I dunno, the population of first-world countries (the ones doing the most technological progress) isn't growing by much, and sometimes it's declining. In general, rate of progress should be proportional to the number of people working on it, yeah. I think that as we become more and more efficient at producing food, etc. that we could afford to employ more and more people to do that; whether or not we will is another story.
The American public didn't want to get involved in WWI. As for profit... Countries wanted to buy stuff from us. We were willing to sell it to them. We didn't want to fight at the point because it really wasn't our business; are you for or against American military intervention? You say America meddles in places it has no business, and I agree. Europe during WWI was a place the US had no business being. You can't say "you should have joined the war sooner" and "stop meddling in things" in the same comment and expect people to take you seriously.
Well, Twitter does have rules against inciting violence. Presumably some of the ISIS-affiliated accounts do that. She might have standing to sue based on harm done to her because they weren't enforcing their own rules.
How do you figure tax avoidance leads to lower wages? If anything, it should mean lower prices (lower costs mean you can lower prices to gain volume and still make profit) or higher wages (if the tax bill on your profits is too high, give out some bonuses so your profits drop).
Lower wages lead to lower prices, which means standard of living isn't necessarily diminished by as much as wages are, and lower prices generally means more tourism. If prices and wages are lower, then while tax revenues are also lower, government salaries should be as well, which means those programs don't cost as much.
That's not to say I support tax evasion necessarily, but I do think most tax laws are kind of shitty, and this whole "tax money they earn outside your jurisdiction" thing the US and EU keep doing is bullshit.
Governments borrowing money (from other governments, banks, citizens through bonds, etc.) is borrowing from future generations, since their taxes will be the ones paying off the debts (with interest). How is this not obvious?
You think it'll only be as different in 3016 as 2016 is from 1016? I disagree. Much of the low-hanging fruit has been picked, but materials science is moving along pretty well, and fuel economy - while not what you wanted - is getting better. Furthermore, we're advancing faster and faster all the time - that trend may not continue, but there's no reason to think it'll slow considerably. Hell, even 20 years ago, having widespread wireless internet that you could access through your phone was pretty out there. We're getting better at medical advances too - new and better vaccines (although not as fast as I would like), understanding intelligence, gene modification... Humanity will change considerably within the next 1,000 years, and I'm pretty confident it'll be a bigger difference than it was from 1016 to 2016.
Interesting, I didn't know a swarm was also considered a Dyson sphere. However, the Wikipedia article you cited does say that a continuous surface sphere is still a Dyson sphere, just the most implausible form.
In what world is 25% of something "statistically irrelevant"? Linux is obviously more important, but you can't just dismiss a quarter of something either. Try only paying 75% of your taxes sometime.
Influencing elections by urging people to vote one way or another isn't buying votes. If it was, then all advocacy groups - like, say, NOW or Lambda Legal - would be just as guilty. Influencing legislation isn't buying votes either; it's helpful to their interests, sure, but any group of people should be able to tell a legislator what they think should be changed about legislation, proposed or otherwise.
No, if you're going to give them a country, the obvious answer would have been to take land that wasn't hotly contested and give it to them, instead of choosing land that is considered holy by three major world religions. We could have given them part of the US or Canada, it's not like the Western Plains are particularly populous.
They used to be crap. Ford actually does make the best pickup trucks, and Ford and Chevy's newer sedans are actually pretty nice for what they cost. I still really like Hondas, but new American cars are actually pretty comparable to European and Japanese cars of similar prices.
Well, I guess New Yorkers will just have to go to Jersey to buy any smartphone, then. NYC is a big market, sure, but I'm doubtful that Apple would really bow to this, especially for just one state.
I believe it doesn't - from what I read (don't have a link atm) Assange said he'd only go to Sweden voluntarily if they promised not to extradite him anywhere after that. However, they can't promise not to extradite someone - if they get a valid request, they have to comply.
Actually, when you look at after-tax compensation, average wages have risen. Not to mention that adjusting wages for inflation without taking into account how much better a lot of goods are than they used to be is silly. In addition, there are more women working now, and basic supply and demand says that when you have more people entering the workforce, wages go up more slowly than they would otherwise.
Your analysis, while interesting, is flawed because you have two incorrect assumptions. First, that growth is impossible over any extended period. This may be true when populations are contracting, but in a population that grows, sales growth is certainly attainable. Even in a population that's static, if they have increasing amounts of disposable income, sales growth is possible. Secondly, you assume investors demand growth, which is not true. Investors demand profits, ideally higher than they could get elsewhere. You can keep sales the same and still increase profits if you continually improve your manufacturing or find cheaper inputs.
Now, I'm not saying Wall Street doesn't demand too much growth sometimes, and some lower profit but stable companies are undervalued, but the model isn't nearly as flawed as you make it out to be. With improvements in technology, there's no reason why growth can't be sustained.
This project does the whole genome. Whole genome is arguably easier and more useful - it's easier in that collecting samples for a whole exome project would require a lot of different tissues, and technically speaking it's also a bit easier.
A company can't patent her genes. Companies can (and do) patent tests for genes, or synthetic genes they created, but not hers. Also, wasn't a big part of Obamacare the new stipulation that insurance companies can't deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions?
Penile and throat cancers aren't as common from HPV, but yeah, saying "this injection can reduce your chance of dick cancer" would probably be pretty convincing.
Well, clearly I can, because I did. You meant I shouldn't cite a government entity, but in this case, I have to disagree. The WHO has no stake in any vaccine profits, and their numbers are verifiable by other sources. Measles being a prolific killer of young children is well-established.
No, you lied. You said it never caused millions of deaths, which is wrong. It's true that proper medical care and nourishment drastically reduces the measles fatality rate, but it's still about 1-2 in 1,000 cases, even assuming normal, First World standards of living.
My previous post said nothing about the conditions under which people got the measles, and I did not make the claim that it was exceedingly dangerous to those in the First World. I specifically pointed out that you were, in fact, wrong when you said it never caused millions of deaths. However, even discounting deaths, measles can have permanent unpleasant side effects, which generally aren't reduced by easily available food.
Hmm, do you have a link to that? I know it's not a routinely accepted vaccine, but I think part of that is because it's new and it's hard to measure HPV infection status.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno, the population of first-world countries (the ones doing the most technological progress) isn't growing by much, and sometimes it's declining. In general, rate of progress should be proportional to the number of people working on it, yeah. I think that as we become more and more efficient at producing food, etc. that we could afford to employ more and more people to do that; whether or not we will is another story.
The American public didn't want to get involved in WWI. As for profit... Countries wanted to buy stuff from us. We were willing to sell it to them. We didn't want to fight at the point because it really wasn't our business; are you for or against American military intervention? You say America meddles in places it has no business, and I agree. Europe during WWI was a place the US had no business being. You can't say "you should have joined the war sooner" and "stop meddling in things" in the same comment and expect people to take you seriously.
Well, Twitter does have rules against inciting violence. Presumably some of the ISIS-affiliated accounts do that. She might have standing to sue based on harm done to her because they weren't enforcing their own rules.
How do you figure tax avoidance leads to lower wages? If anything, it should mean lower prices (lower costs mean you can lower prices to gain volume and still make profit) or higher wages (if the tax bill on your profits is too high, give out some bonuses so your profits drop).
Lower wages lead to lower prices, which means standard of living isn't necessarily diminished by as much as wages are, and lower prices generally means more tourism. If prices and wages are lower, then while tax revenues are also lower, government salaries should be as well, which means those programs don't cost as much.
That's not to say I support tax evasion necessarily, but I do think most tax laws are kind of shitty, and this whole "tax money they earn outside your jurisdiction" thing the US and EU keep doing is bullshit.
Governments borrowing money (from other governments, banks, citizens through bonds, etc.) is borrowing from future generations, since their taxes will be the ones paying off the debts (with interest). How is this not obvious?
You think it'll only be as different in 3016 as 2016 is from 1016? I disagree. Much of the low-hanging fruit has been picked, but materials science is moving along pretty well, and fuel economy - while not what you wanted - is getting better. Furthermore, we're advancing faster and faster all the time - that trend may not continue, but there's no reason to think it'll slow considerably. Hell, even 20 years ago, having widespread wireless internet that you could access through your phone was pretty out there. We're getting better at medical advances too - new and better vaccines (although not as fast as I would like), understanding intelligence, gene modification... Humanity will change considerably within the next 1,000 years, and I'm pretty confident it'll be a bigger difference than it was from 1016 to 2016.
Interesting, I didn't know a swarm was also considered a Dyson sphere. However, the Wikipedia article you cited does say that a continuous surface sphere is still a Dyson sphere, just the most implausible form.
Let's build a Dyson sphere so we can build another, slightly better Dyson sphere around that one!
So, theoretically, all you'd have to do is sign in with a blank tab in focus? Those shouldn't have any sort of copy of the login dialog.
In what world is 25% of something "statistically irrelevant"? Linux is obviously more important, but you can't just dismiss a quarter of something either. Try only paying 75% of your taxes sometime.
Influencing elections by urging people to vote one way or another isn't buying votes. If it was, then all advocacy groups - like, say, NOW or Lambda Legal - would be just as guilty. Influencing legislation isn't buying votes either; it's helpful to their interests, sure, but any group of people should be able to tell a legislator what they think should be changed about legislation, proposed or otherwise.
No, if you're going to give them a country, the obvious answer would have been to take land that wasn't hotly contested and give it to them, instead of choosing land that is considered holy by three major world religions. We could have given them part of the US or Canada, it's not like the Western Plains are particularly populous.
They used to be crap. Ford actually does make the best pickup trucks, and Ford and Chevy's newer sedans are actually pretty nice for what they cost. I still really like Hondas, but new American cars are actually pretty comparable to European and Japanese cars of similar prices.
Well, I guess New Yorkers will just have to go to Jersey to buy any smartphone, then. NYC is a big market, sure, but I'm doubtful that Apple would really bow to this, especially for just one state.
Mussolini is actually a much better comparison to Trump.
I believe it doesn't - from what I read (don't have a link atm) Assange said he'd only go to Sweden voluntarily if they promised not to extradite him anywhere after that. However, they can't promise not to extradite someone - if they get a valid request, they have to comply.
Actually, when you look at after-tax compensation, average wages have risen. Not to mention that adjusting wages for inflation without taking into account how much better a lot of goods are than they used to be is silly. In addition, there are more women working now, and basic supply and demand says that when you have more people entering the workforce, wages go up more slowly than they would otherwise.
Your analysis, while interesting, is flawed because you have two incorrect assumptions. First, that growth is impossible over any extended period. This may be true when populations are contracting, but in a population that grows, sales growth is certainly attainable. Even in a population that's static, if they have increasing amounts of disposable income, sales growth is possible. Secondly, you assume investors demand growth, which is not true. Investors demand profits, ideally higher than they could get elsewhere. You can keep sales the same and still increase profits if you continually improve your manufacturing or find cheaper inputs.
Now, I'm not saying Wall Street doesn't demand too much growth sometimes, and some lower profit but stable companies are undervalued, but the model isn't nearly as flawed as you make it out to be. With improvements in technology, there's no reason why growth can't be sustained.
This project does the whole genome. Whole genome is arguably easier and more useful - it's easier in that collecting samples for a whole exome project would require a lot of different tissues, and technically speaking it's also a bit easier.
A company can't patent her genes. Companies can (and do) patent tests for genes, or synthetic genes they created, but not hers. Also, wasn't a big part of Obamacare the new stipulation that insurance companies can't deny you coverage due to pre-existing conditions?
Interesting, thanks!
My brother's primary care physician recommended it, so it may be a regional thing.
Penile and throat cancers aren't as common from HPV, but yeah, saying "this injection can reduce your chance of dick cancer" would probably be pretty convincing.
Well, clearly I can, because I did. You meant I shouldn't cite a government entity, but in this case, I have to disagree. The WHO has no stake in any vaccine profits, and their numbers are verifiable by other sources. Measles being a prolific killer of young children is well-established.
No, you lied. You said it never caused millions of deaths, which is wrong. It's true that proper medical care and nourishment drastically reduces the measles fatality rate, but it's still about 1-2 in 1,000 cases, even assuming normal, First World standards of living.
My previous post said nothing about the conditions under which people got the measles, and I did not make the claim that it was exceedingly dangerous to those in the First World. I specifically pointed out that you were, in fact, wrong when you said it never caused millions of deaths. However, even discounting deaths, measles can have permanent unpleasant side effects, which generally aren't reduced by easily available food.
Hmm, do you have a link to that? I know it's not a routinely accepted vaccine, but I think part of that is because it's new and it's hard to measure HPV infection status.