Andy9o8

I already read this f&%$#@ story. It says 60 mph. I need authority to refute that, i.e., to show it's faster. (Think, "Hold my beer and watch this.")

You read that right. I need a bullshit detector ruling here. 2 whuffo friends of mine swear that the average cat's terminal velocity in freefall is only 60mph-ish, when accounting for kitty's mass vs. surface area, etc. - and the crap I find on the internet all seems to repeat that figure. I need an answer (not a guess) from people in here who actually know how to figure that out reliably. No foil hat blather; I need the real deal. The future of Mankind depends on this. ETA: Oh! And a link to an authoritative source would be all the more helpful (I hope). 2nd ETA: I'm hoping to refute the 60mph theory, i.e., to show it's faster. Say, some engineer willing to whore him/herself.

Don't think it's anything new. The US govt has quite a bit of practice partnering with exploitative corporations. United Fruit Company

http://www.cio.com/article/721628/Air_Force_scraps_massive_ERP_project_after_racking_up_1_billion_in_costs?source=rss_applications&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cio%2Ffeed%2Fdrilldowntopic%2F3000+%28CIO.com+-+Applications%29 Air Force scraps massive ERP project after racking up $1 billion in costs IDG News Service (Boston Bureau) — The U.S. Air Force has decided to scrap a major ERP (enterprise resource planning) software project after spending US$1 billion, concluding that finishing it would cost far too much more money for too little gain. Dubbed the Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS), the project has racked up $1.03 billion in costs since 2005, "and has not yielded any significant military capability," an Air Force spokesman said

Apparently fighting with the bad guys on the side of the good guys against the bad guys, in the name of good, is bad. Seems clear enough to me. This is the dirty little secret law students eventually learn while studying rules and precedents: everything is arbitrary.

Are probably working 60-hour weeks running whatever 7-Elevens & Dunkin Donuts aren't being run by Hindus.

Except Moozlims. And wetbacks.

Weak retort. He obviously meant "free of charge at point-of-service". He clearly, expressly acknowledged that he pays into the system with his taxes.

or, we just could have spent 529M less....... You really think it would have just stayed in the national piggy bank?

Oh, if only that were the case. But oppressive, demeaning, privacy-invading drug tests forced upon people by their private-sector corporate employers for jobs that have nothing to do with safety have invaded the culture like a disease that can't be eradicated.

Yeah.

Oh, it's no trouble at all - it's fun! Sometimes it's a wrong.

Everyone defines social ethics. That's how it works. Funny how for 200 years there's always someone Chicken Little-ing about how the country's going down the shitter. And yet it's never gone down the shitter. There's a recognizable pattern in that.

The Chinese have done that for a while now. As a social experiment, the longer-term results are still pending, and we Westerners may be culturally uncomfortable with the concept, but in at least one major country the official policy does exist.

Oh, well, when you put it that way, that changes everything.

No, that category of issue is your obsession, not others'.

Doctors should be required to take a certain minimum quantity/percentage of Medicare/medicaid patients as a condition of maintaining their licenses to practice. They'll still be able to live quite comfortably. Why? As a matter of social ethics. They work hard, and they've earned it; but even still, they're among the highest-earning professionals in American society, more than docs pretty much anywhere else in the world. It won't bite them all that much to pay a little bit forward to society.

Doctors should be required to take a certain minimum quantity/percentage of Medicare/medicaid patients as a condition of maintaining their licenses to practice. They'll still be able to live quite comfortably.

Ooh! Sounds soft and silky. Where do I sign up?

That's two problems. 1. You imply our elected officials would like to disenfranchise their constituents from participating in the political process. I don't disagree that some do and would look for ways to game the system. That's a problem for sure. 2. I presumed in the OP that a system of communication between constituents and officials would be crafted in such a way that is applied across the board and unable to be gamed. A difficult task for sure, but I don't think it's impossible. What I see potential for is a system that holds our elected officials accountable. The system would allow for more transparency. For example. Say in a two year term 100 votes come up (completely random number) and the representative only votes 50 times when the average is 80. The representative tested at a very low proficiency level (say 70% when the average is 90%) and in 50% of the votes they did participate in they went against the wishes of the majority of their constituents. That "report card", if you will, is simple enough for any voter to understand and I think it would be pretty damning. Just so I understand, what (under your proposed new Constitutional amendment) would be the penalty for being a slacker per that definition? Automatic expulsion from office? Automatic suspension from office pending some opportunity for rehabilitation? Impeachment and trial? Disqualification from running for re-election or election to other Congressional office? Or just public outing, so the public could be on notice and vote accordingly at reelection time?

In theory, there are no problems legally with it, since it would be done by Constitutional amendment, and the Constitution is always highest law in the land.

What would it essentially say?

The 1970s brought us The Carpenters. Just sayin'.

Why do you hate trisexuals? Edit: 2 humans only OK, being serious: Doesn't that reflect our modern Western cultural bias against polygamy? As you know, the practice of polygamy has a long history in humankind. So if you're proposing strictly contractual unions, why not contractual polygamy?