I don't mean to imply that we should be subsidizing private insurance. I mean that in our current situation, this is how it is being handled. Those individuals who are either priced out or barred from private insurance fall to the government for help through one of our many socialized assistance plans. I agree with you fully on the single large pool though. The creation of multiple pools elevates the risk cost of the pools and the profit margins on all pools. It isn't done for consumers, it's done for execs looking to cash in on multi-million dollar salaries.
On a forward looking though, I could definately see a strong push towards either a single payer system, a federal insurance program (manditory universal coverage like you mention), or even a 'medicare for all' eligability option. The current system sucks wind from the economy 2nd only to dependency on petrol fuels.
I would not conflate the health care situation with all other industries though. And even in the health care arena, there will be those docs who perform their duties at the defined rate of the universal coverage system, and there will be those that opt out of that system, or take additional independent work either for services not covered by the universal plan or as a higher price point for individuals who want a different relationship or higher quality of care.
There will always be a free market segment in virtually every industry. It is not the duty of the government to stamp this out, but to ensure for those industries that society has deemed critical and manditory, that all individuals have a minimum level of service that society is willing to accept, especially those that are not able to partake in the free market segment.
You can run a private school for selective students at a profit. You can NOT educate EVERY minor in the country to an expected 12th grade level for a profit. There for, while some private institutes can run their for profit model schools, the government must pick up the responsibility for all others.
Arguably similar to health care. Where private institutes can maintain a for-profit model, they do. For individuals they choose not to provide service to (via pricing or denial) it falls to the government to cover. Be it through Medicare/Medicaid, socialized plans, single payer, healthy start, etc...
I'm no fan of the insurance industry, I mean, they turn a profit on missery. But I'm not willing to say that there is no room for private health care or insurance in the future of our economy.
Selective schools serving only rich clientel have absolutely been profitable. But that's not the desired outcome. The socially accepted goal is to have EVERY kid get a highschool education, and THAT is not profitable, but it does generate a huge amount of growth and innovation for the economy. In and of itself, not profitable, but on the big picture it is hugely profitable. Its just that those profits are not realisable by any single entity, except for the government which sees an increase in tax revenue due to the resulting economic growth.
And you are also correct, for-profit Armies have always existed. And they often enough did so by means of looting and plundering their wins. They are profitable now only because the government funds them, and the government is thus providing the non-profitable service. Making war, in and of itself does not generate profit. Consumption does. So governments make war, private entities make bullets.
I left health, and a large number of other things out of my non-exhaustive list. Thus the reason for the word "etc..." I do not have the time nor knowledge to enumerate all aspects of life that I think would be better served by government management. Health care is definately an industry I'd like to see the feds take a stronger roll in. Even if it's something as simple as 'Medicare for all'. But that is one huuuuuuuuuuuge debate with a whole lot of intricacies.
The trade off is not everyone is going to be able to afford them and some see this as 'not fair' which is complete hooey.
It's not about fairness, it's about innovation and economic strength. The US became the world dominating power it is largely through the technological leadership we showed coming out of WWII. That technological leadership was fueled by the largest surge in college attendence ever. Thanks to a large degree the G.I. Bill sending all of the returning soldiers off to college.
You are right, if we went to a full privatized education system, we would have some number of kids who just wouldn't have the opportunity to become educated. I would highly recommend you travel out of the US some time. I'm down in Brazil right now, where that exact situation is true. The slums here are unbelievable. There is virtually no chance for youth to escape them either, as there is no opportunity for education, and with out an education their job prospects are largely centered around picking up litter and meanial labor.
Now which economy do you see as being stronger over the long term? The US's, that has been the world's leading economy for over 50 years, or Brazil, which has such a high level of poverty that most apartment buildings and hotels have stone walls topped with electric fences and guards posted at all hours?
This can rather easily be seen by the current college bubble, just because you have an education does not mean you get a job and are better off, or that you are qualified, or smart, an education is certainly an indicator of such, but by no means an guarantee.
Dude, unemployment in the construction industry got up to almost 50%. Manufacturing is still pushing 20%+. Mean while, unemployment in the IT industry is under 5%. Unemployment in skilled services (lawyers, docs, nurses, engineers) is all under 7%. Having a college degree might not guarantee you a job, but NOT having a degree is pretty much a death sentence to gainful employment these days.
In and of themselfs, yes. But energy density and storage system mass are critical issues facing transportion fueling. I'd love to see more advances in batteries and super-capacitors, but if we can get more energy density out of hydrogen, it can very likely be more efficient in transportation.
You can get as much energy is contained in a tank of gas in batteries, you just need a flat bed truck to carry them all.
Keep advancing both IMO, and lets see what we can come up with:)
If the government is doing something profitable, they shouldn't be doing it. With all likelihood, if something is profitable, a guided free market should be able to manage it much more efficiently.
The government's duty is to perform services that are by their very nature not profitable. Public schools, police, fire, national defense, etc... it there isn't a profitable model that can provide these services at the level we expect, the it is up to the government to suplement or perform those services.
If the government is turning a profit, it's either doing something wrong, or doing something that someone else should be doing instead.
All of your options would have alternative repercussions on the industry. Reduced demand/revenue would very likely alter R&D budgets. Transportation in cold weather climates would be crippled in the transition period, significantly effecting cost of living and economic growth.
The free market is always the best way, with limited government intervention to prevent corporate monopolies, and abuse.
Which is to say: The free market is seldom the best way. The free market, by it's very nature promotes exploitation, monopolies, and abuse, and with the power that is granted through it: more power over the government.
I'm not saying the "free market" is good. I'm just saying it's not any better than "communism". Let's take the elements of it that work, and leave the drama behind.
Not true. In a standard automobile, the amount of energy used for transportation is in the low double digits (~15-20% IIRC). In a power/fractionationt plant, the amount of energy used for for cracking hydrogen is likely double, if not more, than that.
The amount of hydrogen that can be created centrally, distributed, and used in a vehicle results in more distance covered than using the crude oil equivilant energy.
It's all about removing waste and economies of scale. We don't have significant emission scrubbers on our vehicles, we have radiators that's only purpose is to distribute waste heat, we have clutches, CV joints, and bearings that all add to friction loss, we have wind resistance and bad driving habits, traffic jams and altitude changes. Rolling resistance, temperature variations, non-movement base energy consumption, etc...
A central power/hydrogen generation structure has none of these. They have a fuel burning system that attempts to capture as much heat as possible to boil water to turn a turbin which turns a generator. Far fewer moving parts, all runing at the exactly controlled optimum rates, with an exhaust system that is regulated and can be scrubbed/recycled through algae farms.
Switching to fuel cell technologies with full electric vehicles gets rid of a whole lot of moving parts and greatly improves that efficiency percent. Couple that with the fact that any new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will be newly produced with the latest advances in efficiency, instead of continuing to drive dated poorly performing vehicles, and it's pretty clear: a hydrogen economy would be vastly more efficient than our current hydrocarbon economy.
"Fleet" refers to all light duty vehicles in this case. Their produced cars must have a combined average MPG rating of 54.5 MPG.
That means that if they make 100,000 compact sedans that pull 70 MPG, they can build 10,000 SUV/Trucks that get 15-20 MPG.
It also means that if they get exemptions for trucks/SUVs, that it will be largely meaningless. Or if they can get full electrics to count at 100MPG. The Fleet average is a good measure, but special interests have some amazing power of ensuring it doesn't actually effect what the companies are producing.
Actually, diesel engines are pretty fine with Sulfur. In 2007 you couldn't by a Diesel because of emissions and fuel incompatabilities.
The problem is the fuel switch from LSD to ULSD came after the emissions regulation change. Those stand for "Low Sulfur Diesel" and "Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel". Your emissions will likely suck, but the engine will run just fine on it.
Not that I'd recommend such things. We have a number of soy/bio Diesel offering stores in the area that sell fully taxed options;)
I paid $21.5k for my 06 VW TDi Golf. At the same time the same model with the eco 4 cylinder gas engine was selling for just a hair over $19k.
I get 45 miles per gallon, and I drive like my feet are made of led. I put 40 miles of interstate driving on to my car twice every day. Toss in a few random arrands and I'm easily doing 350+ miles per week. But I usually get 650-700 miles per tank. Only having to fill up every other week really takes the edge off of fuel price hikes. I bumped into a hyper miler last summer in an 06 Jetta TDi (sedan version of the Golf) he was getting 56mpg, and he was going to swap his 5th gear for a higher ratio and was projecting 60+ mpg.
In 2010, my wife's car died. So we figured we'd get her a new one in the cash-for-clunkers deal. Only I wasn't about to shell out $500+ in car payments. So we went to the bank to see about refinancing the Golf. That's right, a CAR with enough equity to be able to refinance. With 40k miles and 4 years on it, it still blue booked for $17k. Compared to the gas version that had a KBB value in the $10-12k range.
So yeah, the Diesel engine costs more. But if you intent on reselling your car in 5 years or so, you'll come out up on the deal. And if you don't intend to sell it, you'll come out ahead on fuel savings over the life of the car.
Really, if you look at the inflation rate the $15 I've been paying for 2-disk service for the last 5 years the price should be up to about $18+ right now. So yeah, they bumped it to $20, a buck an change over the inflation rate, and if they aren't going to increase it again for another 5 years, I'll still be paying less than I was when it started.
This is a whole lot of outrage about nothing. I love how people cry "60%!!!!1!1!eleventyone!!" when we're talking about $4. My cable compay was rasing my rate every year by $10. You could sign up and get a discounted rate for a year, then they would raise your rate $50 at the end of the discounted year, and you would have to call up and bitch at them so they would put you into the NEW discount rate for a year that is $10 over your previous discount rate. Ingenious. I dropped them after my last rate hike, I called their sales line and said, "I have $100 to spend on internet and cable TV, what can you do?" And they had no offers that would meet those requirements. So I switched to AT&T DSL for $45/month and Netflix for $15 a month. Speaking of which, I should go bitch at AT&T and see if I can get a discounted rate again.
Definition of "consume": to destroy or expend by use; use up.
When you watch a DVD, or listen to an MP3, you are not destroying it. You are not consuming its value. You can listen to it again, you can play it for friends, and in another 75-125 years it might even enter the public domain and you can mass produce it.
My appoologies. I did not mean to say that YOU were ignorant, but that someone who says "Just impliment SAP" like it's a magic switch of money savings is ignorant. I should have been more clear about that, sorry.
We are implementing, but like so many poorly implemented solutions I've experienced in the past, the steering commitee is trying to adapt SAP to the business instead of having the business adopt SAP practices. And as you have likely experienced, that's a train wreck in the making.
That's why I get for typing with out a spell checker;)
Thank you for insulting my time in the service protecting your basement dwelling mama boy's ass because I misspelled a word though, I really appreciate that. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find plenty of other vets to pick on for assorted short comings as well.
And yes, I have shot a rifle before. I shot high expert 3 of my 4 trips to the range. Including a possible with an alibi at the 300 meter rapid fire and going 10/10 at the 500 meter line on my final qual.
That kind of "He's got it so I want it too" attitude is a huge reason for that growth in government.
I would also strongly disagree with this statement.
We have air support. But our air support is geared around infantry support. We have significant rotary wing and close air support tools. The Airforce is significantly more wrapped up in bombing and pin point strikes. You don't have Air Force pilots swooping down to cover troup advances. The Navy does some bombing, and is also concerned primarily with ship defense. A lot more air-to-air gearing to ensure that anyone trying to take a payload to a ship isn't going to succeed. Again, not a whole lot of infantry support going on.
It isn't that the Marines see something the Army/Airforce/Navy has and says "I want it too!" The Marines have a very specific scope of engagements, and they argue to get funding for the best tools to support those engagements. And with their position as a dept of the Navy, they typically do so on a shoe string budget compared to the Army and Airforce's spending.
You want to talk about "I want it too!" spending, look at the Army, Navy, and Airforces' investments into lazers, rail guns, vector exhaust fighter jets, etc... The Marines got 2 expensive toys designed around their missions: the Harrier and the Ospray. Arguably the Ospray probably should have been scrapped, but it does represent a huge improvement in deployment speed over the fleet of Vietnam era CH-46's that we've been using for the last 40 years.
Traditionally, the Navy provided whatever support Marines needed. But in today's environment, the Marines get their own programmers, cooks, accountants, etc, simply so they can be more "independent" from the Navy
Cooks were privatized long before the Programmers were. I still remember when Quantico's enlisted chow hall switched from Marine cooks (think Segal in Underseige) to contractors. Our cost per plate sky rocketed and the food quality went to complete crap.
Our accounting staff is pretty light actually. Although we are an independent branch of the military, our budget is part of the Navy's budget. We get to push out own requirements, but our funding comes from them. Technically, we are a department of the Navy (to which the typical response is, "Yeah, the Men's department").
The Navy never provided programmers or comms for the Marine Corps, so far as I know.
This isn't a move to become "more independent", it's just how it has always been. If anything, we're far less independent now than we were at our creation in 1775.
Airforce Basic training: 6 weeks Navy & Army Basic training: 8 weeks Marine Corps Basic training: 13 weeks
Army riffle qual ranges: 200-300m (support, shooting bench, sand bags) Marine Corps riffle qual ranges: 200, 300, and 500 meters (riffle sling only, no supports)
Army/Airforce/Navy primary occupation: defined by MOS Marine primary occupation: Riffleman
Just saying, the Marines get the best bang for their buck in their training system. Trying to merge the MC into the Navy or Army would heavily bloat the training system and raise the costs significantly. Trust me, don't speak as a layman on this topic, you're liable to piss off a whole lot of people with significant combat training and a strong sense of pride.
Show me an Army Soldier that can hit a man sized target with iron sights at 500m and I'll show you a "marksman".
Show me a Marine that can hit a man sized target 9/10 with iron sights at 500m and I'll show you an average Marine.
I now work for a global company that is a tiny fraction of the scope of the US military, heck, we're a tiny fraction of the scope of just the Marine Corps. We're implementing SAP. It is scheduled to be a 15 year process, with constant support of IT, Regulatory, Development, and tons of other business units all driven by a global stearing commitee.
To say that they can just "implement SAP" and all their problems will be solved and they'll no longer need an IT department is ignorant to a significant degree the amount of work, adaptation, and customization that goes along with implementing and maintaining SAP in a large scale organization.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't mean to imply that we should be subsidizing private insurance. I mean that in our current situation, this is how it is being handled. Those individuals who are either priced out or barred from private insurance fall to the government for help through one of our many socialized assistance plans. I agree with you fully on the single large pool though. The creation of multiple pools elevates the risk cost of the pools and the profit margins on all pools. It isn't done for consumers, it's done for execs looking to cash in on multi-million dollar salaries.
On a forward looking though, I could definately see a strong push towards either a single payer system, a federal insurance program (manditory universal coverage like you mention), or even a 'medicare for all' eligability option. The current system sucks wind from the economy 2nd only to dependency on petrol fuels.
I would not conflate the health care situation with all other industries though. And even in the health care arena, there will be those docs who perform their duties at the defined rate of the universal coverage system, and there will be those that opt out of that system, or take additional independent work either for services not covered by the universal plan or as a higher price point for individuals who want a different relationship or higher quality of care.
There will always be a free market segment in virtually every industry. It is not the duty of the government to stamp this out, but to ensure for those industries that society has deemed critical and manditory, that all individuals have a minimum level of service that society is willing to accept, especially those that are not able to partake in the free market segment.
-Rick
I think you missinterpreted my meaning.
You can run a private school for selective students at a profit. You can NOT educate EVERY minor in the country to an expected 12th grade level for a profit. There for, while some private institutes can run their for profit model schools, the government must pick up the responsibility for all others.
Arguably similar to health care. Where private institutes can maintain a for-profit model, they do. For individuals they choose not to provide service to (via pricing or denial) it falls to the government to cover. Be it through Medicare/Medicaid, socialized plans, single payer, healthy start, etc...
I'm no fan of the insurance industry, I mean, they turn a profit on missery. But I'm not willing to say that there is no room for private health care or insurance in the future of our economy.
-Rick
Selective schools serving only rich clientel have absolutely been profitable. But that's not the desired outcome. The socially accepted goal is to have EVERY kid get a highschool education, and THAT is not profitable, but it does generate a huge amount of growth and innovation for the economy. In and of itself, not profitable, but on the big picture it is hugely profitable. Its just that those profits are not realisable by any single entity, except for the government which sees an increase in tax revenue due to the resulting economic growth.
And you are also correct, for-profit Armies have always existed. And they often enough did so by means of looting and plundering their wins. They are profitable now only because the government funds them, and the government is thus providing the non-profitable service. Making war, in and of itself does not generate profit. Consumption does. So governments make war, private entities make bullets.
-Rick
For criminal cases, yes. For civil cases (torts), not so much. Unless you have a lawyer, in which case their first avenue of defense is dismissal.
-Rick
I left health, and a large number of other things out of my non-exhaustive list. Thus the reason for the word "etc..." I do not have the time nor knowledge to enumerate all aspects of life that I think would be better served by government management. Health care is definately an industry I'd like to see the feds take a stronger roll in. Even if it's something as simple as 'Medicare for all'. But that is one huuuuuuuuuuuge debate with a whole lot of intricacies.
-Rick
The trade off is not everyone is going to be able to afford them and some see this as 'not fair' which is complete hooey.
It's not about fairness, it's about innovation and economic strength. The US became the world dominating power it is largely through the technological leadership we showed coming out of WWII. That technological leadership was fueled by the largest surge in college attendence ever. Thanks to a large degree the G.I. Bill sending all of the returning soldiers off to college.
You are right, if we went to a full privatized education system, we would have some number of kids who just wouldn't have the opportunity to become educated. I would highly recommend you travel out of the US some time. I'm down in Brazil right now, where that exact situation is true. The slums here are unbelievable. There is virtually no chance for youth to escape them either, as there is no opportunity for education, and with out an education their job prospects are largely centered around picking up litter and meanial labor.
Now which economy do you see as being stronger over the long term? The US's, that has been the world's leading economy for over 50 years, or Brazil, which has such a high level of poverty that most apartment buildings and hotels have stone walls topped with electric fences and guards posted at all hours?
This can rather easily be seen by the current college bubble, just because you have an education does not mean you get a job and are better off, or that you are qualified, or smart, an education is certainly an indicator of such, but by no means an guarantee.
Dude, unemployment in the construction industry got up to almost 50%. Manufacturing is still pushing 20%+. Mean while, unemployment in the IT industry is under 5%. Unemployment in skilled services (lawyers, docs, nurses, engineers) is all under 7%. Having a college degree might not guarantee you a job, but NOT having a degree is pretty much a death sentence to gainful employment these days.
-Rick
In and of themselfs, yes. But energy density and storage system mass are critical issues facing transportion fueling. I'd love to see more advances in batteries and super-capacitors, but if we can get more energy density out of hydrogen, it can very likely be more efficient in transportation.
You can get as much energy is contained in a tank of gas in batteries, you just need a flat bed truck to carry them all.
Keep advancing both IMO, and lets see what we can come up with :)
-Rick
If the government is doing something profitable, they shouldn't be doing it. With all likelihood, if something is profitable, a guided free market should be able to manage it much more efficiently.
The government's duty is to perform services that are by their very nature not profitable. Public schools, police, fire, national defense, etc... it there isn't a profitable model that can provide these services at the level we expect, the it is up to the government to suplement or perform those services.
If the government is turning a profit, it's either doing something wrong, or doing something that someone else should be doing instead.
-Rick
All of your options would have alternative repercussions on the industry. Reduced demand/revenue would very likely alter R&D budgets. Transportation in cold weather climates would be crippled in the transition period, significantly effecting cost of living and economic growth.
The free market is always the best way, with limited government intervention to prevent corporate monopolies, and abuse.
Which is to say: The free market is seldom the best way. The free market, by it's very nature promotes exploitation, monopolies, and abuse, and with the power that is granted through it: more power over the government.
I'm not saying the "free market" is good. I'm just saying it's not any better than "communism". Let's take the elements of it that work, and leave the drama behind.
-Rick
Not true. In a standard automobile, the amount of energy used for transportation is in the low double digits (~15-20% IIRC). In a power/fractionationt plant, the amount of energy used for for cracking hydrogen is likely double, if not more, than that.
The amount of hydrogen that can be created centrally, distributed, and used in a vehicle results in more distance covered than using the crude oil equivilant energy.
It's all about removing waste and economies of scale. We don't have significant emission scrubbers on our vehicles, we have radiators that's only purpose is to distribute waste heat, we have clutches, CV joints, and bearings that all add to friction loss, we have wind resistance and bad driving habits, traffic jams and altitude changes. Rolling resistance, temperature variations, non-movement base energy consumption, etc...
A central power/hydrogen generation structure has none of these. They have a fuel burning system that attempts to capture as much heat as possible to boil water to turn a turbin which turns a generator. Far fewer moving parts, all runing at the exactly controlled optimum rates, with an exhaust system that is regulated and can be scrubbed/recycled through algae farms.
Switching to fuel cell technologies with full electric vehicles gets rid of a whole lot of moving parts and greatly improves that efficiency percent. Couple that with the fact that any new hydrogen fuel cell vehicle will be newly produced with the latest advances in efficiency, instead of continuing to drive dated poorly performing vehicles, and it's pretty clear: a hydrogen economy would be vastly more efficient than our current hydrocarbon economy.
-Rick
Why not?
-Rick
"Fleet" refers to all light duty vehicles in this case. Their produced cars must have a combined average MPG rating of 54.5 MPG.
That means that if they make 100,000 compact sedans that pull 70 MPG, they can build 10,000 SUV/Trucks that get 15-20 MPG.
It also means that if they get exemptions for trucks/SUVs, that it will be largely meaningless. Or if they can get full electrics to count at 100MPG. The Fleet average is a good measure, but special interests have some amazing power of ensuring it doesn't actually effect what the companies are producing.
-Rick
Actually, diesel engines are pretty fine with Sulfur. In 2007 you couldn't by a Diesel because of emissions and fuel incompatabilities.
The problem is the fuel switch from LSD to ULSD came after the emissions regulation change. Those stand for "Low Sulfur Diesel" and "Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel". Your emissions will likely suck, but the engine will run just fine on it.
Not that I'd recommend such things. We have a number of soy/bio Diesel offering stores in the area that sell fully taxed options ;)
-Rick
I paid $21.5k for my 06 VW TDi Golf. At the same time the same model with the eco 4 cylinder gas engine was selling for just a hair over $19k.
I get 45 miles per gallon, and I drive like my feet are made of led. I put 40 miles of interstate driving on to my car twice every day. Toss in a few random arrands and I'm easily doing 350+ miles per week. But I usually get 650-700 miles per tank. Only having to fill up every other week really takes the edge off of fuel price hikes. I bumped into a hyper miler last summer in an 06 Jetta TDi (sedan version of the Golf) he was getting 56mpg, and he was going to swap his 5th gear for a higher ratio and was projecting 60+ mpg.
In 2010, my wife's car died. So we figured we'd get her a new one in the cash-for-clunkers deal. Only I wasn't about to shell out $500+ in car payments. So we went to the bank to see about refinancing the Golf. That's right, a CAR with enough equity to be able to refinance. With 40k miles and 4 years on it, it still blue booked for $17k. Compared to the gas version that had a KBB value in the $10-12k range.
So yeah, the Diesel engine costs more. But if you intent on reselling your car in 5 years or so, you'll come out up on the deal. And if you don't intend to sell it, you'll come out ahead on fuel savings over the life of the car.
But everyone else can still have that same first experience.
And you can never have a 2nd viewing experience if you don't view it the first time.
"Consumption" is not the correct word for exposure to or purchase of media.
-Rick
Scream it from the mountain tops since it can't even be wispered of in court.
-Rick
Really, if you look at the inflation rate the $15 I've been paying for 2-disk service for the last 5 years the price should be up to about $18+ right now. So yeah, they bumped it to $20, a buck an change over the inflation rate, and if they aren't going to increase it again for another 5 years, I'll still be paying less than I was when it started.
This is a whole lot of outrage about nothing. I love how people cry "60%!!!!1!1!eleventyone!!" when we're talking about $4. My cable compay was rasing my rate every year by $10. You could sign up and get a discounted rate for a year, then they would raise your rate $50 at the end of the discounted year, and you would have to call up and bitch at them so they would put you into the NEW discount rate for a year that is $10 over your previous discount rate. Ingenious. I dropped them after my last rate hike, I called their sales line and said, "I have $100 to spend on internet and cable TV, what can you do?" And they had no offers that would meet those requirements. So I switched to AT&T DSL for $45/month and Netflix for $15 a month. Speaking of which, I should go bitch at AT&T and see if I can get a discounted rate again.
-Rick
Definition of "consume": to destroy or expend by use; use up.
When you watch a DVD, or listen to an MP3, you are not destroying it. You are not consuming its value. You can listen to it again, you can play it for friends, and in another 75-125 years it might even enter the public domain and you can mass produce it.
-Rick
Drop the CG and add in a Megan Fox boob shot and I'm pretty sure Transforms 3 would still be a huge hit for a fraction of the cost ;)
-Rick
My appoologies. I did not mean to say that YOU were ignorant, but that someone who says "Just impliment SAP" like it's a magic switch of money savings is ignorant. I should have been more clear about that, sorry.
We are implementing, but like so many poorly implemented solutions I've experienced in the past, the steering commitee is trying to adapt SAP to the business instead of having the business adopt SAP practices. And as you have likely experienced, that's a train wreck in the making.
-Rick
That's why I get for typing with out a spell checker ;)
Thank you for insulting my time in the service protecting your basement dwelling mama boy's ass because I misspelled a word though, I really appreciate that. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find plenty of other vets to pick on for assorted short comings as well.
And yes, I have shot a rifle before. I shot high expert 3 of my 4 trips to the range. Including a possible with an alibi at the 300 meter rapid fire and going 10/10 at the 500 meter line on my final qual.
-Rick
That kind of "He's got it so I want it too" attitude is a huge reason for that growth in government.
I would also strongly disagree with this statement.
We have air support. But our air support is geared around infantry support. We have significant rotary wing and close air support tools. The Airforce is significantly more wrapped up in bombing and pin point strikes. You don't have Air Force pilots swooping down to cover troup advances. The Navy does some bombing, and is also concerned primarily with ship defense. A lot more air-to-air gearing to ensure that anyone trying to take a payload to a ship isn't going to succeed. Again, not a whole lot of infantry support going on.
It isn't that the Marines see something the Army/Airforce/Navy has and says "I want it too!" The Marines have a very specific scope of engagements, and they argue to get funding for the best tools to support those engagements. And with their position as a dept of the Navy, they typically do so on a shoe string budget compared to the Army and Airforce's spending.
You want to talk about "I want it too!" spending, look at the Army, Navy, and Airforces' investments into lazers, rail guns, vector exhaust fighter jets, etc... The Marines got 2 expensive toys designed around their missions: the Harrier and the Ospray. Arguably the Ospray probably should have been scrapped, but it does represent a huge improvement in deployment speed over the fleet of Vietnam era CH-46's that we've been using for the last 40 years.
-Rick
Traditionally, the Navy provided whatever support Marines needed. But in today's environment, the Marines get their own programmers, cooks, accountants, etc, simply so they can be more "independent" from the Navy
Cooks were privatized long before the Programmers were. I still remember when Quantico's enlisted chow hall switched from Marine cooks (think Segal in Underseige) to contractors. Our cost per plate sky rocketed and the food quality went to complete crap.
Our accounting staff is pretty light actually. Although we are an independent branch of the military, our budget is part of the Navy's budget. We get to push out own requirements, but our funding comes from them. Technically, we are a department of the Navy (to which the typical response is, "Yeah, the Men's department").
The Navy never provided programmers or comms for the Marine Corps, so far as I know.
This isn't a move to become "more independent", it's just how it has always been. If anything, we're far less independent now than we were at our creation in 1775.
-Rick
Airforce Basic training: 6 weeks
Navy & Army Basic training: 8 weeks
Marine Corps Basic training: 13 weeks
Army riffle qual ranges: 200-300m (support, shooting bench, sand bags)
Marine Corps riffle qual ranges: 200, 300, and 500 meters (riffle sling only, no supports)
Army/Airforce/Navy primary occupation: defined by MOS
Marine primary occupation: Riffleman
Just saying, the Marines get the best bang for their buck in their training system. Trying to merge the MC into the Navy or Army would heavily bloat the training system and raise the costs significantly. Trust me, don't speak as a layman on this topic, you're liable to piss off a whole lot of people with significant combat training and a strong sense of pride.
Show me an Army Soldier that can hit a man sized target with iron sights at 500m and I'll show you a "marksman".
Show me a Marine that can hit a man sized target 9/10 with iron sights at 500m and I'll show you an average Marine.
-Rick
I now work for a global company that is a tiny fraction of the scope of the US military, heck, we're a tiny fraction of the scope of just the Marine Corps. We're implementing SAP. It is scheduled to be a 15 year process, with constant support of IT, Regulatory, Development, and tons of other business units all driven by a global stearing commitee.
To say that they can just "implement SAP" and all their problems will be solved and they'll no longer need an IT department is ignorant to a significant degree the amount of work, adaptation, and customization that goes along with implementing and maintaining SAP in a large scale organization.
-Rick