> what the fuck has it all been for?
Look at the actual distribution of wealth, and you'll see exactly what they (and we) have been working for.
> what the fuck has it all been for?
The people that aren't starving will trade.
> Please go read the Federal Papers
Do you mean the 85 chaper "The Federalist"? Or its contemporary Anti-Federalist papers (the ones that argued for a Bill of Rights)?
Either way that's a lot of reading. Could you narrow it down a bit? Like point us to the chapter which explains "the original intent of the 2nd Amendment"?
If people were willing to finance some planetary climate engineering experiment, one would think they'd also be willing to try the more conservative course of exacerbating the problem no further.
Or perhaps one day, in some far remote future, we'll come up with a phonetic language and dedicate our minds to ideas instead of esoteric rules about apostrophes.
"You can go out in the woods, build a cabin, and live without electricity or indoor plumbing."
Maybe we could. Let's think about it.
We'd probably have to buy the woods we wanted to build in. We' might need a building permit for the cabin, followed by an inspection. We'd need a permit for a well. We'd probably need to register our firearms, buy a fishing license and hunting license and tags. We might need a business license if we plan to sell those crops, plus all the government oversight selling food would bring.
So, yeah, maybe it's possible. It doesn't really seem like most people could afford it, and it doesn't seem like most people could comply with all the rules of the various agencies and jurisdictions that could be involved.
I think the reality is that lifestyle of 200 years ago is gone. Whatever semblance might remain is costly and wrapped in red tape.
Stockholder banks get a guaranteed 6% dividend.
How did you get from here:
The basic theorem states that, under a certain market price process (the classical random walk), in the absence of taxes, bankruptcy costs, agency costs, and asymmetric information, and in an efficient market, the value of a firm is unaffected by how that firm is financed. It does not matter if the firm's capital is raised by issuing stock or selling debt. It does not matter what the firm's dividend policy is.
"The Modigliani-Miller theorem of finance shows that how you finance a good idea doesn't matter."
"The Fed gives the government zero cost borrowing"
If only that were true. The Federal Reserve is a cabal of privately held banks that charge interest.
Engineers have bosses. Sometimes in a complicated situation where there are no good answers, engineers do what their bosses say.
Good why? Does he have a gift for explaining new scientific discoveries to laypeople? Does he somehow further the state of the art?
Sounds to me like what he does for a living is tell people that scientific progress is ending. I see no compelling evidence from him supporting that point, and I see nothing good coming from pushing that idea.
Many Americans don't even accept evolution or global warming yet. Pretending that where we are is the furthest we'll ever get is not constructive and not correct.
If this is all he's got, I wouldn't even call him a science journalist. He's more like an op-ed columnist/author.
If it wasn't a surprise, shouldn't Ukraine have been ready to arrest the hooligans that they instead allowed to steal Crimea?
A while back I was prescribed an anti-depressant. The doctor said he didn't know if it would work for me. He said it wasn't even well understood *how* it worked.
That confused me because presumably whatever was in the pill was added for a reason, but clearly there's a lot of trial and error. And clearly there are extremely nasty side effects from many drugs.
So many pharmaceuticals' effectiveness may be overrated, as may be their safety. I'm not sure some medicinal plants are necessarily less effective or less safe.
Presumably chemicals in our drugs are often extracted from nature. why wouldn't the same chemicals in their natural form have the same potential to work? For example, willow bark has salicin (from whence aspirin came), and has been used medicinally since the time of Hippocrates.
The idea of treating the whole person instead of just the symptom is a growing concern in western medicine. This has always been the defining characteristic of homeopathy's holistic approach.
So many homeopathic treatments are almost certainly bunk, but throwing out all homeopathy may be short sighted, just as throwing out all of western medicine would be.
the same approach that I would have taken given their mission statement
What "mission statement"? This?
Collect (including through clandestine means), process, analyze, produce, and disseminate signals intelligence information and data for foreign intelligence and counterintelligence purposes to support national and departmental missions;
GP is right. They can't process and analyze as much data as they collect, so they don't produce useful intelligence.
They want to collect everything then go through it later when a need arises
That's forensics, not intelligence.
So NSA is on a track where they are sound technically, but way off legally and ethically.
Just curious - if they are way off ethically and morally, why would you take that same approach?
I am a Mormon atheist who preaches living for this life instead of for an imagined next life.
May I please be the most annoying person in the great shit hole taxonomy of your mind?