years = 30,000 suicides per year * .1 = 3,000 suicides per year you could generously say were related to pot induced schizophrenia.
Thoughts?
Weed, especially as a consumable, is healthier than alcohol.
Weed has a LD50 of about 1000 pounds at 50mph. I.e. the only person who was killed by too much pot was transporting a half ton in the back seat and had a wreck and was crushed.
Alcohol raises risk of certain types of cancer by about 40% (from 12/100,000 to 17 or 18/10000).
Alcohol reduce risk of certain types of stroke by 40% but raises the risk of fatal strokes..
Alcohol (at 1-3 drinks per day) reduces risk of coronary death (which accounts for 25% of all deaths) compared to both abstainers and heavy drinkers (4+).
Alcohol increases risk of damage to the liver in a linear way.
All this is per research over the last decade. If anyone has more current data (2014/15) that contradicts this, then just link it.
It sounds like the risk change is very low to me and you should look at your relatives deaths to see what you are at risk from.
In the case of fatal strokes it seems to push forward strokes that would have occurred anyway by 3 to 5 years.
--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Weed, especially as a consumable, is healthier than alcohol.
Weed has a LD50 of about 1000 pounds at 50mph. I.e. the only person who was killed by too much pot was transporting a half ton in the back seat and had a wreck and was crushed.
Alcohol raises risk of certain types of cancer by about 40% (from 12/100,000 to 17 or 18/10000).
Alcohol reduce risk of certain types of stroke by 40% but raises the risk of fatal strokes..
Alcohol (at 1-3 drinks per day) reduces risk of coronary death (which accounts for 25% of all deaths) compared to both abstainers and heavy drinkers (4+).
Alcohol increases risk of damage to the liver in a linear way.
All this is per research over the last decade. If anyone has more current data (2014/15) that contradicts this, then just link it.
It sounds like the risk change is very low to me and you should look at your relatives deaths to see what you are at risk from.
In the case of fatal strokes it seems to push forward strokes that would have occurred anyway by 3 to 5 years.
I wonder if yoda would have been as hated if he had acted like a doddering child/idiot for two movies while taking in a racist accent.
But yea... I'm pretty sure Disney is going to go full corporate on it and not allow anything creative and awesome like this to see the screen.
You know what they night do... and what would be awesome... would be if they dropped some hints (and never a reveal) in the 2nd and 3rd movies.
Perhaps speculation by the Jedi that something "unseen" and menacing is behind the visible villain (snope/skope/bah! you know who I mean! lol)
And the three times that he mind controlled the queen or her captain to say things.
I mean... that's right out there on the screen.
let's see....
About 120 seconds for major hand waving mind control.
* Boss Nas says Jar Jar should go with the Jedi as a guide (with massive handcuffed handwaving by Jar jar)
* Promotion to General by the guy who's yacht he destroyed.
* Promotion to Senate
* Convincing the entire senate to vote down democracy and give all power to Palpatine
Maybe 25 seconds for force leaps (including the bridge ambush)
* The "In your face jedi's" jump in the water complete with somersault at the top (which no other gungun is ever observed doing).
* The "I'm on the right... oh wait, I'm really on the left you stupid droids" patented Luke/Obiwan fake fall/force bounce at the bridge ambush queen rescue.
* Various arbitrary leaps during the battle onto tanks and so on.
About 20 seconds for mind control voicing.
* "The queen wishes it... she's curious about the plan"
* "The queen will not approve"... Q: She doesn't need to know... "Well, I don't approve"
About 45 seconds of various other mind control
The Bigger Fish
The evil Pod Racer ( 2 seconds but so obvious on slow mo it's incredible. easy to miss otherwise)
Weesa Warrior...we got Grand Army hand waving behind queens back....she decides to return to Nabboo.
Maybe another 35 seconds of scenes where it's obvious he's either sensing other force users or knows what's going to happen.
* Going to meet Obiwan and Quigon at the elevaor... waiting for door to open.. then being "suprised" to see them.
So...3m:25s for Jar Jar.
George Lucas created a legendary character
Using an ancient mythological
Storytelling tradition
In which a "master wizard" is someone
least expected. - (Tim Swan)
---
"Looking....he he... found someone I would say.. me he he ha ha he"
Luke: "Right" (skeptically)
Help you I can...mmm.. yes.
Luke: I don't think so. I'm looking for a great warrior.
"Oh... ho hoe he he ... great warrior ... mm hehehe ho ... the force not make one great..."
---
All we lacked was the reveal... which lucas saved for the second film. And he wrote it out after the racism scandal and pressing financial needs (from his divorce) left Lucas vulnerable to merchandising financial pressures such that he gave up his vision and simply wrote for the masses. The working title for the second movie was "Jar Jar's Great Adventure".
Was Jar Jar a sith? (The red skin vs all the other yellowish and greenish gungan's is interesting and yellow sith eyes are easy to hide in a race with naturally yellow eyes). And if he was... was he a survivor from the time of Darth Bane... predating the rule of two? Someone so good at hiding that he avoided the fratricidal slaughter the other sith engaged in?
We know lucas was a fan of martial arts films. Was Jar Jar the monkey god? There are also some indications he might have paralleled the "Mule" from the foundation serious by asimov.
A cinematic analysis showed that George chose to protray Jar Jar as always encroaching on Qui Gon's third of the frame. He wasn't framed as a comedic character. And that smile at the Qui Gon's funeral while standing next to palpatine was pretty chilling. I would have liked to have seen the only non-stupid sith lord in the last 1,000 years to have talked to Yoda before they fought (drunken fist vs whatever the hell yoda was doing). And I would have liked to have seen Jar Jar escape. It's interesting despite his power (using the force on and in front of "master" jedi who were maybe 40 years old) he stayed in the background and manipulated things. Was he the real father of Anakin... responsible for the "virgin" birth?
Could the Jedi have been more wrong about how "balancing" the force was going to play out for them. Hmmm. We have 2 sith lords and a couple thousand Jedi. Let
Something is wrong with you people!
Only if they understand robot nullification.
Donald trump has alienated enough voters that he's unelectable. And he's actually motivating democrats to vote (and vote against him) which is an important factor in the next race.
Good analysis here
http://thehill.com/blogs/congr...
fwiw, I considered Hillary Clinton unelectable. The republicans have had to work hard to get so far to the right that she's a plausible candidate. It's very rare to get three presidents from the same party in a row.
I've seen the exact opposite. Where the people who had key skills worked 40 hours a week and were retained while those who worked 60-70 hours a week but who lacked key skills were let go.
And in many cases, no one had any control over whether they obtained a key skill or not. It was almost random.
The 70 year old guy that supported the obsolete system was retained. The 35 year old guy who had solid skills but who could be replaced by an indian was let go. The daughter of the senior director who was pretty useless was retained. The guy who did great work and put in long hours on holidays and weekends but who pissed off a director the prior year was let go.
Okay, I'll grant that a couple obvious stubborn people who really lacked any skills were let go so if you are an actively bad employee then you were probably toast.
The department went from 70% male / 30 % female to 50% male/50% female... so bringing into gender balance was probably part of the equation too.
But the team leaders went from 70% female/30% male to 80% female/20% male... but they needed to promote females to bring the upper levels into balance (the VP level was 7male, 1 female and the ceo, cio, and coo were all 50+ year old white males).
Working hard must help some. If the manager likes you. If you work hard and the manager doesn't obviously like you- it's pointless. If another person is getting the plum assignments and you are getting the dead technology assignments- then working hard is just dumb. You should go work somewhere else.
And if Infosys or some other large indian house is brought in to "help" you or "partner" with you and you are asked to document your job- you should immediately find employment elsewhere. It always ends badly and (as in 90% staff layoffs).