No it doesn't, Atheism refers to the disbelief in god or gods of any description. Hence Buddhists, for example, are atheist.
While that is its truest sense, it is usually followed up with a disbelief of mystical, spiritual, religious or any of the labels people use to categorise 'knowledge' which has no evidence in its favour. Rare is the atheist who rejects god only to move on and accept 'spirituality' and I suspect the breed is confined to America where evolved camouflage is necessary to avoid predatory evangelicals. I would even argue that the initial presentation of atheism in its strictest sense is somewhat misleading.
Incidentally, as an atheist, I would recommend the book "A Very Short Introduction to Atheism" for those who are atheist, think they might be or, god forbid, might actually want to understand their neighbour. The same series, incidentally, has very good books on everything from particle physics to Islam.
Capitalists (people whose contribution is essentially to have money) are not the only conceivable way to provide it ( in a non capitalist system)
Fine. Since it's easy to suggest an alternative and I already illustrated why communal ownership and state capitalism fail, why don't you point out other systems? Allow the workers to own capital? This is a fantastic idea and is what our society currently does. "Destroy the notion of ownership of capital"? That's basically back to holding it in common, with the myriad flaws that presents.
Trade unions are monopolies. Socialists don't like to confront this uncomfortable truth, but there is no fundamental reason that the behaviour of a unionised workforce is more moral than the behaviour of Microsoft et al. Historically they've adopted a beggar-my-neighbour attitude here in the UK, in which they look after the interests of their membership over and above everyone else in society. This is, after all what they're made for, but it doesn't really distinguish them from the "evil" capitalists you're vilifying. My solution, incidentally, is competition between unions to prevent over-exploitation of everyone else.
Lastly, can I just point out that straight forward economic growth, i.e. the goal of capitalism, makes capital more scarce than labour. Adam Smith observed this in the wealth of nations, and used it to explain the disparity in the standards of living in China, Britain and America at the time.
It has in the UK. The only problem is we still have BT, so many people choose BTs crappy broadband instead of shopping around. O2 and be are pretty good, and very cheap.
Er, Canada is hideously clumped together. Geography is deceiving, most Canadians live close to the US border. The actual population density and effective population density might be quite different.
Yeah, I'm really disgusted with the EU, they've been spineless on Russia. The fact that a lot of our energy market is state owned (though not here in the UK) means the Russians can use a divide and rule strategy to isolate protesting countries (see the routine bad treatment of the ex-Soviet states). They know they can sell the gas to another state instead.
If the companies were private, they wouldn't have that leverage as they would have to stop all gas exports to Europe, as opposed to being able to do it nation-by-nation. This would hurt Europe a lot, but it would hurt Russia a lot too. At the moment Russia could stop selling gas to Germany at the drop of a hat and not have any effects elsewhere in Europe.
I can't watch the pointless medal scene at the end of a New Hope. It feels like he just ran out of ideas and just said "Shit, I've got to finish this film somehow". For me it ruins the film.
The capitalists need us to create their profits, but we don't need them.
Unfortunately, we rather do. Labour cannot labour without capital, so capital is actually a key part of adding value. After all, a workman without capital is simply unemployed.
Also, if the state can't own capital, then who can? If it's held in common, then some way of administering capital (i.e. allocating it in the best way) would have to be implemented. It could be a person (in which case you'd have a monopsonistic capitalist, fantastic) or some sort of communal administration, or a state as most people prefer to call it. In reality, the worker benefits more from competitive sale of capital (i.e. many capitalists) and from the use of price signals to assign capital (after all price is the place where people can't afford to lie).
The old myth that capital doesn't add value is based on a discredited economic theory; the labour theory of value, which states such more or less by definition. However, the LTV fails to explain observed economic facts (e.g. why does coffee cost more in a station than from the same brand 200m away?) This is why economists have switched to the marginal utility theory of value, which makes more sense a priori anyway to me.
I link to it so many times, it's really useful. As a rule politicians score highly on the authoritarian side. I can think of two obvious reasons for this; 1) If you don't think you can run the world better than everyone else, why become a politician? 2) Those who manage to climb the political ladder now have power and are loth to relinquish it.
Also, last.fm would go from being an entertaining and useful resource to a massive security hole.
(I know you wouldn't play the song every time necessarily, but it would severely limit the number of songs which it could be and give you a pretty good way to weight attempts.)
By what definition of sustainable? Sure, if all the cities of the world vanished tomorrow, farmers would be happy and well fed. But what would happen when they needed the next fertiliser shipment? Or a new pest arises resistant to pesticide stocks? Or if they want some new machinery and need to raise capital? Or just want intangible things that come from cities like entertainment or culture?
This is not the bias of a city boy, modern farming would not be possible without the innovation of the cities. Of course, we could return to the subsistence farming of the pre-historic/early-historic eras. Fun times!
Cycling is increasingly common in London. This is not just because it is greener, but primarily because it is much cheaper, often faster and healthier than the alternatives.
Of course, the vast majority still drive or take the public transport, but I wanted to make the point that a behaviour will never be popular because it's green (until we have personal carbon tax/credits), but because it is cheaper or has other personal benefits.
6. China doesn't have "Maoist style communists" anymore. None that actually matter. All of them basically converted to nationalistic "china first - me second - rest way behind" type of people.
Quite right! China stopped being especially communist after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping.
PPP figures certainly have merit (and China is normally about third on those lists). I'm more skeptical of per-capita stats, especially ppp corrected ones. Logically, they should give the best insight, but usually you end up with, say, Bermuda topping the charts of global wealth, which is clear nonsense.
The reasons are that small countries like Bermuda and Luxembourg often have big internationals based there for tax reasons. This has a disproportionate effect on GDPpc if the population is small anyway.
It seemed to me to be rather a commercial for Chinese culture and power, and largely aimed at assuaging the fears of America.
China didn't need an advert for capitalism; FDI in China has been higher even than that in the United States since 2002, and has been swallowing something of the order US$80billion per year since 2005.
(p.s. I had heard that it cost even more than that, but it was hearsay and I haven't time to do more research right now)
The Telegraph article confirms that it's the footprints.
I'm not sure this is so great an evil. Given the choice of CGI or knocking choppers out of the sky over central Beijing, I know which I'd prefer the Chinese went with.
Slashdot Mirror
No it doesn't, Atheism refers to the disbelief in god or gods of any description. Hence Buddhists, for example, are atheist.
While that is its truest sense, it is usually followed up with a disbelief of mystical, spiritual, religious or any of the labels people use to categorise 'knowledge' which has no evidence in its favour. Rare is the atheist who rejects god only to move on and accept 'spirituality' and I suspect the breed is confined to America where evolved camouflage is necessary to avoid predatory evangelicals. I would even argue that the initial presentation of atheism in its strictest sense is somewhat misleading.
Incidentally, as an atheist, I would recommend the book "A Very Short Introduction to Atheism" for those who are atheist, think they might be or, god forbid, might actually want to understand their neighbour. The same series, incidentally, has very good books on everything from particle physics to Islam.
This is the fallacy you refer to.
Wikipedia is very, very good on mathematics and logic.
Did you read my post at all?
The inescapable is that labor needs capital.
That's exactly what I said!
Capitalists (people whose contribution is essentially to have money) are not the only conceivable way to provide it ( in a non capitalist system)
Fine. Since it's easy to suggest an alternative and I already illustrated why communal ownership and state capitalism fail, why don't you point out other systems? Allow the workers to own capital? This is a fantastic idea and is what our society currently does. "Destroy the notion of ownership of capital"? That's basically back to holding it in common, with the myriad flaws that presents.
Trade unions are monopolies. Socialists don't like to confront this uncomfortable truth, but there is no fundamental reason that the behaviour of a unionised workforce is more moral than the behaviour of Microsoft et al. Historically they've adopted a beggar-my-neighbour attitude here in the UK, in which they look after the interests of their membership over and above everyone else in society. This is, after all what they're made for, but it doesn't really distinguish them from the "evil" capitalists you're vilifying. My solution, incidentally, is competition between unions to prevent over-exploitation of everyone else.
Lastly, can I just point out that straight forward economic growth, i.e. the goal of capitalism, makes capital more scarce than labour. Adam Smith observed this in the wealth of nations, and used it to explain the disparity in the standards of living in China, Britain and America at the time.
It has in the UK. The only problem is we still have BT, so many people choose BTs crappy broadband instead of shopping around. O2 and be are pretty good, and very cheap.
Er, Canada is hideously clumped together. Geography is deceiving, most Canadians live close to the US border. The actual population density and effective population density might be quite different.
Is it just me or does this seem to assume that Japan will just stand still?
If Japan is upgrading faster than the US and you extrapolate the trend, the US will *never* catch up.
Though that's no more or less complete bollocks than TFA anyway :p.
Still faster than my native UK anyway.
Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey are all Western aligned at the moment. But each forms a crucial link in the chain. If we lose one, we lose the lot.
Yeah, I'm really disgusted with the EU, they've been spineless on Russia. The fact that a lot of our energy market is state owned (though not here in the UK) means the Russians can use a divide and rule strategy to isolate protesting countries (see the routine bad treatment of the ex-Soviet states). They know they can sell the gas to another state instead.
If the companies were private, they wouldn't have that leverage as they would have to stop all gas exports to Europe, as opposed to being able to do it nation-by-nation. This would hurt Europe a lot, but it would hurt Russia a lot too. At the moment Russia could stop selling gas to Germany at the drop of a hat and not have any effects elsewhere in Europe.
That, and a permanent veto on the UN Security Council.
"The Motion to send a peacekeeping force to prevent a Russian invasion of Georgia...fails."
I can't watch the pointless medal scene at the end of a New Hope. It feels like he just ran out of ideas and just said "Shit, I've got to finish this film somehow". For me it ruins the film.
People drove on the left since Roman times, on the first true roads.
It's you Yanks who are, or rather were, being difficult.
Also, though the data is not solid, it seems that traffic accidents are rarer on LHS countries than RHS.
"But the bits beyond the hearing range of humans are the best bits!"
The capitalists need us to create their profits, but we don't need them.
Unfortunately, we rather do. Labour cannot labour without capital, so capital is actually a key part of adding value. After all, a workman without capital is simply unemployed.
Also, if the state can't own capital, then who can? If it's held in common, then some way of administering capital (i.e. allocating it in the best way) would have to be implemented. It could be a person (in which case you'd have a monopsonistic capitalist, fantastic) or some sort of communal administration, or a state as most people prefer to call it. In reality, the worker benefits more from competitive sale of capital (i.e. many capitalists) and from the use of price signals to assign capital (after all price is the place where people can't afford to lie).
The old myth that capital doesn't add value is based on a discredited economic theory; the labour theory of value, which states such more or less by definition. However, the LTV fails to explain observed economic facts (e.g. why does coffee cost more in a station than from the same brand 200m away?) This is why economists have switched to the marginal utility theory of value, which makes more sense a priori anyway to me.
Political Compass.
I link to it so many times, it's really useful. As a rule politicians score highly on the authoritarian side. I can think of two obvious reasons for this;
1) If you don't think you can run the world better than everyone else, why become a politician?
2) Those who manage to climb the political ladder now have power and are loth to relinquish it.
Or an mp3 with a randomised seed embedded.
Wouldn't that completely defeat the point (i.e. making the "password" memorable)?
But it doesn't necessarily; the technique is based on the mp3 file and not every mp3 file of a song is the same, especially with classical music.
Also, last.fm would go from being an entertaining and useful resource to a massive security hole.
(I know you wouldn't play the song every time necessarily, but it would severely limit the number of songs which it could be and give you a pretty good way to weight attempts.)
Cities are unsustainable. Not farms.
By what definition of sustainable? Sure, if all the cities of the world vanished tomorrow, farmers would be happy and well fed. But what would happen when they needed the next fertiliser shipment? Or a new pest arises resistant to pesticide stocks? Or if they want some new machinery and need to raise capital? Or just want intangible things that come from cities like entertainment or culture?
This is not the bias of a city boy, modern farming would not be possible without the innovation of the cities. Of course, we could return to the subsistence farming of the pre-historic/early-historic eras. Fun times!
Cycling is increasingly common in London. This is not just because it is greener, but primarily because it is much cheaper, often faster and healthier than the alternatives.
Of course, the vast majority still drive or take the public transport, but I wanted to make the point that a behaviour will never be popular because it's green (until we have personal carbon tax/credits), but because it is cheaper or has other personal benefits.
6. China doesn't have "Maoist style communists" anymore. None that actually matter. All of them basically converted to nationalistic "china first - me second - rest way behind" type of people.
Quite right! China stopped being especially communist after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping.
PPP figures certainly have merit (and China is normally about third on those lists). I'm more skeptical of per-capita stats, especially ppp corrected ones. Logically, they should give the best insight, but usually you end up with, say, Bermuda topping the charts of global wealth, which is clear nonsense.
The reasons are that small countries like Bermuda and Luxembourg often have big internationals based there for tax reasons. This has a disproportionate effect on GDPpc if the population is small anyway.
Yeah, and just to puncture US egos a little: European Union 16,830,100
(Yes, I'm a Europhile, so sue me. ;-) )
It seemed to me to be rather a commercial for Chinese culture and power, and largely aimed at assuaging the fears of America.
China didn't need an advert for capitalism; FDI in China has been higher even than that in the United States since 2002, and has been swallowing something of the order US$80billion per year since 2005.
(p.s. I had heard that it cost even more than that, but it was hearsay and I haven't time to do more research right now)
(Sources variously OECD and the Economist).
The BBC commentator didn't mention that it was CG. You can still check that on the iPlayer, c.20mins in.
The Telegraph article confirms that it's the footprints.
I'm not sure this is so great an evil. Given the choice of CGI or knocking choppers out of the sky over central Beijing, I know which I'd prefer the Chinese went with.