For real. If it's based on user input you're going to get a lot of bad information. I lived near 87th and Blue Ridge in Raytown for a while and a bunch of the (upper-middle class, white) people I worked with gave me crap for living in "the ghetto." It was a solid neighborhood, though, just working class and black. Everyone I met was super nice and I never saw anything shady.
I'm curious where you lived in KC. A lot of KC is pretty bad, particularly at night. I would stop at the gas station on Emmanuel Cleaver and The Paseo during the day and it was fine, but I made the mistake of going there on a Friday night once and it was waaaaay sketchy.
Anyone who dismisses them outright, maybe. But there *are* systemic biases in even the most solid newspapers. Both the NYT and WSJ are capitalist institutions, and (despite the New York Times left-leaning editorial content) are for the most part decidedly conservative in their journalism. I don't mean conservative in the left-wing/right-wing political sense, but they are major pillar of the established power structure in our country and have a significant incentive ($$$$$) to continue in that role.
They don't want to rock the boat *too* much, and they often are hesitant to go after those in positions of authority unless public sentiment is clearly behind them. This becomes more readily apparent in times of war. For example, the New York Times did not cover the start Iraq War in a way consistent with their reputation and abilities. They have admitted such and apologized for that mistake, but the system that has allowed it to happen is largely unchanged.
Two of my favorite news sources are the Christian Science Monitor and Al-Jazeera, because at least their biases are obvious. Because of that they offer a slightly different perspective than most mainstream American outlets.
Hey, there! I don't know your dad, but I also grew up poor and am currently working my way through school.
First of all, you are correct to be proud of your father, and you are also correct to take a responsible outlook on your life. That sort of attitude will get you far. But you really just aren't grasping the arguments people are putting out to you. Hopefully my perspective is helpful for you to understand why people are disagreeing with you.
Let me break down my budget for you. I currently make $13/hr. After taxes and health insurance (which I am fortunate to get an an affordable rate from my company) I bring in $1600 net every month.
I am very fortunate in that my work provides a free place for me to live. Therefore I do not have to worry about rent or utilities, which is a huge boon. I am also very fortunate to live in an area with a very affordable community college. The tuition and books every semester runs me around $2000. Going three semesters a year, this comes out to almost exactly $500 a month. Food costs me about $150.
My community college is about 25 miles away from where I work and live, so I have to drive a lot. I spend about $200 a month on gasoline, $100 on insurance, and $150 on my auto payment. Should have saved up and bought a cheaper car cash you might say? Well, I had a cheap, reliable car. Someone t-boned me and ruined it. I got $2500 for it, but you can't buy a reliable car for $2500 so I had to take out a loan to cover the other $4000 I spent. So there was step one pushing me into a shitty situation.
Out of the $500 that is left over, most goes to service my consumer debt, of which I have about $4000. Again, you might criticize me for using credit unwisely but I can assure you that nearly all of that was imperative. I have only had free rent for less than a year, meaning my budget was inadequate in the past and I financed car repairs, medical bills, anything unexpected and unavoidable on credit. Because I literally had no other choice. Each of these situations has, in the past, caused me to stop going to school for a short time while I got my finances together, which included me working multiple jobs at the same time. Never janitorial, but some pretty shitty work nonetheless.
So here I am, 26 years old, and I'm working my ass off 40+ hours a week on top of going to school full time trying to make it happen. And it will happen. But I will not finish school before I'm 30, even in the best case scenario. I probably won't be out of debt until a few years after that (once I hit university tuition jumps to $10k+ a year for a couple years and I will almost definitely have to stop working so much in order to succeed, meaning large student loans). The idea that I could be flying around in a Learjet if I only I bucked up and worked a bit harder, or that I could pay for my tuition by giving up soda is so fucking ludicrous that it's hard to even take you seriously.
You known how I can tell you don't have any perspective? You haven't said a single thing about yourself. It's all "My dad did this" or "my dad did that." You obviously had a father who kicked ass and did very well by himself, and I don't mean to discount that, but what about you? Do you really think that if you were born poor and to lazy ass parents that you would be in the exact same place you are right now? Think of every dumb mistake you have ever made. Every time you made a poor decision and it somehow worked out ok for you. There is somebody out there that made that same decision and had it blow up in their face. There's somebody who wasn't given the opportunities you were and is having to scrap it out tooth and nail. Be grateful for how fortunate you have been, and don't patronize them with stupid ass arguments about giving up soda and paying for university tuition with the difference (I don't drink soda FWIW).
The direction is a circle. Bad decisions bring negative consequences, making your environment a little bit harsher. Now your life is worse because of that stupid thing you did, making it even more likely that you make more bad decisions. It's hard to break that negative feedback loop.
If you look at a kid age 13 that is from a bad home in a poor neighborhood, he's probably going to have some mental problems that are fairly normal for someone of his age. Put him in a positive environment where he has social resources and is pushed to improve himself and there's a good chance he'll end up a happy, healthy member of society. If that kid gets involved with the wrong people and is surrounded by violence and drug abuse and is in and out of the prison system, ten years later there is a pretty good chance he'll be severely mentally ill.
Hell, nobody ever bothered to go to congress to get Vietnam authorized.
That's not true. And the reason Obama isn't torturing anybody is because he just kills them outright. There's no need to worry about dragging a suspect halfway around the world and dealing with the judicial system and public scrutiny that entails when you can just call in a done strike to murder them and everyone in their vicinity. It's much simpler that way.
What's funny is that I thought literally the exact opposite. You're going 20MPH and you think the road is too rough? That's just a county road that needs to be graded!
The Caucasian racial definition constantly changed throughout history (and being largely pseudo-science in the first place makes it hard to pin down a precise definition), but it was actually more of a linguistic designation than one of skin tone. What we call Caucasian in the United States was more properly (in a sense) called Aryan, the Caucasians being a race subdivided into Aryans (speakers of Indo-European languages), Semites (Semitic languages) and Hamites (Afroasiatic languages) and distinct from the races of Mongoloids (East Asians, Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders, South Indians) and Negroids (Africans).
Of course this was a thoroughly confusing and incorrect way to group people. Why Caucasian was kept as an "official" and scientific designation when what we really mean is white or more properly European American I have no idea, because the term Caucasian included many dark-skinned people even when it was in common scientific usage (Berbers and Sri Lankans, for example).
What classes were you taking that an hour in the library every once in a while was enough time to finish the homework? I have to pack my textbooks around with me all the time.
There is also the modern phenomenon of online homework. Even if you buy an old version off amazon for a few bucks you still have to drop $50+ for the online key in order to pass the class. That's always a fun one.
Clinton almost got impeached because he got his dick sucked by someone he wasn't married to, so please save the partisan nonsense. People weren't marching against Bush because they dislike Republicans. They were marching because he was starting a war under false pretenses.
Even then, for the most part the majority of our country were just fine with everything Bush was doing until it become apparent to even the most ill-informed that the Iraq war was a giant clusterfuck. Pretty similar to the Obama presidency, really. For the most part the President gets to do whatever the hell he wants for four or five years before the general public catches on. It has nothing to do with their political affiliation.
While I agree with your general point, you can't separate the civil rights issue from the economic one. The reason the South seceded was because they knew they were losing their political power. They had already lost their power in the House and after it became apparent Kansas was going to be a free state they knew they had lost it in the Senate as well.
But the *reason* they were going to lose their power was because of abolitionism. The Republican party in swept into power in the late 1850s as an anti-slavery party. This anti-slavery platform was very firmly rooted in a moral argument, springing from the wildly popular Christian reawakening of the time. To divorce it entirely from human rights is just as foolish an argument as trying to divorce it from economics.
I agree with your point, but I would just like to point out that socalism means *collective* ownership of the means of production. This may or may not be facilitated the government. Example of extra-governmental socialism in the US would be cooperatives (consumer co-ops like credit unions/grocery stores as well as worker co-ops).
Oh, I definitely agree that the media and political system was irresponsible in the way they responded to this case. It's just silly to jump to the other side and claim that Trayvon was some terrible miscreant. How many 17 year old kids smoke weed and write on a locker with a marker? It doesn't make him violent and anti-social, and it doesn't make it any more clear who initiated the altercation the night of Trayvon's death.
Trayvon Martin was a violent, racist sociopath, eh? Sounds like you're the one constructing a narrative separate from the facts.
I agree that the legal ruling in this case was the right one. There was no evidence to convict Mr. Zimmerman. But claiming that you know exactly what happened that night, or that you know anything about Trayvon Martin's personality is absolutely ludicrous.
It isn't just how much force is added, but where it is added that matters. You can set off a megaton bomb underground and not much will happen other than the explosion, but you can also pump some pressurized water into the wrong spot and set off a 5.6 magnitude earthquake.
There is a whole lot more than 15 kt of potential energy stored up in geological formations. How do our methods of energy extraction affect it the stability of those formations, and how much of that potential energy is going to end up moving under our feet after we pump several million gallons of pressurized water into the crust? That's the real question.
Bluffdale is a bedroom community for Salt Lake City and Utah county. That Wired story played up the "out in the desert" part for dramatic effect. It's a half mile from a commuter rail station and about a mile from Adobe's Utah campus.
A lot of that can be traced directly to WWI and WW2. Before the World Wars you saw quite a bit more utopian thinking. The thought that science would lead us to a new era of enlightenment, technology was going to solve all problems, cure all of the diseases, end all wars, etc. was quite prevalent at the time.
Then WWI and WW2 happened. Chemical weapons, eugenics, genocide, nuclear weapons, all of these horrible uses of advanced technology caused a tremendous amount of fear in people. The romantic era (think Mary Shelley's Frankenstein) started the mad scientist trope, but it really exploded in the mid-20th century. And since that's when the Golden Age of Comics and Golden Age of Science Fiction happened to occur, that's why so many comic book villains and sci-fi stories deal with that concept. People were just reacting to their environment.
We do know that the frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms in the northern hemisphere has increased recently and the latitudinal range of where hurricanes form also seems to be increasing. This seems to fit the projection offered by global warming models, where higher ocean surface temperatures will cause stronger tropical storms, and higher surface temperatures in subtropical and temperate waters means that the hurricanes lose less strength the further they move from the tropics. This was a major factor in hurricane Sandy, where the surface temperatures off the East Coast were 3 degrees Celcius over average.
Not all of that is attributed to global warming, necessarily, because one specific weather event is only a small part of the climate. But as the pattern builds we get a clearer image of how climate change is affecting hurricane formation. It's not just Sandy. Of the 9 recorded South Atlantic tropical cyclones since 1974, 7 have occurred in the last ten years. Weird things are happening.
Are these things indicative of larger changes coming, or just temporary outliers? I don't know, but it's definitely a trend, and fits with global warming projections offered by many climatologists.
Mendeleev was not the first person to put together the periodic table. His was just the best/most popular at the time. And if putting types of clouds in a table let you predict new, previously unknown types of clouds it would be a model as well.
The concept of valency was understood at that time, so it wasn't just about physical properties. They may not have understood *why* the elements were periodic, but they successfully used it to predict the properties and relative masses of previously unknown, naturally-occurring but relatively rare elements. It was also one of the more important developments that lead to the discovery of subatomic particles, because the periodic table made clear that the properties of elements were not directly related to their atomic mass (ie tellurium was placed ahead of iodine, even though tellurium's atomic mass is greater than iodine's) which was a very significant distinction for the time.
I guess at the small scale it would probably be cheaper to hire labor for $40/day than to rent a machine? That's weird, though, especially with corn. They definitely aren't making any money unless they have some weird heirloom organic thing going on.
I don't think drug use is stupid, necessarily. I personally would never mess with opioids or cocaine because I suck at managing addiction, but I certainly understand the appeal. And if you can handle it without hurting yourself or anybody else then knock yourself out.
But if you think dropping a manufactured substance into your blood makes you cooler than those that don't, and if you think that people who choose not to engage in drug use are living a less interesting life, and if you think that the only reason a person wouldn't take narcotics is because they are boring or ignorant, you are not quite the free thinking radical you imagine yourself to be. Just a different sort of douchebag, and just as subject to social manipulating as the squares you are looking down upon.
And for the record, sniffing glue, smoking cigarettes and doing methamphetamine *are* really stupid. Cigarettes and inhalants aren't that fun relative to the damage they do and meth can cause permanent anhedonia even in small qualities. There are much safer ways to get high. Cocaine is all right I suppose, as long as you get it relatively pure and don't mind annoying sober people at parties.
Slashdot Mirror
For real. If it's based on user input you're going to get a lot of bad information. I lived near 87th and Blue Ridge in Raytown for a while and a bunch of the (upper-middle class, white) people I worked with gave me crap for living in "the ghetto." It was a solid neighborhood, though, just working class and black. Everyone I met was super nice and I never saw anything shady.
I'm curious where you lived in KC. A lot of KC is pretty bad, particularly at night. I would stop at the gas station on Emmanuel Cleaver and The Paseo during the day and it was fine, but I made the mistake of going there on a Friday night once and it was waaaaay sketchy.
Anyone who dismisses them outright, maybe. But there *are* systemic biases in even the most solid newspapers. Both the NYT and WSJ are capitalist institutions, and (despite the New York Times left-leaning editorial content) are for the most part decidedly conservative in their journalism. I don't mean conservative in the left-wing/right-wing political sense, but they are major pillar of the established power structure in our country and have a significant incentive ($$$$$) to continue in that role.
They don't want to rock the boat *too* much, and they often are hesitant to go after those in positions of authority unless public sentiment is clearly behind them. This becomes more readily apparent in times of war. For example, the New York Times did not cover the start Iraq War in a way consistent with their reputation and abilities. They have admitted such and apologized for that mistake, but the system that has allowed it to happen is largely unchanged.
Two of my favorite news sources are the Christian Science Monitor and Al-Jazeera, because at least their biases are obvious. Because of that they offer a slightly different perspective than most mainstream American outlets.
Hey, there! I don't know your dad, but I also grew up poor and am currently working my way through school.
First of all, you are correct to be proud of your father, and you are also correct to take a responsible outlook on your life. That sort of attitude will get you far. But you really just aren't grasping the arguments people are putting out to you. Hopefully my perspective is helpful for you to understand why people are disagreeing with you.
Let me break down my budget for you. I currently make $13/hr. After taxes and health insurance (which I am fortunate to get an an affordable rate from my company) I bring in $1600 net every month.
I am very fortunate in that my work provides a free place for me to live. Therefore I do not have to worry about rent or utilities, which is a huge boon. I am also very fortunate to live in an area with a very affordable community college. The tuition and books every semester runs me around $2000. Going three semesters a year, this comes out to almost exactly $500 a month. Food costs me about $150.
My community college is about 25 miles away from where I work and live, so I have to drive a lot. I spend about $200 a month on gasoline, $100 on insurance, and $150 on my auto payment. Should have saved up and bought a cheaper car cash you might say? Well, I had a cheap, reliable car. Someone t-boned me and ruined it. I got $2500 for it, but you can't buy a reliable car for $2500 so I had to take out a loan to cover the other $4000 I spent. So there was step one pushing me into a shitty situation.
Out of the $500 that is left over, most goes to service my consumer debt, of which I have about $4000. Again, you might criticize me for using credit unwisely but I can assure you that nearly all of that was imperative. I have only had free rent for less than a year, meaning my budget was inadequate in the past and I financed car repairs, medical bills, anything unexpected and unavoidable on credit. Because I literally had no other choice. Each of these situations has, in the past, caused me to stop going to school for a short time while I got my finances together, which included me working multiple jobs at the same time. Never janitorial, but some pretty shitty work nonetheless.
So here I am, 26 years old, and I'm working my ass off 40+ hours a week on top of going to school full time trying to make it happen. And it will happen. But I will not finish school before I'm 30, even in the best case scenario. I probably won't be out of debt until a few years after that (once I hit university tuition jumps to $10k+ a year for a couple years and I will almost definitely have to stop working so much in order to succeed, meaning large student loans). The idea that I could be flying around in a Learjet if I only I bucked up and worked a bit harder, or that I could pay for my tuition by giving up soda is so fucking ludicrous that it's hard to even take you seriously.
You known how I can tell you don't have any perspective? You haven't said a single thing about yourself. It's all "My dad did this" or "my dad did that." You obviously had a father who kicked ass and did very well by himself, and I don't mean to discount that, but what about you? Do you really think that if you were born poor and to lazy ass parents that you would be in the exact same place you are right now? Think of every dumb mistake you have ever made. Every time you made a poor decision and it somehow worked out ok for you. There is somebody out there that made that same decision and had it blow up in their face. There's somebody who wasn't given the opportunities you were and is having to scrap it out tooth and nail. Be grateful for how fortunate you have been, and don't patronize them with stupid ass arguments about giving up soda and paying for university tuition with the difference (I don't drink soda FWIW).
The direction is a circle. Bad decisions bring negative consequences, making your environment a little bit harsher. Now your life is worse because of that stupid thing you did, making it even more likely that you make more bad decisions. It's hard to break that negative feedback loop.
If you look at a kid age 13 that is from a bad home in a poor neighborhood, he's probably going to have some mental problems that are fairly normal for someone of his age. Put him in a positive environment where he has social resources and is pushed to improve himself and there's a good chance he'll end up a happy, healthy member of society. If that kid gets involved with the wrong people and is surrounded by violence and drug abuse and is in and out of the prison system, ten years later there is a pretty good chance he'll be severely mentally ill.
That's not true. And the reason Obama isn't torturing anybody is because he just kills them outright. There's no need to worry about dragging a suspect halfway around the world and dealing with the judicial system and public scrutiny that entails when you can just call in a done strike to murder them and everyone in their vicinity. It's much simpler that way.
I hear they are pretty good at making money. Which is sort of the point of a corporation, no?
What's funny is that I thought literally the exact opposite. You're going 20MPH and you think the road is too rough? That's just a county road that needs to be graded!
The Caucasian racial definition constantly changed throughout history (and being largely pseudo-science in the first place makes it hard to pin down a precise definition), but it was actually more of a linguistic designation than one of skin tone. What we call Caucasian in the United States was more properly (in a sense) called Aryan, the Caucasians being a race subdivided into Aryans (speakers of Indo-European languages), Semites (Semitic languages) and Hamites (Afroasiatic languages) and distinct from the races of Mongoloids (East Asians, Southeast Asians, Pacific Islanders, South Indians) and Negroids (Africans).
Of course this was a thoroughly confusing and incorrect way to group people. Why Caucasian was kept as an "official" and scientific designation when what we really mean is white or more properly European American I have no idea, because the term Caucasian included many dark-skinned people even when it was in common scientific usage (Berbers and Sri Lankans, for example).
What classes were you taking that an hour in the library every once in a while was enough time to finish the homework? I have to pack my textbooks around with me all the time.
There is also the modern phenomenon of online homework. Even if you buy an old version off amazon for a few bucks you still have to drop $50+ for the online key in order to pass the class. That's always a fun one.
True, but that seems like a fairly straightforward problem to solve from an engineering perspective.
Clinton almost got impeached because he got his dick sucked by someone he wasn't married to, so please save the partisan nonsense. People weren't marching against Bush because they dislike Republicans. They were marching because he was starting a war under false pretenses.
Even then, for the most part the majority of our country were just fine with everything Bush was doing until it become apparent to even the most ill-informed that the Iraq war was a giant clusterfuck. Pretty similar to the Obama presidency, really. For the most part the President gets to do whatever the hell he wants for four or five years before the general public catches on. It has nothing to do with their political affiliation.
While I agree with your general point, you can't separate the civil rights issue from the economic one. The reason the South seceded was because they knew they were losing their political power. They had already lost their power in the House and after it became apparent Kansas was going to be a free state they knew they had lost it in the Senate as well.
But the *reason* they were going to lose their power was because of abolitionism. The Republican party in swept into power in the late 1850s as an anti-slavery party. This anti-slavery platform was very firmly rooted in a moral argument, springing from the wildly popular Christian reawakening of the time. To divorce it entirely from human rights is just as foolish an argument as trying to divorce it from economics.
I agree with your point, but I would just like to point out that socalism means *collective* ownership of the means of production. This may or may not be facilitated the government. Example of extra-governmental socialism in the US would be cooperatives (consumer co-ops like credit unions/grocery stores as well as worker co-ops).
Oh, I definitely agree that the media and political system was irresponsible in the way they responded to this case. It's just silly to jump to the other side and claim that Trayvon was some terrible miscreant. How many 17 year old kids smoke weed and write on a locker with a marker? It doesn't make him violent and anti-social, and it doesn't make it any more clear who initiated the altercation the night of Trayvon's death.
Trayvon Martin was a violent, racist sociopath, eh? Sounds like you're the one constructing a narrative separate from the facts.
I agree that the legal ruling in this case was the right one. There was no evidence to convict Mr. Zimmerman. But claiming that you know exactly what happened that night, or that you know anything about Trayvon Martin's personality is absolutely ludicrous.
It isn't just how much force is added, but where it is added that matters. You can set off a megaton bomb underground and not much will happen other than the explosion, but you can also pump some pressurized water into the wrong spot and set off a 5.6 magnitude earthquake.
There is a whole lot more than 15 kt of potential energy stored up in geological formations. How do our methods of energy extraction affect it the stability of those formations, and how much of that potential energy is going to end up moving under our feet after we pump several million gallons of pressurized water into the crust? That's the real question.
Actually, that was what was being discussed. The article never said the *ship* was overweight, just the containers.
Bluffdale is a bedroom community for Salt Lake City and Utah county. That Wired story played up the "out in the desert" part for dramatic effect. It's a half mile from a commuter rail station and about a mile from Adobe's Utah campus.
A lot of that can be traced directly to WWI and WW2. Before the World Wars you saw quite a bit more utopian thinking. The thought that science would lead us to a new era of enlightenment, technology was going to solve all problems, cure all of the diseases, end all wars, etc. was quite prevalent at the time.
Then WWI and WW2 happened. Chemical weapons, eugenics, genocide, nuclear weapons, all of these horrible uses of advanced technology caused a tremendous amount of fear in people. The romantic era (think Mary Shelley's Frankenstein) started the mad scientist trope, but it really exploded in the mid-20th century. And since that's when the Golden Age of Comics and Golden Age of Science Fiction happened to occur, that's why so many comic book villains and sci-fi stories deal with that concept. People were just reacting to their environment.
You would still expect there to be gas giants, though, right?
We do know that the frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms in the northern hemisphere has increased recently and the latitudinal range of where hurricanes form also seems to be increasing. This seems to fit the projection offered by global warming models, where higher ocean surface temperatures will cause stronger tropical storms, and higher surface temperatures in subtropical and temperate waters means that the hurricanes lose less strength the further they move from the tropics. This was a major factor in hurricane Sandy, where the surface temperatures off the East Coast were 3 degrees Celcius over average.
Not all of that is attributed to global warming, necessarily, because one specific weather event is only a small part of the climate. But as the pattern builds we get a clearer image of how climate change is affecting hurricane formation. It's not just Sandy. Of the 9 recorded South Atlantic tropical cyclones since 1974, 7 have occurred in the last ten years. Weird things are happening.
Are these things indicative of larger changes coming, or just temporary outliers? I don't know, but it's definitely a trend, and fits with global warming projections offered by many climatologists.
Mendeleev was not the first person to put together the periodic table. His was just the best/most popular at the time. And if putting types of clouds in a table let you predict new, previously unknown types of clouds it would be a model as well.
The concept of valency was understood at that time, so it wasn't just about physical properties. They may not have understood *why* the elements were periodic, but they successfully used it to predict the properties and relative masses of previously unknown, naturally-occurring but relatively rare elements. It was also one of the more important developments that lead to the discovery of subatomic particles, because the periodic table made clear that the properties of elements were not directly related to their atomic mass (ie tellurium was placed ahead of iodine, even though tellurium's atomic mass is greater than iodine's) which was a very significant distinction for the time.
I guess at the small scale it would probably be cheaper to hire labor for $40/day than to rent a machine? That's weird, though, especially with corn. They definitely aren't making any money unless they have some weird heirloom organic thing going on.
I don't think drug use is stupid, necessarily. I personally would never mess with opioids or cocaine because I suck at managing addiction, but I certainly understand the appeal. And if you can handle it without hurting yourself or anybody else then knock yourself out.
But if you think dropping a manufactured substance into your blood makes you cooler than those that don't, and if you think that people who choose not to engage in drug use are living a less interesting life, and if you think that the only reason a person wouldn't take narcotics is because they are boring or ignorant, you are not quite the free thinking radical you imagine yourself to be. Just a different sort of douchebag, and just as subject to social manipulating as the squares you are looking down upon.
And for the record, sniffing glue, smoking cigarettes and doing methamphetamine *are* really stupid. Cigarettes and inhalants aren't that fun relative to the damage they do and meth can cause permanent anhedonia even in small qualities. There are much safer ways to get high. Cocaine is all right I suppose, as long as you get it relatively pure and don't mind annoying sober people at parties.
The US still has the largest manufacturing industry in the world.