You can't quite fathom? You should think harder about it, it's actually pretty easy to grasp. Start by thinking about how different kinds of personal benefits are considered good and bad.
The point is that people who don't have freedom but want it, want to be in the USA, not anywhere else. People who use our freedom to make a ton of money, can buy their own freedom on a private island, and betray the society which gave them so much.
I can think of many adjectives to describe our sad republic, but "civilized" is not among them. Go do a "police brutality" search on youtube and then come back and boast about how civilized we are.
LOL. Get some perspective. We have tiny pockets of violence relative to the norm through human history. We all hope to stamp out those pockets, and there's much work to do, but things have gotten a lot better at an astounding pace. In another couple thousand years, humanity could really be quite peaceful and productive.
That's because in every place, through all of human history, for every single group of people, never has a majority of people been so stupid as to try that out.
I'm sure that the $666.2 billion defense budget I mentioned earlier played such a huge role in the rise of Facebook.
Wait a second, is that literal or tongue-in-cheek? You do realize, of course, that the defense budget did in fact play an essential role in the rise of Facebook, seeing as how defense dollars built the internet?
Facebook built a tech empire, but DarpaNet (government) led the way.
Railroads tamed the west, but they were following Lewis & Clark (government).
The pilgrims were industrious folks, but they were using maps made by Columbus (government).
SpaceShipOne might be the way regular folks visit space, but NASA (government) paid for all of our rocketry knowledge.
Not just in American history, but industry has followed trails blazed with public dollars since literally the dawn of civilization.
Do they pay high taxes? I haven't seen their tax returns, but I always assumed they would be in that sweet sweet 15% "tax" bracket. I love how that is called "investment income" instead of "money you don't actually have to work for". Gosh, I wish I could *not* work and only pay 15%! I'm a sucker -- I actually have to work every day, and I have to pay 25%.
Why do we always talk about "incentivizing investment" but not "incentivizing work"? It seems like getting free money ("investment income") is incentive enough.
Well, plainly Medicare and Social Security are 'general welfare', and the Army and the Navy are both prescribed in the Constitution, so I imagine you must agree with me that the Air Force is unconstitutional. Is that what you mean, you want to disband the Air Force?
Mmm hmm. And too many people don't understand that "the government" isn't a thing that does things. It doesn't sound so awesome when you phrase it realistically: a majority of your countrymen made a policy decision that you don't like.
LOL. Do you think an accurate description of that time period will dislodge his fanciful romanticized notions? Yeah right. If this guy thinks "free markets" instead of "robber barons", then there is no way to get through to him.
Did Friedman really say that? If so, he's totally wrong. I hear "greed is good" from Wall Street brokers all the fucking time, including from friends of mine. It's the outcome of a sick economic religion based on nonsense and self delusion.
So, when you say "the U.S. Government", what do you mean by that? How does a "government" dupe people into doing something? Is it fair of me to rephrase that as, "a majority of the people of the United States decided that the status quo was bad, and that this new policy was better"? Is that what you mean by "duped"?
I just don't understand where you get that impression. People have the "right" to do whatever they want (if you insist on phrasing it in terms of rights), unless that thing is prohibited. It is not prohibited to time-shift materials that you lawfully acquire. Time shifting is recognized by all American courts. There no justification to say that a person does not have "the right" to time-shift a movie. If I'm mistaken, you can show it by citing court cases.
Oh, well my use might be outside of the terms of Netflix's contract with distributors, but I'm not a party to that contract. I'm a party to the law, which I am not breaking. That's what I meant when I asked about copyright infringement, which is a violation of the law. I actually don't know anything about Netflix media contracts.
Whoa, whoa. No, it is not obviously copyright infringement, it is obviously fair use time shifting. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever been prosecuted or sued for copying a rented movie and watching it later -- are you?
Gene expression and epigenets are two forms of genetic change which are different than copying errors. Gene expression is the most common, much more common that copying errors.
The alternative is mainly gene expression. That is the main way that traits change: genes get expressed more, or less. Most evolution happens due to gene expression. There are also epigenetic factors, which we are learning more and more about, and we're not sure the extent they will play but they will be significant. Actual DNA copying mistakes happen, but they are a minority of changes.
Boy, I've seen that said so many times here today. I'm surprised that Slashdot readers don't know better.
Your understanding of evolution is too elementary. It's more complicated than mutations+selection. The majority of the driving force behind evolutionary change is gene expression. We are starting to understad the enormous implications of epigenetic factors. Actual DNA copying errors are a minority part of what causes evolutionary change, which was the point of this article. It's not that humans are smarter because the smart gener was expressed more often than in monkeys, as previously assumed [afaik], but apparently the smart gener actually mutated. If so, that's news.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, yeah, he'll almost certainly still be rich as fuck.
You can't quite fathom? You should think harder about it, it's actually pretty easy to grasp. Start by thinking about how different kinds of personal benefits are considered good and bad.
Like most US citizens you probably missed out on the new that the US is no longer the greatest nation on the planet.
Ha ha, yes I guess I missed that one. LOL, as if.
The point is that people who don't have freedom but want it, want to be in the USA, not anywhere else. People who use our freedom to make a ton of money, can buy their own freedom on a private island, and betray the society which gave them so much.
Indeed, and surely he would have built that exact same website, even if the United States government hadn't, you know, invented the internet.
I can think of many adjectives to describe our sad republic, but "civilized" is not among them. Go do a "police brutality" search on youtube and then come back and boast about how civilized we are.
LOL. Get some perspective. We have tiny pockets of violence relative to the norm through human history. We all hope to stamp out those pockets, and there's much work to do, but things have gotten a lot better at an astounding pace. In another couple thousand years, humanity could really be quite peaceful and productive.
That's because in every place, through all of human history, for every single group of people, never has a majority of people been so stupid as to try that out.
The last time the majority of Americans were Libertarian was fifty years before never, during the administration of President Neverhappened.
I'm sure that the $666.2 billion defense budget I mentioned earlier played such a huge role in the rise of Facebook.
Wait a second, is that literal or tongue-in-cheek? You do realize, of course, that the defense budget did in fact play an essential role in the rise of Facebook, seeing as how defense dollars built the internet?
Facebook built a tech empire, but DarpaNet (government) led the way.
Railroads tamed the west, but they were following Lewis & Clark (government).
The pilgrims were industrious folks, but they were using maps made by Columbus (government).
SpaceShipOne might be the way regular folks visit space, but NASA (government) paid for all of our rocketry knowledge.
Not just in American history, but industry has followed trails blazed with public dollars since literally the dawn of civilization.
Do they pay high taxes? I haven't seen their tax returns, but I always assumed they would be in that sweet sweet 15% "tax" bracket. I love how that is called "investment income" instead of "money you don't actually have to work for". Gosh, I wish I could *not* work and only pay 15%! I'm a sucker -- I actually have to work every day, and I have to pay 25%.
Why do we always talk about "incentivizing investment" but not "incentivizing work"? It seems like getting free money ("investment income") is incentive enough.
Well, plainly Medicare and Social Security are 'general welfare', and the Army and the Navy are both prescribed in the Constitution, so I imagine you must agree with me that the Air Force is unconstitutional. Is that what you mean, you want to disband the Air Force?
Mmm hmm. And too many people don't understand that "the government" isn't a thing that does things. It doesn't sound so awesome when you phrase it realistically: a majority of your countrymen made a policy decision that you don't like.
No, we think it is a sufficient way to raze the stupid assertion that economic output is the result of low taxes.
LOL. Do you think an accurate description of that time period will dislodge his fanciful romanticized notions? Yeah right. If this guy thinks "free markets" instead of "robber barons", then there is no way to get through to him.
Did Friedman really say that? If so, he's totally wrong. I hear "greed is good" from Wall Street brokers all the fucking time, including from friends of mine. It's the outcome of a sick economic religion based on nonsense and self delusion.
So, when you say "the U.S. Government", what do you mean by that? How does a "government" dupe people into doing something? Is it fair of me to rephrase that as, "a majority of the people of the United States decided that the status quo was bad, and that this new policy was better"? Is that what you mean by "duped"?
Or, as Republicans call it, "the good ol' days".
PS you forgot about oppressing darkies and fruits -- good times!
Whereas today, 3% net. Or, if you are GE, zero net, plus billions back. What's your point again?
I just don't understand where you get that impression. People have the "right" to do whatever they want (if you insist on phrasing it in terms of rights), unless that thing is prohibited. It is not prohibited to time-shift materials that you lawfully acquire. Time shifting is recognized by all American courts. There no justification to say that a person does not have "the right" to time-shift a movie. If I'm mistaken, you can show it by citing court cases.
Oh, well my use might be outside of the terms of Netflix's contract with distributors, but I'm not a party to that contract. I'm a party to the law, which I am not breaking. That's what I meant when I asked about copyright infringement, which is a violation of the law. I actually don't know anything about Netflix media contracts.
Whoa, whoa. No, it is not obviously copyright infringement, it is obviously fair use time shifting. I'm not aware of anyone who has ever been prosecuted or sued for copying a rented movie and watching it later -- are you?
Gene expression and epigenets are two forms of genetic change which are different than copying errors. Gene expression is the most common, much more common that copying errors.
Not at all. The most common is gene expression, then epigenetics, then there are other things, such as actual DNA copying errors.
The alternative is mainly gene expression. That is the main way that traits change: genes get expressed more, or less. Most evolution happens due to gene expression. There are also epigenetic factors, which we are learning more and more about, and we're not sure the extent they will play but they will be significant. Actual DNA copying mistakes happen, but they are a minority of changes.
Boy, I've seen that said so many times here today. I'm surprised that Slashdot readers don't know better.
Your understanding of evolution is too elementary. It's more complicated than mutations+selection. The majority of the driving force behind evolutionary change is gene expression. We are starting to understad the enormous implications of epigenetic factors. Actual DNA copying errors are a minority part of what causes evolutionary change, which was the point of this article. It's not that humans are smarter because the smart gener was expressed more often than in monkeys, as previously assumed [afaik], but apparently the smart gener actually mutated. If so, that's news.