Vote for me or I'll pull your pants right up your asscrack!
Ah, the infamous wedgie issue.
Seriously, though, what we're facing now is much more alarming than that, especially on the foreign relations scene.
It appears that some nations are not abiding by the non-proliferation treaty, and are developing weapons of mass incrackination. We're talking melvins, hanging wedgies, and atomic wedgies in Iran and North Korea... It's the Asses of Evil.
The United Nerds has issued a couple strong letters decrying the practice, but it's up to us to make sure that we don't have to fight atomic wedgies on our own soil(ed underwear) -- we'll take the fight to them.
t's a bit like the way the supermarkets virtually wiped out tastier (but odd-looking) varieties of fruit and veg for cosmetic reasons. They're then selling them back to us as luxury items now we're used to eating the pretty (but tasteless) varieties.
That's a bit paranoid. Supermarkets reacted to market conditions. Producers sell the "tasteless" varieties because they are cheaper to produce and transport, and have a longer shelf-life (which the supermarkets demand, in order to decrease losses). Due to the massive demand for the "tasteless" varieties by supermarkets, production was upscaled, and there are now massive economies of scale that are impossible for "heirloom" varieties to overcome. "Heirloom" varietals are more expensive because costs remain high -- it's not profitable to sell them cheaply to the supermarket, thus it's not profitable for the supermarket to sell them cheaply to the consumer.
As for looks vs. taste, those are two qualities that consumers factor into the purchase decision. Supermarkets react to the consumer, who apparently prefers looks to taste -- on a lot of cases, people believe that looks indicate taste.
At any rate, this is very OT, except as an example that if the market demands a product, sellers are free to set the price wherever they want -- and people will buy accordingly. Are non-DRM'd singles of more value to people than DRM'd singles? Sure. So why wouldn't they pay more for them?
It's not some cunning plan, it's market economics.
That idea's been dead for a very long time. The US is not a confederation of states anymore, hasn't been since the late 19th / early 20th century.
Just a note about the use of the word "specifically" -- it doesn't appear in the 10th amendment. One could argue, of course, that the people authorized the federal government to take these actions (since non-enumerated powers are reserved for the states or the people), in which case everything is A-OK. There are plenty of powers in the Constitution that were left deliberately vague, so as to enable future Congresses to interpret them -- they were beyond the scope of the CC.
The feds have been essentially applying "selective interpretation" of the constitution since the mid 19th century.
All interpretation is selective. And the Constitution was meant to be interpreted, since it is both moronic and impossible to lay out literal instructions for all contingencies with a new type of government in an era of massive political change. What's the problem?
The average slashdot user is anti-WTO unless they find *against* the US. Then suddenly everybody loves the WTO.
Maybe it's just that the people who are anti-WTO speak up when there are articles sypathetic to their views?
And people who are pro- or neutral wrt the WTO speak up when there are articles sympathetic to their views?
It's not a question of morality.
Exactly -- which is why Antigua has a valid point.
It's just trendy to hate the US right now.
Many people are upset with the US's recent actions. Trendy? I don't know. But I know very few people who aren't very disappointed with something the US has done recently. Perhaps what you're noticing is the fact that people can openly speak about how the US government is disappointing them without much fear of being castigated as a terrorist sympathizer? Perhaps you didn't notice in the past that speaking out against the US (as a US citizen) was flamebait both online and in the physical world. We're finally able to air our grievances, and this is a Good Thing.
As to the volume of grievances (if this is what makes you think it's trendy to hate the US), that's due to two things, IMO: 1. Years/decades of repression (societal, not necessarily governmental) make people a bit more vociferous about their views. 2. The volume of errors made by this administration (and prior ones) have led to more people having grievances.
So, before you label hating the US as 'trendy', take a look at what it is that makes people dislike the US, or particular actions by the US. Of course, there will be people who jump on a bandwagon, but that doesn't mean the people driving the wagon don't know what they're doing.
How can the US be slammed for protectionism when we don't let anyone in the US to do online gambling?
The US does allow online gambling. Intrastate gambling is allowed. Online gambling on things other than games of chance is allowed.
If a country doesn't want something to come in because it objects on moral grounds, who is another country to sue about it?
Because apparently the US line is, "It's immoral for our citizens to gamble on sites hosted in other countries. Gambling here, though, is perfectly OK."
Because of the ease of access, it could lead to an major increase in gambling
Sure. But that doesn't change the fact the US government is fine with state-sponsored gambling (lotteries -- even multi-state ones, which severely hamper the argument that the federal government doesn't take action against lotteries because they are outside their provenance. How are multi-state lotteries different from multi-state gambling websites?)
I'd also like to point out that online gambling leading to a major increase in gambling is fine in my book (sorry, no pun intended). Online auction sites have led to a huge increase in auction participation; online medical sites (WebMD, etc) have led to a huge increase in patient participation in the medical process. Either gambling is wrong, or it is not -- and the state has shown time and time again that gambling is fine as long as the government gets its cut. This is the problem with the US law wrt the WTO and free trade agreements.
The fact that Congress passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 suggests that they know the voters will reward them despite the unconstitutional nature of the law. That sounds like a democracy to me.
It's not democracy, it's vote-pandering, and is fundamental to the nature of a representative republic. This has been going on since the inception of the US... the difference here is that it screws with the Constitution, which is a procedural problem (should only be done via Constitutional amendment)
As for democratic oligarchy -- that term is an oxymoron. The US continues to be an indirect democracy (representative republic, pretty much the same thing), it's just that the electorate is bought by campaign ads, vote pandering, and wedge issues -- real political discourse is frowned upon. This allows the moneyed interests to dominate the electoral process.
In a democracy, the government's purview is not to protect their people, but obey their commands.
Which is one reason the US isn't a democracy. What the majority of people think is not necessarily the best course of action -- the will of the people can be a very dangerous thing.
That said, the role of government in a representative republic shouldn't be to protect people from themselves, either.
Most currency has FIAT value, meaning its value is based upon what people can purchase for it, rather than intrinsic value
No currency has intrinsic value; when it does, it ceases being currency and instead becomes a commodity (rare coins, gold pieces, etc).
The distinction is that FIAT currency has standard values based upon real products/services
Not so. There is no distinction, other than whether you can physically hold it in your hand. These "standard values" you are talking about don't exist -- it's the market that determines the value of items in a fiat currency, not a standard.
Fiat currency is actually defined by the fact that it's NOT tied to a standard (gold standard, silver standard, etc).
1. $27.5MM lease -- but that doesn't include the user fees and ground rent they'll be paying. Nor does it include the lease payments, user fees, and ground rents other lessees will be paying.
2. State income tax.
3. Sales tax increase -- so what if they raise the ST in the region to get them into the black; that doesn't discount the fact that they'll be in the black.
$198MM. Additional revenues of $7.5MM/yr discounting 1 & 2 from above. 26 years to pay back the principal, even without those revenues...
Maybe you're missing the point that because they are making up the shortage, the shortage won't exist.
The Humvee is nothing, but a life sizes copy of a badly designed glorified monstertruck toy which American kids have imprinted in their psyche over the first 10 years of their life.
Maybe you should research a bit. The HMMWV is a useful vehicle, it's just being used for the wrong purpose. When designed, it was not meant to carry troops in forward areas under fire; the US has APCs for that.
Unfortunately APCs are very expensive, so some of the brass decided to convert Humvees into crappy APCs. Which leaves us with a substandard vehicle being used for a purpose not envisioned for it during the design period. This is not a failure of the tool; it is a failure of those using the tool.
Where did I say anything about them voting for the economic interests of the rich? Where did I say anything about competitive economics between the rich and poor? That's a false dichotomy you inserted; it appears you've been able to develop your false-wedge-creating skills.
In summary, I worry that Americans are extremely susceptible to distraction by highly irrelevant issues and that exploitation of this weakness gravely impacts the quality of their government.
They are called wedge issues in political circles, and the intent is absolutely to "drive a wedge" between voting factions on irrelevant issues. This is why the rural poor in America have been voting consistently against their own economic interests for the past few election cycles. What's the Matter with Kansas by Thomas Frank treats the subject well, both anecdotally and on the back of real research.
Seeing as the state government (who is paying for it, BTW) stands to gain more in revenues than it's spending on the spaceport, I fail to see your logic.
If this were funded federally, then your point makes sense. But it's not, and so it doesn't.
I think if you check out the definitions of commercial available from a quick googling, you'll see that the definition typically has nothing to do with whether it's publically or privately funded. What's important is whether the facility will be used to buy or sell commodities (or services) or not.
Governments have always been involved in commercial operations. The two are not mutually exclusive. This could be a government-run commercial spaceport, or it could be a government-owned-but-privately-run commercial spaceport, or it could be a non-commercial spaceport.
Commercial != Private.
Of course, many people believe that government should not be involved in commercial activity at all, which is what I think you're getting at. But it's still perfectly fine to call this a commercial spaceport regardless of who owns or runs it, since goods and services will be bought and sold there.
There is an enormous gulf between the academic and the non-academic. To use some chess terminology, think grandmaster vs. patzer.
That gulf works both ways. Those who work in an industry on a daily basis tend to have specialized knowledge in their area of expertise -- and for a lot of fields, that's academic as well as hands-on expertise.
Your chess analogy is broken, by the way -- chess play is much more specialized than academic fields. Who is more likely to have more complete knowledge of chess, a chess patzer or a game theorist? The big IF here is whether the academic specializes in the subject at hand.
You do not know what you are talking about. Kindly refrain from opening your mouth again until such time as you do.
And you're talking out of your ass again. I do know what I'm talking about, and unlike yourself, I actually bother using some critical thinking skills to determine what someone is saying before I respond to a post. I'll also add that the quote you provided is missing it's context -- it's a direct reply to a similarly-written (thought completely misdirected) quote about uneducated people not liking academics.
Seriously, since you are fond of making ridiculous anonymous comments not based in any kind of understanding of what was written, why don't you kindly refrain from opening your mouth until you have some understanding?
From what I read in the OP post, he was trying to credit those who work in a field, rather than discredit those who teach in a field -- though his terminology could have been improved.
f you think "academic schlubs," especially ones teaching auto mechanics don' know their field, you are sadly mistaken. I've always found it funny how blue collar folks like to deride educators precisely because they are educated. Grow up, maybe you'll learn something from them.
OP was maybe a bit caustic in his vocab (schlub)[1] but he makes a very good point. Those who are working in a field may have a lot of valuable information that those who are employed in research (and also happen to have a.edu address) do not.
[1] A bit testy, are you? You made an awful big assumption about the OP without bothering to think about what he was saying. Maybe you need to be a little bit less defensive, you know, maybe grow up a little and not react emotionally when you read a word you don't like.
I've always found it funny how academics often refuse to acknowledge the knowledge and wisdom of those who are gainfully employed in their area of expertise.
These things havent been done, or have been tried and discarded, all for very good reasons.
And many of those reasons have had to do with market conditions at the time of the decision -- and those market conditions are not static, so revisiting the decisions is a good idea.
In fact the generated plutonium has negative value-- there's a huge surplus of Plutonium in the world to day. I.E. Huge supply, no demand.
Self-fulfilling. If breeder reactors were more widely used, then there would be demand. What you're saying is that since we'd need to install large numbers of breeder reactors to make the byproducts worth enough to justify producing them, then we shouldn't install any breeder reactors.
Reprocessing is expensive and polluting. Even at todays 10x uranium prices, nobody's going to try reprocessing, because it's still too expensive, especially if all the external costs are factored in.
You don't know whether that will hold in the future -- you have to forecast future conditions in order to determine whether a process will be viable then. All that matters is if reprocessing costs less than production of new rods. Also note economies of scale for reprocessing -- it may become cheaper as the amount of spent rods increases.
Thorium in general can't be plugged into existing reactors, not without considerable modification of the reactor cores and control systems. Not likely to happen anytime soon.
Which doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to do it at some point. And why is 'soon' so important? Energy policy needs to be thought of in terms of decades (or longer!), not years. Plus, diversity of source is a good thing, it's a bad idea to have all your eggs in one basket.
Folks, before you hop on a wishful bandwagon, how about making sure there is a wagon?
Hey, how about thinking that just because no one is doing it right now that it's not worthwhile? How about realizing that advances in many fields (energy production included) derive from people who are willing to look at potentials others are ignoring, or have dismissed as untenable?
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously, though, what we're facing now is much more alarming than that, especially on the foreign relations scene.
It appears that some nations are not abiding by the non-proliferation treaty, and are developing weapons of mass incrackination. We're talking melvins, hanging wedgies, and atomic wedgies in Iran and North Korea... It's the Asses of Evil.
The United Nerds has issued a couple strong letters decrying the practice, but it's up to us to make sure that we don't have to fight atomic wedgies on our own soil(ed underwear) -- we'll take the fight to them.
If you don't vote for us, you must love wedgies.
As for looks vs. taste, those are two qualities that consumers factor into the purchase decision. Supermarkets react to the consumer, who apparently prefers looks to taste -- on a lot of cases, people believe that looks indicate taste.
At any rate, this is very OT, except as an example that if the market demands a product, sellers are free to set the price wherever they want -- and people will buy accordingly. Are non-DRM'd singles of more value to people than DRM'd singles? Sure. So why wouldn't they pay more for them?
It's not some cunning plan, it's market economics.
Just a note about the use of the word "specifically" -- it doesn't appear in the 10th amendment. One could argue, of course, that the people authorized the federal government to take these actions (since non-enumerated powers are reserved for the states or the people), in which case everything is A-OK. There are plenty of powers in the Constitution that were left deliberately vague, so as to enable future Congresses to interpret them -- they were beyond the scope of the CC.
All interpretation is selective. And the Constitution was meant to be interpreted, since it is both moronic and impossible to lay out literal instructions for all contingencies with a new type of government in an era of massive political change. What's the problem?
And people who are pro- or neutral wrt the WTO speak up when there are articles sympathetic to their views?
Exactly -- which is why Antigua has a valid point.
Many people are upset with the US's recent actions. Trendy? I don't know. But I know very few people who aren't very disappointed with something the US has done recently. Perhaps what you're noticing is the fact that people can openly speak about how the US government is disappointing them without much fear of being castigated as a terrorist sympathizer? Perhaps you didn't notice in the past that speaking out against the US (as a US citizen) was flamebait both online and in the physical world. We're finally able to air our grievances, and this is a Good Thing.
As to the volume of grievances (if this is what makes you think it's trendy to hate the US), that's due to two things, IMO:
1. Years/decades of repression (societal, not necessarily governmental) make people a bit more vociferous about their views.
2. The volume of errors made by this administration (and prior ones) have led to more people having grievances.
So, before you label hating the US as 'trendy', take a look at what it is that makes people dislike the US, or particular actions by the US. Of course, there will be people who jump on a bandwagon, but that doesn't mean the people driving the wagon don't know what they're doing.
Because apparently the US line is, "It's immoral for our citizens to gamble on sites hosted in other countries. Gambling here, though, is perfectly OK."
Sure. But that doesn't change the fact the US government is fine with state-sponsored gambling (lotteries -- even multi-state ones, which severely hamper the argument that the federal government doesn't take action against lotteries because they are outside their provenance. How are multi-state lotteries different from multi-state gambling websites?)
I'd also like to point out that online gambling leading to a major increase in gambling is fine in my book (sorry, no pun intended). Online auction sites have led to a huge increase in auction participation; online medical sites (WebMD, etc) have led to a huge increase in patient participation in the medical process. Either gambling is wrong, or it is not -- and the state has shown time and time again that gambling is fine as long as the government gets its cut. This is the problem with the US law wrt the WTO and free trade agreements.
As for democratic oligarchy -- that term is an oxymoron. The US continues to be an indirect democracy (representative republic, pretty much the same thing), it's just that the electorate is bought by campaign ads, vote pandering, and wedge issues -- real political discourse is frowned upon. This allows the moneyed interests to dominate the electoral process.
That said, the role of government in a representative republic shouldn't be to protect people from themselves, either.
No. But if my instrument reads 3.5, I know it *could* be either of those values.
Sorry.
Not so. There is no distinction, other than whether you can physically hold it in your hand. These "standard values" you are talking about don't exist -- it's the market that determines the value of items in a fiat currency, not a standard.
Fiat currency is actually defined by the fact that it's NOT tied to a standard (gold standard, silver standard, etc).
4 * 1200 = 4800 +/- 600, since 4 could represent 3.500000000000001 or 4.4999999999999.
For that matter, 1200 could represent 1249.9999 or 1150, so
4 * 1200 = 4800 +/- 625.
We just don't know how accurate the initial measurement was, so it is completely inaccurate to say that 4 * 1200 is equal to exactly 4800.
Which once again brings us back to the fact that 2 + 2 = 5 (for extremely large values of 2).
Seriously, though, it was never in question that 4 x 1200 != 4.0 x 1200.
4.0 x 1200 is the GPAs of graduates of certain programs at U-Dub (Univ of Washington), as evidenced by this site.
4 x 1200 is a relay race.
There are several smaller producers out there who use cane sugar. Jones Soda is switching over.
Here's the froogle results for cane sugar sodas.
They are available if you look.
It depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
--WJC
1. $27.5MM lease -- but that doesn't include the user fees and ground rent they'll be paying. Nor does it include the lease payments, user fees, and ground rents other lessees will be paying.
2. State income tax.
3. Sales tax increase -- so what if they raise the ST in the region to get them into the black; that doesn't discount the fact that they'll be in the black.
$198MM. Additional revenues of $7.5MM/yr discounting 1 & 2 from above. 26 years to pay back the principal, even without those revenues...
Maybe you're missing the point that because they are making up the shortage, the shortage won't exist.
Unfortunately APCs are very expensive, so some of the brass decided to convert Humvees into crappy APCs. Which leaves us with a substandard vehicle being used for a purpose not envisioned for it during the design period. This is not a failure of the tool; it is a failure of those using the tool.
Where did I say anything about them voting for the economic interests of the rich? Where did I say anything about competitive economics between the rich and poor? That's a false dichotomy you inserted; it appears you've been able to develop your false-wedge-creating skills.
Please stop making things up.
Methinks it worked very well for the telecommunications industry -- maybe not so well for the general public.
If this were funded federally, then your point makes sense. But it's not, and so it doesn't.
PURE LACK-OF-COMPREHENSION BULLSHIT
I think if you check out the definitions of commercial available from a quick googling, you'll see that the definition typically has nothing to do with whether it's publically or privately funded. What's important is whether the facility will be used to buy or sell commodities (or services) or not.
Governments have always been involved in commercial operations. The two are not mutually exclusive. This could be a government-run commercial spaceport, or it could be a government-owned-but-privately-run commercial spaceport, or it could be a non-commercial spaceport.
Commercial != Private.
Of course, many people believe that government should not be involved in commercial activity at all, which is what I think you're getting at. But it's still perfectly fine to call this a commercial spaceport regardless of who owns or runs it, since goods and services will be bought and sold there.
Your chess analogy is broken, by the way -- chess play is much more specialized than academic fields. Who is more likely to have more complete knowledge of chess, a chess patzer or a game theorist? The big IF here is whether the academic specializes in the subject at hand.
And you're talking out of your ass again. I do know what I'm talking about, and unlike yourself, I actually bother using some critical thinking skills to determine what someone is saying before I respond to a post. I'll also add that the quote you provided is missing it's context -- it's a direct reply to a similarly-written (thought completely misdirected) quote about uneducated people not liking academics.
Seriously, since you are fond of making ridiculous anonymous comments not based in any kind of understanding of what was written, why don't you kindly refrain from opening your mouth until you have some understanding?
From what I read in the OP post, he was trying to credit those who work in a field, rather than discredit those who teach in a field -- though his terminology could have been improved.
[1] A bit testy, are you? You made an awful big assumption about the OP without bothering to think about what he was saying. Maybe you need to be a little bit less defensive, you know, maybe grow up a little and not react emotionally when you read a word you don't like.
I've always found it funny how academics often refuse to acknowledge the knowledge and wisdom of those who are gainfully employed in their area of expertise.
And many of those reasons have had to do with market conditions at the time of the decision -- and those market conditions are not static, so revisiting the decisions is a good idea.
Self-fulfilling. If breeder reactors were more widely used, then there would be demand. What you're saying is that since we'd need to install large numbers of breeder reactors to make the byproducts worth enough to justify producing them, then we shouldn't install any breeder reactors.
You don't know whether that will hold in the future -- you have to forecast future conditions in order to determine whether a process will be viable then. All that matters is if reprocessing costs less than production of new rods. Also note economies of scale for reprocessing -- it may become cheaper as the amount of spent rods increases.
Which doesn't mean it's not worthwhile to do it at some point. And why is 'soon' so important? Energy policy needs to be thought of in terms of decades (or longer!), not years. Plus, diversity of source is a good thing, it's a bad idea to have all your eggs in one basket.
Hey, how about thinking that just because no one is doing it right now that it's not worthwhile? How about realizing that advances in many fields (energy production included) derive from people who are willing to look at potentials others are ignoring, or have dismissed as untenable?