On the contrary, in a couple decades, things will be much worse in Japan. The number of retirees will rise, and the number of younger working people will decline. The ratio of retired to working people will rise, and there won't be anyone to pay for the medical care of the old people. That's a recipe for immense suffering, both personal and economic.
Japan currently averages about 1.4 kids per family. A stable, sustainable rate would be about 2.1 kids. (Not 2.0 because a small number will die before reaching reproductive age.) Japan's rate is much too low for a healthy society. Northern European countries have rates of 1.6-2.0 (plus some immigration of young people), while the US rate is 2.1 (plus some immigration). Those are healthy rates. Japan, for cultural reasons, is not even willing to supplement its 1.4 rate via immigration.
You are correct that the planet does not need any more human beings. But the solution is to decrease birth rates in Africa and South Asia (where they are as high as 7 kids per family in some countries), not to further decrease birth rates in Western countries, where they are already at or below sustainable levels.
Nigeria has roughly the 3rd largest economy in Africa. But they also have Africa's largest population. Per capita, they have a quite mediocre GDP. See table...
That's not actually ridiculous in this case. If you drove around in a bike/motorcycle locating empty parking spots and announcing their existence to prospective parkers (and then selling them), you would indeed be providing liquidity.
"Climate change" was not a very descriptive name, because the climate is always changing. It's just changing faster now, in a way that will arguably be harder for humans and nature to adapt to. So "climate disruption" is a better name.
And I don't understand why this new terminology should be politically controversial. It's pretty clear that the climate is now changing in novel ways, due to human influence. But it's not actually clear, according to the experts, whether the net impact of "climate disruption" on humanity will be positive or negative, and therefore whether we should make an effort to slow it...
Facebook only has about 6000 employees now, and I believe it grew to most of its current size with under 1000 employees.
Also I suspect your proposal can be circumvented by establishing multiple companies owned by the same individual which cooperate together. Or (equivalently) by outsourcing certain business units to contractors.
Obviously they have their own diseases - and their own immunities...they just aren't the same as the rest of the worlds'.
I'm not so sure. The prevalence of diseases in a population is a function of a number of factors, including: - Size of the population - Degree of interaction between individuals/groups within the population - Degree of interaction with animals that can harbor diseases which affect humans.
If I remember correctly, Jared Diamond argues in one of his books that infectious disease was rare among humans until we invented agriculture. Before that, humanity consisted of isolated hunter-gatherer tribes and diseases generally did not have the chance to propagate to many people before dying out.
If you could get a 9 inch tablet for that ran full windows, you could have a very portable computer that you could just plug into full size monitor, keyboard and mouse, and use it as a full desktop.
What's most interesting is that the anonymous reports from the US intelligence community the day after the plane disappeared said that the plane was on the bottom of the Indian Ocean.
Perhaps it's like putting an overclocked CPU in the fridge and observing that it works better there. You don't have to understand something fully in order to manipulate it in certain ways.
I personally think, Ukrainians don't really know what they want and they don't really want democracy when they have Maidan. They have inherited the best agriculture and the best industry from the USSR and what have they done with it? Absolutely nothing.
I don't think African-Americans in the South know what they want. They have inherited some of the best land for growing cotton in the US and what have they done with it? Absolutely nothing. This couldn't possibly be because they were dominated by a different ethnic group for hundreds of years which starved and impoverished them and broke up their society. No, it must be because they are lazy and immoral, and their colonizers and oppressors know what's good for them better than they do. Right?
I remember seeing a conference presentation a few years ago that promised to see through clothing using image processing (like the scanners at the airport, except cheap and accessible to everyone).
Luckily (I would think), this didn't work out in practice.
gifted students should progress at a social pace similar to other kids. This means they would be in a class with other students their age who had also been placed in the gifted student program up until the age of 17 or 18, when they would normally graduate high school anyway.
New York City has nine high schools built on this model, some focused on sciences, others on humanities. Of course, New York City has a population over 8 million to draw on. In pretty much any other US school district, there aren't enough really gifted students to fill a classroom. Which makes it a little hard to implement this model.
why are we looking Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and China as our models? What scientific advances have come out of those countries recently?
US universities still generate a disproportionate fraction of scientific research, and US companies generate a disproportionate fraction of technological innovation.
There's nothing wrong with spending money on gifted kids, but something is wrong with how those countries do it.
Does it get diluted down to homeopathic levels thus curing everyone in the Ukraine of cancer,
This is ironic, because there is actually a serious scientific hypothesis that small doses of radioactivity are good for you. (In contrast to all other "homeopathic" ideas which are idiocy and/or fraud) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
with security guarantees from a Western power, when those guarantees are broken so easily?
This has implications for many other conflicts. For example Israel/Palestine - the US offered Israel security guarantees due to the vulnerable borders it would have after a withdrawal, and I'd expect the Palestinian leaders want some protection from extremists who reject peace with Israel and would assassinate any leader who agreed to it (as happened in Egypt after it signed a treaty with Israel). Now, I can't imagine either side respecting such a guarantee, which makes a peace agreement that much further away.
The same is true with regard to India/Pakistan (another nuclear weapons situation), Bosnia, Kosovo, and many other areas of crisis.
The lesson is, don't make promises if you (and all your successors in office) don't plan on keeping them.
...beyond the fact that someone wants to deny evolution.
What answers are being changed, on what test?
Why bother to give the test at all if you don't like the material on it? Is it a government-required test? For what purpose? Is the government really OK with these arbitrary changes by the school?
The summary is pretty horrible, in terms of journalism, and the original article not much better.
Slashdot Mirror
On the contrary, in a couple decades, things will be much worse in Japan. The number of retirees will rise, and the number of younger working people will decline. The ratio of retired to working people will rise, and there won't be anyone to pay for the medical care of the old people. That's a recipe for immense suffering, both personal and economic.
Japan currently averages about 1.4 kids per family. A stable, sustainable rate would be about 2.1 kids. (Not 2.0 because a small number will die before reaching reproductive age.) Japan's rate is much too low for a healthy society. Northern European countries have rates of 1.6-2.0 (plus some immigration of young people), while the US rate is 2.1 (plus some immigration). Those are healthy rates. Japan, for cultural reasons, is not even willing to supplement its 1.4 rate via immigration.
You are correct that the planet does not need any more human beings. But the solution is to decrease birth rates in Africa and South Asia (where they are as high as 7 kids per family in some countries), not to further decrease birth rates in Western countries, where they are already at or below sustainable levels.
Nigeria has roughly the 3rd largest economy in Africa. But they also have Africa's largest population. Per capita, they have a quite mediocre GDP.
See table...
There could be other reasons for this situation, like untreated mild depression. You should probably see a doctor to check on this.
But the browser becomes much more difficult to use if the UI elements change significantly every two weeks.
That's not actually ridiculous in this case. If you drove around in a bike/motorcycle locating empty parking spots and announcing their existence to prospective parkers (and then selling them), you would indeed be providing liquidity.
"Climate change" was not a very descriptive name, because the climate is always changing. It's just changing faster now, in a way that will arguably be harder for humans and nature to adapt to. So "climate disruption" is a better name.
And I don't understand why this new terminology should be politically controversial. It's pretty clear that the climate is now changing in novel ways, due to human influence. But it's not actually clear, according to the experts, whether the net impact of "climate disruption" on humanity will be positive or negative, and therefore whether we should make an effort to slow it...
Facebook only has about 6000 employees now, and I believe it grew to most of its current size with under 1000 employees.
Also I suspect your proposal can be circumvented by establishing multiple companies owned by the same individual which cooperate together. Or (equivalently) by outsourcing certain business units to contractors.
I'm not so sure. The prevalence of diseases in a population is a function of a number of factors, including:
- Size of the population
- Degree of interaction between individuals/groups within the population
- Degree of interaction with animals that can harbor diseases which affect humans.
If I remember correctly, Jared Diamond argues in one of his books that infectious disease was rare among humans until we invented agriculture. Before that, humanity consisted of isolated hunter-gatherer tribes and diseases generally did not have the chance to propagate to many people before dying out.
Or you could use a regular laptop the same way.
In some places they time the lights so that the "magic speed" is the speed limit. Eliminates any incentive to speed.
And because we know artists from past centuries had access to exactly the same paints and color ranges that we do today...
I'd happily give up my 1% cash back to cut 3% off the price.
Which reports?
Citation needed.
Perhaps it's like putting an overclocked CPU in the fridge and observing that it works better there. You don't have to understand something fully in order to manipulate it in certain ways.
Seems to me there's a lot of selection bias there.
I don't think African-Americans in the South know what they want. They have inherited some of the best land for growing cotton in the US and what have they done with it? Absolutely nothing. This couldn't possibly be because they were dominated by a different ethnic group for hundreds of years which starved and impoverished them and broke up their society. No, it must be because they are lazy and immoral, and their colonizers and oppressors know what's good for them better than they do. Right?
I remember seeing a conference presentation a few years ago that promised to see through clothing using image processing (like the scanners at the airport, except cheap and accessible to everyone).
Luckily (I would think), this didn't work out in practice.
I expect this method won't either.
And then there is Putin’s threat to use Ukrainian women and children as human shields when he invades Ukraine
New York City has nine high schools built on this model, some focused on sciences, others on humanities. Of course, New York City has a population over 8 million to draw on. In pretty much any other US school district, there aren't enough really gifted students to fill a classroom. Which makes it a little hard to implement this model.
why are we looking Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, and China as our models? What scientific advances have come out of those countries recently?
US universities still generate a disproportionate fraction of scientific research, and US companies generate a disproportionate fraction of technological innovation.
There's nothing wrong with spending money on gifted kids, but something is wrong with how those countries do it.
Does it get diluted down to homeopathic levels thus curing everyone in the Ukraine of cancer,
This is ironic, because there is actually a serious scientific hypothesis that small doses of radioactivity are good for you. (In contrast to all other "homeopathic" ideas which are idiocy and/or fraud)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
You will once Windows starts enforcing a touchscreen interface.
with security guarantees from a Western power, when those guarantees are broken so easily?
This has implications for many other conflicts. For example Israel/Palestine - the US offered Israel security guarantees due to the vulnerable borders it would have after a withdrawal, and I'd expect the Palestinian leaders want some protection from extremists who reject peace with Israel and would assassinate any leader who agreed to it (as happened in Egypt after it signed a treaty with Israel). Now, I can't imagine either side respecting such a guarantee, which makes a peace agreement that much further away.
The same is true with regard to India/Pakistan (another nuclear weapons situation), Bosnia, Kosovo, and many other areas of crisis.
The lesson is, don't make promises if you (and all your successors in office) don't plan on keeping them.
Or maybe the "Renaissance".
...beyond the fact that someone wants to deny evolution.
What answers are being changed, on what test?
Why bother to give the test at all if you don't like the material on it? Is it a government-required test? For what purpose? Is the government really OK with these arbitrary changes by the school?
The summary is pretty horrible, in terms of journalism, and the original article not much better.