The above is, of course, OT. People who mix up politics or personal animosities with business and the market are losers.
Thatcher didn't say "liberalism", she said "socialism". And that's the sound bite version of what she did say.
Obama has operated the government with some prudence and the operating deficits have been shrinking with recovery. He will pass to his successor a government on a path to solvency as B Clinton did. It's interesting that the Dems in Washington now are more fiscally conservative than their opponents who are more Confederate than Conservative. Another, separate item was the expense of dodging an even more expensive Depression. Increasing debt lowers the ability of government to respond to economic conditions in the world, natural disasters from earthquakes to hurricanes to epidemics, or warfare.
Medical care in the US is a product of our Pay-To-Play political system - we say "lobbying" where the rest of the developed world says "corruption". The US pays 18% GDP for medical care but has the lowest life expectancy of any western developed country (ref, CIA World Factbook online). There are unquestioned centers of excellence but that doesn't account for the 18% - the Pay-To-Play system does.
France and Switzerland have higher life expectancy and lower maternal death rates than the US for around 12% GDP. France has Single Payer and Switzerland an insurance system. Both countries are developed and democracies. If we could have such an insurance system we would have it now. In US terms, 18% vs 12% is around a trillion a year.
It appears that the current Republican platform is, of course, crony capitalism and plutocracy like the Confederacy and aligned with their funders. A large military expansion is included (Rubio, Marco, Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct '15, pp 108). That can only be paid for by cutting medical care for lower income people enough to lower US life expectancy by years - mostly in the core Southern Republican base states and large US cities. Their ideal is that people die in net worth order.
But you will vote for them anyway
It was interesting to read about the Fox news person who read questions in an interview from a script. The interviewee just answered her questions with parody answers and she just read off the scripted questions one after another.
Models on Fox are hardly a substitute for, say, Charlie Rose. It's no wonder you are so light on reality, ideas, and facts.
So it is true, whether through Boeing or its subsidiary. So far you are saying that Spectrolab cell uses are more expensive than home roofs. That is verified at Spectrolabs Web site. The site mentions $200 and $400 per watt.
Google "China government policy electric cars" for any number of news stories regarding electric cars in China. " China is not interested in electric cars yet. Most car companies saw this" is clearly not true for the national government and many of the most polluted cities. It is true that they are still generating so much of their electricity supply with coal, but they are getting increasingly unlivable and dangerously polluted cities.
Tesla's effort requires staying power to pay off and conformity to charging standards and the like. "Local partner" means giving away IP. That's why such requirements used to exist in China. But Tesla seemed to go in regarding itself as a gift to China and it didn't work. Home charging infrastructure has to be scarce in China and China is working on building up infrastructure and is putting money into it. Tesla will have to have adaptors or whatever to meet their standards. It's all going to require more time than initially expected, though it's not clear expected by whom.
China is certainly worth it in the medium and long term, though even that may be delayed by recession.
Boeing is an OEM, not a retail vendor. We will have to see what the cost on your roof running your house actually is. Doesn't Solar City get its solar cells from a vendor like Tesla gets battery cells from Panasonic? Where do they come from?
Do you really think that your posts will affect the stock price a penny?
The "NA" in NAFTA is for "North America" and did include Canada, the US, and Mexico.
China set its non-convertible currency at half value and pegged it to the dollar. That was economic warfare at that time. The administration 2001-2009 took a dive in the trade wars and allowed ruinous trade deficits. That was what destroyed NAFTA and Mexico's economy, loosing a wave of economic refugees across borders. According to The Economist Sept '03, factory workers in China got 1/4 what workers in Mexico got in dollar terms. What the 2001-2003 administration achieved was to "balance" the trade deficit to China and OPEC by selling Treasuries.
That's how they got cash flow under the voter's radar to finance the off-the-books wars and designed to be deficit programs. The effect was to get the cash and throw it on top of the national debt. To that administration, as Cheney said, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," (Paul was Paul O'Neill, Sec'y of the Treasury then).
Bush II was a Norquist Republican with the agenda going in to leave Washington broke and he did. Between that debt and that needed to skirt a Depression after Bush II's Crash in 2008/9, the US was left financially less able to fight Depression, Disaster, and wars. Debt leaves less borrowing capacity.
Yet today the Republicans want more wars in the Sand Trap where the US has few national interests. Cruz has an article in Foreign Affairs Sept/Oct issue pp 108, calling for vast expenditures, hundreds and hundreds of billions to "rebuild" US power (and also misrepresenting the current Administrations actions). The Republicans intend to pay for all that by drastically cutting government and "entitlements". It could be partly achieved by cutting US life expectancy to age 70 - implementing their ideal that people die in net worth order.
The US hardly takes a dive in trade deals - though you and I may. US global and large corporations (eg drug companies) may be there.
France is partly nuclear powered and even does fuel recycling.
Hopefully at some point we will be able to get rid of plutonium. The only way to do that is to burn it in a reactor. There is no way to store it and it's too risky to try to dump it on, say, the moon. Any security required is worth the expense.
It's too bad that Iran wasn't encouraged to do thorium reactors if power is all they are interested in. The only country with an active thorium reactor program seems to be China. Of course, that was not the only thing they were interested in.
Reactors have become much safer that they were years ago if well designed and sited. We still have a reactor or two ill sited in the US. They obviously demand a perfection in design and operations hard to achieve. But the US has discarded the thorium cycle entirely.
AFAIK, the US power grid and power plants, including nuclear, are connected to the Internet. Ditto refineries, most factories, urban facilities like traffic control, just about everything. Internet security is obviously a dream oversold. The US is clearly very vulnerable and should not make any technically sophisticated adversary too displeased.
Again, it really bothers you that the current President is smarter, better educated, more accomplished and effective, richer than you, and elected twice by grateful voters
Gun regulation in a city with less regulated sources nearby is futile. It does serve as a way of confiscating firearms from gang bangers and so on. Regulation at the state or regional level is more effective.
It could be argued that there are so many guns around in the US that regulation is close to impossible. A gun can easily last a century and be kept in working order. The ammunition may be a better choke point.
That's interesting as polling would indeed be inefficient in embedded battery powered devices. Usually they would be organized with the processor in a sleep state, kicked off from by prioritized interrupts. Is there something bizarre about the ARM interrupts? Why would they use a polling loop which isn't necessarily the fastest system, either. There must be some reason. Linux / Android wasn't originally a real time system but Android must have been fixed up by now one would think......
Yes, that's interesting - that a high end self driving car also have the functionality of the absent chauffeur as well. Self driving cars may cut into car ownership as well for most people. Owning one's own car could be a mark of one's ability to afford one.
How soon self driving will show up is a good question, however. Maybe first will be cars that can park and retrieve themselves. The Google cars running around Mountain View so frequently in traffic night and day, have a rotating Lidar on top to construct the image of the world around them. Their "reflexes" should be on the order of a human's. It should take real computing power to do that. At first it won't be cheap. There must be a lot of work to be done for communicating cars that cooperate, especially with respect to standards and rules.
I wonder how the car with that windshield and the falcon doors does in the rollover test? It must be really solid. All the extra gadgets and function do mean that they have to be built with reasonable quality at suppliers so that the electromechanical and sensor complexity doesn't cause reliability problems.
The Keef poster followed the pointer to the article and left an even cruder response than usual there. He either has mental problems or has lost his shirt on TSLA. Of course, I hope it's the latter....
Arguments about when life as a human begins are really possible because of the increasing ability of technology to maintain a developing baby ever more prematurely.
A difficulty arises when in a small percent of cases we can maintain a fetus that will never be a person and may, in the extreme, just be a form of tumor. Growing it as a tissue culture for mistaken theological reasons is malicious nonsense. It would use resources better used on actual children who seem disregarded in these discussions. That is, there is a very high opportunity cost to maintaining tissue cultures that were derived from fertilized human eggs that in nature would likely be miscarried.
Obviously choices can be made since there is some line that technology or nature doesn't draw. People chose to abort a fetus with Tay-Sachs disease (look it up) or extreme problems like essentially no developing brain or internal organs just floating around. They may also chose to in the case of Huntington's or Downs. If they don't they have chosen, as adults, to bear the difficulties and expense. Other people may choose to help where insurance may not.
But if their choice were to be forbidden by the state, the law, yet the fetus maintained until we have to call it a baby, then the state should bear the expense. But since when have "Right To Life" people ever acknowledged and accepted that responsibility? Since when do they even acknowledge that technology not even imaginable in Biblical times has complicated their arguments?
Actually, it's not clear that women and families faced with such hard questions behave any differently than the population in general. It's best if righteous people and the state just butt out. We don't maintain an older person who has nominally died of cancer as a tissue culture. We occasionally have to deal with similar questions at the nominal beginning of life.
"Right to Life" is only about the status of women and their restriction and subordination.
#16 is still interesting since it seems to deny free will. If it does, what could be the basis for judging and condemning people? If you have performed evil deeds it was ordained and written in your book by God, no less.
That leaves you free to condemn or fight evil, but no basis to condemn it or moralize about it or much of anything. You do as written, they do as written. ???
You will never get over that this black American President is so much more intelligent, better educated, richer than you, and that he was elected twice to the Presidency by an approving electorate.
You could just go stifle yourself, but might find volunteer work a better outlet. Why not volunteer at Planned Parenthood or Greenpeace?
Castro is probably worried about the repo man arriving because his revolution confiscated so much personal and commercial property now worth in the billions. IMO, he's negotiating.
Given his government's allowing Russian nuclear missiles to be emplaced in Cuba to target the US, he is owed nothing and is unlikely to get anything. The only property owners that might get something could be individual home owners of modest houses. It's too late to sort out the corruption of the times there to do anything else.
The Castro's ran out Cuba's middle class and the US is better off in inheriting them, especially Florida. The crooks from prisons or mansions is another story.