"Completely indefensible and irresponsible?" Those nuclear bombs stationed outside US borders (and the US nuclear stockpile in general) were probably the only thing keeping the Soviets from rolling their tanks all the way to Paris. And if you think US imperialism is bad, try living under the Soviet version.
The US (USAF?) does need a major overhaul of its nuclear handling policies; this crap would've never flown under SAC. You can pin that one on Clinton, and it's certainly stupid to blame this particular incident on Mr. Bush--he's done more than his share of stupid things, but not this. Most of those responsible are probably dead by now anyways.
Oh, yeah. Prostitution's bad. So let's throw these girls in jail, and give them a criminal record on top of whatever problem they've likely faced that pushed them to it in the first place. And that way, when they get out of jail, nobody will want to hire them and they'll be to ashamed to go do anything else.
It's one thing if it is truly 100% voluntary on the hooker's part; I have no problem with that. But most of them need help, not prison. Let's go after the pimps and the johns that take advantage of the ones in bad situations.
SSTO only really becomes viable when you're talking about reusable vehicles operating at high flight rates, like better than once a week.
Space access will be routine when your launch vehicle can be prepped in a winter snowstorm by hung-over ground crews tired from fighting with their spouses the night before, and when they can take the abuse dished out by swarms of small-children passengers. The current clean-room-and-army-of-men-in-bunny-suits method just isn't economical. Unfortunately, it will take a massive infusion of cash to move to the more reliable method.
I agree we could have done much better on the diplomacy front, but talking only works if you have the force (and the will to use it if necessary) to back it up. You can talk all you want, but if your opponent knows you won't do anything to back up your words, he isn't going to care much.
I really don't like Obama, but I hope he sticks to the issues he ran on and doesn't start trying to sneak through other things that never came up. Like I stated earlier, this election wasn't a complete blowout in the popular vote, and hopefully the democrats realize that a win by a few percent doesn't give them license to go hog-wild on every single platform issue. Moderation on all issues, but especially non-campaign ones, will be a much more beneficial to everyone.
Not to mention that $100k household income isn't that hard to get to. Say you have one person working in IT or engineering pulling in about $60k, and the other a teacher, nurse, or small business type making $40k. That's not unreasonable by any means in a small to moderate-sized city.
I'm glad you're so generous with other people's money. $100k gets eaten up real fast with mortgage payments, student loan payments, insurance, food, and children.
If all of the "rich" types that support high taxes and big entitlement programs would stick their money where their pieholes are, and start giving away huge chunks of cash, maybe they might be taken more seriously.
First, let's drop the the "rolling back tax cuts" crap. It's a tax increase. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but let's call it what it is, instead of "well, we're just rolling them back, so it's not really a tax increase, per se."
Second, it's not the graduated tax structure that so many object to as "socialist." A relatively decent and logical argument can be made that those in the higher tax brackets derive more benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets. I can work with that.
What many object to was the "spread the wealth around" statement, because they see it as tantamount to simple "here's your check" redistributionism. It's one thing to run a jobs program where those in it are actually contributing something to society--building infrastructure, cleaning things up, etc.--but quite another to give out money simply for drawing breath. And whether or not that's what Obama's plans truly are, it's what many fear.
Personally, I don't really care at this point. I distrust Obama more, but none of the candidates (including third parties) is appealing. I just don't want to see a democrat supermajority in Congress combined with an Obama win--one party rule is bad; absolute, filibuster-proof one-party rule is downright terrifying. Should that happen (from either party), you could probably kiss about half of the Bill of Rights goodbye.
Summary: NHS didn't cover a cancer drug, so the woman paid for it herself. NHS then said "well, now that you paid for that yourself, we're cutting you off completely."
FTA:
Mrs O'Boyle, an NHS occupational therapist, is believed to be the first person to die after being denied free care because of 'co-payment', where a patient tops up treatment by paying privately for extra drugs.
Co-payment was blocked last year by Health Secretary Alan Johnson because he claimed it would create a two-tier Health Service....
Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe....
A spokesman for the Southend trust said: 'It is explained to the patient that they can either have their treatment under the NHS or privately but not both in parallel.'
It sounds like the "choice" is either: (A) take what they give you, or (B) pay for it on your own... but in either case, you're still paying for (A) through your taxes.
You might wind up with something like happened in the UK recently, where (IIRC) one woman was told that, because she went outside the standard.gov healthplan and got a procedure done out of her own pocket, she was no longer allowed to use the "normal" system at all. I'm worried that the government would either deny some stuff to save costs, or kick someone off the plan if they go outside the system on their own dollar.
And I'm also worried about the stupid people who go to the ER for every fucking thing and demand antibiotics whenever they don't feel well--even when their illness is caused by a virus. Stuff like that can clog up the system real quick. Now I'm not saying they don't deserve coverage or anything; just pointing out a potential concern.
It's like another poster pointed out--you can get any two of quality, timeliness (availability), and controlled costs with healthcare. But you simply can't get all three.
once you get government in healthcare, the incentives to cut costs in places that aren't immediately visible and to pass laws that limit what we can do (and eat, and so forth) are even more likely to go into effect to keep costs low. Expect more restrictions on things like fast food if this goes into effect. People, apparently, cannot take care of themselves, so we need "Democracy" and mass opinion to do it for us. Some people might get the shaft and lose things they love, but in a democracy you sometimes gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?
Very good point. Yes, the prevalence and power of private insurance companies in healthcare is excessive... but government can be just as bad. If your insurance company denies a procedure, you still have the option of getting it done somewhere else, and figuring out the payment later. But I'm concerned that under a completely government-controlled system, if some bureaucrat denies a procedure, you will have no other option--either you do what the government says, or that's it. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is.
Perhaps he meant that modifying the equipment to go on a spacecraft would be too expensive. Lots of things are quite cheap here on earth, but getting them space-rated and qualified, and light enough to be launchable, costs a lot of money.
Exactly. The Russians are very good at aerodynamics, but they lag a little bit in engine efficiency and avionics. Plus, the US has been producing stealth aircraft for nearly thirty years. And as anyone who's worked on large projects like this knows, prior experience and institutional knowledge are key. Just look at the Ares program (rolleyes).
So if it's close, it just has to be voter fraud, huh? Any evidence to back that up, or is it just "I want Obama to win because he's liberal like me", or maybe "I just can't imagine why anyone would vote for Obama because he's just so great"?
Ok, fine. Let's say Obama gets 54% of the popular vote. That still isn't "mandate" category; it means 46% didn't want him in office.
This is even more true when most of the voting is not actually conducted on the basis of intelligent analysis of the issues, but rather by things like "Bush = bad, I Bush, therefore I = good" "his middle name is Hussein!" "vote for/against X because X is black/female" and so on. Yes, people really do vote based just on reasons like this.
In my view, if Obama is elected president and the Democrats have a larger majority in Congress, our economy is going to suffer. It may not suffer now - it might be 6-10 years down the road (since that is usually how long it takes for many economic effects to kick in). This is sure to happen unless many of the democrats turn into fiscal conservatives. We don't fix economic problems by throwing more money at the problem. I'm not attacking Obama or Democrats, I just don't think it would be a good idea for them to have control of the White House, the Capitol, and to be able to nominate and confirm new Supreme Court justices.
Indeed. And it's true for the Republicans, too; one of the scaries possibilities is for any party to have (a) the White House, and (B) an overwhelming filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Were that to happen, kiss your rights goodbye.
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works?
Nope. One says "we'll just give people money, that'll fix it!" and the other says "we'll just cut taxes on businesses, that'll fix it!"
I just hope that whichever candidate wins realizes that he does not have a "mandate" from the people to implement every policy idea, and swing far to the extreme positions of his party. This is going to be a very close race, and he will have wound up being elected by just a slight majority of the fraction of the eligible voting population that bothered to actually vote. Almost nobody who votes for a candidate agrees with him on every single point; it's quite possible they disagree on everything but one or two issues.
Point is, winning by a tiny fraction does not mean everyone wants radical "change". 90% might indicate that, but 50.7% doesn't.
What if the memory is so painful that the person is just unable to function? It's one thing to keep memories to hold on to the lessons, but that doesn't do you much good if you're stuck in a psych ward or unable to leave the house at all.
Slashdot Mirror
"Completely indefensible and irresponsible?" Those nuclear bombs stationed outside US borders (and the US nuclear stockpile in general) were probably the only thing keeping the Soviets from rolling their tanks all the way to Paris. And if you think US imperialism is bad, try living under the Soviet version.
The US (USAF?) does need a major overhaul of its nuclear handling policies; this crap would've never flown under SAC. You can pin that one on Clinton, and it's certainly stupid to blame this particular incident on Mr. Bush--he's done more than his share of stupid things, but not this. Most of those responsible are probably dead by now anyways.
I'd give my right nut for a working Viper; screw the environmental impact.
Oh, yeah. Prostitution's bad. So let's throw these girls in jail, and give them a criminal record on top of whatever problem they've likely faced that pushed them to it in the first place. And that way, when they get out of jail, nobody will want to hire them and they'll be to ashamed to go do anything else.
It's one thing if it is truly 100% voluntary on the hooker's part; I have no problem with that. But most of them need help, not prison. Let's go after the pimps and the johns that take advantage of the ones in bad situations.
Are they the corrugated plastic ones with metal stands? Those make great target holders when you go to the range.
Reality from the NYT, huh? ;)
Maybe for straight-up news stories, but for anything technical, scientific, or political, I'd try to find a better source.
SSTO only really becomes viable when you're talking about reusable vehicles operating at high flight rates, like better than once a week.
Space access will be routine when your launch vehicle can be prepped in a winter snowstorm by hung-over ground crews tired from fighting with their spouses the night before, and when they can take the abuse dished out by swarms of small-children passengers. The current clean-room-and-army-of-men-in-bunny-suits method just isn't economical. Unfortunately, it will take a massive infusion of cash to move to the more reliable method.
I agree we could have done much better on the diplomacy front, but talking only works if you have the force (and the will to use it if necessary) to back it up. You can talk all you want, but if your opponent knows you won't do anything to back up your words, he isn't going to care much.
I really don't like Obama, but I hope he sticks to the issues he ran on and doesn't start trying to sneak through other things that never came up. Like I stated earlier, this election wasn't a complete blowout in the popular vote, and hopefully the democrats realize that a win by a few percent doesn't give them license to go hog-wild on every single platform issue. Moderation on all issues, but especially non-campaign ones, will be a much more beneficial to everyone.
Not to mention that $100k household income isn't that hard to get to. Say you have one person working in IT or engineering pulling in about $60k, and the other a teacher, nurse, or small business type making $40k. That's not unreasonable by any means in a small to moderate-sized city.
I'm glad you're so generous with other people's money. $100k gets eaten up real fast with mortgage payments, student loan payments, insurance, food, and children.
If all of the "rich" types that support high taxes and big entitlement programs would stick their money where their pieholes are, and start giving away huge chunks of cash, maybe they might be taken more seriously.
No, I didn't know Palin that--assuming (no offense) that you're right. Got a source, by chance?
First, let's drop the the "rolling back tax cuts" crap. It's a tax increase. Doesn't make it right or wrong, but let's call it what it is, instead of "well, we're just rolling them back, so it's not really a tax increase, per se."
Second, it's not the graduated tax structure that so many object to as "socialist." A relatively decent and logical argument can be made that those in the higher tax brackets derive more benefit from certain government services than those in lower brackets. I can work with that.
What many object to was the "spread the wealth around" statement, because they see it as tantamount to simple "here's your check" redistributionism. It's one thing to run a jobs program where those in it are actually contributing something to society--building infrastructure, cleaning things up, etc.--but quite another to give out money simply for drawing breath. And whether or not that's what Obama's plans truly are, it's what many fear.
Personally, I don't really care at this point. I distrust Obama more, but none of the candidates (including third parties) is appealing. I just don't want to see a democrat supermajority in Congress combined with an Obama win--one party rule is bad; absolute, filibuster-proof one-party rule is downright terrifying. Should that happen (from either party), you could probably kiss about half of the Bill of Rights goodbye.
But the republicans didn't have a filibuster-proof majority in both houses during those six years.
Found it: http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/health/article-1016262/Grandmother-dies-NHS-cancer-treatment-withdrawn-paid-privately-life-extending-drug.html
Summary: NHS didn't cover a cancer drug, so the woman paid for it herself. NHS then said "well, now that you paid for that yourself, we're cutting you off completely."
FTA:
Mrs O'Boyle, an NHS occupational therapist, is believed to be the first person to die after being denied free care because of 'co-payment', where a patient tops up treatment by paying privately for extra drugs.
Co-payment was blocked last year by Health Secretary Alan Johnson because he claimed it would create a two-tier Health Service. ...
Medical experts say the ban on co-payment is one reason why Britain has one of the worst survival rates for cancer in Europe. ...
A spokesman for the Southend trust said: 'It is explained to the patient that they can either have their treatment under the NHS or privately but not both in parallel.'
It sounds like the "choice" is either:
(A) take what they give you, or (B) pay for it on your own... but in either case, you're still paying for (A) through your taxes.
You might wind up with something like happened in the UK recently, where (IIRC) one woman was told that, because she went outside the standard .gov healthplan and got a procedure done out of her own pocket, she was no longer allowed to use the "normal" system at all. I'm worried that the government would either deny some stuff to save costs, or kick someone off the plan if they go outside the system on their own dollar.
And I'm also worried about the stupid people who go to the ER for every fucking thing and demand antibiotics whenever they don't feel well--even when their illness is caused by a virus. Stuff like that can clog up the system real quick. Now I'm not saying they don't deserve coverage or anything; just pointing out a potential concern.
It's like another poster pointed out--you can get any two of quality, timeliness (availability), and controlled costs with healthcare. But you simply can't get all three.
once you get government in healthcare, the incentives to cut costs in places that aren't immediately visible and to pass laws that limit what we can do (and eat, and so forth) are even more likely to go into effect to keep costs low. Expect more restrictions on things like fast food if this goes into effect. People, apparently, cannot take care of themselves, so we need "Democracy" and mass opinion to do it for us. Some people might get the shaft and lose things they love, but in a democracy you sometimes gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette, right?
Very good point. Yes, the prevalence and power of private insurance companies in healthcare is excessive... but government can be just as bad. If your insurance company denies a procedure, you still have the option of getting it done somewhere else, and figuring out the payment later. But I'm concerned that under a completely government-controlled system, if some bureaucrat denies a procedure, you will have no other option--either you do what the government says, or that's it. I'm honestly not sure what the solution is.
Perhaps he meant that modifying the equipment to go on a spacecraft would be too expensive. Lots of things are quite cheap here on earth, but getting them space-rated and qualified, and light enough to be launchable, costs a lot of money.
Exactly. The Russians are very good at aerodynamics, but they lag a little bit in engine efficiency and avionics. Plus, the US has been producing stealth aircraft for nearly thirty years. And as anyone who's worked on large projects like this knows, prior experience and institutional knowledge are key. Just look at the Ares program (rolleyes).
So if it's close, it just has to be voter fraud, huh? Any evidence to back that up, or is it just "I want Obama to win because he's liberal like me", or maybe "I just can't imagine why anyone would vote for Obama because he's just so great"?
Given how many people have given up on the political system, I don't think you can say either will have a true mandate
They won't have one... what I'm saying is that they will probably claim to have one.
Err, I was being (intentionally) simplistic and cynical.
Ok, fine. Let's say Obama gets 54% of the popular vote. That still isn't "mandate" category; it means 46% didn't want him in office.
This is even more true when most of the voting is not actually conducted on the basis of intelligent analysis of the issues, but rather by things like "Bush = bad, I Bush, therefore I = good" "his middle name is Hussein!" "vote for/against X because X is black/female" and so on. Yes, people really do vote based just on reasons like this.
In my view, if Obama is elected president and the Democrats have a larger majority in Congress, our economy is going to suffer. It may not suffer now - it might be 6-10 years down the road (since that is usually how long it takes for many economic effects to kick in). This is sure to happen unless many of the democrats turn into fiscal conservatives. We don't fix economic problems by throwing more money at the problem. I'm not attacking Obama or Democrats, I just don't think it would be a good idea for them to have control of the White House, the Capitol, and to be able to nominate and confirm new Supreme Court justices.
Indeed. And it's true for the Republicans, too; one of the scaries possibilities is for any party to have (a) the White House, and (B) an overwhelming filibuster-proof majority in Congress. Were that to happen, kiss your rights goodbye.
Has there been any evidence shown that either guy running for president has any idea how the economy works?
Nope. One says "we'll just give people money, that'll fix it!" and the other says "we'll just cut taxes on businesses, that'll fix it!"
I just hope that whichever candidate wins realizes that he does not have a "mandate" from the people to implement every policy idea, and swing far to the extreme positions of his party. This is going to be a very close race, and he will have wound up being elected by just a slight majority of the fraction of the eligible voting population that bothered to actually vote. Almost nobody who votes for a candidate agrees with him on every single point; it's quite possible they disagree on everything but one or two issues.
Point is, winning by a tiny fraction does not mean everyone wants radical "change". 90% might indicate that, but 50.7% doesn't.
Lesbian cyborgs? That's hot.
What if the memory is so painful that the person is just unable to function? It's one thing to keep memories to hold on to the lessons, but that doesn't do you much good if you're stuck in a psych ward or unable to leave the house at all.