rkbabang

Learn to read. Besides the biggest leap in improving the human race is the move from Anarchy to government(Democracy/Monarchy/etc). "learn to read" really? Does your mom know you are using the computer? Human technological progress has been expanding at an exponential rate ever since the first protohuman picked up the first stone. At some point agriculture was the next step in our progress, this had the effect of planting previously mobile human groups in one place, allowing more free time and the accumulation of more wealth than one can carry on his person. This also had a side effect of attracting parasites which we have been fighting for thousands of years now. Merry Christmas.

Maybe the ego club? The launch and landing was incredible. I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning. My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible. My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy. This is how it should be. I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace. I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years. But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me. Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited. Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work. This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children... Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit. And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid. The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon. How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun. We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money. Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity. I would have not responded to you comment, except that you stated that taxpayer money is stolen. Your political biases are very apparent from your post, and thus I now I feel the need to point out a few basic facts: 1. If you look back at history, government has generally been responsible for opening up frontiers using taxpayer money. The Wright Brothers would never have been successful without that initial contract from the US Army Signal Corp. The United States would have struggled to settle the Western Frontier if not for the taxpayer-funded Lewis and Clark expedition to map the territory, the taxpayer-funded army outposts in the West, the Transcontinental railroad, etc. 2. We would not be in space in the first place if it wasn't for the government. Don't forget that the entire reason SpaceX is able to fund this adventure is with taxpayer money that is funding future resupply of the International Space Station. Remind me, did private companies fund Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle, the ISS or SpaceLab, or did the taxpayer? Most of these commercial companies (with the exception of Virgin) are innovating precisely because they are competing for government contracts.) 3. If you compare the amount of money spent on the space program to the scientific advances directly attributed to the space program, the ROIC is substantially positive. However, government is generally not allowed to patent taxpayer-funded scientific advances, so the private sector takes them and exploits them. If you look at the American aviation industry over the last 50 years, the primary reason we have been competitive is because private companies were able to exploit taxpayer-funded R&D in hard science and avionics (funded by DoD, NASA, NOAA, etc). If you look at the renaissance in biotech that is occurring right now, a big reason that is happening is because many of these companies are exploiting taxpayer-funded R&D that was conducted to answer basic fundamental questions. The entire reason this taxpayer money was spent on R&D @ NIH and HHS is because commercial enterprises were unwilling to do this science in the first place. Just like space, and just like the moon, the Martian frontier will also be opened up by the government, using taxpayer money, because commercial firms will be unable to show a positive ROIC. But don't worry, commercial firms will come along for the ride, because they will benefit financially from the government contracts. Just to clear up a few things. 1) What was done with the money afterwards has no bearing on whether or not it was stolen. If I put a gun to your head and steal your money, and then proceed to do something wonderful with it, it doesn't mean that the money wasn't stolen. When you take money from someone against their will that is theft. Always. 2) If I steal your money and do something that has never been done before, that doesn't mean that only I could have done it. It probably means that the private economy wasn't ready to spend its money on that yet. Money is always put to its most useful current purpose. What you don't see in all of your above scenarios is what didn't happen with all of the money spent by government on those things and what all of the people involved didn't spend their time doing. If that was the absolute best use of those resources then the private economy would have produced the same results, if that wasn't the best use of those resources then the world was a poorer place for those events occurring, not a richer one. 3) I don't want to go to Mars until it is profitable for the human race to do so. The best way to make sure that is the case is to keep the government out of it. Go back thousands of years in the history of civilization Indian/Chinese/Egyptian/Roman anywhere you go it has been the Kings/Pharaohs/Government who have built the infrastructure and pushed the development of technology. They have done it through taxes. You are deluded if you think that private enterprise would have achieved anything without government infrastructure and help. The private economy doesn't put money to the best use. It puts money to the most greedy and selfish use. Private enterprise cant see beyond their current lifetime (if that long). Elon Musk is just ok. Hes a businessman and leader but theres nothing special about what he is working on. Hes just retooling/refining/improving technologies that already exist, similar to what Steve Jobs did at Apple. Hes not doing anything innovative. The innovation and research takes place at NASA. In a few decades the "private economy" will takes the successful research of NASA and speak about how they can do it better. Now if Elon Musk was working on something like the IXS Enterprise id say he was doing something innovative. No private money will be put for this until the science is confirmed and the technology is developed because till that happens there is no money. Then the greedy "private economy" will take over. http://100yss.org/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IXS_Enterprise http://techland.time.com/2012/09/19/nasa-actually-working-on-faster-than-light-warp-drive/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655105/Engage-warp-drive-Nasa-reveals-latest-designs-Star-Trek-style-spacecraft-make-interstellar-travel-reality.html All I can say is that you have, without exception, the most warped view of history that I have ever read. Just, wow. All innovations come from kings, emperors, dictators and bureaucrats? I'm sorry but that is just nuts.

Space elevators are probably a non-starter, neat idea though. You'd have "anchor" it in geosynchronous orbit (22,000 miles) while low earth orbit is quite a bit closer for example the ISS is at about 250 miles. You can't exactly ride the elevator up to the LEO floor and hop off either since you need horizontal speed to stay in orbit. If I were forced to bet on our next path to orbit after chemical rockets it would be a very long coil "gun" up the side of a mountain at the equator. Chemical rockets will probably still be our only ticket off this rock for the next couple decades though which is why getting their cost down is such a monumental achievement. With current technology you are correct a space elevator is not possible. I think you will see one in your lifetime however. The rail gun method will only work for cargo, never for humans. The acceleration would kill you.

The horse wasn't the ultimate means of human ground transportation and neither is the modern automobile. You do what makes sense with the technology you have.

The Space Shuttle was about propaganda value and looking futuristic on TV. It was more expensive than regular rockets and carried less. Whereas Spacex is trying to be cost effective and even profitable. You could easily spend a million dollars to build a robotic vacuum cleaner that looked like the maid from the Jetsons pushing a vacuum. But is it really progress if a Roomba is many times cheaper and cleans better? That is the difference between government and private.

Maybe the ego club? The launch and landing was incredible. I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning. My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible. My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy. This is how it should be. I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace. I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years. But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me. Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited. Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work. This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children... Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit. And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid. The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon. How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun. We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money. Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity. I would have not responded to you comment, except that you stated that taxpayer money is stolen. Your political biases are very apparent from your post, and thus I now I feel the need to point out a few basic facts: 1. If you look back at history, government has generally been responsible for opening up frontiers using taxpayer money. The Wright Brothers would never have been successful without that initial contract from the US Army Signal Corp. The United States would have struggled to settle the Western Frontier if not for the taxpayer-funded Lewis and Clark expedition to map the territory, the taxpayer-funded army outposts in the West, the Transcontinental railroad, etc. 2. We would not be in space in the first place if it wasn't for the government. Don't forget that the entire reason SpaceX is able to fund this adventure is with taxpayer money that is funding future resupply of the International Space Station. Remind me, did private companies fund Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle, the ISS or SpaceLab, or did the taxpayer? Most of these commercial companies (with the exception of Virgin) are innovating precisely because they are competing for government contracts.) 3. If you compare the amount of money spent on the space program to the scientific advances directly attributed to the space program, the ROIC is substantially positive. However, government is generally not allowed to patent taxpayer-funded scientific advances, so the private sector takes them and exploits them. If you look at the American aviation industry over the last 50 years, the primary reason we have been competitive is because private companies were able to exploit taxpayer-funded R&D in hard science and avionics (funded by DoD, NASA, NOAA, etc). If you look at the renaissance in biotech that is occurring right now, a big reason that is happening is because many of these companies are exploiting taxpayer-funded R&D that was conducted to answer basic fundamental questions. The entire reason this taxpayer money was spent on R&D @ NIH and HHS is because commercial enterprises were unwilling to do this science in the first place. Just like space, and just like the moon, the Martian frontier will also be opened up by the government, using taxpayer money, because commercial firms will be unable to show a positive ROIC. But don't worry, commercial firms will come along for the ride, because they will benefit financially from the government contracts. Just to clear up a few things. 1) What was done with the money afterwards has no bearing on whether or not it was stolen. If I put a gun to your head and steal your money, and then proceed to do something wonderful with it, it doesn't mean that the money wasn't stolen. When you take money from someone against their will that is theft. Always. 2) If I steal your money and do something that has never been done before, that doesn't mean that only I could have done it. It probably means that the private economy wasn't ready to spend its money on that yet. Money is always put to its most useful current purpose. What you don't see in all of your above scenarios is what didn't happen with all of the money spent by government on those things and what all of the people involved didn't spend their time doing. If that was the absolute best use of those resources then the private economy would have produced the same results, if that wasn't the best use of those resources then the world was a poorer place for those events occurring, not a richer one. 3) I don't want to go to Mars until it is profitable for the human race to do so. The best way to make sure that is the case is to keep the government out of it.

Maybe the ego club? The launch and landing was incredible. I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning. My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible. My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy. This is how it should be. I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace. I agree, it is certainly exciting to think about where we will be in a few years. But that also causes some consternation/melancholy for me. Some of the greatest advancements in science came from our government's investment in the space program, and because this was funded with taxpayer money, these advancements were generally shared with everyone such that society benefited. Now we spend so much money on entitlement spending that we can barely scratch together money for our space program, and thus we rely on commercial enterprises to do the work. This is a poor reflection on us as a society, that we over-invest in our past at the expense of our future and our children... Wouldn't it be something if we could invest in our future, and give society (especially our children) something to aspire to (i.e. in the same way that Kennedy challenged the United States to reach the moon within a decade)? I have the exact opposite reaction. I think it is wonderful to see a private company, sending a private rocket, loaded with private satellites into orbit. And the only thing that would make it better is if it was done from a private spaceport and had private astronauts going to a private space station or even better a private settlement on Mars the moon or an asteroid. The government needed to drain an enormous amount of money from the private sector (the only way government gets money is either taxing the private sector or printing more which is just a tax on savings) to get into space and to the moon. How much quicker would private industry have been able to do it if $Trillions haven't been sucked out of the economy over the years fighting wars, drugs, poverty (ironically), and subsidizing everything under the sun. We will never be a space fairing society if the final frontier is left to government bureaucracies (with no incentives to succeed or not waste time and resources) funded by stolen money. Watching that rocket touch down last night gave me the chills, it is finally happening. The first important step to opening up space to humanity.

Maybe the ego club? The launch and landing was incredible. I watched most of it live, then watched it again with my sons this morning. My oldest loves space and to see this stuff happening monthly is incredible. My wife commented that there was no progress for so long, and now suddenly it's going crazy. This is how it should be. I'm excited to see where we are a few years out at this pace. Absolutely! These are exciting times. And don't get me wrong, I hope Blue Origin does become a real company competing for and completing space missions. It just isn't there yet.

I like this explanation to an extent. However, even level-headed voters don't really have the option of picking candidates issue by issue. In our two party system you're forced to pick a side if you want to participate, even if you only agree with your side on 50.0001% of issues. An extension of this is how our debates center around individual leaders and their character (or lack thereof) rather than focusing on the merits of policy in regards to current issues, you're electing the individual and their stance on things is something in the background we're vaguely aware of. Once you support a candidate you are seen as supporting their position on all issues, there is no room for nuanced stances. It's funny how the author of that quote seems to portray humans as having passed this point in our history though. While you might not be killed or imprisoned, there are still massive rewards for being on the winning side, why else would businesses give so much to political campaigns. There are rewards available for businesses with the cash to buy influence, but none available to voters. As a business spending money to lobby the government you can get regulations passed which will inhibit smaller businesses from entering the market and cementing your market leading position. You can patent a process and make any competing process illegal, etc.. There are a million ways you can use chrony capitalism to your advantage if you are one of the players in the system. As a voter, however, it doesn't really matter who wins the next election or the one after that. The election process is a distraction to keep you placated and blind to how the system really works. Frank Zappa said that "Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex." There is a lot of truth in that statement.

I was under impression that the Clinton running for president was a she, but I could be mistaken, it isn't always easy to tell.

No more attractive than Trump, IMHO.

I watched it with my son who just finished reading my copy of the Musk biography a week ago. Wow, I must have missed where Blue Origin put 11 satellites into orbit while returning the 1st stage to Earth. I don't know what club he thinks he belongs to, but SpaceX doesn't have a club, it stands alone.

I think there should be a debate. I can think of many arguments against any minimum wage. America is not a democracy and it never ever was supposed to be. The Founding Fathers thought democracy was a horrible system and they were right. The fact that economic elites have disproportionate impact on the political system is in my view an extremely good thing and also exactly the way the system was designed to function. I never understand why people are interested in populist democracy. Theoretically democracy doesn't work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem. In the most ideal settings (voters are very interesting in issues, spend enormous time debating) it doesn't work http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/showbiz-tonight-flashpoint-is-american-idol%E2%80%99s-voting-system-flawed/ Historically it has never worked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Criticism_of_the_democracy And presently its a disaster ex. India, Venezuela. The hilarious thing to me about all of this is that the whole reason democracy even has a good name today is because of the success of the United States. You shouldn't be criticizing the US for not being democratic enough. You aught to be criticizing democracy for not being US-like enough. While I disagree with you about the US system being "pretty good", I do agree with you 100% in that a true democracy would be much worse. What makes the US system so bad is how much power is currently concentrated in the federal government. Regardless of the details about how it operates a better system would be so powerless that no one would bother trying to buy influence. At the start of the republic, Washington and Hamilton had to acquire enough power for the executive branch to insure the republic would survive. Jefferson and Madison were opposed to, and strongly fought Washington's and Hamilton's efforts to increase power in the Executive branch. But as presidents, neither Jefferson or Madison relinquished any of the power in the executive branch! Yes, exactly the case. I'm sure if you made me president, I'd abuse my power as well.

I think there should be a debate. I can think of many arguments against any minimum wage. America is not a democracy and it never ever was supposed to be. The Founding Fathers thought democracy was a horrible system and they were right. The fact that economic elites have disproportionate impact on the political system is in my view an extremely good thing and also exactly the way the system was designed to function. I never understand why people are interested in populist democracy. Theoretically democracy doesn't work https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem. In the most ideal settings (voters are very interesting in issues, spend enormous time debating) it doesn't work http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/08/showbiz-tonight-flashpoint-is-american-idol%E2%80%99s-voting-system-flawed/ Historically it has never worked. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Criticism_of_the_democracy And presently its a disaster ex. India, Venezuela. The hilarious thing to me about all of this is that the whole reason democracy even has a good name today is because of the success of the United States. You shouldn't be criticizing the US for not being democratic enough. You aught to be criticizing democracy for not being US-like enough. While I disagree with you about the US system being "pretty good", I do agree with you 100% in that a true democracy would be much worse. What makes the US system so bad is how much power is currently concentrated in the federal government. Regardless of the details about how it operates a better system would be so powerless that no one would bother trying to buy influence.

I didn't realize that. Yes, I live and drive in NH and heat with oil. The large drop in oil prices is very obvious to everyone around here. Home heating oil: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W_EPD2F_PRS_SNH_DPG&f=W Gas: http://www.newhampshiregasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx?city1=NewHampshire&city2=&city3=&crude=n&tme=36&units=us

Doesn't everyone have a pretty good idea of how much oil prices have dropped? You see gas stations everywhere with huge signs showing the gas prices wherever you go. Anyone who heats with home heating oil knows as well.

In my previous company, which I worked for 16 years, I had a bunch of certificates that they had issued to me. For some reason when they gave me stock they issued physical certificates rather than depositing them in an account. It got to the point that I had a significant amount in a lock box in my house. I started thinking that I wouldn't want to have that much cash in my house or that amount of value in physical gold in my house, why do I keep these things lying around? I ended up depositing them all in my Fidelity account. I'm not sure what the advantages of physically having them are, they could get lost, stolen, water damaged, burned in a fire, etc...

I've been there at least twice since the first e coli story hit the news. Both times it was crowded and I had to wait in a line that backed almost to the door.

I just bought a used iPhone 5S in early September and activated it with Cricket Wireless. I pay $35/month for the basic plan (its $40 if you don't put your account on autopay with a credit card) for unlimited talk/text (in the US) and 2.5Gbs of LTE data. You can get more data and international text/calling for a little more. After you reach your data limit you can still use unlimited data for free but at very slow speeds. It is on the AT&T network (Cricket is owned by AT&T). After 3 months I'm still happy with it, no problems. For families they give a $10/mo discount for each phone after your first. EDIT: I was just looking at the group discount, it is better than that, it is $10 off for your 2nd phone, $20 for your 3rd, $30 for 4th and $40 for your 5th. So basically for the basic plan with 1 phone you pay $35/mo (with auto pay) for 2 phones it is $70/mo (you don't get autopay discount, just the $10 group discount), with 3 phones $90/mo, and if you have either 4 or 5 phones you pay $100/month, you get the 5th phone for free. Also I haven't done any referrals yet, but I think if you sign up from this link we will both get a $25 credit: https://refer.cricketwireless.com/6M30HaY

SU-24 is a variable wing ground attack aircraft. The variable wing aspect is the only similarity with the F-14 flown by Tom Cruise in Top Gun. A Su-24 is more like an A-6 Intruder or an F-111 Ardvark. These aircraft are ground attack and electronic warfare aircraft...they are not intended to operate in contested airspace, without fighter cover. A Su-24 Fencer would not stand a chance in just about any scenario against an F-16. You should give a fuck now. Russia has been predominantly operating Su-24's and Su-25's in Syrian airspace. These are ground attack aircraft. If Russia was attempting to pick a fight with Turkey, they would be operating these aircraft real close to Turkish airspace in conjunction with cover from Su-30's. The Su-30 would make it a pretty interesting fight, and that type of dog fight would likely cause Turkey to activate the NATO mutual defense clause, drawing other NATO countries into their fight with Russia. How do you think that would work out for everyone? That later point is my concern. Regional instability pulls larger powers in with conflicting interests and those larger powers clash. No different than world war II where everyone from Russia, Japan, the U.S., and Norther Africa got involved with a war that was mostly for Europe. I'm not saying that this will be the beginning of that war, but I do fear it has the potential to escalate things until we get to that point. I posted on Facebook yesterday that I feared that we may have just witnessed the assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. We'll see if things escalate or every keeps their heads cool and de-escalates the situation, but last I knew, Russia was sending in warships to the area to provide cover and the U.S. and French were discussing doing the same... I was thinking Vietnam. I mean, what could possibly go wrong when two major powers are waging a proxy war via a country's civil war. Sending U.S. advisors in a "non-combatant role" to assist with one side of the civil war... Waging an air campaign which will ultimately prove to be ineffective without boots on the ground. I swear I have I seen this story unfold before... Oh wait, Vietnam... You can both be correct. Remember history doesn't repeat it just rhymes. WWII wasn't exactly the same as WWI and WWIII won't be the same as either of them. There are always a lot of common themes in any war. Politicians/leaders being unnecessarily aggressive, doing stupid things, and outright lying to the public usually all play a major role in any conflict.

If you provide a service that is your product (like a plumber or a money manager). Hedge funds have a product. They invest their partners'/investors' money to earn a return. You can debate how well they succeed over the long term, but regardless of if each individual hedge fund offers a good product or a bad one, the investment services that they offer is a product.

It is all good for the military industrial complex. War is profits. It is all good for the government. War is the health of the state. Most people don't want war, but most people aren't in charge. Those who benefit from war are. Don't look at it as "How does our foreign policy benefit the average american". Think of it as, "Will this destabilization create more war and terrorism in the world? Will this profit the military contractors? Will this give politicians an excuse to do all the things they could never get away with before? Will this make people more nationalistic (and thus more supportive of the government)?". All you need to understand what is going on is ask "Who benefits?" and realize that they are not on your side.

Except that the lenders would rather extend the debt than own the companies where ever possible, especially if the companies can meet their debt obilgations. Arx, and wcp, are having no trouble meeting their debt and dividend obilgations, and pwe may be headed there shortly. With each succeeding day at these "new low prices" the producers are bringing costs down in NA. In the non capitalist countries there is no incentive to bring costs down. I can only imagine the difficulty for Russia's, or SA's state oil companies to cut costs. Russia and SA are dependent on oil and gas to finance government operations. NA is not. In N. America's diversified economies something else picks up the slack. If the prices rise, the surviving NA producers will become very profitable very quickly. Packer, thanks for the chart. Nice summary. Not if that US or canadian producer has a ton of debt obligations he/she needs to meet! The hypothetical US or Canadian producer with a ton of debt has a finite amount of time in which they can produce at a loss, as does Russia, SA, etc. But, the US/CDN producer has a much greater finite amount of time. -Crip Not necessarily, the US/CDN producer has creditors who can declare it in violation of debt covenants anytime. Russia has gunz. The Russians and Saudis have no incentive to cut costs. Their economies and social programs and bureaucracies are incentivized for the opposite. If they cut costs people lose jobs, and there are no alternatives. Can/Us have much more elastic economies. Lenders are never in a hurry to take on the expensive dog's breakfast of CCAA or Chapter 11, if there is any chance they will get repaid at some point. We have seen lending agreements modified over and over in the Canadian west over the past year. The survivors in NA will come out of the low price environment in very good shape. If the price remains steady they will continue to cut costs as needed. Eventually the other countries will be forced to capitulate. This didn't work out according to plan. +1 this is close what i have been thinking. The saudis/ Russians are not rational economic actors in this ..for them it is about revenue and keeping their spending afloat. if we apply game theory it makes a lot of sense lets say, OPEC reduces production to prop up price, price goes up, NA and Canadian producers with marginal cost increase production and the price goes down. So the OPEC and other countries lose market share without gaining anything OPEC increases production, price drops ..everyone suffers equally. this almost looks like the prisoners dillemma - atleast in the short run. In the long run, it all comes down to whether oil demand keeps growing, or solar/ alternates caps that. on that count, it is even more confusing (for me) I'm on the same page as well, the US becoming a major oil producer has really thrown a wrench into the works from the point of view of Russia and the Middle East. My only worry is the instability of some of these countries that depend on oil money. What will Putin do? I'm afraid ... no ... terrified, that we might be about to find out. He certainly has been handed the excuses he needs to start becoming even more militarily aggressive. And with a NATO country directly involved it is a dangerous situation.

NASA Orders SpaceX Crew Mission to International Space Station

are you actually going to do this? I would be open to it, I am not at this point in time going out to actively seek such an opportunity. Right now my life is fairly busy with 3 young kids and our spare bedroom is already occupied but an 18 year old student who's parents are abroad. So I am not seeking it out but if the opportunity sought me out I would see if we could accommodate them. The government might have something to say about it though. These Groups Have An Idea To Help Syrian Refugees: Let People Sponsor Them "Every single day we get phone calls from Americans who want to privately sponsor a refugee," said Omar Hossino of the Syrian American Council. "But since the private sponsorship is not legal, it's not an option, the government doesn't permit that, they're unable to do that." I think the problem is that the Republicans don't want the refugees here at all and the Democrats would rather funnel them into the welfare system where they will become multigenerational dependants on government (and thus become multigenerational Democratic voters). The last thing either party wants is for private people to bring them here, sponsor them, and help them get on their feet.