I don't know much about the Coanda effect or the other factors that would affect flight, but I observed a craft just as you describe when I was a kid living in Australia in 1989. My father worked at the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap. I asked him about it and of course he said he wasn't aware of any such thing. But he didn't seem to have any concern at all that I was lying or mentally ill. Lying was dealt with very strictly and I would like to think my parents would care enough about my mental health to show some concern if I was clearly delusional or describing hallucinations. Only years later as an adult have I read online how Pine Gap is the Area 51 of Australia and numerous UFOs have been sighted in the area. My father passed away earlier this year so there is no longer any risk of secrets being divulged from him.
The craft I saw flew on a straight path like you would expect from an fixed wing aircraft or helicopter, except it was a pair of counter-rotating disks stacked vertically. The disks seemed more like ovals though, as the top disk appeared to shrink slightly in diameter while the bottom disk would increase proportionally, and this motion would alternate about once per second. The craft was a fair distance away, so I saw more of a side view and not much of a bottom view. I watched soon after it appeared crossing the horizon of a nearby mountain until it disappeared behind the horizon of another mountain, for about 40-60 seconds. But it was close enough to see clearly the counter-rotating ovals and to notice the complete absence of any sort of extended fuselage or tail assembly. Soon after seeing it I was puzzled trying to guess where the cockpit on such a craft would be located.
Maybe in another 30 years the docs on this project might get released. I'd like to know exactly what I saw that afternoon.
If patents were ever abolished, then certainly the system you suggest would take over and probably work adequately fo most situations. My only concern is that it could be too easy for one of the individuals signing the NDA on behalf of the manufacturer or even a lower level employee to stumble onto the details of the product earlier in the game and sell them off to another manufacturer that might be able to beat them to market. I might not be too difficult to fudge "evidence" to show that their own R&D teams came up with the idea(s) independently. In fact, independent development of the same product or innovation is quite common, hence the race to be first to patent. The contract is between the inventor and the OEM signing the contract. Third parties can swoop in like pirates and claim all the intellectual property for their booty. There are already dozens if not hundreds of manufactures, mainly in Asia, that produce knock-off, counterfeit, and cloned products from Nike shoes to Apple iPods. And they have well established networks of distributors, shippers, and bribed officials. Take patents out of the picture and now you make even easier for moderately unethical companies to engage in similar tactics without as much fear of the rule of law coming down against them. Without an arbitrary patent to halt all production from unlicensed manufacturers there would be too much of a burden on the inventor to track down each violator and PROVE that they didn't develop the technology on their own.
I'm not saying that this reason alone is justification for maintaining our existing system, but contracts between private parties are not nearly as bullet-proof as a well-written patent backed by a well funded and experience legal department.
Not everybody plays by the rules. If they did you wouldn't see so many Nike knock-offs and cloned iPods. And it's not impossible for a lower level employee to snatch up a great idea to hand over to a competitor, contract or no contract. It gets even more fun when the customer is located on the other side of the world. There's a lot of money to be made in the world of corporate espionage, reverse engineering, counterfeit products, corporate security and counter-intelligence.
I wouldn't mind seeing more public funding going into non-profit pharma R&D as an alternative to our present patent system. In most states, an action that demonstrates a "callous disregard for human life" and results in death constitutes second-degree murder. Possessing a life sustaining drug or even a cure for a terminal illness but selling it only to the wealthy or those with the right kind of health insurance at highly inflated prices could only be considered a "callous disregard for human life" if the actual bare-bones costs to replicate such a drug was affordable by most if not all potential recipients. But big pharma does this every day in the name of "looking after the interests of shareholders", "the cost to retain critical executive staff" (which are often more easily replaceable than made out to be), "recovering the cost of research", and/or "funding future R&D inititives". I have no problem with any of these concerns or motivations on their own, but literally letting people die needlessly because an executive wants to recover R&D costs in four years instead of eight or twelve, or because the 1%'ers have a dissproportionate ability to pay when compared to the masses that selling at an exorbitant price is too lucrative to pass up - that's where I have the problem.
Most states have laws against price gouging during a regional crisis, such as the approach or aftermath of a hurricane. You can't raise the price of baby formula from $10/unit to $100/unit just because demand has suddenly increased and desparate families are willing to pay anything to keep their babies fed. But how ironic that in this Christian nation we allow the providers of life-sustaining treatments the right to charge whatever the market will bear without any regard to the individuals who die without such treatment due only to a possibly temporal lack of available funds. When you deny your children access to such care you go to jail. But if you're the provider of such care you can deny access as much as you desire without any repurcussions.
If I am or plan to be a 1%'er then maintaining the present patent system gives me a chance to invest and make money, and if I get sick I could probably afford the cure. But I'm not a 1%'er, I'm just another face in the crowd, and as such I would rather take my chances pooling public funds, including taxes, to develop cures and treatments that will actually benefit myself, people I love, and humans anywhere if they need them.
Such public-funded pharma would benefit a larger pool of individuals with fewer people falling through the cracks. Researchers could share data easier with few if any restrictions compared to the red tape, non-disclosure agreements, and competitive nature of pharma-biz as it exists today. Taking patents out of the picture would reduce the need for patent agents, patent office employees, patent courts, and entire mega-budget legal departments that engage in billions of dollars worth of litigation to fight over such patents, with such legal battles threatening the development or production of present and future drugs.
Some might suggest that such a reform would negatively affect the development of drugs by removing the competitive element. But in reality, those putting in 60+ hours relentlessly searching and testing potential cures and therapies are not so likely to be driven by economic gain than by the desire to make a difference in this world. A "fair market" salary for such staff as compared to similarly qualified individuals working in industry and/or academic settings would likely be sufficient to recruit the necessary talent. And you may even bring in more talent from people like myself who would much rather be finding solutions to help extend and/or add quality to human life without letting an employer take such work and effort dedicated to such a cause and dishing it out on a "who can pay" basis.
So, if Joe Engineer develops the next new thing in his garage, he has to physically make each item by hand or directly hire staff and tool a factory from scratch to organically grow a manufacturing business that may not have anything new to manufacture after the patent expires but may take the life of the patent before finally supplying the initial demand? Why can't Joe Engineer develop his widget and license manufacturing to a company that is already established and capable. For Joe there is less upfront risk, faster time to market, and he won't be left "holding the bag" once the patent expires.
Now, if Joe scribbles a block diagram on a napkin I could see the value of requiring Joe to initiate production (directly or through licensed manufacturers) before his patent can be enforced. Joe shouldn't have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for 6 or 7 years to pounce on a successful company that just so happened to utilize the method depicted in his block diagram, most likely not even considering the "invention" worthy of a patent due to obviousness.
In many cases patents are the alternative to trade secrets. Many companies still choose to rely on trade secrets when the technology was discovered somewhat accidentally, when so much time and money are poured into R&D and there is no expectation that any other company will commit to the same level of effort, and/or when the company has some other reason to believe that competitors cannot or will not pursue the development of the protected technology. Trade secrets lead to a closed, uncooperative system where "the wheel" so to speak is constantly reinvented and the pace of techological innovation is significantly slowed. Patents lure inventors into trading away the potential gain (and risk) of developing and protecting trade secrets for the virtually guaranteed monopoly over their technolgy for 20 years or so.
As for evidence of a hypothetical "what if", I don't know how one could argue for or against such a position given the inherent limitations. There are definitely products that never made it to market because executives believed that the product could not be protected, competitors could duplicate the product and business objectves might not be obtainable.
Grass-fed beef requires more energy, water, and labor input than corn-fed beef. Each of those has an environmental cost associated with it. If you can do 'it' more efficiently, in general you reduce the environmental impact of 'it'.
Citation needed.
Many grasslands, when not in drought, get enough water from natural rainfall. Cattle provide much of their own energy rather than expending energy to produce and transport grain feed. Labor input is only bad when you see it on the "cost" column. Many people I know are raising their own beef and even selling it. When unemployment is 10%, wages are stagnant, and Americans keep getting fatter, maybe a little manual labor after work and on weekends would be a good way to round out a week strapped to a cubicle.
From what I have read over the decades, environmental damage tends to be more associated with "efficient" profit-maximizing operations. There are many environmental advantages to smaller-scale locally raised grass-feed beef. When cattle are rotated from pasture to pasture they eat a portion of the grass, spurring new growth which results in more net biomass. Cows then fertilize the land by trampling manure and decaying organic materials into the soil. The healthier plant roots retain more water and microbes, keeping carbon dioxide underground which, in turn, helps foster new plant growth. According to a twelve year USDA study of ways to improve soil quality, published in the Soil Science Society of America Journal (2010), moderately grazed areas actually have more stored carbon in the soil, both increasing fertility and slowing global warming.
Growing grass instead of grains also increases biodiversity because it offers habitats for the literally hundreds of animals that would otherwise not thrive in grain fields. The disappearance of grasslands, and consequently the biodiversity supported by those grasslands, is an environmental problem that can be mitigated by sustainable farming and pasturing methods.
If Americans switched en masse to pasture rotated, grass-fed beef, not only would it put the environmentally toxic factory farms out of business, but the naturally restored topsoil created by adding carbon and natural fertilizers to the land would increase the nutritive value of crops, resulting in better health for everyone. Today most crop farming is heavily dependent on industrial fertilizers, fertilizers that are often applied excessively to increase yields. Fertilizer runoff is a major threat to the environment, particularly waterways and wetlands. And a lot of energy goes into the production of these fertilizers. Natural gas is used to derive much of the Nitrogen, and lots of fuel and heavy equipment goes into the mining and transport of minerals such as potash. Consider for a moment how many greenhouse gases are emitted, how many fossil fuels are consumed, and how many pollutants and toxins escape into the air and water just to manufacture one front-loader or one dump truck. Now consider the total supply-chain effect on the environment caused by industrial agricultural practices, especially when most of the grain grown is used for livestock feed and ethanol.
In case you didn't know, the feed lots concentrate bovine waste in a small area where it cannot be sustainably returned to the soil. For this reason the feedlots are actually closely monitored by the EPA as runoff of bovine manure into nearby streams and rivers can have detrimental effects.
And as for efficiency, the number of pounds of grain required to produce a pound of beef range from 10 to 16 pounds. The corn-based feed lot is not so much about efficiency as it is about increasing the amount of fat that is marbled into the meat, which does add flavor that the market seems to prefer (regardless of the health consequences). Personally, I have sampled grass-fed, and I prefer the taste and texture.
Locally raised beef means that the animals and meat don't have to be shipped across the globe or trucked across the country, so there is some potential to reduce dependence on heavy industrial infrastructure and fossil fuels.
Of course, just because I think grass-fed is better for people and the environment, that doesn't mean that beef should be 70% of our diet.
Because my religion is the only true religion. All others are heresy, idolotry, heathenism, and paganism. That's all that matters. My master demands that I personally destroy anyone he finds offensive. UN laws should be passed to enable me to do this.
I think that most people, if you ask them what they do for a living, will either suggest that what they do isn't all that special (modest) or that what they do requires super-human capability (ego-maniac). It's a matter of personality mostly. The real difference is often a matter of perception. Remember how hard it seemed when you were a student? Now that perception probably seems inaccurate. And considering what we get paid to be programmers and engineers, there is a financial motivation to perpetuate the belief that such skills are way above what the average person can do.
That said, I have found myself very disappointed by the ineptitude of people I have to interface with on a daily basis from all walks of life. Maybe anybody "below average" really doesn't have the right stuff to be programmers. Or even pool cleaners for that matter.
With 3X the mass and 1/3rd the speed it would have the same momentum. Granted, the power, as in energy, delivered would be less, but with a weapon you might be more concerned about momemtum. A small high-energy particle might pass completely through a target while doing minimal damage. But a larger particle with less energy might be able to do more damage, or at least have a greater chance of knocking the target down, often referred to as "stopping power". Consider a gun battle between two beligerents, and suppose one of the combatants shoots the other with a smaller bullet that passes quickly through their shoulder. Imagine that the impact slightly jolts the combatant, but they quickly recover their position and aim to hit the other combatant with a much larger bullet that might be moving much slower. The larger bullet may impact the combatant's shoulder in a manner identical to the first, but the impact from the larger bullet might have the affect of knocking the combatant off balance, perhaps to the floor. Penetration might not even be lethal depending on various factors, but being knocked off balance, on the ground, the second combatant is at much of a disadvantage if the first pursues the second for follow-up shots that keep him down and possibly end in fatality, such as a shot to the head, which is fatal even with a rubber slug.
I agree that the traditional "militia" has been lost to antiquity. Some argue that the National Guard has replaced the traditional militia, which may be true in practice, but such organizations as the National Guard, State Troopers, and other local law enforcement cannot claim to be representative and inclusive of the entire community in which they are based. A true militia would exist and function more like a modern-day community credit union or country club. Membership and participation would be voluntary and the only qualification would be to be a member of the community in good standing (no known convictions, mental illness, or radical agenda). Just as credit unions have to follow state and federal standards and just as country clubs cannot descriminate against persons due to race or religion, so to would the militias be regulated. But as a voluntary organization they fell out of existence when professional services fulfilled their duties.
That said, if a nation such as Libya had a "well regulated militia" that allowed individuals to "keep and bear arms" then they would have had more opportunity to learn how to use their weapons, train as a unit, and keep their weapons in their possession long before the need to overthrow Gaddafi became necessary. Such advanced preparation could have shortened the length of their popular uprising. Without such preparation the rebels had to storm police stations, armories, and military installations using nothing much more than what you would see at a typical anti-globalization riot in Seattle. In guerilla warefare and popular uprisings the citizens quickly become fighters, starting out sometimes with clubs and knives, capturing pistols and rifles in raids against easier targets. Then with small arms progressing to capture more substantial weapons in future raids. Eventually, when they acheive a critical mass of followers combined with some apparent success and momentum they grow more powerful from enemy military defectors, covert support from sympathizing nations, and when cash is available they can buy an assortment of items from arms traffickers. But fundamentally, it still takes time to arm, train, and learn the proper tactics, and such time puts a resistance or uprising at risk. Even with a small militia of volunteers in just a minority of the communities would provide a popular uprising with enough weapons, fighters, and advisors to train, organize, and lead such an uprising.
In the United States it is true that today there does not seem to be an eminant threat of invasion from any outside power, but the possibility of the US falling into civil war and/or tyranny could be closer at hand than most might want to imagine. Such internal strife could be triggered by domestic extremist groups or possibly by foreign agents inciting violence between different factions. While hard for us to imagine, there have been civil wars fought in other countries between "liberals" and "conservatives" on far less divisive issues than what is polarizing our political landscape today. Such conflicts seem almost irrational until the first rounds are fired and tentions flare up. Such conflicts tend to impact civilians directly, so even neutral individuals might have an interest in preserving their own ability to defend their families and property and even to organize a more unified community defense and security from factions fighting each other. Even without a national disaster scenario, communities of armed and trained volunteers could protect a community from violent crime when law enforcement budgets are slashed. The same militia could help a community through natural disasters like floods and hurricanes as well. It's an idea that should be given a second look.
One could argue that as a static document such arms as defined in the Constitution must be limited to the types of ams known to the framers. I'm all for private citizens keeping muzzle loaded muskets and ball-shot pistols for personal and home defense, along with crossbows, swords, pikes, and bayonets. Hell, maybe thrown in black-powder fired canons for good measure.
The right to keep.50 cal sniper rifles, subcompact machine pistols, belt-feed autocannons, and bunker-buster bombs should be addressed by constitutional amendment. Baring such an amendment, the regulation of such devices should fall to the states. Though, this is not exactly how the Constitution is interpreted or enforced today. Pity, though, since it worked quite well for the first few decades after it was drafted.
However, hobbyists are turning to more affordable open-source and community supported alternatives like Makerbot, which is based on the MIT RepRap and uses the low-cost, open-hardware Arduino running open-source firmware. Most of these hobbyists are very passionate about their hobby, advancing the art of creating new low-cost open source alternatives of patented and closed source technologies. And they have come quite far, supported by thousands of other enthusiasts sharing information, schematics, code, tips and tricks via hundreds of websites and forums. One of the primary objectives of many in the "maker" community is to develop an affordable open-source system for bench-top fabrication to make just about anything. Naturally, 3D printers such as the Makerbot are the cornerstone of such a system.
But the hobbyists branch out into many different directions. Some have rekindled the art of blacksmithing while others are casting aluminum parts in their own homemade furnaces with dies printed from a makerbot. With information free and tools increasingly more affordable, there has never been a better time to build or invent just about anything in the privacy of your own home and in your spare time. Making weapons is a natural expectation given the rapid evolution of the hobby.
I think AC would prefer the government to auction off space exploration rights to the highest bidder. He probably sees scientific funding as academic welfare for PhD's who can't get jobs in industry (which is something like 80% or more of PhDs). There are plenty of Dems and Reps that hold ACs view, so we might need to put forth better arguments than "science is useful" and "understanding of the universe". At the end of the day it is a non-scientist with concerns for his own constituents that will be signing the checks to fund space exploration. In the 60's there was a wide presumption that humans would be harvesting resources or settling space colonies by the year 2000. So there was an implied return-on-investment. In a country where large numbers believe the world is 6,000 years old and originated from the spoken word of God you are going to have a hard time convincing them to pay you billions from their tax dollars to try to find a way to convince them that they are wrong.
Dems want programs to help people get out of poverty and Reps want smaller government. Where does NASA's budget or purpose fit within either of these political ideologies? Satisfying the insatiable desires of scientist for answers to the questions that drive them is not necessarily going to directly benefit the majority of voting taxpayers. If you discover that the meaning of the Universe is 42 then how does that help Joe Plumber, Barbara Bankster, or Wanda on welfare? The American public loves scientists - but only when they are coming up with solutions that directly benefit the American public, like satellite TV and spin-off technologies like Kevlar. It's the main reason funding was pulled from the Super Conducting Super Collider in Texas and now we have to rely on Europe to keep the CERN project running. In the end, there is a limited amount of funding available to science, whether from public or private sources. But regardless of the source, there are probably more people interested in finding a cure for cancer than finding answers to philosophical questions.
John Maynard Keynes imagined a 15-hour week by the beginning of the 21st century. Henry D. Thoreau is said to have worked an average of 10-20 hours per week after his days at Walden Pond. If one chooses a simple life it has been shown time and again that a person can provide most of his own needs for less, often much less, than 20 hours of work each week. But we live in an age of dependency on and servitude to the "military-industrial complex" as described by Eisenhower (a Republican). In order to generate unimaginable wealth for a fortunate few and to fund years of armed occupation at bases around the world, some dating from the Spanish-American War, individuals are pushed to work 40+ hours each week IF they are fortunate to have the right skills, education, cultural background, social/professional network and brown-nosing. The rest of America is often juggling two to three jobs, working in excess of 60 hours each week, no vacation, and watching their net worth sinking deeper into negative. For many, unpaid bills and a trashed credit score are the least of their problems. Even when struggling people try to work together, their efforts come under attack, such as when working mothers band together to help babysit each other's kids - they are often accused of running an unlicensed daycare and shut down. Same for other efforts to make ends meet. Just this month there was a story of a woman facing fines for feeding poor neighborhood kids: http://rt.com/usa/news/philadelphia-woman-food-prattis-966/.
If people were free to provide for themselves and each other a basic subsistence then they would have true freedom to pursue their own destinies. Sure, some may put in their 20 hours and lounge around the rest of the time, but it has been shown that the mega-rich do not get where they are unless they can convince thousands of minions to propell them there. In a world that promises guaranteed employment for everyone willing and able-bodied, reasonable accomodations for those who are not able-bodied, and freedom to earn well above their needs, even if the gap between rich and poor (where "poor" never means impoverished) grew even greater, the extravagant lifestyles of the rich would not necessarily be a burden to the content and simple subsistance earners.
Why should everyone have to work 40 or 60 hours a week to earn more than they need or even want? There are countless numbers of Americans who are more than capable of earning $100k+ salaries but are content to maintain a simple, happy, and productive living pursuing careers that provide them with more enjoyment and/or opportunities to pursue causes that are important to them. Teachers, social workers, fire fighters, and park rangers come to mind. But how many of these workers today are questioning their career choices now? How many young students are changing their minds about making the world a better place because they are fearful that economic conditions will leave them paying insurance premiums they cannot afford while simultaneously paying every last penny out of pocket for essential and mandatory health care (try denying your kids cancer therapies because you think the bill is too high and see how fast you go to jail).
Now, such a system as I propose would change the nature of how we understand free markets. People would have much better control of their budgets because most spending would be for desireable but non-essential items, such as smart phones, automobiles, fashion, and comfortable housing, which would motivate most people to work. But it wouldn't be wealth and prosperity for all. 40 hours working low-skill, low-demand jobs might only pay enough to cover the cable TV bill in your public funded dormitory that you have to share with a unkempt redneck and his pet racoon. Given such a possibility most people would try to achieve some level of eduction, try to climb the corporate ladder, start a consulting business, or whatever it takes to get what they want o
Let's face it, our educational standards have dropped to such a low point that most juries in America can be swayed by any motivated and well funded prosecutor. There's enough DNA evidence to convince the average jury that I am in fact a Chimpanzee, just by showing them that I share 96% of chimp DNA. Prosecutors are quick to point out the difference between "shadow of a doubt" and "reasonable doubt" - 96% DNA clearly removes any 'reasonable' doubt that I am not a chimp. People have been executed in this country within the last decade with even flimsier evidence.
Most murder suspects have to pay their life's savings and rack up additional years of debt to cover legal expenses while simultaneously losing earning opportunities, usually resulting in bankruptcy even if they are acquitted. Even when they hire an attorney they usually don't have the funds to put up an equivalent defense compared to state budgets. The cost of legal defense can devastate an entire extended family. When Brian Banks was falsely accused of rape his mother sold her house, car and went into debt to cover his legal expenses. He is an NFL hopeful with a goal to make enough money to pay back his mother. Not every falsely accused will have such an opportunity.
Having a public defender appointed to represent you just means you get an under-paid, unmotivated lawyer that just wants to wrap up the case quickly with an admission of guilt or a plea agreement. But the state can spend $10 million on just one case in the name of being "tough on crime". Prosecutors have to win almost every case that goes to trial or force the accused to accept archaic plea deals. If they let suspects walk on lack of evidence it becomes front page news, and it damages their future prospects, especially if they seek election to a public office. The emergence of the Prison-Industrial Complex is one of the greatest present-day threats to our democracy and individual freedoms. Pray it doesn't happen to you.
One of the biggest problems with a capitalist system with a welfare safety net is that there is usually a dangerous gap between welfare coverage and financial independence. It doesn't do any good to be on welfare getting all the health care you need and then get a "real" job that offers no health benefit or a health benefit that you cannot afford. Another thing that Germany is doing well is their private health insurance system. It's actually similar to the US system under Obama, except that everybody pays the same percent of their income to fund the system. In the US programs like social security and medicaid tax the working and middle class, but incomes over $100k are not taxed. If the higher incomes were taxed for social security at the same flat rate then all people could enjoy a more secure retirement. As for health care, insurers in Germany are more regulated and can't just screw their policy holders like they do in the US.
Point is, welfare programs become a trap because making just enough money to no longer qualify for the aid will leave you exposed to so many economic barriers that you inevitably fall back into welfare whether wanting to or not. Someone on welfare may love to walk away with a job paying $40k+ per year, but maybe not so much if the job pays only $25k with bad work conditions, unflexible scheduling, no benefits, and the recipient has special needs children. In the later case I could understand why a single parent would try to game the system to stay protected by the welfare umbrella.
An alternative would be a form of socialism where everyone has a right and equal access to a baseline level of support, such as government hospitals and clinics, access to community gardens and food pantries, affordable housing projects, etc. When access to such basic needs is universal, then there is no counter-incentive to productivity. People may naturally prefer to work at a job or start a business to have nicer things in life than a subsistence serving of raw vegies, a half-day wait at a community clinic, a shared room in a dormitory, and mandatory 20 hours of labor for the able-bodied to qualify. Knowing that the safety net is available would encourage more lower-income and middle-class to take some risks in starting a business which is good for the economy as a whole. People might be motivated to save a reasonable amount of money - which is good, but also motivated to spend and invest, which also drives the economy. Such a system, however, cannot allow the able-bodied to just lounge and accept a passable existence. Those receiving the aid would have to also provide the labor, but it would ensure that "unemployment" would be virtually non-existant - there would only be those employed at the subsistence level and those employed independently.
Such a system doesn't necessarily make people "dependent" on the state, since they can attempt at any time under any circumstances to work independently to earn a higher standard of living without being fearful of earning too much and losing benefits, and they aren't "dependent" on the major corporations because they could always quit at any time, endure a short term on subsistence benefits, and then choose to work somewhere else or be self employed. The only risk to such a system is if the government outsourced the "management" of the system to some private for-profit corporation, which is how the US likes to do things.
I just read his article - on a computer! How is that not innovative? Such a feat was all a person needed to get a high-tech job with super duper computer skills back in the late 90's.
This was a real problem back in the 1980s. Everytime I would connect to a BBS my computer would execute any code it came across, which made it very easy for viruses to infect my PC. But lucky for me, in the early 90's the world wide web came into being and I didn't have to run executable code just to view content that someone else posted. The PC was insulated from outside threats by viewing the web "pages" only through a "web browser" that only let you view the content, which could be innocuous text, graphics, images, sound, and even animation that was uploaded to the net by way of a non-executable markup language known as HTML. It was at this time that the whole world began to use their home computers to view content online because it was now safe for amateurs and noobs to connect their PCs to the internet without any worries of being inundated with viruses and other malware.
Today I only surf the web with browsers like Erwise, Viola, Mosaic, and Cello. People today are accessing the internet with applications that run executable code, such as Internet Explorer and Firefox. Very dangerous for amateurs and noobs.
Which is why in "communist" china the workers do not collectively decide what wages would be appropriate, what hours should be worked, or what heath, safety, and environmental conditions would be acceptable. If you compare forms of government to types of business entities the USA would be like Procter & Gamble or General Electric - publicly listed, every shareholder can vote for who controls the board of directors, and directly vote on some key decisions en masse; and like most publicly listed companies, the shareholder tend to sign away their right to vote to institutional investors to vote on their behalf (such as when citizens vote 'straight ticket' for their party of choice). But ultimately the retail investor (common voter) does not have much sway over the company, as they are controlled by wealthy investors who hold a critical mass of stock which gives them either outright direct control by owning 51% of the shares, or gives them controlling interest by holding more than 10% of the shares as an individual or a consortium of like-minded investors (an anology in politics would be those with enough money to buy the critical mass of advertising space to win their party's nomination). Once on the board of directors (Congress, Senate, White House, etc.) they tend to make decisions that first perpetuate and increase the power and revenue of the company by lobbying government for special protections or forcing consumers to agree to binding arbitration before receiving their service (government, new taxes, new regulations) while solidifying or consolidating their own control of the company by offering to buy out shares of less-than-cooperative board members [like GE board with Ross Perot] (in government, they appoint their political backers and campaign contributors to run the agencies that affect them the most, like putting ex oil executives in charge of the EPA, meat packers in charge of the FDA, and banksters to run the Federal Reserve. Or they come up with a new tax to fund a private company that contributed to their campaign. Or sign exclusive contracts without open or public bidding to outsource essential government services to their cronies in industry. In return, the elected officials receive endorsements from private businesses and trade organizations, re-election campaign contributions, or a seat on the executive board of the firms they passed legislation for, or consulting gigs to explain away the millions or dollars in corporate kickbacks after a politician gives so much away to the fat cats that despite superior funding and media backing they don't have a chance of being re-elected by their constituents).
"Communist" and many "socialist" nations can be compared to a private non-profit organization like Goodwill Industries that on the surface seems to be helping the common man, such as hiring disadvantaged workers and selling affordable used clothes (equivalent to China owning corporations to hire Chinese peasants to produce dirt cheap products more affordable to the rest of the world). But such organizations as Goodwill are not publicly listed and there is no process to join or become a member with voting rights like you can with many other non-profits. New board members are invited and confirmed by the existing board (at least China let's all citizens vote for their local People's Congress, and all other political offices are voted for indirectly by the local or National People's Congress - though in practice this leaves state power in the hands of a power oligarchy). One of Goodwill's branch presidents, Michael Miller, received $838,508 in pay and benefits for fiscal year 2004, which was reportedly out of line in comparison to other charity executives and placed him in the top one percent of American wage earners, while his employees often earned below minimum wage since they were paid by piece work, not by the hour, and an unusual loophole allows workers who receive meager government benefits to perform such work for less than minimum wage (not unlike "Communist" China where factory ex
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know much about the Coanda effect or the other factors that would affect flight, but I observed a craft just as you describe when I was a kid living in Australia in 1989. My father worked at the Joint Defence Facility Pine Gap. I asked him about it and of course he said he wasn't aware of any such thing. But he didn't seem to have any concern at all that I was lying or mentally ill. Lying was dealt with very strictly and I would like to think my parents would care enough about my mental health to show some concern if I was clearly delusional or describing hallucinations. Only years later as an adult have I read online how Pine Gap is the Area 51 of Australia and numerous UFOs have been sighted in the area. My father passed away earlier this year so there is no longer any risk of secrets being divulged from him.
The craft I saw flew on a straight path like you would expect from an fixed wing aircraft or helicopter, except it was a pair of counter-rotating disks stacked vertically. The disks seemed more like ovals though, as the top disk appeared to shrink slightly in diameter while the bottom disk would increase proportionally, and this motion would alternate about once per second. The craft was a fair distance away, so I saw more of a side view and not much of a bottom view. I watched soon after it appeared crossing the horizon of a nearby mountain until it disappeared behind the horizon of another mountain, for about 40-60 seconds. But it was close enough to see clearly the counter-rotating ovals and to notice the complete absence of any sort of extended fuselage or tail assembly. Soon after seeing it I was puzzled trying to guess where the cockpit on such a craft would be located.
Maybe in another 30 years the docs on this project might get released. I'd like to know exactly what I saw that afternoon.
Like posting on Slashdot when you should be working.
It's even easier when you're in the military.
If patents were ever abolished, then certainly the system you suggest would take over and probably work adequately fo most situations. My only concern is that it could be too easy for one of the individuals signing the NDA on behalf of the manufacturer or even a lower level employee to stumble onto the details of the product earlier in the game and sell them off to another manufacturer that might be able to beat them to market. I might not be too difficult to fudge "evidence" to show that their own R&D teams came up with the idea(s) independently. In fact, independent development of the same product or innovation is quite common, hence the race to be first to patent. The contract is between the inventor and the OEM signing the contract. Third parties can swoop in like pirates and claim all the intellectual property for their booty. There are already dozens if not hundreds of manufactures, mainly in Asia, that produce knock-off, counterfeit, and cloned products from Nike shoes to Apple iPods. And they have well established networks of distributors, shippers, and bribed officials. Take patents out of the picture and now you make even easier for moderately unethical companies to engage in similar tactics without as much fear of the rule of law coming down against them. Without an arbitrary patent to halt all production from unlicensed manufacturers there would be too much of a burden on the inventor to track down each violator and PROVE that they didn't develop the technology on their own.
I'm not saying that this reason alone is justification for maintaining our existing system, but contracts between private parties are not nearly as bullet-proof as a well-written patent backed by a well funded and experience legal department.
This may be the most sensible suggestion I've heard yet.
Not everybody plays by the rules. If they did you wouldn't see so many Nike knock-offs and cloned iPods. And it's not impossible for a lower level employee to snatch up a great idea to hand over to a competitor, contract or no contract. It gets even more fun when the customer is located on the other side of the world. There's a lot of money to be made in the world of corporate espionage, reverse engineering, counterfeit products, corporate security and counter-intelligence.
I wouldn't mind seeing more public funding going into non-profit pharma R&D as an alternative to our present patent system. In most states, an action that demonstrates a "callous disregard for human life" and results in death constitutes second-degree murder. Possessing a life sustaining drug or even a cure for a terminal illness but selling it only to the wealthy or those with the right kind of health insurance at highly inflated prices could only be considered a "callous disregard for human life" if the actual bare-bones costs to replicate such a drug was affordable by most if not all potential recipients. But big pharma does this every day in the name of "looking after the interests of shareholders", "the cost to retain critical executive staff" (which are often more easily replaceable than made out to be), "recovering the cost of research", and/or "funding future R&D inititives". I have no problem with any of these concerns or motivations on their own, but literally letting people die needlessly because an executive wants to recover R&D costs in four years instead of eight or twelve, or because the 1%'ers have a dissproportionate ability to pay when compared to the masses that selling at an exorbitant price is too lucrative to pass up - that's where I have the problem.
Most states have laws against price gouging during a regional crisis, such as the approach or aftermath of a hurricane. You can't raise the price of baby formula from $10/unit to $100/unit just because demand has suddenly increased and desparate families are willing to pay anything to keep their babies fed. But how ironic that in this Christian nation we allow the providers of life-sustaining treatments the right to charge whatever the market will bear without any regard to the individuals who die without such treatment due only to a possibly temporal lack of available funds. When you deny your children access to such care you go to jail. But if you're the provider of such care you can deny access as much as you desire without any repurcussions.
If I am or plan to be a 1%'er then maintaining the present patent system gives me a chance to invest and make money, and if I get sick I could probably afford the cure. But I'm not a 1%'er, I'm just another face in the crowd, and as such I would rather take my chances pooling public funds, including taxes, to develop cures and treatments that will actually benefit myself, people I love, and humans anywhere if they need them.
Such public-funded pharma would benefit a larger pool of individuals with fewer people falling through the cracks. Researchers could share data easier with few if any restrictions compared to the red tape, non-disclosure agreements, and competitive nature of pharma-biz as it exists today. Taking patents out of the picture would reduce the need for patent agents, patent office employees, patent courts, and entire mega-budget legal departments that engage in billions of dollars worth of litigation to fight over such patents, with such legal battles threatening the development or production of present and future drugs.
Some might suggest that such a reform would negatively affect the development of drugs by removing the competitive element. But in reality, those putting in 60+ hours relentlessly searching and testing potential cures and therapies are not so likely to be driven by economic gain than by the desire to make a difference in this world. A "fair market" salary for such staff as compared to similarly qualified individuals working in industry and/or academic settings would likely be sufficient to recruit the necessary talent. And you may even bring in more talent from people like myself who would much rather be finding solutions to help extend and/or add quality to human life without letting an employer take such work and effort dedicated to such a cause and dishing it out on a "who can pay" basis.
So, if Joe Engineer develops the next new thing in his garage, he has to physically make each item by hand or directly hire staff and tool a factory from scratch to organically grow a manufacturing business that may not have anything new to manufacture after the patent expires but may take the life of the patent before finally supplying the initial demand? Why can't Joe Engineer develop his widget and license manufacturing to a company that is already established and capable. For Joe there is less upfront risk, faster time to market, and he won't be left "holding the bag" once the patent expires.
Now, if Joe scribbles a block diagram on a napkin I could see the value of requiring Joe to initiate production (directly or through licensed manufacturers) before his patent can be enforced. Joe shouldn't have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for 6 or 7 years to pounce on a successful company that just so happened to utilize the method depicted in his block diagram, most likely not even considering the "invention" worthy of a patent due to obviousness.
In many cases patents are the alternative to trade secrets. Many companies still choose to rely on trade secrets when the technology was discovered somewhat accidentally, when so much time and money are poured into R&D and there is no expectation that any other company will commit to the same level of effort, and/or when the company has some other reason to believe that competitors cannot or will not pursue the development of the protected technology. Trade secrets lead to a closed, uncooperative system where "the wheel" so to speak is constantly reinvented and the pace of techological innovation is significantly slowed. Patents lure inventors into trading away the potential gain (and risk) of developing and protecting trade secrets for the virtually guaranteed monopoly over their technolgy for 20 years or so.
As for evidence of a hypothetical "what if", I don't know how one could argue for or against such a position given the inherent limitations. There are definitely products that never made it to market because executives believed that the product could not be protected, competitors could duplicate the product and business objectves might not be obtainable.
A project that can be outsourced to China due to expertise and not just cheaper labor.
Grass-fed beef requires more energy, water, and labor input than corn-fed beef. Each of those has an environmental cost associated with it. If you can do 'it' more efficiently, in general you reduce the environmental impact of 'it'.
Citation needed.
Many grasslands, when not in drought, get enough water from natural rainfall.
Cattle provide much of their own energy rather than expending energy to produce and transport grain feed.
Labor input is only bad when you see it on the "cost" column. Many people I know are raising their own beef and even selling it. When unemployment is 10%, wages are stagnant, and Americans keep getting fatter, maybe a little manual labor after work and on weekends would be a good way to round out a week strapped to a cubicle.
From what I have read over the decades, environmental damage tends to be more associated with "efficient" profit-maximizing operations. There are many environmental advantages to smaller-scale locally raised grass-feed beef. When cattle are rotated from pasture to pasture they eat a portion of the grass, spurring new growth which results in more net biomass. Cows then fertilize the land by trampling manure and decaying organic materials into the soil. The healthier plant roots retain more water and microbes, keeping carbon dioxide underground which, in turn, helps foster new plant growth. According to a twelve year USDA study of ways to improve soil quality, published in the Soil Science Society of America Journal (2010), moderately grazed areas actually have more stored carbon in the soil, both increasing fertility and slowing global warming.
Growing grass instead of grains also increases biodiversity because it offers habitats for the literally hundreds of animals that would otherwise not thrive in grain fields. The disappearance of grasslands, and consequently the biodiversity supported by those grasslands, is an environmental problem that can be mitigated by sustainable farming and pasturing methods.
If Americans switched en masse to pasture rotated, grass-fed beef, not only would it put the environmentally toxic factory farms out of business, but the naturally restored topsoil created by adding carbon and natural fertilizers to the land would increase the nutritive value of crops, resulting in better health for everyone. Today most crop farming is heavily dependent on industrial fertilizers, fertilizers that are often applied excessively to increase yields. Fertilizer runoff is a major threat to the environment, particularly waterways and wetlands. And a lot of energy goes into the production of these fertilizers. Natural gas is used to derive much of the Nitrogen, and lots of fuel and heavy equipment goes into the mining and transport of minerals such as potash. Consider for a moment how many greenhouse gases are emitted, how many fossil fuels are consumed, and how many pollutants and toxins escape into the air and water just to manufacture one front-loader or one dump truck. Now consider the total supply-chain effect on the environment caused by industrial agricultural practices, especially when most of the grain grown is used for livestock feed and ethanol.
In case you didn't know, the feed lots concentrate bovine waste in a small area where it cannot be sustainably returned to the soil. For this reason the feedlots are actually closely monitored by the EPA as runoff of bovine manure into nearby streams and rivers can have detrimental effects.
And as for efficiency, the number of pounds of grain required to produce a pound of beef range from 10 to 16 pounds. The corn-based feed lot is not so much about efficiency as it is about increasing the amount of fat that is marbled into the meat, which does add flavor that the market seems to prefer (regardless of the health consequences). Personally, I have sampled grass-fed, and I prefer the taste and texture.
Locally raised beef means that the animals and meat don't have to be shipped across the globe or trucked across the country, so there is some potential to reduce dependence on heavy industrial infrastructure and fossil fuels.
Of course, just because I think grass-fed is better for people and the environment, that doesn't mean that beef should be 70% of our diet.
Because my religion is the only true religion. All others are heresy, idolotry, heathenism, and paganism. That's all that matters. My master demands that I personally destroy anyone he finds offensive. UN laws should be passed to enable me to do this.
I think that most people, if you ask them what they do for a living, will either suggest that what they do isn't all that special (modest) or that what they do requires super-human capability (ego-maniac). It's a matter of personality mostly. The real difference is often a matter of perception. Remember how hard it seemed when you were a student? Now that perception probably seems inaccurate. And considering what we get paid to be programmers and engineers, there is a financial motivation to perpetuate the belief that such skills are way above what the average person can do.
That said, I have found myself very disappointed by the ineptitude of people I have to interface with on a daily basis from all walks of life. Maybe anybody "below average" really doesn't have the right stuff to be programmers. Or even pool cleaners for that matter.
With 3X the mass and 1/3rd the speed it would have the same momentum. Granted, the power, as in energy, delivered would be less, but with a weapon you might be more concerned about momemtum. A small high-energy particle might pass completely through a target while doing minimal damage. But a larger particle with less energy might be able to do more damage, or at least have a greater chance of knocking the target down, often referred to as "stopping power". Consider a gun battle between two beligerents, and suppose one of the combatants shoots the other with a smaller bullet that passes quickly through their shoulder. Imagine that the impact slightly jolts the combatant, but they quickly recover their position and aim to hit the other combatant with a much larger bullet that might be moving much slower. The larger bullet may impact the combatant's shoulder in a manner identical to the first, but the impact from the larger bullet might have the affect of knocking the combatant off balance, perhaps to the floor. Penetration might not even be lethal depending on various factors, but being knocked off balance, on the ground, the second combatant is at much of a disadvantage if the first pursues the second for follow-up shots that keep him down and possibly end in fatality, such as a shot to the head, which is fatal even with a rubber slug.
I agree that the traditional "militia" has been lost to antiquity. Some argue that the National Guard has replaced the traditional militia, which may be true in practice, but such organizations as the National Guard, State Troopers, and other local law enforcement cannot claim to be representative and inclusive of the entire community in which they are based. A true militia would exist and function more like a modern-day community credit union or country club. Membership and participation would be voluntary and the only qualification would be to be a member of the community in good standing (no known convictions, mental illness, or radical agenda). Just as credit unions have to follow state and federal standards and just as country clubs cannot descriminate against persons due to race or religion, so to would the militias be regulated. But as a voluntary organization they fell out of existence when professional services fulfilled their duties.
That said, if a nation such as Libya had a "well regulated militia" that allowed individuals to "keep and bear arms" then they would have had more opportunity to learn how to use their weapons, train as a unit, and keep their weapons in their possession long before the need to overthrow Gaddafi became necessary. Such advanced preparation could have shortened the length of their popular uprising. Without such preparation the rebels had to storm police stations, armories, and military installations using nothing much more than what you would see at a typical anti-globalization riot in Seattle. In guerilla warefare and popular uprisings the citizens quickly become fighters, starting out sometimes with clubs and knives, capturing pistols and rifles in raids against easier targets. Then with small arms progressing to capture more substantial weapons in future raids. Eventually, when they acheive a critical mass of followers combined with some apparent success and momentum they grow more powerful from enemy military defectors, covert support from sympathizing nations, and when cash is available they can buy an assortment of items from arms traffickers. But fundamentally, it still takes time to arm, train, and learn the proper tactics, and such time puts a resistance or uprising at risk. Even with a small militia of volunteers in just a minority of the communities would provide a popular uprising with enough weapons, fighters, and advisors to train, organize, and lead such an uprising.
In the United States it is true that today there does not seem to be an eminant threat of invasion from any outside power, but the possibility of the US falling into civil war and/or tyranny could be closer at hand than most might want to imagine. Such internal strife could be triggered by domestic extremist groups or possibly by foreign agents inciting violence between different factions. While hard for us to imagine, there have been civil wars fought in other countries between "liberals" and "conservatives" on far less divisive issues than what is polarizing our political landscape today. Such conflicts seem almost irrational until the first rounds are fired and tentions flare up. Such conflicts tend to impact civilians directly, so even neutral individuals might have an interest in preserving their own ability to defend their families and property and even to organize a more unified community defense and security from factions fighting each other. Even without a national disaster scenario, communities of armed and trained volunteers could protect a community from violent crime when law enforcement budgets are slashed. The same militia could help a community through natural disasters like floods and hurricanes as well. It's an idea that should be given a second look.
Everything you described is totally legal if the proper channels are followed.
One could argue that as a static document such arms as defined in the Constitution must be limited to the types of ams known to the framers. I'm all for private citizens keeping muzzle loaded muskets and ball-shot pistols for personal and home defense, along with crossbows, swords, pikes, and bayonets. Hell, maybe thrown in black-powder fired canons for good measure.
The right to keep .50 cal sniper rifles, subcompact machine pistols, belt-feed autocannons, and bunker-buster bombs should be addressed by constitutional amendment. Baring such an amendment, the regulation of such devices should fall to the states. Though, this is not exactly how the Constitution is interpreted or enforced today. Pity, though, since it worked quite well for the first few decades after it was drafted.
However, hobbyists are turning to more affordable open-source and community supported alternatives like Makerbot, which is based on the MIT RepRap and uses the low-cost, open-hardware Arduino running open-source firmware. Most of these hobbyists are very passionate about their hobby, advancing the art of creating new low-cost open source alternatives of patented and closed source technologies. And they have come quite far, supported by thousands of other enthusiasts sharing information, schematics, code, tips and tricks via hundreds of websites and forums. One of the primary objectives of many in the "maker" community is to develop an affordable open-source system for bench-top fabrication to make just about anything. Naturally, 3D printers such as the Makerbot are the cornerstone of such a system.
But the hobbyists branch out into many different directions. Some have rekindled the art of blacksmithing while others are casting aluminum parts in their own homemade furnaces with dies printed from a makerbot. With information free and tools increasingly more affordable, there has never been a better time to build or invent just about anything in the privacy of your own home and in your spare time. Making weapons is a natural expectation given the rapid evolution of the hobby.
I think AC would prefer the government to auction off space exploration rights to the highest bidder. He probably sees scientific funding as academic welfare for PhD's who can't get jobs in industry (which is something like 80% or more of PhDs). There are plenty of Dems and Reps that hold ACs view, so we might need to put forth better arguments than "science is useful" and "understanding of the universe". At the end of the day it is a non-scientist with concerns for his own constituents that will be signing the checks to fund space exploration. In the 60's there was a wide presumption that humans would be harvesting resources or settling space colonies by the year 2000. So there was an implied return-on-investment. In a country where large numbers believe the world is 6,000 years old and originated from the spoken word of God you are going to have a hard time convincing them to pay you billions from their tax dollars to try to find a way to convince them that they are wrong.
Dems want programs to help people get out of poverty and Reps want smaller government. Where does NASA's budget or purpose fit within either of these political ideologies? Satisfying the insatiable desires of scientist for answers to the questions that drive them is not necessarily going to directly benefit the majority of voting taxpayers. If you discover that the meaning of the Universe is 42 then how does that help Joe Plumber, Barbara Bankster, or Wanda on welfare? The American public loves scientists - but only when they are coming up with solutions that directly benefit the American public, like satellite TV and spin-off technologies like Kevlar. It's the main reason funding was pulled from the Super Conducting Super Collider in Texas and now we have to rely on Europe to keep the CERN project running. In the end, there is a limited amount of funding available to science, whether from public or private sources. But regardless of the source, there are probably more people interested in finding a cure for cancer than finding answers to philosophical questions.
John Maynard Keynes imagined a 15-hour week by the beginning of the 21st century. Henry D. Thoreau is said to have worked an average of 10-20 hours per week after his days at Walden Pond. If one chooses a simple life it has been shown time and again that a person can provide most of his own needs for less, often much less, than 20 hours of work each week. But we live in an age of dependency on and servitude to the "military-industrial complex" as described by Eisenhower (a Republican). In order to generate unimaginable wealth for a fortunate few and to fund years of armed occupation at bases around the world, some dating from the Spanish-American War, individuals are pushed to work 40+ hours each week IF they are fortunate to have the right skills, education, cultural background, social/professional network and brown-nosing. The rest of America is often juggling two to three jobs, working in excess of 60 hours each week, no vacation, and watching their net worth sinking deeper into negative. For many, unpaid bills and a trashed credit score are the least of their problems. Even when struggling people try to work together, their efforts come under attack, such as when working mothers band together to help babysit each other's kids - they are often accused of running an unlicensed daycare and shut down. Same for other efforts to make ends meet. Just this month there was a story of a woman facing fines for feeding poor neighborhood kids: http://rt.com/usa/news/philadelphia-woman-food-prattis-966/.
If people were free to provide for themselves and each other a basic subsistence then they would have true freedom to pursue their own destinies. Sure, some may put in their 20 hours and lounge around the rest of the time, but it has been shown that the mega-rich do not get where they are unless they can convince thousands of minions to propell them there. In a world that promises guaranteed employment for everyone willing and able-bodied, reasonable accomodations for those who are not able-bodied, and freedom to earn well above their needs, even if the gap between rich and poor (where "poor" never means impoverished) grew even greater, the extravagant lifestyles of the rich would not necessarily be a burden to the content and simple subsistance earners.
Why should everyone have to work 40 or 60 hours a week to earn more than they need or even want? There are countless numbers of Americans who are more than capable of earning $100k+ salaries but are content to maintain a simple, happy, and productive living pursuing careers that provide them with more enjoyment and/or opportunities to pursue causes that are important to them. Teachers, social workers, fire fighters, and park rangers come to mind. But how many of these workers today are questioning their career choices now? How many young students are changing their minds about making the world a better place because they are fearful that economic conditions will leave them paying insurance premiums they cannot afford while simultaneously paying every last penny out of pocket for essential and mandatory health care (try denying your kids cancer therapies because you think the bill is too high and see how fast you go to jail).
Now, such a system as I propose would change the nature of how we understand free markets. People would have much better control of their budgets because most spending would be for desireable but non-essential items, such as smart phones, automobiles, fashion, and comfortable housing, which would motivate most people to work. But it wouldn't be wealth and prosperity for all. 40 hours working low-skill, low-demand jobs might only pay enough to cover the cable TV bill in your public funded dormitory that you have to share with a unkempt redneck and his pet racoon. Given such a possibility most people would try to achieve some level of eduction, try to climb the corporate ladder, start a consulting business, or whatever it takes to get what they want o
Let's face it, our educational standards have dropped to such a low point that most juries in America can be swayed by any motivated and well funded prosecutor. There's enough DNA evidence to convince the average jury that I am in fact a Chimpanzee, just by showing them that I share 96% of chimp DNA. Prosecutors are quick to point out the difference between "shadow of a doubt" and "reasonable doubt" - 96% DNA clearly removes any 'reasonable' doubt that I am not a chimp. People have been executed in this country within the last decade with even flimsier evidence.
Most murder suspects have to pay their life's savings and rack up additional years of debt to cover legal expenses while simultaneously losing earning opportunities, usually resulting in bankruptcy even if they are acquitted. Even when they hire an attorney they usually don't have the funds to put up an equivalent defense compared to state budgets. The cost of legal defense can devastate an entire extended family. When Brian Banks was falsely accused of rape his mother sold her house, car and went into debt to cover his legal expenses. He is an NFL hopeful with a goal to make enough money to pay back his mother. Not every falsely accused will have such an opportunity.
Having a public defender appointed to represent you just means you get an under-paid, unmotivated lawyer that just wants to wrap up the case quickly with an admission of guilt or a plea agreement. But the state can spend $10 million on just one case in the name of being "tough on crime". Prosecutors have to win almost every case that goes to trial or force the accused to accept archaic plea deals. If they let suspects walk on lack of evidence it becomes front page news, and it damages their future prospects, especially if they seek election to a public office. The emergence of the Prison-Industrial Complex is one of the greatest present-day threats to our democracy and individual freedoms. Pray it doesn't happen to you.
One of the biggest problems with a capitalist system with a welfare safety net is that there is usually a dangerous gap between welfare coverage and financial independence. It doesn't do any good to be on welfare getting all the health care you need and then get a "real" job that offers no health benefit or a health benefit that you cannot afford. Another thing that Germany is doing well is their private health insurance system. It's actually similar to the US system under Obama, except that everybody pays the same percent of their income to fund the system. In the US programs like social security and medicaid tax the working and middle class, but incomes over $100k are not taxed. If the higher incomes were taxed for social security at the same flat rate then all people could enjoy a more secure retirement. As for health care, insurers in Germany are more regulated and can't just screw their policy holders like they do in the US.
Point is, welfare programs become a trap because making just enough money to no longer qualify for the aid will leave you exposed to so many economic barriers that you inevitably fall back into welfare whether wanting to or not. Someone on welfare may love to walk away with a job paying $40k+ per year, but maybe not so much if the job pays only $25k with bad work conditions, unflexible scheduling, no benefits, and the recipient has special needs children. In the later case I could understand why a single parent would try to game the system to stay protected by the welfare umbrella.
An alternative would be a form of socialism where everyone has a right and equal access to a baseline level of support, such as government hospitals and clinics, access to community gardens and food pantries, affordable housing projects, etc. When access to such basic needs is universal, then there is no counter-incentive to productivity. People may naturally prefer to work at a job or start a business to have nicer things in life than a subsistence serving of raw vegies, a half-day wait at a community clinic, a shared room in a dormitory, and mandatory 20 hours of labor for the able-bodied to qualify. Knowing that the safety net is available would encourage more lower-income and middle-class to take some risks in starting a business which is good for the economy as a whole. People might be motivated to save a reasonable amount of money - which is good, but also motivated to spend and invest, which also drives the economy. Such a system, however, cannot allow the able-bodied to just lounge and accept a passable existence. Those receiving the aid would have to also provide the labor, but it would ensure that "unemployment" would be virtually non-existant - there would only be those employed at the subsistence level and those employed independently.
Such a system doesn't necessarily make people "dependent" on the state, since they can attempt at any time under any circumstances to work independently to earn a higher standard of living without being fearful of earning too much and losing benefits, and they aren't "dependent" on the major corporations because they could always quit at any time, endure a short term on subsistence benefits, and then choose to work somewhere else or be self employed. The only risk to such a system is if the government outsourced the "management" of the system to some private for-profit corporation, which is how the US likes to do things.
I just read his article - on a computer! How is that not innovative? Such a feat was all a person needed to get a high-tech job with super duper computer skills back in the late 90's.
This was a real problem back in the 1980s. Everytime I would connect to a BBS my computer would execute any code it came across, which made it very easy for viruses to infect my PC. But lucky for me, in the early 90's the world wide web came into being and I didn't have to run executable code just to view content that someone else posted. The PC was insulated from outside threats by viewing the web "pages" only through a "web browser" that only let you view the content, which could be innocuous text, graphics, images, sound, and even animation that was uploaded to the net by way of a non-executable markup language known as HTML. It was at this time that the whole world began to use their home computers to view content online because it was now safe for amateurs and noobs to connect their PCs to the internet without any worries of being inundated with viruses and other malware.
Today I only surf the web with browsers like Erwise, Viola, Mosaic, and Cello. People today are accessing the internet with applications that run executable code, such as Internet Explorer and Firefox. Very dangerous for amateurs and noobs.
Which is why in "communist" china the workers do not collectively decide what wages would be appropriate, what hours should be worked, or what heath, safety, and environmental conditions would be acceptable. If you compare forms of government to types of business entities the USA would be like Procter & Gamble or General Electric - publicly listed, every shareholder can vote for who controls the board of directors, and directly vote on some key decisions en masse; and like most publicly listed companies, the shareholder tend to sign away their right to vote to institutional investors to vote on their behalf (such as when citizens vote 'straight ticket' for their party of choice). But ultimately the retail investor (common voter) does not have much sway over the company, as they are controlled by wealthy investors who hold a critical mass of stock which gives them either outright direct control by owning 51% of the shares, or gives them controlling interest by holding more than 10% of the shares as an individual or a consortium of like-minded investors (an anology in politics would be those with enough money to buy the critical mass of advertising space to win their party's nomination). Once on the board of directors (Congress, Senate, White House, etc.) they tend to make decisions that first perpetuate and increase the power and revenue of the company by lobbying government for special protections or forcing consumers to agree to binding arbitration before receiving their service (government, new taxes, new regulations) while solidifying or consolidating their own control of the company by offering to buy out shares of less-than-cooperative board members [like GE board with Ross Perot] (in government, they appoint their political backers and campaign contributors to run the agencies that affect them the most, like putting ex oil executives in charge of the EPA, meat packers in charge of the FDA, and banksters to run the Federal Reserve. Or they come up with a new tax to fund a private company that contributed to their campaign. Or sign exclusive contracts without open or public bidding to outsource essential government services to their cronies in industry. In return, the elected officials receive endorsements from private businesses and trade organizations, re-election campaign contributions, or a seat on the executive board of the firms they passed legislation for, or consulting gigs to explain away the millions or dollars in corporate kickbacks after a politician gives so much away to the fat cats that despite superior funding and media backing they don't have a chance of being re-elected by their constituents).
"Communist" and many "socialist" nations can be compared to a private non-profit organization like Goodwill Industries that on the surface seems to be helping the common man, such as hiring disadvantaged workers and selling affordable used clothes (equivalent to China owning corporations to hire Chinese peasants to produce dirt cheap products more affordable to the rest of the world). But such organizations as Goodwill are not publicly listed and there is no process to join or become a member with voting rights like you can with many other non-profits. New board members are invited and confirmed by the existing board (at least China let's all citizens vote for their local People's Congress, and all other political offices are voted for indirectly by the local or National People's Congress - though in practice this leaves state power in the hands of a power oligarchy). One of Goodwill's branch presidents, Michael Miller, received $838,508 in pay and benefits for fiscal year 2004, which was reportedly out of line in comparison to other charity executives and placed him in the top one percent of American wage earners, while his employees often earned below minimum wage since they were paid by piece work, not by the hour, and an unusual loophole allows workers who receive meager government benefits to perform such work for less than minimum wage (not unlike "Communist" China where factory ex