Better evaluations should be built, to differentiate real innovators from patent trolls.
The supposed inventors should leave some kind of economical guarantee, that would be collected by the state, if it's a trivial patent or a troll is detected.
Real innovators would get refunded everything, and would even get tax breaks as a plus for their efforts and the risk they took.
The economical punishment to the rejected patents, must be high enough, to fund the more strict evaluation process, and would serve as a deterrent for patent trolls.
> The ideal solution would be death penalty for the guilty twin, so there will be a deterrent for the next one forcing the society to spend a lot of money in a unnecessary way.
Nobody is forcing society to prosecute these brothers. If society doesn't think prosecuting them is worth a million, they could just let them walk.
That would also be a terrible precedent, letting a criminal (or 2) walk, just because lack of money.
So, the ideal would be killing the true criminal, spending the million-euro to find out who he is (and both, if both were criminals and denying the crimes).
Let's see if the next guilty twin will risk to be french-fried by forcing the society to spend a million euro to confirm they are guilty.
What would be wrong with this strategy? I'd truly like to know.
If a million euros is spent in determining the guilty one, then an ADDTIONAL PENALTY (for instance, granted death sentence or life in prison without parole) should be estalished from the start, to see if the guilty one confess before the million-euro testing.
If the guilty won't confess, then the guilty twin, after identified, apart from being thrown to jail with the added penalty, should spend the rest of his life working for the french state, trying to pay all the debt possible.
The ideal solution would be death penalty for the guilty twin, so there will be a deterrent for the next one forcing the society to spend a lot of money in a unnecessary way.
Just as a sidelight to your comment that might point towards the answer (and I'm no particular fan of the Singularity thingy) - we ARE seeing a good bit of HET in the guise of 'cheating' in the Olympics. Most of these are pretty crude chemical approaches although gene manipulation therapy is probably the next big step.
These sorts of things are very under the radar, clandestine if not outright illegal.
You may need to see something like William Gibson's Chiba City start along before we see much progress.
Hell, in the US, we're still stuck on putting marijuana in the same category as heroin. You can't expect all that much from this sort of society.
I still find that "Write Once, Runs Anywhere" promise not-yet-fulfilled
Qt is pretty good about that, assuming you don't use any OS-specific API calls. True, Qt won't run on every tablet/smartphone ever made but it covers Windows, Mac, and Linux pretty well.
And in 2013, iOs tier1 support ins in the pipeline, as well as Android (Necessitas project is still Beta, but apps built upon it are pretty solid already).
Even if we accept the claim that guns have zero guilt in the shootings.
Why so many guns purchased?
For self defense at home, one pistol is enough.
I could understand one gun, but have you seen how these loonies have so many guns and military equipment?
Why the parents purchase so many guns, why not spending such money in books for their kids, and isntead of goint to shooting practice, why not read them books at their kids, at home, to teach them to love knowledge?
I've used it a while ago, and my phone seems ok, not sure if it's thanks to Comodo or to myself rejecting to go into unknown sites. How about the rest of the community? How has Comodo worked for you?
Go whine on one of the hundred Facebook groups for this you nitwit, nobody here cares, Facebook doesn't care. If you don't like it, stop using it. End of story.
Apply the same logic to yourself, if you don't like my comment DON'T READ IT. Or is anybody forcing you?
BTW, you complain about my message and not about the kilometric spam just above me, repeated over and over in/.
There should be a -1 SPAM mod, which would take TWO points out of Karma.
Then it would simply become the next "-1, I disagree with this but can't refute it". And it wouldn't even slow down the spammers, as they don't give a damn about their karma.
Couldn't 'false spam' report send you to some kind of black list for becoming a moderator (apart from a -5 in your karma)?
Another moderators could review (if they wish to do it in their spare time) the spam mods, if they find a false spam mod, they could report it, so the moderator issuing the false spam could be punished. Isn't this viable?
The message (not originally mine) is about how whenever I comment something or 'Like'something, it's appears on others people's newsfeed without myself wanting it. As said there, If I wanted all my friend to know about this activity, I'd use the SHARE button.
Perhaps even your stock shares would do better if you'd acknowledge annoying stuff like these, and get rid of them to encourage your final users to use FB more. It doesn't seem complex to solve, isn't it?
In most cases, making things illegal won't work, as seen with the current dope traffic."
define work.
Fewer people drank during prohibition..as a side note, domestic crime was reduced to just about 0 during the prohibition. All crime not involved with liquor went down.
So if you're goal was to reduce crime overall, prohibition worked.
If you define work as 'fewer people using it' then, yes prohibition works.
If by work you mean no one will do it again, ever. then no.
I didn't talk about prohibition, I was talking about CURRENT dope traffic.
Anyway, if you have numbers to backup your statements (that prohibition, who was likely the origin of a strong mafia, as we know it, brought more good than bad), please show them.
BTW, prohibition in food would be harder to achieve, you'd have to make it a crime to deal with 'unhealthy' food, and there would be expensive legal battles. Taxing unhealthy food is far more simple to achieve. Don't you think?
Much like taxing cigarettes. If cigarettes are so bad for the individual (as the government states - and anyone with a fucking brain knows) why is the government in the cigarette business? And try to be honest with yourself - the government is in the cigarette business when they make 20x the profit on a pack, compared to the cigarette company.
Taxing soda won't do anything but hand over more money to the government. It won't stop a thing and people know it.
Want to stop children drinking soda? then simply make it illegal for them to do so. (Which I don't agree with)
In most cases, making things illegal won't work, as seen with the current dope traffic.
Taxing any irresponsibleattitude should be the way.
If you want to be irresponsible, fine, suit yourself, but don't expect that your attitude is subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers, so pay in advance the problems your attitude will cause (public health bills, for instance).
And in such list, you can find several from one or 2 centuries back, when MOST OF SCIENCE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED. Don't you see that when religion had more power, Science development was clogged?
Anyway, in ancient times, there were Democritus, Diagoras of Melos, Epicurus etc, would you call them 'virtually no one' ?
BTW Who is modding you up? Could such person also explain it?
Newton, for example, was not only religious, but even by the standards of the time, an extremist (anti-Trinitarian). To the extent that if his religious views had become known he could have been drawn and quartered for heresy. That didn't seem to inhibit him from inventing, for all intents and purposes, physics and coincidentally, calculus.
There were virtually no atheists throughout the history of humanity. They all killed each other over religion, not because some were religious and some were not, but because they couldn't tolerate the religion of others. Even today, atheists are an extreme minority mostly confined to people who want to pose as intellectuals.
Did you understand that, despite over 95% of the 'normal' population were believers, only 7% of the TOP SCIENTIST (published and peer reviewed) were believers?
Did you notice how such percentage was 7% in 1998, compared to the 15% of 1933, or to the 27.7% of 1914?
Don't you see the trend? The more into the past you go, the more believers you'll find?
How easy would be to proclaim themselves atheist or freethinkers in the dark ages? Isn't it true that it could get yourself killed?
How come do you still claim that the vast majority of scientists are believers? COULD YOU EXPLAIN IT PLEASE?
Tragedy of the commons - the same reason why everybody screams about drug companies making money.
Doing research costs money. Once the research is done, knowing the results of that research usually costs very little. So, why not just let somebody else pay for it?
The true cost of research isn't what it cost to run the experiment that lead to the breakthrough. The real cost is all those experiments that led to nothing useful at all. The problem is that you can't have the first without doing a lot of the second.
My point is, the billionaire has a few years of life left, a decade at best. What's the point of not doing anything to try to escape from death?
The Nobel laureates of 2009, Telomerase research, isn't that a secure enough bet?
Ok, it's not totally granted, but isn't betting in the most prestigious researchers available (hoping that grandchildren could be saved and getting their grandpa back to life somehow in the future), BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING and accept dying?
i propose first we start with a simple new federal law. if you take food stamps, WIC, SNAP, etc., you are required to be surgically sterlized. start with the negligent parents who can't afford children. if they start to prosper they can afford to reverse the surgery. till then, i don't give a damn who feels "offended" by this - if you can barely afford to feed yourself and you want to have children who are going to go hungry, you don't deserve to have children you selfish fuck. anybody wanna calmly, with logic, tell me why that is faulty?
I dont know why the above comment was moderated negatively.
Can't speak for the mods, but perhaps one of the things that prompted a negative reaction (despite many glowing responses) is an education about the harmfulness of eugenics and the enormous logical flaws in its reasoning. And maybe bonus points for following a tremendously selfish proposal with "you selfish fuck" followed by "calmly, with logic".
Aside from the generic eugenics critique, the specific idea promotes a value that childbearing is earned; it promotes a value that people who have been harmed by the economy are less worthy; it promotes a value that social programs are a burden on the most powerful in society and a handout to the most powerless, rather than a benefit to the entire society; it promotes the ludicrous idea that bearing children is a net burden on either the family or the society; it imposes a set of additional costs in money and management bureaucracy on the social programs the beneficiary has, in aggregate, already paid for; it shifts those costs away from the entire society which benefits from the programs and onto the people least able to carry the burden; it sets up a regime where some people get to determine whether other people can bear children; the regime that determines eligibility for childbearing is designed by those actually responsible for the economic harm to the people affected by the proposed law; this regime is implemented by bureaucrats who, among other things, cannot be elected or recalled; and it completely fails to reason with the fact that poor people, on the whole, have children for the important reason that mouths to feed are attached to hands to help.
It's true that a growing population can be a burden on the ecosystem, and that we're facing that burden now. It doesn't follow that the most elementary and ignorant proposal—a proposal with the rigor of 1930s fascism but none of its famed efficiency—is the appropriate solution. And it's fascinating but unfortunately unsurprising that the supposedly "rational" among us are accelerating the rhetorical war against the most powerless in society while powerlessness is being showered on us. It's cowardly and anything but rational. And if it goes unchallenged, it becomes increasingly likely that we'll see this sort of eugenic ethic find a comfortable sea in which to swim in a revival of that 30s-era fascism.
There are far better ways to address population growth, the most obvious two being the elimination of poverty and the empowerment of women. Remarkably, in so doing we will have also established the political will to address the problems of a declining and aging population as well: we will have a public policy of solidarity, health and wellbeing rather than ignorance, division and blame. And we can do it with less cost and less risk.
Some guys in pro of letting irresponsible reproduction happen, even argued economic reasons!! Yet the nazis are the ones proposing better birth control!!
My point is simple, despite political or economical reasoning, if you are not allowed to get a loan from the bank, if you don't meet minimal requirements, how come you'd be allowed to have 5 to 10 children if you are not able to GET FOOD FOR YOURSELF?
How come a person who is not able to get food for themselves, is going to be able to get food, educations, health for their kids?
Could anybody explain?
More and better assistants, better equipments, maids, chauffeurs, cooks, vacations (to recharge batteries) whatever is needed to keep people like these FOCUSED on research and at the top of their productivity and creativity?
Even if it's not 100% sure the billionaires are going to be saved, at least it's better than accepting death without doing anything, isn't it? And they're paving the road for their children and grandchildren at least (perhaps if frozen, their immortal children and grandchildren could try to bring them back, as a way to say thanks.
i propose first we start with a simple new federal law. if you take food stamps, WIC, SNAP, etc., you are required to be surgically sterlized. start with the negligent parents who can't afford children. if they start to prosper they can afford to reverse the surgery. till then, i don't give a damn who feels "offended" by this - if you can barely afford to feed yourself and you want to have children who are going to go hungry, you don't deserve to have children you selfish fuck. anybody wanna calmly, with logic, tell me why that is faulty?
I dont know why the above comment was moderated negatively. Its true, we are 7+ billion now.
How come people who can't get food for themselves, is allowed to bring more children?
Look what happened in China, with their one-child policy. Sure there were disadvatages, but, do you think China would be better now, if such policy would be never implemented?
If you feel to scared of massive sterilization, how about a one-child policy in any poor/overpopulated country?
Doy you think India would be damaged with such policy?
Why is that 'politically correct' BS always is imposed over strict rationality?
Really? When was the last time you were in a housing project? Did you take ANY time to get to know the poor? Or are you making blanket assumptions based on lame and uninformed propaganda?
I totally agree with your viewpoints, however, I fail to see the post you were answering to. If possible, could you quote next time?
Thanks in advance.
That way youd prevent huge companies to abuse small players.
The patent trial could have a max amount of payment for the losing side. Lets say only 50 k U$. That way, huge corporations would be discouraged to hire an army of lawyers.
Apart from bringing more fairness, that way software money wont go to lawyers.
Lawyers are getting wealth as parasytes, from other people's work, and that must be stopped, if you want the society to keep evolving. Money should go to the guys who produce, not to the guys who litigate.
It's not scientists that should handle the 'risks' to society (taking into account ethics) - that's a job for politics (IE, you can publish how to make an atomic bomb but dissemination of nuclear material should be controlled by law)..
Isn't that one of the main problems of the mankind? That politicians are the ones making the decisions whule the rest are driven as lambs?
Look at global crisis, how parasites (politicians, lawyers, religious leaders, etc.) are the ones holding the wealth and power, not scientists , philosophers or intellectuals who end up begging for support to continue their quest for knowledge, while the majority of voters are dumbed down with empty entertainment.
Slashdot Mirror
Better evaluations should be built, to differentiate real innovators from patent trolls.
The supposed inventors should leave some kind of economical guarantee, that would be collected by the state, if it's a trivial patent or a troll is detected.
Real innovators would get refunded everything, and would even get tax breaks as a plus for their efforts and the risk they took.
The economical punishment to the rejected patents, must be high enough, to fund the more strict evaluation process, and would serve as a deterrent for patent trolls.
> The ideal solution would be death penalty for the guilty twin, so there will be a deterrent for the next one forcing the society to spend a lot of money in a unnecessary way.
Nobody is forcing society to prosecute these brothers. If society doesn't think prosecuting them is worth a million, they could just let them walk.
That would also be a terrible precedent, letting a criminal (or 2) walk, just because lack of money.
So, the ideal would be killing the true criminal, spending the million-euro to find out who he is (and both, if both were criminals and denying the crimes).
Let's see if the next guilty twin will risk to be french-fried by forcing the society to spend a million euro to confirm they are guilty.
What would be wrong with this strategy? I'd truly like to know.
If a million euros is spent in determining the guilty one, then an ADDTIONAL PENALTY (for instance, granted death sentence or life in prison without parole) should be estalished from the start, to see if the guilty one confess before the million-euro testing.
If the guilty won't confess, then the guilty twin, after identified, apart from being thrown to jail with the added penalty, should spend the rest of his life working for the french state, trying to pay all the debt possible.
The ideal solution would be death penalty for the guilty twin, so there will be a deterrent for the next one forcing the society to spend a lot of money in a unnecessary way.
I guess it will help to interpret them more accurately, huge advances in brain-machine interfaces will come?
Just as a sidelight to your comment that might point towards the answer (and I'm no particular fan of the Singularity thingy) - we ARE seeing a good bit of HET in the guise of 'cheating' in the Olympics. Most of these are pretty crude chemical approaches although gene manipulation therapy is probably the next big step.
These sorts of things are very under the radar, clandestine if not outright illegal.
You may need to see something like William Gibson's Chiba City start along before we see much progress.
Hell, in the US, we're still stuck on putting marijuana in the same category as heroin. You can't expect all that much from this sort of society.
Why these initiatives are not analysed in this thread? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXFmRzNZHqc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72y7twptd2E
Qt brings you the best of world worlds. Please check http://blog.qt.digia.com/
Qt is pretty good about that, assuming you don't use any OS-specific API calls. True, Qt won't run on every tablet/smartphone ever made but it covers Windows, Mac, and Linux pretty well.
MOD PARENT UP PLEASE.
However, you forgot to add ANDROID support.
Check https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/android-qt
And in 2013, iOs tier1 support ins in the pipeline, as well as Android (Necessitas project is still Beta, but apps built upon it are pretty solid already).
HTH
Even if we accept the claim that guns have zero guilt in the shootings. Why so many guns purchased? For self defense at home, one pistol is enough.
I could understand one gun, but have you seen how these loonies have so many guns and military equipment?
Why the parents purchase so many guns, why not spending such money in books for their kids, and isntead of goint to shooting practice, why not read them books at their kids, at home, to teach them to love knowledge?
I've used it a while ago, and my phone seems ok, not sure if it's thanks to Comodo or to myself rejecting to go into unknown sites. How about the rest of the community? How has Comodo worked for you?
Check: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.comodo.pimsecure&hl=es
Go whine on one of the hundred Facebook groups for this you nitwit, nobody here cares, Facebook doesn't care. If you don't like it, stop using it. End of story.
Apply the same logic to yourself, if you don't like my comment DON'T READ IT. Or is anybody forcing you?
BTW, you complain about my message and not about the kilometric spam just above me, repeated over and over in /.
Then it would simply become the next "-1, I disagree with this but can't refute it". And it wouldn't even slow down the spammers, as they don't give a damn about their karma.
Couldn't 'false spam' report send you to some kind of black list for becoming a moderator (apart from a -5 in your karma)?
Another moderators could review (if they wish to do it in their spare time) the spam mods, if they find a false spam mod, they could report it, so the moderator issuing the false spam could be punished. Isn't this viable?
Perhaps it's not the best place, but I don't know how else to contact FB staff, perhaps someone here knows?
Please Facebook staff READ THIS MESSAGE: http://tinypic.com/r/x4kc2a/6
The message (not originally mine) is about how whenever I comment something or 'Like'something, it's appears on others people's newsfeed without myself wanting it. As said there, If I wanted all my friend to know about this activity, I'd use the SHARE button.
Perhaps even your stock shares would do better if you'd acknowledge annoying stuff like these, and get rid of them to encourage your final users to use FB more. It doesn't seem complex to solve, isn't it?
Peace, Economics and Literature, too many omissions and subjective criteria.
In most cases, making things illegal won't work, as seen with the current dope traffic." define work.
Fewer people drank during prohibition..as a side note, domestic crime was reduced to just about 0 during the prohibition. All crime not involved with liquor went down.
So if you're goal was to reduce crime overall, prohibition worked.
If you define work as 'fewer people using it' then, yes prohibition works.
If by work you mean no one will do it again, ever. then no.
I didn't talk about prohibition, I was talking about CURRENT dope traffic.
Anyway, if you have numbers to backup your statements (that prohibition, who was likely the origin of a strong mafia, as we know it, brought more good than bad), please show them.
BTW, prohibition in food would be harder to achieve, you'd have to make it a crime to deal with 'unhealthy' food, and there would be expensive legal battles. Taxing unhealthy food is far more simple to achieve. Don't you think?
Much like taxing cigarettes. If cigarettes are so bad for the individual (as the government states - and anyone with a fucking brain knows) why is the government in the cigarette business? And try to be honest with yourself - the government is in the cigarette business when they make 20x the profit on a pack, compared to the cigarette company. Taxing soda won't do anything but hand over more money to the government. It won't stop a thing and people know it. Want to stop children drinking soda? then simply make it illegal for them to do so. (Which I don't agree with)
In most cases, making things illegal won't work, as seen with the current dope traffic.
Taxing any irresponsibleattitude should be the way.
If you want to be irresponsible, fine, suit yourself, but don't expect that your attitude is subsidized by the rest of the taxpayers, so pay in advance the problems your attitude will cause (public health bills, for instance).
Because your stats are from the modern era. Virtually no one in the past was an atheist, this is a ridiculous delusion of modern western society.
Virtually no one? how about these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_science_and_technology
And in such list, you can find several from one or 2 centuries back, when MOST OF SCIENCE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENED. Don't you see that when religion had more power, Science development was clogged?
Anyway, in ancient times, there were Democritus, Diagoras of Melos, Epicurus etc, would you call them 'virtually no one' ?
BTW Who is modding you up? Could such person also explain it?
Newton, for example, was not only religious, but even by the standards of the time, an extremist (anti-Trinitarian). To the extent that if his religious views had become known he could have been drawn and quartered for heresy. That didn't seem to inhibit him from inventing, for all intents and purposes, physics and coincidentally, calculus.
There were virtually no atheists throughout the history of humanity. They all killed each other over religion, not because some were religious and some were not, but because they couldn't tolerate the religion of others. Even today, atheists are an extreme minority mostly confined to people who want to pose as intellectuals.
Did you read the link? http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Did you understand that, despite over 95% of the 'normal' population were believers, only 7% of the TOP SCIENTIST (published and peer reviewed) were believers?
Did you notice how such percentage was 7% in 1998, compared to the 15% of 1933, or to the 27.7% of 1914?
Don't you see the trend? The more into the past you go, the more believers you'll find? How easy would be to proclaim themselves atheist or freethinkers in the dark ages? Isn't it true that it could get yourself killed? How come do you still claim that the vast majority of scientists are believers? COULD YOU EXPLAIN IT PLEASE?
Virtually every scientist in the history of science was religious
That's FALSE, among TOP scientists, belief in a personal 'god' is an exception, rather than the norm. Here's a sample: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html
Tragedy of the commons - the same reason why everybody screams about drug companies making money.
Doing research costs money. Once the research is done, knowing the results of that research usually costs very little. So, why not just let somebody else pay for it?
The true cost of research isn't what it cost to run the experiment that lead to the breakthrough. The real cost is all those experiments that led to nothing useful at all. The problem is that you can't have the first without doing a lot of the second.
My point is, the billionaire has a few years of life left, a decade at best. What's the point of not doing anything to try to escape from death?
The Nobel laureates of 2009, Telomerase research, isn't that a secure enough bet?
Research like mentioned here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT1vxEpE1aI Research about cryogenics?
Ok, it's not totally granted, but isn't betting in the most prestigious researchers available (hoping that grandchildren could be saved and getting their grandpa back to life somehow in the future), BETTER THAN DOING NOTHING and accept dying?
i propose first we start with a simple new federal law. if you take food stamps, WIC, SNAP, etc., you are required to be surgically sterlized. start with the negligent parents who can't afford children. if they start to prosper they can afford to reverse the surgery. till then, i don't give a damn who feels "offended" by this - if you can barely afford to feed yourself and you want to have children who are going to go hungry, you don't deserve to have children you selfish fuck. anybody wanna calmly, with logic, tell me why that is faulty?
I dont know why the above comment was moderated negatively.
Can't speak for the mods, but perhaps one of the things that prompted a negative reaction (despite many glowing responses) is an education about the harmfulness of eugenics and the enormous logical flaws in its reasoning. And maybe bonus points for following a tremendously selfish proposal with "you selfish fuck" followed by "calmly, with logic".
Aside from the generic eugenics critique, the specific idea promotes a value that childbearing is earned; it promotes a value that people who have been harmed by the economy are less worthy; it promotes a value that social programs are a burden on the most powerful in society and a handout to the most powerless, rather than a benefit to the entire society; it promotes the ludicrous idea that bearing children is a net burden on either the family or the society; it imposes a set of additional costs in money and management bureaucracy on the social programs the beneficiary has, in aggregate, already paid for; it shifts those costs away from the entire society which benefits from the programs and onto the people least able to carry the burden; it sets up a regime where some people get to determine whether other people can bear children; the regime that determines eligibility for childbearing is designed by those actually responsible for the economic harm to the people affected by the proposed law; this regime is implemented by bureaucrats who, among other things, cannot be elected or recalled; and it completely fails to reason with the fact that poor people, on the whole, have children for the important reason that mouths to feed are attached to hands to help.
It's true that a growing population can be a burden on the ecosystem, and that we're facing that burden now. It doesn't follow that the most elementary and ignorant proposal—a proposal with the rigor of 1930s fascism but none of its famed efficiency—is the appropriate solution. And it's fascinating but unfortunately unsurprising that the supposedly "rational" among us are accelerating the rhetorical war against the most powerless in society while powerlessness is being showered on us. It's cowardly and anything but rational. And if it goes unchallenged, it becomes increasingly likely that we'll see this sort of eugenic ethic find a comfortable sea in which to swim in a revival of that 30s-era fascism.
There are far better ways to address population growth, the most obvious two being the elimination of poverty and the empowerment of women. Remarkably, in so doing we will have also established the political will to address the problems of a declining and aging population as well: we will have a public policy of solidarity, health and wellbeing rather than ignorance, division and blame. And we can do it with less cost and less risk.
Some guys in pro of letting irresponsible reproduction happen, even argued economic reasons!! Yet the nazis are the ones proposing better birth control!!
My point is simple, despite political or economical reasoning, if you are not allowed to get a loan from the bank, if you don't meet minimal requirements, how come you'd be allowed to have 5 to 10 children if you are not able to GET FOOD FOR YOURSELF?
How come a person who is not able to get food for themselves, is going to be able to get food, educations, health for their kids? Could anybody explain?
Why b
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work... I want to achieve it through not dying. - Woody Allen
I have to say that I agree with this sentiment. I'd much rather be me living now, than The Buddha himself, as I still get to breathe, etc.
The Woody Allens who donñt want to die, and many other billionaires in a similar situation.
How much worty their millions (or billions) have for them, when they die?
Why they dont invest more heavily in PROVEN research?
What could be more proving that financing in a more heavy way to guys like these? http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2009/
More and better assistants, better equipments, maids, chauffeurs, cooks, vacations (to recharge batteries) whatever is needed to keep people like these FOCUSED on research and at the top of their productivity and creativity?
Even if it's not 100% sure the billionaires are going to be saved, at least it's better than accepting death without doing anything, isn't it? And they're paving the road for their children and grandchildren at least (perhaps if frozen, their immortal children and grandchildren could try to bring them back, as a way to say thanks.
i propose first we start with a simple new federal law. if you take food stamps, WIC, SNAP, etc., you are required to be surgically sterlized. start with the negligent parents who can't afford children. if they start to prosper they can afford to reverse the surgery. till then, i don't give a damn who feels "offended" by this - if you can barely afford to feed yourself and you want to have children who are going to go hungry, you don't deserve to have children you selfish fuck. anybody wanna calmly, with logic, tell me why that is faulty?
I dont know why the above comment was moderated negatively. Its true, we are 7+ billion now. How come people who can't get food for themselves, is allowed to bring more children?
Look what happened in China, with their one-child policy. Sure there were disadvatages, but, do you think China would be better now, if such policy would be never implemented?
If you feel to scared of massive sterilization, how about a one-child policy in any poor/overpopulated country? Doy you think India would be damaged with such policy?
Why is that 'politically correct' BS always is imposed over strict rationality?
Really? When was the last time you were in a housing project? Did you take ANY time to get to know the poor? Or are you making blanket assumptions based on lame and uninformed propaganda?
I totally agree with your viewpoints, however, I fail to see the post you were answering to. If possible, could you quote next time? Thanks in advance.
That way youd prevent huge companies to abuse small players. The patent trial could have a max amount of payment for the losing side. Lets say only 50 k U$. That way, huge corporations would be discouraged to hire an army of lawyers. Apart from bringing more fairness, that way software money wont go to lawyers. Lawyers are getting wealth as parasytes, from other people's work, and that must be stopped, if you want the society to keep evolving. Money should go to the guys who produce, not to the guys who litigate.
It's not scientists that should handle the 'risks' to society (taking into account ethics) - that's a job for politics (IE, you can publish how to make an atomic bomb but dissemination of nuclear material should be controlled by law). .
Isn't that one of the main problems of the mankind? That politicians are the ones making the decisions whule the rest are driven as lambs? Look at global crisis, how parasites (politicians, lawyers, religious leaders, etc.) are the ones holding the wealth and power, not scientists , philosophers or intellectuals who end up begging for support to continue their quest for knowledge, while the majority of voters are dumbed down with empty entertainment.