"...the most powerful job in the world
A phrase only Americans use but they imply (/expect?) that it holds true for the rest of us.
If you are blindfolded in a ditch with and ISIS loony behind you holding a gun then; trust me; they have "...the most powerful job in the world
The American people need a significant cultural, linguistic and self-perception overhaul to stay relevant in anywhere but the board room and on TV.
M$ Now has:
Your private data (Windows 10)
Your personal relationships & commentary [& political disposition] (Facebook)
Your professional relationships & commentary (LinkedIn)
....and the ability to hide, remove, promote and advertise content/views/politicians/etc in all of your spaces
From I understand the asteroid belt is quite far away in comparison to the moon. There are many logistical and fuel considerations to get to asteroid X, install something on it, mine or move it. Even if we do (from what other's have said) we might be able to make heavy raw materials but that's still just one step in a long journey.
LEO is an option but look how long it takes us to build IIS and its non-capacity for volume production or habitation. Also isn't there heaps of junk in LEO at the moment that is hazardous to space craft?
I am curious why the moon is not the first choice
Think of it like building a camping hut. Bit by bit materials are sent by unmanned vehicles. The only have to go one way so the fuel requirement is less (and they can form part of the construction material). Like the IIS it doesn't matter who sends or makes them as long as there is an open/coordinated design so they can be assembled or collectively utilised.
A problem with asteroid mining is that there is nothing there by the time we arrive. Surely by installing a power grind and robotically build habitations prior to going up there we would gain vastly more knowledge about creating colonies off Earth? "In an ideal world" we would create a monitored habitable farm on the moon with proven practices & stored farm produce long before we step into our new home.
....is plainly a work of satire, meant to entertain while making a pointed political statement," and thus not a "real" religion.
....can someone explain why this is not the case for all religions? They were created along time ago and the people did not share their motivations only books
This is one of the most biased headlines I've seen around recently. This isn't journalism, the headline is literally telling you what to think of the law instead of just stating the facts of it.
Well they couldn't put facts of their research in it our they would be arrested
is that they're very, very media savvy. They understand the value of PR, and are not above saying things they don't have any real plans to do just for the publicity effect. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they'd be happy to lop off a few CEO heads (especially the Jew), but I'm guessing their primary aim is to keep us talking about them.
And you know, we do have to talk about them, because that's the way our society operates and they know it. But we don't necessarily have to give their chest-thumping any credence. I think that's the primary thing they want; if we treat them as powerful then they will gain credibility and that will attract adherents. So let's review; the guys they're threatening are famous, high profile billionaires. They're already attractive targets for domestic terrorists and criminals; they're not soft targets for any screwball Americans might inspire for votes. Americans also can get other things from from making largely empty threats. They can get whip up Middle East anti-Muslim sentiment, which serves America's purposes very well. The droves of Muslims eager to get away from America's control undermines the legitimacy America's claim to having established a new world order, so they are very quick to publicize the fact that anyone trying to leave is going to get kicked by Hungarian cameramen.
If you don't want to be an unwitting American stooge, take a deep breath and put them in perspective. Sure, they're a bunch of dangerous fanatics, but they're 1 mile away. And yes, they're bound to have a few homicidal crackpot adherents here in the Middle East / Asia, but those crackpots are just a drop in our big bucket of homegrown homicidal crackpots, and we hardly give our native nutcases any attention at all. We're already taking our homegrown fanatics and mass killers in stride, so it's just a marginal effort to worry about Americans.
That's Americans in a nutshell for us: they're a marginal concern. Not to say Americans doesn't have a place on the list of the things we need to be concerned with, but it hardly deserves to be the center of our foreign policy, much less the center of our national policy.
encryption backdoors was "a waste of time." But he did say that encryption was making the job of the NSA and law enforcement more difficult.
What like before there was communications to tap or DNA forensic science so law enforcement would have to find the first black or homeless person and pin it on them?
And all content is getting sliced up into smaller and smaller bits for larger and larger fees.
....and you won't believe what happened next!!!! Page 2 of 30 - Next >>>
Which is why the main control is interest rate, if you get high interest you save more and low interest you spend more.
Interest rate have little to do with spending - they are a tool to control borrowing (and inflationary investment). The economic function of interest rates nowadays is to drive credit creation - the ability for the financial sector to create wealth by loaning out the same dollar many times.
High interest rates remove the ability for people to borrow but attract external investment. This can be a useful technique to draw foreign investment into your country.
The quoted point does have value for people with variable rate mortgages. Since interest is a large part of their monthly payment and often people borrow up to 80% of the value of their home, movement in interest rates (not matched with movements in income) will cause - often significant - changes in movement in available cash which leads to the spend/save more scenario. However very little economic academic debate is focussed on the individual hardships of the poor. Economics in general is more focussed on the macro level as constantly demonstrated by the ineptness of the acts of politicians.
RE: The article:
In Australia we have a statistical unemployment issue as the many factors can stop you being counted as unemployed (for example not being able to arrange childcare or not being available for work because you are in a course)
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/products/FBE517ECA9B07F63CA257D0E001AC7D4?OpenDocument
In Australia there is a very very very large service industry that feeds on the bottom dwellers of the recruitment sector by getting people into government sponsored courses. They get payments from the government and from the training organisation (who also get payments from the course attendee).
So basically you have millions of government/taxation dollars to fund the apparatus around one aspect of welfare - with the statistical upshoot of showing lower unemployment rates to voters.
If a Dutch town is doing away with the machine that keeps the welfare recipients under the watchful eye of the government to justify their payments in the eyes of voters then I can't help thinking that there is more money being saved and more to go into useful things.
Personally I would want all education and healthcare to be free - an educated and well society will achieve far more than a unemployable one that is ill and most likely broke.
A motion to adjourn is always in order.
