Good to know England is once again fighting to keep the world safe from those who advocate the violent overthrow of the lawful government.
The Koch brothers and friends are always bitching about the bottom 90% having a sense of entitlement for wanting to be able to afford health insurance when they work full time. I'm a lot more sick of the rich and their sense of entitlement to be a little richer, often with a little government intervention needed to get them there.
A control mechanism need not involve only limiting something (showing restraint). It may be active, and add to the process as well.
While I think you are absolutely correct for the majority in the short run, for the entire population in the long run, and for the economy in the short and long run, I think that solving the problems this study explores necessarily will have costs for at least some of the most affluent and powerful in the short run. If economic stratification really does contribute to collapse, and limiting stratification it is a necessary part of the solution, it's going to limit someone's short-run upside.
Bill, we've been over this before. Snowden tried the legal channels, informing his superiors 10x, and got nowhere. If you bothered to closely follow the story, you'd see your suggestions were tried and failed.
Armchair critics are stupid. "Why couldn't Rosa Parks just ask the bus driver for permission, did she really need to get arrested?"
'You can't kid a kidder. Having been a lobbyist, he knows all their tricks,' says Blair Levin.
So this is what we've been reduced to? The disconsolate wish, having turned the regulatory body over to one of the kleptarchs, that he will discover not only his duty to society but also unbiased objectivity, and turn on his own? A ray of hope so thin strains my credulity.
Any decent engineer could probably put together a PID loop or two (possibly cascaded) to keep stability in the system, but what would you use as a control mechanism?
And what would you do if the most powerful and affluent had a great deal to lose if we attemped to put such controls in place? Suppose they had powerful PR machines, sharpened through years of product marketing and fierce political campaigns, at their disposal to sew disdain for those who advocate such restraint.
"May you live in interesting times."
Our tax policies have made our most rapidly expanding market sector resemble the 1500s. I, for one, welcome our new economic lordship. Give most of the money to a very small number of people, and let them decide if and when to parcel it out through patronage, buying electric sports cars, and financing asteroid mining projects. Surely the broader income ranks wouldn't do any better with it. I mean, think about it; other than the 1950s to 1960s in America, when has a far more progressive tax policy ever been correlated with broad-based entrepreneurship, small business expansion, and a nation rising to superpower?
Young says the MP3 files we're all listening to actually are pretty poor from an audio-quality standpoint and only contains about five percent of the audio from an original recording.
Obviously Young doesn't understand The Coastline Paradox. At a sufficiently high resolution of measurement, a wave contains infinite information. Any finitely sized digital recording actually contains 0.00000% of the information in the original signal.
Of course, that's only if you include all the information that our brains are incapable of distinguishing. The interpretation of waves by our brains is an inherently fuzzy process, and beyond a certain resolution there is no perceptible difference between a flawed and a perfect recording (even if you had the equipment and sound room to produce a sufficiently high quality set of vibrations in the air to reliably communicate that tiny difference to your tympanic membrane (you don't)).
Or, more succinctly: Extreme audiophilia is bunk.
It's funny when the financial press mistakes MtGOX (Magic the Gathering Online Exchange, lest we forget) for "Mt. Gox", like it was a mountain or something.
It's funny when pretentious Slashdot posters trot out some half-understood fact to sound important. Mt. Gox has gone by "Mt. Gox" for quite some time on mtgox.com, on Wikipedia, and on Bitcoin Charts -- as well as in common use in Bitcoin forums.
taking $2.6 trillion from some and handing it back out to others.
Ummm, what else is the government supposed to do with the money? If it gave the money back to the same people who paid the taxes in the first place, it wouldn't make much sense, would it?
This year, 70% of all the money the federal government spends will be in the form of direct payments to individuals, an all-time high.
Including medicare, medicaid, and Obamacare? So the payments for drugs and health care are counted as going directly to individuals. OK, and other than the military, what's left? Highways, schools, NASA, and the post office -- and we've been cutting all of those.
So in short, article is saying that taxes are money transfers (which they had better be, or they'd be really stupid), and that health care and social security are going up, and everything else but the military is getting cut. That's news?
an eye-opening fact
Maybe if you're retarded.
Can someone explain to me how this sentence even makes sense?
I'll try, and I think if you genuinely try to understand, you will. It is similar to saying that you are exporting energy when you receive bauxite and ship refined aluminum. Refining aluminum uses a lot of energy in the same sense that growing grain "uses" water; by moving it from a useful concentrated form to a disperse and less usable form, some of which winds up being recovered at a later stage, often with an additional recapture cost. So the refined aluminum, in an economic system sense, "contains" a lot of energy, even though only a small part of the consumed energy remains stored in the refined product itself.
'Your age is your No. 1 risk factor for almost every disease,' said Dr. Venter.
I'm not sure I believe that. It may be true on an individual level for a person with good health insurance in a first world country, but I bet for most people in the world it is the ability to afford and access the kind of advanced medical care that Dr. Venter will be researching. That observation, of course, leads to things like the quote from the article on Facebook meme evolution, "No one should die because they cannot afford health care and no one should go broke because they get sick. If you agree please post this as your status for the rest of the day." A noble sentiment, to be sure, but is it realistic?
Can we afford to pay for every life extending medical practice for every person? At current prices, I suspect we cannot. Even if we dedicated 100% of GDP to health care, I think we still could not afford every medical treatment that could extend the life of every person on Earth. And that assumes that paying 100% of GDP is sustainable. In practice, of course, doing so would lead to an economic collapse and we would be able to afford even less health care next year, causing more people to die unnecessarily, not fewer.
I suspect that we now have sufficiently advanced medical technology that the most powerful force limiting the ability of medical technology to prevent disease is that the majority of the world populace cannot afford the medical care we have already discovered -- in an absolute "there is not enough GDP, and would be less if we tried" sense.
Link to Original Source
After all, they ARE the customers for these features. Funding it out of government/law enforcement budgets accurately reflects the costs of the enforcement.
The government is not the final customer for anything. It only exists to do our bidding. While I agree with your distaste for this activity, it does not mean the government is some third party with its own money to throw around. It is our money and our laws. The cost of policing a product or service should be born by its consumers. Whether the regulation is sensible is a separate question. As a similar example, the highway patrol receives funding from various transportation taxes and licensing fees; unfunded mandates are simply a market-based approach to the same allocation of enforcement expenses to those who benefit from the market sector in question.