no, huge waste of taxpayer money.
Wrong. It would be one of the most effective ways to inspire interest in kids of STEM. Far more than $10B will be flushed down STEM oriented programs for kids that are far less effective.
Not to mention the technological spinoffs that will benefit people. Clue: You are greatly benefiting from the original space race as you are reading this.
What good does going back to the moon do?
Other than inspire a generation's interest in math, science and engineering? Other than the dual use of much of the technology that will be developed for the space program?
Both of these things were major benefits of the original space race and you are materially benefitting from both at this very moment.
... I do not see the point of having the GPU rendering faster than the monitor's refresh rate, usually at 60FPS
Note the game is under development. Those frame rates will probably not last as more code gets added to the game. Eventually new code will be getting discarded or optimized to get the frame rate up to 60fps.
Also, it may be 300fps on a developer's system with the latest card/chipset AMD has to offer. If may be 60fps on the type of hardware consumers actually have.
Regulated monopolies are not good for any economy.
the us economy flourished in the 1950s with regulated telephones and regulated taxicabs and regulated airfares
The US economy flourished because it had just modernized during World War II and many other industrial nations had their economies wrecked during the war. Plus US industry was heavily "subsidized" by the government financed reconstruction of many of those countries devastated by war.
When making such comparisons always keep in mind the caveat of the statistician and economist, "all other things being equal". In the 1950s they were not.
Technically it's theft. You've cost the rail company money (pittance though it may be) and potentially risked a fire by plugging an unknown device into an electrical socket.
I stopped reading here and I'm seriously hoping you're kidding. "risked a fire"? Seriously?
Apple recalled millions of their original iPhone/iPod touch chargers. The small 5W USB adapter, they were a fire hazard. They still use the design, last I checked they still put the little green dot on them that differentiated the later safer models from the original hazardous models.
The only way to make politicians accountable is to be a disloyal party member.
To be clear, you're basically saying the same thing Frank said -- cooperation (with your party) is currency.
Except that there are multiple currencies and not all currencies are equal. The supreme currency is the vote of the citizen, it determines whether one gets into office, stays there, or is removed. The vastly inferior currency is the favor trading among peers in the House or Senate that will not save a politician from the wrath of voters.
Throwing the rascal out means electing the candidate of the less favored party. Except in particularly egregious cases, it won't be clear that the opposite party candidate is any better. This makes "throw the rascal out" very unattractive.
Everything has a price. It is a Darwinian process. For candidates to be shown that serving the people is the path to future office and serving special interests is the path out of office they must see that party loyalty will not save them. They must fear that their party members **will** vote for the unattractive less favored opponents in response to bad behavior.
You are essentially arguing to vote for a party platform, essentially excusing a office holder's bad behavior. That is exactly what is happening now and why candidates are essentially free to serve the special interests of the party rather than the people.
There is no magic bullet, no cost free solution.
The money of PACs is overrated. No amount of Koch brothers commercials will change an informed mind.
Except Koch money (and others, esp. Murdoch) is being used to "inform" minds.
Only to inform naive apathetic minds, and these people only have a disproportionate power because so many of those who do care take themselves out of the game by party loyalty. Exception, NRA and AARP members. They care about their issues, show up to vote, and are not loyal to a party; and as a results they have enormous power. These organizations show the secondary status of money, delivering votes is far more powerful than delivering money.
Members of Congress may be peers, but they are in no way equals when it comes to influence. Membership and especially chair positions on some committees (House Ways & Means, Intelligence, etc.) have a lot more power than other committees and those memberships are not handed out to the freshmen class.
Yes, but a powerful chair can not remove a low ranking member from office. Something the voters can do.
The currency of politics is votes, as Frank admits, but that currency is primarily held by the voters. In a one person one vote system the 99% have the power, the money of the 1% can only buy influence when the 99% permit it. And we permit it by re-electing incumbents that fail to protect our interests. A politicians greatest goal is to get re-elected and that is in the hands of the 99% not the 1%.
Unfortunately, the 1% control exposure to candidates through media cartels. The 99% can vote in whoever they want, but the only candidates they'll ever see are those who have been vetted by the 1%.
We had a case where the voters got sufficiently riled up that a candidate with no money or name recognition beat the incumbent. An incumbent that outspent the no name 1,000:1 and who was the ranking party leader in the House. The winner was not the choice of the 1%.
The only way to make politicians accountable is to be a disloyal party member.
No, there is one other way, and a better one: use the primary election to kick out a bad incumbent and put in place a better representative from the same party. The fact that voters don't turn out in the primaries is one of the greatest failings of our political process. If we used the primaries to select a candidate who would sign on to a properly framed platform we would have a much more responsive and representative system.
That is one aspect of the punitive voting scheme I am referring to. Punitive votes can occur in the primary or the general. However the punitive votes in the general may be necessary to break the party machine and the power of the fringes. The fringes will always have a disproportionate influence in the primary as opposed to the general. In the general they sort of cancel out to a degree. A Darwinian process of constant losses and the machine and fringe should adapt, moderate or get nothing.
No, party loyalty is only a symptom, not a root. The same 'game theory' explanation given in TFS is also the root of 'party loyalty'.
No it does not. Two members of Congress are peers and have to cooperate in some form. However a voter in a one person one vote system is not a peer, voters have absolute control over the politician's future unlike a fellow member of Congress. Voters may reward good behavior (re-elect) and punish bad behavior (punitive vote for the other candidate, forcing incumbent out of office). Party loyalty disrupts this reward/punishment feedback loop, it breaks what would otherwise be a Darwinian process.
Again, the 99% have the power, they just choose to accept the status quo and permit a certain level of bad behavior.
FORTRAN is not a flower but a weed -- it is hardy, occasionally blooms, and grows in every computer. -- A.J. Perlis
