What you tied into one idea is actually two distinct ideas. They are distinct because the first one is agreeable, but the second is not.
Your ideas, made clearer for discussion:
1) Clean = natural; don't set ambiguous numbers based on a specific timepoint or observation, but rather relative to natural systems.
2) The actions of mankind are always natural, and thus they ought carry forward without regard; natural processes will still ensue. ----
The first one is sensible. It a good idea to use the natural system as a reference in a realtime basis. Ambiguous thresholds based on specific time points or postulations are not in line with the natural change of the earth without man's influence. I would agree with you on the idea of embracing an effort to maintain a natural, or close to natural system, given we define the word natural in a relevant term such that we are talking about how the Earth's systems would work without the modern man's influence.
But I can't agree with you. And in such amazing irony you claim you are not trying to play semantics and yet you OBVIOUSLY tried to personally define a word (clean) and are now also defining 'natural' in a sense that is not aligned with what is most widely accepted.
And this is why you have two separate ideas, both still playing semantics.
Your second idea is ridiculous. I ridicule it because not only have you decided that you can define the word natural by your own terms, but apply it to everyone else; but also because it is completely reckless and foolish at best! The reason we have so many words is because there are definitions for each of them, which are widely accepted, and different words are produced to have DIFFERENT definitions. The words RAPE and INTERCOURSE are defined and accepted in terms that are distinct, and rightly so. And thus for the different purposes, the different words exist. In some insane way you've decided that you can personally define the word NATURAL by your own terms; those terms being "that whichever may arise from anything". I don't accept that, nor would most anyone else reading this conversation.
Let me guess here. In an even more ironic attempt to defend yourself, you will try to tell me you are still not using semantics by self-defining what you are doing.
If ANY of what you said were a good idea, then why do you even remove your garbage from your home at all (I'm sure you do)? Let it build up, you claim it is natural and that nature will take its course. Practice what you preach. The sheer reality is that you KNOW it is a bad idea to keep the garbage around and that it is convenient to put it somewhere else as a way to maintain a healthy environment for yourself. The difference being that in regard to yourself, you have one set of ideas, but in regard to others, you have another.
Ironically Wrong and Selfish are words that define you. Its a shame that people will care about you, abstracting themselves from the concept of thinking the universe exists only through the eyes of the self; but that you are incapable of the same. In this you are a parasite to care and to the benefit that care produces.
As far as smaller states within the unity, that would likely be just as you described. Locales have local preferences and that's what your home, neighborhood, city, county, and state are doing for you right now. People like it because they can find a place that feels right.
I also agree with what you've said about the article in the end. I don't think the article has enough evidence to really make the point; but I do think there is enough evidence to show a serious decline in a relative amount per capita of science-bound students.
I think I already told you I am a cell/molec and stem cell educated (nearly graduated) student. You want to know what kills me? In the most field-focused courses I am taking, the most interesting and powerful information-laden courses... I'd say about 25% of us are enthusiastic about it. The other 75% are just spinning their wheels to show their parents or friends that they are busy, or simply disinterested pre-med students (most of which will never become doctors). It's kinda a shame. Some place, somewhere, there is a kid to replace these guys; some kid who just doesn't know he would love the science because he hasn't been introduced to it.
How do I know this? I was pre-med and somewhat disinterested... then I saw the promise of biotech. And now that I've taken stem cell lab education on top of that, I see the promise of biotech AND stem cell biotech. It blew my mind. There I was, completely set and focused to become a heart surgeon. I thought to become a doctor and devote myself to that precise skill I could save lives and better the world. Open a private practice and charge the low end of standard prices to some, and then do free work for the poor as often as I could afford to stay in the black. I'm a simple man when it comes to money, unnecessary wealth is stupid to me.... But then I found biotech. I reasoned that even if I fixed 2 hearts a day, 5 days a week, that's only about 100 a year. That's 100 HUMANS helped. With biotech I saw massive rollout --- Genentech's Insulin; the reason all diabetics can live normal lives... ALL OF THEM. That is amazing. The discoveries that can affect all or many of us... the progression to concisely resolved answers is happening now. ---
There are probably a number of reasons for the decline of truly interested science bound students. At my university we have more liberal arts students than we have science students. The arts are valuable and essential in our lives, but are not nearly as essential or valuable as compared to the sciences. The arts have been around for centuries and the library of its products, beit music, writing, screenplay, paintings, etc, so we have lots of it to enjoy already. But in science, we are still at the tip of the iceberg. It may seem like we've come a long way, and in a relative sense we have. But we've really only gotten a couple centuries of work, and much of the more highly valuable discoveries only in the last 40-50 years.
When you add to it that the sciences are a much more rigorous (and thus avoided) path of study, and that public funding largely does not care to direct student choices. And add to it that much our culture is beginning to embrace the idiocy-is-cool mentality where intelligent and technical youth are insulted and harassed... you get an idea of whats going on.... our culture is also somehow embracing self interest and indulgence more than the past.... I'm just brainstorming here.
I'm doing my best, but I'm just me and I see the trend you're talking about. Even though we still are divided by nations, at least science (aside from defense based science) is somewhat universally shared and accessible. Private companies don't really share, but they usually sell their products globally. Public research is shared widely. So even if the US is declining (we do put out a LOT, though), the world moves forward in science.
Good point. I do still guess that with or without that benefit, people will come together and unify. Right now it may seem like governments are unifying against the desires of some of their constituents, but in the future I would almost guess it will be the opposite. Governments will oppose unity against the desires of the people to protect their jobs and unique powers.
I believe nationalism is nothing to benefit all of humanity and that we will be forced by natural observation to lose it.
The discussion *is* meaningless/petty. I'm just kinda having fun pointing at how poorly founded TFA is to justify the claims. Not that it matters at all to me in opinion, but just because, well, its like pointing out an untied shoe or a half zipped fly.
-I sharpen up my clothes a bit before I go out, I'm 'clean'
-You see a dog turd on the kitchen linoleum. You grab a wipe and scoop it up. The linoleum is now 'clean'. But would you eat off it?
-You take a poo and you wipe your butt 'clean' with tissue. If you don't live in the world of the bidet, chances are you've got plenty of fecal residue attached in a soft material-oily film over the hairs growing in your private area. Most people would say they cleaned it, but... well.. I'd kiss a clean armpit.. and i'd kiss an earlobe... but just because we call *that* clean, doesn't make it clean enough for me to kiss... eeggh.
-You're not eating your broccoli. Mom says "Clean your plate" You eat the last bite but there are little crumbs still there and some melted cheese and yet Mom is satisfied that you have done it. Wtf with the cheese and crumbs then?
-Now you're done with dinner and mom says go clean the dishes. You put them in soapy water and scrub a bit, rinse with some cold water and put them on a rack. Now THAT is starting to seem clean, right? Oh wait... I wouldn't use that plate for putting surgical medical supplies on!
-You go to the dentist and he says your tooth had a nice horizontal 'clean break'. While somewhat true from the natural eye view, under a microscope the break is extremely topographic/jagged. Not really a clean break.
-The dentist wants to use clean tools to operate with. They are appropriately sterilized and are truly about as clean as shit gets.
--------
My point is that the term is most definitely used with a sense of *relativity* tied to the statement. Most people that are in support of a move to green energy technology roll out are not being unrealistic. You are pretending they are unrealistic simply because if it were true, people would support your implicit stance that nothing can be done. That's a straw man, though. GTFO = get the fallacy out.
I'll tell you right now if there is a turd in the hot tub, and we're all sitting in it, we don't have to have a meeting and talk about exchanges of money and resource before I make my own move to get that turd the hell out of the tub. I'm not even thinking of asking you for 5 bucks if *I* am the one who gets the turd out. I just want the turd out of the tub; I wish you did too, but whatever, I can still get the turd out.
Thanks for further iterating my point with your shallow view and assumption of a one-way absolute existence. I understood money in the context to which you explained long before you felt you needed to explain it. And now I will show you why you fail, and my whole point this whole time which you missed for the product of your flaw.
Lets pick your point apart, piece by piece, and I may point out that you've provided no evidence to support any argument against my critical analysis of your opinion. I am open to be shown convincing evidence otherwise.
For starters, keep track of who you're arguing with. I haven't stated anything besides my opinion that you're likely an idiot. Now on with the education.
Note that you've stated that what I said was not possible, and that you also thought I was an idiot. You will see why your false assumption of the prior led you to the latter conclusion.
Money is an abstraction of a person's time/effort/property's value to society at large or in part. Usually, though not always, it has very little value in and of itself and is instead used as a method of storing one's time/effort/property for later use or trade. It need not even exist physically, such as with electronic records banks keep. This is fine as it is an abstraction to begin with.
Let me begin by pointing out that you are speaking of money, as a necessity, within our current culture. If you go read what I had written to you prior, you will notice I have always directed the changing of our culture in tandem with my hypothesis.
It's really very simple. If I put forth effort on something, say a bit of coding, I expect to be rewarded for said effort. If I decide to take a nap instead, I expect to get a nice nap as reward rather than pay or ownership of the code I wrote. If I decide to take a year's worth of naps I expect to be in serious trouble.
In this you even state your opinion is simple, and rightly so. You assume that YOUR expectations are the ONLY expectations. We're not talking about you, we're talking about potentials and other observable cultures. You assume that mankind, through your own present culture relative influenced desire, can ONLY exist in this way. You believe, without evidence to support such, that this is absolute, that no other possibility could exist. What you believe is akin to a child being raised in a community where women are always subservient, and thus having a limited view of what is possible, not only believing that women must be subservient, but that it is absolute and that it is the ONLY way. This is not true. Evidence to demonstrate your opinion is universal would be great here.
This is as it should be. It is fair and just.
How so? This is how it should be in your limited world view; your irrational assumption as to the definitive cultures of people. In our current culture most would agree it is fair and just, but that's not the point, which I think you might be either understanding by now or deliberately ignoring. Our current culture was never the topic of discussion and your opinion is by no means a universally applicable truth.
Being compensated as if I worked hard when I was taking a nap is absurd and would most assuredly lead to me taking more naps. On a global scale that would lead to an immediate and massive collapse of society as a whole.
It is absurd in our current culture, and in our current culture it may likely result in collapse, starvation, and death. But we were never talking about our current culture. I made it quite clear that we are talking about an alternative culture. The people of East Timor existed in a way much different than this. They are evident of an alternative culture that is not as you describe to be absolute, and their culture has been observed and recorded in recent history. As I said before, I think you might be now getting the point
I didn't say anything about the absolute absence of human nature. What I said was that our current culture is by no means proven a result of absolute human nature. It may have arisen from older indigenous and ignorant peoples and was developed/cultured into our every inch of existence, but that does not conclude that because it is such that it must always be such.
I'm arguing with a man with a simple mind, that is all. He cannot imagine a world outside of the one he is in, and claims the one he is in is the only way possible as deemed by human nature (but not giving me any evidence to prove it).
Nice cop out. I just asked you to educate me, but now you won't.
My guess is that you have no evidence and that I am right about your echo/assumption.
I got a feeling your mom cheated on your dad. Ask me for evidence.. do it... I'll tell you to fuck off and cop out just like your coward irrational ass is.
Stupid shallow idiot fucks preaching fundamentalist ideas with no facts to back it. Nothing new in this world. Its almost funny to watch idiots like you fight each other, none having a foot in the world of fact.
1) In September 09, in the Journal of Experimental Botany, research was published to demonstrate all of the genes required for THC synthesis in cannabis. Thus an RNAi or Knock-in(knockout), or possibly a GMO using Agrobacter tumefasciens, can now easily be done to ensure there is no THC production in the plant.
2) Despite my belief of it to be irrational, they can still maintain that the THC-laden cannabis production to be illegal, and the crimes can still be investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and punished. I'm reminded of the common flawed thinking/argument of decriminalizing drugs in which it is assumed that doing so would permit people to do all kinds of drug-fueled crimes like driving under the influence (lets ignore that most drug fueled crimes emit from the black markets of prohibition); the problem in this idea is that it somehow assumes that, for example, a rapist on decriminalized crack is any less punishable now that the crack is legal to use. That's simply not so. In that case, rape is still a crime and can still be prosecuted. The rapist goes to jail for rape. We don't ban alcohol just because drunk guys don't ask drunk girls for permission to date rape. ----
I'd like to argue that the government is more strongly opposed to Hemp because its widespread permission in our culture would further expand the public awareness of the benevolence and lack of hysteria-causing effects of cannabis. Put alcohol, cigarette, and pharmaceutical lobbies into political pockets and you've got plenty of reason to keep people in a state of "reefer madness".
As for taxation, you should come to Cali and talk to a medical marijuana dispensary. They are ALWAYS selling out of stock. The patients are not usually so disabled they could not grow it themselves but simply prefer the easier method of purchasing it. These transactions are all recorded and taxed, and if not, that is illegal as well and can be investigated and prosecuted. It may be easy to grow, but that doesn't mean people will always do it on their own.
Liquor and Beer are actually easy to make, too. People pay a premium for something off the shelf, and that is where it is taxed. A legitimate farm with organic conditions and desirable strains of cannabis could EASILY attract a number of consumers. Amsterdam is also a standing example of this. People *could* grow it in their closet, but its much easier to walk down the street to a coffee shop for a J and a cup of coffee, spend $5 and have a nice day.
On a related note: Its really funny, though, our politicians who have also smoked pot, still pander to the old (and likely those lobbies) when it comes to cannabis. The cat is literally out of the bag and now about a half mile down the road away from it. Most people under 50 either have personal experience with cannabis, or have at least witnessed first hand how the drug is nothing like it is pretended to be by our government. Most citizens still against its legalization are from the reefer madness era and their minds are still unchanged from the irrational hysteria they were fed by people they trusted. As those irrational old people pass away or finally share a J with their grandkids and see the truth, times will definitely change.
I would gladly pay the same price, and even up to 40% more for my energy if I knew it was 100% from this source.
If electric cars and rails became mainstream, I would pay 200% of my current electrical costs for it... not because it is harder to get, but because if they asked me for it and they can be shown to be operating cleanly, I would easily pay that.
It's kinda like the difference between a quality product and a cheapo dollar store or walmart/oldnavy product. You pay more because the value is there. In this case (can the denialists not cry this time?) our respect for our environment and the added bonus of fully electrical infrastructure would be highly valuable to me.
What is your point? Just because a person is not a citizen has no bearing on who directed, funded, and is credible for the output. Even further, it's pretty hard to say, by looking at a name, if someone is American or not.
Should we attribute a percentage of Microsoft's work to India simply because they have scored enough H1-B visas to get cheap labor in the local? No. Microsoft is credited.
The whole discussion is silly since it is based on the shallow view of nationalistic ideology; nationalism assumes pride over an ambiguous difference in peoples arising from petty intolerance, which is simply ridiculous.
I don't know if it excites your or bums you that someone would write this article, but in the end it is far too shallow to have any true relevance and, as I said before, is based on ridiculous ideologies. I work under a NSF grant and a CIRM grant, and the stuff we are doing is awesome. It isn't GFP or RNAi, but it is awesome.
This century will show us how the world is too small for nationalism. The internet and cheap (relatively) travel for the masses is far rapidly dissolving these imaginary borders between the young despite the quarrelsome and intolerant ideologies being maintained/conserved by our elders. As the old die off, the young and more open minded will take control. My daughter has no concept of race. It is awesome to see.
And I'm pretty sure your understanding of money is about as limited as your capacity to think outside of the box you were built inside.
Your sig further iterates how simple and worthless you are in any sense of conceptual thinking.
You're just a roadblock. I have to wait for people like you to die before anything can really change. The only facts that limit progress are shallow fundamentalist ignorami like yourself.
Lets test your idiocy... Why is it that you don't owe your parents money for raising you and providing for you? How is that possible, given your shallow assumptions of how people can *only* exist?
Why don't you think about that for a second... Don't bother writing me back because everything you've said (including your sig) tells me you'll do nothing more than stare at the inside of your box and rattle some chains to feel good about your world view.
The Christian Bible (yes all of them, and each having their own code) has a moral code that is pretty good by most people's standards.
I can't apologize for the wrongs done on behalf of those religions, though they are usually not in line with the moral codes from that same religion. I can't apologize because I am disgusted too.
Whether masking with religion or not, the bad are bad.
Exactly. If one instance of valuable science is to be attributed to a country, and then assumed to fully describe that country...
well... Yamanaka, the champion of induced pluripotent stem cells, now works for the US in SF.
IPSC are how current adults can get genetically identical stem cells. IPSC are how we can completely go around the 'ethical' disagreements from embryonic stem cells. IPSC are badass. This summer, whole mice were made from IPSC of tail tip skin.
Slashdot Mirror
What you tied into one idea is actually two distinct ideas. They are distinct because the first one is agreeable, but the second is not.
Your ideas, made clearer for discussion:
1) Clean = natural; don't set ambiguous numbers based on a specific timepoint or observation, but rather relative to natural systems.
2) The actions of mankind are always natural, and thus they ought carry forward without regard; natural processes will still ensue.
----
The first one is sensible. It a good idea to use the natural system as a reference in a realtime basis. Ambiguous thresholds based on specific time points or postulations are not in line with the natural change of the earth without man's influence. I would agree with you on the idea of embracing an effort to maintain a natural, or close to natural system, given we define the word natural in a relevant term such that we are talking about how the Earth's systems would work without the modern man's influence.
But I can't agree with you. And in such amazing irony you claim you are not trying to play semantics and yet you OBVIOUSLY tried to personally define a word (clean) and are now also defining 'natural' in a sense that is not aligned with what is most widely accepted.
And this is why you have two separate ideas, both still playing semantics.
Your second idea is ridiculous. I ridicule it because not only have you decided that you can define the word natural by your own terms, but apply it to everyone else; but also because it is completely reckless and foolish at best! The reason we have so many words is because there are definitions for each of them, which are widely accepted, and different words are produced to have DIFFERENT definitions. The words RAPE and INTERCOURSE are defined and accepted in terms that are distinct, and rightly so. And thus for the different purposes, the different words exist. In some insane way you've decided that you can personally define the word NATURAL by your own terms; those terms being "that whichever may arise from anything". I don't accept that, nor would most anyone else reading this conversation.
Let me guess here. In an even more ironic attempt to defend yourself, you will try to tell me you are still not using semantics by self-defining what you are doing.
Here's some help for you:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/natural
-----
If ANY of what you said were a good idea, then why do you even remove your garbage from your home at all (I'm sure you do)? Let it build up, you claim it is natural and that nature will take its course. Practice what you preach. The sheer reality is that you KNOW it is a bad idea to keep the garbage around and that it is convenient to put it somewhere else as a way to maintain a healthy environment for yourself. The difference being that in regard to yourself, you have one set of ideas, but in regard to others, you have another.
Ironically Wrong and Selfish are words that define you. Its a shame that people will care about you, abstracting themselves from the concept of thinking the universe exists only through the eyes of the self; but that you are incapable of the same. In this you are a parasite to care and to the benefit that care produces.
Note I did my math wrong for my distracted focus on the bigger point. 10x52 weeks = 520 people. My point is that 520 people is not millions.
As far as smaller states within the unity, that would likely be just as you described. Locales have local preferences and that's what your home, neighborhood, city, county, and state are doing for you right now. People like it because they can find a place that feels right.
I also agree with what you've said about the article in the end. I don't think the article has enough evidence to really make the point; but I do think there is enough evidence to show a serious decline in a relative amount per capita of science-bound students.
I think I already told you I am a cell/molec and stem cell educated (nearly graduated) student. You want to know what kills me? In the most field-focused courses I am taking, the most interesting and powerful information-laden courses... I'd say about 25% of us are enthusiastic about it. The other 75% are just spinning their wheels to show their parents or friends that they are busy, or simply disinterested pre-med students (most of which will never become doctors). It's kinda a shame. Some place, somewhere, there is a kid to replace these guys; some kid who just doesn't know he would love the science because he hasn't been introduced to it.
How do I know this? I was pre-med and somewhat disinterested... then I saw the promise of biotech. And now that I've taken stem cell lab education on top of that, I see the promise of biotech AND stem cell biotech. It blew my mind. There I was, completely set and focused to become a heart surgeon. I thought to become a doctor and devote myself to that precise skill I could save lives and better the world. Open a private practice and charge the low end of standard prices to some, and then do free work for the poor as often as I could afford to stay in the black. I'm a simple man when it comes to money, unnecessary wealth is stupid to me.... But then I found biotech. I reasoned that even if I fixed 2 hearts a day, 5 days a week, that's only about 100 a year. That's 100 HUMANS helped. With biotech I saw massive rollout --- Genentech's Insulin; the reason all diabetics can live normal lives... ALL OF THEM. That is amazing. The discoveries that can affect all or many of us... the progression to concisely resolved answers is happening now.
---
There are probably a number of reasons for the decline of truly interested science bound students. At my university we have more liberal arts students than we have science students. The arts are valuable and essential in our lives, but are not nearly as essential or valuable as compared to the sciences. The arts have been around for centuries and the library of its products, beit music, writing, screenplay, paintings, etc, so we have lots of it to enjoy already. But in science, we are still at the tip of the iceberg. It may seem like we've come a long way, and in a relative sense we have. But we've really only gotten a couple centuries of work, and much of the more highly valuable discoveries only in the last 40-50 years.
When you add to it that the sciences are a much more rigorous (and thus avoided) path of study, and that public funding largely does not care to direct student choices. And add to it that much our culture is beginning to embrace the idiocy-is-cool mentality where intelligent and technical youth are insulted and harassed ... you get an idea of whats going on.... our culture is also somehow embracing self interest and indulgence more than the past. ... I'm just brainstorming here.
I'm doing my best, but I'm just me and I see the trend you're talking about. Even though we still are divided by nations, at least science (aside from defense based science) is somewhat universally shared and accessible. Private companies don't really share, but they usually sell their products globally. Public research is shared widely. So even if the US is declining (we do put out a LOT, though), the world moves forward in science.
Good point. I do still guess that with or without that benefit, people will come together and unify. Right now it may seem like governments are unifying against the desires of some of their constituents, but in the future I would almost guess it will be the opposite. Governments will oppose unity against the desires of the people to protect their jobs and unique powers.
No I mean 'The Saint'
(Kilmer plays some kind of mercenary James Bond like character who helps a woman with nuclear fusion designs keep it open source)
How does it feel to be completely predictable?
Exactly. I guessed that you would have no evidence and here you are with no evidence.
Good job on that one.
Lets predict that you may or may not come back with more smarmy dogshit but will not come back with any evidence. Again.
I believe nationalism is nothing to benefit all of humanity and that we will be forced by natural observation to lose it.
The discussion *is* meaningless/petty. I'm just kinda having fun pointing at how poorly founded TFA is to justify the claims. Not that it matters at all to me in opinion, but just because, well, its like pointing out an untied shoe or a half zipped fly.
That B.S. and now you're just playing semantics.
Lets discuss the wide scope of the word 'clean'.
-I sharpen up my clothes a bit before I go out, I'm 'clean'
-You see a dog turd on the kitchen linoleum. You grab a wipe and scoop it up. The linoleum is now 'clean'. But would you eat off it?
-You take a poo and you wipe your butt 'clean' with tissue. If you don't live in the world of the bidet, chances are you've got plenty of fecal residue attached in a soft material-oily film over the hairs growing in your private area. Most people would say they cleaned it, but... well.. I'd kiss a clean armpit.. and i'd kiss an earlobe... but just because we call *that* clean, doesn't make it clean enough for me to kiss... eeggh.
-You're not eating your broccoli. Mom says "Clean your plate" You eat the last bite but there are little crumbs still there and some melted cheese and yet Mom is satisfied that you have done it. Wtf with the cheese and crumbs then?
-Now you're done with dinner and mom says go clean the dishes. You put them in soapy water and scrub a bit, rinse with some cold water and put them on a rack. Now THAT is starting to seem clean, right? Oh wait... I wouldn't use that plate for putting surgical medical supplies on!
-You go to the dentist and he says your tooth had a nice horizontal 'clean break'. While somewhat true from the natural eye view, under a microscope the break is extremely topographic/jagged. Not really a clean break.
-The dentist wants to use clean tools to operate with. They are appropriately sterilized and are truly about as clean as shit gets.
--------
My point is that the term is most definitely used with a sense of *relativity* tied to the statement. Most people that are in support of a move to green energy technology roll out are not being unrealistic. You are pretending they are unrealistic simply because if it were true, people would support your implicit stance that nothing can be done. That's a straw man, though. GTFO = get the fallacy out.
I'll tell you right now if there is a turd in the hot tub, and we're all sitting in it, we don't have to have a meeting and talk about exchanges of money and resource before I make my own move to get that turd the hell out of the tub. I'm not even thinking of asking you for 5 bucks if *I* am the one who gets the turd out. I just want the turd out of the tub; I wish you did too, but whatever, I can still get the turd out.
Thanks for further iterating my point with your shallow view and assumption of a one-way absolute existence. I understood money in the context to which you explained long before you felt you needed to explain it. And now I will show you why you fail, and my whole point this whole time which you missed for the product of your flaw.
Lets pick your point apart, piece by piece, and I may point out that you've provided no evidence to support any argument against my critical analysis of your opinion. I am open to be shown convincing evidence otherwise.
For starters, keep track of who you're arguing with. I haven't stated anything besides my opinion that you're likely an idiot. Now on with the education.
Note that you've stated that what I said was not possible, and that you also thought I was an idiot. You will see why your false assumption of the prior led you to the latter conclusion.
Money is an abstraction of a person's time/effort/property's value to society at large or in part. Usually, though not always, it has very little value in and of itself and is instead used as a method of storing one's time/effort/property for later use or trade. It need not even exist physically, such as with electronic records banks keep. This is fine as it is an abstraction to begin with.
Let me begin by pointing out that you are speaking of money, as a necessity, within our current culture. If you go read what I had written to you prior, you will notice I have always directed the changing of our culture in tandem with my hypothesis.
It's really very simple. If I put forth effort on something, say a bit of coding, I expect to be rewarded for said effort. If I decide to take a nap instead, I expect to get a nice nap as reward rather than pay or ownership of the code I wrote. If I decide to take a year's worth of naps I expect to be in serious trouble.
In this you even state your opinion is simple, and rightly so. You assume that YOUR expectations are the ONLY expectations. We're not talking about you, we're talking about potentials and other observable cultures. You assume that mankind, through your own present culture relative influenced desire, can ONLY exist in this way. You believe, without evidence to support such, that this is absolute, that no other possibility could exist. What you believe is akin to a child being raised in a community where women are always subservient, and thus having a limited view of what is possible, not only believing that women must be subservient, but that it is absolute and that it is the ONLY way. This is not true. Evidence to demonstrate your opinion is universal would be great here.
This is as it should be. It is fair and just.
How so? This is how it should be in your limited world view; your irrational assumption as to the definitive cultures of people. In our current culture most would agree it is fair and just, but that's not the point, which I think you might be either understanding by now or deliberately ignoring. Our current culture was never the topic of discussion and your opinion is by no means a universally applicable truth.
Being compensated as if I worked hard when I was taking a nap is absurd and would most assuredly lead to me taking more naps. On a global scale that would lead to an immediate and massive collapse of society as a whole.
It is absurd in our current culture, and in our current culture it may likely result in collapse, starvation, and death. But we were never talking about our current culture. I made it quite clear that we are talking about an alternative culture. The people of East Timor existed in a way much different than this. They are evident of an alternative culture that is not as you describe to be absolute, and their culture has been observed and recorded in recent history. As I said before, I think you might be now getting the point
I didn't say anything about the absolute absence of human nature. What I said was that our current culture is by no means proven a result of absolute human nature. It may have arisen from older indigenous and ignorant peoples and was developed/cultured into our every inch of existence, but that does not conclude that because it is such that it must always be such.
I'm arguing with a man with a simple mind, that is all. He cannot imagine a world outside of the one he is in, and claims the one he is in is the only way possible as deemed by human nature (but not giving me any evidence to prove it).
Nice cop out. I just asked you to educate me, but now you won't.
My guess is that you have no evidence and that I am right about your echo/assumption.
I got a feeling your mom cheated on your dad. Ask me for evidence.. do it... I'll tell you to fuck off and cop out just like your coward irrational ass is.
Stupid shallow idiot fucks preaching fundamentalist ideas with no facts to back it. Nothing new in this world. Its almost funny to watch idiots like you fight each other, none having a foot in the world of fact.
Fuck off.
2 things on that point:
1) In September 09, in the Journal of Experimental Botany, research was published to demonstrate all of the genes required for THC synthesis in cannabis. Thus an RNAi or Knock-in(knockout), or possibly a GMO using Agrobacter tumefasciens, can now easily be done to ensure there is no THC production in the plant.
2) Despite my belief of it to be irrational, they can still maintain that the THC-laden cannabis production to be illegal, and the crimes can still be investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and punished. I'm reminded of the common flawed thinking/argument of decriminalizing drugs in which it is assumed that doing so would permit people to do all kinds of drug-fueled crimes like driving under the influence (lets ignore that most drug fueled crimes emit from the black markets of prohibition); the problem in this idea is that it somehow assumes that, for example, a rapist on decriminalized crack is any less punishable now that the crack is legal to use. That's simply not so. In that case, rape is still a crime and can still be prosecuted. The rapist goes to jail for rape. We don't ban alcohol just because drunk guys don't ask drunk girls for permission to date rape.
----
I'd like to argue that the government is more strongly opposed to Hemp because its widespread permission in our culture would further expand the public awareness of the benevolence and lack of hysteria-causing effects of cannabis. Put alcohol, cigarette, and pharmaceutical lobbies into political pockets and you've got plenty of reason to keep people in a state of "reefer madness".
As for taxation, you should come to Cali and talk to a medical marijuana dispensary. They are ALWAYS selling out of stock. The patients are not usually so disabled they could not grow it themselves but simply prefer the easier method of purchasing it. These transactions are all recorded and taxed, and if not, that is illegal as well and can be investigated and prosecuted. It may be easy to grow, but that doesn't mean people will always do it on their own.
Liquor and Beer are actually easy to make, too. People pay a premium for something off the shelf, and that is where it is taxed. A legitimate farm with organic conditions and desirable strains of cannabis could EASILY attract a number of consumers. Amsterdam is also a standing example of this. People *could* grow it in their closet, but its much easier to walk down the street to a coffee shop for a J and a cup of coffee, spend $5 and have a nice day.
On a related note:
Its really funny, though, our politicians who have also smoked pot, still pander to the old (and likely those lobbies) when it comes to cannabis. The cat is literally out of the bag and now about a half mile down the road away from it. Most people under 50 either have personal experience with cannabis, or have at least witnessed first hand how the drug is nothing like it is pretended to be by our government. Most citizens still against its legalization are from the reefer madness era and their minds are still unchanged from the irrational hysteria they were fed by people they trusted. As those irrational old people pass away or finally share a J with their grandkids and see the truth, times will definitely change.
Check this out:
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_stats.shtml
That's a LOT of people finding out. I hope I'm speaking to someone of experience.
Check out the UK.
http://www.idmu.co.uk/cannabis-use-in-britain.htm
Human 'nature'? Give me some scientific references.
I hope you're not simply echoing something you've assumed or been told is natural. Give me some facts.
i think they've got 4 more miracles to achieve before it can show any real promise...
Val Kilmer isn't gonna save us on this one.
I would gladly pay the same price, and even up to 40% more for my energy if I knew it was 100% from this source.
If electric cars and rails became mainstream, I would pay 200% of my current electrical costs for it... not because it is harder to get, but because if they asked me for it and they can be shown to be operating cleanly, I would easily pay that.
It's kinda like the difference between a quality product and a cheapo dollar store or walmart/oldnavy product. You pay more because the value is there. In this case (can the denialists not cry this time?) our respect for our environment and the added bonus of fully electrical infrastructure would be highly valuable to me.
Since you're not qualified as a nuclear physicist, I'd like to see your references.
Hemp paper makes writers want to rape and kill!
Hemp paper is used by negroes and latinos!
Down with the hemps and their evil papers!
(sarcasm)
Yes, its madness.
What is your point? Just because a person is not a citizen has no bearing on who directed, funded, and is credible for the output. Even further, it's pretty hard to say, by looking at a name, if someone is American or not.
Should we attribute a percentage of Microsoft's work to India simply because they have scored enough H1-B visas to get cheap labor in the local? No. Microsoft is credited.
The whole discussion is silly since it is based on the shallow view of nationalistic ideology; nationalism assumes pride over an ambiguous difference in peoples arising from petty intolerance, which is simply ridiculous.
I don't know if it excites your or bums you that someone would write this article, but in the end it is far too shallow to have any true relevance and, as I said before, is based on ridiculous ideologies. I work under a NSF grant and a CIRM grant, and the stuff we are doing is awesome. It isn't GFP or RNAi, but it is awesome.
This century will show us how the world is too small for nationalism. The internet and cheap (relatively) travel for the masses is far rapidly dissolving these imaginary borders between the young despite the quarrelsome and intolerant ideologies being maintained/conserved by our elders. As the old die off, the young and more open minded will take control. My daughter has no concept of race. It is awesome to see.
And I'm pretty sure your understanding of money is about as limited as your capacity to think outside of the box you were built inside.
Your sig further iterates how simple and worthless you are in any sense of conceptual thinking.
You're just a roadblock. I have to wait for people like you to die before anything can really change. The only facts that limit progress are shallow fundamentalist ignorami like yourself.
Lets test your idiocy... Why is it that you don't owe your parents money for raising you and providing for you? How is that possible, given your shallow assumptions of how people can *only* exist?
Why don't you think about that for a second... Don't bother writing me back because everything you've said (including your sig) tells me you'll do nothing more than stare at the inside of your box and rattle some chains to feel good about your world view.
Bye.
Money motivated them; and because our culture pits us against each other in unnecessary competition for survival with money in the middle of the ring.
Wow. You put your name up, coming out of hiding. But you're just as worthless and pointless. At least we now know who is watching Ouch My Balls.
Later, troll. Your assumptions and perspective are far too shallow and simple to have a real discussion about anything other than status quo.
How about them niners?
So was all the anti-communist sentiment...
And that is why it is irrational/fallacious to require the proof of a negative.
Only a positive argument requires proof. And thus those who would state the god IS true to exist are compelled to make it evident.
The Christian Bible (yes all of them, and each having their own code) has a moral code that is pretty good by most people's standards.
I can't apologize for the wrongs done on behalf of those religions, though they are usually not in line with the moral codes from that same religion. I can't apologize because I am disgusted too.
Whether masking with religion or not, the bad are bad.
Exactly. If one instance of valuable science is to be attributed to a country, and then assumed to fully describe that country...
well... Yamanaka, the champion of induced pluripotent stem cells, now works for the US in SF.
IPSC are how current adults can get genetically identical stem cells. IPSC are how we can completely go around the 'ethical' disagreements from embryonic stem cells. IPSC are badass. This summer, whole mice were made from IPSC of tail tip skin.