Are you serious? We need that sun/wind energy to avoid burning coal. And plastic isn't "toxic" otherwise we wouldn't have used it for all our household items before discarding it. Discarded plastic will sit quietly in a landfill (and there is plenty of space for landfills, pretty much everywhere except Hong Kong) until some future civilization decides the landfill is worth mining.
An Ivy League degree is not a one-way ticket to Easy Street. Investment banks only take Ivy Leaguers with extremely high grades, not any random Ivy Leaguer. Same with elite law schools. And once you're in the investment bank or law firm, you generally have to work extremely long hours. Similarly, if your Ivy League connections allow you to begin a tech startup, you're in the same position of all new businesses which usually require long hours for a chance at success.
The vast majority of Ivy Leaguers end up working normal upper middle class jobs, like doctor or computer programmer. They make a good living, but aren't "rich", and often have to work very hard.
TL;DR to get rich you need connections (which the Ivy League helps with) AND talent/hard work.
A good college will help these students out in their future elite social lives. And these people are rich enough that they can afford to bribe college admissions AND set up a comfortable trust fund.
Perhaps your grad school took the top students from state schools, and mediocre students from "elite" schools, so your peers be unrepresentative of all students from those schools. Naturally, a grad school (and/or department) would attract students of a similar quality, regardless of the qualities of the schools those various students came from.
I just went to Wikipedia and checked out where the last 8 US-born science Nobel Prize winners got their bachelors' degrees. It was Haverford, Princeton, Cornell, Caltech, UC-Berkeley, MIT, WUSTL, Caltech. 7/8 went to fancy private schools (5/8 truly elite). The only public school was UC-Berkeley which is also known to be "elite". Based on this, it really does seem that intellectual talent is concentrated in "elite" universities. I suspect you would find the same concentration in any field (CEOs, politicians, tech startups, non-science Nobels), but I chose to check science Nobels since they are probably most based on talent and least on preexisting wealth or connections.
The science behind vaccines was a lot less established in the 1700s. Given how haphazard medicine at the time was, I can't blame someone at the time from refusing to get contagious viruses inserted in their skin.
Yes, obviously the coal-CO2-coal cycle creates entropy, and thus is less efficient than just leaving the coal as coal and creating energy through some other method.
Perhaps there are places/times (like Iceland with its abundant hydropower, or wind-powered places when there is an excess of wind) where electricity is extremely cheap, and you could turn CO2-coal then, to make up for CO2 emissions at times when electricity is expensive. But this sounds like the world's least efficient kind of battery.
"The Navy" is a huge organization. Like all large organizations, I'm sure it has its more and less competent/professional units. This might be one of the less competent ones.
Plenty of airports have reached, or are reaching, their maximum capacity. If a single takeoff/landing could carry more passengers, that would be very welcome.
The problem with the A380 is that it creates more turbulence in the air around it than any other plane. This necessitates, for safety reasons, a longer delay between the A380 and the plane after it than is required for other planes. So if you have more passengers on each plane, but a longer wait between planes, that neutralizes the capacity advantage of the A380.
"Heavily" debunked? As opposed to normal debunked?
If I understand correctly, Conard's argument is that since the economy has grown over the last few decades, everyone is better off than before, even if the relatively-poor are forever stuck in the relatively-poor spot on the ladder.
If so, he is not disputing that economic mobility is lower in the US than Europe. He's just saying it doesn't matter, because everyone is getting richer.
The problem is: 1) Even if poor people now are doing better than poor people a generation ago, they are doing worse than poor people in Europe. Which suggests we should adopt European-like policies. 2) Well-being is not measured in dollars. Life expectancy in the US is no longer growing. Housing and medical expenses cause more economic stress and bankruptcies than before. Much of the "goods" that can be bought are electronic gadgets and such that arguably decrease rather than increase happiness. Economic polarization decreases social solidarity and capital, making people more distrustful, jealous, and lonely.
America is the greatest example of how poor people can become very rich through hard work and honesty. There is massive economic mobility, regardless of your race,
Loaning with interest does not require growth. Even in an economy of constant size, people can want to borrow money, and they return it with interest to compensate for the risk of default.
Investing is no different from loaning with interest. You give the borrower money, they promise to return it with a bit more added. This can be beneficial for both sides (the money-rich person has a "competitive advantage" in providing money, the money-poor person has a "competitive advantage" in providing labor), so they both agree to it. This year person A borrows money, next year person B borrows money in the same circumstances. Investment has occurred, but the economy has not grown.
A decrease in population would mean a lot less people doing scientific research, and thus slow the rise of standard of living for the remaining people...
That feels wrong, but it's cheaper for Sun/IBM (which means cheaper for the customer too) than designing multiple CPU models for all the possible usage cases.
Isn't this an antitrust violation? Using their browser near-monopoly to provide them with an unequal advantage against their competitors in the advertising business?
Wikipedia isn't always accurate. But it's more accurate than probably any person. It's the rare person who can beat Wikipedia's accuracy on even a single page, much less all the pages.
The same could be said of your Gmail account, your Android or Apple phone, your Windows computer, and so on. None of which even claim that the company can't read your stuff. And nobody has disproven Whatsapp's claim, as far as I know.
So while it is inferior in terms of privacy to an open source computer you have built the software stack for yourself, it's superior to pretty much anything else.
But it sucks and still rely on your phone to send and receive. Why?
My phone is always on, so why not?
On the contrary, Facebook does it right. You can shut down your phone and still continue your conversation on your PC.
But Facebook does so many other things wrong... and since my phone is always on, I don't care about this "disadvantage".
Phone numbers suck as an identifier. They are usually not free, belong to the carrier, and are location-specific. Why should a chat application require a cell phone number is beyond me.
But pretty much everyone has a phone number. Certainly I do. Most businesses will give you a phone number, and once they do, it's easier to contact them by WhatsApp than by regular phone/SMS. BTW, when I fly internationally and no longer have phone service, WhatsApp on my phone still works perfectly (as long as I have data from wifi, of course). It lets me use the phone as a regular phone anywhere in the world, for zero cost and no ads.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems Ecuador decided to evict him, and once he was on the street, British police arrested him.
Source
Are you serious? We need that sun/wind energy to avoid burning coal. And plastic isn't "toxic" otherwise we wouldn't have used it for all our household items before discarding it. Discarded plastic will sit quietly in a landfill (and there is plenty of space for landfills, pretty much everywhere except Hong Kong) until some future civilization decides the landfill is worth mining.
In the UK they call him the "bin man". So as not to imply that he himself is garbage.
An Ivy League degree is not a one-way ticket to Easy Street. Investment banks only take Ivy Leaguers with extremely high grades, not any random Ivy Leaguer. Same with elite law schools. And once you're in the investment bank or law firm, you generally have to work extremely long hours. Similarly, if your Ivy League connections allow you to begin a tech startup, you're in the same position of all new businesses which usually require long hours for a chance at success.
The vast majority of Ivy Leaguers end up working normal upper middle class jobs, like doctor or computer programmer. They make a good living, but aren't "rich", and often have to work very hard.
TL;DR to get rich you need connections (which the Ivy League helps with) AND talent/hard work.
A good college will help these students out in their future elite social lives. And these people are rich enough that they can afford to bribe college admissions AND set up a comfortable trust fund.
Perhaps your grad school took the top students from state schools, and mediocre students from "elite" schools, so your peers be unrepresentative of all students from those schools. Naturally, a grad school (and/or department) would attract students of a similar quality, regardless of the qualities of the schools those various students came from.
I just went to Wikipedia and checked out where the last 8 US-born science Nobel Prize winners got their bachelors' degrees. It was Haverford, Princeton, Cornell, Caltech, UC-Berkeley, MIT, WUSTL, Caltech. 7/8 went to fancy private schools (5/8 truly elite). The only public school was UC-Berkeley which is also known to be "elite". Based on this, it really does seem that intellectual talent is concentrated in "elite" universities. I suspect you would find the same concentration in any field (CEOs, politicians, tech startups, non-science Nobels), but I chose to check science Nobels since they are probably most based on talent and least on preexisting wealth or connections.
The science behind vaccines was a lot less established in the 1700s. Given how haphazard medicine at the time was, I can't blame someone at the time from refusing to get contagious viruses inserted in their skin.
Of course, such excuses no longer imply.
If that's the purpose, it would be much better to stay awake and relaxed, so that predators couldn't attack you while asleep.
Do you get exercise? Would you sleep more heavily if you were tired from exercise?
Yes, obviously the coal-CO2-coal cycle creates entropy, and thus is less efficient than just leaving the coal as coal and creating energy through some other method.
Perhaps there are places/times (like Iceland with its abundant hydropower, or wind-powered places when there is an excess of wind) where electricity is extremely cheap, and you could turn CO2-coal then, to make up for CO2 emissions at times when electricity is expensive. But this sounds like the world's least efficient kind of battery.
"The Navy" is a huge organization. Like all large organizations, I'm sure it has its more and less competent/professional units. This might be one of the less competent ones.
Plenty of airports have reached, or are reaching, their maximum capacity. If a single takeoff/landing could carry more passengers, that would be very welcome.
The problem with the A380 is that it creates more turbulence in the air around it than any other plane. This necessitates, for safety reasons, a longer delay between the A380 and the plane after it than is required for other planes. So if you have more passengers on each plane, but a longer wait between planes, that neutralizes the capacity advantage of the A380.
It's not just one research plot in the Luquillo Mountains. There are cases of decline across the world.
"Heavily" debunked? As opposed to normal debunked?
If I understand correctly, Conard's argument is that since the economy has grown over the last few decades, everyone is better off than before, even if the relatively-poor are forever stuck in the relatively-poor spot on the ladder.
If so, he is not disputing that economic mobility is lower in the US than Europe. He's just saying it doesn't matter, because everyone is getting richer.
The problem is:
1) Even if poor people now are doing better than poor people a generation ago, they are doing worse than poor people in Europe. Which suggests we should adopt European-like policies.
2) Well-being is not measured in dollars. Life expectancy in the US is no longer growing. Housing and medical expenses cause more economic stress and bankruptcies than before. Much of the "goods" that can be bought are electronic gadgets and such that arguably decrease rather than increase happiness. Economic polarization decreases social solidarity and capital, making people more distrustful, jealous, and lonely.
America is the greatest example of how poor people can become very rich through hard work and honesty. There is massive economic mobility, regardless of your race,
This is no longer the case. America now has much less economic mobility than Europe.
Nope.
Let's say the borrower's crop was eaten by rats this year. So he borrows seed to plant, and returns the seed with interest after the harvest.
Let's say the exact same scenario repeats itself year after year.
The actions, investments, and profits of each individual are identical in each year, so the economy does not grow.
Loaning with interest does not require growth. Even in an economy of constant size, people can want to borrow money, and they return it with interest to compensate for the risk of default.
Investing is no different from loaning with interest. You give the borrower money, they promise to return it with a bit more added. This can be beneficial for both sides (the money-rich person has a "competitive advantage" in providing money, the money-poor person has a "competitive advantage" in providing labor), so they both agree to it. This year person A borrows money, next year person B borrows money in the same circumstances. Investment has occurred, but the economy has not grown.
If there were less people, there would be more room and more opportunity, and people would want more children.
There doesn't seem to be much of a correlation between a country's population density and birthrate today...
A decrease in population would mean a lot less people doing scientific research, and thus slow the rise of standard of living for the remaining people...
That feels wrong, but it's cheaper for Sun/IBM (which means cheaper for the customer too) than designing multiple CPU models for all the possible usage cases.
Isn't this an antitrust violation? Using their browser near-monopoly to provide them with an unequal advantage against their competitors in the advertising business?
Is this something that US people could sign up for without visiting France?
Wikipedia isn't always accurate. But it's more accurate than probably any person. It's the rare person who can beat Wikipedia's accuracy on even a single page, much less all the pages.
The same could be said of your Gmail account, your Android or Apple phone, your Windows computer, and so on. None of which even claim that the company can't read your stuff. And nobody has disproven Whatsapp's claim, as far as I know.
So while it is inferior in terms of privacy to an open source computer you have built the software stack for yourself, it's superior to pretty much anything else.
But it sucks and still rely on your phone to send and receive. Why?
My phone is always on, so why not?
On the contrary, Facebook does it right. You can shut down your phone and still continue your conversation on your PC.
But Facebook does so many other things wrong... and since my phone is always on, I don't care about this "disadvantage".
Phone numbers suck as an identifier. They are usually not free, belong to the carrier, and are location-specific.
Why should a chat application require a cell phone number is beyond me.
But pretty much everyone has a phone number. Certainly I do. Most businesses will give you a phone number, and once they do, it's easier to contact them by WhatsApp than by regular phone/SMS. BTW, when I fly internationally and no longer have phone service, WhatsApp on my phone still works perfectly (as long as I have data from wifi, of course). It lets me use the phone as a regular phone anywhere in the world, for zero cost and no ads.