Obamacare did limit healthcare cost growth, until the individual mandate was repealed. Socialized medicine would control those costs even more effectively. Every other developed country in the world does universal healthcare. They also have an average of 10 years higher life expectancies.
Compassion does not equal "open borders." We have always been a nation of immigrants (where the ones who have been here long enough to forget they were immigrants are racist against the new generation). Chain migration is just a cruel way of saying family migration. Put yourself in your own shoes. In a zombie apocalypse, if you could decide what family to save (limited to parents, spouses, siblings, and children), is there any you would be willing to leave behind?
The social security thing is too twisted an issue to address. As far as I can tell, it was designed to be "raided." The money is converted to government bonds and the government spends the money on stuff it wants, including current Social Security payments. If we continue to make money as a country (or raise our debt ceiling), the bonds are paid back. I am not a fan of this, but seeing how fiscally irresponsible the Republicans are, I would not want them making decisions about my Social Security anyway.
I didn't read this article, but the one I did read noted that they are using twisted pair wires. The twist method is not perfect and, at the Lilliputian scale the thrust is measured on, those imperfections are enough to produce the resulting torque.
Years of a media diet where the underdog saves the day produces them. It is a fundamental human glitch related to our desire to be special. Our "fresh and unique" perspective sees what others, blinded by their own mundanity, cannot. Part of growing up, that many never do, is accepting that we aren't that special. Before the Pollyannas jump on me, yes, we are special to the people who care about us and those connections are why "we are here," but that doesn't grant us special insight into fields that experts have been arguing about for years.
I would also like to rag on a particular type of religous nut who has the gall to claim god speaks to them, except god seems to only say things that let them do whatever their id wants. Similar issue, pisses me off more.
This could be a deep rabbit hole. As it is read, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years," Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, really appears to mean that the standing army shouldn't last for longer than 2 years. Now, I know that smarter minds than mine have wrangled out a different meaning, but just look at it. As to states rights:
They aren't paying what you and I are paying. Did you not know that? What did you think corporate tax lawyers are for? Most large corporations don't pay a lot of taxes due to loopholes and incentives. NYT pegs Amazon's effective rate over federal, state, local, and foreign to be 13% last year. Fox reports that they didn't pay any federal at all last year (but that could be state propaganda). Face the fact that businesses would rather pay no taxes at all, even as the world fell down around them. That is where the "Less Taxes" push ends. Our spending on infrastructure, education, and science are all down, (according to flashy charts I Googled that are probably pushing an agenda, but I don't have the time to find the raw data, adjust for inflation, and chart for myself. The infrastructure went back to 1950 and education and science went back to 2000.)
Public services are pared down to the bone and we blame the problems on the politicians! My job is just off the highway and the exit is less a road and more a moonscape. When my hardcore anti-tax coworkers got a response through management from PennDot about how they didn't have the money to fix it, they started complaining about PennDot! The same guys who, in regular conversation, swap tips on how to avoid paying taxes!
One of my favorite sci-fi futures is where all of humanity lives in archologies and nature is allowed to go rampant outside them. (The idea being that the population remains similar to what it is today, but the people are concentrated geographically.) One of the objections to the idea of archologies is that humanity wouldn't do well cooped up inside all day. It looks like we might be moving that way anyway.
You moved the goal posts. Also, I have never known perfection to exist, even in nature. I doubt perfect understanding is required to duplicate something nature has already done.
This feels like a cycle. The first computers only had a few users who were located nearby, then we had dumb terminals that allowed many people using the same computer, then personal PCs went back to the first model, then cloud computing was the second model, and now we are back to the first model. Maybe this all is just a marketing scheme?
I was going to argue with you, but you are right. I would modify what you said a little and say that power comes from using both. I think if you tip the scales more one way than the other, you lose control and every type of power has its own balance. Political power, I believe, has more stick to it than carrot.
Well, yeah, it totally does. I'm not sure why you thought it was an adequate rebuttal to point that out though. You did leave out the bit where if a government is doing something wrong, if it is a well made government, you can go to the judiciary which will correct the issue. (Scopes trial, Brown vs. Board of Education) Still a part of the government though. You don't have that correction with no government or a broken, unjust one.
All power is the result of coercion and fear. Sorry about that. If you remove a current power, a new one takes its place. There may be a utopian day that comes where bad faith actors no longer exist and we all work together in hippie harmony, but that day isn't today. You think that something is pointless, then work to change that within the existing system. Libitarians seem to think that if there is something wrong with the system, we should throw the whole thing out rather than correct the problem. That would be like trying to draw a portrait and destroying it every time the pencil slipped.
I would note that government involvement in education is completely necessary. There is always someone with an agenda who starts excising the information they don't like from school curriculum. Without the government stepping in, that excising would just stand and then those people would cut something else out. Then we'd get stupider and stupider people. (You think now is bad, imagine a country where most people didn't believe in evolution or medicine.) Also, there is always someone out there with opinions on who deserves an education. The government is involved to put a stop to that too. Is the amount your government is involved in education too much? Probably. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be involved at all.
If you could come up with a system of government that is better than democracy, that doesn't involve a philosopher king or no government at all, that would be great. Till then, vote and run for office.
I can easily swipe out one of the supports of your argument. Sault's law doesn't apply simply because we can cooperate. Even if one of us isn't capable of containing all the information required to replicate one of us, there are many of us, and thanks to communication, we can split the solution between us. Hell, I'm a weirdo. I'm hoping something like hive minds in the sci-fi sense is possible, but till then, communication between separate humans is sufficient coordination to appear as a mind smarter than a human one.
Or maybe they really like the color blue? Perhaps we've found the home system of the Blue Man Group, where they have a blue house with a blue window. Blue is the color of all that they wear. Blue are the streets and all the trees are too. They have a girlfriend and she is so blue. Blue are the people there that walk around. Blue like their Corvette, it's in and outside. Blue are the words they say and what they think. Blue are the feelings that live inside them.
There is an old joke about how the Matrix sequels are so bad, true fans refuse to recognize that they exist. If we all believe hard enough, maybe they'll go away. You can safely assume that people talking about the Matrix having no sequels are a part of the effort to forget. If they aren't why would you be so cruel as to inflict the sequels on the blissfully ignorant? https://xkcd.com/566/
The point is, if this had gone perfectly (for the FCC), it would have looked like they had allowed comment and that the public had come down on the side of doing away with NN. Us malcontents would get angry and blame each other, not the FCC. Even now, with this confusion, they get to act like they have every reason to believe that the public comment went their way. By now, of course, it gives them the look of a child with their eyes closed and ears stopped up shouting "Nuh-uh!" but they still have that veneer. They get to look saintly while acting like sinners. Of course, the above is filtered through my bias against pro-corporation/radical-free-market-ism.
You are absolutely right about hooking up being a numbers game and the number of tries increases the number of successes. However, you have to treat your hook ups as people. Would you want feel forced to have sex? Even if they were very attractive? In your first statement, you went from a very specific type of power imbalance to a spread-out generalization. If a person needs your good will for a reason, it is wrong to express a sexual interest in them. Two examples, if you are their boss or you are being interviewed by a reporter. Both situations place the other person in a position where their job depends your favorable cooperation. This is a specific set of circumstances. (I am assuming that you are evolved enough to know that making unsolicited sexual advances, e.g. sexual comments or uninvited touches, in any circumstance, is wrong) If this were a social strata thing, I couldn't ask out a security guard, simply because I'm an engineer. I can ask the guard out because I have no control over hire/fire decisions on his behalf, despite our social strata being different. The worst I could do, if he said no, would be to make a complaint against him and that could easily turn against me. Now, my boss's boss's boss (I think it is three levels, not really sure) couldn't ask the guard out, not just because my boss-cubed doesn't swing that way, but because he could conceivably have the guard fired. Power imbalance. It is true that at high values and really low values of power imbalance, the right thing to do gets murky, but then you can just fall back on the most basic ethics rule "When in doubt, don't."
Ballot box stuffing doesn't occur. If it did, there would be a problem, but multiple studies, on multiple elections, have found little evidence of voter fraud. So don't go haring off attacking people, when you can't even prove that there is a problem.
Slashdot Mirror
Come on, do your research.
Obamacare did limit healthcare cost growth, until the individual mandate was repealed. Socialized medicine would control those costs even more effectively. Every other developed country in the world does universal healthcare. They also have an average of 10 years higher life expectancies.
Compassion does not equal "open borders." We have always been a nation of immigrants (where the ones who have been here long enough to forget they were immigrants are racist against the new generation). Chain migration is just a cruel way of saying family migration. Put yourself in your own shoes. In a zombie apocalypse, if you could decide what family to save (limited to parents, spouses, siblings, and children), is there any you would be willing to leave behind?
The social security thing is too twisted an issue to address. As far as I can tell, it was designed to be "raided." The money is converted to government bonds and the government spends the money on stuff it wants, including current Social Security payments. If we continue to make money as a country (or raise our debt ceiling), the bonds are paid back. I am not a fan of this, but seeing how fiscally irresponsible the Republicans are, I would not want them making decisions about my Social Security anyway.
So you wish it, so it must be so. Sorry.
I didn't read this article, but the one I did read noted that they are using twisted pair wires. The twist method is not perfect and, at the Lilliputian scale the thrust is measured on, those imperfections are enough to produce the resulting torque.
Years of a media diet where the underdog saves the day produces them. It is a fundamental human glitch related to our desire to be special. Our "fresh and unique" perspective sees what others, blinded by their own mundanity, cannot. Part of growing up, that many never do, is accepting that we aren't that special. Before the Pollyannas jump on me, yes, we are special to the people who care about us and those connections are why "we are here," but that doesn't grant us special insight into fields that experts have been arguing about for years.
I would also like to rag on a particular type of religous nut who has the gall to claim god speaks to them, except god seems to only say things that let them do whatever their id wants. Similar issue, pisses me off more.
This could be a deep rabbit hole. As it is read, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years," Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, really appears to mean that the standing army shouldn't last for longer than 2 years. Now, I know that smarter minds than mine have wrangled out a different meaning, but just look at it. As to states rights:
"Then leaf subsides to leaf.
So Eden sank to grief,
So dawn goes down to day.
Nothing gold can stay.
They aren't paying what you and I are paying. Did you not know that? What did you think corporate tax lawyers are for? Most large corporations don't pay a lot of taxes due to loopholes and incentives. NYT pegs Amazon's effective rate over federal, state, local, and foreign to be 13% last year. Fox reports that they didn't pay any federal at all last year (but that could be state propaganda). Face the fact that businesses would rather pay no taxes at all, even as the world fell down around them. That is where the "Less Taxes" push ends. Our spending on infrastructure, education, and science are all down, (according to flashy charts I Googled that are probably pushing an agenda, but I don't have the time to find the raw data, adjust for inflation, and chart for myself. The infrastructure went back to 1950 and education and science went back to 2000.)
Public services are pared down to the bone and we blame the problems on the politicians! My job is just off the highway and the exit is less a road and more a moonscape. When my hardcore anti-tax coworkers got a response through management from PennDot about how they didn't have the money to fix it, they started complaining about PennDot! The same guys who, in regular conversation, swap tips on how to avoid paying taxes!
One of my favorite sci-fi futures is where all of humanity lives in archologies and nature is allowed to go rampant outside them. (The idea being that the population remains similar to what it is today, but the people are concentrated geographically.) One of the objections to the idea of archologies is that humanity wouldn't do well cooped up inside all day. It looks like we might be moving that way anyway.
Wah, wah, wah
You moved the goal posts. Also, I have never known perfection to exist, even in nature. I doubt perfect understanding is required to duplicate something nature has already done.
This feels like a cycle. The first computers only had a few users who were located nearby, then we had dumb terminals that allowed many people using the same computer, then personal PCs went back to the first model, then cloud computing was the second model, and now we are back to the first model. Maybe this all is just a marketing scheme?
I was going to argue with you, but you are right. I would modify what you said a little and say that power comes from using both. I think if you tip the scales more one way than the other, you lose control and every type of power has its own balance. Political power, I believe, has more stick to it than carrot.
Well, yeah, it totally does. I'm not sure why you thought it was an adequate rebuttal to point that out though. You did leave out the bit where if a government is doing something wrong, if it is a well made government, you can go to the judiciary which will correct the issue. (Scopes trial, Brown vs. Board of Education) Still a part of the government though. You don't have that correction with no government or a broken, unjust one.
All power is the result of coercion and fear. Sorry about that. If you remove a current power, a new one takes its place. There may be a utopian day that comes where bad faith actors no longer exist and we all work together in hippie harmony, but that day isn't today. You think that something is pointless, then work to change that within the existing system. Libitarians seem to think that if there is something wrong with the system, we should throw the whole thing out rather than correct the problem. That would be like trying to draw a portrait and destroying it every time the pencil slipped.
I would note that government involvement in education is completely necessary. There is always someone with an agenda who starts excising the information they don't like from school curriculum. Without the government stepping in, that excising would just stand and then those people would cut something else out. Then we'd get stupider and stupider people. (You think now is bad, imagine a country where most people didn't believe in evolution or medicine.) Also, there is always someone out there with opinions on who deserves an education. The government is involved to put a stop to that too. Is the amount your government is involved in education too much? Probably. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be involved at all.
If you could come up with a system of government that is better than democracy, that doesn't involve a philosopher king or no government at all, that would be great. Till then, vote and run for office.
I can easily swipe out one of the supports of your argument. Sault's law doesn't apply simply because we can cooperate. Even if one of us isn't capable of containing all the information required to replicate one of us, there are many of us, and thanks to communication, we can split the solution between us. Hell, I'm a weirdo. I'm hoping something like hive minds in the sci-fi sense is possible, but till then, communication between separate humans is sufficient coordination to appear as a mind smarter than a human one.
It is the funnest part though.
The drift is part of the point. Combined with GPS, you get wind speeds and directions at different heights from the movement of the balloons.
Or maybe they really like the color blue? Perhaps we've found the home system of the Blue Man Group, where they have a blue house with a blue window. Blue is the color of all that they wear. Blue are the streets and all the trees are too. They have a girlfriend and she is so blue. Blue are the people there that walk around. Blue like their Corvette, it's in and outside. Blue are the words they say and what they think. Blue are the feelings that live inside them.
Which is why its value is considered so volatile.
There is an old joke about how the Matrix sequels are so bad, true fans refuse to recognize that they exist. If we all believe hard enough, maybe they'll go away. You can safely assume that people talking about the Matrix having no sequels are a part of the effort to forget. If they aren't why would you be so cruel as to inflict the sequels on the blissfully ignorant? https://xkcd.com/566/
The point is, if this had gone perfectly (for the FCC), it would have looked like they had allowed comment and that the public had come down on the side of doing away with NN. Us malcontents would get angry and blame each other, not the FCC. Even now, with this confusion, they get to act like they have every reason to believe that the public comment went their way. By now, of course, it gives them the look of a child with their eyes closed and ears stopped up shouting "Nuh-uh!" but they still have that veneer. They get to look saintly while acting like sinners. Of course, the above is filtered through my bias against pro-corporation/radical-free-market-ism.
You are absolutely right about hooking up being a numbers game and the number of tries increases the number of successes. However, you have to treat your hook ups as people. Would you want feel forced to have sex? Even if they were very attractive? In your first statement, you went from a very specific type of power imbalance to a spread-out generalization. If a person needs your good will for a reason, it is wrong to express a sexual interest in them. Two examples, if you are their boss or you are being interviewed by a reporter. Both situations place the other person in a position where their job depends your favorable cooperation. This is a specific set of circumstances. (I am assuming that you are evolved enough to know that making unsolicited sexual advances, e.g. sexual comments or uninvited touches, in any circumstance, is wrong) If this were a social strata thing, I couldn't ask out a security guard, simply because I'm an engineer. I can ask the guard out because I have no control over hire/fire decisions on his behalf, despite our social strata being different. The worst I could do, if he said no, would be to make a complaint against him and that could easily turn against me. Now, my boss's boss's boss (I think it is three levels, not really sure) couldn't ask the guard out, not just because my boss-cubed doesn't swing that way, but because he could conceivably have the guard fired. Power imbalance. It is true that at high values and really low values of power imbalance, the right thing to do gets murky, but then you can just fall back on the most basic ethics rule "When in doubt, don't."
That sounds like something automated was improperly configured and required them to go back from the discovery of the error and fix each car.
It's not Christian.
A Capella station - rap
You could argue a case for it, but really? Bad enough there is only ~20 songs on the station...
Ballot box stuffing doesn't occur. If it did, there would be a problem, but multiple studies, on multiple elections, have found little evidence of voter fraud. So don't go haring off attacking people, when you can't even prove that there is a problem.