Companies pass the cost of their local regulations onto their customers.
In the UK products are required by law to have extra guarantees. And so iPads cost *vastly* more in the UK.
>> In contrast, most creationists/intelligent designers want to force a single point-of-view, to the exclusion of all the others
So, so wrong. A lot of creationists would be happy having a critique of evolution (like a look at the lack of intermediate species in the fossil record, among other things). But mentioning the suspicious parts of evolution is somehow labeled establishing religion. This is like Al Gore saying the time to discuss whether the world is warming is over (in other words, science is a license to force someone's opinion on the rest of us). And so my tax dollars are used to teach someone else's opinion about the creation of the world.
In other words inflation rewards people who borrow money (esp. the government) and punishes those who lend. That is a losing game.
The reason the Fed is separate is because most politicians see inflation as a stealth tax they can leverage whenever they want.
If the Fed did its job right and prevented excessive inflation, it would make bit coins worthless. So you can bet bit coins will always have their place.
The only science that is any good has come from business-funded science. The Industrial Revolution allowed people to pay a much smaller portion of their incomes on their clothes and agriculture. A good contrast is Edison vs. Telsa. Edison made money and a lot of his inventions are all over the place while Telsa milked his one invention and brought the people funding him to bankruptcy (which is what government research does). The bottom line is consumers can tell what products have value a LOT better than governments.
"the 'we just don't know' crowd. Well, sorry, but that is not how science works"
1) The empiricist David Hume would beg to differ.
2) Even if that isn't how science works, it's how voting works and voters in the US don't believe AGW exists because of all the shenanigans (i.e. hockey stick graph, East Anglia emails, etc).
Policy is not what makes the difference. It is just a document to get away with doing the best thing.
The essential thing is hiring/firing decisions in the hands of those with high standards.
The reason frenology (a way of evaluating people based on their heads) failed was because it was inseparable from racism. Secularists who value each other based on who appears to have the biggest brains will one day be discredited as superficial and evil.
How could this be true? What about Dinosaurs? Mammoths? And on the other end roaches will never go extinct even though they have hardly any brains at all. People that think too much are neurotic, anxious, indecisive, and serially unhappy. Bertrand Russell (a pro-science, pro-thinking guy) understood this and it bothered him to no end!
Government does all its worst stuff in the name of "safety".
The "Great Terror" during the French Revolution was run by the Committee of Public Safety.
Any time I hear someone say "false choice" I stop listening to them...
If you would like a logically rigorous proof that logic does not determine truth in life, I recommend Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Sartre, Nietchze, Wittgenstein, and especially Kierkegaard all pursued the deities they wanted to believe in and were rigorous about it. The only kind of "debunking" you could do would be to say they were not consistent about it (Camus said only Kierkegaard -the only Christian in the bunch- was truly consistent). As a personal example: I don't believe in Ra or Zeus or evolution or whatever because none of those deities or world views appeal to me. Jesus died for my sins, and that is something I want to believe. If you claim to believe in a god who hands out ice cream to the smartest people, well, that sounds pretty superficial and I doubt how deeply you want to believe that. At the end of the day you should believe what you want to believe (because, remember, nothing in this life is provable).
In the absence of irrefutable evidence you're making a bet with your life. I'm not sure how strongly you want to make that wager. God bless you, Pieroxy.
The word 'evidence' can mean a lot of different things. It can mean "evaluation based on appearances". If you try to weigh the Bible on that level it will elude you.
Perhaps this is a new question for you: Do you want to believe Jesus can forgive all your sins? If you let this question pass by without an answer, your identity and your life will slip by you as well.
Slashdot Mirror
The USA didn't get to its place today from its interest in science. It does have an interest in business, though.
Just because it costs $10k to put a kilo (whatever that is) of dirt from my backyard into orbit, doesn't mean people can make money doing it.
The question was: "If it's for profit, how does it make money?"
If it's just to give the astronauts a drink, it is not profitable to build a space elevator on the moon.
Aren't there other studies that say happiness come from being old, Republican, and *male*?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/18/happiness-is-being-old-ma_n_204619.html
What is the difference with these studies? I guess I'm too lazy to analyze it.
Would a mass accelerator be a much cheaper alternative to an elevator? (On the moon or earth)
The commercial value of water is extremely low. As in "It's free at restaurants" low.
... how superficially people consider their lives at slashdot.
Companies pass the cost of their local regulations onto their customers.
In the UK products are required by law to have extra guarantees. And so iPads cost *vastly* more in the UK.
>> In contrast, most creationists/intelligent designers want to force a single point-of-view, to the exclusion of all the others
So, so wrong. A lot of creationists would be happy having a critique of evolution (like a look at the lack of intermediate species in the fossil record, among other things). But mentioning the suspicious parts of evolution is somehow labeled establishing religion. This is like Al Gore saying the time to discuss whether the world is warming is over (in other words, science is a license to force someone's opinion on the rest of us). And so my tax dollars are used to teach someone else's opinion about the creation of the world.
In the olden days money laundering was hunted down to stop crimes that affect real people. Now it is hunted down to get tax money.
Schumer has spoken to this effect. Bitcoins prevent the ability of the US congress to collect stealth taxes (i.e. inflation).
In other words inflation rewards people who borrow money (esp. the government) and punishes those who lend. That is a losing game. The reason the Fed is separate is because most politicians see inflation as a stealth tax they can leverage whenever they want. If the Fed did its job right and prevented excessive inflation, it would make bit coins worthless. So you can bet bit coins will always have their place.
The only science that is any good has come from business-funded science. The Industrial Revolution allowed people to pay a much smaller portion of their incomes on their clothes and agriculture. A good contrast is Edison vs. Telsa. Edison made money and a lot of his inventions are all over the place while Telsa milked his one invention and brought the people funding him to bankruptcy (which is what government research does). The bottom line is consumers can tell what products have value a LOT better than governments.
"the 'we just don't know' crowd. Well, sorry, but that is not how science works" 1) The empiricist David Hume would beg to differ. 2) Even if that isn't how science works, it's how voting works and voters in the US don't believe AGW exists because of all the shenanigans (i.e. hockey stick graph, East Anglia emails, etc).
The salaries of the scientists depend on the government. Which party explicitly wants to boost government spending?
Blaming America for this is strange. Other countries have contributed a lot more (overall and per GDP) CO2.
Policy is not what makes the difference. It is just a document to get away with doing the best thing. The essential thing is hiring/firing decisions in the hands of those with high standards.
The reason frenology (a way of evaluating people based on their heads) failed was because it was inseparable from racism. Secularists who value each other based on who appears to have the biggest brains will one day be discredited as superficial and evil.
How could this be true? What about Dinosaurs? Mammoths? And on the other end roaches will never go extinct even though they have hardly any brains at all. People that think too much are neurotic, anxious, indecisive, and serially unhappy. Bertrand Russell (a pro-science, pro-thinking guy) understood this and it bothered him to no end!
Would I rather trust a consumer to make this call or a government "expert"? No brainer ...
Government does all its worst stuff in the name of "safety". The "Great Terror" during the French Revolution was run by the Committee of Public Safety. Any time I hear someone say "false choice" I stop listening to them ...
If you would like a logically rigorous proof that logic does not determine truth in life, I recommend Kierkegaard's Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Sartre, Nietchze, Wittgenstein, and especially Kierkegaard all pursued the deities they wanted to believe in and were rigorous about it. The only kind of "debunking" you could do would be to say they were not consistent about it (Camus said only Kierkegaard -the only Christian in the bunch- was truly consistent). As a personal example: I don't believe in Ra or Zeus or evolution or whatever because none of those deities or world views appeal to me. Jesus died for my sins, and that is something I want to believe. If you claim to believe in a god who hands out ice cream to the smartest people, well, that sounds pretty superficial and I doubt how deeply you want to believe that. At the end of the day you should believe what you want to believe (because, remember, nothing in this life is provable).
In the absence of irrefutable evidence you're making a bet with your life. I'm not sure how strongly you want to make that wager. God bless you, Pieroxy.
The word 'evidence' can mean a lot of different things. It can mean "evaluation based on appearances". If you try to weigh the Bible on that level it will elude you. Perhaps this is a new question for you: Do you want to believe Jesus can forgive all your sins? If you let this question pass by without an answer, your identity and your life will slip by you as well.
If someone told you they were *someone* because they were so smart, you wouldn't find that a little superficial?
False. Marx despised what he called "subjective idealism" which is why the soviets preferred councils (because they're herd-based).