Or the hijackers threaten to slash the throats of some women or children passengers unless they are allowed in the cockpit. You are back to changing the policy.
Wrong. If the policy was to never let hijackers enter the cockpit and always fight back you wouldn't even need a cockpit door. I don't know but I'm assuming the flight crew on the first three planes were telling the passengers to stay calm and do what the hijackers wanted. That will never happen again.
In reality you didn't need to do anything post 9/11. Even on United 93 they figured out to fight back. The key weakness the terrorists exploited was not security but the policy of submitting to hijackers. After 9/11 passengers have shown time and time again that they will fight back.
You don't get it at all. The people in power or their kids aren't in South Korea or on the carrier. They get to bet with other peoples lives and if they start a war they get more money and power.
Everyone is missing the point. The real strategic purpose of a carrier is that they are so big, expensive, and have so many sailors on board that to actually sink one is basically asking for all out war. It's the same reason we have 30k troops in SK. It's not like they could stop a North Korean invasion. It has been calculated that 30k troops being killed would be enought to convice Americans to start a nuclear war.
It's basically like going all in playing poker. Parking a carrier no matter how vulnerable is going all in and asking your opponent how bad they want to win.
Socialism is not the answer. There is no mechanism in socialism to determine how to allocate resources to meet people's desires. That is its inherent flaws. No price mechanism.
In a market economy you don't have to worry about unemployment due to technology. The savings rate is what will determine interest rates not some central planners at the Fed. Interest rates are a key component on the calculation of whether to automate or not. The more savings the lower the interest rates the more it makes sense to invest in capital equipment. The opposite is true. If people are unemployed and savings are low interest rates are high and it's cheaper to hire workers than to invest in capital equipment. It's a self regulating system.
But when you have the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low you get too much being spent in capital equipment while you have low savings and unemployment.
The flaw in your argument is you think employment and jobs should be the goal. You have it completely backwards. Personal consumption is the goal. Let's take it to extremes to make it clear. Would you rather be a slave where you work to produce things every waking hour and are given just enough food to live and clothing and shelter to survive? Or would you rather live a life where everything you want is provided for just by asking and you only produce things because you enjoy it?
If your goal is jobs that's pretty easy. Just make everyone a slave and force them to work and you have no unemployment.
If your goal is to have plenty of things and services to meet your wants with the minimum of labor it is more complicated. You have to figure out a way to efficiently decide to what degree people desire things and the most efficient way to meet those desires while dealing with constantly shifting availability of resources. This is where a market and productivity comes in.
When a product or service is very profitable in a market it sends a signal to other people that this is where the action is. There is big demand not being met since people are willing to pay way more than it costs to meet this demand. The consumers indicate this is where resources should be allocated. Now an unprofitable firm is poorly allocating the resources. It should go out of business and free up the resources and labor so they can move to the more profitable areas. As more resources move into the new area competition drives the prices closer to the costs and profits go down. Things can stay this way until a new product or method of production cause a disruption in the availability of a product or it's price and the process starts over.
This is why productivity and profits in a market are so important. The drive for profits is the drive to use resources as efficiently as possible to meet the desires of consumers. This is a good thing because everybody is better off. The least productive members of society that would die if they were left alone in the woods can live better just living off of the scraps of this society. A person can find a 2 year old cell phone in the garbage that has more advanced technology than the President of the US could get using the whole resources of the country 10 years ago.
I've used these in the past. They are a pick and place robot with a vision system and conveyor system. You can throw a bucket of parts on the conveyor and it will find and pick the ones you need.
The difference in my opinion is that I make my living from money that is taken by force. A union, even with all of the powers granted to it, still has an ultimate check on its power. If the push too far the company will go bankrupt. I guess even today that isn't much of a check since politicians have shown they will bail those companies out.
But as a government employee there is no check except the bankruptcy of the state or country.
I am an employee of the federal government. Not only do I think I shouldn't be able to be in a union I'm not sure if I should be allowed to vote. I realize my salary come from taxing productive members of society. I do believe that my job is constitutional. But if those people that pay my salary decide they no longer want to fund the agency I work for I shouldn't have a vote in the matter.
I've worked at companies that were structures this way by accident. It was a government contract design and machine shop. The manager was just a laid back guy that got an order and let us figure it out.. The engineers liked designing and the machinists liked building things. We were very successful because we did what we liked.
The best part is that if you have an experienced group you can easily tell which projects are a waste of time and nobody worked on those. This allocated resources very efficiently.
Then one day the contract was up and new management came in and tried to actually manage the place. Everyone with a brain left after 6 months.
It depends. Let's say a company makes a profit. They can either hold it on their books which makes them worth more and raises the stock price or give it out as a dividend. What typically happens is if a company is in a mature market like a Utility they will issue dividends since there isn't much use keeping the cash on the books. On the other hand if the company is trying to grow the best use of that cash is to reinvest grow which increases the overall value of the company.
The pesticides I use are typically BT, Neem Oil, Spinosad, Insecticidal Soaps, Pyrethrin, along with DE. These are natural compounds made by plants or bacteria but they can be harmful if applied incorrectly. I also release Lady Bugs to take care of Aphids and Whiteflies.
Of course organic food is sprayed with pesticides. I try grow my own food as organic as possible and use pesticides all the time. Do you think magic keeps the bugs off? I just put up a sign that says "Dear bugs I'm trying to grow organic food here, please leave"?
No the difference is we use pesticides and fertilizers that are derived from natural sources. But some of the pesticides are still hazardous if used incorrectly. Many are toxic to fish and amphibians.
Just in case anyone is interested there is an important difference between copying and trying to present that copy as an original work from a person or company. If you didn't have laws granting monopolies of IP like copyright and patents you would be able to copy works and sell them. But you wouldn't be allowed to commit fraud. What's the difference? You would be able to sell a copy of a design, movie, or song but you couldn't represent it as produced by the original creator. Take fashion. You could create an identical copy of a designer dress but you wouldn't be allowed to put a label on it that tries to pass it off as being made by the original designer. The reason is that would be fraud against the buyer. You are lying about who made the product.
The same with identify theft. You could copy my credit history. Open the same types of accounts, follow my spending and repayment patterns. You will have my exact credit history and score. No problem. But when you lie and pass off my identity as yours you are committing fraud.
I'd say it's more of a cartel. If it was just licensing than anyone could go to city hall fill out a form and become a taxi driver. But they keep a cap on how many taxis there are. Then they have price controls on the fares to prevent competition.
It was a part of a trade study. The problems were the center of pressure of wind was very high and created a large overturning moment. Also the pads are about 50 ft above the crawler way so you would need a lock at the pad to raise it up for enough room for a flame trench.
The old Titan IV had the rocket assembled in one building then moved to one of two pads on two sets of rails. The rails had a switch to go to two different pads. Then a building moved over the rocket to integrate the payload. They did this because they did lots of DOD payloads. This way you could have a crew of rocket techs with one level of clearance assemble the rocket. Then at the pad have the NRO people with very high clearance have access to the payload. http://spaceflightnow.com/titan/b39/031006rollout.html
One of the reasons in the old days large US rockets were assembled vertically was because they weren't strong enough to be lifted horizontally when integrated. Most of these structures are very strong in the axial direction but can't take large radial loads.
Also the shuttle SRB's are VERY heavy at about 1 million pounds each. These require a large pad hence a large transporter.
Part of the problem is that in Florida you can't dig very deep without hitting water. So the pad is raised about 50 ft or so above sea level. This means you need a ramp to get up to the pad surface. This makes rail & barges impractical.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the hijackers threaten to slash the throats of some women or children passengers unless they are allowed in the cockpit. You are back to changing the policy.
Wrong. If the policy was to never let hijackers enter the cockpit and always fight back you wouldn't even need a cockpit door. I don't know but I'm assuming the flight crew on the first three planes were telling the passengers to stay calm and do what the hijackers wanted. That will never happen again.
In reality you didn't need to do anything post 9/11. Even on United 93 they figured out to fight back. The key weakness the terrorists exploited was not security but the policy of submitting to hijackers. After 9/11 passengers have shown time and time again that they will fight back.
You don't get it at all. The people in power or their kids aren't in South Korea or on the carrier. They get to bet with other peoples lives and if they start a war they get more money and power.
In case you haven't seen it
http://lawrencevilleplasmaphysics.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=62&Itemid=80
Everyone is missing the point. The real strategic purpose of a carrier is that they are so big, expensive, and have so many sailors on board that to actually sink one is basically asking for all out war. It's the same reason we have 30k troops in SK. It's not like they could stop a North Korean invasion. It has been calculated that 30k troops being killed would be enought to convice Americans to start a nuclear war.
It's basically like going all in playing poker. Parking a carrier no matter how vulnerable is going all in and asking your opponent how bad they want to win.
They use an F18 with a bunch of wing tanks for air to air refueling. They used to use S3's and A6's but I think they are all retired.
Socialism is not the answer. There is no mechanism in socialism to determine how to allocate resources to meet people's desires. That is its inherent flaws. No price mechanism.
In a market economy you don't have to worry about unemployment due to technology. The savings rate is what will determine interest rates not some central planners at the Fed. Interest rates are a key component on the calculation of whether to automate or not. The more savings the lower the interest rates the more it makes sense to invest in capital equipment. The opposite is true. If people are unemployed and savings are low interest rates are high and it's cheaper to hire workers than to invest in capital equipment. It's a self regulating system.
But when you have the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low you get too much being spent in capital equipment while you have low savings and unemployment.
The flaw in your argument is you think employment and jobs should be the goal. You have it completely backwards. Personal consumption is the goal. Let's take it to extremes to make it clear. Would you rather be a slave where you work to produce things every waking hour and are given just enough food to live and clothing and shelter to survive? Or would you rather live a life where everything you want is provided for just by asking and you only produce things because you enjoy it?
If your goal is jobs that's pretty easy. Just make everyone a slave and force them to work and you have no unemployment.
If your goal is to have plenty of things and services to meet your wants with the minimum of labor it is more complicated. You have to figure out a way to efficiently decide to what degree people desire things and the most efficient way to meet those desires while dealing with constantly shifting availability of resources. This is where a market and productivity comes in.
When a product or service is very profitable in a market it sends a signal to other people that this is where the action is. There is big demand not being met since people are willing to pay way more than it costs to meet this demand. The consumers indicate this is where resources should be allocated. Now an unprofitable firm is poorly allocating the resources. It should go out of business and free up the resources and labor so they can move to the more profitable areas. As more resources move into the new area competition drives the prices closer to the costs and profits go down. Things can stay this way until a new product or method of production cause a disruption in the availability of a product or it's price and the process starts over.
This is why productivity and profits in a market are so important. The drive for profits is the drive to use resources as efficiently as possible to meet the desires of consumers. This is a good thing because everybody is better off. The least productive members of society that would die if they were left alone in the woods can live better just living off of the scraps of this society. A person can find a 2 year old cell phone in the garbage that has more advanced technology than the President of the US could get using the whole resources of the country 10 years ago.
I've used these in the past. They are a pick and place robot with a vision system and conveyor system. You can throw a bucket of parts on the conveyor and it will find and pick the ones you need.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FPSF1KIDnw
The difference in my opinion is that I make my living from money that is taken by force. A union, even with all of the powers granted to it, still has an ultimate check on its power. If the push too far the company will go bankrupt. I guess even today that isn't much of a check since politicians have shown they will bail those companies out.
But as a government employee there is no check except the bankruptcy of the state or country.
I am an employee of the federal government. Not only do I think I shouldn't be able to be in a union I'm not sure if I should be allowed to vote. I realize my salary come from taxing productive members of society. I do believe that my job is constitutional. But if those people that pay my salary decide they no longer want to fund the agency I work for I shouldn't have a vote in the matter.
Sorry I don't watch SNL. I like comedies.
You are messing up the delivery. It has to follow the format.
If you (insert joke here) , you might be a terrorist.
Just rip off Foxworthy's act and replace redneck with terrorist.
I've worked at companies that were structures this way by accident. It was a government contract design and machine shop. The manager was just a laid back guy that got an order and let us figure it out.. The engineers liked designing and the machinists liked building things. We were very successful because we did what we liked.
The best part is that if you have an experienced group you can easily tell which projects are a waste of time and nobody worked on those. This allocated resources very efficiently.
Then one day the contract was up and new management came in and tried to actually manage the place. Everyone with a brain left after 6 months.
It depends. Let's say a company makes a profit. They can either hold it on their books which makes them worth more and raises the stock price or give it out as a dividend. What typically happens is if a company is in a mature market like a Utility they will issue dividends since there isn't much use keeping the cash on the books. On the other hand if the company is trying to grow the best use of that cash is to reinvest grow which increases the overall value of the company.
The pesticides I use are typically BT, Neem Oil, Spinosad, Insecticidal Soaps, Pyrethrin, along with DE. These are natural compounds made by plants or bacteria but they can be harmful if applied incorrectly. I also release Lady Bugs to take care of Aphids and Whiteflies.
Of course organic food is sprayed with pesticides. I try grow my own food as organic as possible and use pesticides all the time. Do you think magic keeps the bugs off? I just put up a sign that says "Dear bugs I'm trying to grow organic food here, please leave"?
No the difference is we use pesticides and fertilizers that are derived from natural sources. But some of the pesticides are still hazardous if used incorrectly. Many are toxic to fish and amphibians.
Just in case anyone is interested there is an important difference between copying and trying to present that copy as an original work from a person or company. If you didn't have laws granting monopolies of IP like copyright and patents you would be able to copy works and sell them. But you wouldn't be allowed to commit fraud. What's the difference? You would be able to sell a copy of a design, movie, or song but you couldn't represent it as produced by the original creator. Take fashion. You could create an identical copy of a designer dress but you wouldn't be allowed to put a label on it that tries to pass it off as being made by the original designer. The reason is that would be fraud against the buyer. You are lying about who made the product.
The same with identify theft. You could copy my credit history. Open the same types of accounts, follow my spending and repayment patterns. You will have my exact credit history and score. No problem. But when you lie and pass off my identity as yours you are committing fraud.
I'd say it's more of a cartel. If it was just licensing than anyone could go to city hall fill out a form and become a taxi driver. But they keep a cap on how many taxis there are. Then they have price controls on the fares to prevent competition.
It was a part of a trade study. The problems were the center of pressure of wind was very high and created a large overturning moment. Also the pads are about 50 ft above the crawler way so you would need a lock at the pad to raise it up for enough room for a flame trench.
Some US rockets are transported on rails.
The old Titan IV had the rocket assembled in one building then moved to one of two pads on two sets of rails. The rails had a switch to go to two different pads. Then a building moved over the rocket to integrate the payload. They did this because they did lots of DOD payloads. This way you could have a crew of rocket techs with one level of clearance assemble the rocket. Then at the pad have the NRO people with very high clearance have access to the payload.
http://spaceflightnow.com/titan/b39/031006rollout.html
The Atlas V uses a refurbished pad and still uses the same set of rails.
http://www.wired4space.com/launch-sites/cape-canaveral-afs/atlas-v-with-muos-1-rolls-out-to-the-lc-41-launch-pad
Space X horizontally integrates and rides out on rails.
The Delta IV has it's core stage roll out horizontally and is lifted vertical onto a fixed pad with a roll away building.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/19/new-goes-p-weather-satellite-getting-prepped-for-launch/
One of the reasons in the old days large US rockets were assembled vertically was because they weren't strong enough to be lifted horizontally when integrated. Most of these structures are very strong in the axial direction but can't take large radial loads.
Also the shuttle SRB's are VERY heavy at about 1 million pounds each. These require a large pad hence a large transporter.
Actually those are the terms we use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_Integration_Facility
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertical_Integration_Facility
Part of the problem is that in Florida you can't dig very deep without hitting water. So the pad is raised about 50 ft or so above sea level. This means you need a ramp to get up to the pad surface. This makes rail & barges impractical.