That hasn't been consistent. After the Luddites there was 70 years of chronic unemployment which society met by executing people who stole a loaf of bread. Then it became necessary for the whole family to work to make ends meet, your kid is now 5 years old? Better put the kid to work. Then as the need for workers fell due to automation, things like compulsory education were introduced to cut down the labour force, then expanded to even more education needed for most jobs until today where kids are expected to stay in school until almost 30 years old. Women were also removed from the work force about the same time with the idea of the stay at home mom. This wasn't so bad as wages did go up for a while due to the efforts of unions and the threat of socialist revolution. Eventually the population was convinced that socialist meant bad and wages stopped going up, women returned to the workforce so the family didn't fall too far behind and whole classes of people were created that were unemployable (felon) to keep the unemployment numbers looking good. Now we live in a time where the middle class is shrinking, most people have massive debt while production is at an all time high. Meanwhile there are businesses such as Amazon who cater to the more well off (need good internet and a credit card to take advantage of those low prices) which push up the costs of other businesses due to less economics of scale. Today the people who are doing well are doing very well while the majority are scraping by.
It is relevant as many species look successful as they go in the direction of stripping their environment. Think of diseases, some are so successful they kill their host and themselves while others have more of a symbiotic relationship with their host. People do have some of the longer generations in nature.
More of a simplification. While there are places like Easter Island where mankind wiped themselves out, generally we've just moved on to greener pastures when the environment has collapsed. Whether there are more psychopaths now is hard to say, just have to look at history and there's obviously always been a percentage of humanity that are psychopathic (10%?). There's probably an advantage to having some around, they make good surgeons as an example and perhaps it's an advantage to have some on your side during wartime. They do seem to be part of humanity. And yes societies evolve but the interesting thing is do they stay evolved when the going gets tough? It'll take many generations to know.
Capitalism can be a social system, just think about how much more successful a capitalist can be by investing in politicians, laws and changing society to create more profits for the capitalist, often by removing any form of free market. Ultimately the winners in capitalism are not by being better at making and having more things faster but by making the rules more favourable for the individual (or group) capitalist. Also consider marketing, where it isn't being better at making things, but being better at selling things, often things that aren't even useful or worse, detrimental to society. Think of pushing opiates as an example.
what is it that makes H. sapiens such a successful species?
Why assume that H. sapiens is a successful species? We haven't been around very long and it seems as likely we'll screw up our environment through overgrowth as not, especially with how good we've become at developing weapons and our tendency to use them. Another million years and we can start to talk about us being a successful species, while right now we're just another species that appears to be outstripping the capability of its habitat to support it.
The first amendment basically says the government can't interfere with speech and punishing speech is interference. Or perhaps you think that as long as the government doesn't actually gag you it's fine? Making it illegal to say anything negative about the government is fine as you're still free to speak but due to the consequences of criticizing the government, going to jail for your speech is fine? Usually the consequence argument is along the line that you're free to make false speech but then no-one will believe you or listen and similar consequences.
Also the American elections are insanely complicated. Elections every 2 years where every second one is more important so voter turnout varies a lot and they vote for multiple offices from dog catcher, judges, prosecutors, sheriffs up through the regular municipal staff such as school boards, mayors and such, county officials, State representatives including sometimes governor and a good chunk of their federal government including President. It is simplified by only having 2 political parties so rather then taking the time to learn about all the candidates they can just vote a straight ticket. Still ballots are complex and vary on location with just a couple of miles being enough to mean a different ballot. I'm Canadian, we have municipal elections which are the most complex, especially since often there are no parties, then Provincial elections and separate Federal elections, both where you just tick off one name. Parties can still vary at the provincial vs federal level so new parties can arise.
And became uneconomical in the early '30's with the invention of a machine to separate the fibers from hemp, especially in the sense of farming the pulp rather then just harvesting the naturally occurring pulp. It became economical once again when hemp was renamed as marijuana and illegalized.
For something like a manned mission to Mars, that would be the way to go. For an unmanned mission to a comet, it would be hard for the robot to interface with stuff that hadn't even been designed when it was launched so wouldn't work out so well. ps Slashdot sure seems to be getting slow at mailing notices of replies to comments.
My country has a small government type conservative government, the only thing they believe government should be doing is spying on the citizens and locking them up for thought crimes (and other victimless crimes). Those parts that do things like make sure our food is safe to eat or make sure the railroads are run good enough that towns don't get destroyed by trains rolling into town and exploding, well they get rid of that part of government. I'd rather have a large government that is interested in civil rights then a small government that is only interested in repressing the citizens. Others are the opposite and prefer a government that only represses the common man.
Don't forget that any computers launched into deep outer space needs to be radiation hardened and that the development of radiation hardened components happens at a much slower rate then consumer products.
$70 would equal $100+ in Canada. We're a large sparsely populated country and most everything costs about a 1/3rd more then the States (even more compared to the Southern States)
In Canada the Provinces run the healthcare with the Federal Govt setting the minimum baseline and transferring money between the rich and poor Provinces. Each province is similar but not exactly the same when it comes to health care which is why it's kind of funny when other countries talk about wait lists and such in Canada as it's a generalization.
Which is why I limited there worse influence to 50 odd years (aprox 1930-1980). The video player was the start of breaking their rating system and now it is very easy to avoid them. To look at their original influence, look at what happened to Betty Boop, from a sexy thing with new ideas such as the music video to an overdressed thing that only had a man called gramps in her life
The MPAA is a good example of a private monopoly being the gatekeeper being a bad thing. 50+ years of stifling the movie industry, without their favour, a movie couldn't succeed as they couldn't play in most theaters. No way to appeal or even vote with your feet besides just not having anything to do with movies. This also allowed them to require enough power that even today they can and do ruin many lives. Private only works well when there is lots of real competition and private always aims for monopoly. The problem is Americas dysfunctional democracy where government exists to please donors instead of the people.
Censorship is not. Until you can prove that speech can physically compel a person to act, you have no right to regulate it.
Ever hear the saying "loose lips sink ships"? It's an example where if someone is trying to kill you, telling him when and where might compel them to take action to kill you. That's the extreme example that has happened during wartime. And about free will. There's a reason that advertising is such a big industry, free will is actually pretty limited. At heart we're another animal which to a large degree responds to stimulus. Stimulus in our case includes speech.
The first amendment only limits the federal congress from limiting speech. In 1789 that was reasonable as it allowed other levels of government such as the legislatures of states to restrict speech as well as the executive to limit speech in cases that it was responsible for such as ordering that enlisted men couldn't talk back to officers in the army/navy and perhaps even cases of military secrets. The problem is how much the federal government has grown, especially since Lincoln and the 14th being so broadly interpreted as to limit all layers of government. Now you've got a defacto zero amendment that is similar to the first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
And until your Constitution is upgraded to reflect reality, namely that some forms of speech should perhaps be limited, you're left with a government that is too much in the habit of ignoring the law. From those of us that are not American, it makes it really hard to respect a country that has a government that ignores its own laws so much.
As the sibling post hints at, it detects anxiety/nervousness. Interpreting the reason for the subject being anxious is where the polygraph is close to useless as there is only a small correlation between whether the subject is being untruthful when (s)he get anxious. I know for myself that certain lines of questioning will make me anxious even as I truthfully answer.
Slashdot Mirror
Those consequences are independent of the government.
Some people believe in community and some believe in taking advantage.
The limitation is energy.
That hasn't been consistent. After the Luddites there was 70 years of chronic unemployment which society met by executing people who stole a loaf of bread. Then it became necessary for the whole family to work to make ends meet, your kid is now 5 years old? Better put the kid to work. Then as the need for workers fell due to automation, things like compulsory education were introduced to cut down the labour force, then expanded to even more education needed for most jobs until today where kids are expected to stay in school until almost 30 years old. Women were also removed from the work force about the same time with the idea of the stay at home mom. This wasn't so bad as wages did go up for a while due to the efforts of unions and the threat of socialist revolution. Eventually the population was convinced that socialist meant bad and wages stopped going up, women returned to the workforce so the family didn't fall too far behind and whole classes of people were created that were unemployable (felon) to keep the unemployment numbers looking good.
Now we live in a time where the middle class is shrinking, most people have massive debt while production is at an all time high. Meanwhile there are businesses such as Amazon who cater to the more well off (need good internet and a credit card to take advantage of those low prices) which push up the costs of other businesses due to less economics of scale.
Today the people who are doing well are doing very well while the majority are scraping by.
It is relevant as many species look successful as they go in the direction of stripping their environment. Think of diseases, some are so successful they kill their host and themselves while others have more of a symbiotic relationship with their host.
People do have some of the longer generations in nature.
More of a simplification. While there are places like Easter Island where mankind wiped themselves out, generally we've just moved on to greener pastures when the environment has collapsed.
Whether there are more psychopaths now is hard to say, just have to look at history and there's obviously always been a percentage of humanity that are psychopathic (10%?). There's probably an advantage to having some around, they make good surgeons as an example and perhaps it's an advantage to have some on your side during wartime. They do seem to be part of humanity.
And yes societies evolve but the interesting thing is do they stay evolved when the going gets tough? It'll take many generations to know.
Capitalism can be a social system, just think about how much more successful a capitalist can be by investing in politicians, laws and changing society to create more profits for the capitalist, often by removing any form of free market.
Ultimately the winners in capitalism are not by being better at making and having more things faster but by making the rules more favourable for the individual (or group) capitalist.
Also consider marketing, where it isn't being better at making things, but being better at selling things, often things that aren't even useful or worse, detrimental to society. Think of pushing opiates as an example.
what is it that makes H. sapiens such a successful species?
Why assume that H. sapiens is a successful species? We haven't been around very long and it seems as likely we'll screw up our environment through overgrowth as not, especially with how good we've become at developing weapons and our tendency to use them.
Another million years and we can start to talk about us being a successful species, while right now we're just another species that appears to be outstripping the capability of its habitat to support it.
The first amendment basically says the government can't interfere with speech and punishing speech is interference. Or perhaps you think that as long as the government doesn't actually gag you it's fine? Making it illegal to say anything negative about the government is fine as you're still free to speak but due to the consequences of criticizing the government, going to jail for your speech is fine?
Usually the consequence argument is along the line that you're free to make false speech but then no-one will believe you or listen and similar consequences.
Also the American elections are insanely complicated. Elections every 2 years where every second one is more important so voter turnout varies a lot and they vote for multiple offices from dog catcher, judges, prosecutors, sheriffs up through the regular municipal staff such as school boards, mayors and such, county officials, State representatives including sometimes governor and a good chunk of their federal government including President.
It is simplified by only having 2 political parties so rather then taking the time to learn about all the candidates they can just vote a straight ticket. Still ballots are complex and vary on location with just a couple of miles being enough to mean a different ballot.
I'm Canadian, we have municipal elections which are the most complex, especially since often there are no parties, then Provincial elections and separate Federal elections, both where you just tick off one name. Parties can still vary at the provincial vs federal level so new parties can arise.
And became uneconomical in the early '30's with the invention of a machine to separate the fibers from hemp, especially in the sense of farming the pulp rather then just harvesting the naturally occurring pulp.
It became economical once again when hemp was renamed as marijuana and illegalized.
For something like a manned mission to Mars, that would be the way to go. For an unmanned mission to a comet, it would be hard for the robot to interface with stuff that hadn't even been designed when it was launched so wouldn't work out so well.
ps Slashdot sure seems to be getting slow at mailing notices of replies to comments.
My country has a small government type conservative government, the only thing they believe government should be doing is spying on the citizens and locking them up for thought crimes (and other victimless crimes). Those parts that do things like make sure our food is safe to eat or make sure the railroads are run good enough that towns don't get destroyed by trains rolling into town and exploding, well they get rid of that part of government.
I'd rather have a large government that is interested in civil rights then a small government that is only interested in repressing the citizens. Others are the opposite and prefer a government that only represses the common man.
And men are more able to require paternity leave, hint it comes from having words with gender.
Don't forget that any computers launched into deep outer space needs to be radiation hardened and that the development of radiation hardened components happens at a much slower rate then consumer products.
You're lucky, my price has more then doubled and my connection speed is still 12MBs per hour. I'm about 45 miles from downtown Vancouver.
$70 would equal $100+ in Canada. We're a large sparsely populated country and most everything costs about a 1/3rd more then the States (even more compared to the Southern States)
In Canada the Provinces run the healthcare with the Federal Govt setting the minimum baseline and transferring money between the rich and poor Provinces.
Each province is similar but not exactly the same when it comes to health care which is why it's kind of funny when other countries talk about wait lists and such in Canada as it's a generalization.
Not even pacifists, just unwilling to do preventive killings.
30 years ago, you would be absolutely correct.
Which is why I limited there worse influence to 50 odd years (aprox 1930-1980). The video player was the start of breaking their rating system and now it is very easy to avoid them.
To look at their original influence, look at what happened to Betty Boop, from a sexy thing with new ideas such as the music video to an overdressed thing that only had a man called gramps in her life
The MPAA is a good example of a private monopoly being the gatekeeper being a bad thing. 50+ years of stifling the movie industry, without their favour, a movie couldn't succeed as they couldn't play in most theaters. No way to appeal or even vote with your feet besides just not having anything to do with movies.
This also allowed them to require enough power that even today they can and do ruin many lives.
Private only works well when there is lots of real competition and private always aims for monopoly.
The problem is Americas dysfunctional democracy where government exists to please donors instead of the people.
Censorship is not. Until you can prove that speech can physically compel a person to act, you have no right to regulate it.
Ever hear the saying "loose lips sink ships"? It's an example where if someone is trying to kill you, telling him when and where might compel them to take action to kill you. That's the extreme example that has happened during wartime.
And about free will. There's a reason that advertising is such a big industry, free will is actually pretty limited. At heart we're another animal which to a large degree responds to stimulus. Stimulus in our case includes speech.
The first amendment only limits the federal congress from limiting speech. In 1789 that was reasonable as it allowed other levels of government such as the legislatures of states to restrict speech as well as the executive to limit speech in cases that it was responsible for such as ordering that enlisted men couldn't talk back to officers in the army/navy and perhaps even cases of military secrets.
The problem is how much the federal government has grown, especially since Lincoln and the 14th being so broadly interpreted as to limit all layers of government.
Now you've got a defacto zero amendment that is similar to the first section of the Canadian Charter of Rights
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
And until your Constitution is upgraded to reflect reality, namely that some forms of speech should perhaps be limited, you're left with a government that is too much in the habit of ignoring the law. From those of us that are not American, it makes it really hard to respect a country that has a government that ignores its own laws so much.
You're not married I take it as that answer would be as bad if not worse as saying "yes, it does make it look a bit fat'
As the sibling post hints at, it detects anxiety/nervousness. Interpreting the reason for the subject being anxious is where the polygraph is close to useless as there is only a small correlation between whether the subject is being untruthful when (s)he get anxious. I know for myself that certain lines of questioning will make me anxious even as I truthfully answer.