That's only true when the population stays educated, wealthy enough not to worry too much about things like tomorrows meal and women have the freedom and means to say no, both to sex and pregnancy. What a jobless future brings is very hard to say.
There's a long history of repressing birth control in America and now we have people like you that would rather pay for all the social issues that come with unwanted children rather then spend a couple of cents on birth control. The pill is very inexpensive, especially compared to imprisoning someone who ends up a failure in life due to being unwanted. There's also the issue of educating people about birth control, which is a no no in parts of America.
When people are bored, they have sex. See what happens 9 months after a major blackout. Americans keep voting for no birth control, no sex education, so sex leads to babies. That would have to change. Even if people do stop having children, it'll take a while for the population to start dropping.
That's why limiting what powers federal government has over anyone is the ultimate protection.
There's been experiments along those lines. Take a look at the American Constitution for one example. Unluckily that experiment only showed that governments will take more power then they're constitutionally entitled to for whatever reasons sound good that day.
How does small government help when the corporations just write the law. You can have a one person legislature, rubber stamping the corporate (or trust or other large private organization if we get rid of corporations) written law. We can shrink the government down to one judge. If that judge is corrupt and always rules in the favour of whoever pays him off, how is that better. History already shows that one corrupt judge can empower private, non-government police forces (Pinkertons) to act just as bad as a government As others said, the problem is bad government, and if we get rid of government, whoever fills the vacuum could be just as bad.
Not just coastal areas. There are rivers that seem to be experiencing once in a hundred year floods every decade and every time the government bails out the people living in the flood zones.
America is quite fascist (not Nazi, who were a weird mix). You have the "left" passing healthcare acts that benefit the insurance companies rather then the people, the "left" running a candidate who, economically, was to the right of Trumps claimed position (pro-workers, the traditional left base). Massive partnerships between the government and industry, where, when the government is not allowed to do something, they just get private business to do it. Government wants censorship, well the private movie industry implements all kinds of censorship and as it is private, it is fine. Government isn't allowed to spy, well pay industry to do it. That pesky Bill of Rights only applies to government you know.
One thing I love about my el cheapo Moto E (2nd gen), no facebook etc, just the basic Google apps. Sadly the last security update was last year (Dec 1st, 2016).
It's kind of like "reasonable" in the 4th, open to interpretation. Shit, even things like the 1st are open to interpretation, you have free speech as long as we can't argue national security or as long as it doesn't hurt a child are a couple of exceptions to the rule that Congress can make no law infringing on speech.
It's always the right that wants to observe what people do in the privacy of their bedroom in case they do something bad like have illegal sex with their spouse. It's always the right that wants to control what substances people use in the privacy of their homes etc. The idea that the right cares about many individual rights is a joke, at least based on actions
Which leaves all kinds of other authorities the freedom to infringe on your freedom of self expression, including the individual States as well as various private organizations. Even the 1st only allows some types of self expression rather then all types that do not harm others. The only natural right is for the strong to enforce their will on the weak, often through violence. With people, the strong can be a group working together and they can decide to not enforce their will on individuals but the option is always there and will remove peoples freedoms on various excuses such as national security, think of the children and various others.
The Judge usually, at least around here, gets the first chance to throw the case out. The defendant also has a choice of whether to have a jury trial or bench trial.
All I know about is number one. There are tons of right hand drive, former Japanese vehicles here in BC. The Japanese have insane vehicle inspections resulting in vehicles being condemned at like 30,000 miles (kms?) and they have some neat vehicles. I see enough on the roads around here that I know they're common. The rest of your points, you're probably right except maybe #4. Quite possible that Toyota Canada is quite different from Toyota Japan but who knows.
Lots of right hand drive former Japanese cars/trucks here on the wet coast of Canada. The Japanese are very anal about the cars they allow on their roads so once a vehicle hits maybe 30,000 miles, it's junk by their standards. Want a Skyline, a mini cab-over truck (4x4 too), a real Landcruiser (diesel too), those weird 4x4 short stubby vans? They're all available here in BC, there's a reseller (importer?) about 15 miles from me.
Don't you mean "claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility"? There actions have always been otherwise, at least long term. The car analogy is saving money by not doing the needed tuneup or buying the needed tyres while investing in a nice seat cover and using the car as a truck to haul large amounts of plywood. Hey they saved all that money on tyres and a tuneup and are getting better value from that car, fiscally responsible. Especially when the car falls apart after the election so they can blame the other party for wasting money on a new truck.
Capitalism is just investing capital in various projects, often businesses, to grow your capital. Combined with a market to create competition, the most efficient are rewarded. It's much more efficient to invest a bit of capital in growing the government and transferring tax money to the capitalist then trying to build more efficient factories and such. It is also more efficient to invest a bit of capital in growing the government and using it to socialize the risks in various businesses. Throw in using a bit of capital to generate propaganda to get the people to go along with the capitalist goals and the market will reward that efficiency. The trick is to balance the private/public stuff. Some things are a benefit to everyone, think of the fire insurance industry realizing it was better to socialize the fire fighting part. The companies benefited as they didn't have to maintain competing fire departments and worry about fires spreading to those that they've covered with insurance and the people benefited as even those without any fire insurance still had the fire department show up and try their best to put out the fire. This particular plant could go either way, generate lots of jobs and stimulate the local economy or plant shuts down in a few years, company gets to write of their investment and build a new plant somewhere where the government is giving out even better incentives. The market just rewards efficiency and often investing in government is the most efficient
True, but how many crappy consumer products end up in the landfill. Solar lights with an AA battery made from nickel cadmium or better, phones etc. It is still a bleeding of valuable resources. Not arguing with the idea that moving to renewables is wrong, just not as perfect as you assume. Of course to expect perfect means not doing anything which is worse.
Consider the crappy solar lights that are so common. They're basically throwaway, replacing the rechargeable battery costs more then replacing the light, besides needing a screwdriver and in my experience, as often as not, the switch fails. I doubt that many of these are recycled.
One of the problems with residential use is all the idiots who can't follow directions. Label says 50:1 mixture, they say that 10:1 must be better. Don't know much about neonicotinoids but do know that with most systematic herbicides, it's actually self defeating as it kills the tops before it transfers to the roots. Took a pesticide applicators course a long time ago and it was consistently stressed that pesticides are a last resort.
Here on the west coast, the wild blueberries, huckleberries and salmonberries have had horrible crops the last 2 years. In the last couple of springs there has been close to no bees out fertilizing the berries. Used to be a few on each bush, usually big bumblebee types as well as smaller ones, but not lately. Really feel sorry for the bears. I doubt that it is pesticides here as it is very rural with no farms locally, but the winters and springs have been weird. On the other hand there are also almost no moths. Used to go out in the summer and there would be a cloud of them around the porch light. Last 2 years, it's more like 1 or 2.
No, I mean that if vaccines are legislated, there is a chance that more useless vaccines may be pushed. A vaccine against the common cold that kills 1% or even.01% might not be a good trade off. I don't expect for profit public companies to always do the right thing. Look at the current opiod crisis, partially caused by businesses putting profit first and misrepresenting various potent drugs as being safe.
And the bad vaccines do less damage to the world than the lack of vaccines.
Do they? Think of a vaccine for the common cold that ends up with a long term.1% mortality rate. There's a spectrum of diseases from things like smallpox where even reducing the fatality from 75% to 25% is a huge improvement to things like the common cold and similar diseases that are unpleasant but very seldom fatal. There is also businesses that are highly interested in profit, to the point where they're likely to take shortcuts. It may not even be the active ingredient that is the problem, but an added preservative or such. It's just about as stupid to always think that vaccines are safe as to think they're never safe. Vaccine is a broad category.
Slashdot Mirror
Does bitcoin work without electricity or the internet?
That's only true when the population stays educated, wealthy enough not to worry too much about things like tomorrows meal and women have the freedom and means to say no, both to sex and pregnancy.
What a jobless future brings is very hard to say.
There's a long history of repressing birth control in America and now we have people like you that would rather pay for all the social issues that come with unwanted children rather then spend a couple of cents on birth control. The pill is very inexpensive, especially compared to imprisoning someone who ends up a failure in life due to being unwanted.
There's also the issue of educating people about birth control, which is a no no in parts of America.
When people are bored, they have sex. See what happens 9 months after a major blackout.
Americans keep voting for no birth control, no sex education, so sex leads to babies. That would have to change.
Even if people do stop having children, it'll take a while for the population to start dropping.
That's why limiting what powers federal government has over anyone is the ultimate protection.
There's been experiments along those lines. Take a look at the American Constitution for one example. Unluckily that experiment only showed that governments will take more power then they're constitutionally entitled to for whatever reasons sound good that day.
How does small government help when the corporations just write the law. You can have a one person legislature, rubber stamping the corporate (or trust or other large private organization if we get rid of corporations) written law. We can shrink the government down to one judge. If that judge is corrupt and always rules in the favour of whoever pays him off, how is that better. History already shows that one corrupt judge can empower private, non-government police forces (Pinkertons) to act just as bad as a government
As others said, the problem is bad government, and if we get rid of government, whoever fills the vacuum could be just as bad.
Not just coastal areas. There are rivers that seem to be experiencing once in a hundred year floods every decade and every time the government bails out the people living in the flood zones.
America is quite fascist (not Nazi, who were a weird mix). You have the "left" passing healthcare acts that benefit the insurance companies rather then the people, the "left" running a candidate who, economically, was to the right of Trumps claimed position (pro-workers, the traditional left base). Massive partnerships between the government and industry, where, when the government is not allowed to do something, they just get private business to do it. Government wants censorship, well the private movie industry implements all kinds of censorship and as it is private, it is fine. Government isn't allowed to spy, well pay industry to do it. That pesky Bill of Rights only applies to government you know.
One thing I love about my el cheapo Moto E (2nd gen), no facebook etc, just the basic Google apps. Sadly the last security update was last year (Dec 1st, 2016).
It's kind of like "reasonable" in the 4th, open to interpretation. Shit, even things like the 1st are open to interpretation, you have free speech as long as we can't argue national security or as long as it doesn't hurt a child are a couple of exceptions to the rule that Congress can make no law infringing on speech.
It's always the right that wants to observe what people do in the privacy of their bedroom in case they do something bad like have illegal sex with their spouse. It's always the right that wants to control what substances people use in the privacy of their homes etc.
The idea that the right cares about many individual rights is a joke, at least based on actions
Which leaves all kinds of other authorities the freedom to infringe on your freedom of self expression, including the individual States as well as various private organizations. Even the 1st only allows some types of self expression rather then all types that do not harm others.
The only natural right is for the strong to enforce their will on the weak, often through violence. With people, the strong can be a group working together and they can decide to not enforce their will on individuals but the option is always there and will remove peoples freedoms on various excuses such as national security, think of the children and various others.
The Judge usually, at least around here, gets the first chance to throw the case out. The defendant also has a choice of whether to have a jury trial or bench trial.
All I know about is number one. There are tons of right hand drive, former Japanese vehicles here in BC. The Japanese have insane vehicle inspections resulting in vehicles being condemned at like 30,000 miles (kms?) and they have some neat vehicles. I see enough on the roads around here that I know they're common.
The rest of your points, you're probably right except maybe #4. Quite possible that Toyota Canada is quite different from Toyota Japan but who knows.
Lots of right hand drive former Japanese cars/trucks here on the wet coast of Canada. The Japanese are very anal about the cars they allow on their roads so once a vehicle hits maybe 30,000 miles, it's junk by their standards.
Want a Skyline, a mini cab-over truck (4x4 too), a real Landcruiser (diesel too), those weird 4x4 short stubby vans? They're all available here in BC, there's a reseller (importer?) about 15 miles from me.
Don't you mean "claimed to be the party of fiscal responsibility"? There actions have always been otherwise, at least long term.
The car analogy is saving money by not doing the needed tuneup or buying the needed tyres while investing in a nice seat cover and using the car as a truck to haul large amounts of plywood. Hey they saved all that money on tyres and a tuneup and are getting better value from that car, fiscally responsible. Especially when the car falls apart after the election so they can blame the other party for wasting money on a new truck.
This is why propaganda, I mean marketing, is such a great investment for the capitalist.
Capitalism is just investing capital in various projects, often businesses, to grow your capital. Combined with a market to create competition, the most efficient are rewarded.
It's much more efficient to invest a bit of capital in growing the government and transferring tax money to the capitalist then trying to build more efficient factories and such. It is also more efficient to invest a bit of capital in growing the government and using it to socialize the risks in various businesses. Throw in using a bit of capital to generate propaganda to get the people to go along with the capitalist goals and the market will reward that efficiency.
The trick is to balance the private/public stuff. Some things are a benefit to everyone, think of the fire insurance industry realizing it was better to socialize the fire fighting part. The companies benefited as they didn't have to maintain competing fire departments and worry about fires spreading to those that they've covered with insurance and the people benefited as even those without any fire insurance still had the fire department show up and try their best to put out the fire.
This particular plant could go either way, generate lots of jobs and stimulate the local economy or plant shuts down in a few years, company gets to write of their investment and build a new plant somewhere where the government is giving out even better incentives.
The market just rewards efficiency and often investing in government is the most efficient
True, but how many crappy consumer products end up in the landfill. Solar lights with an AA battery made from nickel cadmium or better, phones etc. It is still a bleeding of valuable resources.
Not arguing with the idea that moving to renewables is wrong, just not as perfect as you assume. Of course to expect perfect means not doing anything which is worse.
Consider the crappy solar lights that are so common. They're basically throwaway, replacing the rechargeable battery costs more then replacing the light, besides needing a screwdriver and in my experience, as often as not, the switch fails.
I doubt that many of these are recycled.
One of the problems with residential use is all the idiots who can't follow directions. Label says 50:1 mixture, they say that 10:1 must be better. Don't know much about neonicotinoids but do know that with most systematic herbicides, it's actually self defeating as it kills the tops before it transfers to the roots.
Took a pesticide applicators course a long time ago and it was consistently stressed that pesticides are a last resort.
Here on the west coast, the wild blueberries, huckleberries and salmonberries have had horrible crops the last 2 years. In the last couple of springs there has been close to no bees out fertilizing the berries. Used to be a few on each bush, usually big bumblebee types as well as smaller ones, but not lately. Really feel sorry for the bears.
I doubt that it is pesticides here as it is very rural with no farms locally, but the winters and springs have been weird. On the other hand there are also almost no moths. Used to go out in the summer and there would be a cloud of them around the porch light. Last 2 years, it's more like 1 or 2.
No, I mean that if vaccines are legislated, there is a chance that more useless vaccines may be pushed. A vaccine against the common cold that kills 1% or even .01% might not be a good trade off.
I don't expect for profit public companies to always do the right thing. Look at the current opiod crisis, partially caused by businesses putting profit first and misrepresenting various potent drugs as being safe.
I had a pretty decent Z80 board for the Apple II that was made by Microsoft.
And the bad vaccines do less damage to the world than the lack of vaccines.
Do they? Think of a vaccine for the common cold that ends up with a long term .1% mortality rate. There's a spectrum of diseases from things like smallpox where even reducing the fatality from 75% to 25% is a huge improvement to things like the common cold and similar diseases that are unpleasant but very seldom fatal. There is also businesses that are highly interested in profit, to the point where they're likely to take shortcuts. It may not even be the active ingredient that is the problem, but an added preservative or such.
It's just about as stupid to always think that vaccines are safe as to think they're never safe. Vaccine is a broad category.