(Similiar to how nuclear got more expensive when you couldn't just dump the waste in landfills.)
This is an entirely imaginary history of nuclear power. The technology has always had a high capital cost up front, which is why it has been unable to attract investors to build plants for nearly 40 years. When there is a choice between a coal (originally) or gas fired plant (currently) the fossil fuel plant has always been the more attractive investment since it has a faster time-to-net-profit. The first nuclear power plants built were cheaper initially because they were built to inadequate safety standards, but they were still relatively expensive (and retrofitting later cost a bundle).
Power reactor waste has always been dealt with in the same fashion: kept in cooling ponds until the decay heat is at a low level, then store in concrete casks. It has never been dumped anywhere.
Nice wording. By phrasing it so that a link needs to quote him specifically saying something you specify, you narrow legitimate potential replies...
Interestingly enough, this is a very popular tactic used by Neo-Nazis to deny that Hitler had anything to do with the Holocaust or other atrocities.
Many years after WWII the German files have been exhaustively searched and analyzed, and so we know exactly what the record shows of the Holocaust's planning and execution. So the tactic is to make up some seemingly reasonable sounding "requirement" that the Hitler-defender knows does not exist - e.g. Hitler must have signed a formal order for the Holocaust - and demanding that it be produced, insinuating that if you can't produce such a document then it never happened. We know that that was not required, all of Hitler's Lieutenants knew what he wanted (he kept it no secret) and set the wheel on motion on their own authority given them by Hitler (but he did for example personally authorize the establishment of battlefield death squads, and the murder of disabled Germans, and was kept apprised of the progress of the Holocaust).
Oxygen is probably not a factor in a 10 km fall. You fall faster at high altitude due to thinner air (about 80% faster at 10 km, ~140 m/sec) but more importantly even at 10,000 meters the oxygen level is high enough to sustain life, and you quickly descend to better oxygen concentrations. It takes ~4 minutes without any oxygen to suffer brain damage. In one minute you will be down into low altitudes (below 5 km).
This is just a different spin on the 'not enough qualified Americans for us to hire' chicanery that tech companies love to use. They want us to believe that they are not hiring H1-Bs because they can force them to do twice the work for half the pay and be contractually bound to them.
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Some people on this thread get half the idea, arguing that Cook wants a large pool of U.S. developers so that he can get cheap(er) labor. But this makes no sense. If we start teaching lots of 4th graders coding tomorrow (although a scheme like this would take many years to implement) that could not affect the labor pool significantly for at least 15 years, but realistically (with a 10 year phase in) 25 years. And we all know that this proposal is not going to fly anyway. You can be sure Tim Cook knows this. And Tim Cook will not be Apple CEO in 15 years, much less 25 years.
So why is Cook saying this today? Because he wants to import H-1B coders in large numbers today. There is no such thing as "enough profit" or "enough margin" or "enough CEO compensation". A company with sky high margins, sitting on a mountain of cash, with a CEO with restricted stock options now worth around $900 million, need lots more money and having low paid workers are the easiest way to get it.
I mean, give the guy a break, it is terrific hardship for Tim to have to wait a few more years to join the billionaires club. Anything that can advance him into that exclusive society is Good For America!
Well, of course, sometimes government can help and should help -- natural disasters like the drought, for example -- but we need to look to a future where there's less, not more, government in our daily lives. It's that philosophy that brought us the prosperity and growth that we see today.
Interesting that you point that out. Looking at U.S. economic growth rates since 1947 shows that the net rate of economic growth has declined since the start of the Reagan era. But hey, FREEDOM!
The global economy is battling the Fed and USA Congress cancer.
USA Federal reserve and USA Congress are the primary engines for the weakness, creating inflation...
Well, they aren't doing a very good job at creating inflation since the rate is just a little north of zero at present, and actually well under the Fed's target rate to sustain economic growth.
But never mind, in the right-wing mind inflation is always at terrible levels (if a Democrat is in the White House, anyway) and hyperinflation around the corner -- any day now, just keep watching, you'll see...
A completely off-topic rant. However a few things that Mi fails to consider:
if you follow the FactCheck link given you will see that the labor force participation rate today is higher than at any time from the end of World War II to 1978 (or for that matter higher than any time before World War II), a period of prosperity that conservatives generally imagine was a Valhalla of probity and Great America. Its rise after 1978 was due to women entering the workforce in large numbers (often opposed by conservatives), a one-time only event since this cultural change cannot happen twice.
The decline in labor for participation is guaranteed to continue as Baby Boomers retire, and was predictable decades in advance, and it is not a sign of a declining America, of people getting lazy, or some other moral failing of America. It is the natural, unavoidable result of an aging population.
Ah yes, the terrible, terrible socialism of government spending. How much better we were in the 1800s! If you look at the global stats on this, the U.S. is lower than nearly all major industrialized nations (only three are lower in this respect), and we could shave about 3% off of this figure though if we spent what the rest of world does on defense.
But Mi is on to something about stalled salaries for workers, which have been flat for 44 years. If corporations returned more of the revenue to the workers who actually made that revenue possible, then yes, not just computers, but the entire consumer economy would revitilized, as would economic growth overall.
Also it should be pointed out that the sensationalist title about "producing as many toxins as dirty diesels" (copied from the sensationalist newspaper article, for pete's sake) isn't even supported by the paper. There point of comparison, misleading as it is, are modern extremely clean diesels (and assuming the claims of the diesel vehicle manufacturers are even accurate, which have learned recently often are not).
After all when someone is done with a Prius they just dump it in a landfill, where all the nickel in the battery will eventually leak out and contaminate ground water. What? No one does this?
Well then, when someone is done with a Prius they BURN it! And all that nickel goes into the air! Wait, no one does that either.
What does happen to a Prius once it exceeds its service life? People sell it to scrap dealers, who take the batteries out and ship them to reclaiming facilities where the valuable nickel is recovered and reused.
Just more anti-environmental BS. Nothing to see here.
Indeed I am driving a Prius, now with 230,000 miles on it - and I have never needed to replace the brake pads. I like getting high mileage, and so manage to use regenerative braking exclusively except for emergency stop situations (e.g. someone pulls in front of you suddenly from a slow lane).
All they do is pass along the cost of the taxes they're paying to the consumer. In the end, all taxes are paid by individuals, whether directly or hidden in the cost of the products and services they buy.
Not so. Here is what Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett (senior policy roles under Reagan and GHW Bush, and served on the staffs of Reps. Jack Kemp and Ron Paul) has to say about corporate income taxes, and who pays them, ultimately:
For many years, economists assumed that the corporate tax is paid almost entirely by shareholders. This is unquestionably true when a corporate income tax is first introduced. But over time, corporations adjust their affairs so as to minimize the tax, causing the burden to be shifted. For example, companies may try to raise prices to compensate for the corporate income tax, thus shifting some of the burden onto consumers.
Most economists don’t believe that much, if any, of the corporate tax is shifted onto consumers this way, because corporations face competition from noncorporate businesses, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships, and from businesses based in countries with higher or lower corporate taxes. Competition sets prices for goods and services without regard to the corporate tax rate.
Now it is true individuals eventually pay the tax, but it is not consumers, it is owners of capital - the investors, or perhaps management if their compensation packages are pinched.
Do you actually think that Apple wouldn't simply raise their prices so that their profit margin stayed the same? In what world?
Do you believe that Apple is not already charging what they think the market will bear? In what world? Even Apple products cannot become arbitrarily expensive.
You say that as if there is a finite number of passengers. However as technology has allowed the cost of flying to come down it has only driven demand for travel up. There is nothing to suggest that this trend will reverse. Heck, even having the airlines think of passengers as cattle doesn't diminish the demand.
That would be because those "cattle flights" reduce airfare cost, and it is airfare cost, along with rising world-wide wealth (more people with money to fly), that drive air-travel demand. Why should we want to reverse these trends?
Improved technology does help drive down airfare costs, largely by increasing fuel efficiency, but operational changes have been the major driver in reducing airfare costs since the 1970s ("cattle flights", but also simply leaner and more efficient airline operations with better scheduling and higher flight loads). It would be perverse to argue that we should keep airliners fuel-inefficient, burning more fuel per passenger-mile, in order to keep airfare costs up to reduce flight demand as... some sort of environmental protection measure? Less fuel per passenger-mile is an absolute good, economically, socially and environmentally, not an "on the other hand, its bad" thing.
Per passenger yes, but if larger planes means ever more passengers flying then its a rather pyrrhic victory.
The aircraft that will be using these engines is the Boeing 777X. The 777X is a big airplane (maximum takeoff weight 351.5 tonnes), but smaller than the largest airplanes currently flying like the largest variant of the 747 (the 747-8, MTOW 448 tonnes), or the Airbus A380 (MTOW 590 tonnes). It is about the same size as the smaller 747 variants currently flying (MTOW 333-378 tonnes, depending on model).
The difference is that all of these other aircraft have four engines, the 777X will only have two. Result: greater weight savings and increased efficiency.
Larger planes aren't creating flight demand anyway, they are satisfying it - making it easier for limited airport space to handle more customers. It is reasonable to argue that airfares affect airline travel demand, but larger aircraft aren't driving airfares down - airlines do not cut flight prices when they buy bigger airplanes (if you think they do, please cite some evidence of this phenomenon).
Canada, with a lower rate of urbanization that the U.S., and a population density about 1/10 that of the U.S. does better in broadband access, and has nearly identical data rates.
To be fair, 95% of Canada's population is concentrated within about 5 degrees of the 49th parallel, so we do have high population densities as well. Rural areas generally have crap for coverage - wireless or otherwise....
Certainly. I cited Canada, and its very low population density, simply as an antidote to the "but, but the population density is holding us back!" excuse makers.
The cost of bringing broadband to Saskatchewan does not hold back the deployment of BB to the urban areas of Canada where most people actually live anymore than the low population density of Wyoming is holding back BB in the Northeast megalopolis (aka the Bos-Wash Corridor) with a population about equal to all of South Korea, in an area half as large.
Lets add to the story. The destruction of the Columbia on re-entry in 2003 was actually the activation of a destruct mode by NASA to silence the crew when one of the crewmen was heard saying "I've had enough of this lying. I am going to tell everyone about our meeting with the Alien!"
It's true that population densities are very low here, and that it is more difficult to connect everyone up as a result. However, it's also true that we could be doing a lot more in that regard.
I see you are responding (in advance) to the lame excuse routinely offered by apologists for "Whatever the Corporations Give Us Must Be the Best in The World! Because FREEDOM!"
The poor average Internet service in the U.S., both in wired broadband penetration and internet connection speeds (and metrics like cost per bandwidth), cannot be explained (or even correlated with) population density. The U.S. is 82.4% urbanized for one thing, which means that this entire urban population lives in a small area at high densities and should have data service comparable or better than the rest of the world, especially in light of the relatively high U.S. average income. The population density in U.S. urban areas is 2400 people per square mile, far higher than the average population density of the nations with the best Internet service (like South Korea), and are in addition highly regionalized (i.e. are in effect huge megacities) so that they do form population and wealth concentrations similar to those top Internet nations.
Instead we are far behind such very low density countries like Sweden, Norway and Finland in all BB metrics (our urbanization rate is not much different from these countries, BTW). Canada, with a lower rate of urbanization that the U.S., and a population density about 1/10 that of the U.S. does better in broadband access, and has nearly identical data rates.
There has been a long tradition of the music industry (even before it was the recording industry) of fighting any technological innovation since it would disrupt their current business model. Industries that make money by controlling access to other people's creativity are like that.
The music industry convinced itself that its CD era peak revenue period from 1994 to 2000, when a few generations of music lovers were rebuying their entire music collection in the superior CD format, was their "natural revenue level" and any decrease from the anomalous high point was due to "Piracy! Piracy I say!" rather than the inevitable technology-driven business cycle, seen several times before. They then spent the next decade feverishly fighting digital music, the upcoming format that would replace CDs, rather than working on consumer-friendly ways to exploit it, driving their own revenues into a ditch by pissing off the next generation of music consumers with lawsuits and DRM.
Although no doubt contraception was used, you most likely would not be the first member of the "200 Mile Club". Astronaut memoirs may one day provide candid public discussion regarding this.
Jan Davis and Mark Lee, who were the first married couple to go to space in 1991, and were on their honeymoon. This was an unusual situation, NASA does not send up married couples as a rule, but these two were training for a specific mission together when they got involved and married. Changing the mission crew would have delayed the mission, so up they went. Despite the close quarters, and busy schedule I would think that the other astronauts would be able to find some way to stay busy, while the newlyweds "got busy" at some point.
Then there is the interesting case of Elena Kondakova and Valery Polyakov who spent a few months together alone on Mir in the 1990s, and who did some rather outrageous flirting on camera, raising curiosity about what they were doing off camera.
The judge uses as an example to read a work of fiction, see a religion described as part of the plot and claim belief in it. The judge hence inherently presumes, and rightfully so, that someone who is informed of a religion as part of the plot in a novel will most likely not have a genuine belief in it.
And yet Evangelical Christians frequently hold that reading Christian fiction can inspire genuine belief.
I guess they must be mistaken. Someone should tell them.
... Hitler... tried to kill other people (not their own).
Leaving aside the fact that German Jews were German-speaking German citizens living in Germany for centuries , thus the "other people" concept here is nakedly racist, are you not aware of Aktion T4, the program that murdered disabled Germans (who not Jewish)? Between 100,000 and 200,000 Germans were murdered under this program, including several thousand children. And then there are the thousands of executions of opponents to the Nazi regime (opposing the war could constitute "sabotage").
He has addressed the issue of having his clothes made overseas. He says the decision is to either make the clothes overseas or not at all. People won't buy clothes made in the US because you would have to charge much more.
Because there is just no way Trump would simply be making easy excuses for doing the lazy thing, while also padding his bottom line a bit more. No sirree!
Slashdot Mirror
(Similiar to how nuclear got more expensive when you couldn't just dump the waste in landfills.)
This is an entirely imaginary history of nuclear power. The technology has always had a high capital cost up front, which is why it has been unable to attract investors to build plants for nearly 40 years. When there is a choice between a coal (originally) or gas fired plant (currently) the fossil fuel plant has always been the more attractive investment since it has a faster time-to-net-profit. The first nuclear power plants built were cheaper initially because they were built to inadequate safety standards, but they were still relatively expensive (and retrofitting later cost a bundle).
Power reactor waste has always been dealt with in the same fashion: kept in cooling ponds until the decay heat is at a low level, then store in concrete casks. It has never been dumped anywhere.
Nice wording. By phrasing it so that a link needs to quote him specifically saying something you specify, you narrow legitimate potential replies...
Interestingly enough, this is a very popular tactic used by Neo-Nazis to deny that Hitler had anything to do with the Holocaust or other atrocities.
Many years after WWII the German files have been exhaustively searched and analyzed, and so we know exactly what the record shows of the Holocaust's planning and execution. So the tactic is to make up some seemingly reasonable sounding "requirement" that the Hitler-defender knows does not exist - e.g. Hitler must have signed a formal order for the Holocaust - and demanding that it be produced, insinuating that if you can't produce such a document then it never happened. We know that that was not required, all of Hitler's Lieutenants knew what he wanted (he kept it no secret) and set the wheel on motion on their own authority given them by Hitler (but he did for example personally authorize the establishment of battlefield death squads, and the murder of disabled Germans, and was kept apprised of the progress of the Holocaust).
This is the central philosophy of all corporations. Political party is irrelevant.
Oxygen is probably not a factor in a 10 km fall. You fall faster at high altitude due to thinner air (about 80% faster at 10 km, ~140 m/sec) but more importantly even at 10,000 meters the oxygen level is high enough to sustain life, and you quickly descend to better oxygen concentrations. It takes ~4 minutes without any oxygen to suffer brain damage. In one minute you will be down into low altitudes (below 5 km).
This is just a different spin on the 'not enough qualified Americans for us to hire' chicanery that tech companies love to use. They want us to believe that they are not hiring H1-Bs because they can force them to do twice the work for half the pay and be contractually bound to them.
I think you have hit the nail squarely on the head.
Some people on this thread get half the idea, arguing that Cook wants a large pool of U.S. developers so that he can get cheap(er) labor. But this makes no sense. If we start teaching lots of 4th graders coding tomorrow (although a scheme like this would take many years to implement) that could not affect the labor pool significantly for at least 15 years, but realistically (with a 10 year phase in) 25 years. And we all know that this proposal is not going to fly anyway. You can be sure Tim Cook knows this. And Tim Cook will not be Apple CEO in 15 years, much less 25 years.
So why is Cook saying this today? Because he wants to import H-1B coders in large numbers today. There is no such thing as "enough profit" or "enough margin" or "enough CEO compensation". A company with sky high margins, sitting on a mountain of cash, with a CEO with restricted stock options now worth around $900 million, need lots more money and having low paid workers are the easiest way to get it.
I mean, give the guy a break, it is terrific hardship for Tim to have to wait a few more years to join the billionaires club. Anything that can advance him into that exclusive society is Good For America!
Although, after the first 500 meters it is all the same (you don't fall any faster).
Well, of course, sometimes government can help and should help -- natural disasters like the drought, for example -- but we need to look to a future where there's less, not more, government in our daily lives. It's that philosophy that brought us the prosperity and growth that we see today.
Interesting that you point that out. Looking at U.S. economic growth rates since 1947 shows that the net rate of economic growth has declined since the start of the Reagan era. But hey, FREEDOM!
The global economy is battling the Fed and USA Congress cancer.
USA Federal reserve and USA Congress are the primary engines for the weakness, creating inflation...
Well, they aren't doing a very good job at creating inflation since the rate is just a little north of zero at present, and actually well under the Fed's target rate to sustain economic growth.
But never mind, in the right-wing mind inflation is always at terrible levels (if a Democrat is in the White House, anyway) and hyperinflation around the corner -- any day now, just keep watching, you'll see...
A completely off-topic rant. However a few things that Mi fails to consider:
if you follow the FactCheck link given you will see that the labor force participation rate today is higher than at any time from the end of World War II to 1978 (or for that matter higher than any time before World War II), a period of prosperity that conservatives generally imagine was a Valhalla of probity and Great America. Its rise after 1978 was due to women entering the workforce in large numbers (often opposed by conservatives), a one-time only event since this cultural change cannot happen twice.
The decline in labor for participation is guaranteed to continue as Baby Boomers retire, and was predictable decades in advance, and it is not a sign of a declining America, of people getting lazy, or some other moral failing of America. It is the natural, unavoidable result of an aging population.
Ah yes, the terrible, terrible socialism of government spending. How much better we were in the 1800s! If you look at the global stats on this, the U.S. is lower than nearly all major industrialized nations (only three are lower in this respect), and we could shave about 3% off of this figure though if we spent what the rest of world does on defense.
But Mi is on to something about stalled salaries for workers, which have been flat for 44 years. If corporations returned more of the revenue to the workers who actually made that revenue possible, then yes, not just computers, but the entire consumer economy would revitilized, as would economic growth overall.
Also it should be pointed out that the sensationalist title about "producing as many toxins as dirty diesels" (copied from the sensationalist newspaper article, for pete's sake) isn't even supported by the paper. There point of comparison, misleading as it is, are modern extremely clean diesels (and assuming the claims of the diesel vehicle manufacturers are even accurate, which have learned recently often are not).
After all when someone is done with a Prius they just dump it in a landfill, where all the nickel in the battery will eventually leak out and contaminate ground water. What? No one does this?
Well then, when someone is done with a Prius they BURN it! And all that nickel goes into the air! Wait, no one does that either.
What does happen to a Prius once it exceeds its service life? People sell it to scrap dealers, who take the batteries out and ship them to reclaiming facilities where the valuable nickel is recovered and reused.
Just more anti-environmental BS. Nothing to see here.
Indeed I am driving a Prius, now with 230,000 miles on it - and I have never needed to replace the brake pads. I like getting high mileage, and so manage to use regenerative braking exclusively except for emergency stop situations (e.g. someone pulls in front of you suddenly from a slow lane).
All they do is pass along the cost of the taxes they're paying to the consumer. In the end, all taxes are paid by individuals, whether directly or hidden in the cost of the products and services they buy.
Not so. Here is what Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett (senior policy roles under Reagan and GHW Bush, and served on the staffs of Reps. Jack Kemp and Ron Paul) has to say about corporate income taxes, and who pays them, ultimately:
For many years, economists assumed that the corporate tax is paid almost entirely by shareholders. This is unquestionably true when a corporate income tax is first introduced. But over time, corporations adjust their affairs so as to minimize the tax, causing the burden to be shifted. For example, companies may try to raise prices to compensate for the corporate income tax, thus shifting some of the burden onto consumers.
Most economists don’t believe that much, if any, of the corporate tax is shifted onto consumers this way, because corporations face competition from noncorporate businesses, such as sole proprietorships and partnerships, and from businesses based in countries with higher or lower corporate taxes. Competition sets prices for goods and services without regard to the corporate tax rate.
Now it is true individuals eventually pay the tax, but it is not consumers, it is owners of capital - the investors, or perhaps management if their compensation packages are pinched.
Do you actually think that Apple wouldn't simply raise their prices so that their profit margin stayed the same? In what world?
Do you believe that Apple is not already charging what they think the market will bear? In what world? Even Apple products cannot become arbitrarily expensive.
You say that as if there is a finite number of passengers. However as technology has allowed the cost of flying to come down it has only driven demand for travel up. There is nothing to suggest that this trend will reverse. Heck, even having the airlines think of passengers as cattle doesn't diminish the demand.
That would be because those "cattle flights" reduce airfare cost, and it is airfare cost, along with rising world-wide wealth (more people with money to fly), that drive air-travel demand. Why should we want to reverse these trends?
Improved technology does help drive down airfare costs, largely by increasing fuel efficiency, but operational changes have been the major driver in reducing airfare costs since the 1970s ("cattle flights", but also simply leaner and more efficient airline operations with better scheduling and higher flight loads). It would be perverse to argue that we should keep airliners fuel-inefficient, burning more fuel per passenger-mile, in order to keep airfare costs up to reduce flight demand as... some sort of environmental protection measure? Less fuel per passenger-mile is an absolute good, economically, socially and environmentally, not an "on the other hand, its bad" thing.
Per passenger yes, but if larger planes means ever more passengers flying then its a rather pyrrhic victory.
The aircraft that will be using these engines is the Boeing 777X. The 777X is a big airplane (maximum takeoff weight 351.5 tonnes), but smaller than the largest airplanes currently flying like the largest variant of the 747 (the 747-8, MTOW 448 tonnes), or the Airbus A380 (MTOW 590 tonnes). It is about the same size as the smaller 747 variants currently flying (MTOW 333-378 tonnes, depending on model).
The difference is that all of these other aircraft have four engines, the 777X will only have two. Result: greater weight savings and increased efficiency.
Larger planes aren't creating flight demand anyway, they are satisfying it - making it easier for limited airport space to handle more customers. It is reasonable to argue that airfares affect airline travel demand, but larger aircraft aren't driving airfares down - airlines do not cut flight prices when they buy bigger airplanes (if you think they do, please cite some evidence of this phenomenon).
To be fair, 95% of Canada's population is concentrated within about 5 degrees of the 49th parallel, so we do have high population densities as well. Rural areas generally have crap for coverage - wireless or otherwise. ...
Certainly. I cited Canada, and its very low population density, simply as an antidote to the "but, but the population density is holding us back!" excuse makers.
The cost of bringing broadband to Saskatchewan does not hold back the deployment of BB to the urban areas of Canada where most people actually live anymore than the low population density of Wyoming is holding back BB in the Northeast megalopolis (aka the Bos-Wash Corridor) with a population about equal to all of South Korea, in an area half as large.
Lets add to the story. The destruction of the Columbia on re-entry in 2003 was actually the activation of a destruct mode by NASA to silence the crew when one of the crewmen was heard saying "I've had enough of this lying. I am going to tell everyone about our meeting with the Alien!"
And look at the list of Shuttle astronauts who have died of "accidents" and "natural causes! Ha I say! Clearly they were taken out to shut them up.
It's true that population densities are very low here, and that it is more difficult to connect everyone up as a result. However, it's also true that we could be doing a lot more in that regard.
I see you are responding (in advance) to the lame excuse routinely offered by apologists for "Whatever the Corporations Give Us Must Be the Best in The World! Because FREEDOM!"
The poor average Internet service in the U.S., both in wired broadband penetration and internet connection speeds (and metrics like cost per bandwidth), cannot be explained (or even correlated with) population density. The U.S. is 82.4% urbanized for one thing, which means that this entire urban population lives in a small area at high densities and should have data service comparable or better than the rest of the world, especially in light of the relatively high U.S. average income. The population density in U.S. urban areas is 2400 people per square mile, far higher than the average population density of the nations with the best Internet service (like South Korea), and are in addition highly regionalized (i.e. are in effect huge megacities) so that they do form population and wealth concentrations similar to those top Internet nations.
Instead we are far behind such very low density countries like Sweden, Norway and Finland in all BB metrics (our urbanization rate is not much different from these countries, BTW). Canada, with a lower rate of urbanization that the U.S., and a population density about 1/10 that of the U.S. does better in broadband access, and has nearly identical data rates.
There has been a long tradition of the music industry (even before it was the recording industry) of fighting any technological innovation since it would disrupt their current business model. Industries that make money by controlling access to other people's creativity are like that.
The music industry convinced itself that its CD era peak revenue period from 1994 to 2000, when a few generations of music lovers were rebuying their entire music collection in the superior CD format, was their "natural revenue level" and any decrease from the anomalous high point was due to "Piracy! Piracy I say!" rather than the inevitable technology-driven business cycle, seen several times before. They then spent the next decade feverishly fighting digital music, the upcoming format that would replace CDs, rather than working on consumer-friendly ways to exploit it, driving their own revenues into a ditch by pissing off the next generation of music consumers with lawsuits and DRM.
Although no doubt contraception was used, you most likely would not be the first member of the "200 Mile Club". Astronaut memoirs may one day provide candid public discussion regarding this.
Jan Davis and Mark Lee, who were the first married couple to go to space in 1991, and were on their honeymoon. This was an unusual situation, NASA does not send up married couples as a rule, but these two were training for a specific mission together when they got involved and married. Changing the mission crew would have delayed the mission, so up they went. Despite the close quarters, and busy schedule I would think that the other astronauts would be able to find some way to stay busy, while the newlyweds "got busy" at some point.
Then there is the interesting case of Elena Kondakova and Valery Polyakov who spent a few months together alone on Mir in the 1990s, and who did some rather outrageous flirting on camera, raising curiosity about what they were doing off camera.
The judge uses as an example to read a work of fiction, see a religion described as part of the plot and claim belief in it. The judge hence inherently presumes, and rightfully so, that someone who is informed of a religion as part of the plot in a novel will most likely not have a genuine belief in it.
And yet Evangelical Christians frequently hold that reading Christian fiction can inspire genuine belief.
I guess they must be mistaken. Someone should tell them.
Which is pretty offtopic. The question is about sincerely held beliefs, not whether a set of people with beliefs hold true to their teachings.
It would seem "holding true to their teachings" would be an extremely important element in determining whether they are "sincerely held beliefs".
TL;DR: Stop using the word psychopath to describe assholes, you cretins.
Hmm... I feel a nerd-rage at the misuse of the word "cretin" coming on....
... Hitler... tried to kill other people (not their own).
Leaving aside the fact that German Jews were German-speaking German citizens living in Germany for centuries , thus the "other people" concept here is nakedly racist, are you not aware of Aktion T4, the program that murdered disabled Germans (who not Jewish)? Between 100,000 and 200,000 Germans were murdered under this program, including several thousand children. And then there are the thousands of executions of opponents to the Nazi regime (opposing the war could constitute "sabotage").
He has addressed the issue of having his clothes made overseas. He says the decision is to either make the clothes overseas or not at all. People won't buy clothes made in the US because you would have to charge much more.
Gosh Trump must be right because who ever hear of a successful clothing company making clothes in the U.S. today?
If only there were evidence that Americans would willingly pay a bit more for an honestly labelled made-in-America label.
Because there is just no way Trump would simply be making easy excuses for doing the lazy thing, while also padding his bottom line a bit more. No sirree!