In addition to having the misfortune of growing up around gangs there are other factors like attitude. When you grow up with a chip on your shoulder, being told you can't trust people of a particular color, discouraging assimilation into society, encouraging entitlement, etc. This all factors in as well. It's the reason they join gangs. They don't believe they are safe on their own and that there is strength and safety in numbers.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Usually stuff like this doesn't become public until many meetings are held determining how to manage the PR nightmare. I'll bet they've known about this for at least a year, maybe two.
The final version of the ACA that they signed was received less than 24 hours before they had to vote on it, and it was 1100+ pages. Nancy Pelosi famously said "you have to sign it so we can find out what's in it" grinning ear to ear.
That and I'm not sure why we're excluding Chernobyl. Direct death toll of 50, with as high as 4000 over time due to radiation related cancers. Now yes, reactor design and human error played a part in that incident we still can't discount that it could happen again. TMI had the potential to be a lot worse. They got lucky.
I believe nuclear technology is a good source of energy. If we could mitigate the waste problem and design systems that fail safe (newer reactor designs have this baked in) it becomes a lot more viable than what we currently have.
You still have the problem of waste though. The cost of storing it, the cost of lawsuits if it leaks, the cost of regulatory compliance, all of which is perpetual after it's been used. How does that factor into your cost analysis? I work for a power company. Wind is a challenge and we have no nuclear. It's usually there when we need it the least. Our system is mostly hydro with federally mandated river flows. So, when we are forced by law to purchase wind being generated (which is heavily subsidized by tax dollars) and back our hydro units down we still end up having to spill water to maintain river flows. It sucks for us as a company because we have to waste the resources we have which are also green and renewable. It sucks for our customers because they ultimately pay more for electricity. Both in taxes as well as increased rates to compensate for what we have to put out. Our residential rates have been going up 2-3% every year for the last 10 years.
If a company wants to hire younger employees there are plenty of ways to do that. You'll know right away when you go to a company and most of the people there are young. They'll exclude you as unqualified off the bat, or if you do get an interview there are tons of ways to subjectively judge candidates. All they have to do is say the person they hired had a personality they felt was more compatible with their team. They'll never say we didn't hire you because we know you're probably going to retire in 10 years or less. Really you have to think about it from an employer's perspective too. Do you want to train someone who's going to leave in 10 years or 30? It's expensive. Now there's an argument to be made that the employee who's older has more experience requiring less training, but it really depends on the job. I'm not speaking about the fairness of it. Just pointing out reality.
If you're not contracted how much notice would they give you if they were going to terminate you? Do you think they lie awake at night worrying about what might happen to you and your family if they laid you off? It's different if there is loyalty to you as an employee. For an employer who treated me like I was valuable and not a replaceable battery I would give them at least 6 months. But if they consider you to be easily replaceable there's no reason to go out of your way.
There's a third model: charge as much as possible while providing as little as possible colluding with all available options so you have no choice but to pay through the nose for crap.
Sounds like you're just butt-hurt that it's not you. I'm glad you brought up Donald Trump. He took that inheritance and did something with it. He built things, put people to work, created wealth for others. Maybe not you, but perhaps you should look outside yourself. That doesn't happen for someone of low moral character, or minimal acumen. People like that are usually homeless talking about all the money they used to have. Who do you work for? Are you self employed? Get to where you are without any help from anyone else? Doubtful. Chances are you have what you have because of others who are wealthier than you are. Instead of hating on the rich because they took the initiative to get off their behind why don't you put forth your best efforts to become one of them? Because without the rich most the country would be unemployed and the government would have no money to take care of you.
I agree with your premise about US government. Politicians have proven they are untrustworthy and there is little reason to put our faith in government. Driven primarily by greed they rarely do what's in our best interest. Laws are concrete and written down. Very convoluted and subject to interpretation but the text is there if you have time to wade through it. Modeling is only as good as the assumptions that go into it and modeling human behaviors or expectations would be a fruitless endeavor anyway. Predict how two given people are going to respond to any issue. The answer may depend on what they had for breakfast and the difference between Monday or Tuesday in addition to a myriad of other inconsequential factors. However, if it were true that we understand well enough why do these problems persist? We have control over who we put in office. We're one of the few democracies in the world capable of choosing who our leadership is. Yet we let these things continue to happen. Why? I believe it is because we fail to come together for the common good of man. We can't even agree on what that is or should look like. We fight over silly things like race, gender, religion, political party ideals that are never realized in practice anyway on either side, and any other thing the powers that be can think of to keep us from focusing on the real problems. Never changing each others minds just feeling smug and superior because we think that we're right. We are being played for a bunch of chumps and these folks in power laugh all the way to the bank. Show me the scientific model that cuts through that dichotomy to create a better tomorrow.
Estate taxes are bad. Whether you're a farmer or a multi-billionaire the principal remains the same. You earned it. Paid income tax on what you earned. Paid taxes on all your assets year after year. Why should your children not be able to inherit that when you die without the government sticking their grubby hands in the pie? Especially when they perpetually waste money like it grows on trees? They can't appropriately manage what they have why should I give them more?
Now I'm not disputing your stance on net neutrality. I think Ajit is absolutely sold out to the telcom industry and his analogy about mom and pop ISPs is bogus. But that has nothing to do with estate taxes.
It's exactly like gambling. Without a crystal ball how do you know? It's an awfully big risk to take. What if it tanked in the last month? You'd owe all that money with nothing to show for it.
They don't usually prematurely detonate the bomb blowing themselves up but nobody else in a false flag operation. Not much of a distraction and highlights the fact that we need to be a little more careful about who we accept into our borders. But don't let anything as trivial as reason interfere with your blind Trump hatred.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Unions are just another hand in the working man's pocket. Might as well be working for two corporations at the same time.
Maybe it's just not predictable. There has been a lot of study on this over the years, and for all of our efforts it's still a problem.
In addition to having the misfortune of growing up around gangs there are other factors like attitude. When you grow up with a chip on your shoulder, being told you can't trust people of a particular color, discouraging assimilation into society, encouraging entitlement, etc. This all factors in as well. It's the reason they join gangs. They don't believe they are safe on their own and that there is strength and safety in numbers.
They had to move his office because there was no room at the inn.
But the real question is why we'd want him as president after he's already done "so much" for society?
That's exactly what I was thinking. Usually stuff like this doesn't become public until many meetings are held determining how to manage the PR nightmare. I'll bet they've known about this for at least a year, maybe two.
The final version of the ACA that they signed was received less than 24 hours before they had to vote on it, and it was 1100+ pages. Nancy Pelosi famously said "you have to sign it so we can find out what's in it" grinning ear to ear.
NYtimes? I think he was looking for a credible reference. With a headline like "Republican secret tax bill" I'm sure that will be totally unbiased.
Trends that continue for years still have fluctuations in them.
That and I'm not sure why we're excluding Chernobyl. Direct death toll of 50, with as high as 4000 over time due to radiation related cancers. Now yes, reactor design and human error played a part in that incident we still can't discount that it could happen again. TMI had the potential to be a lot worse. They got lucky. I believe nuclear technology is a good source of energy. If we could mitigate the waste problem and design systems that fail safe (newer reactor designs have this baked in) it becomes a lot more viable than what we currently have.
You still have the problem of waste though. The cost of storing it, the cost of lawsuits if it leaks, the cost of regulatory compliance, all of which is perpetual after it's been used. How does that factor into your cost analysis? I work for a power company. Wind is a challenge and we have no nuclear. It's usually there when we need it the least. Our system is mostly hydro with federally mandated river flows. So, when we are forced by law to purchase wind being generated (which is heavily subsidized by tax dollars) and back our hydro units down we still end up having to spill water to maintain river flows. It sucks for us as a company because we have to waste the resources we have which are also green and renewable. It sucks for our customers because they ultimately pay more for electricity. Both in taxes as well as increased rates to compensate for what we have to put out. Our residential rates have been going up 2-3% every year for the last 10 years.
If a company wants to hire younger employees there are plenty of ways to do that. You'll know right away when you go to a company and most of the people there are young. They'll exclude you as unqualified off the bat, or if you do get an interview there are tons of ways to subjectively judge candidates. All they have to do is say the person they hired had a personality they felt was more compatible with their team. They'll never say we didn't hire you because we know you're probably going to retire in 10 years or less. Really you have to think about it from an employer's perspective too. Do you want to train someone who's going to leave in 10 years or 30? It's expensive. Now there's an argument to be made that the employee who's older has more experience requiring less training, but it really depends on the job. I'm not speaking about the fairness of it. Just pointing out reality.
If you're not contracted how much notice would they give you if they were going to terminate you? Do you think they lie awake at night worrying about what might happen to you and your family if they laid you off? It's different if there is loyalty to you as an employee. For an employer who treated me like I was valuable and not a replaceable battery I would give them at least 6 months. But if they consider you to be easily replaceable there's no reason to go out of your way.
Ever been through security at a major airport? Not very mobile, and somewhat compressed. The future has arrived.
There's a third model: charge as much as possible while providing as little as possible colluding with all available options so you have no choice but to pay through the nose for crap.
I was reading in an article yesterday that the homeless people covered its sensors in BBQ sauce and kicked it over.
Everyone knows the best way to secure your systems is to obscure them under the fog of war. A cloud is naturally the next best thing.
Sounds like you're just butt-hurt that it's not you. I'm glad you brought up Donald Trump. He took that inheritance and did something with it. He built things, put people to work, created wealth for others. Maybe not you, but perhaps you should look outside yourself. That doesn't happen for someone of low moral character, or minimal acumen. People like that are usually homeless talking about all the money they used to have. Who do you work for? Are you self employed? Get to where you are without any help from anyone else? Doubtful. Chances are you have what you have because of others who are wealthier than you are. Instead of hating on the rich because they took the initiative to get off their behind why don't you put forth your best efforts to become one of them? Because without the rich most the country would be unemployed and the government would have no money to take care of you.
I agree with your premise about US government. Politicians have proven they are untrustworthy and there is little reason to put our faith in government. Driven primarily by greed they rarely do what's in our best interest. Laws are concrete and written down. Very convoluted and subject to interpretation but the text is there if you have time to wade through it. Modeling is only as good as the assumptions that go into it and modeling human behaviors or expectations would be a fruitless endeavor anyway. Predict how two given people are going to respond to any issue. The answer may depend on what they had for breakfast and the difference between Monday or Tuesday in addition to a myriad of other inconsequential factors. However, if it were true that we understand well enough why do these problems persist? We have control over who we put in office. We're one of the few democracies in the world capable of choosing who our leadership is. Yet we let these things continue to happen. Why? I believe it is because we fail to come together for the common good of man. We can't even agree on what that is or should look like. We fight over silly things like race, gender, religion, political party ideals that are never realized in practice anyway on either side, and any other thing the powers that be can think of to keep us from focusing on the real problems. Never changing each others minds just feeling smug and superior because we think that we're right. We are being played for a bunch of chumps and these folks in power laugh all the way to the bank. Show me the scientific model that cuts through that dichotomy to create a better tomorrow.
Estate taxes are bad. Whether you're a farmer or a multi-billionaire the principal remains the same. You earned it. Paid income tax on what you earned. Paid taxes on all your assets year after year. Why should your children not be able to inherit that when you die without the government sticking their grubby hands in the pie? Especially when they perpetually waste money like it grows on trees? They can't appropriately manage what they have why should I give them more? Now I'm not disputing your stance on net neutrality. I think Ajit is absolutely sold out to the telcom industry and his analogy about mom and pop ISPs is bogus. But that has nothing to do with estate taxes.
I know a few who lost their place to live, but very few who actually got bailed out. The banks got bailed out but the individuals did not.
It's exactly like gambling. Without a crystal ball how do you know? It's an awfully big risk to take. What if it tanked in the last month? You'd owe all that money with nothing to show for it.
They don't usually prematurely detonate the bomb blowing themselves up but nobody else in a false flag operation. Not much of a distraction and highlights the fact that we need to be a little more careful about who we accept into our borders. But don't let anything as trivial as reason interfere with your blind Trump hatred.
If that's the only distinguishable difference you can see between Trump and Obama your color blind glasses are defective.
That may not be by choice.