It all depends if you are constantly down-shifting or not. Here is how Click an Clack (of Car talk) put it. Which would you prefer to wear out and replace? Your brakes or your clutch? Constantly changing gears to down-shift and do engine braking puts abnormal wear on your clutch. Of course I am talking about a manual transmission I don't know if it's the same for automatic transmissions. At the same time, constantly using the gear selector raises the possibility of selecting the wrong gear and it also puts abnormal wear on the gear shift mechanism.
Who says so? I'm not saying pay them dirt (which is what the janitor gets) just pay them reasonably. 100 million does not guarantee that you will get a good CEO. Conversely, paying 1 million may get you a good one because you might get one that looks at things differently. Often the amount paid for someone (or something) is not related to the price you pay.
"On the other hand lower wages make the US' economy more competitive"
If this is true, why don't the CEO's set the trend by taking less? I'm not asking for a lot, just limit you total compensation (salary & bonuses) to something reasonable like a million dollars per year. A million dollars is an amount that many people can't achieve in a lifetime but some CEOs get more than 100 million each year.
"It's not like the US culture suddenly changed over the last 5 years "
The culture in the USA has not just changed in the last 5 years, it's more like the last 50 years. The change has been so slow that we barely notice it. In the last 5 years, the change for the worse has accelerated.
You are absolutely correct, that is what I meant. We often say that our youth is our most valuable asset. This is a capitalistic society where money is king and you should put your money where your values are. There is an old saying... "Put your money where your mouth is". What we say doesn't go well with where we put our money. To those that say we would then just be throwing money at a problem just don't get it. They never suggest a realistic alternative but just moan about how bad things are. To all you naysayers... Do you have another and better solution? And don't say home schooling is a solution. It's good for a few people but it's not an answer for the vast majority.
I remember a story about a teacher that did something similar. He brought in the making for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. He then asked the class for instructions on how to make it. It went as follows.
1. "Put the peanut butter on the slice of bread."
He held the jar over the slice of bread and started to shake the jar.
2. ""No you take the knife and use it to spread the peanut jelly"
He started to grab the knife by the blade end.
3. "No grab the knife by the other end."
This time he holds the knife correctly.
4. "Spread the peanut butter on the slice of bread"
He starts to put the peanut butter on the edges of the bread.
This went on in minute detail until it dawned on the students that in everyday speech, we leave a lot out assuming that everyone knows what we are talking about. The students got an understanding of how we must communicate with computers. This in turn opened the discussion to other topics.
I agree, in the US, it's not "cool" to excel academically. Our society tells its young what is important by the amount of money you are paid. Look at the salaries that sport and entertainment stars get. Ask many students what they want to be and these occupations are very high (if not at the top) on the list. Until US society gets its priorities straight, we will continue to decline.
"Stupid people have more kids, raise them to be stupid."
Raising kids to be stupid has nothing to do with evolution. The kids are already born so how you raise them has no effect. Of course this ignores other causes that drive evolution but it does not DIRECTLY affect evolution.
It's just my opinion and I do not have hard facts to back this up. It seems to me that before the early 60'a it was not uncommon to have weddings where both spouses were in their late teens. A woman past the age of 30 who had not married was considered to be an old maid. If anything, in western society the average child bearing age has increased. In other societies, this might be different.
Also, he is assuming that the causes of mutation remains constant. We have much more mutation inducing chemicals (pollution) in the environment than we used to have.
"Have you never avoided an accident on the highway by speeding up?"
I've heard reports on this and it seems that this was taken into account. The top speed is set at 80 miles per hour. IMO it's not a bad idea but it needs a few tweaks.
1. Set the maximum speed lower at about 70 mph which is the maximum LEGAL speed in most areas.
2. Allow you to go faster but only for a short period of time (a minute?). Also put a maximum of times that you can use this feature in a given time.
3. Perhaps it's also a good idea for everyone using that car to be treated equally. (Adults and teenagers.)
4. Insurance companies should give a premium price break for using this device.
"1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)"
While I agree that the electoral college has got to go, I am pragmatic enough to know that it will never come to pass. It would take a constitutional amendment to do it and that would require 3/4 of the states to ratify it. There are too many small states that are over represented in the electoral college. To ask their legislatures to ratify an amendment that diminishes their states political power is unimaginable.
One thing that can be done is to eliminate the "winner takes all" principal. This principle says that whoever wins even a plurality of a states votes gets ALL of the states electoral votes. This is patently unfair and something can be done about that. There is nothing in the constitution that requires that. As a matter of fact two states (Maine and Montana) allocate their electoral votes proportionate to the vote in that state. I would prefer that the federal government mandates all the states to go to proportionate allocation but with states rights issues that might not be possible. The only alternative is to have all the states enact this method.
I suggest that you do some research of the Clarion Fund. I did and it's rather hard to figure out who they are. Indications are that their biggest contributors are a Canadian and someone who might be an Israeli. It's all very nebulous and there are indications that one source of money might cone from the Israeli government itself. I don't have any arguments with foreigners per say but they should keep out of US politics. For those of you that say why not, the US does this all the time to foreign nations. The US does interfere and it is WRONG!
Have you considered this? There probably are people out there that are better off than you. There are many ways to measure worth, wealth, morality, politically connected, intelligence, strength, health - you name it. Does this mean their vote is worth more than yours? In my opinion when you start to measure the worth of an individual (or their vote) you yourself become a worthless individual.
Recent events indicate that net neutrality isn't the only "problem with the US business model, or the lack thereof". It seems that big business wants the profits privatized (as they should be) but any losses should be socialized.
There is plenty of blame to go around but the majority of the blame rests on the shoulders of big business. By the way, for the companies not incorporated in the US, there are some of the same problems. They are not quite as extreme as in the US but people not living in the US shouldn't feel smug, it could happen to you if you are not vigilant.
I too would like a lot of media attention but let's be realistic. With all that is happening now, they will bury news of it to where you will be forced to hunt for it. It's important news, but it will not get much public attention. In this respect, the RIAA is lucky because the timing is good for them. They may have lost a battle but the war will still continue.
So are you advocating no compromise? An all or nothing approach to politics? Most human social progress is based on compromises. In the absence of a reasonable compromise, conflict starts. In the case of nations, we call these conflicts wars.
What I'm getting at is that Republicans aren't always wrong in those respects. Sometimes control and structure ARE necessary.
There seems to be some inconsistency here. True conservatives want LESS government regulations in both the economy and in ones personal lives. The republican party of today is dominated by NeoCons who advocate LESS government regulations in the economy and MORE government regulations in ones personal life (domestic spying, laws about what consenting adults can do in the privacy of their bedroom, etc.). There seems to be very few true conservatives left and most republicans are of the NeoCon ilk. So it appears that you are arguing from a NeoCon way of thinking.
You are essentially correct! The catch is that the energy needed would be at the minimum equal to the amount of energy produced by the burning. Add to that the energy used in maintaining the process and you would actually consume more energy than the original burning of oil, gas or coal produced.
I think we should reintroduce a practice done in one of the ancient Greek city states (Sparta or Athens). When the city leader left office they held a "trial" based on the actions he took while in office. If his tenure was unpopular enough, they banished him for a period of time. It was a normal and automatic part of leaving office. If we did this, where could we banish Bush?
So are you saying that the blame for the mortgage mess is on the shoulders of those who were suckered into ARM'? Maybe they deserve a small amount of the blame but only a small amount. Most of the blame goes to those greedy individuals who created and "sold" them and then packaged the bad loans. If there is a place in hell for these cretins, I hope it is very hot if you are a Milton fan or very cold if you prefer Dante's vision.
Absolutely, see the problems was that the lawyers did not work hard or long enough on the "EULA". The result was that much of the common folk could understand it. With sufficient time and effort, they will make it so that nobody will understand it (not even themselves). It's called obfuscation.
Now we are getting somewhere. But indiscriminate name calling solves nothing! You claimed that somehow you know what my opinions are about climate change. (I don't like the phrase "Global warming" because it covers only one aspect of a big problem.) As a matter of fact, scientific peer review is very important to that question. When Big oil and Big Coal Fund "Studies" of climate change and getting some scientists with questionable credentials is not science. They have already made up their minds what the "study" will say. But that brings us back to the original question, "How do you make an inference about my opinions. When Einstein came up with his theory of Relativity, he threw "conventional knowledge out the window". Most of the time conventional knowledge is correct but not every time.
As for your unwillingness to consider other possibilities... The statements you have made speak volumes.
Not only that but there is some evidence that children need some exposure to germs for their immune system to develop properly. Without this exposure their immune systems start to react to normal items that are a part of their environment. Allergies for short. In extreme cases it can actually develop into an autoimmune disorder. I'm not saying that it is healthy to live in a pig sty.
Aristotle said it best when he thought up the "Golden Mean".
1. You claim that the genome for bacteria is as big as it will ever get... How do you know that? I have taken several bacteriology courses and never was this mentioned.
2. Genes might stop working after a few generations but they do not have to. Once again, you are asking me to believe you without evidence (Studies that you can quote).
As a simple example (one of many I can cite) is the example of Multiple Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA for short). This strain of bacteria is resistant to almost every antibiotic known to man. There is no evidence of dropping old resistances there.
You exemplify the "doubting moron" approach to science, also frequently found among global warming deniers.
You seem to have some misconceptions about how science works. When someone makes some claim, then the claims have to be proved. It is up those that support the claims to prove that they are right. It is not the duty of the scientific community to disprove the claims (though doubters are not prevented from disproving them.)
On the personal side of things, I never called you a liar, I just asked you to support your claims. A good scientist is always skeptical of any claim until it is proved. Dueling pistols at 20 paces were never a part of PROPER scientific debate. Personal attacks are never an acceptable part of the scientific method.
Sir, you made some interesting claims here! Do you have any studies to back up your claim? In the words of a commercial, "Where's the beef?" List some studies in a reputable scientific journal by reputable biologists.
Slashdot Mirror
It all depends if you are constantly down-shifting or not. Here is how Click an Clack (of Car talk) put it. Which would you prefer to wear out and replace? Your brakes or your clutch? Constantly changing gears to down-shift and do engine braking puts abnormal wear on your clutch. Of course I am talking about a manual transmission I don't know if it's the same for automatic transmissions. At the same time, constantly using the gear selector raises the possibility of selecting the wrong gear and it also puts abnormal wear on the gear shift mechanism.
"But, if you pay dirt, you will get a bad CEO. "
Who says so? I'm not saying pay them dirt (which is what the janitor gets) just pay them reasonably. 100 million does not guarantee that you will get a good CEO. Conversely, paying 1 million may get you a good one because you might get one that looks at things differently. Often the amount paid for someone (or something) is not related to the price you pay.
"On the other hand lower wages make the US' economy more competitive"
If this is true, why don't the CEO's set the trend by taking less? I'm not asking for a lot, just limit you total compensation (salary & bonuses) to something reasonable like a million dollars per year. A million dollars is an amount that many people can't achieve in a lifetime but some CEOs get more than 100 million each year.
"It's not like the US culture suddenly changed over the last 5 years "
The culture in the USA has not just changed in the last 5 years, it's more like the last 50 years. The change has been so slow that we barely notice it. In the last 5 years, the change for the worse has accelerated.
You are absolutely correct, that is what I meant. We often say that our youth is our most valuable asset. This is a capitalistic society where money is king and you should put your money where your values are. There is an old saying... "Put your money where your mouth is". What we say doesn't go well with where we put our money. To those that say we would then just be throwing money at a problem just don't get it. They never suggest a realistic alternative but just moan about how bad things are. To all you naysayers... Do you have another and better solution? And don't say home schooling is a solution. It's good for a few people but it's not an answer for the vast majority.
I remember a story about a teacher that did something similar. He brought in the making for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. He then asked the class for instructions on how to make it. It went as follows.
1. "Put the peanut butter on the slice of bread."
He held the jar over the slice of bread and started to shake the jar.
2. ""No you take the knife and use it to spread the peanut jelly"
He started to grab the knife by the blade end.
3. "No grab the knife by the other end."
This time he holds the knife correctly.
4. "Spread the peanut butter on the slice of bread"
He starts to put the peanut butter on the edges of the bread.
This went on in minute detail until it dawned on the students that in everyday speech, we leave a lot out assuming that everyone knows what we are talking about. The students got an understanding of how we must communicate with computers. This in turn opened the discussion to other topics.
I agree, in the US, it's not "cool" to excel academically. Our society tells its young what is important by the amount of money you are paid. Look at the salaries that sport and entertainment stars get. Ask many students what they want to be and these occupations are very high (if not at the top) on the list. Until US society gets its priorities straight, we will continue to decline.
"Stupid people have more kids, raise them to be stupid."
Raising kids to be stupid has nothing to do with evolution. The kids are already born so how you raise them has no effect. Of course this ignores other causes that drive evolution but it does not DIRECTLY affect evolution.
It's just my opinion and I do not have hard facts to back this up. It seems to me that before the early 60'a it was not uncommon to have weddings where both spouses were in their late teens. A woman past the age of 30 who had not married was considered to be an old maid. If anything, in western society the average child bearing age has increased. In other societies, this might be different.
Also, he is assuming that the causes of mutation remains constant. We have much more mutation inducing chemicals (pollution) in the environment than we used to have.
"Have you never avoided an accident on the highway by speeding up?"
I've heard reports on this and it seems that this was taken into account. The top speed is set at 80 miles per hour. IMO it's not a bad idea but it needs a few tweaks.
1. Set the maximum speed lower at about 70 mph which is the maximum LEGAL speed in most areas.
2. Allow you to go faster but only for a short period of time (a minute?). Also put a maximum of times that you can use this feature in a given time.
3. Perhaps it's also a good idea for everyone using that car to be treated equally. (Adults and teenagers.)
4. Insurance companies should give a premium price break for using this device.
"1. i think we should abolish the electoral college, since, as 2000 demonstrates, you can lose the popular vote and still win the election (and hasn't the last 8 years proven that to be a mistake)"
While I agree that the electoral college has got to go, I am pragmatic enough to know that it will never come to pass. It would take a constitutional amendment to do it and that would require 3/4 of the states to ratify it. There are too many small states that are over represented in the electoral college. To ask their legislatures to ratify an amendment that diminishes their states political power is unimaginable.
One thing that can be done is to eliminate the "winner takes all" principal. This principle says that whoever wins even a plurality of a states votes gets ALL of the states electoral votes. This is patently unfair and something can be done about that. There is nothing in the constitution that requires that. As a matter of fact two states (Maine and Montana) allocate their electoral votes proportionate to the vote in that state. I would prefer that the federal government mandates all the states to go to proportionate allocation but with states rights issues that might not be possible. The only alternative is to have all the states enact this method.
I suggest that you do some research of the Clarion Fund. I did and it's rather hard to figure out who they are. Indications are that their biggest contributors are a Canadian and someone who might be an Israeli. It's all very nebulous and there are indications that one source of money might cone from the Israeli government itself. I don't have any arguments with foreigners per say but they should keep out of US politics. For those of you that say why not, the US does this all the time to foreign nations. The US does interfere and it is WRONG!
Have you considered this? There probably are people out there that are better off than you. There are many ways to measure worth, wealth, morality, politically connected, intelligence, strength, health - you name it. Does this mean their vote is worth more than yours? In my opinion when you start to measure the worth of an individual (or their vote) you yourself become a worthless individual.
Recent events indicate that net neutrality isn't the only "problem with the US business model, or the lack thereof". It seems that big business wants the profits privatized (as they should be) but any losses should be socialized.
There is plenty of blame to go around but the majority of the blame rests on the shoulders of big business. By the way, for the companies not incorporated in the US, there are some of the same problems. They are not quite as extreme as in the US but people not living in the US shouldn't feel smug, it could happen to you if you are not vigilant.
I too would like a lot of media attention but let's be realistic. With all that is happening now, they will bury news of it to where you will be forced to hunt for it. It's important news, but it will not get much public attention. In this respect, the RIAA is lucky because the timing is good for them. They may have lost a battle but the war will still continue.
So are you advocating no compromise? An all or nothing approach to politics? Most human social progress is based on compromises. In the absence of a reasonable compromise, conflict starts. In the case of nations, we call these conflicts wars.
What I'm getting at is that Republicans aren't always wrong in those respects. Sometimes control and structure ARE necessary.
There seems to be some inconsistency here. True conservatives want LESS government regulations in both the economy and in ones personal lives. The republican party of today is dominated by NeoCons who advocate LESS government regulations in the economy and MORE government regulations in ones personal life (domestic spying, laws about what consenting adults can do in the privacy of their bedroom, etc.). There seems to be very few true conservatives left and most republicans are of the NeoCon ilk. So it appears that you are arguing from a NeoCon way of thinking.
You are essentially correct! The catch is that the energy needed would be at the minimum equal to the amount of energy produced by the burning. Add to that the energy used in maintaining the process and you would actually consume more energy than the original burning of oil, gas or coal produced.
I think we should reintroduce a practice done in one of the ancient Greek city states (Sparta or Athens). When the city leader left office they held a "trial" based on the actions he took while in office. If his tenure was unpopular enough, they banished him for a period of time. It was a normal and automatic part of leaving office. If we did this, where could we banish Bush?
So are you saying that the blame for the mortgage mess is on the shoulders of those who were suckered into ARM'? Maybe they deserve a small amount of the blame but only a small amount. Most of the blame goes to those greedy individuals who created and "sold" them and then packaged the bad loans. If there is a place in hell for these cretins, I hope it is very hot if you are a Milton fan or very cold if you prefer Dante's vision.
Absolutely, see the problems was that the lawyers did not work hard or long enough on the "EULA". The result was that much of the common folk could understand it. With sufficient time and effort, they will make it so that nobody will understand it (not even themselves). It's called obfuscation.
Now we are getting somewhere. But indiscriminate name calling solves nothing! You claimed that somehow you know what my opinions are about climate change. (I don't like the phrase "Global warming" because it covers only one aspect of a big problem.) As a matter of fact, scientific peer review is very important to that question. When Big oil and Big Coal Fund "Studies" of climate change and getting some scientists with questionable credentials is not science. They have already made up their minds what the "study" will say. But that brings us back to the original question, "How do you make an inference about my opinions. When Einstein came up with his theory of Relativity, he threw "conventional knowledge out the window". Most of the time conventional knowledge is correct but not every time.
As for your unwillingness to consider other possibilities... The statements you have made speak volumes.
Not only that but there is some evidence that children need some exposure to germs for their immune system to develop properly. Without this exposure their immune systems start to react to normal items that are a part of their environment. Allergies for short. In extreme cases it can actually develop into an autoimmune disorder. I'm not saying that it is healthy to live in a pig sty.
Aristotle said it best when he thought up the "Golden Mean".
1. You claim that the genome for bacteria is as big as it will ever get... How do you know that? I have taken several bacteriology courses and never was this mentioned.
2. Genes might stop working after a few generations but they do not have to. Once again, you are asking me to believe you without evidence (Studies that you can quote).
As a simple example (one of many I can cite) is the example of Multiple Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA for short). This strain of bacteria is resistant to almost every antibiotic known to man. There is no evidence of dropping old resistances there.
You exemplify the "doubting moron" approach to science, also frequently found among global warming deniers.
You seem to have some misconceptions about how science works. When someone makes some claim, then the claims have to be proved. It is up those that support the claims to prove that they are right. It is not the duty of the scientific community to disprove the claims (though doubters are not prevented from disproving them.)
On the personal side of things, I never called you a liar, I just asked you to support your claims. A good scientist is always skeptical of any claim until it is proved. Dueling pistols at 20 paces were never a part of PROPER scientific debate.
Personal attacks are never an acceptable part of the scientific method.
Sir, you made some interesting claims here! Do you have any studies to back up your claim? In the words of a commercial, "Where's the beef?" List some studies in a reputable scientific journal by reputable biologists.