If the US attracts American workers to STEM fields by paying higher salaries, the net effect will be fewer of those jobs, as companies move jobs overseas where the salaries are lower.
The US competes against other nations. STEM salaries in the US can't rise much beyond what people would be paid elsewhere, no matter how many workers would be available at higher salary levels.
The point was, the wikipedia article you cited did not support your claim, it showed that the numbers in Australia (where the baseline measurement was rather low to begin with) are poorly understood.
It wasn't "my claim". I merely pointed out that you were misrepresenting and misquoting the Wikipedia article.
By your reckoning, Australia should have turned into a fascist state by now; let me assure you, it hasn't.
Constitutional protections and liberties are like condoms: it takes a while fucking (up) until someone gets sick or pregnant. But you don't know when it's going to happen, and that's why you wear them every time.
This is simply about personal empowerment -- the ability to shoot at those who 'threaten' you, the comfort that 'if you had to' you could take the life of another human being. It's thinly-veiled psychopathy that becomes blatant once you actually kill somebody.
No, it is about not having to justify one's existence or choices to government. I don't actually own a gun, but I am strongly opposed to gun control.
We have a very high murder rate in this country, basically the highest of the developed world. Guess what country also has the most guns per capita, by a wide margin? Correlation may not imply causation, but correlation does hint pretty strongly that there's a connection.
One data point doesn't even mean there is a correlation; to show a statistical correlation, you need dozens of data points.
In addition, it's clear that gun ownership is not the cause of high homicide rates in the US because gun ownership doesn't correlate with homicide rates when you look at different populations within the US.
If you want to approach this problem rationally, you have to start with the realization that half of US homicides are committed by young African American males; if you bring those rates down to the rates of the general population, the US homicide rate wouldn't be all that unusual. Gun control isn't going to accomplish that.
From that article, "cut firearm suicides by 74%... no evidence of substitution of method of suicide in any state.
You're leaving out the "based on modeled statistical estimates" part, which means this isn't an actual reduction, it's a guess based on lots of assumptions. In addition, the argument that taking away someone's gun prevents them from committing suicide is a bad one. If I want to commit suicide, that is my right and you do not have a right to interfere with my choice.
Obama was a closet conservative and we all got fooled.
Obama isn't a "closet conservative" either; he is simply politically and economically inept. I think the only question left for historians is whether he is actually worse than Bush; he's certainly trying to be.
The manufacture of guns by conventional means requires large factories and an organised distribution chain that make it fairly easy for any government to regulate
No, not really. A lathe, some tools, and some metal working skills will do. 3D printing just removes the need for metal working skills.
No. It's the job of legislators to make sure that laws are reasonable. You cannot blame Monsanto or any other company for using the legal system to enforce rights (however unreasonable) that they have under the law.
One problem "Monsanto". They produce most of the GMO that people are aware of, are notorious for suppressing any study that they do not like, for not publishing results, for patenting entire plants, for suing poor farmers who never bought their seed, for poisoning the environment.... etc....
Farmers don't have to plant Monsanto crops. Consumers don't have to buy crops they don't want. And if Monsanto can get away with suing farmers whose fields they contaminated, you should blame the legislators for making that possible.
True, your inability to defend your original argument or comprehend the context of a satirical rebuttal
You can't satirize facts, and what I stated was fact, not opinion. Maybe you think that some of my facts are wrong, if so feel free to point out what. Are European education systems not primarily government-run, with government-designed curricula? Does Europe not have large networks of government-linked "public" television systems? Are anti-American messages not common among European politicians, in particular among fascist, communist and socialist parties? Have European monarchs and dictators not been traditionally anti-American? Which of these statements exactly do you believe is wrong?
If you had bothered to look into the context in which Hitler made that statement you quoted, you'd realise what a total jackass you've made of yourself.
Birds that migrate mostly overland and can stop in between can conceivably learn to migrate a little further each time at the end of their journeys
So does the Golden Plover. The Hawaiian islands have moved away from other land masses over millions of years. In addition, sea levels used to be much lower as recently as 20000 years ago. And the "gradualism" can simply have occurred in the survival rate: birds at first migrated elsewhere and only arrived in Hawaii by mistake at a very low rate, but gradually improved at getting to Hawaii.
Why do people have no trouble attributing evidence of design to human works, but balk at doing the same for living systems that are orders of magnitude more complicated than anything intelligent humans have ever even dreamed of.
I don't know what any of that means. Every scientist I know is very careful about declaring something to be artificial or natural. And the design of "living systems" is not actually all that complex (the blueprint of a human is a tiny fraction of the size of the blueprint for a 747 and all its parts).
The overall motivation is closer to protecting strategic or economic interests
You say that as if it's a deep, dark secret, but it's not. We pay a boatload of money for our military, and we expect it to deliver security and economic benefits to the US. Improving other people's living conditions is only a means to that end: it means more people to trade with, fewer places that want to attack us, and more places to travel to. And most of US intervention is economic, diplomatic, policing, and peace keeping anyway; military force is used only as a last resort.
For example, the US judged (correctly, it turned out) that it was in its own security and economic interest to rebuild Germany as a democratic nation, as opposed to splitting it up between the victors of WWII. That decision wasn't done for the benefit of Germans or even Europeans, it was done for the benefit of Americans. It's the same with Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and all the other places the US military has intervened.
Ever wonder why everybody just seemed to hold their breath when the Arab Spring swept across northern Africa? I'll give you a hint: the people in charge knew damn well that their motivations for "saving" people all those other times were completely bullshit, and it didn't work.
Just because a lot of media and progressives in both the US and Europe have delusions about glorious revolutions and the possibility of rapid social change doesn't mean everybody shares in those delusions. US politicians generally seem to be pretty realistic in their assessments (although both Bush and Obama have been real losers).
Is this really what Americans deem to be an actual intellectual engagement these days?
No, not at all. An actual intellectual engagement would require an educated and intelligent person to engage with, as well as a substantive argument to respond to. All of that is lacking in this case.
You cannot expect swift application of bullets to be able to deliver the same kind of social evolution that has taken hundreds of years for the western world.
What makes you think Americans "expect" to be able to force social evolution? Most US military action has had other reasons: halt a genocide, protect the strategic interests of an ally, restore a friendly regime, protect US economic interests, prevent communism or fascism from spreading, etc. But once the US is involved in a nation, it might as well try to democratize it.
Education, information and negotiation is key.
And that's why the US has been investing tons of money in education, information, and negotiation for a century. But sometimes that fails, the US sees its interests threatened, and it intervenes.
People continually get (arguably idealised, since this is Hollywood) images of what the US stands for, what it's like to be American, etc. In terms of the vast entertainment industry, I'd argue that Europeans are routinely shown the same image of the US that Americans themselves receive.
Well, I think there's the problem: you think that Hollywood represents what the US stands for. Hollywood is completely removed from US life. In addition, Hollywood designs its movies to appeal to an international audience.
In terms of the vast entertainment industry, I'd argue that Europeans are routinely shown the same image of the US that Americans themselves receive.
In the US, a few of hours of movies every month is balanced by nearly 24h experience of real life. Europeans lack that information.
“Because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget... beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders.”
You're saying that Europeans are not using negotiation and consensus to resolve their differences? That beyond Europe's borders, the world is not violent and full of totalitarian governments? Really, I'm trying to understand what part of Bush's quote you find objectionable.
(The first part of your message just demonstrates your complete ignorance. "Billions of Europeans"? Corporate-run education systems?)
Does that mean that "possession of drone parts" will become a criminal offense? Android phones are drone parts...
The proposal is ridiculous if not for any other reason than that drones will likely be used extensively for home deliveries, environmental monitoring, and other purposes.
Most Europeans only know about the US what is spoon-fed by their government-friendly media and their state-run education systems. And those governments love to tell their people how evil the US is because it allows them to advance their own extreme left and extreme right agendas. That's not a new phenomenon: monarchs and dictators have been telling Europeans how lucky they are not to be in America for nearly 200 years (just as millions of Europeans were voting with their feet).
Here's a quote from a famous German "politician":
I don't see much future for the Americans... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities... my feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance... How can one expect a State like that to hold together - a country where everything is built on the dollar?
It's scary to think that a large fraction of German politicians think and say pretty much the same thing today.
Obama could easily lessen the impact of the sequester, and Americans would notice that the government works just fine at growth levels that are slightly lower than what he wants. Obama is basically just blackmailing the American people into trying to support his political agenda.
Slashdot Mirror
If the US attracts American workers to STEM fields by paying higher salaries, the net effect will be fewer of those jobs, as companies move jobs overseas where the salaries are lower.
The US competes against other nations. STEM salaries in the US can't rise much beyond what people would be paid elsewhere, no matter how many workers would be available at higher salary levels.
It wasn't "my claim". I merely pointed out that you were misrepresenting and misquoting the Wikipedia article.
Constitutional protections and liberties are like condoms: it takes a while fucking (up) until someone gets sick or pregnant. But you don't know when it's going to happen, and that's why you wear them every time.
No, it is about not having to justify one's existence or choices to government. I don't actually own a gun, but I am strongly opposed to gun control.
One data point doesn't even mean there is a correlation; to show a statistical correlation, you need dozens of data points.
In addition, it's clear that gun ownership is not the cause of high homicide rates in the US because gun ownership doesn't correlate with homicide rates when you look at different populations within the US.
If you want to approach this problem rationally, you have to start with the realization that half of US homicides are committed by young African American males; if you bring those rates down to the rates of the general population, the US homicide rate wouldn't be all that unusual. Gun control isn't going to accomplish that.
You're leaving out the "based on modeled statistical estimates" part, which means this isn't an actual reduction, it's a guess based on lots of assumptions. In addition, the argument that taking away someone's gun prevents them from committing suicide is a bad one. If I want to commit suicide, that is my right and you do not have a right to interfere with my choice.
Criminals already have guns; they don't give a sh*t about gun control. Gun control keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens.
Obama isn't a "closet conservative" either; he is simply politically and economically inept. I think the only question left for historians is whether he is actually worse than Bush; he's certainly trying to be.
No, not really. A lathe, some tools, and some metal working skills will do. 3D printing just removes the need for metal working skills.
No. It's the job of legislators to make sure that laws are reasonable. You cannot blame Monsanto or any other company for using the legal system to enforce rights (however unreasonable) that they have under the law.
Farmers don't have to plant Monsanto crops. Consumers don't have to buy crops they don't want. And if Monsanto can get away with suing farmers whose fields they contaminated, you should blame the legislators for making that possible.
You can't satirize facts, and what I stated was fact, not opinion. Maybe you think that some of my facts are wrong, if so feel free to point out what. Are European education systems not primarily government-run, with government-designed curricula? Does Europe not have large networks of government-linked "public" television systems? Are anti-American messages not common among European politicians, in particular among fascist, communist and socialist parties? Have European monarchs and dictators not been traditionally anti-American? Which of these statements exactly do you believe is wrong?
If you have a point to make, make it.
So does the Golden Plover. The Hawaiian islands have moved away from other land masses over millions of years. In addition, sea levels used to be much lower as recently as 20000 years ago. And the "gradualism" can simply have occurred in the survival rate: birds at first migrated elsewhere and only arrived in Hawaii by mistake at a very low rate, but gradually improved at getting to Hawaii.
I don't know what any of that means. Every scientist I know is very careful about declaring something to be artificial or natural. And the design of "living systems" is not actually all that complex (the blueprint of a human is a tiny fraction of the size of the blueprint for a 747 and all its parts).
You say that as if it's a deep, dark secret, but it's not. We pay a boatload of money for our military, and we expect it to deliver security and economic benefits to the US. Improving other people's living conditions is only a means to that end: it means more people to trade with, fewer places that want to attack us, and more places to travel to. And most of US intervention is economic, diplomatic, policing, and peace keeping anyway; military force is used only as a last resort.
For example, the US judged (correctly, it turned out) that it was in its own security and economic interest to rebuild Germany as a democratic nation, as opposed to splitting it up between the victors of WWII. That decision wasn't done for the benefit of Germans or even Europeans, it was done for the benefit of Americans. It's the same with Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, and all the other places the US military has intervened.
Just because a lot of media and progressives in both the US and Europe have delusions about glorious revolutions and the possibility of rapid social change doesn't mean everybody shares in those delusions. US politicians generally seem to be pretty realistic in their assessments (although both Bush and Obama have been real losers).
No, not at all. An actual intellectual engagement would require an educated and intelligent person to engage with, as well as a substantive argument to respond to. All of that is lacking in this case.
What makes you think Americans "expect" to be able to force social evolution? Most US military action has had other reasons: halt a genocide, protect the strategic interests of an ally, restore a friendly regime, protect US economic interests, prevent communism or fascism from spreading, etc. But once the US is involved in a nation, it might as well try to democratize it.
And that's why the US has been investing tons of money in education, information, and negotiation for a century. But sometimes that fails, the US sees its interests threatened, and it intervenes.
Well, I think there's the problem: you think that Hollywood represents what the US stands for. Hollywood is completely removed from US life. In addition, Hollywood designs its movies to appeal to an international audience.
In the US, a few of hours of movies every month is balanced by nearly 24h experience of real life. Europeans lack that information.
So you're saying that Bush's quote is wrong?
You're saying that Europeans are not using negotiation and consensus to resolve their differences? That beyond Europe's borders, the world is not violent and full of totalitarian governments? Really, I'm trying to understand what part of Bush's quote you find objectionable.
(The first part of your message just demonstrates your complete ignorance. "Billions of Europeans"? Corporate-run education systems?)
Does that mean that "possession of drone parts" will become a criminal offense? Android phones are drone parts...
The proposal is ridiculous if not for any other reason than that drones will likely be used extensively for home deliveries, environmental monitoring, and other purposes.
Enlightened self-interest can be a good thing, but seems hypocritical if you're the company that spies into everybody's backyard from airplanes:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=2101+Waverley+Street+Palo+Alto,+CA+94301&hl=en&ll=37.434864,-122.14041&spn=0.000567,0.000423&sll=35.101934,-108.896484&sspn=52.768214,55.458984&hnear=2101+Waverley+St,+Palo+Alto,+Santa+Clara,+California+94301&t=h&z=21
(Steve Jobs really doesn't seem to have been much of a gardner.)
Pretty much by definition, if it's within shotgun range and over your property, it's trespassing and you have a right to get rid of it.
Most Europeans only know about the US what is spoon-fed by their government-friendly media and their state-run education systems. And those governments love to tell their people how evil the US is because it allows them to advance their own extreme left and extreme right agendas. That's not a new phenomenon: monarchs and dictators have been telling Europeans how lucky they are not to be in America for nearly 200 years (just as millions of Europeans were voting with their feet).
Here's a quote from a famous German "politician":
It's scary to think that a large fraction of German politicians think and say pretty much the same thing today.
Yes, and if we get a few more sequestrations on top of the current one, maybe we are going to be making progress on the budget. I'm all for it.
It's not "generosity" if it is imposed by the IRS.
Obama could easily lessen the impact of the sequester, and Americans would notice that the government works just fine at growth levels that are slightly lower than what he wants. Obama is basically just blackmailing the American people into trying to support his political agenda.