Brainteaserfan

How are the periods numbered?

In order of elektronegativity

thanks! +1

Is there a rhyme or reason to the order we write molecular formulas (eg why do we write SiC instead of CSi)?

I'm discussing with someone illegal immigrants and welfare. Here's my question, "do illegal immigrants currently receive welfare?" If so, please cite a source.

Thanks!

I think the answer is no, but I have some wax for my braces which I left exposed to the air in the bathroom. Then I cleaned part of my trumpet out, and left a rusty metal snake on top of the wax. Anyways, I rinsed off the wax under hot water, and I just want to double check that the rust can't hurt me when I use it in my mouth.

...to keep national secrets safe.

Not just secrets.

I thank those who considered what I said and attempted to stay on topic.

 

I especially appreciate iNow's efforts for very simply summarizing what I had said and attempting to keep the conversation on topic.

 

However this thread serves as an example to exactly the reason why it is so hard to talk about this. Such a proposition seems to greatly challenge the idealized America of some. An idealized America based on the ever-chanting American Nationalism that is as present in our country as it was in Nazi Germany. This nationalism has grown so much, in some circles that one who might say something along the lines of what I am saying would be considered un-American, even traitorous. And this is exactly what happens in such a society. One who speaks against the society is persecuted socially initially, but this social persecution can turn into legal persecution. The end result is that those who were so vehemently attempting to defend the idealized America against one who may be presenting ideas similar to mine, ironically end up making the ideas presented by one become a reality.

 

Flags all down the street, the continual thumping of America being the greatest nation in the world by nearly all major media outlets (not just Fox). Being a solider is overly idealized for example, and not that being in the military is a bad thing. Its just that it is important to remember that someones merit as an individual shouldn't be solely based on their career choice. This is all part of what I would like to refer to as crap propaganda, or what others might compare to nationalism along the lines of Nazi Germany.

 

But let me re-iterate I do not hate the hope of what the United States can be nor do I hate patriotism , I am simply looking at what I interpret as reality and simply sharing it. I also don't want to dwell too much on 'hating' on or debating the existence of the propaganda. Maybe in the paraphrased words of V for Vendetta (a quite appropriate film for this discussion) if you do not see what I see than you should simply let the fifth of November pass without paying any attention to it. And of course this is a metaphor, if you do not believe this is happening then let your day carry on and please don't attempt to distract this conversation.

 

I would like to take this time however to provide an appropriate retort to some of the comments brought about by others. As these are common responses to defend the action of the usurping of civil rights by the powers who be.

 

 

 

Why? My career is based on computer security, I am an IT consultant who works for individuals and small business'. I can tell you with 100 percent certainty, based on my experience in the field, that the government with all it's resources would be quite capable of providing sufficient defense against confidential information being stolen without having to trample upon every citizens civil rights. Closed networks and really well programmed firewalls and communication lines are quite capable of providing adequate security without the need to trample upon every one's civil rights. I don't care what country or who you are if all the data is encrypted well enough it would be extraordinarily hard, if not impossible to decode such data even if it is compromised.

 

Furthermore, in many cases it is not particularly the United States federal government trampling upon the rights of every citizens. It is individual companies. Take Carrier IQ for example. Their software is currently on and is still being provided in many, if not most smart phones. The software not only monitors every single thing smartphone users do, but also it actually uses a key logger to track every single keystroke a user makes, then sends it to some set of servers off in God knows where, pardon the expression. Then when a technician discovered this and posted a video about it on youtube what did carrier IQ decide to do? They are attempting to sue him. I mean I fail to see how such actions provide any security.

 

This information can be found with a simple google search, however I provided some relevant links.

 

http://www.uberphones.com/2011/11/carrier-iq-sues-developer-treve-for-exposing-their-software/

 

Now Carrier Iq's argument is that the users of nearly 150 million phones consented to this, because of course it was listed in the contract that the user signs in order to get the phone. Anyone who is anyone knows that even though the above may be true, the tactics used to notify users that such a private company is going to track ever single thing a user does on his or her phone is completely deceptive.

 

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/telcos-say-you-consented/

 

However, on a broader point. Even if such actions provided security against other countries stealing our data, well isn't the point somewhat defeated if we allow some private entity to steal our data. Its along the lines of the argument, "we must allow this man to burn down our houses, because if we don't those people are going to come for us and burn down our houses." Also it correlates to the point Moontaman was getting across earlier about sacrificing freedom for security.

 

Onto the next point I would like to get out:

 

As far as living on the taxpayers dole, again a point re-iterated by dOg, I will simply refer to my last point. This is not relevant and to some degree every citizen, including you, is able to thrive off of public funds whether it be through healthcare, defense, infrastructure, and a plethora of other services offered by our government that often are taken for granted. A service offered by our government always has to be payed for and yes some information has to be gathered in order to make these services effective, but the difference is that there is a clear tangible relationship between the governed and the government in which the government has to have some accountability towards the people. This cannot be said of private and quasi-private/ quasi-federal programs. I don't wish to dive any further into this argument as it has been beaten with a stick, not only on this forum, but throughout the pages of history.

 

Again my thanks to the moderators and iNow and any others I have forgot to mention for attempting to keep this on topic.

Also my apologies for any grammatical, spelling, and or logical errors, I am extraordinarily tired for I have been working long hours lately.

Interesting. If you're 100% certain, maybe there isn't much point in discussing it

I do think that we need to do more, and I don't think that we are capable of stopping it. I have a close relative who works in computer security, and he evaluates different government agencies. He is always able to patch holes, meaning that every single agency could be compromised. This is, IMO, a very real danger.

Here's a link to a book you might find interesting if you haven't already read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/books/27book.html?ref=books

While I'm glad to see that a mod finally got involved, I'm disappointed to not hear Phi's position, so I second iNow's post. *insert very, very sad face*

Let us get straight to the point,

 

I fear for my future, our future. And by 'our' I am particularly referring to my fellow citizens in the United States. Our nation has been growing into a strange corporate controlled police state for sometime, and while I realize that we are not on the level of a country like China or North Korea, I find our fate even more terrifying. Let me explain.

 

Technology lately, as most would agree, has been advancing and growing beyond what many of us ever imagined. And if you have ever read a Brave New World or 1984 you as the reader may find it easier to understand my fear. As technology grows, methods of control become more and more intricate. Here for example is a list of current tools of control that are currently being implemented or are implemented by our government/ corporate governance.

 

Data Mining- The implementation of the internet allowed for centralization of data through linking computers and servers throughout the world. Furthermore social networking sites such as facebook and others have sold to us the idea, in a sense, of trading our information for access to our friends and a world of new friends and their information. Finally recent laws and upcoming bills have allowed corporate entities and government entities free reign over accessing such information. The Patriot ACT I and II, SOPA, and ACTA are all examples of this.

 

Tracking- The miniaturization of advanced computing devices capable of sending information through wireless transmission has brought about the modern day cell phone, and even further the modern day Smart Phone. It has been shown recently that information from such phones can be logged and backed up to locations. Such locations are accessible by the corporate entities of our state and our government through many of the above listed recent laws and upcoming bills. Such information includes our whereabouts, our desires, our friends, our politics, our ideas. Even down to the individual keystrokes we type into our phones.

IMO, the government does need more control over some aspects of these items, in order to help stop other countries from compromising our computers (including smartphones).

Surveillance- It is no big secret that cities, states, and the federal government have/has implemented the use of cameras, listening devices and other monitoring devices throughout our country. Now the government has the legal authority to fly predator drones over United States soil to prevent crime. Local, state, and federal law enforcement are now privy to live information being gathered from such monitoring devices listed above without any type of due process, and this information is often accessible at any given time.

 

Enforcement- The ability to imprison and use all the above tools without due process was done in the name of safety. Safety primarily from an arbitrarily defined enemy, terror. What is a terrorist? Well that concept is up for debate, but the point is it is a definition assigned to a person, but it is not linked with any specific action, as opposed to a thief (someone who steals or has stolen) or a murder (someone who kills or has killed), a terrorist is someone who inflicts terror upon the public to advance an agenda. Now that definition seems rather broad yet so damning seeing as anyone who is stamped with the label of terrorist has no right to due process.

 

These four aspects have lead me to fear, but somewhat accept that we are coming ever closer to the eutopian world described in books such as 1984 and Brave New World and embodied by creations such as the Borg on Startrek. A world in which we catch criminals before a crime is committed, begging the question, are such people even criminals? A world in which freedom is trivial and privacy is forbidden. A world in which a small group of men/ women have the power to create and ruin any other persons life at any given time for any given reason without any discourse. I believe that Voltaire said, "if there were no God it would be necessarily to invent him", and that is exactly what our society seems to be working towards. An overlying governing body that has all the power listed above.

 

Some of you may say I am simply paranoid, and maybe I am haha. But the simple fact is that all the tools are practically available right now, but the power over the tools has yet to become completely centralized. And the worst thing is, we were never forced to give all this freedom up. Instead it was sold to us, commercialized through the repetitive nature of the media. And worse yet, sold to us as a choice. When the society begins to lean so heavily on such technologies for everyday events such as work, education, and finances when do they stop becoming a choice and instead become a requirement by default?

I agree with these last two fears.

As my friend said the other day referring to our country as it was intended to be in the hearts and minds of so many who loved freedom, "America is done son!" As it saddens me to admit it I think the statement might very well be true.

 

I am curious to know your thoughts on this and how our political system, or lack of, has enabled the powers at be to further such agendas. I apologize beforehand for any grammatical or conceptual errors, I am tired and I have work in the morning so I am in somewhat a hurry to get to bed.

I think that America is far from done, but I do think that we are mostly on a decline.

If I were emperor of the US for a day, I believe that I would:

-make huge cuts to our army

-make huge increases in cyber spending and security

-do away with jail time punishments for crimes that do not actually threaten anyone else. I think that we definitely have too many laws, and if something is a financial crime, you should only be able to be levied a fine.

-increase spending on nuclear power (in order to stop paying tribute to middle eastern, civil right abusing, dictators.)

-take as many governmental surveillance cameras away as possible

I don't know what else I would do just thinking about it... oh, of course -- I would give myself $10,000,000,000 for being such a good emperor

...since both candidates never follow through with what they promise...

No, they follow through more than "never." A google search to show this only brought up a zillion links with Obama, so I'll paraphrase from a text that I have here, American Government, 11th edition by Wilson and Dilulio, page 256: 72% of ~1400 promises made in the platforms of the two major parties between 1944 and 1964 were implemented.

Sure, this isn't individual promises, but even searching on google for "percent promises kept" reveals that a good number of Obama's promises have been kept.

If they're all practicing medicine as a business, how long do you think they would retain that business by giving conflicting opinions? How would their malpractice insurance provider view that kind of liability? Where are you going to find all these other doctors who are willing to risk liability with an opinion that doesn't include a full diagnosis?

There's an underlying problem with this paragraph.

...by giving conflicting opinions?

You assume that they would give conflicting opinions. What I'm saying is that they WOULDN'T give conflicting opinions, not because the second doctor gives a faulty opinion, but because the first doctor realizes that it is in his best interest to give you what is best for you and not what might seem to be best for his wallet.

How would their malpractice insurance provider view that kind of liability?

Yup, because of this, the first opinion doctor would realize that he must give you his best opinion.

Where are you going to find all these other doctors who are willing to risk liability with an opinion that doesn't include a full diagnosis?

Maybe I was misinterpreted (or maybe I mistyped earlier on). The second doctor would do everything that the first doctor did except for giving the actual treatment.

I have no idea how that relates to why a not-for-profit government health insurance program would be better than for-profit private health insurance providers. It's simple math, really. It would have no impact on who treated you, just on who paid the doctors. And many doctors and hospitals have said they wouldn't have to charge as much if it weren't for all the delayed payments and red-tape hassles private insurance put them through. We'd have more funds available and less costs.

I could be wrong, but I think there are quite a few severe regulations imposed on insurance companies now. I think that if some of them were removed, it might allow for more competition to the current companies, resulting in better service.

Back to prisons:

First, good luck getting that approved by current voters. Second, lobbyists have been affecting legislation more than voters for a long time. What difference would letting prisoners vote make on legislation that affects private prisons?

Your first point is valid; although I am more talking ideologically than reality. To the second one though; lobbyists aren't any more than inspired voters (although sometimes they are inspired voters who have a good deal of cash). Prisoners would be quite an inspired group of citizens, and so I think that they WOULD have an impact (they can write letters, get family and friends to carry out lobby-type projects, etc.

And when the most popular are full, what then?

Those companies would build more prisons, or prisoners would stop choosing them because of overcrowding.

And do you really see businesses allowing their commodities to dictate who they get sold to?

???? The prisoner would be the customer, the prison offered would be the commodity. Does it not make sense that the customer should choose the best available commodity.

I think that private prisons are (a) cheaper because they are more efficiently run since the private company has to run more efficiently than their competition, and (b) provide a better/more humane atmosphere for the prisoners since the prisoners will choose the most humane and "luxurious" prison.

I think what insane_alien said was interesting, especially with regards to:

Perhaps if they applied a sliding scale or penalty system based upon reoffence rates. A bonus for having a low re-offence rate and a penalty for having a high reoffence rate. Therefore encouraging and making financial sense of rehabilitation.

so, +1 and thank you insane_alien

Even the clarification didn't help me see how this relates to the seeming conflict of interest that arises from medicine being treated as a for-profit business when it's goal should be to make people healthy but it's success is measured by how often it can treat sick people.

I saw it as relating because you go to another doctor who has no conflict of interest. Problem solved.

Absolutely. I can think of no better first step than to have the government assume a not-for-profit risk pool to insure healthcare in this country. It's intensely stupid to divert the profit portion of our limited healthcare resources to middle men who's job includes denying us the services we count on.

IIRC, a hospital has a legal requirement to treat you if you are hurt.

That was too complicated for my poor mind. Could you rephrase it otherwise?

Sorry, I was a little confusing.

If you have an ailment, you go to a doctor and get it diagnosed and a treatment described. Then you go to another doctor and tell him that you are only here to pay the "opinion fee" and that you want to know how he or she would treat you. You can even go to a third or fourth doctor. Does that help?

If rehabilitation is one of the goals of imprisonment, how hard is a private prison going to work at it if it will eventually mean fewer inmates and less profit? It seems to me that public funding is one of the best ways to make sure that we actually work harder to try to fix problems rather than trying to make a buck from them. Perhaps this is the lesson we need to learn about some of our public funding, that it must be aimed at cures and not at symptoms.

If you let the prisoners choose what private (but regulated) prison they would like to serve their sentence at, I think that the prisoners will be well taken care of.

 

will lobbyists be able to affect legislation which will change laws to create more business for prisons?

What if we let prisoners vote?

Healthcare is probably number one on this list. Is the goal of medicine to cure people or to make money? More effort seems to go into treating symptoms rather than root causes, and some treatments, once prescribed, will go on for the rest of a person's life. Part of this can be attributed to laziness, taking pills instead of doing the added diet control and exercise that would make the pill unnecessary, but in other cases a cure would seem to cut into the profits that maintenance provides.

So people need to get second opinions from people who are paid JUST to give their opinion, but who are told that they won't be being given the patient's business (other than the opinion fee). I would think that this would lead to the second opinion doctors giving their best opinion, and eliminating the risk of not-so-great treatments given to the patients.

Until we can change the way people think about the future (something that seems in short supply EVERYWHERE), then yes, it's the best way to make sure it happens.

I do see your point. I'll think about that.

They owned the land around that town center. With land prices in your city, believe me, they saved a lot building it where they did, and added to your city's reputation, beauty and livability.

Yet the whole area practically dies at night, and many of the nearby businesses are just like "realtor" "bank" etc -- meaning that it doesn't seem to actually bring money via visitors to the town. It certainly added to the American reputation of wastefulness.

It certainly wasn't necessary to build the ceiling so tall, was it? One can build a nice library that fits with the rest of the city without heating and cooling so many cubic feet.

Where, without paying a lot more?

Like by patronizing their local Starbucks or McDonalds... or if that is too expensive, how about going to their neighbor's when they need to access it? (that isn't illegal in any way, is it?)

Probably not as centrally located and in as nice a neighborhood.

For example, there are schools relatively close to wherever you would want to meet.

Not always accessible, not always portable on trips without expensive gadgets, not as inexpensive and foolproof, not as senior-friendly.

Actually if you do much reading, your gadget will more than make the cost back. I think the senior-friendly problem will be gone soon as soon, seniors will have used computers for most of their lives.

OK. Give them back 17% on taxes. No privatized businesses would accept such a low profit, so where does the extra money for pools and parks and libraries and roads come from?

I don't understand what you are saying here?

I'm unaware of any union benefits that would be classified as recreation like a park or a library.

Of course not, because the government already provides it.

Lakes filled with people are not great places for animals, so where should they go?

Many lakes have large numbers of people swimming in them but still have animals. But you are right. However, I would expect there to still be private pools.

 

Many people find it difficult to think far enough ahead to take care of needs they'll have in the future, even rich people (there's an astonishing number of wealthy people who die without a will, believe it or not). That's why taking tax dollars out of their paycheck for things like retirement and public works helps everyone. That's why Social Security and Medicare were established in the first place. And even a couple who never had children benefit from having paid taxes for public education. Every restaurant, bank, store and contractor they solicit has employees educated from public funds, ensuring a certain standard of proficiency.

True. However, is it going to help people plan ahead if the government does it for them?

This building had to dovetail with the BlackRock Center for the Arts. It also fits the surrounding contours of the town center. It looks like a great blend of modern efficiency and New England historical society. Not easy to achieve.

The other option would have been to just build the library somewhere else, where they didn't "have to" make it so fancy.

For many people, public libraries are their only access to the web.

This is true, and I know people who almost exclusively access the web through their library. However, those who do that could also find somewhere else to access the web, and I am sure that wouldn't be hard for most people.

They also act as meeting places for community affairs.

My experiences may be different from reality, but it seems like there are usually other places that people can meet.

Oh, and they have lots and lots of books, a great way to learn and experience places you can't afford to visit, times you never lived in and things you never imagined.

 

 

If you like a great movie you should read the book that inspired it. It will be filled with fantastic details the movie could never reveal in 2-3 hours. For many, books and public libraries are better than theaters and movies, an archive of knowledge that waits for the reader to start the show by opening the cover. Hardcopy education and adventure at your own pace, a priceless public hub of literate communities.

I 100% agree that books are almost always better than movies (with some exceptions), and that is why I almost always choose a book over a movie. But I don't think a physical library is necessary; electronic books work just fine.

I didn't say we needed more funding, I said we needed to formulate a better system and fund that. I'd like to know what Finland does to get 100% literacy and the best math and science scores in the world for $2090 less and one year more per child than we do. If we adopted their system and spent $1045 more per child than they do (saving ourselves $1045 per child), could we be better than they are?

Ah. I see.

You think the current public services programs give everyone everything they need? It seems like the people who use these facilities are finding plenty of incentive to work. The fact that they have access to shared services and land their taxes pay for is motivation that has always strengthened communities and kept a balance in a society too prone to extremes.

I should have worded my last post a little differently. Anyway, Yes, I believe that the current programs already give them practically everything that they need. The rest is wants, and those can be satisfied by working for them.

I don't understand the question as written. I don't get the union/recreation facilities connection you're trying to make.

 

I've never been a union member, but I'm glad they negotiate the kinds of wages and perks they do. It raises the bar with the people who might employ me because they have to compete. Without unions, millions of workers would make less money.

I'm not so sure about the millions of workers would make less money, but I don't really want to get into a debate about that (at least not yet). You said:

How can you expect the lesser people to work for you rich overlords if you don't allow them some freedom and recreation they can be proud of?

I'm not a "rich overlord," but regardless, what I was trying to say was that I don't expect people to work if they don't get those items. Unions are formed so that the "rich overlords" will have to give them those items (freedom and recreation). Since the problem is already taken care of, the government does not need to intervene on behalf of the "poor underdog." Does that make sense now?

And thanks for your posts, +1 to several of them.

" If the rich all have swimming pools, then those who can't afford them could just find a lake to use "

Are you proposing to publicly fund heating some lakes, or do you accept that they two ideas are not really comparable?

That was likely a bad comparison on my part, I concede, however, for a large part of the country, lakes would not need to be heated.

There are two ways to pay off a debt.

You can cut spending or you can increase income.

Which still means that:

The nation can continue to operate in exactly that same way that it operated before.

is wrong.

How lucky for you! How many blue-collar hard-working lower middle class people is your friend willing to support with pool privileges? How will your friend decide who gets to swim?

Quite a few. I don't know how they choose. We help them with some stuff too.

Remember, those workers, under YOUR system, also need library memberships, community center memberships, parks memberships and they also have to pay to drive on the roads, too. Right now, they're working hard but still living paycheck to paycheck for just the basics. Where is the extra money coming from to pay for the profit your privatized world will require?

Their taxes would also be less, but I see your point. I believe that their friends would help them out if it was necessary.

Are you referring to the new Silver Springs Library? If so, the old one was built 54 years ago. Not much in a structure that old to make way for improvements like phone systems and computers. By the way, the new library's atrium is set up to capture sunlight for heating in the winter and reflect it during the summer. It's got a LEED Silver rating from the US Green Building Council for sustainability and energy efficiency.

No. The one I was referring to as already built is shown in the following links. (I couldn't figure out how to attach them properly)

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=germantown+library&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1249&bih=617&tbm=isch&tbnid=dQjp227yzYY-pM:&imgrefurl=http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/libraries/BranchInfo/aboutgtlibrary.asp&docid=4sDUgsA1jAJ7dM&imgurl=http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/libraries/images/germantownlib/GERMANTOWNRENDERING1_lrg.jpg&w=604&h=305&ei=35XWTqa-CMLt0gGT8f2XAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=250&vpy=155&dur=5758&hovh=159&hovw=316&tx=141&ty=114&sig=111875082840158307914&page=1&tbnh=91&tbnw=180&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=germantown+library&um=1&hl=en&client=safari&sa=N&rls=en&biw=1249&bih=617&tbm=isch&tbnid=sksXDN2lunbDlM:&imgrefurl=http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/dot/Dir/sustainability/green.asp&docid=DYmHW9LatLrtsM&imgurl=http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/content/DOT/Dir/sustainability/images/damascus_rec.jpg&w=155&h=232&ei=35XWTqa-CMLt0gGT8f2XAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=468&vpy=301&dur=561&hovh=185&hovw=124&tx=91&ty=150&sig=111875082840158307914&page=2&tbnh=119&tbnw=84&start=18&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:17,s:18

http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/apps/libraries/branchinfo/gt.asp

We need to reform Social Security and Medicare, no doubt about it. That doesn't mean the whole system is untenable. It's much more efficient to keep what works and shore up the parts that are being exploited.

True. I'm not convinced libraries are the most efficient, and I don't see the point of them either.

If we want average-schooled citizens (based on global markers), then our current funding is barely keeping pace. If we want above average education for our citizens, we need to work harder and be willing to fund and formulate a system that will ensure that.

Will spending more money help schooling?

http://mat.usc.edu/u...ld-infographic/

However, yes, I do see what you are saying in the rest of that section. Let me think about it.

Why not entitle everyone to have access to one? That way, the rich won't be the ones to decide who merits access.

If you give everyone everything they need, what is the incentive to work?

Despite the environmental reasons why lakes aren't good for public swimming, sooner or later, all the lakes would probably get bought up for private use. You begin to see why publicly owned lands and programs might be the best use of our resources. How can you expect the lesser people to work for you rich overlords if you don't allow them some freedom and recreation they can be proud of?

I'm a rich overlord now? Cool!

More seriously: what's wrong with unions and the like to demand fair compensation (recreation facilities...) for their work?

You seem to have much to learn.

That's why I'm here.

Did you ask the librarians?

Did you check that the antiquated heating systems of the old buildings and their design (prior to much emphasis on energy conservation) were not actually more expensive to heat than the modern ones?

No, I did not, however, they have still built a large wasteful one that could have saved (if indeed it was saving money) even more money.

The nation can continue to operate in exactly that same way that it operated before...

Except for a little debt problem.

The idea that the rich would voluntarily pay for, for example, swimming pools, isn't supported by the facts.

Is everyone entitled to a swimming pool? If the rich all have swimming pools, then those who can't afford them could just find a lake to use (even if we did away with the park service, I imagine lakes would still be pretty cheap to enter) and swim in it.

Because that's worked out so well where? Adjust for inflation and rising costs and I'm still paying 25% more for my utilities since they went private. Here's a study that might help your perspective.

 

Privatize Social Security? Do you have any concept of the disaster we'd be in right now if Bush's plan to privatize SS during his second term had been successful? You'd have a bunch of even richer bankers and a nation full of retired homeless people.

 

And how could any private library be operated at the level I enjoy right now without charging me at least 25% more in order to satisfy their stockholders?

 

As for roads, there are better ways to save taxes than privatization. In Germany, home of the Autobahn (which is no different in concept than the Interstate Highway system in the US), they use asphalt just like most countries, yet they spend a fraction of what we pay per mile on road maintenance. They also have glass-smooth roads that last for many years without needing costly repairs. What’s their secret? They let the asphalt cure for 3 months before they let anyone drive on it. They divert traffic and drivers are made aware of alternate routes. After the asphalt cures it wears like iron and is pure heaven to drive on.

 

On one hand, road maintenance employs a ton of people, from the workers to the asphalt manufacturers. Letting us drive on fresh asphalt means less time waiting for our favorite roads to become available again. But we pay a lot in taxes and get terrible roads in return.

 

On the other hand, letting them cure would mean a huge savings in taxes. We’d also spend less on vehicle maintenance due to fewer potholes. And we’d have better roads to drive on. But we’d have to detour longer.

 

Sorry to go all off-topic, but privatization is just bad, imo. Some folks just don't want to have to pay taxes so the lesser folks can enjoy a swimming pool. Unless they own the pool....

Sorry for not replying sooner! To start with the easier stuff to respond to, with that last section of your post: from my POV, the "lesser folks" need to earn their own money to have a swimming pool membership, or rely on charitable gifts to them from richer friends. If I was rich, I'd rather give my money to someone who I saw working hard but didn't have enough for a joining a private pool, than give it to the government and have them decide who to give it to. Incidentally, a friend does share their pool with me.

As to libraries, I am seeing libraries near me (maybe in other parts of the world and other states in the US they are more responsible) being torn down to build these huge beautiful new ones. The problem is that there was nothing wrong with the old one, and the new one (this is happening at multiple locations, and one is already completed) is one level, but has a ceiling more than high enough for 3 floors AND has large numbers of huge glass windows, both of which add to the heating and cooling cost. I would think that a privately owned library would be a little more intellegent with their money, and thus cheaper. Also, is there even a whole lot of point for libraries with the advent of the internet? (That's an honest question, I'm not trying to make it sound rhetorical or anything.)

For roads, I used to support them being privatized, but after I heard the argument that they could be considered a national defense, I mostly support their governmentally owned status. So, I retract my position on that... I found the part of your post on them fascinating though.

I really fail to see how this nation will continue to be able to operate Social security and the other "welfare-like" services that it runs because of the cost. Maybe I need to do some research?

For schools, although I don't go to a public school, I support them and other kinds of federal education (but I'm pretty irritated that in my state we can't do some public schooled classes and some classes on our own; they have this all or nothing policy.) I don't believe that it is the best for most of the kids who go to them; I believe a homeschooled or private schooled environment is usually much more conducive to learning, but I do think people need to be taught even if their parents can't afford to do so -- and if a student has mental trouble, like autism, I don't think is fair to force the whole cost on the parents.

Yes, that's a little weird. Isn't it funny though, that likely you will find something in common with almost anyone you just start a conversation with, yet people are surprisingly hesitant to start talking with strangers, even when neither party is doing much else, like on a train? Yet, if your iPhone told you that you shared something with a random nearby person (according to what that assumes), you would just go and talk with them. Odd.

Also, I assume almost nobody who has any degree of fame would want to sign up. For instance, many like myself would like to see all the people near me who are good at chess, say, maybe all grandmasters. I would think that that would create many more people either bothering or watching them. So, many people (who usually would be able to pull more people into some sort of social network) would not join and would hinder the progress of such a design (because many of those who would usually join a social network with them wouldn't join). Thus I doubt that such a thing will become widely popular for quite a while yet. We'll see!

Am I the only one surprised that John Huntsman isn't doing better than he is?

I haven't spent a whole lot of time researching the different candidates, but from the reading and a few parts of some of the debates, I thought he sounded surprisingly prepared for the presidency. So, no, you aren't.

How do you argue even a slightly higher tax rate for people who are convinced they don't need the programs it gets spent on? I swear there are some disconnected brains out there that can't figure out who builds the roads and the libraries.

Many of us want those turned private too. Yay Ron Paul!

Edit: Posted in wrong topic, sorry.

If we could vote for our top three...

I believe places like San Francisco already do this.

He may be. But if you read the Bible, you will find a God that commits many atrocities and evils.

I don't ever remember the justice being carried out being undeserved, and even if it was, we'll be paid fairly for it in the end (e.g., murder of babies would, when God did it, presumably be an act of kindness, seeing that they'd be orphans and die anyway, and God could make it less painful for them while still sending them to heaven)

Ah 'tis true. But Obama has given everyone plenty of ammo.(not for guns,he's against that) I know people say that as Americans we're a forgetfull nation. But the backlash that Obama recieved from alot of things hit home to a lot of people. It won't be good for the DNC once the public is reminded constantly during the campaign.

The more I think about it, the more I conclude you're right.

No not at all. Once the Reps get one candidate to back I think you'll see their poll numbers will go up.

Maybe, but I expect Obama's campaign will also spend more time bashing that candidate.