Who needs social networks online?
Facebook solves a very serious problem. Are you too happy? Is it uncomfortable being happier than everyone else? Facebook is the answer. Read Facebook use predicts declines in happiness, new study finds. Or download the scientific paper.
At 120 hours a week you don't have much time to spend any of that windfall, and by the time you do have time to go shopping you're spending it in India.
There's not even enough time left to sleep, eat and shower - one ought be skeptical of the claims.
Link to Original Source
Link to Original Source
You could also decrease speed limit to something unreasonable. For example, 15mph and issue tickets at 21mph.
You can also hide a max speed sign behind something, like a bush, and install it in otherwise higher speed zone.
You can also install speed trap on the down-slope road, where drivers would naturally speed up without any conscious input.
You can also offer "early payment" discounts on tickets, where if you pay and plead guilty your fine reduced to the point of not worth the time fighting it.
You can establish a ticket challenge procedure that would conflict with working hours, making it logistically difficult for people to challenge.
You can intentionally mail tickets to old addresses, then rake up late fees and interest.
Oh, all of these happened in one or another municipality at some point in time.
The truth is that very few speed limit signs are hidden in the manner you describe. Lets be honest, the vast majority of the time us drivers exceed the speed limit we do so knowing we are doing it, we just do not think we will get caught. We know what the speed limit is on most roads we drive down, we just sometimes push them as we are in a hurry. We are probably driving in a generally safe manner, we are just doing it too quickly.
The thing is though, speed limits do exist for a reason. They are there to force us to account for the unknown: children running into the road, morons pulling out of side streets and not looking, us getting a blowout due to something to small to see in the road. The chances of these things happening are all pretty minuscule but since we all drive everywhere so much these small odds multiple so it always happens to someone in the end and the fallout can be catastrophic and expensive for the city to clean up afterwards.
Speed limits are also actually a way of us being more flexible with other driving rules, like paying attention to where you are going. Sometimes people do some really stupid crap on the roads. Like trying to find a CD to put on and veering on to the wrong side of the road, answering the phone in our pocket that is awkward to get to, looking at maps, turning round and shouting at the kids in the back, this list could go on for ever. As it is we can do this with a certain degree of impunity as the worst that would happen is we wrote off our car and someone else's the vast majority of the time. If everyone could drive everywhere as fast as they liked the police would have to be far more ruthless at enforcing other aspects of the traffic laws, maybe even down to banning persistant offenders until they got the message.
Sometimes I actually think this might be a better idea, then I catch myself doing some of the stupid crap I describe
Oh what a surprise, the fucking moron mod crew disagree.
There's a rapid diagnostic test that is developed and can be at West African airport departure gates in less than three months if the FDA gets out of the way. I know, it's only nutters like the NPR health sciences correspondent going on about this - was Dr. Paul also saying crazy things like the government is making the situation worse? Instead, they should totally go ahead and implement a travel ban so people sneak into the country with ebola instead of coming through the airports.
Meanwhile nobody in the US is infected with ebola and cattle are still far more dangerous, right? Wait - fear, fear, fear! Give us power and
We don't need social networks at all.
*You* don't need them. The rest of us find them hugely useful.
No. You cannot say "we're a country of low violent crime except for all the violent criminals".
I'll bet you see the fallacy in that argument.
One supplier does not competition make. Also, Intel isn't necessarily interested in making the chips that the Gov't wants, or this article would probably not exist.
No, the government's job is infrastructure, and other things that can be described as natural monopolies. If the start-up costs for a business are in the tens- to hundreds-of-billions, there isn't going to be much in the way of competition no matter what the industry is. If it's actually vital that said industry exists, it makes sense to nationalize it.
However, if competition is possible, it should be encouraged. There's no reason to nationalize SecureWidgetCo if a dozen people could take their place tomorrow, even if they only sell to the government.
It's clear that if the US Government wants to be sure of its chip supply, it needs to be in business for itself. The ultimate reason is not however that it's inherently inefficient for the government to enter into contracts with private companies, but that large scale microchip fabrication is so expensive that no (private, US) company is willing to do it.
P.S. With respect, if your response to this is that natural monopolies do not exist, please save yourself the trouble of responding.
We have headlines that he;
Crashed and Burned
Or Broke a Leg or Died of Malaria
Or maybe We Don't Know
It is interesting though the amount of speculation about a dead king from around 1300BC."
Plenty of other employers around, the staff don't have to work at ASDA if they don't want to.
Ah yes, in a country with permenantly more people than jobs (only recently dropping below 7%) is clearly a country with plenty of other employers around. Some people do not have a great deal of choice over their employer.