It worked too. Welfare states tend to be a problem of their own success. People tend to live long lives in them, and raise their standard of living (having fewer kids) so you end up with an aging population. Japan is facing the exact same situation now.
Immigrants are great cure. The immigrants are better off. They provide much needed productive youth to the economy - which lets you pay the welfare state that they and your original citizens benefit from - and everybody wins.
I'll tell you why: because without it, rich people who avoid most of their taxes vote and raise taxes on poor people who can barely afford it while getting rid of any pesky laws that prevent owning slaves or working people 23 hours a day without bathroom breaks in a room without a fire escape. All of which adds up to poor people not only paying more taxes but paying it on less income and having absolutely no way to change that.
In short plutocracy differs from aristocracy only in that it is generally worse. Aristocrats had to at least pretend to care about the lower classes.
>Vote for Clinton, because "we didn't lose a single person in Libya" ?
Clinton just slipped up an accidentally admitted that the military-robot program is much further ahead than advertized and the Libyan ambassador was actually a terminator.
They already did, about a week later. They decided a country where people are nice, guns have sane laws, taxes are adequate to provide basic needs, the social safety nett is adequate to avert excessive suffering and breaking your leg doesn't break your retirement fund was worse than Obama. If those are the kinds of things you oppose, they were right too.
You actually. Now I understand you may not want to, so I propose we use the tax system to do it and take it by force because your sociopathic tendencies may lead you to deny that obligation, but it doesn't make the obligation any less real.
There's a joke in the Netherlands: "The reason the Netherlands is such a nice country is because we shipped all our assholes to Africa where they invented appartheid" (I'm a descendent of those they shipped and I thought it was hillarious).
I think that somehow Canada managed to do the same and ship all their assholes to America. You know, like Ted Cruz.
If I painted "Kill all nerdy white guys" on my outside wall... would you feel secure walking inside ?
Now what if I painted it on the outside of your office, or a mall, or some other place you have the right to be - and essential needs to go to ?
Would you not be affronted ? Would you demand management take it down ? Would you be concerned that I may follow through on the threat, or somebody else may decide to ? Are these not valid concerns ? Is your commitment to free speech so strong that if you found out it was me - you would not lay charges against me for inciting violence ? Is it strong enough that, if somebody shot you and you survive - you would not sue me for inciting their act ?
Because THAT is what you're asking Islamic and Hispanic students in Washington to do - and if you think supporting Trump does NOT mean "I want to kill brown people" then you're an idiot but even if that's genuinely not what you mean (in which case you haven't been listening to his speeches or watching his rallies) the fact is that, that is what most people understand it to mean - and in particular what brown people understand it to mean.
>Notice, nobody is protesting Bernies 18 Trillion in proposed new taxes
Because, by and large, the world over - people generally don't mind paying for quality investments, products and services, including through taxes. Improving government efficiency, providing valuable services people want and making investments we will all benefit from (like free college which really does benefit EVERYBODY - even if you went to college 80 years ago) are worth paying for. Paying to have the military 13 times as big as the next biggest... only crazy people want. Paying subsidies to oil and coal ? That pisses people off.
The only people who dislike paying for a valuable service purely on the basis of it being paid for with taxes are libertarians and that's exactly why they are not, have never been and will never be sufficiently dominant force to alter the outcome of any elections anywhere - ever. This is also why more and more libertarians are turning into neo-reactionaries abandoning any pretense of democratic support, abandoning any pretense to supporting the right of people to rule themselves or at least choose who rules them - because other people don't share their twisted self-harming priorities and keep not voting to shoot each other in the foot.
The truth is, Bernie won't cost you anything - in fact you (and everybody else) will have a LOT more money under a Bernie style set of laws than you do now. You may see a tax hike but the returns on that investment will be far higher than what it costs you to make it - and much higher than any private investment firm can offer you. Lets take that free college. What value does that offer you to send some kids to college for free ? The closest current parallel is the G.I. Bill. By a very conservative measurement the G.I. Bill has made every dollar ever spent on it back 7 times over (by growing the economy, reducing unemployment and thus welfare costs etc. etc).. What bank will offer you a 700% return on investment in 4 years ? And the G.I. Bill is not ideal, it's far from optimally configured to maximize return. Full free college for every qualifying applicant would give far greater returns.
College educations are like roads. Sure you can have them privatized but that puts a burden on every business and every citizen. It makes much more sense to just pony up taxes and build the roads because in a country with roads everybody makes more money than in one without roads (even the people who do not drive).
Don't worry, Newton's law was wrong. It's a close enough approximation for basic stuff but it isn't how it actually works. That's where relativity comes in. The math doesn't change at this scale, but that's not the part that matters. The part that matters is space-time distortion, which does not reach every other body in the universe (unlike the fictional "force" of gravity). If you're far enough away, you're well outside the distortion Trump creates (and in the distortion of lots of other things that are either close by or sufficiently massive or both (that last example would be Trump's mom).
Not to mention our friend didn't factor in fuel for a transfer burn. Nor the wait-time for a transfer window. You can't just start going to Mars at any moment... well you *could* but it would take a LOT longer to get there and you would need a helluva lot more fuel to do it. So you're talking more like 2 to 3 years food. Normally we would wait until a transfer window and only launch near one - but since you want to be in space before Trump is elected you probably want to avoid that. Of course then once you get there you will need even more fuel to get into an orbit around Mars (you can't aerobrake, the atmosphere is too thin) and you will almost certainly need to do a powered descent to land - even the rovers used partly powered descents (skycranes). In theory you could do it with a solid heatshield (weighty though) and a lot of big parachutes (more weight)... but for a craft as heavy as what we've planned so far that simply won't do. The atmosphere is thin, so drag is low, and to land safely you have to have drag at least equalize the force of gravity (which is only a little less than on earth).
By every measure - no, a manned mission to mars would not be cheap. The moon would be a LOT cheaper actually and you don't have to care so much about transfer windows since even it's furthest orbits aren't that far away.
Of course, in all this no thought was given to how to survive post-landing on either body but this is left as an exercise for the reader.
From this we can conclude two things: 1) If you have the means to build an LEO capable rocket, it would be far more efficient to use that tech to build an ICBM and aim it at a Trump rally than to try and get yourself off-world. 2) I play way too much KSP.
Funny how you assume they wanted the voices to be overwhelmingly male instead and then shoot down that strawman.
Completely skipping over the obvious possibility: that if about half the companies did male by default and about half had done female by default (so, really, there was no industry default - just whichever voice actor the company could afford) then the issue would never have been raised at all ?
I don't think it matters - the right answer for apple would be to answer the question you are asked as accurately as possible and leave moral judgement to the user. Apple of course appointed itself the world's moral police years ago. Like when Jobs said: "If you want porn get an android". The problem with that approach is that you can never actually please everyone - and whichever side you take on any issue will be deemed immoral by somebody else. They would have been better off simply answering any question as accurately as possible.
If the user asks for an abortion clinic, show them abortion clinics. If they ask for an adoption service, show them one of those. The moral decision of what to ask for is best left to individuals.
That may be true of the assistants but he used the same reasoning to attribute it to public address systems and parking meters - both things which you need to hear from rather further away. In the case of the automated public address systems - often through a crowd of bodies and pillars and the furnishings of things like train stations. Logic dictates that, at least in that scenario, a male voice would be easier to hear - especially a deeper one.
I have excellent hearing and can hear pitches well above the average human limit (as far as superpowers go... it's pretty lame) and I often struggle to hear announcements at airports and trainstations because the physical presence of the crowd absorbs the high pitch sound. Now it's true the crowd murmer is low-pitched so it may be harder to distinguish a low-pitched voice - but at least the low-pitched voice would actually get as far as your ears, it's better to improve that by boosting the amplitude than the frequency.
Unless you live in a universe where a sound that is more easily drowned out and travels shorter distances are easier to hear against a background... yes, yes it does.
That makes no sense. Higher pitched sounds penetrate less and travel shorter distances. Thats exactly why hunter-gatherer languages are full of high pitched tongue clicks: prey cant hear the hunters talk because the sound stops at the first tree. Ever walk past a nightclub ? Notice how you can usually hear the bass drum through the walls but not the rest of the music ?
If you are going to attribute something to the laws of physics you should probably know what they are first.
Wow... you can determine the value of a comment without reading it ? That must be a superpower.
Seriously though: TLDR is basically announcing to the world that you are an idiot. The real world is complex and has no simple or brief answers. All short claims about it are deceptions designed to abuse your short attention span to fool you into believing a lie. Notice the size of the panama papers ? 2.7 terabytes of legal documents. In a world where people only understand simplistic explanations the easiest way to commit and hide atrocities is in complexity and verbosity. You wont get caught because nobody will read that far or follow a chain with more than 3 links.
Nope. I never said I was fine with anything. I said a big number without any context is meaningless and gave various types of things that one ought to consider. The most important bit was that blaming socialism for that 100 million is clearly false. Its much more reasonable to say dictatorships killed those people. The particular economic system seems to have almost no impact on death tolls at all. At least compared to the impact of "type of governance system". I argued that keepimg government accoubtable is the best way to avoid people killed by the government. Economics are important but not for this topic. For this topic its like arguing wheter we can increase the safety of the space program by putting a mattress on the moon to land on.
It's an undeniable fact that universal public health care provides the highest quality at the lowest cost, every major industrial country does it and they all provide better care than America does and spend less doing so.
At best you've given doubt to the usual explanation for HOW they manage to achieve that, but you haven't altered the conclusion - you've merely invalidated a possible explanation for the observation. Since the observation is the goal - that is irrelevant for the question of "should we do it". It does become useful on another level though - if we can get a better explanation for the phenomenon, we can then use that optimize the system and get even *better* outcomes out of universal healthcare than we do now.
It's been a persistent belief (despite being utterly false) among deniers that warming paused or slowed down after 1998. It hasn't and that claim has been utterly discredited. It's mostly backed up by a single satelite data set from a set of ancient satelites using unreliable mercury thermometers that were never intended for long-term climate studies to begin with. That's because all the other "evidence" they thought they had has long since been thoroughly proven to be nothing but fabrications. It's still warming, it has been warming consistently, the perceived slowdown isn't real - mostly it depends on deliberately choosing a graph resolution that hides the upward trend and makes a brief dip look significant.
A good analogy is stock markets. If you look at a typical stock market graph over 100 years, you mostly see a consistent upward line. Over ten years the line is jagged and scraggly with lots of dips... on a year-scale you could see nothing but a downward line. To point at the downward line and pretend the global economic growth has ended would be a blatant lie though (it probably will - but not yet). That's the lie of the "gap" in warming - except it's a bit more like choosing 1929 and pretending it's representative of the two decades before and after (stock prices were back to 1929 era levels by 1932).
Funny how you extreme-rightwingers can always quote that number - but have no idea what capitalism's death toll is, and how you ignore that where socialism was achieved democratically rather than through revolution (i.e. most of the world) - it's death toll is lower than where capitalism is achieved democratically. You also utterly ignore that where capitalism is achieved *without* democracy - it's death toll is worse. Citing big numbers without context is a great way to sound scary while saying nothing at all.
100-Million out of how many ? Over how many years ? You need both time and per-capita measures to actually *compare* anything. Pinochet killed at least 40-thousand people in his first 2 years in office - and he was a hardcore capitalist. So clearly the system of government is a much bigger factor than the economic system in determining how many people the government kills. In the meantime, today, the world's greatest bastion of capitalism is also one of the last bastions of the death penalty in the developed world while the democratic socialist countries have all done away with it - often decades ago, meaning that capitalism has killed more people *just* in America in the past 30 years than socialism has killed globally !
And of course, if you're really going to compare death tolls of economic systems you should count every preventable death within them. Everybody who has ever starved because he was underpaid or couldn't find work and capitalism didn't provide a social safety net (that's a socialist idea). Everybody who ever died because the boss skimped on a critical safety feature in the factory to increase profits (that's easily topping your 100-million all by itself about once a decade - hell *just* goldmines are killing *at least* 3000 people per year - for the most capitalist purpose of all - to stick bars of metal in vaults and never use them for anything), everyone who ever died because they got a curable disease and couldn't afford the medical care they needed to survive. For fairness - you could limit it to the century between 1910 and 2010 - since the Soviet Union sort of began in 1910 and including the Industrial era before that is a number we have nothing to compare with.
Hell you could go as far as to conclude that the extreme death toll of 19th century capitalism, it's rabid exploitation of the poor and the horrible treatment of workers were the *reason* that revolutionary Bolshevist states arose in the first place. Which means that the entire 100-million you cite was *actually* killed by unregulated capitalism, since if the markets (especially labor) had been properly regulated in the 19th century and not had bred all that terrible poverty and suffering the Russian revolution would never have happened.
When you inform your ideas with simplistic big-numbers you get stupid conclusions. Now I'm not saying you should be pro-socialism or pro-mixed-economy or pro-capitalism or pro-something-else-entirely(yes there a literally thousands of economic philosophies in the world that are neither capitalism nor socialism). What I am saying is you ought to base your decision, and what ideas you support based on a careful and analytical consideration of all relevant facts, not some scary big number with no context to give it meaning.
To hammer the point home. Last year the South African AIDS death toll was a frightening 200-thousand people (and considering most of them were just too poor to buy good drugs - you can chalk that up to "killed by capitalism" by the way). That's a big frightening number eh ? Well, no, actually - it was 4 times that much in 2010. The number is proof that South Africa is *winning* the war against AIDs. That it's still so big means we have a lot of work left to do and the war is far from over and nobody denies that, but it does prove our strategies are working. See the point ? Numbers without context is a way to tell lies and decieve people while appearing to tell the truth. Abandon the lie - read a bit wider - and form an informed opinion. You may
Slashdot Mirror
It worked too. Welfare states tend to be a problem of their own success. People tend to live long lives in them, and raise their standard of living (having fewer kids) so you end up with an aging population. Japan is facing the exact same situation now.
Immigrants are great cure. The immigrants are better off. They provide much needed productive youth to the economy - which lets you pay the welfare state that they and your original citizens benefit from - and everybody wins.
It's only that hard for Americans - they have to be picky with Americans, it's the only way to keep Canada nice.
I'll tell you why: because without it, rich people who avoid most of their taxes vote and raise taxes on poor people who can barely afford it while getting rid of any pesky laws that prevent owning slaves or working people 23 hours a day without bathroom breaks in a room without a fire escape. All of which adds up to poor people not only paying more taxes but paying it on less income and having absolutely no way to change that.
In short plutocracy differs from aristocracy only in that it is generally worse. Aristocrats had to at least pretend to care about the lower classes.
>Vote for Clinton, because "we didn't lose a single person in Libya" ?
Clinton just slipped up an accidentally admitted that the military-robot program is much further ahead than advertized and the Libyan ambassador was actually a terminator.
You've tried that before... didn't work out all that well for you as I recall.
Pretty much the only good thing to come out of that attempt is that there was an Alamo for Ozzy to piss on.
They already did, about a week later. They decided a country where people are nice, guns have sane laws, taxes are adequate to provide basic needs, the social safety nett is adequate to avert excessive suffering and breaking your leg doesn't break your retirement fund was worse than Obama. If those are the kinds of things you oppose, they were right too.
You actually. Now I understand you may not want to, so I propose we use the tax system to do it and take it by force because your sociopathic tendencies may lead you to deny that obligation, but it doesn't make the obligation any less real.
Of course, that Dutch joke is a lot less true now that Geert Wilders actually got significant votes...
There's a joke in the Netherlands: "The reason the Netherlands is such a nice country is because we shipped all our assholes to Africa where they invented appartheid" (I'm a descendent of those they shipped and I thought it was hillarious).
I think that somehow Canada managed to do the same and ship all their assholes to America. You know, like Ted Cruz.
If I painted "Kill all nerdy white guys" on my outside wall... would you feel secure walking inside ?
Now what if I painted it on the outside of your office, or a mall, or some other place you have the right to be - and essential needs to go to ?
Would you not be affronted ? Would you demand management take it down ? Would you be concerned that I may follow through on the threat, or somebody else may decide to ?
Are these not valid concerns ? Is your commitment to free speech so strong that if you found out it was me - you would not lay charges against me for inciting violence ? Is it strong enough that, if somebody shot you and you survive - you would not sue me for inciting their act ?
Because THAT is what you're asking Islamic and Hispanic students in Washington to do - and if you think supporting Trump does NOT mean "I want to kill brown people" then you're an idiot but even if that's genuinely not what you mean (in which case you haven't been listening to his speeches or watching his rallies) the fact is that, that is what most people understand it to mean - and in particular what brown people understand it to mean.
>Notice, nobody is protesting Bernies 18 Trillion in proposed new taxes
Because, by and large, the world over - people generally don't mind paying for quality investments, products and services, including through taxes. Improving government efficiency, providing valuable services people want and making investments we will all benefit from (like free college which really does benefit EVERYBODY - even if you went to college 80 years ago) are worth paying for.
Paying to have the military 13 times as big as the next biggest... only crazy people want. Paying subsidies to oil and coal ? That pisses people off.
The only people who dislike paying for a valuable service purely on the basis of it being paid for with taxes are libertarians and that's exactly why they are not, have never been and will never be sufficiently dominant force to alter the outcome of any elections anywhere - ever. This is also why more and more libertarians are turning into neo-reactionaries abandoning any pretense of democratic support, abandoning any pretense to supporting the right of people to rule themselves or at least choose who rules them - because other people don't share their twisted self-harming priorities and keep not voting to shoot each other in the foot.
The truth is, Bernie won't cost you anything - in fact you (and everybody else) will have a LOT more money under a Bernie style set of laws than you do now. You may see a tax hike but the returns on that investment will be far higher than what it costs you to make it - and much higher than any private investment firm can offer you.
Lets take that free college. What value does that offer you to send some kids to college for free ? The closest current parallel is the G.I. Bill. By a very conservative measurement the G.I. Bill has made every dollar ever spent on it back 7 times over (by growing the economy, reducing unemployment and thus welfare costs etc. etc).. What bank will offer you a 700% return on investment in 4 years ? And the G.I. Bill is not ideal, it's far from optimally configured to maximize return. Full free college for every qualifying applicant would give far greater returns.
College educations are like roads. Sure you can have them privatized but that puts a burden on every business and every citizen. It makes much more sense to just pony up taxes and build the roads because in a country with roads everybody makes more money than in one without roads (even the people who do not drive).
Don't worry, Newton's law was wrong. It's a close enough approximation for basic stuff but it isn't how it actually works. That's where relativity comes in. The math doesn't change at this scale, but that's not the part that matters. The part that matters is space-time distortion, which does not reach every other body in the universe (unlike the fictional "force" of gravity). If you're far enough away, you're well outside the distortion Trump creates (and in the distortion of lots of other things that are either close by or sufficiently massive or both (that last example would be Trump's mom).
Not to mention our friend didn't factor in fuel for a transfer burn. Nor the wait-time for a transfer window. You can't just start going to Mars at any moment... well you *could* but it would take a LOT longer to get there and you would need a helluva lot more fuel to do it. So you're talking more like 2 to 3 years food. Normally we would wait until a transfer window and only launch near one - but since you want to be in space before Trump is elected you probably want to avoid that. Of course then once you get there you will need even more fuel to get into an orbit around Mars (you can't aerobrake, the atmosphere is too thin) and you will almost certainly need to do a powered descent to land - even the rovers used partly powered descents (skycranes). In theory you could do it with a solid heatshield (weighty though) and a lot of big parachutes (more weight)... but for a craft as heavy as what we've planned so far that simply won't do. The atmosphere is thin, so drag is low, and to land safely you have to have drag at least equalize the force of gravity (which is only a little less than on earth).
By every measure - no, a manned mission to mars would not be cheap. The moon would be a LOT cheaper actually and you don't have to care so much about transfer windows since even it's furthest orbits aren't that far away.
Of course, in all this no thought was given to how to survive post-landing on either body but this is left as an exercise for the reader.
From this we can conclude two things:
1) If you have the means to build an LEO capable rocket, it would be far more efficient to use that tech to build an ICBM and aim it at a Trump rally than to try and get yourself off-world.
2) I play way too much KSP.
Definitely the bass because if I see someone with a triangle I am punching him in the face before he can play that abomination.
Funny how you assume they wanted the voices to be overwhelmingly male instead and then shoot down that strawman.
Completely skipping over the obvious possibility: that if about half the companies did male by default and about half had done female by default (so, really, there was no industry default - just whichever voice actor the company could afford) then the issue would never have been raised at all ?
I don't think it matters - the right answer for apple would be to answer the question you are asked as accurately as possible and leave moral judgement to the user. Apple of course appointed itself the world's moral police years ago. Like when Jobs said: "If you want porn get an android".
The problem with that approach is that you can never actually please everyone - and whichever side you take on any issue will be deemed immoral by somebody else. They would have been better off simply answering any question as accurately as possible.
If the user asks for an abortion clinic, show them abortion clinics. If they ask for an adoption service, show them one of those. The moral decision of what to ask for is best left to individuals.
That may be true of the assistants but he used the same reasoning to attribute it to public address systems and parking meters - both things which you need to hear from rather further away. In the case of the automated public address systems - often through a crowd of bodies and pillars and the furnishings of things like train stations. Logic dictates that, at least in that scenario, a male voice would be easier to hear - especially a deeper one.
I have excellent hearing and can hear pitches well above the average human limit (as far as superpowers go... it's pretty lame) and I often struggle to hear announcements at airports and trainstations because the physical presence of the crowd absorbs the high pitch sound. Now it's true the crowd murmer is low-pitched so it may be harder to distinguish a low-pitched voice - but at least the low-pitched voice would actually get as far as your ears, it's better to improve that by boosting the amplitude than the frequency.
>That doesn't contradict what the GP said.
Unless you live in a universe where a sound that is more easily drowned out and travels shorter distances are easier to hear against a background... yes, yes it does.
That makes no sense. Higher pitched sounds penetrate less and travel shorter distances. Thats exactly why hunter-gatherer languages are full of high pitched tongue clicks: prey cant hear the hunters talk because the sound stops at the first tree.
Ever walk past a nightclub ? Notice how you can usually hear the bass drum through the walls but not the rest of the music ?
If you are going to attribute something to the laws of physics you should probably know what they are first.
Wow... you can determine the value of a comment without reading it ? That must be a superpower.
Seriously though: TLDR is basically announcing to the world that you are an idiot. The real world is complex and has no simple or brief answers. All short claims about it are deceptions designed to abuse your short attention span to fool you into believing a lie.
Notice the size of the panama papers ? 2.7 terabytes of legal documents. In a world where people only understand simplistic explanations the easiest way to commit and hide atrocities is in complexity and verbosity. You wont get caught because nobody will read that far or follow a chain with more than 3 links.
Nope. I never said I was fine with anything. I said a big number without any context is meaningless and gave various types of things that one ought to consider.
The most important bit was that blaming socialism for that 100 million is clearly false. Its much more reasonable to say dictatorships killed those people. The particular economic system seems to have almost no impact on death tolls at all. At least compared to the impact of "type of governance system". I argued that keepimg government accoubtable is the best way to avoid people killed by the government. Economics are important but not for this topic. For this topic its like arguing wheter we can increase the safety of the space program by putting a mattress on the moon to land on.
It's an undeniable fact that universal public health care provides the highest quality at the lowest cost, every major industrial country does it and they all provide better care than America does and spend less doing so.
At best you've given doubt to the usual explanation for HOW they manage to achieve that, but you haven't altered the conclusion - you've merely invalidated a possible explanation for the observation. Since the observation is the goal - that is irrelevant for the question of "should we do it". It does become useful on another level though - if we can get a better explanation for the phenomenon, we can then use that optimize the system and get even *better* outcomes out of universal healthcare than we do now.
It's been a persistent belief (despite being utterly false) among deniers that warming paused or slowed down after 1998. It hasn't and that claim has been utterly discredited. It's mostly backed up by a single satelite data set from a set of ancient satelites using unreliable mercury thermometers that were never intended for long-term climate studies to begin with. That's because all the other "evidence" they thought they had has long since been thoroughly proven to be nothing but fabrications.
It's still warming, it has been warming consistently, the perceived slowdown isn't real - mostly it depends on deliberately choosing a graph resolution that hides the upward trend and makes a brief dip look significant.
A good analogy is stock markets. If you look at a typical stock market graph over 100 years, you mostly see a consistent upward line. Over ten years the line is jagged and scraggly with lots of dips... on a year-scale you could see nothing but a downward line. To point at the downward line and pretend the global economic growth has ended would be a blatant lie though (it probably will - but not yet). That's the lie of the "gap" in warming - except it's a bit more like choosing 1929 and pretending it's representative of the two decades before and after (stock prices were back to 1929 era levels by 1932).
If Donald Trump counts as a scientist then the definition has been seriously altered recently...
Funny how you extreme-rightwingers can always quote that number - but have no idea what capitalism's death toll is, and how you ignore that where socialism was achieved democratically rather than through revolution (i.e. most of the world) - it's death toll is lower than where capitalism is achieved democratically. You also utterly ignore that where capitalism is achieved *without* democracy - it's death toll is worse. Citing big numbers without context is a great way to sound scary while saying nothing at all.
100-Million out of how many ? Over how many years ? You need both time and per-capita measures to actually *compare* anything. Pinochet killed at least 40-thousand people in his first 2 years in office - and he was a hardcore capitalist.
So clearly the system of government is a much bigger factor than the economic system in determining how many people the government kills. In the meantime, today, the world's greatest bastion of capitalism is also one of the last bastions of the death penalty in the developed world while the democratic socialist countries have all done away with it - often decades ago, meaning that capitalism has killed more people *just* in America in the past 30 years than socialism has killed globally !
And of course, if you're really going to compare death tolls of economic systems you should count every preventable death within them. Everybody who has ever starved because he was underpaid or couldn't find work and capitalism didn't provide a social safety net (that's a socialist idea). Everybody who ever died because the boss skimped on a critical safety feature in the factory to increase profits (that's easily topping your 100-million all by itself about once a decade - hell *just* goldmines are killing *at least* 3000 people per year - for the most capitalist purpose of all - to stick bars of metal in vaults and never use them for anything), everyone who ever died because they got a curable disease and couldn't afford the medical care they needed to survive. For fairness - you could limit it to the century between 1910 and 2010 - since the Soviet Union sort of began in 1910 and including the Industrial era before that is a number we have nothing to compare with.
Hell you could go as far as to conclude that the extreme death toll of 19th century capitalism, it's rabid exploitation of the poor and the horrible treatment of workers were the *reason* that revolutionary Bolshevist states arose in the first place. Which means that the entire 100-million you cite was *actually* killed by unregulated capitalism, since if the markets (especially labor) had been properly regulated in the 19th century and not had bred all that terrible poverty and suffering the Russian revolution would never have happened.
When you inform your ideas with simplistic big-numbers you get stupid conclusions. Now I'm not saying you should be pro-socialism or pro-mixed-economy or pro-capitalism or pro-something-else-entirely(yes there a literally thousands of economic philosophies in the world that are neither capitalism nor socialism). What I am saying is you ought to base your decision, and what ideas you support based on a careful and analytical consideration of all relevant facts, not some scary big number with no context to give it meaning.
To hammer the point home. Last year the South African AIDS death toll was a frightening 200-thousand people (and considering most of them were just too poor to buy good drugs - you can chalk that up to "killed by capitalism" by the way). That's a big frightening number eh ? Well, no, actually - it was 4 times that much in 2010. The number is proof that South Africa is *winning* the war against AIDs. That it's still so big means we have a lot of work left to do and the war is far from over and nobody denies that, but it does prove our strategies are working. See the point ? Numbers without context is a way to tell lies and decieve people while appearing to tell the truth. Abandon the lie - read a bit wider - and form an informed opinion. You may