When you talk about only rich or wealthy people providing jobs, it starts to sound like a caste system. I don't think that's what you meant, but the argumentative bastard in me had to note it.
Also, arguing that innovation costs jobs, without mentioning any benefit from it, is an argument for stagnation in my book. I'm personally not too concerned with increased efficiency in this, that, or the other, if that means that a bunch of people end up dying ten years earlier than the would have had that efficiency not been introduced. Again, I don't think you're advocating innovations in reducing quality of life.
This has been an interesting discussion. I came to the conclusion years ago that talk does not change minds. Only personal experience changes minds, but talk is still very interesting.
If we take socio-economic mobility as an indication of innovation, and look at effective tax rates rather than book tax rates, the more highly taxed and strictly regulated economies of Europe and the thoroughly Europeanized former colonies have done better than the US in the era of plummeting taxes and deregulation that really kicked of with Reagan.
I often have to backtrack from what people assume my position is when I say things like that.
I certainly think consequences need to be considered. I even think that the consequences of government inaction, deregulation, loss of public goods, et cetera need to be considered.
I've done none of those. But that doesn't mean you aren't just totally incompetent.
I don't think that you are, but your post presumes that I trust you to:
A) have done those things and B) been competent at them
I'm willing to trust that you have. And yet, I'm still not willing to accept that having society pay for the benefits of organized government is a bad idea.
Perhaps all of the people who wish to starve the beast, and are convinced that it's a common sense position which everyone should agree with should get elected and actually do it. Instead, what happens is that they get elected every once in a while, they drive up the deficit and get out of office with a major recession in the works.
Meanwhile higher taxes and tighter regulation (within limits) consistently produce innovation and reduced federal deficits.
when they trounce cell theory. A bunch of chemicals which preferentially catalyze feedstock to produce identical/similar chemicals is interesting, and very difficult to do from scratch, but I want CELLS! Self enclosed systems.
I suppose cells are not really needed for life, but it seems pretty clear that they provide certain advantages, especially in terms of not just getting washed away.
On the topic of ID: just because there is a chemical reaction that seems to be approaching the fuzzy definition of life we've developed so far, and that reaction is intelligently designed, does not really have anything to do with the real problems that exist with pushing Intelligent Design as an alternate theory to evolution for explaining life.
This comes up a lot when people want to talk about both religion and science. They exist in different domains. Religion does not propose testable, predictive hypotheses. Science does not purport to provide meaning for existence.
Intelligent Design is not scientific. Genetic evolution is not religious.
People can chose to reconcile religion and science, or pit them against each other. It is only when one or both are misused that there is conflict.
That said, the misuse and conflict almost always comes from the religious side. That is based on personal experience and I have no numbers to back it up.
You wire the panels so that the charge can be manipulated. You don't have any moving parts, or risk of scratching the surface.
It uses electricity, but not much, and it could be built right into the panels.
It just seems like the wind would have an easier time if the dust was electrically unsticky.
please destroy my idea now,
ivan
Slashdot Mirror
"how many bones are there in the hunan body?"
Is there something about that province we should know? Something Chinese Medicine is trying to hide?
ivan
You may find that trying to one up Douglas Adams is not rewarding.
ivan
When you talk about only rich or wealthy people providing jobs, it starts to sound like a caste system. I don't think that's what you meant, but the argumentative bastard in me had to note it.
Also, arguing that innovation costs jobs, without mentioning any benefit from it, is an argument for stagnation in my book. I'm personally not too concerned with increased efficiency in this, that, or the other, if that means that a bunch of people end up dying ten years earlier than the would have had that efficiency not been introduced. Again, I don't think you're advocating innovations in reducing quality of life.
This has been an interesting discussion. I came to the conclusion years ago that talk does not change minds. Only personal experience changes minds, but talk is still very interesting.
ivan
If we take socio-economic mobility as an indication of innovation, and look at effective tax rates rather than book tax rates, the more highly taxed and strictly regulated economies of Europe and the thoroughly Europeanized former colonies have done better than the US in the era of plummeting taxes and deregulation that really kicked of with Reagan.
I often have to backtrack from what people assume my position is when I say things like that.
I certainly think consequences need to be considered. I even think that the consequences of government inaction, deregulation, loss of public goods, et cetera need to be considered.
ivan
I've done none of those. But that doesn't mean you aren't just totally incompetent.
I don't think that you are, but your post presumes that I trust you to:
A) have done those things
and
B) been competent at them
I'm willing to trust that you have. And yet, I'm still not willing to accept that having society pay for the benefits of organized government is a bad idea.
Perhaps all of the people who wish to starve the beast, and are convinced that it's a common sense position which everyone should agree with should get elected and actually do it. Instead, what happens is that they get elected every once in a while, they drive up the deficit and get out of office with a major recession in the works.
Meanwhile higher taxes and tighter regulation (within limits) consistently produce innovation and reduced federal deficits.
ivan
what?
No, seriously, WHAT?
ivan
when they trounce cell theory. A bunch of chemicals which preferentially catalyze feedstock to produce identical/similar chemicals is interesting, and very difficult to do from scratch, but I want CELLS! Self enclosed systems.
I suppose cells are not really needed for life, but it seems pretty clear that they provide certain advantages, especially in terms of not just getting washed away.
On the topic of ID: just because there is a chemical reaction that seems to be approaching the fuzzy definition of life we've developed so far, and that reaction is intelligently designed, does not really have anything to do with the real problems that exist with pushing Intelligent Design as an alternate theory to evolution for explaining life.
This comes up a lot when people want to talk about both religion and science. They exist in different domains. Religion does not propose testable, predictive hypotheses. Science does not purport to provide meaning for existence.
Intelligent Design is not scientific.
Genetic evolution is not religious.
People can chose to reconcile religion and science, or pit them against each other. It is only when one or both are misused that there is conflict.
That said, the misuse and conflict almost always comes from the religious side. That is based on personal experience and I have no numbers to back it up.
ivan
To quote Dr. Ian Malcom: "Life. Finds. A. Way."
It was almost like Jeff Goldblum was channeling Shatner, but acting him as more human than he was when not acting.
ivan
You didn't read that part of the /. policies either?
ivan
I don't know for sure, but doesn't claiming credit or ownership of public domain material cross a line?
If I were grading papers and found some non-quoted, non-attributed public domain material in one, I wouldn't hesitate to flunk them.
IANAL, and also not a teacher or professor.
ivan
You wire the panels so that the charge can be manipulated. You don't have any moving parts, or risk of scratching the surface. It uses electricity, but not much, and it could be built right into the panels. It just seems like the wind would have an easier time if the dust was electrically unsticky. please destroy my idea now, ivan