If the conclusion of a study was that sending women to space was inefficient, there would be plenty of people screaming that it was sexist. This study, like all mono-culture solutions involving human endeavor says more about the opinions of those writing the conclusion then what the optimal solution would be. In all of my years, I have never been involved in any mission, plan or project that couldn't receive the benefits of more diverse viewpoints and experience In my experience, this is true for warfare, public service, private service, charity work; anything that requires people to work together to solve problems. People of different backgrounds, cultures, genders, ect. provide very large intangible benefits that contribute to success. Saying that one class of people should be excluded from a difficult endeavor because they eat more is very short sighted.
Correct, very wise for a country rich in resources with a population smaller then California, and a huge boarder with most advanced military in the world who loves to go to war.
Routing around regulation is what American Innovation does best.
To be fair it is a tool to discover how bad their software is. You would think Microsoft set a pretty low bar for qualified success here.
False a more direct parallel would be, If your neighbor's house catches on fire when he's not home, would it be OK to go over to his house and taked the burned, unworkable and unviable remains of his television and use them to save a human life?
The other mice from that batch were routed over to a lab conducting an experiment entitled "Will it Blend?"
Whether such phenomena are "truly random" or not (a bit of a paradox for a supposedly generally-deterministic physics), or, say, a perfect back-door to controlling all of physical reality that an insightful engineer might put in, or, say a God, is a metaphysical question. But that it can happen is clear, as a matter of science.
One of these, vaccum fluctuations, has the ability to predict something and is theoretically testable thus science, the other is god. The problem with your myth of choice is that it is a myth of the gaps. It can only exist where we don't yet know the answer. When we find the answer it will retreat further. There isn't any sort of rational experiment we can preform to prove it's existance, and it has absolutely no predictive power whatsoever. It is faith in that it is a useless expendeture of intelectual power to try and defend.
All that being said, if it makes you a better person, or makes you feel good, or whatever, by all means god it up. Please, however don't insist that other's pretend it is valid or rational.
Are you familiar with the dragon in my garage?
If you have extra payments in a savings account you are probably not sub-prime.
The alternative MIGHT be to not lend money to people with bad credit scores. Would THAT be better?
In many cases, yes.
Having wages more inline with productivity would be much better. The types of loans being discussed here, came into being after we decoupled minimum wage from worker productivity per hour, and started the long decline of real median incomes relative to productivity per capita, but fixing demand side issue like that is so out of vogue.
The airline industry is very big on pushing Brand Loyalty via points, rewards and membership programs. Though not well versed on that specific market, brand loyalty could significantly influence many riders that would have to choose occasionally between Spirit and their airline of choice.
No, then you get to reposess the vehicle, usually much faster and cheaper, and resell it again at 30% intrest, after acessing all sorts of fees to the origional borrower.
and sometimes even people who aren't living incorrectly
*for a minimal gain in ridership.
Depends on the Price elasticity of demand. In many cases lowering price to make up on volume is a sucker's bet. It may be that all Spirit will accomplish is to decrease their own margins for minimal gain.