I'm pretty sure you're wrong, because IQ scores now aren't what they used to be. Have you heard of the Flynn effect? IQ scores are consistently rising over time (given the same test); the reason they don't appear to be is because they keep making the tests harder and changing the scoring so that 100 is always average. By the standards of 1997's tests, for example, the population of 1932 would have scored an average of 80, and while literacy rates were lower then, we certainly have reached the point where the average person can read.
Evolution includes the development of new species, but it isn't *just* that. We have seen new species arise - the California Rift Valley salamanders, for example - but we also do expect that to be pretty slow for most animal species, so we wouldn't expect to see rapid changes when we've only really been paying attention for the last couple hundred years.
Most medical treatments are more effective than placebos, as they - in the US and EU - have to be better than placebo in clinical trials in order to get approved and be on the market. For individual patients, some medical treatments may not work as well, but on the whole, they're better than placebo.
It's kind of interesting how you keep conflating pro-establishment with pro-right wing. I don't think that it's an accurate grouping; plenty of right-wing papers are anti-establishment.
Actually, there's plenty of empirical evidence for it, depending on how you cut taxes for the rich. Proper structuring of taxes can certainly help the rest of the economy, even if the rich end up paying a bit less.
Bullshit. At this point, most people don't think it's a problem. If they did, the market could fix it. However, since they don't, there's no reason for anything to change. The market is good at giving people what they want - in this case, they want a cheaper fitbit-like device, and don't care much about why it's cheaper.
I never made that assumption. People are lying, cheating bastards, but the government doesn't necessarily made that better. However, the free market doesn't require complete information, nor honest players, and "rational choices" are damn hard to define. There never has been a perfect free market (one with your assumptions above) but there have been free markets. You're confusing "free market that works perfectly" with "free market", and that's a pretty big error.
For the most part, police chases aren't televised here either, live or otherwise. There's maybe a snippet of the end of it, but not much. Televising police chases is more of a thing you see in movies, but not much in real life.
That's not true. If there's enough people who don't like this "data theft" to force the government to pass a law, then there's a market for companies who don't do that. They'll have to market it right, and it'll be more expensive, of course, but the demand is there.
Well, some of them went into service jobs, and some went into manufacturing. I'm not saying we can continue to have people be employed like that forever - I think eventually we'll be almost post-scarcity and will have to implement basic income - but continual population growth is not necessary for continual economic growth.
With technology, obviously. We become more and more productive by being smarter about things, not by having more people do more work. With current technology, one farmer can produce way more food than a whole village could a hundred or so years ago.
There probably isn't a huge drawback to the gene. Evolution is constrained by what it has to work with, and the flu goes through generations faster than chickens do, so it can change faster. I mean, people still die from the flu and other diseases specifically for that reason. It's also why we have an adaptive immune system rather than hard-coding antibodies against pathogens. There's a good chance this will work for a little while and then become significantly less effective over time.
When you say "predatory margins of 10,000%", are you comparing sale price and cost to produce? Because that's incredibly disingenuous; you have to include R&D costs as well, and not just for that drug, but for all the drugs that they put money into but failed clinical or preclinical trials.
Yeah, that's not true for a number of reasons. One is that most of those don't work for most cancers at physiologically relevant concentrations, and another is that you're ignoring CAR T cell research, which is both really cool and really effective.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm pretty sure you're wrong, because IQ scores now aren't what they used to be. Have you heard of the Flynn effect? IQ scores are consistently rising over time (given the same test); the reason they don't appear to be is because they keep making the tests harder and changing the scoring so that 100 is always average. By the standards of 1997's tests, for example, the population of 1932 would have scored an average of 80, and while literacy rates were lower then, we certainly have reached the point where the average person can read.
So, that means we build a huge accelerator in space, right?
Evolution includes the development of new species, but it isn't *just* that. We have seen new species arise - the California Rift Valley salamanders, for example - but we also do expect that to be pretty slow for most animal species, so we wouldn't expect to see rapid changes when we've only really been paying attention for the last couple hundred years.
Sure we have. We've even observed speciation in multicellular organisms - look up the California Rift Valley salamanders.
It's amazing how you can tell that just from someone's political beliefs on the internet.
I haven't seen whether anybody else has commented on this, but evolution doesn't address how life came to be, only how it changes over time.
Ah, and here we see "-1, Troll" being used instead of a discussion. Hopefully that'll get addressed in metamoderation.
Most medical treatments are more effective than placebos, as they - in the US and EU - have to be better than placebo in clinical trials in order to get approved and be on the market. For individual patients, some medical treatments may not work as well, but on the whole, they're better than placebo.
It's kind of interesting how you keep conflating pro-establishment with pro-right wing. I don't think that it's an accurate grouping; plenty of right-wing papers are anti-establishment.
By rest-of-Western-Europe standards, everyone in American politics is right wing. Meaning that anyone in the Republican party is far right.
FTFY
Actually, there's plenty of empirical evidence for it, depending on how you cut taxes for the rich. Proper structuring of taxes can certainly help the rest of the economy, even if the rich end up paying a bit less.
See "for the most part" above.
Bullshit. At this point, most people don't think it's a problem. If they did, the market could fix it. However, since they don't, there's no reason for anything to change. The market is good at giving people what they want - in this case, they want a cheaper fitbit-like device, and don't care much about why it's cheaper.
I never made that assumption. People are lying, cheating bastards, but the government doesn't necessarily made that better. However, the free market doesn't require complete information, nor honest players, and "rational choices" are damn hard to define. There never has been a perfect free market (one with your assumptions above) but there have been free markets. You're confusing "free market that works perfectly" with "free market", and that's a pretty big error.
For the most part, police chases aren't televised here either, live or otherwise. There's maybe a snippet of the end of it, but not much. Televising police chases is more of a thing you see in movies, but not much in real life.
That's not true. If there's enough people who don't like this "data theft" to force the government to pass a law, then there's a market for companies who don't do that. They'll have to market it right, and it'll be more expensive, of course, but the demand is there.
Well, some of them went into service jobs, and some went into manufacturing. I'm not saying we can continue to have people be employed like that forever - I think eventually we'll be almost post-scarcity and will have to implement basic income - but continual population growth is not necessary for continual economic growth.
With technology, obviously. We become more and more productive by being smarter about things, not by having more people do more work. With current technology, one farmer can produce way more food than a whole village could a hundred or so years ago.
Ah, so you're sworn in before they do jury selection, got it. Thanks!
Hmm - if they ask a question like that, are you obligated to answer?
Aww. Try a bit harder next time, little troll. I believe in you!
There probably isn't a huge drawback to the gene. Evolution is constrained by what it has to work with, and the flu goes through generations faster than chickens do, so it can change faster. I mean, people still die from the flu and other diseases specifically for that reason. It's also why we have an adaptive immune system rather than hard-coding antibodies against pathogens. There's a good chance this will work for a little while and then become significantly less effective over time.
When you say "predatory margins of 10,000%", are you comparing sale price and cost to produce? Because that's incredibly disingenuous; you have to include R&D costs as well, and not just for that drug, but for all the drugs that they put money into but failed clinical or preclinical trials.
Probably for being off-topic, like the mod category says.
Yeah, that's not true for a number of reasons. One is that most of those don't work for most cancers at physiologically relevant concentrations, and another is that you're ignoring CAR T cell research, which is both really cool and really effective.
What country has laws that lax? Because it's not the US or (most of?) the EU.