http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ne...

I would love that to be the case. However, if history is any guide, it won't be: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/ne...

But they can make it up in volume... or lack there of... budabum.

I'd rather have debt denominated in my own currency and owned by foreign entities than the same debt own by domestic entities. Which is better if significant inflation occurs, you know, maybe from printing too much money or something?

You're kidding, right?

http://rt.com/news/194424-usa-...
http://www.cfr.org/japan/sino-...

Today, Japan's nuclear energy infrastructure makes it eminently capable of constructing nuclear weapons at will. The de-militarization of Japan and the protection of the United States' nuclear umbrella have led to a strong policy of non-weaponization of nuclear technology, but in the face of nuclear weapons testing by North Korea, some politicians and former military officials in Japan are calling for a reversal of this policy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

Actually, I think the scientific term is "Ludicrous Speed".

The example is right there: with US military protection, Japan can divert most military spending to infrastructure.

Is this adviseable given the current level of Japanese debt? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... If this were a completely private venture funded by actually revenue and leading to efficiency increases proportionate to the cost, it seems fine. However, will that be the case?

If you read the article (or my post), you'll notice that almost no one (on Slashdot) thought it would work. I guess the correct response is: woooshh?

Can we pull up the previous Slashdot story on this (when they were just starting)? While most folks agreeded that it would fail, it may be useful to recognize those folks that were vehement supporters for this and ridicule them mercilessly. Here's the original article: http://news.slashdot.org/story... Looking through that link, I'm challenged to find even a single supporter.

dynamic_cast: http://en.cppreference.com/w/c...

Yes, I can't see any reason why the source of the evidence wouldn't be available.

Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, can you please tell me where you obtained this evidence?

Mr. Prosecutor: .... well ... uh ... no.

Judge: Mr. Prosecutor, you will be cooling your heels in a cell until you can provide me with that information.

President Obama can veto this bill. It would then go back to Congress for a re-vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V... With the issue now out in the open, it is less likely that congress would override the veto. So, the ball is most definitely in Barak Obama's court. It will become law (or not) based on his decision.

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cafr.h... You have no idea what you are talking about. Read and understand the above and then respond.

The restriction of not allowing Tesla to enter Iowa and sell its product is the issue. Taking your reasoning to its logical conclusion, any product that entered Iowa wouldn't represent interstate commerce because it then needs to be sold in Iowa. So, the federal government says that I can drive my bananas over the border. However, when I get there, I can't sell them. That would defeat the purpose of the commerce clause.