The blame for low-fat dietary recommendations pretty much exclusively fall on government: no matter how much the sugar industry paid for scientific spin, there has never been any objective evidence that sugar is harmless or that low-fat diets work. In fact, the government "bought off" scientists to push a low-fat agenda just as much as the sugar industry, selectively funding studies and preferring results that supported existing government dietary guidelines. To add injury to insult, not only has the US government pushed bad dietary guidelines, it has also manipulated the US sugar market to keep prices high, protect US sugar producers, and position HFCS as a common sweetener.
The US government should simply not get involved in even suggesting to people what they should eat, let alone fixing or manipulating prices for foods. Yes, government can, in principle, some good when it gets nutrituional information right, but the risk of getting it wrong is simply too high. And these manipulations and scientific errors have persisted for decades, through every Congress and administration.
And lest you think this doesn't matter much, millions of Americans died horrible deaths unnecessarily because of bad government dietary guidelines, which don't exhaust themselves in bad recommendations, but influence labeling and the kinds of foods both kids and adults are fed in institutional settings.
When Jamia Wilson read this report, she noticed she was surrounded by Apple products. She thought about "how much money I've invested in an organization [that] doesn't believe in investing in people like me."
And by "people like me" she means "political activists" and "liberal arts majors"?
Apple's entire business model is for smart, technically oriented people to make stuff that's easy to use for "creative" people like Jamia Wilson. Obviously, Apple wouldn't be "investing" in people like her: that's the whole point of Apple.
You can foam at the mouth about how unfair the real world is all you want, imposing increasingly higher taxes on corporations or individuals will cause them to adopt "tax avoidance strategies". If you make the taxes high enough, they'll simply stop operating/working altogether. It's as unavoidable as gravity.
Most -- if not all -- of these worlds are unlikely to harbor life, but what if we put it there?
There is no evidence that there is a large number of habitable but sterile planets. In fact, most scientists would likely find that notion rather surprising. Life developed so rapidly on earth after conditions were suitable that the same is likely true elsewhere. That is, if we don't find life on other planets, it's likely because they are too dry, too hot, or too cold. Any planet with lots of liquid water probably already has life.
Not at all; people in the gig economy, of course, are required to pay taxes, like any other independent contractor.
with no auto insurance
That's illegal for people in the gig economy just like for everybody else.
driving some jalopy
The Uber and Lyft cars I have taken have been a lot nicer than any taxi I have ever been in.
something go wrong the victims are on there own and the driver just goes to ER.
In fact, gig companies like Uber and Lyft are much better in that regard than taxi drivers: their drivers and passengers are wirelessly monitored through the entire trip and evaluated by passengers afterwards; so, an Uber or Lyft driver gets penalized seriously for dangerous driving. I have had taxi drivers run a string of red lights, go at twice the speed limit, and get out of the car and get into fist fights with other drivers, and they know they can get away with it because there are no consequences. Taxis are seriously scary.
Yet you feel the world owes cheap labor and no taxes to corporations?
First of all, stop hiding behind the term "corporations"; we're talking about employers here.
And it's not difficult to figure out how this works. If I can hire you to mow my lawn for $10/h, I may do that. If I have to pay your $50/h, I'll mow the lawn myself or get rid of it. Trying to force me to give you a $50/h job isn't going to work. It's no different with employers.
Why do you worship takers?
You tell me, since it's you who "worships takers", namely the idea that government can somehow force employers to pay employees more than they are wroth.
What is the purpose of science and technology if you feel like we should live like in the Middle Ages?
The end of the Middle Ages was brought about by the Enlightenment, the idea that each individual is the steward of their own destiny, capable of making their own decisions, and responsible for the consequences of their choices. It is you who argues about a pre-Enlightenment view of man and society.
Kant: "nlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance."
Corporate taxes in the US are too high; that's why these profits have been kept offshore for so long. Most Republicans and Democrats, including Obama, recognize that.
The major political candidate who says she wants to raise corporate taxes is... Hillary. Although, to be fair to Hillary, she is probably lying.
If you don't like your "boss" in the gig economy, don't work for them, whether they are an algorithm or a person. As a contractor/gig worker/employer, you have made no commitment to your "boss", so why should they have any obligations to you?
Furthermore, the reason unions are pushing this is because they are afraid for their survival: in an efficient marketplace for labor, they serve no purpose anymore.
Costa Rica's per capita GDP is 1/3 of that of the US, making it a fairly poor country. And if you want to find other countries that use little fossil fuel energy, just keep going down the list and look at the countries that are even poorer than Costa Rica.
Every country in the world was run on pretty much 100% renewable energy sources until the industrial revolution. That's neither something to brag about or something to aspire to.
No, it wasn't picked up "long ago". The article you point to shows research since the 2000's, doesn't talk about magnetite, and shows weak associations after people specifically looked for this effect. So, the effect may be real, but it can't be all that strong, otherwise it would have shown up much earlier.
For example, the two main sources of UFPM from driving an internal combustion vehicle are due to combustion (out of the tailpipe), and the metals released from frictional breaking. Since EVs and hybrids tend to rely on regenerative breaking and use less/no gasoline, both sources are addressed.
See, I think you reveal the real reason this story is being pushed: people are looking for justifications to push electric cars. And, as usual, people accept preliminary science and weak effects when it suits their political agenda, and reject it when it does not.
If the effect were strong, it would have been picked up by epidemiological studies long ago. There are much more pressing medical issues that require reducing particulate emissions, which is why many countries have already cleaned up their act: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
In that case Czech Republic has been a social welfare state since about 1993.
No, the Czech Republic has been a country trying to transition to a social welfare state since about 1993. The point is: you can't use the Czech Republic as an example of how social welfare state policies work because the country only recently came out of communism. Many social welfare state policies appear to work just fine for a few generations before society and the culture adjust to them and they start working less and less well.
Would be awesome to have a chance to try what it is to not be an ignorant fool for a while.
Presumably, you still have a few decades to grow up and figure out how things actually work.
Until then, try not to bullshit your way through arguments with stating your confabulations as fact (e.g. "Where the school are crappy it is because low property taxes and the insane idea to finance schools from property taxes")
I also know people who left the US, because they were not happy in the US and are happy in Europe.
So do I. Yet, far more people emigrate from Europe to the US than from the US to Europe.
I have been to the US and people pretend to be happier, but when you ask, they are not.
That doesn't make sense. Both "pretending" and "responding" are speech acts. Either people say they are happy or they say they are not.
What you seem to be saying is that Americans appear to be happier but say that they are not. That is correct: Americans like to complain and air out their dirty laundry, while culturally, many Europeans are more reticent to do that. That is why surveys of "are you happy" don't tell you much. What you can look at is questions like "are you optimistic about your personal future", "how important are personal wealth and possessions to you", "given the opportunity, would you change jobs", "are you satisfied with your personal relationships", etc. And Americans tend to do better on those questions than Europeans. One of the most telling points is that Americans tend to have lower optimism for their country than Europeans, while having higher optimism for themselves and their families.
I care if I am able to live a good life and that I do. I have enough at the end of the month to spend it on my 35 days of vacation I get as well as living a life for me and not my company working 38-ish hours per week and nothing more.
Guess what: that belief is more prevalent in the US than in Europe. That is, people in European nations (with some exceptions) tend to define success more by the things they own than Americans.
Honey, you don't speak for anybody but yourself. And since you have proven yourself time and again to be a bigot, I don't expect you to change your views based on any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
It's mostly people a few years from retirement, people who have a lifetime of experience and skills that are valuable to employers. In places like Germany, losing your job in your 50's is a disaster. In places like the US, people threaten to quit in their 50's in order to negotiate higher salaries.
You are using averages when expedient, medians when it suits you, you include employer side taxes where the numbers are looking better for your point and conveniently forget them when they don't.
I'm not "using" anything. I'm pointing you to various sources, all of which arrive at the same conclusion. The fact that they reach the same conclusion with such a wide variety of measures tell you that the conclusion is robust.
I don't care about the whole of United States, I just care about California. It is the world's 5th or 6th economy, it should be able to do stuff on its own.
And I don't give a fuck what you care about. I made the factual statement that "the way European countries finance their social welfare states is through massively higher tax rates on the middle class, often nearly twice as high as in the US." What your taxes are in Silicon Valley is utterly irrelevant.
Rest of Californians don't pay the same taxes as I do. Where the school are crappy it is because low property taxes and the insane idea to finance schools from property taxes to keep the poor in their place and lower social mobility.
California has state-wide redistribution of school funds. Furthermore, the amount of funding schools receive is largely unrelated to their academic performance.
Can you educate me as to what is the difference? I am curious. From a practical stand point for a citizen, I mean, not a political explanation.
You mean between socialism and the social welfare state? Under the social welfare state, most people work for private employers and receive benefits in large part through regulations of private employment. Under socialism, everybody works for the state and receives their benefits from the state.
I really can't tell how good that system is, but it doesn't look to me like it solves the problems of intergenerational transfer or political influence on pension investments. Partial privatization seems like a good idea, and it seems like a good way to gradually shift over more of the burden to private investments.
The US has democratized becoming rich
How? Because experienced people are allowed to rise to the top?
In the way I stated: nearly half the US ends up in the top 10% income bracket for at least a couple of years, so lots of people in the US experience "being rich" part of their lives. It also means that lower taxes for those in the top 10% will benefit a large portion of Americans, not just 10% as one might naively assume.
Slashdot Mirror
The blame for low-fat dietary recommendations pretty much exclusively fall on government: no matter how much the sugar industry paid for scientific spin, there has never been any objective evidence that sugar is harmless or that low-fat diets work. In fact, the government "bought off" scientists to push a low-fat agenda just as much as the sugar industry, selectively funding studies and preferring results that supported existing government dietary guidelines. To add injury to insult, not only has the US government pushed bad dietary guidelines, it has also manipulated the US sugar market to keep prices high, protect US sugar producers, and position HFCS as a common sweetener.
The US government should simply not get involved in even suggesting to people what they should eat, let alone fixing or manipulating prices for foods. Yes, government can, in principle, some good when it gets nutrituional information right, but the risk of getting it wrong is simply too high. And these manipulations and scientific errors have persisted for decades, through every Congress and administration.
And lest you think this doesn't matter much, millions of Americans died horrible deaths unnecessarily because of bad government dietary guidelines, which don't exhaust themselves in bad recommendations, but influence labeling and the kinds of foods both kids and adults are fed in institutional settings.
And by "people like me" she means "political activists" and "liberal arts majors"?
Apple's entire business model is for smart, technically oriented people to make stuff that's easy to use for "creative" people like Jamia Wilson. Obviously, Apple wouldn't be "investing" in people like her: that's the whole point of Apple.
Even Obama wants to do that. In fact, so do both parties.
You can foam at the mouth about how unfair the real world is all you want, imposing increasingly higher taxes on corporations or individuals will cause them to adopt "tax avoidance strategies". If you make the taxes high enough, they'll simply stop operating/working altogether. It's as unavoidable as gravity.
Maybe that's what you want, but taxes and unions are the antithesis of a "work free society".
You're right: you're not a Luddite, you're simply an idiot, and a greedy, selfish, and despicable one at that.
There is no evidence that there is a large number of habitable but sterile planets. In fact, most scientists would likely find that notion rather surprising. Life developed so rapidly on earth after conditions were suitable that the same is likely true elsewhere. That is, if we don't find life on other planets, it's likely because they are too dry, too hot, or too cold. Any planet with lots of liquid water probably already has life.
Not at all; people in the gig economy, of course, are required to pay taxes, like any other independent contractor.
That's illegal for people in the gig economy just like for everybody else.
The Uber and Lyft cars I have taken have been a lot nicer than any taxi I have ever been in.
In fact, gig companies like Uber and Lyft are much better in that regard than taxi drivers: their drivers and passengers are wirelessly monitored through the entire trip and evaluated by passengers afterwards; so, an Uber or Lyft driver gets penalized seriously for dangerous driving. I have had taxi drivers run a string of red lights, go at twice the speed limit, and get out of the car and get into fist fights with other drivers, and they know they can get away with it because there are no consequences. Taxis are seriously scary.
The only thing that's "broken" here is that you are reasoning like a Luddite. I.e., it's you who's broken, not me.
You'd be amazed at all the social institutions that made sense a century ago but that are obsolete now.
First of all, stop hiding behind the term "corporations"; we're talking about employers here.
And it's not difficult to figure out how this works. If I can hire you to mow my lawn for $10/h, I may do that. If I have to pay your $50/h, I'll mow the lawn myself or get rid of it. Trying to force me to give you a $50/h job isn't going to work. It's no different with employers.
You tell me, since it's you who "worships takers", namely the idea that government can somehow force employers to pay employees more than they are wroth.
The end of the Middle Ages was brought about by the Enlightenment, the idea that each individual is the steward of their own destiny, capable of making their own decisions, and responsible for the consequences of their choices. It is you who argues about a pre-Enlightenment view of man and society.
Kant: "nlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance."
Corporate taxes in the US are too high; that's why these profits have been kept offshore for so long. Most Republicans and Democrats, including Obama, recognize that.
The major political candidate who says she wants to raise corporate taxes is... Hillary. Although, to be fair to Hillary, she is probably lying.
If you don't like your "boss" in the gig economy, don't work for them, whether they are an algorithm or a person. As a contractor/gig worker/employer, you have made no commitment to your "boss", so why should they have any obligations to you?
Furthermore, the reason unions are pushing this is because they are afraid for their survival: in an efficient marketplace for labor, they serve no purpose anymore.
For a government official to use an AOL account for anything should be a criminal offense.
Costa Rica's per capita GDP is 1/3 of that of the US, making it a fairly poor country. And if you want to find other countries that use little fossil fuel energy, just keep going down the list and look at the countries that are even poorer than Costa Rica.
Every country in the world was run on pretty much 100% renewable energy sources until the industrial revolution. That's neither something to brag about or something to aspire to.
No, it wasn't picked up "long ago". The article you point to shows research since the 2000's, doesn't talk about magnetite, and shows weak associations after people specifically looked for this effect. So, the effect may be real, but it can't be all that strong, otherwise it would have shown up much earlier.
See, I think you reveal the real reason this story is being pushed: people are looking for justifications to push electric cars. And, as usual, people accept preliminary science and weak effects when it suits their political agenda, and reject it when it does not.
If the effect were strong, it would have been picked up by epidemiological studies long ago. There are much more pressing medical issues that require reducing particulate emissions, which is why many countries have already cleaned up their act: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/ear...
No, the Czech Republic has been a country trying to transition to a social welfare state since about 1993. The point is: you can't use the Czech Republic as an example of how social welfare state policies work because the country only recently came out of communism. Many social welfare state policies appear to work just fine for a few generations before society and the culture adjust to them and they start working less and less well.
Presumably, you still have a few decades to grow up and figure out how things actually work.
Until then, try not to bullshit your way through arguments with stating your confabulations as fact (e.g. "Where the school are crappy it is because low property taxes and the insane idea to finance schools from property taxes")
So do I. Yet, far more people emigrate from Europe to the US than from the US to Europe.
That doesn't make sense. Both "pretending" and "responding" are speech acts. Either people say they are happy or they say they are not.
What you seem to be saying is that Americans appear to be happier but say that they are not. That is correct: Americans like to complain and air out their dirty laundry, while culturally, many Europeans are more reticent to do that. That is why surveys of "are you happy" don't tell you much. What you can look at is questions like "are you optimistic about your personal future", "how important are personal wealth and possessions to you", "given the opportunity, would you change jobs", "are you satisfied with your personal relationships", etc. And Americans tend to do better on those questions than Europeans. One of the most telling points is that Americans tend to have lower optimism for their country than Europeans, while having higher optimism for themselves and their families.
Guess what: that belief is more prevalent in the US than in Europe. That is, people in European nations (with some exceptions) tend to define success more by the things they own than Americans.
Correct. Neither the US nor Finland have a free market in health care, and both are way overpriced.
Honey, you don't speak for anybody but yourself. And since you have proven yourself time and again to be a bigot, I don't expect you to change your views based on any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise.
It's mostly people a few years from retirement, people who have a lifetime of experience and skills that are valuable to employers. In places like Germany, losing your job in your 50's is a disaster. In places like the US, people threaten to quit in their 50's in order to negotiate higher salaries.
I'm not "using" anything. I'm pointing you to various sources, all of which arrive at the same conclusion. The fact that they reach the same conclusion with such a wide variety of measures tell you that the conclusion is robust.
And I don't give a fuck what you care about. I made the factual statement that "the way European countries finance their social welfare states is through massively higher tax rates on the middle class, often nearly twice as high as in the US." What your taxes are in Silicon Valley is utterly irrelevant.
California has state-wide redistribution of school funds. Furthermore, the amount of funding schools receive is largely unrelated to their academic performance.
You're an ignorant fool.
You mean between socialism and the social welfare state? Under the social welfare state, most people work for private employers and receive benefits in large part through regulations of private employment. Under socialism, everybody works for the state and receives their benefits from the state.
It's a mix of institutional savings (public and private), and individual savings for retirement.
Here is a comparison:
http://www.heritage.org/resear...
I really can't tell how good that system is, but it doesn't look to me like it solves the problems of intergenerational transfer or political influence on pension investments. Partial privatization seems like a good idea, and it seems like a good way to gradually shift over more of the burden to private investments.
In the way I stated: nearly half the US ends up in the top 10% income bracket for at least a couple of years, so lots of people in the US experience "being rich" part of their lives. It also means that lower taxes for those in the top 10% will benefit a large portion of Americans, not just 10% as one might naively assume.
I see you're not just economically illiterate, you're simply illiterate.