Brainteaserfan

How are the periods numbered?

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.

Not just secrets.

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* 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). I agree with these last two fears. 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

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.

There's an underlying problem with this paragraph. 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. Yup, because of this, the first opinion doctor would realize that he must give you his best opinion. 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 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: 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. Those companies would build more prisons, or prisoners would stop choosing them because of overcrowding. ???? 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: so, +1 and thank you insane_alien

I saw it as relating because you go to another doctor who has no conflict of interest. Problem solved. IIRC, a hospital has a legal requirement to treat you if you are hurt.

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 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. What if we let prisoners vote? 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.

I do see your point. I'll think about that. 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. 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?) For example, there are schools relatively close to wherever you would want to meet. 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. I don't understand what you are saying here? Of course not, because the government already provides it. 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.

True. However, is it going to help people plan ahead if the government does it for them? The other option would have been to just build the library somewhere else, where they didn't "have to" make it so fancy. 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. My experiences may be different from reality, but it seems like there are usually other places that people can meet. 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. Ah. I see. 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'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: 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. 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. Which still means that: is wrong.