I had no luck finding exact numbers, but Musk was worth about $200million when he started this, but there have been some launches paid for by Uncle Sam, so the exact funding gets murky. The test launches cost between $7 to $12 million. I'd think it would be quite safe to say the total budget so far has been under $500 million, that would be Elon Musk's total fortune, plus matching funds from the government, plus considerable outside donations. $500 million is 1/32nd NASA's annual budget for comparison.
Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes? Sure it isn't mounted right down the barrel, but they all use some sort of optical/computer enhanced imaging for target acquisition. I don't know the statistics of where friendly fire is coming from, but a better target identifiying ability for fighting vehicles has got to be a good thing in that regard.
IT has a shortage of good workers and high barriers for new employees, so if every worker left a company that refused to pay overtime, then the company would fail almost overnight.
So stop being individually ineffective in your dissatisfaction with employers and form a union. Yes unions come with their own set of problems, but over time having a union presenting work standards for a field of work, will improve working conditions for everyone in that field, union or not. As you pointed out, for IT workers to really effect a company that refuses to pay overtime, every worker needs to leave. It's called a strike, and if your work demands are within what the company can reasonably support, you won't have to go on strike very often. The union I belong to has only had to go on strike once in 121 years.
"Attack!" is rather antithetical to our usual goals and methods. It can also be difficult to separate ourselves from the "batshit insane fundies" when we recognize that black-and-white thinking fundamentalism is a very common starting (and sticking) point in many peoples faith journeys. Think of how often pre-teens and teens have very black and white views on issues as they are beginning to develop socially and mentally into adults. It's a natural step in development, and so we try to encourage the continuing or restarting of spiritual growth for Christians who have hit a sticking point, rather than alienating them. However, this isn't terribly effective at countering the effects of high profile figure claiming to speak "for Christian America" in the public/media awareness. You have given me something extra to bring to the table at the next deacon's meeting. While I can't make promises for others, I do think there is a need for like minded liberal churches in America to publicly voice our differences from our vocal right-wing brethren.
American fundamentalists != modern Christianity
The rest of the Christian world != a few fringe Christians
Thank you. As a Christian living and practicing my faith in modern America, I often find myself frustrated and dismayed at damage done to the public perception of the Christian faith by groups like the Christian Coalition; and by those who would rather point to carefully selected parts of scripture as an attempt to justify hatred, violence, and nationalism than to truly embrace and grow into what is really a faith of love, hope, and compassion. I am persistently puzzled by how the Republican Party came to be associated with Christianity in the US. Looking at the actual actions taken by Jesus (the miracles) he seemed to be in favor of lots of free medical care, and a fair amount of feeding of hungry masses, and being rather forgiving of debts. That looks to be far more in line with policies associated with the Democratic Party than with traditional Republican policies. My Bible doesn't have "The Miracle of the Multi-National" or "The Blessing of the Interventionist Army".
Wait what? You can't measure a drop in sales of games but you can of Coke?
Yeah. pretty much. You see Coca-cola and other products,like it have been around for some length of time and established a reasonably consistent market. When they get boycotted, that market share drops and Execs want to know why. With a product like Spore, there is no established market, it's a brand new product. So there is no market share to suddenly shrink, there is only a lack of sales beyond launch. Execs assume the Will Wright has lost his mojo, stop making sandbox games, and go back to cloneing WoW, Halo, and Madden.
Didn't the Sony rootkit thing get cleared up primarily because of a series of class action lawsuits? Boycotts are a rather blunt instrument to use to try to express something like "This game is good, but the DRM sucks", by simply not buying the message is indistinguishable from "This game sucks." A lawsuit very specifically names the issue and is sure to be communicated precisely to the upper management.
I didn't intend to say that everyone who identifies as conservative or liberal would fall into those exact characteristics I described. I was attempting to illustrate what the extremes of each end of that social spectrum are like, to show why one side would be more attractive to the "different" than the other. I know that all people are complex shades of gray on most every kind of social or political scale, but it is the extremes of each end of that social scale that tend to have an impact on youth while they are forming their own views, and the extremists of each political party that set the direction, which is then followed by the more moderate majority of members of that party. I trying to be clear and concise I over simplified.
Are they weird because they are left wing, or are they left wing because they are weird? I would support the latter, because the right wing doesn't allow for variety or or non-conformism in it's societal view. If someone is autistic, they have very little chance of conforming to the social norms required by a right wing society. In a fully right wing, modern puritan society they would either be viewed as an un-american anti-social reject and be hated for it, or they would be viewed as deficient, inferior and helpless and be tolerated but never respected. It is inevitable that they would be attracted to the left wing, where differences and eccentricities are practically fetishes. In that same light it would immediately explain why right-wingers "report" to be in better mental health, and point to the lie in the sighted study. In a ultra conservative world view, conforming is a prime motivator. Any differences that might bring shame or show weakness are to be suppressed at all costs.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 1
A good manager has a good bullshit detector, which means technical competence is necessary.
I don't think it takes any special technical knowledge for a manager to see when a worker fails to make good on their estimates or when other trusted workers express concern or distrust over the smoke being blown up management's ass. In those jobs I mentioned, my coworkers and I were completely willing to tell/help a slacking coworker to uphold the standards necessary, or to tell our managers that they weren't up to par. A good work environment is worth preserving. That said those jobs were all in small scale enough situations (100 employees) that those mechanisms would probably work better than at a giant corporation.
Re:I don't know if I fully agree with that
on
Fire Your IT Boss
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
they need to have an understanding external to us.
... or experts they can trust. Some of the most pleasant managers I've had, didn't have a clue about the technical aspects of what I do, but they did trust me when I gave them a time/cost/resources estimate. Then they either gave me what i asked for in that estimate or asked what could be accomplished within more limited parameters. My co-workers and I would do everything we could to make good on that estimate, and the manager would do everything they could to keep non-task distractions (like upper management) out of our way. Those were wonderfully enjoyable jobs because i could just go and work, with a minimuim of haggling, looking over my shoulder, or politics.
I really can't think of any practical use for 1 watt-hour per day
That's because you are thinking like a first worlder, not a third worlder. 40 mW is just right to run a single LED light, which is much safer and more reliable than an oil lamp or candles. Sure that might not seem like a lot to you, but try going camping without a light source and you will quickly see the value of a simple light. Yes, 1-watt per day is cheap, but only once you have the service (read: infrastructure) I pay about $0.50 a day just for having electric service hooked up, before I am charged for a single kW. Not to mention what I pay in utilities taxes on each bill. Also add in other government subsides and tax breaks for power companies, and in fact the privilege of having electricity at all costs me more in a year than the many people's total annual income. To see the value in this really wonderful invention, you really need to try to understand the situation in a third world country or even worse a refugee situation. 11.4 million people are refugees right now, and about 25% of the world's population lives on less than $2-per day. Until you really try to understand what that means in terms of lack of infrastructure or stability, your attempts to provide helpful insight (In the U.S., 1 watt-hour per day costs somewhere waaaaay less than $0.25 a *year*) really just sound like condecention to the poor of the world, and that is in part why Americans have the reputation we have, and why it is so easy to get people to think that killing us would help solve their problems.
The important number there is the "$5". For the target market of these devices, that five bucks may be more than a day's pay. Sure a village could all save up together and buy a more efficient wind turbine but third world countries aren't known for being particularly stable or safe, a $3000 turbine is likely going to be a target for theft by the local militants, provided it isn't confiscated by corrupt local officials first. Small cheap and portable are greater assets in this situation than pure efficiency.
The only thing the foreign debt holders can do is stop buying new debt. That would force the rates on treasury securities to go up, until the point those securities became attractive to buyers again.
Once a few big countries decide they don't want to continue propping up the dollar, high rates won't do anything but highlight what a house of cards American wealth really is. High rates are meaningless if you can't get a return on your money invested. It's like the value of a Picasso paining that is proven to be a fake, when everyone thought it was legit it was worth millions, and as soon as they lose that faith it is worth a few hundred at best. The only thing that has changed is peoples perception. The move of the world to the Euro is an international vote of "no confidence" in the USA; perceptions are changing. When US debt become worthless paper backed by nothing, the purchasing power of the dollar (also backed by nothing) will follow. Most of our wealth is based on the global perception of value in America, the last several years have destroyed our image of strength, our image of morality, and our image of educated competence. Without that high value on the American brand, we are rapidly becoming a middle of the pack industrialized nation, and the size of our expenditures will soon have to reflect that.
they can buy more U.S. debt. Our fearless leaders will make sure that there are plenty of opportunities for foreigners to continue buying our asses into financial servitude.
Except that in the last few years, they have made the buying of our debt unprofitable. The Euro is the new international currency and the US is waivering as a powerhouse. That's why Russia is getting suddenly imperialistic again, because we aren't a strong enough to be a global deterrent anymore. So militarily and economically we no longer have dominance which means that buying US debt is now a losing investment. I'm kinda looking forward to what happens when our foreign debt holders decide to call in thier markers and the economic size of our government is forced to cut in half. Especially because it's going to hit as the same time as the Social Security shortfalls are really setting in. US manufacturing will return in a major way in the next 20-30 years but we will manufacturing parts and toys for wealthy Europeans and Arabs.
At some point, if we have no space flights going on, the new shuttle replacement becomes "restarting manned space flight" rather than "continuing our manned presence in space".
I think that point would come at exactly the same time as the ISS re-entered the atmosphere. But I don't think that we should extend the shuttle program to support the ISS, I think that it's time for the ESA to shoulder the brunt of that burden (they are the wealthier superpower now) and NASA should get the shuttle replacement program going with one of the goals being the ability to move and service the ISS into a much higher orbit. Then start the ISS on some inspiring projects. How about capsules on long tethers to create gravity or a large greenhouse to maximize ISS self sufficiency or any of those other things that we need to learn before we can really send a three year manned mission to mars? Make NASA missions show a clear progression towards a spacefaring future. I realize that large scale human space travel is probably a century away still, if we ever want to get there, we need to have a long term vision to persue, and to inspire a long term vision NASA needs to do things on a grander, more tangible scale than the suit case sized experiments going on in recent history.
Since the embryo's that for some reason don't get in are human beings that WILL die before they're anywhere near breathing, the humane thing is to kill them as soon as possible.
But to follow pro-life logic to dispose of embryos is murder. So shouldn't every single embryo have to be implanted, or there are several counts of murder being done in order to facilitate the desired birth of one child. Not my logic, but a follow through to the "abortion stops a beating heart" line of thought as it would apply to implantations. What is the difference between the "merciful disposal" of unwanted implantation embryos and murder?
If you don't do business with the credit card companies, you will have a very low credit rating. If you don't do business with the banks that use RFID bank cards, you might not have any bank at all in many areas of the country. Without a credit card or bank account you will find your options for owning a house or a car reduced to nil. In Canada, you cannot pay your taxes in cash. You cannot get an iPhone with cash. And yes, it is legal for a business to refuse cash purchases.
The credit/currency corporations are the key to being "in the system" and if you are "out of the system" you will be homeless or in government housing in short order. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is an unfortunate reality. Perhaps you could lead a bank and credit card free life dealing only in Ithica Hours. But freedom from the financial corporate overlords is rare and hard won. Those overlords like RFID, so you will have RFID.
This is clearly an attempt to protect the industry from being compelled to institute 100 per cent testing for all material due to competitive pressure.
I see this as more about the USDA holding on to it's exclusive control of the testing and the power derived from that control. I doubt they give a fuck about protecting the industry other than as a more PR reason for their actions. If they were worried about the industry or safety first, they would allow the testing and possible competition, allowing the safety margin to grow and the reputation and market for American Beef blossom into a thriving national export. OH NO safe food and and jobs! The horror! Please, this is about control and the self preservation of bureaucracy.
the USDA is taking measures to prevent mis-information and FUD from affecting beef exports.
That's a very interesting and valid point, but what are they offering to replace the lack of testing with? Instead of spreading mis-information, they are preparing to hide behind willful ignorance should exported US Beef be found to have mad cow. "Willful ignorance of anything that might conflict with the official government line" is starting to become America's new primary reputation. The USDA isn't offering a method to ensure higher quality, they are only offering obstructions to those who are. Perhaps the company in question would be willing to wait until the cattle are three years old to ensure the testing accuracy, but they aren't being given that option. As an American, who loves his country, I really think we have reached the point as a culture and government where we deserve to fall miserably from or positions of wealth and power, for our own eventual good. Darwinism can only really be effective when there is hardship, and this country needs some serious darwinistic thinning of the herd. So I hope those beef producers relocate their headquarters and testing facilities to Mexico or Canada or Singapore, and create a lot of jobs and wealth somewhere far away, and that they send a Christmas card to the governor and congressional representatives of Kansas every year.
I don't think that for very many Americans,living on the coasts, it is necessarily an issue of race. FTFY, serious heartfelt racism is alive and well in the more culturally sedentary parts of the country, the only thing that has really changed is that now it is quiet and personal instead of accepted public policy.
The environmentalists in the lower 48 haven't a clue what is going on in Alaska's environment.
But you are just fine with spending federal funds that come from the rest of the country, aren't you? Alaskans don't have a clue about what's going on in the lower 48, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
The "current system" can only thrive so long as there are those willing to prop it up.
True, but look at the rate of incumbency in Congress: 92.8% Everyone of those Congressmen has earmarked something that benefits their constituents, and those constituents will keep that Congressman in office, so there will be "those who are willing to prop it up" in the extreme congressional majority for the foreseeable future. Given the various powers and restriction of congress and voters , this is an expected (if undesirable) state for our government. Without a Constitutional amendment to change the congressional game, earmarking is an almost guaranteed ticket to re-election and therefore an unavoidable part of the current system.
And what of Obama's support for illegal wiretapping indemnity?!?
I think Obama's "yea" vote on the bill that contained the wiretapping indemnity was more a problem of our current system of multi-issue bills than a true expression of Obama's ideals. There was a lot of content in that bill that was quality, but the indemnity was stuck in much the same way that any other earmark or pet project is stuck in, this one just got more publicity. That said, if Obama is really about change as much as he claims to be, he will take steps to amend this flaw in our government, either through line-item veto power or much tighter restrictions on the breadth of any given bill, I would prefer the latter as a restriction of Congressional power will serve us better in the long term over an expansion of Executive power.
Slashdot Mirror
I had no luck finding exact numbers, but Musk was worth about $200million when he started this, but there have been some launches paid for by Uncle Sam, so the exact funding gets murky. The test launches cost between $7 to $12 million. I'd think it would be quite safe to say the total budget so far has been under $500 million, that would be Elon Musk's total fortune, plus matching funds from the government, plus considerable outside donations. $500 million is 1/32nd NASA's annual budget for comparison.
Don't tanks, attack helicopters and ground support planes also use scopes? Sure it isn't mounted right down the barrel, but they all use some sort of optical/computer enhanced imaging for target acquisition. I don't know the statistics of where friendly fire is coming from, but a better target identifiying ability for fighting vehicles has got to be a good thing in that regard.
IT has a shortage of good workers and high barriers for new employees, so if every worker left a company that refused to pay overtime, then the company would fail almost overnight.
So stop being individually ineffective in your dissatisfaction with employers and form a union. Yes unions come with their own set of problems, but over time having a union presenting work standards for a field of work, will improve working conditions for everyone in that field, union or not. As you pointed out, for IT workers to really effect a company that refuses to pay overtime, every worker needs to leave. It's called a strike, and if your work demands are within what the company can reasonably support, you won't have to go on strike very often. The union I belong to has only had to go on strike once in 121 years.
Stand up, and ostracise them. Let the world know just what %age are actually these batshit insane fundie death cult
We (speaking on behalf of my church) are trying to improve things by doing positive, inclusive ministries in the world.
"Attack!" is rather antithetical to our usual goals and methods. It can also be difficult to separate ourselves from the "batshit insane fundies" when we recognize that black-and-white thinking fundamentalism is a very common starting (and sticking) point in many peoples faith journeys. Think of how often pre-teens and teens have very black and white views on issues as they are beginning to develop socially and mentally into adults. It's a natural step in development, and so we try to encourage the continuing or restarting of spiritual growth for Christians who have hit a sticking point, rather than alienating them. However, this isn't terribly effective at countering the effects of high profile figure claiming to speak "for Christian America" in the public/media awareness. You have given me something extra to bring to the table at the next deacon's meeting. While I can't make promises for others, I do think there is a need for like minded liberal churches in America to publicly voice our differences from our vocal right-wing brethren.
American fundamentalists != modern Christianity The rest of the Christian world != a few fringe Christians
Thank you. As a Christian living and practicing my faith in modern America, I often find myself frustrated and dismayed at damage done to the public perception of the Christian faith by groups like the Christian Coalition; and by those who would rather point to carefully selected parts of scripture as an attempt to justify hatred, violence, and nationalism than to truly embrace and grow into what is really a faith of love, hope, and compassion.
I am persistently puzzled by how the Republican Party came to be associated with Christianity in the US. Looking at the actual actions taken by Jesus (the miracles) he seemed to be in favor of lots of free medical care, and a fair amount of feeding of hungry masses, and being rather forgiving of debts. That looks to be far more in line with policies associated with the Democratic Party than with traditional Republican policies. My Bible doesn't have "The Miracle of the Multi-National" or "The Blessing of the Interventionist Army".
Wait what? You can't measure a drop in sales of games but you can of Coke?
Yeah. pretty much. You see Coca-cola and other products,like it have been around for some length of time and established a reasonably consistent market. When they get boycotted, that market share drops and Execs want to know why. With a product like Spore, there is no established market, it's a brand new product. So there is no market share to suddenly shrink, there is only a lack of sales beyond launch. Execs assume the Will Wright has lost his mojo, stop making sandbox games, and go back to cloneing WoW, Halo, and Madden.
Didn't the Sony rootkit thing get cleared up primarily because of a series of class action lawsuits? Boycotts are a rather blunt instrument to use to try to express something like "This game is good, but the DRM sucks", by simply not buying the message is indistinguishable from "This game sucks." A lawsuit very specifically names the issue and is sure to be communicated precisely to the upper management.
I didn't intend to say that everyone who identifies as conservative or liberal would fall into those exact characteristics I described. I was attempting to illustrate what the extremes of each end of that social spectrum are like, to show why one side would be more attractive to the "different" than the other. I know that all people are complex shades of gray on most every kind of social or political scale, but it is the extremes of each end of that social scale that tend to have an impact on youth while they are forming their own views, and the extremists of each political party that set the direction, which is then followed by the more moderate majority of members of that party. I trying to be clear and concise I over simplified.
Are they weird because they are left wing, or are they left wing because they are weird? I would support the latter, because the right wing doesn't allow for variety or or non-conformism in it's societal view. If someone is autistic, they have very little chance of conforming to the social norms required by a right wing society. In a fully right wing, modern puritan society they would either be viewed as an un-american anti-social reject and be hated for it, or they would be viewed as deficient, inferior and helpless and be tolerated but never respected. It is inevitable that they would be attracted to the left wing, where differences and eccentricities are practically fetishes. In that same light it would immediately explain why right-wingers "report" to be in better mental health, and point to the lie in the sighted study. In a ultra conservative world view, conforming is a prime motivator. Any differences that might bring shame or show weakness are to be suppressed at all costs.
A good manager has a good bullshit detector, which means technical competence is necessary.
I don't think it takes any special technical knowledge for a manager to see when a worker fails to make good on their estimates or when other trusted workers express concern or distrust over the smoke being blown up management's ass. In those jobs I mentioned, my coworkers and I were completely willing to tell/help a slacking coworker to uphold the standards necessary, or to tell our managers that they weren't up to par. A good work environment is worth preserving. That said those jobs were all in small scale enough situations (100 employees) that those mechanisms would probably work better than at a giant corporation.
they need to have an understanding external to us.
... or experts they can trust. Some of the most pleasant managers I've had, didn't have a clue about the technical aspects of what I do, but they did trust me when I gave them a time/cost/resources estimate. Then they either gave me what i asked for in that estimate or asked what could be accomplished within more limited parameters. My co-workers and I would do everything we could to make good on that estimate, and the manager would do everything they could to keep non-task distractions (like upper management) out of our way. Those were wonderfully enjoyable jobs because i could just go and work, with a minimuim of haggling, looking over my shoulder, or politics.
I really can't think of any practical use for 1 watt-hour per day
That's because you are thinking like a first worlder, not a third worlder. 40 mW is just right to run a single LED light, which is much safer and more reliable than an oil lamp or candles. Sure that might not seem like a lot to you, but try going camping without a light source and you will quickly see the value of a simple light. Yes, 1-watt per day is cheap, but only once you have the service (read: infrastructure) I pay about $0.50 a day just for having electric service hooked up, before I am charged for a single kW. Not to mention what I pay in utilities taxes on each bill. Also add in other government subsides and tax breaks for power companies, and in fact the privilege of having electricity at all costs me more in a year than the many people's total annual income.
To see the value in this really wonderful invention, you really need to try to understand the situation in a third world country or even worse a refugee situation. 11.4 million people are refugees right now, and about 25% of the world's population lives on less than $2-per day. Until you really try to understand what that means in terms of lack of infrastructure or stability, your attempts to provide helpful insight (In the U.S., 1 watt-hour per day costs somewhere waaaaay less than $0.25 a *year*) really just sound like condecention to the poor of the world, and that is in part why Americans have the reputation we have, and why it is so easy to get people to think that killing us would help solve their problems.
40mW in 10 MPH wind for $5
The important number there is the "$5". For the target market of these devices, that five bucks may be more than a day's pay. Sure a village could all save up together and buy a more efficient wind turbine but third world countries aren't known for being particularly stable or safe, a $3000 turbine is likely going to be a target for theft by the local militants, provided it isn't confiscated by corrupt local officials first. Small cheap and portable are greater assets in this situation than pure efficiency.
The only thing the foreign debt holders can do is stop buying new debt. That would force the rates on treasury securities to go up, until the point those securities became attractive to buyers again.
Once a few big countries decide they don't want to continue propping up the dollar, high rates won't do anything but highlight what a house of cards American wealth really is. High rates are meaningless if you can't get a return on your money invested. It's like the value of a Picasso paining that is proven to be a fake, when everyone thought it was legit it was worth millions, and as soon as they lose that faith it is worth a few hundred at best. The only thing that has changed is peoples perception. The move of the world to the Euro is an international vote of "no confidence" in the USA; perceptions are changing. When US debt become worthless paper backed by nothing, the purchasing power of the dollar (also backed by nothing) will follow. Most of our wealth is based on the global perception of value in America, the last several years have destroyed our image of strength, our image of morality, and our image of educated competence. Without that high value on the American brand, we are rapidly becoming a middle of the pack industrialized nation, and the size of our expenditures will soon have to reflect that.
they can buy more U.S. debt. Our fearless leaders will make sure that there are plenty of opportunities for foreigners to continue buying our asses into financial servitude.
Except that in the last few years, they have made the buying of our debt unprofitable. The Euro is the new international currency and the US is waivering as a powerhouse. That's why Russia is getting suddenly imperialistic again, because we aren't a strong enough to be a global deterrent anymore. So militarily and economically we no longer have dominance which means that buying US debt is now a losing investment. I'm kinda looking forward to what happens when our foreign debt holders decide to call in thier markers and the economic size of our government is forced to cut in half. Especially because it's going to hit as the same time as the Social Security shortfalls are really setting in. US manufacturing will return in a major way in the next 20-30 years but we will manufacturing parts and toys for wealthy Europeans and Arabs.
At some point, if we have no space flights going on, the new shuttle replacement becomes "restarting manned space flight" rather than "continuing our manned presence in space".
I think that point would come at exactly the same time as the ISS re-entered the atmosphere. But I don't think that we should extend the shuttle program to support the ISS, I think that it's time for the ESA to shoulder the brunt of that burden (they are the wealthier superpower now) and NASA should get the shuttle replacement program going with one of the goals being the ability to move and service the ISS into a much higher orbit. Then start the ISS on some inspiring projects. How about capsules on long tethers to create gravity or a large greenhouse to maximize ISS self sufficiency or any of those other things that we need to learn before we can really send a three year manned mission to mars? Make NASA missions show a clear progression towards a spacefaring future. I realize that large scale human space travel is probably a century away still, if we ever want to get there, we need to have a long term vision to persue, and to inspire a long term vision NASA needs to do things on a grander, more tangible scale than the suit case sized experiments going on in recent history.
Since the embryo's that for some reason don't get in are human beings that WILL die before they're anywhere near breathing, the humane thing is to kill them as soon as possible.
But to follow pro-life logic to dispose of embryos is murder. So shouldn't every single embryo have to be implanted, or there are several counts of murder being done in order to facilitate the desired birth of one child. Not my logic, but a follow through to the "abortion stops a beating heart" line of thought as it would apply to implantations. What is the difference between the "merciful disposal" of unwanted implantation embryos and murder?
If you don't do business with the credit card companies, you will have a very low credit rating. If you don't do business with the banks that use RFID bank cards, you might not have any bank at all in many areas of the country. Without a credit card or bank account you will find your options for owning a house or a car reduced to nil. In Canada, you cannot pay your taxes in cash. You cannot get an iPhone with cash. And yes, it is legal for a business to refuse cash purchases.
The credit/currency corporations are the key to being "in the system" and if you are "out of the system" you will be homeless or in government housing in short order. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is an unfortunate reality. Perhaps you could lead a bank and credit card free life dealing only in Ithica Hours. But freedom from the financial corporate overlords is rare and hard won. Those overlords like RFID, so you will have RFID.
You do understand that none of that matters if we can't export the beef right? You do know that bans on American Beef are only now being lifted in many countries across the world, and that single incident will bring those bans right back, and for a longer time, right? I don't know that I would go around touting the safety of an industry that had to recall 143 million pounds of beef because they were found to be sneaking cattle to sick to stand into the slaughterhouse. Face it, big industry beef is nasty dirty. There seems to be a big e.coli recall every few years, that is polite wording for cow shit mixed into the meat. Is it any wonder that other countries would view US Beef with a few worries about disease? Is there any better way to relieve that worry other than higher levels of testing and stricter quality control? Is the USDA showing any initiative on that? no, no, and no.
This is clearly an attempt to protect the industry from being compelled to institute 100 per cent testing for all material due to competitive pressure.
I see this as more about the USDA holding on to it's exclusive control of the testing and the power derived from that control. I doubt they give a fuck about protecting the industry other than as a more PR reason for their actions. If they were worried about the industry or safety first, they would allow the testing and possible competition, allowing the safety margin to grow and the reputation and market for American Beef blossom into a thriving national export. OH NO safe food and and jobs! The horror! Please, this is about control and the self preservation of bureaucracy.
the USDA is taking measures to prevent mis-information and FUD from affecting beef exports.
That's a very interesting and valid point, but what are they offering to replace the lack of testing with? Instead of spreading mis-information, they are preparing to hide behind willful ignorance should exported US Beef be found to have mad cow. "Willful ignorance of anything that might conflict with the official government line" is starting to become America's new primary reputation. The USDA isn't offering a method to ensure higher quality, they are only offering obstructions to those who are. Perhaps the company in question would be willing to wait until the cattle are three years old to ensure the testing accuracy, but they aren't being given that option. As an American, who loves his country, I really think we have reached the point as a culture and government where we deserve to fall miserably from or positions of wealth and power, for our own eventual good. Darwinism can only really be effective when there is hardship, and this country needs some serious darwinistic thinning of the herd. So I hope those beef producers relocate their headquarters and testing facilities to Mexico or Canada or Singapore, and create a lot of jobs and wealth somewhere far away, and that they send a Christmas card to the governor and congressional representatives of Kansas every year.
I don't think that for very many Americans, living on the coasts, it is necessarily an issue of race.
FTFY, serious heartfelt racism is alive and well in the more culturally sedentary parts of the country, the only thing that has really changed is that now it is quiet and personal instead of accepted public policy.
The environmentalists in the lower 48 haven't a clue what is going on in Alaska's environment.
But you are just fine with spending federal funds that come from the rest of the country, aren't you? Alaskans don't have a clue about what's going on in the lower 48, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.
The "current system" can only thrive so long as there are those willing to prop it up.
True, but look at the rate of incumbency in Congress: 92.8% Everyone of those Congressmen has earmarked something that benefits their constituents, and those constituents will keep that Congressman in office, so there will be "those who are willing to prop it up" in the extreme congressional majority for the foreseeable future. Given the various powers and restriction of congress and voters , this is an expected (if undesirable) state for our government. Without a Constitutional amendment to change the congressional game, earmarking is an almost guaranteed ticket to re-election and therefore an unavoidable part of the current system.
And what of Obama's support for illegal wiretapping indemnity?!?
I think Obama's "yea" vote on the bill that contained the wiretapping indemnity was more a problem of our current system of multi-issue bills than a true expression of Obama's ideals. There was a lot of content in that bill that was quality, but the indemnity was stuck in much the same way that any other earmark or pet project is stuck in, this one just got more publicity. That said, if Obama is really about change as much as he claims to be, he will take steps to amend this flaw in our government, either through line-item veto power or much tighter restrictions on the breadth of any given bill, I would prefer the latter as a restriction of Congressional power will serve us better in the long term over an expansion of Executive power.