Ralph Nader for President. Oh wait, that already failed miserably because American voters are too stupid to know when they are being hoodwinked by the powers that be. Who above said democracy is the problem? They might be correct in the sense that Americans don't see any harm in being stupid, not thinking independently and with critical eyes and being plagued with apathy. *You keep what you kill." In other words, you get what you deserve.
You obviously missed this book; "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss and the cosmological theory of string theory with one of it's possible conclusions of multiple (eternal) universes. And this eBook from Scientific American...http://books.scientificamerican.com/sa-ebooks/books/possibilities-in-parallel-seeking-the-multiverse/ plus numerous other papers and books that address the (more likely) possibility the universe could very well be "eternal" and once was a major part of the "steady-state" theory of cosmology. If... it is hypothetically possible for there to be an eternal disembodied creator of the universe, then it is more likely the material universe itself is ageless. Just because causal-chain logic seems to require an Aristotelian "first cause" does not make it so. It is more likely the physical universe has always been physical such as explained in Krauss' book then it is some spirit in the sky started it all. Why? Because physical consequences are the result of physical forces and no effect has ever been remotely and causally connected to a non-physical force or being. Because of that, it is more reasonable (even if we make some initial assumptions) to conclude that physical effects are only caused by physical causes as nothing in the history of the world that can be methodologically connected to anything other than physical reasons or causes.
Only on the elementary and secondary education level does the US stink. Once kids get free from their ignorant parents into a freer academic sphere, does the US education system mature.
Yeh... like I saw printed on a redneck's t-shirt awhile back, "There's no law against being stupid." Another good one is; "Can't fix stupid." I suppose those are badges of honor in the South USA. One main reason America's going down the shifter, the resurrection of the idiot south. They never did get over loosing the Civil War and stupidity is their Montezuma's revenge upon the North.
Evidently you don't know what the scientific method is. The "method" is; proposition (hypothesis), data gathering, testing the data, comparing the data to the proposition, does the data support the proposition, drawing conclusions from the data and testing, submitting results to peer review associations ands journals, peers conducting the exact same experiments to verify your results, consensus (or not) among your professional peers, etc. What sirs that have to do with the law of gravity. The law of gravity was just one peer reviewed conclusion accepted as fact based upon the experimental precepts of the scientific method. Do you know the difference between a physical "law" and a method of investigation? They're two different things.
Not so. We only imagine it to be so by virtue of concluding our ability to understand has limits. But that hypothesis is disproven every year with new discoveries, new methods of investigation and new insights to the nature of the material universe. There is no natural law limiting our ability to learn and those who propose there is use that false conclusion as a basis for hypothesizing "things" beyond the natural world. That conclusion is a false conclusion that fails to account for what we have already learned in a mere 400 years and a time that is for all practical purposes unbounded and intellectual progress that could be just as unbounded given sufficient time. You draw conclusions not demonstrated from hypotheses untested.
"I am a minister in the Church of England. Most Anglicans do not believe in creationism.
I teach as I was taught to - that evolution is the Holy Spirit in action, evidence that God is alive today." Sounds like just another way of legitimizing creationism. Either life on earth was/is a natural consequence of certain conditions in the universe or it is not. Don't try to cross spheres of knowledge or facts. Naturalism can explain life without throwing in some guiding influence.
Even though I'm American, I emailed the British government agency responsible for education curriculum inquiring what the rational was behind the teaching of religion there. A couple weeks later their response was they thought it was important for British students to have exposure to a wide variety of beliefs as part of their cultural education. It's interesting to note that even though British schools make a point of presenting different beliefs as part of the basic education that Britain is far less religious than the U.S. Perhaps because of their exposure to a variety of beliefs they are able to see the bullshit encompassed in religion.
All that proves is that no one in your area or state challenged that requirement. Federal courts have routinely ruled against requiring the teaching of religion in public schools except as part of a cultures or history class that does not favor the teachings of one belief over another. So legally, that class should've taught the Abrahamic, Hindu, Buddhist and other major beliefs across the globe or found in the U.S.. Thus technically according to federal and supreme court rulings if your bible class was the only belief taught, your school system was going against federal law because it favored the teachings of the Abrahamic beliefs as opposed to other beliefs (or even no belief).
Not comparable. Indexes in a library (for example) was indexed by a librarian. Thus there was someone making decisions about what was available and indexed. I know an "indexer" and I know prior to the advent of the web, they exercised considerable discretion reflecting "community standards" in what was available in local libraries. So it's not like anything and everything has been accessible via other reference sources. Materials were routinely "screened" for libel, defamation, illegal (such as pornography, etc.), things that violated not only community standards but also the law. The web is a completely different animal. One can find all kinds of erroneous, libelous, slanderous, purposely fraudulent and illegal data sources there. Far different than indexes found in a library. And given the intellectual depth of the average person using the web, the web has become a free-for-all cesspool of all kinds of information including complete manufactured lies that people accept uncritically and at face value. The information in the web is not refereed by anyone or anything in regards to meeting any factual standards.
"Return on investment" is a pretty nebulous criteria. Few question the idea that people want something over and above an initial investment. But the real question is "what is a reasonable return?" That has become the $64,000 question and the problem with that is that expectations have become so skewed as to render the idea of "return" meaningless. Fifty years ago investors invested largely for the long-term and those, like today were the institutional investors. The short-term markets were essentially the playground of the wealthy who had the money to "speculate" with. Very few middle class families had anything to do with the stock markets. Families "saved" for their future. But then the banking and money market industries realized they could make a huge killing on fees, etc. they waged a big political and public relations campaign to drawing all the other "saving" into their markets even trying to take over the Social Security system. The more money the more fees, while convincing everyone they could retire rich. The ones who are in reality making the profits is the investment companies. The point being, (as usual) the customer gets the shaft. The whole scheme was concocted to make the wealthy even wealthier. No one I know or have even heard of has retired rich by putting their savings into the stock markets.
I respect entrepreneurs who see themselves as merely another human being, can live without an overblown ego and can appreciate living in a community of other human beings perhaps not quite so fortunate. Anyone who thinks that by virtue of their "smarts" or "motivation" they are worth a million times more than some schmuck who works for the local trash hauling company, well, they just aren't part of the human race any longer. They've elevated the selves to the status of a demigod. They like all gods are dead (or should be). Thanks Nietzsche.
I think you missed the whole point. That being life can be rewarding without being wealthy. A seven figure annuity? Really? Like that is the measure of a life well lived? It only demonstrates that those individuals made far more than what was suitable for a relatively comfortable lifestyle. There is a phenomena in economics that has yet to be falsified. That being, the more one person is paid the fewer dollars there are to spread around the economy. It's called "the concentration of wealth" and most economists are coming around to the idea that the concentration of wealth is destructive to society overall. I'm not proposing socialism or communism but I do advocate for a more equitable system of the distribution of a nation's capital. No one in their right mind can rationally assert they are that much of a better person than another to justify possessing assets worth $76 billion dollars Bile Gates) while many other hard working people barely see even 1 million their entire life. Even Warren Buffett has disparaged his own wealth and the wealth of the world's wealthiest families calling it "sinful" . The existence of the Gates Foundation and it's supposed non-profit activities along with other similar foundations would not even be needed if more working people had more disposable income.
That assertion is questionable at best. The invention of many vaccines (Jenner, Pasteur, Salk, etc.) had one thing in mind, curing the sick not personal profit. It wasn't until the development of the large pharmaceutical industry formed with the express purpose of generating personal profit that the modern focus of developing new vaccines the industry shifted from curing the sick to making money. On a fairly recent PBS Frontline episode one of the principals of Merck specifically stated there are few companies developing vaccines BECAUSE they are not profitable enough. Thus, it's no longer public health concerns that motivate "inventors", rather it is profit which is in sharp contract to vaccine manufacturers 60 years ago. Instead, pharmaceutical companies are investing in medications that are questionable at best and/or largely pointless in regards to life expectancy and overall health but something the public narcissistically wants, such as erection sustaining, hair loss "cures", muscle mass and sex drive enhancers, and countless other essentially pointless and "cosmetic" treatments. Now, one might assert that the "market" knows best as market ideologues like von Mises, Friedman, et. al. and the Chicago School of Economics cabal has mistaken claimed over the past 50 years has claimed. But all one needs do to debunk that school of thought is to critically examine the actual choices people make everyday. They are often very far from "rational" choices and that certainly applies to the modern world and its focus upon immediate wants as opposed to long-term needs. And vaccine development is just one important area out of many being ignored or overlooked for the sake of quarterly profits.
From the NRA website: "Contributions, gifts or membership dues made or paid to the National Rifle Association of America are not refundable or transferable and are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes."
Realistically American wages have not kept pace with inflation and even stagnated. From 1997 to 2007 the minimum wage was a mere $5.15 and it wasn't until 2009 the current MW went to 7.25. However it's not necessarily the wage rate that reflects the health of an economic system. There are many other factors to consider. Crime rates (crime rates are directly related to poverty), education (American education system ranks 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math compared to 34 other OECD nations), economic opportunity and income disparity, domestic investment, trade deficits, etc. And by all measures the contemporary capitalist system is failing miserably in the U.S. And please don't insult everyone's intelligence claiming the American worker is stupid or lazy. American productivity has doubled in the past 20 years while incomes have shrank. Capitalism without oversight (including wage regulations, occupational safety, interstate commerce, etc.) coupled with dishonesty, greed, narcissism and complacency only breeds inexcusable disparities in wealth. A system like that will ultimately collapse under it's own self-interest. Western capitalism concentrates only on the accumulation of wealth without any consideration for it's social consequences. It certainly is not the panacea self-interested capitalists like to espouse. Don't get this wrong, capitalism CAN be a mechanism for good so long as the participants recognize they don't live on a private island. Society is "people" and studies have shown that people will only tolerate a certain degree of inequality and sense of being treated unfairly before rebellion (of some sort or some effectual degree) occurs. This trait is even present in capuchin monkeys that have been studied.
False dichotomy. An "employer" possess the ability to hire and fire even oftentimes when a union is present in the workforce. Very few unions have that kind of workplace power. Thus, an employer can exercise undue influence in asking employees to contribute to candidates or parties. Secondly, unions are all "non-profit" organizations that are legally restricted from utilizing normal union dues for political purposes. Unions can request their individual members contribute to candidates, parties or causes. However, those extra contributions must be held in non-tax exempt and separate accounts. And unions cannot demand their members pay more than their normal dues. Employers can by threat of job loss even though it's easy for an employer to manufacture other reasons for firing someone which are (like age discrimination) hard to disprove.
One should make clear distinctions between hired civil servants (or government if you prefer) and those elected (or Selected as Al Sharpton would say). A vast majority of "guvment" employees are committed to public service and receive reasonable compensation. It's the higher-up bureaucrats who have political ambitions and the politicians and their sycophants (appointees) that are the largest cohort that corrupts government. Not counting all the loose and corrupt money from lobbyists of course.
Smarts and wealth don't necessarily go hand in hand. As previously mentioned by others, much of the wealth in the world is inherited. The Constitution architects overall recognized that even back in the 18th century. Most of them were in favor of inheritance taxes because they believed wealth should be earned not passed on from one generation to another. Also, I know from personal experience that even "earnings" don't always realistically reflect intelligence. For a short time I worked for the state unemployment office. One day this guy walks in to get his first unemployment check which he had to sign for. He made an "X" on the form and asked me to witness his X. He was getting the maximum anyone was getting on UC. So I thought, what kind of job this guy had when he worked and what were his yearly wages. Reviewing his paperwork I discovered the guy was a bulldozer driver and made $150K/year. WTF! The guy couldn't read or write but was making more dough than anyone I had ever met prior to that. Now you might assert that %150K is not what you'd consider as income of the "wealthy" and I might agree to a certain degree. But the point remains that one doesn't have to be smart or well dedicated to make a considerable amount of money, far more than the average American. And that was 30 years ago.
I suppose that's a convenient excuse if one doesn't mind being a victim... passivity. However it is a well known fact based upon criminal interviews and polls that fear of personal harm is the biggest disincentive to crime. What disincentive exists within a population that is prohibited from defending themselves with more overwhelming force than that possessed by a criminal?
Slashdot Mirror
Ralph Nader for President. Oh wait, that already failed miserably because American voters are too stupid to know when they are being hoodwinked by the powers that be. Who above said democracy is the problem? They might be correct in the sense that Americans don't see any harm in being stupid, not thinking independently and with critical eyes and being plagued with apathy. *You keep what you kill." In other words, you get what you deserve.
Ditto on the thank you.
That's splitting hairs, yeh? The theory is derived from the method. The scientist is merely the processor. Yes?
You obviously missed this book; "A Universe From Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss and the cosmological theory of string theory with one of it's possible conclusions of multiple (eternal) universes. And this eBook from Scientific American...http://books.scientificamerican.com/sa-ebooks/books/possibilities-in-parallel-seeking-the-multiverse/ plus numerous other papers and books that address the (more likely) possibility the universe could very well be "eternal" and once was a major part of the "steady-state" theory of cosmology. If... it is hypothetically possible for there to be an eternal disembodied creator of the universe, then it is more likely the material universe itself is ageless. Just because causal-chain logic seems to require an Aristotelian "first cause" does not make it so. It is more likely the physical universe has always been physical such as explained in Krauss' book then it is some spirit in the sky started it all. Why? Because physical consequences are the result of physical forces and no effect has ever been remotely and causally connected to a non-physical force or being. Because of that, it is more reasonable (even if we make some initial assumptions) to conclude that physical effects are only caused by physical causes as nothing in the history of the world that can be methodologically connected to anything other than physical reasons or causes.
Only on the elementary and secondary education level does the US stink. Once kids get free from their ignorant parents into a freer academic sphere, does the US education system mature.
Yeh... like I saw printed on a redneck's t-shirt awhile back, "There's no law against being stupid." Another good one is; "Can't fix stupid." I suppose those are badges of honor in the South USA. One main reason America's going down the shifter, the resurrection of the idiot south. They never did get over loosing the Civil War and stupidity is their Montezuma's revenge upon the North.
Evidently you don't know what the scientific method is. The "method" is; proposition (hypothesis), data gathering, testing the data, comparing the data to the proposition, does the data support the proposition, drawing conclusions from the data and testing, submitting results to peer review associations ands journals, peers conducting the exact same experiments to verify your results, consensus (or not) among your professional peers, etc. What sirs that have to do with the law of gravity. The law of gravity was just one peer reviewed conclusion accepted as fact based upon the experimental precepts of the scientific method. Do you know the difference between a physical "law" and a method of investigation? They're two different things.
Not so. We only imagine it to be so by virtue of concluding our ability to understand has limits. But that hypothesis is disproven every year with new discoveries, new methods of investigation and new insights to the nature of the material universe. There is no natural law limiting our ability to learn and those who propose there is use that false conclusion as a basis for hypothesizing "things" beyond the natural world. That conclusion is a false conclusion that fails to account for what we have already learned in a mere 400 years and a time that is for all practical purposes unbounded and intellectual progress that could be just as unbounded given sufficient time. You draw conclusions not demonstrated from hypotheses untested.
"I am a minister in the Church of England. Most Anglicans do not believe in creationism. I teach as I was taught to - that evolution is the Holy Spirit in action, evidence that God is alive today." Sounds like just another way of legitimizing creationism. Either life on earth was/is a natural consequence of certain conditions in the universe or it is not. Don't try to cross spheres of knowledge or facts. Naturalism can explain life without throwing in some guiding influence.
Even though I'm American, I emailed the British government agency responsible for education curriculum inquiring what the rational was behind the teaching of religion there. A couple weeks later their response was they thought it was important for British students to have exposure to a wide variety of beliefs as part of their cultural education. It's interesting to note that even though British schools make a point of presenting different beliefs as part of the basic education that Britain is far less religious than the U.S. Perhaps because of their exposure to a variety of beliefs they are able to see the bullshit encompassed in religion.
All that proves is that no one in your area or state challenged that requirement. Federal courts have routinely ruled against requiring the teaching of religion in public schools except as part of a cultures or history class that does not favor the teachings of one belief over another. So legally, that class should've taught the Abrahamic, Hindu, Buddhist and other major beliefs across the globe or found in the U.S.. Thus technically according to federal and supreme court rulings if your bible class was the only belief taught, your school system was going against federal law because it favored the teachings of the Abrahamic beliefs as opposed to other beliefs (or even no belief).
Not comparable. Indexes in a library (for example) was indexed by a librarian. Thus there was someone making decisions about what was available and indexed. I know an "indexer" and I know prior to the advent of the web, they exercised considerable discretion reflecting "community standards" in what was available in local libraries. So it's not like anything and everything has been accessible via other reference sources. Materials were routinely "screened" for libel, defamation, illegal (such as pornography, etc.), things that violated not only community standards but also the law. The web is a completely different animal. One can find all kinds of erroneous, libelous, slanderous, purposely fraudulent and illegal data sources there. Far different than indexes found in a library. And given the intellectual depth of the average person using the web, the web has become a free-for-all cesspool of all kinds of information including complete manufactured lies that people accept uncritically and at face value. The information in the web is not refereed by anyone or anything in regards to meeting any factual standards.
"Return on investment" is a pretty nebulous criteria. Few question the idea that people want something over and above an initial investment. But the real question is "what is a reasonable return?" That has become the $64,000 question and the problem with that is that expectations have become so skewed as to render the idea of "return" meaningless. Fifty years ago investors invested largely for the long-term and those, like today were the institutional investors. The short-term markets were essentially the playground of the wealthy who had the money to "speculate" with. Very few middle class families had anything to do with the stock markets. Families "saved" for their future. But then the banking and money market industries realized they could make a huge killing on fees, etc. they waged a big political and public relations campaign to drawing all the other "saving" into their markets even trying to take over the Social Security system. The more money the more fees, while convincing everyone they could retire rich. The ones who are in reality making the profits is the investment companies. The point being, (as usual) the customer gets the shaft. The whole scheme was concocted to make the wealthy even wealthier. No one I know or have even heard of has retired rich by putting their savings into the stock markets.
I respect entrepreneurs who see themselves as merely another human being, can live without an overblown ego and can appreciate living in a community of other human beings perhaps not quite so fortunate. Anyone who thinks that by virtue of their "smarts" or "motivation" they are worth a million times more than some schmuck who works for the local trash hauling company, well, they just aren't part of the human race any longer. They've elevated the selves to the status of a demigod. They like all gods are dead (or should be). Thanks Nietzsche.
I think you missed the whole point. That being life can be rewarding without being wealthy. A seven figure annuity? Really? Like that is the measure of a life well lived? It only demonstrates that those individuals made far more than what was suitable for a relatively comfortable lifestyle. There is a phenomena in economics that has yet to be falsified. That being, the more one person is paid the fewer dollars there are to spread around the economy. It's called "the concentration of wealth" and most economists are coming around to the idea that the concentration of wealth is destructive to society overall. I'm not proposing socialism or communism but I do advocate for a more equitable system of the distribution of a nation's capital. No one in their right mind can rationally assert they are that much of a better person than another to justify possessing assets worth $76 billion dollars Bile Gates) while many other hard working people barely see even 1 million their entire life. Even Warren Buffett has disparaged his own wealth and the wealth of the world's wealthiest families calling it "sinful" . The existence of the Gates Foundation and it's supposed non-profit activities along with other similar foundations would not even be needed if more working people had more disposable income.
That assertion is questionable at best. The invention of many vaccines (Jenner, Pasteur, Salk, etc.) had one thing in mind, curing the sick not personal profit. It wasn't until the development of the large pharmaceutical industry formed with the express purpose of generating personal profit that the modern focus of developing new vaccines the industry shifted from curing the sick to making money. On a fairly recent PBS Frontline episode one of the principals of Merck specifically stated there are few companies developing vaccines BECAUSE they are not profitable enough. Thus, it's no longer public health concerns that motivate "inventors", rather it is profit which is in sharp contract to vaccine manufacturers 60 years ago. Instead, pharmaceutical companies are investing in medications that are questionable at best and/or largely pointless in regards to life expectancy and overall health but something the public narcissistically wants, such as erection sustaining, hair loss "cures", muscle mass and sex drive enhancers, and countless other essentially pointless and "cosmetic" treatments. Now, one might assert that the "market" knows best as market ideologues like von Mises, Friedman, et. al. and the Chicago School of Economics cabal has mistaken claimed over the past 50 years has claimed. But all one needs do to debunk that school of thought is to critically examine the actual choices people make everyday. They are often very far from "rational" choices and that certainly applies to the modern world and its focus upon immediate wants as opposed to long-term needs. And vaccine development is just one important area out of many being ignored or overlooked for the sake of quarterly profits.
Etiquette is for people who are obsessive/compulsive and have no life.
Theist bashing? What's so bigoted about correcting intellectual and scientific ignorance? Ignorance demands refutation.
From the NRA website: "Contributions, gifts or membership dues made or paid to the National Rifle Association of America are not refundable or transferable and are not deductible as charitable contributions for Federal income tax purposes."
Realistically American wages have not kept pace with inflation and even stagnated. From 1997 to 2007 the minimum wage was a mere $5.15 and it wasn't until 2009 the current MW went to 7.25. However it's not necessarily the wage rate that reflects the health of an economic system. There are many other factors to consider. Crime rates (crime rates are directly related to poverty), education (American education system ranks 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math compared to 34 other OECD nations), economic opportunity and income disparity, domestic investment, trade deficits, etc. And by all measures the contemporary capitalist system is failing miserably in the U.S. And please don't insult everyone's intelligence claiming the American worker is stupid or lazy. American productivity has doubled in the past 20 years while incomes have shrank. Capitalism without oversight (including wage regulations, occupational safety, interstate commerce, etc.) coupled with dishonesty, greed, narcissism and complacency only breeds inexcusable disparities in wealth. A system like that will ultimately collapse under it's own self-interest. Western capitalism concentrates only on the accumulation of wealth without any consideration for it's social consequences. It certainly is not the panacea self-interested capitalists like to espouse. Don't get this wrong, capitalism CAN be a mechanism for good so long as the participants recognize they don't live on a private island. Society is "people" and studies have shown that people will only tolerate a certain degree of inequality and sense of being treated unfairly before rebellion (of some sort or some effectual degree) occurs. This trait is even present in capuchin monkeys that have been studied.
False dichotomy. An "employer" possess the ability to hire and fire even oftentimes when a union is present in the workforce. Very few unions have that kind of workplace power. Thus, an employer can exercise undue influence in asking employees to contribute to candidates or parties. Secondly, unions are all "non-profit" organizations that are legally restricted from utilizing normal union dues for political purposes. Unions can request their individual members contribute to candidates, parties or causes. However, those extra contributions must be held in non-tax exempt and separate accounts. And unions cannot demand their members pay more than their normal dues. Employers can by threat of job loss even though it's easy for an employer to manufacture other reasons for firing someone which are (like age discrimination) hard to disprove.
One should make clear distinctions between hired civil servants (or government if you prefer) and those elected (or Selected as Al Sharpton would say). A vast majority of "guvment" employees are committed to public service and receive reasonable compensation. It's the higher-up bureaucrats who have political ambitions and the politicians and their sycophants (appointees) that are the largest cohort that corrupts government. Not counting all the loose and corrupt money from lobbyists of course.
Smarts and wealth don't necessarily go hand in hand. As previously mentioned by others, much of the wealth in the world is inherited. The Constitution architects overall recognized that even back in the 18th century. Most of them were in favor of inheritance taxes because they believed wealth should be earned not passed on from one generation to another. Also, I know from personal experience that even "earnings" don't always realistically reflect intelligence. For a short time I worked for the state unemployment office. One day this guy walks in to get his first unemployment check which he had to sign for. He made an "X" on the form and asked me to witness his X. He was getting the maximum anyone was getting on UC. So I thought, what kind of job this guy had when he worked and what were his yearly wages. Reviewing his paperwork I discovered the guy was a bulldozer driver and made $150K/year. WTF! The guy couldn't read or write but was making more dough than anyone I had ever met prior to that. Now you might assert that %150K is not what you'd consider as income of the "wealthy" and I might agree to a certain degree. But the point remains that one doesn't have to be smart or well dedicated to make a considerable amount of money, far more than the average American. And that was 30 years ago.
I don't have a Comcast issued wireless router or cable modem, I own my own. Does that mean I can charge Comcast for the use of my wireless equipment?
I suppose that's a convenient excuse if one doesn't mind being a victim... passivity. However it is a well known fact based upon criminal interviews and polls that fear of personal harm is the biggest disincentive to crime. What disincentive exists within a population that is prohibited from defending themselves with more overwhelming force than that possessed by a criminal?