Saying we can fly slower assumes planes are flying faster than their optimal fuel to speed ratio and based on what I've read, they already do.
Seems pretty disingenuous to presume the airlines are not already doing everything they can to keep costs, especially fuel, low, which leads to: but pretty much everything else has gotten cheaper.
Except fuel. You still need 11,200 gallons to top off a 757.
Why would we eliminate the DoE? That is just one of many possibilities, we need to reduce size but that does not mean we have to get rid of everything. What a weird thing to bring up out of the blue.
Oh, wait, now you're talking about the "prime movers"? I thought you were talking about the people who were handling logistics, making sure every i was dotted and t was crossed. Funny, that, I don't see those former Clinton administration members advertizing this rally, so I find it hard to believe they're the "prime movers."
But in follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”
Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.
Others could not explain the contradiction.
“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
People simply want fiscal sanity now, and Republicans or Democrats who cannot deliver that will go away.
How do you think people will react when they realize this fiscal sanity will require major cutting in government programs like Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security or raising taxes?
Eliminating the Department of Education, a popular target, will simply turn a $1,000 billion deficit into a $950 billion deficit.
To really, truly, make cuts, you have to hit the Big Four (listed above) which combined account for nearly $2,500 billion of the budget, and when you take into account the government only brings in $2,500 billion, you come to the stark realization that you could eliminate everything except those Four and still be toeing the balanced budget line. And then they want taxes cut on top of that.
The math simply does not work with what the public wants. (Seriously. Imagine yourself as a politician. Now picture yourself, on TV, saying you're going to cut Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. What are your odds of getting/staying elected?)
Personally I'm interested to see how the tea-party responds when they realize cutting government size means cutting programs you like. It's easy to say 'smaller government' but how serious are they about it really?
It'll be beautiful.
Here's some quick math so you will be able to appreciate it:
The US brings in about $2,500 billion through taxes, tariffs, et cetera. The US Federal Budget is around $3,500 billion.
Four department budgets, Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, constitute around $2,500 billion of the budget. (It's a bit less, so feel free to tack on interest paid on the debt to that, I just don't have the number handy.)
This means they can cut everything, including their favorite target, the Dept of Education (at $50 bil...now see why I kept writing those zeros?), except those items, and STILL have a deficit.
Oh, and then they want to cut taxes even more.
I'd love to see ANY politician go on national television and watch them say "We're cutting Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security." They'd be pilloried so fast, you'd hear sonic booms.
They probably wanted breeds less likely to cause allergic reactions along with ones well groomed with as little loose fur as possible. Nothing short of incineration will remove cat fur entirely once a cat has snuggled up to something.
The lawsuits of those allergic to cats afterwards would be brutal if something happened.
Just to point out, part of the XPrize qualifications is that the mainstream class (which the Edison2 was a part of) requires 0-60 mph in under 15 seconds.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, until the stylus starts wearing down and the grooves start smoothing out...
Saying we can fly slower assumes planes are flying faster than their optimal fuel to speed ratio and based on what I've read, they already do.
Seems pretty disingenuous to presume the airlines are not already doing everything they can to keep costs, especially fuel, low, which leads to: but pretty much everything else has gotten cheaper.
Except fuel. You still need 11,200 gallons to top off a 757.
Cheaper?! Air fares haven't gone up since the 80s...(yet the price of fuel has, exponentially...)
And if you want comfortable, go fly on Singapore or Emirates.
Why would we eliminate the DoE? That is just one of many possibilities, we need to reduce size but that does not mean we have to get rid of everything. What a weird thing to bring up out of the blue.
It's not out of the blue, it's one of Sharron Angle's talking points.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/01/harry-reid/harry-reid-says-sharron-angle-wants-eliminate-educ/
Oh, wait, now you're talking about the "prime movers"? I thought you were talking about the people who were handling logistics, making sure every i was dotted and t was crossed. Funny, that, I don't see those former Clinton administration members advertizing this rally, so I find it hard to believe they're the "prime movers."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html
I'd say yes, you are that politically weird.
Well, one quarter.
In a Republican primary, it's only Republicans voting (so that eliminates the Democratic/Independent half).
And then it only takes half of the Republican voters to win.
(Numbers rounded off to very generic terms.)
People simply want fiscal sanity now, and Republicans or Democrats who cannot deliver that will go away.
How do you think people will react when they realize this fiscal sanity will require major cutting in government programs like Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security or raising taxes?
Eliminating the Department of Education, a popular target, will simply turn a $1,000 billion deficit into a $950 billion deficit.
To really, truly, make cuts, you have to hit the Big Four (listed above) which combined account for nearly $2,500 billion of the budget, and when you take into account the government only brings in $2,500 billion, you come to the stark realization that you could eliminate everything except those Four and still be toeing the balanced budget line. And then they want taxes cut on top of that.
The math simply does not work with what the public wants.
(Seriously. Imagine yourself as a politician. Now picture yourself, on TV, saying you're going to cut Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. What are your odds of getting/staying elected?)
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/elections/how_groups_voted/voted_08.html
Obama carried or tied with McCain in all but one income group, and the one he lost was by 1%. Easily within a margin of error.
The person I like to see Jon interview the most is Mike Huckabee. Those are always excellent.
Kang was a Klingon, but Kodos was a leader of a Federation colony who sent thousands to their death.
Because former administration members are forbidden to pursue employment in the entertainment industry when they leave politics?
Better tell Karl Rove and Mike Huckabee that...
Personally I'm interested to see how the tea-party responds when they realize cutting government size means cutting programs you like. It's easy to say 'smaller government' but how serious are they about it really?
It'll be beautiful.
Here's some quick math so you will be able to appreciate it:
The US brings in about $2,500 billion through taxes, tariffs, et cetera.
The US Federal Budget is around $3,500 billion.
Four department budgets, Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, constitute around $2,500 billion of the budget. (It's a bit less, so feel free to tack on interest paid on the debt to that, I just don't have the number handy.)
This means they can cut everything, including their favorite target, the Dept of Education (at $50 bil...now see why I kept writing those zeros?), except those items, and STILL have a deficit.
Oh, and then they want to cut taxes even more.
I'd love to see ANY politician go on national television and watch them say "We're cutting Defense, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security." They'd be pilloried so fast, you'd hear sonic booms.
And for good measure they mock CNN for not being anything other than a retweet factory.
Apparently you didn't see the signs in question.
Looks Welsh...
There's always http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE
It's a making-of clip, with the commercial at the end. If you, you know, clicked through for once, you'd have seen that.
They probably wanted breeds less likely to cause allergic reactions along with ones well groomed with as little loose fur as possible. Nothing short of incineration will remove cat fur entirely once a cat has snuggled up to something.
The lawsuits of those allergic to cats afterwards would be brutal if something happened.
The measure of something's comfortableness to a cat is in direct relation to how much you desire to use that item.
Book? Uncomfortable.
Book you're about to pick up? Most comfortable spot on the planet.
I don't think I'd want to drive a tripod at 60mph.
I don't see Porsche making a 100mpg car...
Just to point out, part of the XPrize qualifications is that the mainstream class (which the Edison2 was a part of) requires 0-60 mph in under 15 seconds.
(Yeah, I had to dig it up. http://www.progressiveautoxprize.org/files/downloads/auto/PIAXP_Guidelines_V_1.3.pdf page 20-21.)
Nah, insurance rates will just be through the roof on this thing.
Does a motorcycle have air bags, side-impact beams, crumple zones...?
Maybe we need a new class of driver's licence.