DaVinci Code aside, parchment used to be expensive. People reused it. Probably they want a high enough resolution to read any palimpsets they may have.
Sadly, that PBS story didn't include any links to the original text. So we don't know what the Pope actually said, only what Margaret Warner claimed he said, based on an on the fly translation.
BTW, why do you expect the Torah and the New Testament to be any more consistent than US law (about, say, races) in 1800 vs. 2000?
A large part of it may have been luring Jihadis to fight us in Iraq, where it is easy to supply the US military (ports, good roads, etc) rather than Afghanistan where it is not. Assuming a finite supply of young Muslims willing to die fighting the US, it is best to engage them where the US has the most advantage.
This will become true once technological progress stops looking exponential. Hopefully, that will take a while. Malthus will prove right at some point. But he hasn't proven right yet. It's quite likely we're centuries away from that point.
I'd use "Mexican" if I was referring to people from Mexico. I was referring to people from all of the Americas from the US-Mexico border in the north to the "Tierra el Fuego" to the south.
Being conservative doesn't mean one shouldn't strive to be accurate.
You're right, except that we can increase the number of young Hispanic workers coming in. Latin America is full of people who want to live in the US, so much that many of them cross the desert illegally to be here.
I agree that private savings are better than taxation. My point is that neither would be sufficient unless you have a certain number of workers per retiree or more.
Saving money isn't the answer. You still need young workers to produce whatever it is you'll need to buy. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how much you have in the bank.
As long as the average woman has about 2.1 children, there is no problem. However, if you look in the CIA world factbook, you'll see that 93 countries are not breeding at replacement levels. This includes most of the world's rich countries.
People consume resources. But people also work and produce resources. My point is that having less people doesn't necessarily translate to a richer society. The pie is not fixed in size.
Also... four kids in four years? Seems kinda close together...
Pretty much. We thought we'll have two kids, and wait to see if we can handle a third. When #2 was 7 months old, we discovered that birth control pills are not 100% effective - and it was an economy size pregnancy. Two for the price of one.
With the current demographics (rise in longevity, rise in medical expenses to achieve said longevity, and drop in family size), retirement is no longer economically viable. Companies don't want to be responsible for something that will be really difficult to impossible to provide.
I work for IBM, and it's the same. Sure, I work longer when there's an emergency or a looming deadline. But on weeks there isn't a lot of work I work less.
Working for a large corporation depends less on the corporation as a whole, and more on the people you work with or your manager. In my case, I have four kids (7-3). My boss knows my family comes first.
Not if it costs something. For example, IIRC the human brain takes 20% of a human's energy budget. If these hominids had bigger brains, they needed more food to keep them fed. More intelligence, in return for requiring more food to survive, may not be a good tradeoff.
With this rule, companies will be motivated to submit as many semi-stupid patents as possible. That way, when the examiner decides that a patent is completely stupid, the other invalidated patent is likely to be a useless one that was created just as patent fodder.
Or maybe incorporate a bunch of shell corporations, and have each of those corporations apply for a single patent at a time. If it is completely stupid, there is no other patent to strike down. If it is granted, the shell corporation will sell it to the real corporation.
If the UN had a successful track record of mediation, you'd be right. Of course, when the UN brokers a cease fire and one side (or both) break it repeatedly without consequences, it's hard to take them seriously.
The US is receiving money from the UN in return for goods and services provided, such as prime real estate, hotel rooms, etc. If the UN were to relocate to Geneva, somebody else would pay for the same goods and services.
Why should the US government give more tax payer money to the UN, so it can give it to privately owned businesses in the US?
Cause we pay for wars anyway, might as well pay for the allied forces as well.
When the US provides the majority of the troops, and the UK provides the majority of the remaining troops, why bother? Besides, the international organization we have for military purposes is NATO.
Slashdot Mirror
DaVinci Code aside, parchment used to be expensive. People reused it. Probably they want a high enough resolution to read any palimpsets they may have.
Sadly, that PBS story didn't include any links to the original text. So we don't know what the Pope actually said, only what Margaret Warner claimed he said, based on an on the fly translation.
BTW, why do you expect the Torah and the New Testament to be any more consistent than US law (about, say, races) in 1800 vs. 2000?
A large part of it may have been luring Jihadis to fight us in Iraq, where it is easy to supply the US military (ports, good roads, etc) rather than Afghanistan where it is not. Assuming a finite supply of young Muslims willing to die fighting the US, it is best to engage them where the US has the most advantage.
This will become true once technological progress stops looking exponential. Hopefully, that will take a while. Malthus will prove right at some point. But he hasn't proven right yet. It's quite likely we're centuries away from that point.
I'd use "Mexican" if I was referring to people from Mexico. I was referring to people from all of the Americas from the US-Mexico border in the north to the "Tierra el Fuego" to the south.
Being conservative doesn't mean one shouldn't strive to be accurate.
You're right, except that we can increase the number of young Hispanic workers coming in. Latin America is full of people who want to live in the US, so much that many of them cross the desert illegally to be here.
I agree that private savings are better than taxation. My point is that neither would be sufficient unless you have a certain number of workers per retiree or more.
Good point. If you can drop child mortality, arguably you don't even need to sell people on birth control - they'll get to it on their own.
No, the Hispanic immigrants seem to be breeding enough to keep this problem at bay in the US.
Saving money isn't the answer. You still need young workers to produce whatever it is you'll need to buy. Otherwise, it doesn't matter how much you have in the bank.
As long as the average woman has about 2.1 children, there is no problem. However, if you look in the CIA world factbook, you'll see that 93 countries are not breeding at replacement levels. This includes most of the world's rich countries.
People consume resources. But people also work and produce resources. My point is that having less people doesn't necessarily translate to a richer society. The pie is not fixed in size.
A population of old people supported by a few young workers isn't going to be particularly viable either. It's a balancing act.
Unless the kids have some other, non school activities. Church, scouts, home school groups (they exist for precisely this reason), etc.
I work 2-5 at home. Next question?
Also... four kids in four years? Seems kinda close together...
Pretty much. We thought we'll have two kids, and wait to see if we can handle a third. When #2 was 7 months old, we discovered that birth control pills are not 100% effective - and it was an economy size pregnancy. Two for the price of one.
With the current demographics (rise in longevity, rise in medical expenses to achieve said longevity, and drop in family size), retirement is no longer economically viable. Companies don't want to be responsible for something that will be really difficult to impossible to provide.
I work for IBM, and it's the same. Sure, I work longer when there's an emergency or a looming deadline. But on weeks there isn't a lot of work I work less.
Working for a large corporation depends less on the corporation as a whole, and more on the people you work with or your manager. In my case, I have four kids (7-3). My boss knows my family comes first.
Intelligence is always useful.
Not if it costs something. For example, IIRC the human brain takes 20% of a human's energy budget. If these hominids had bigger brains, they needed more food to keep them fed. More intelligence, in return for requiring more food to survive, may not be a good tradeoff.
With this rule, companies will be motivated to submit as many semi-stupid patents as possible. That way, when the examiner decides that a patent is completely stupid, the other invalidated patent is likely to be a useless one that was created just as patent fodder.
Or maybe incorporate a bunch of shell corporations, and have each of those corporations apply for a single patent at a time. If it is completely stupid, there is no other patent to strike down. If it is granted, the shell corporation will sell it to the real corporation.
If the UN had a successful track record of mediation, you'd be right. Of course, when the UN brokers a cease fire and one side (or both) break it repeatedly without consequences, it's hard to take them seriously.
Point taken, you're right.
The US is receiving money from the UN in return for goods and services provided, such as prime real estate, hotel rooms, etc. If the UN were to relocate to Geneva, somebody else would pay for the same goods and services.
Why should the US government give more tax payer money to the UN, so it can give it to privately owned businesses in the US?
Why should the US pay for the privilege of hosting the UN headquarters? What tangible benefit does that provide?
In 1943, when the term "United Nations" meant what we now call the allies, France was occupied and China was extremely weak.
Cause we pay for wars anyway, might as well pay for the allied forces as well.
When the US provides the majority of the troops, and the UK provides the majority of the remaining troops, why bother? Besides, the international organization we have for military purposes is NATO.