Ask a question

What Has The U.s. Government Done In Response To The Shortage Of Mo-99

In modern times, how would armed citizens in the United States rise up against a government they deemed tyrannical?

A lot of unduly dismissive answers here. All these responses seem to forget recent history. The US fought (or is fighting) two counter-insurgencies against “armed citizens,” in Iraq and Afghanistan. Neither of those went particularly well for the US military.Factors to consider:The US is huge. Around 20 times bigger than Iraq and 15 times bigger than Afghanistan. Much of it is remote . There are a lot of places for freedom fighters to hide.Conversely, the US is very urban. 80 percent of the population lives in cities. Urban counter-insurgencies are a nightmare to fight.The US is awash in guns - around 300 million of them. I agree that Joe Sixpack’s 12 gauge and 9 mm pistol aren’t a match for a M4 carbine or a M249, but they can still kill or wound someone.There are around 20 million veterans in the US - men and women with military training and even combat experience. And guess what the combat experience was in - counter-insurgency. These veterans, who will form the core of the freedom fighters, will know the tactics that would be used against them by the active military.The US is highly decentralized - states, counties, municipalities/cities all have relatively independent governments. Some of these lower governmental units will support the freedom fighters, providing shelter, food, medicine, etc., either explicitly or covertly.Similarly, we can expect foreign aid to our freedom fighters. Russia would delight in getting some payback for Afghanistan 1980–88. Depending on how “tyrannical” the federal government is, and how hostile it is to the rest of the world, I could see other countries lining up to support the freedom fighters.The freedom fighters don’t have to win, they just have to not lose. Gain the hearts and minds of the population, avoid big set-piece battles, hit and run.Interestingly, this question allows people on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum to reach the same (I think incorrect) conclusion: People on the right can argue that America’s military is too strong for mere “armed citizens” to have any effect, while people on the left can argue against the Second Amendment. Both interpretations are overly simplistic.

Why do people still buy condos/houses? I fail to see any need to own real estate unless you're flipping homes!

I won’t re-hash some of the basic considerations about buying vs. renting. But I (quickly) read the 31 existing answers, and I’m writing to address one thing I don’t think has yet been addressed:People often cite an advantage of renting that they don’t need to pay for certain things a home-owner pays for: maintenance, upkeep, taxes, etc. From a practical point of view, that’s wrong. You do pay for all that when you rent, it’s just not called “maintenance” or “upkeep” or anything like that. It’s called rent.In other words, the person who owns your apartment has certain expenses, like taxes and maintenance. They may or may not have a mortgage. They also have a certain amount of capital tied up in the apartment.You can be damn sure that the rent they collect more than offsets those expenses, and (for successful landlords) also offsets the opportunity cost of tying up that much capital.Here’s an actual example, in an apartment I own and rent out:I have roughly $90K invested in the apartment, and I have a mortgage on it. The recurring expenses — mortgage, taxes, insurance — come to about $1600/month. If you “smooth out” maintenance costs, maybe you can say there’s another $100–300 / month.I rent it at $2900/month, meaning there’s $1000–$1200/month profit, depending on maintenance. When viewed as the return on the $90K, that’s something like 12–15% return on investment.Where does that money come from? That comes from you.To be sure, you’re buying something for that. As others have mentioned, you’re buying flexibility, you’re buying a little bit of convenience on maintenance issues, etc. It doesn’t make sense to say those things are or aren’t worth it in general.But for at least some people, those things aren’t worth it. Some people don’t need the flexibility to move on short- or medium-term notice. Some people don’t mind calling a plumber instead of calling a landlord. Some people would rather have the control of making certain decisions (like what kind of appliances to have) rather than the convenience of not having to make those decisions.Those people buy their homes.

If every state of the USA declared war against each other, which would win?

I’m not sure if I really believe it, but since no one else here is making the case, I’ll name my home state.California.California is bordered by three states: Nevada, Oregon, and Arizona. Oregon and Nevada would have to be out of their minds to attack CA directly simply due to overwhelming numbers (as well as geographic barriers). Oregon troops would have to travel hundreds of miles just to reach Sacramento, and the Sierra Nevada gives a perfect defensive barrier against Nevada. Meanwhile, the border between Arizona and California is largely desert, and while Arizonans might be able to mount a significant first offensive, they’d get beaten back pretty quickly.While the other western states scramble to get organized, California could send troops as far as Canada and the Great Plains before it encountered an army large enough to stop it. This is ignoring military bases and military hardware (both of which CA has in abundance) and assuming that territorial gains are the goal of the war. If the goal is simply self-sufficiency, California could easily beat back attacks from other states given its strong natural borders, all while running a perfectly healthy economy off of agriculture and tech. It could also form a potential alliance with Mexico— the only other contestant for that not-insignificant prize would be Texas.In time, other states (especially Nevada) would be forced to give up resistance to California simply due to a need for resources. We practically upended the entire country’s food supply due to a measly drought— what will happen when we cut off those food supplies completely? Then there’s the fact that tax dollars levied from states with larger economies (California, Texas, Florida, New York, Georgia) end up going to expenses in smaller states, making them even more vulnerable economically. While Texas would certainly be able to push for a military victory, California would win the economic war.

If gun control isn't the answer, then what is?

I am a convert. I used to strongly believe in gun control. But would it work? There are many drugs that are very illegal to possess, and they have been illegal for many years. Yet it seems like most people that really want these drugs find a means to get them. Now apply this to guns. There are already a lot more guns than people in the U.S. How the heck are you going to control that? If we could actually create strict gun control laws, just like drugs, the people who want them will still get them - criminals who want to use them. Because of strict gun control laws, they would have the advantage of knowing that their victim is less likely to have a gun. I have come to believe that saying “The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun”. A story broke on 11/14/17: Hero dad stops attempted kidnapping of daughter: policeThe attempted kidnappers and potential murderers were stopped because Dad had a gun.

I have yet again screwed up CAT this year, what should I do? This was my 4th attempt at CAT. I worked my hardest this year and now fear the exam, because I gave it all I had, but still failed.

CAT-15Now, Let me tell you what happened with me:I got overall 98.2 percentile in cat 2015. Sounds nice.99.93 Percentile in VA ( I am an engineer, isn't that awesome?)96 percentile in QA (cool isn't it?)This is what you might have wanted for yourself, isn't it?But I'll Not receive a SINGLE CALL from any IIM. Why?Because of this:79.6 Percentile - DI LRNow I missed colleges because of Just a question i should not have attempted. I have decent extra curricular and would have converted at least some of the colleges. I have a job offer from a sector I never wanted to work for.My parents are happy as they think I'll get calls from IIMs.But am i sad?NO, because I know life will never be fair, i might have been unlucky or LUCKY but only time will tell.This is not the end of my life, I have some unspent fuel and I'll prove it with time.Buddy, a failure will never define you and if you let it stop you from dreaming, you don't deserve to be successful. Dream on, play on and life always has something better in store, let it unfold. Give it another try or Go for GMAT and ISB.Though I feel sad for my Parents :( . (And I can't show off my philosophy knowledge to them. ) :PEDIT- XLRI BM (2017–2019) Straight Convert.Waitlisted in HRMEdit - Coverted HRM as well.