Here's the cold, hard facts: For every one of you who win that fucking friend lottery, there are thousands of people who don't.
That sort of observation is only relevant when a) it's actually a "fact", and b) a different bunch of "thousands of people" for each person who won the "friend lottery".
An actual survey found that more than half of all jobs offered were filled internally or by referral. That indicates to me that a lot of people, not merely one in a few thousand, found jobs via the "friend lobby".
I personally, have picked up at least three jobs via the "friend lottery". I don't think I'm even remotely unusual in that.
Too bad the US leaned back on the "we're #1, why try harder" position. Just think where we could be by now.
At some point, they needed to have something in space which generated a return on investment. Apollo didn't do that. And the Shuttle ended up being even worse (for about ten years till 1984, no one in the US could actually launch a payload on a private launch vehicle).
Lunokhod represented a way of doing the same amount of scientific work the Apollo missions did with less risk and at a fraction of the price.
It didn't. The scientific output of Apollo was quite remarkable. And there's two simple reasons why. First, they had the best machines of the day, people (which incidentally are still the best machines of the day) gathering samples and running experiments on the surface.
And second, they returned 380 kg of lunar material to be studied for the past few decades. Do you really think a 60s vintage lunar rover is going to get better data on lunar material on location than generations of Earth-based scientists do with a sample return?
All money spent in manned space exploration will pay dividends ultimately, at least a trillion fold.
I have no idea whether you're serious or not. But I'll point out that there are substantial opportunity costs when one burns a few billion on a white elephant rather than something productive.
Before we try and get and that additional freshwater - has anyone found another possible _deposit_ location for all the rubbish and toxic waste we're producing?
Well, there is the ground. That's where we put most of our rubbish and toxic waste. It works pretty well despite the complaints to the contrary.
But if there is a 100 years worth of more energy - why even _try_ and save? Why not even indulge in even more energy-intensive enterprises?
Because the cost is greater than the benefit. Sometimes it actually is worth conserving cheap energy.
The same goes for finding huge amounts of new fresh-water - we'll just find ways to consume it even faster, instead of trying to focus on limiting the damage we do to the planet, and treating any additional resources as 'emergency rations' that we won't touch unless there is no other way.
What's the point of this "focus"? The planet isn't that damaged. The resources in question aren't that depleted.
But what I find fundamentally frivolous about this whole story is that apparently they've discovered a year's worth of rainfall (which is also in the neighborhood of half a million cubic kilometers). Freshwater is not a resource we're running out of. It's merely poorly distributed compared to who wants to use it.
And furthermore, it's not like the rolling blackouts happen to anybody important.
Rolling blackouts? You wouldn't happen to be referring to the California electricity crisis? There are far more successful examples of electricity privatization that you don't hear about because they weren't epic fails.
It's ok if a few poor people in California have to make do without XBox for a while as long as the bankers in Wall Street can run their computers.
While that's quite true, it's also worth remembering that bankers at Wall Street pay for that greater reliability of their electricity supply. They don't magically get better service just because of who they are.
The power companies have a state-granted monopoly for good reason, but part of the tradeoff is being forced to actually serve the interests of the people.
Bad premise leads to bad conclusion. Just because these power companies have a state-granted monopoly, doesn't mean that it was granted for a good reason. For example, a common electricity privatization outcome is to disentangle the generation of power from the transport of power. So a big part of what these electricity companies do, the generation of power, can actually be highly competitive. Even transportation of electricity is not a natural monopoly.
Sure, there's little reason to have more than one line to a given customer, but you could have several competing lines providing power to the local substation.
If you want to focus your money for deeper impact, people will definitely accuse you of favoritism.
Which would be true in a sense. I favor research that I think would be productive and a good return for the money I put in.
But to complain because cars weigh only a few dozen times more than the precious cargoes they transport? I can't be bothered to care.
1) This is just wrong on a financial level. There's actually a mechanism so that insurers who pay out more claims due to insuring higher cost customers get paid from the guys who benefited from having low-cost customers.
Seriously? If this really is true, then Obamacare is even worse than I expected. We really need built in incentives for insurance companies to make bad decisions.
2) Healthcare.gov does not take any of your info but your age and address.
And don't forget considerable financial information - which if materially wrong gives the insurer a pretext for cancellation of the insurance.
No matter how flawed the law is, no matter how expensive it is going to be, no matter how many fumbles the administration makes, there is this huge hunger for healthcare by a very large section of America.
So what? No matter how much "hunger" is out there, there is no such thing as a free lunch.
It is an historic anomaly that Church is aligned with the capitalists and not marxists. It will get corrected eventually.
Your weird obsession with the "Church" is why you got modded "flamebait". There is no one Church. Nor is Christianity the only religion out there. And there are splinter sects of Christianity that do support some degree of Marxist tenets. That doesn't help Marxism perform any better. It also doesn't help that Marxism routinely perceives religion as a competitor to be ruthlessly stamped out.
OTOH, capitalism just works and has done more to relieve poverty and build wealth than anything else out there.
But the plan and law was heavily politicized, 36 states refused to set up their own exchanges and dumped all of them on the federal exchange. Millions of people who would have gone to medicaid are dumped into exchanges because they refused to expand medicaid.
This is just a straightforward exercise of self-interest at the US state level. It's not the individual state's job to cover inadequacies in federal law or shoulder the costs for their implementation.
Still they are doing it in the right order. Get people to commit to a plan before the dead line. Errors on the back end can be sorted out when they actually file claims,
Can be != will be. It's worth noting here that filing a claim indicates that you will cost an insurance company money. If they then can find an error in your application that let's them selectively disqualify you after the fact, there would be considerable incentive to do so.