Because society has deemed it in our best interest to promote productivity.
Lets say you work hard, have some luck, and end up with 10 million dollars. You die, pass that on, and nothing is taxed. Your child could easily live off the interest of that money and provide nothing of value to society during their lifetime. And then that child's child. And then that child's child's child, etc..
Even with the large estate tax now, how investing is taxed, we've basically created a permanent upper class. A royalty based on wealth that will NEVER go away, no matter how little they provide in terms of innovation or productivity. Even with 45% of their estate disappearing each generation, merely through investments alone, the rich can stay wealthy very easily.
If you've made 5 million dollars (the minimum amount required to fall under the estate tax), surely your children should be able to live on 2.5 million.....
The world is basically starting to overflow with way more people than positions.
The world always has more people than jobs. That is why unemployment never hits 0. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif
I'd be surprised if we don't have an "Arab Spring" or "French Revolution" happening in this country within the next 20 years.
That is certainly possible. But it isn't likely due to unemployment. More likely the cause would be income inequality growing to search extremes that people get violent. http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png
Of course if everyone had a degree then they would be worthless, so rather than limit student numbers with the cost of entry, the universities in Oz limit numbers on ability alone.
This is not true. If everyone had a degree society would be much more efficient and productive. There is never a downside to more education (except maybe the cost). I have a feeling "Oz" is limiting student numbers due to cost as well.
Right. And next you'll be telling me that if everyone had preventative healthcare we'd spend less on healthcare overall and the economy would be more productive. Oh wait... that is true:)
But isn't one difference between US behavior and Russian behavior, is that Russia and other countries signed a treaty that specifically forbid what Russian is doing right now? http://www.dw.de/bound-by-treaty-russia-ukraine-and-crimea/a-17487632 (changing boundaries / invading without being attacked).
I know the US was accused of breaking international law by invading Iraq, but that seems way less clear whether it was truly illegal. There were 2 attacks by Iraq against the US. An attempt on the life of a president, and firing at our planes over the UN approved no-fly zone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War I was 100% against the Iraq war btw.
If Putin had said "hey, Ukraine attacked us" (whether it were true or not) he'd at least be operating within the spirit of international law. He's not even pretending to follow the laws right now.
I can definitely see the BBC or other country's state owned TV having a clean separation of power from the State. But in Russia or China I have a feeling that there is less separation. Or at least consequences if you stray too far from the State's views.
Would you agree that Putin would pull strings and have a reporter fired if they said something he didn't like?
What you say is true. But isn't one difference between US behavior and Russian behavior, is that Russia and other countries signed a treaty that specifically forbid what Russian is doing right now? http://www.dw.de/bound-by-treaty-russia-ukraine-and-crimea/a-17487632
I know the US was accused of breaking international law by invading Iraq, but that seems way less clear. There is at least some evidence of threat against the US (see wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
If Putin had said "hey, Ukraine attacked us" (whether it were true or not) he'd at least be operating within the spirit of international law. He's not even pretending to follow the laws right now.
About your point that the US would get involved if it was their military base in a country in turmoil... I can't think of any examples. I assume they would attempt to protect the lives of the service people on the base, or attempt to evacuate them. But there is no historical precedent that has the US annexing a large region of land around a base and declaring it part of the US. Or is there? Curious.
If a coal plant servicing X towns was scheduled for shutdown in 10 years, I'm pretty certain there would be many proposals from investors/builders for the right to replace that plant's function. I don't know if this particular buyout plan has advanced notice like that though.
I think you underestimate market forces when it comes to filling in a multi-billion dollar need. 10 years would be too short to phase out coal, but given a longer time period, wind/solar/thermal/pumped-storage/large batteries/etc.. could fill the void.
The problem is we don't attempt to even start the phasing out of the things we know are bad for us and are limited resources. You've got to start at some point in time. I'd rather some artificial force be put in place to get the ball rolling before a natural one comes along and slaps us in the face.
And Oracle created my state's healthcare site and it completely failed also.
I get what you are saying, but I don't think the healthcare sites are a good example. Almost all large (very large) IT projects fail or go way over budget/time. The larger the IT project, the more likely it is to fail. That has been proven in history.
These people have access to all the modern conveniences via their jobs. They have chosen not to learn anything about them which would be O.K. if it wasn't critical to their job performance.
Actually the SCOTUS has shown they are more than willing to learn about something required for them to do their jobs.
Go back a few years when they had a specific case about video games and free speech in 2011. They set up a lab and played the ultra-violent games for a few days, both online and off, to help make a decision. (All of them agreed with the free speech, two dissented saying it was not regulating speech, but was regulating the sale of products.)
Historically the judges have been willing to get their hands dirty and view the gritty details when they are called to review them for a case. They have traveled to remote locations, dug through physical evidence, and gotten their hands dirty. They may not be hardcore gamers or telecom experts, but when it comes to ruling on the law they are making determinations based on the exact wording on the law. Such a decision can be made based on reviewing the facts, reviewing details provided by experts, and looking at the specific items enough to satisfy their opinions.
... which makes the shocking naïveté they've shown in certain opinions pertaining to campaign finance even more unsettling.
I'd be willing to wager that they knew exactly what they were doing.
I do not understand why SQRL isn't considered a horrible idea.... I must be missing something.
At the very bottom of the page it lists issues that still need to be worked out, and one of them is: "What if the smartphone that contains my identity is lost or stolen?"
That seems to be a show stopper. Phone is stolen.... thief now has access to every single site supporting SQRL. I guess if that problem is solved it sounds promising. Maybe some way to instantly destroy your SQRL identify from a web site that contains your profile... not sure. But then how do you get it back? Very tough problem.
You could use a password manager like KeePass, LastPass, PasswordSafe, etc. Is there some reason you don't?
And even if there is, reconsider it. You can keep a password safe database(s) on a thumb drive handcuffed to your wrist if you want to be really paranoid. The databases are encrypted, but if they're physically tethered to you, you'll have to take them with you instead of possibly leaving them unguarded on your desk.
The idea of making different apps all have different passwords (as opposed to single signon or a password safe/PIN vault under a master password) may sound secure, but nobody's memory is that good, and the resulting post-its, unencrypted spreadshhets, Windows Notepad files or whatever means that in reality, you may be less secure, rather than more secure.
I use drop box to hold the keepass database, and then can access that file from any device I own. I'm not sure why more people don't do something similar. My bank, random web sites, etc.. all have long unique passwords that I don't even know. I memorize one long password for drop box, and one long phrase for keepass, that's it.
I probably have 1000's of logins on all sorts of sites for home and work. I'd much rather have them all unique and trust that my keepass file is A) safe on drop box and B) very very difficult to brute force because of the pass phrase length, then trust reusing passwords and having to trust each individual server's security.
But of course, you will never hear this argument from "environmental activists,"
I am an environmentalist (I think you are kind of suicidal if you are not concerned about sustainable practices... but I digress), and I'm all for deep ocean floating wind farms providing electricity and water.
Someone ran the numbers in a prior post. If you used 10% of the total wind farm energy it would produce only 3% of the L.A.Basin water use. If you wanted to get serious about desalination it would require massive investments in wind and solar farms. And as an environmentalist, I am always in favor of massive investments in green energy:)
I've read a few articles and seen that Ted Talk. Managed herds do seem promising for 'greening deserts', but I have yet to hear anyone involved with this suggest that roaming herds could replace our meat industry.
We consume WAY WAY more meat then managed roaming herds could provide. There just isn't enough land on the planet to give 100 cattle each 100 acres.
Sure, some of our meat could (and is right now) raised on open land, but it is a very small percent compared to feed lots.
Bad phrasing for sure, but it is an issue. There is a total amount of useable water in California each year, and many competing interests. This alfalfa does make 100 billion gallons "disappear" from the pot of total useable water each year. The rivers and rain provide a set amount for California, and that amount is low enough that people always fight about who gets what percent of that set amount.
It is really bad wording, not a lie. The water really is "gone" in the sense that it cannot be used for anything else during that year. California only has X gallons of useable water produced by nature (and imported from other states) to use each year. And there are constant fights over how best to use that relatively small amount of water.
The water isn't disappearing from the planet, but it is disappearing from what is available for use each year, in a state that already has a lot of fights over who gets to use what amount of water each year. Bad summary article wording.
Economic growth is not a zero sum game except in the short run.
Short, if you consider decades short. Production, efficiency, corporate profits, ceo pay, etc.., have risen much quicker than average worker salary in the last 30 years. The average worker salary increase is nearly flat. You are right that economic growth is not zero sum, but it can nearly be zero sum with the right political and market manipulation.
The top 1% of the population does not have the power by themselves (in a democracy) to dictate income inequality.
In theory. In practice, media ownership concentration and money in politics heavily influences people to the point that they consistently vote against their own best interests. The people are not "permitting" anyone. They are actively being mislead.
Direct voting like we mean you'd likely only get the the most radical people involved. And what is allowed to be brought to a vote is an even bigger issue. 99% of your constituents might want single-payer healthcare, but they'll never get a chance to vote for it with the current political climate in Washington.
Slashdot Mirror
1991 was sanctioned. 2003 was not if I recall correctly. The head of the UN at the time stated that he believed the war was illegal.
If you are driving a scooter around, I assume it is pretty short commute distances. Why not go all electric?
Because society has deemed it in our best interest to promote productivity.
Lets say you work hard, have some luck, and end up with 10 million dollars. You die, pass that on, and nothing is taxed. Your child could easily live off the interest of that money and provide nothing of value to society during their lifetime. And then that child's child. And then that child's child's child, etc..
Even with the large estate tax now, how investing is taxed, we've basically created a permanent upper class. A royalty based on wealth that will NEVER go away, no matter how little they provide in terms of innovation or productivity. Even with 45% of their estate disappearing each generation, merely through investments alone, the rich can stay wealthy very easily.
If you've made 5 million dollars (the minimum amount required to fall under the estate tax), surely your children should be able to live on 2.5 million.....
The world is basically starting to overflow with way more people than positions.
The world always has more people than jobs. That is why unemployment never hits 0. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/US_Unemployment_1890-2009.gif
I'd be surprised if we don't have an "Arab Spring" or "French Revolution" happening in this country within the next 20 years.
That is certainly possible. But it isn't likely due to unemployment. More likely the cause would be income inequality growing to search extremes that people get violent. http://assets.motherjones.com/politics/2011/inequality-p25_averagehouseholdincom.png
Of course if everyone had a degree then they would be worthless, so rather than limit student numbers with the cost of entry, the universities in Oz limit numbers on ability alone.
This is not true. If everyone had a degree society would be much more efficient and productive. There is never a downside to more education (except maybe the cost). I have a feeling "Oz" is limiting student numbers due to cost as well.
Right. And next you'll be telling me that if everyone had preventative healthcare we'd spend less on healthcare overall and the economy would be more productive. Oh wait... that is true:)
But isn't one difference between US behavior and Russian behavior, is that Russia and other countries signed a treaty that specifically forbid what Russian is doing right now? http://www.dw.de/bound-by-treaty-russia-ukraine-and-crimea/a-17487632 (changing boundaries / invading without being attacked).
I know the US was accused of breaking international law by invading Iraq, but that seems way less clear whether it was truly illegal. There were 2 attacks by Iraq against the US. An attempt on the life of a president, and firing at our planes over the UN approved no-fly zone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
I was 100% against the Iraq war btw.
If Putin had said "hey, Ukraine attacked us" (whether it were true or not) he'd at least be operating within the spirit of international law. He's not even pretending to follow the laws right now.
I can definitely see the BBC or other country's state owned TV having a clean separation of power from the State. But in Russia or China I have a feeling that there is less separation. Or at least consequences if you stray too far from the State's views.
Would you agree that Putin would pull strings and have a reporter fired if they said something he didn't like?
What you say is true. But isn't one difference between US behavior and Russian behavior, is that Russia and other countries signed a treaty that specifically forbid what Russian is doing right now? http://www.dw.de/bound-by-treaty-russia-ukraine-and-crimea/a-17487632
I know the US was accused of breaking international law by invading Iraq, but that seems way less clear. There is at least some evidence of threat against the US (see wiki) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
If Putin had said "hey, Ukraine attacked us" (whether it were true or not) he'd at least be operating within the spirit of international law. He's not even pretending to follow the laws right now.
About your point that the US would get involved if it was their military base in a country in turmoil... I can't think of any examples. I assume they would attempt to protect the lives of the service people on the base, or attempt to evacuate them. But there is no historical precedent that has the US annexing a large region of land around a base and declaring it part of the US. Or is there? Curious.
You forgot Homeopathic.
but the internal combustion engine has over a century of demonstrated reliability. .
So? The electric motor was invented in 1832 and has been powering various machinery reliably ever since.
If a coal plant servicing X towns was scheduled for shutdown in 10 years, I'm pretty certain there would be many proposals from investors/builders for the right to replace that plant's function. I don't know if this particular buyout plan has advanced notice like that though.
I think you underestimate market forces when it comes to filling in a multi-billion dollar need. 10 years would be too short to phase out coal, but given a longer time period, wind/solar/thermal/pumped-storage/large batteries/etc.. could fill the void.
The problem is we don't attempt to even start the phasing out of the things we know are bad for us and are limited resources. You've got to start at some point in time. I'd rather some artificial force be put in place to get the ball rolling before a natural one comes along and slaps us in the face.
And Oracle created my state's healthcare site and it completely failed also.
I get what you are saying, but I don't think the healthcare sites are a good example. Almost all large (very large) IT projects fail or go way over budget/time. The larger the IT project, the more likely it is to fail. That has been proven in history.
These people have access to all the modern conveniences via their jobs. They have chosen not to learn anything about them which would be O.K. if it wasn't critical to their job performance.
Actually the SCOTUS has shown they are more than willing to learn about something required for them to do their jobs.
Go back a few years when they had a specific case about video games and free speech in 2011. They set up a lab and played the ultra-violent games for a few days, both online and off, to help make a decision. (All of them agreed with the free speech, two dissented saying it was not regulating speech, but was regulating the sale of products.)
Historically the judges have been willing to get their hands dirty and view the gritty details when they are called to review them for a case. They have traveled to remote locations, dug through physical evidence, and gotten their hands dirty. They may not be hardcore gamers or telecom experts, but when it comes to ruling on the law they are making determinations based on the exact wording on the law. Such a decision can be made based on reviewing the facts, reviewing details provided by experts, and looking at the specific items enough to satisfy their opinions.
... which makes the shocking naïveté they've shown in certain opinions pertaining to campaign finance even more unsettling.
I'd be willing to wager that they knew exactly what they were doing.
I do not understand why SQRL isn't considered a horrible idea.... I must be missing something.
At the very bottom of the page it lists issues that still need to be worked out, and one of them is:
"What if the smartphone that contains my identity is lost or stolen?"
That seems to be a show stopper. Phone is stolen.... thief now has access to every single site supporting SQRL. I guess if that problem is solved it sounds promising. Maybe some way to instantly destroy your SQRL identify from a web site that contains your profile... not sure. But then how do you get it back? Very tough problem.
hope.net and www.2600.com are both down. slashdotted?
You could use a password manager like KeePass, LastPass, PasswordSafe, etc. Is there some reason you don't?
And even if there is, reconsider it. You can keep a password safe database(s) on a thumb drive handcuffed to your wrist if you want to be really paranoid. The databases are encrypted, but if they're physically tethered to you, you'll have to take them with you instead of possibly leaving them unguarded on your desk.
The idea of making different apps all have different passwords (as opposed to single signon or a password safe/PIN vault under a master password) may sound secure, but nobody's memory is that good, and the resulting post-its, unencrypted spreadshhets, Windows Notepad files or whatever means that in reality, you may be less secure, rather than more secure.
I use drop box to hold the keepass database, and then can access that file from any device I own. I'm not sure why more people don't do something similar. My bank, random web sites, etc.. all have long unique passwords that I don't even know. I memorize one long password for drop box, and one long phrase for keepass, that's it.
I probably have 1000's of logins on all sorts of sites for home and work. I'd much rather have them all unique and trust that my keepass file is A) safe on drop box and B) very very difficult to brute force because of the pass phrase length, then trust reusing passwords and having to trust each individual server's security.
But of course, you will never hear this argument from "environmental activists,"
I am an environmentalist (I think you are kind of suicidal if you are not concerned about sustainable practices... but I digress), and I'm all for deep ocean floating wind farms providing electricity and water.
Someone ran the numbers in a prior post. If you used 10% of the total wind farm energy it would produce only 3% of the L.A.Basin water use. If you wanted to get serious about desalination it would require massive investments in wind and solar farms. And as an environmentalist, I am always in favor of massive investments in green energy:)
I've read a few articles and seen that Ted Talk. Managed herds do seem promising for 'greening deserts', but I have yet to hear anyone involved with this suggest that roaming herds could replace our meat industry.
We consume WAY WAY more meat then managed roaming herds could provide. There just isn't enough land on the planet to give 100 cattle each 100 acres.
Sure, some of our meat could (and is right now) raised on open land, but it is a very small percent compared to feed lots.
Bad phrasing for sure, but it is an issue. There is a total amount of useable water in California each year, and many competing interests. This alfalfa does make 100 billion gallons "disappear" from the pot of total useable water each year. The rivers and rain provide a set amount for California, and that amount is low enough that people always fight about who gets what percent of that set amount.
That is straight up lies.
It is really bad wording, not a lie. The water really is "gone" in the sense that it cannot be used for anything else during that year. California only has X gallons of useable water produced by nature (and imported from other states) to use each year. And there are constant fights over how best to use that relatively small amount of water.
That isn't an option for the majority. If everyone did that, there would be no deer left on the planet in short order.
The water isn't disappearing from the planet, but it is disappearing from what is available for use each year, in a state that already has a lot of fights over who gets to use what amount of water each year. Bad summary article wording.
Economic growth is not a zero sum game except in the short run.
Short, if you consider decades short. Production, efficiency, corporate profits, ceo pay, etc.., have risen much quicker than average worker salary in the last 30 years. The average worker salary increase is nearly flat. You are right that economic growth is not zero sum, but it can nearly be zero sum with the right political and market manipulation.
The top 1% of the population does not have the power by themselves (in a democracy) to dictate income inequality.
In theory. In practice, media ownership concentration and money in politics heavily influences people to the point that they consistently vote against their own best interests. The people are not "permitting" anyone. They are actively being mislead.
Direct voting like we mean you'd likely only get the the most radical people involved. And what is allowed to be brought to a vote is an even bigger issue. 99% of your constituents might want single-payer healthcare, but they'll never get a chance to vote for it with the current political climate in Washington.