The poor aren't always the same poor from 20 years ago. The rich aren't always the same rich.
I would think the thing that would hurt the poor the most is inflation. If someone next to makes 1 billion dollars, except for envy and greed, it does me no harm. If inflation remains checked, the overall buying power of my dollar remains no matter if some people make a lot.
If Company A is struggling and they outsource and save money, they may lose 100 jobs but save 1000.
Another company could become more competive and grow here as well as overseas. Different jobs that better utilize American talents may be created here.
Or a company may just slash jobs that go overseas.
Life and economics doesn't have a Tivo attached to it.
You have no legal expectation of privacy on the street. It is in the public domain. If the government points a camera there, there is absolutely no invasion of privacy.
If they point the cameras inside your home, that would be an invasion of privacy and would require a warrant.
If our thoughts are determined and we aren't built for any particular reason, can we trust our own thoughts? Let alone hold people accountable for their actions.
I wouldn't believe anything because it is true, I would believe in something because it is determined. If you don't believe in anything because of truth, you can't trust your own thoughts.
And the rejoinder to any rebuttal is: do you believe that because it is true or because the atoms are bouncing around your head in a certain way?
A lot of philosophers have tackled this. This isn't a new concept or discussion. And, as a Calvinist, I can assure you that libertarian notions (think philosophy, not politics) of free will aren't the only conception on the will or free will.
From reading the article, it seems that humans are lactose tolerant early on. And then the ability shuts off. Lactose tolerant people lost the ability to shut down that ability. So it seems something stopped working.
That's a lot less impressive than a mutation which added the ability to consume lactose.
On the other hand, not assuming design and purpose can be a barrier to scientific advancement. For instance, "Junk DNA." In the last however many years we are discovering how non-junky it really is.
I didn't. I just believe that their arguments are true or false based on whether they are true or false, not based on their motivations or who is funding their research. Furthermore, peer-reviewed is not the same thing as true. That's just a convention we have for many good reasons.
I want to see an article which tracks down the people who respond to spam and make this thing profitable. I'm sure it will take some investigative talent to find people willing to admit their behavior, but that would be interesting.
Back when I was in elementary school, they had a blind lady visit and talk with us. She said something similar. But she added "and I don't let $100 bills out of my hand."
Communism was, in theory, to come in stages. Everything being run by the state was an earlier stage, which was supposed to be taken over by the people without government.
This never happened because it is a fundamentally flawed ideology, not because they were being inconsistent. You could never get past the government phase because 1) people don't want to be under communism so you will never get to the phase where everyone is voluntarily under communism 2) when the profit motive is taken away, you are left with laziness 3) power corrupts. You'll never get to the next phase because those in authority don't want to give up their authority.
In 1964 Barry Goldwater took heat because, as a libertarian, he didn't support the Civil Rights Act because he believed that the public accomadation clauses since they violate the 1st amendments rights of freedom of association.
Goldwater understood the ideals too, but stood up for freedom even when it isn't popular.
The ideal was so good and tantalizing that people either ignored the fact they were violating this right or rationalized the problem away.
We all do something like that. And I hope the people who complain about the Patriot Act but support public accommadation keep this in mind. If you are against the Patriot Act, are you against security? Maybe. Maybe not.
On a serious note, it would be interesting to see the level of fines Microsoft is willing to bear. This would show how much value they actually place on their protocols.
Slashdot Mirror
Design, by definition, needs intention.
It is interesting that people who don't believe in design can't help themselves and use the word "design."
Double Special Relativity? Now, that's a better name than "string theory."
The poor aren't always the same poor from 20 years ago. The rich aren't always the same rich.
I would think the thing that would hurt the poor the most is inflation. If someone next to makes 1 billion dollars, except for envy and greed, it does me no harm. If inflation remains checked, the overall buying power of my dollar remains no matter if some people make a lot.
If Company A is struggling and they outsource and save money, they may lose 100 jobs but save 1000.
Another company could become more competive and grow here as well as overseas. Different jobs that better utilize American talents may be created here.
Or a company may just slash jobs that go overseas.
Life and economics doesn't have a Tivo attached to it.
If you are looking for an iPod and a phone, or if the phone is a bonus, the price may be worth it to you.
I'm not familiar with the specs of the iPhone, but it isn't as simple as "this is a really expensive phone."
You have no legal expectation of privacy on the street. It is in the public domain. If the government points a camera there, there is absolutely no invasion of privacy.
If they point the cameras inside your home, that would be an invasion of privacy and would require a warrant.
Good point. I failed to bring my point to bear on the discussion at hand.
If our thoughts are determined and we aren't built for any particular reason, can we trust our own thoughts? Let alone hold people accountable for their actions.
I wouldn't believe anything because it is true, I would believe in something because it is determined. If you don't believe in anything because of truth, you can't trust your own thoughts.
And the rejoinder to any rebuttal is: do you believe that because it is true or because the atoms are bouncing around your head in a certain way?
A lot of philosophers have tackled this. This isn't a new concept or discussion. And, as a Calvinist, I can assure you that libertarian notions (think philosophy, not politics) of free will aren't the only conception on the will or free will.
What's a fair price for a drug that can increase health and prevent death?
From reading the article, it seems that humans are lactose tolerant early on. And then the ability shuts off. Lactose tolerant people lost the ability to shut down that ability. So it seems something stopped working.
That's a lot less impressive than a mutation which added the ability to consume lactose.
If there is a step-by-step path from point A to point B, we have something plausible.
The problems come in when there is a system which step-by-step scenarios are implausible. I and others would say that is unreasonable.
If you have a system that requires a bunch of things to happen before any natural selection advantage is given, I would find that unreasonable.
On the other hand, not assuming design and purpose can be a barrier to scientific advancement. For instance, "Junk DNA." In the last however many years we are discovering how non-junky it really is.
I didn't. I just believe that their arguments are true or false based on whether they are true or false, not based on their motivations or who is funding their research. Furthermore, peer-reviewed is not the same thing as true. That's just a convention we have for many good reasons.
I want to see an article which tracks down the people who respond to spam and make this thing profitable. I'm sure it will take some investigative talent to find people willing to admit their behavior, but that would be interesting.
So if you are being fair any study sponsered by an environmentalist is suspect as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
in their website. But if you wait a million years, Google's algorithm could randomly change.
the Congress pulled the rug out from the South Vietnamese and made sure the U.S. gave 0 support.
Back when I was in elementary school, they had a blind lady visit and talk with us. She said something similar. But she added "and I don't let $100 bills out of my hand."
restrictions on free speech supported restrictions of free speech via the mechanism known as campaign finance reform?
Just curious.
Communism was, in theory, to come in stages. Everything being run by the state was an earlier stage, which was supposed to be taken over by the people without government.
This never happened because it is a fundamentally flawed ideology, not because they were being inconsistent. You could never get past the government phase because 1) people don't want to be under communism so you will never get to the phase where everyone is voluntarily under communism 2) when the profit motive is taken away, you are left with laziness 3) power corrupts. You'll never get to the next phase because those in authority don't want to give up their authority.
So communism was tried. It was and is flawed.
In 1964 Barry Goldwater took heat because, as a libertarian, he didn't support the Civil Rights Act because he believed that the public accomadation clauses since they violate the 1st amendments rights of freedom of association.
Goldwater understood the ideals too, but stood up for freedom even when it isn't popular.
The ideal was so good and tantalizing that people either ignored the fact they were violating this right or rationalized the problem away.
We all do something like that. And I hope the people who complain about the Patriot Act but support public accommadation keep this in mind. If you are against the Patriot Act, are you against security? Maybe. Maybe not.
declining birth rates.
On a serious note, it would be interesting to see the level of fines Microsoft is willing to bear. This would show how much value they actually place on their protocols.