"Creat[ing] a huge amount of wealth" won't "wipe out poverty"
(Absolute) poverty has already been wiped out in the US.
unless we find a new method for distributing that wealth.
There are two methods of distributing wealth: voluntarily through markets, and using force through the government. The first one works, the second one doesn't.
If you replace all the horse drawn carriages with automobiles, what will all the stable hands, whip makers, and wagon makers do! The sky is falling! Let's turn communist while we still can, lest everybody starve!
We'll have to agree to disagree, maybe someday you will expand as a person, there's just too much work for me to do to be responsible for educating you, you win, if you wanted to win continued ignorance.
Look, I used to be a progressive myself, I know all the arguments you're making. Sowell used to be a Marxist. Many other people start out as leftist and abandon those beliefs as they grow up and understand the world better. I'm afraid it's you who remains ignorant and, sadly, rather bigoted as well.
thought about it, but at least initially I choose to keep it simple. One can always process the file in some way before creating the SBX
Since loss and recovery takes place at the block level, it's best if you arrange for error recovery (and compression) to take into account block boundaries.
"It's completely unacceptable. There should be no place for terrorists to hide. We need to make sure that organisations like WhatsApp, and there are plenty of others like that, don't provide a secret place for terrorists to communicate with each other,"
It is completely unacceptable that history majors like Amber Rudd, who evidently has not the slightest understanding of technology, end up in positions like Home Secretary. or "Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change". Rudd seems to be an object lesson in how money and political connections trump competency and skill.
Is there the slightest chance of that memory being intact?
Of course. People's brains have been cooled so far that any activity stopped and retained their memory after warming. Most memories are "nonvolatile"; only short-term memories are volatile.
Any "cryogenically frozen brain" is mush: the crystallization of the water inside the brain destroys the tissue. Eventually, we may be able to work around that, but we aren't there yet.
All of those well-paying IT jobs are being automated, too.
No, not all of them. But, of course, IT workers become more efficient over time as well, so you need fewer of them to do a given task over time, or, equivalently, the same number of IT workers can do more work over time.
Increased efficiency is the only way humanity can make material progress.
Actually, most farming should be offshored; it's only prevented from offshoring because of massive political lobbying. The result is higher cost of living for Americans, illegal immigration, and keeping developing nations in poverty.
Global warming threatening their water supply.
Global warming generally leads to increased precipitation. In any case, climate change is too slow to be relevant to farmers operating today.
Automation will mean that millions of low-paying, back-breaking agricultural jobs will be carried out by machines. 50-70% of those farm workers are in the country illegally.
Those jobs will be replaced by thousands of well-paying jobs in IT, programming, design, manufacturing, and maintenance, filled by educated Americans that pay more in taxes than they require in services.
And at the same time, agricultural products will end up being cheaper and higher quality.
Under right-wing theories, I suppose, evidence of illegality should be discarded if the company or rich person comes up with a lame excuse.
Under rational standards, disparate impact is not evidence of discrimination.
In addition, under classically liberal and conservative views, discrimination by private employers should be legal, and universities ought to be private employers.
with a background in "economics", which is barely a science
And you know what? That's just what Sowell says! There is little rational basis for progressive economic or social policies because economics and social science are barely sciences. Yet, progressives and leftists justify massive redistribution and massive interference in the economy with economics and social science, which is why their ideologies make so little sense. You still haven't read him, have you?
There may be a sordid history of progressives and eugenics, but the current progressive movement is not the same.
Yes, it's wonderful that progressives have given up on eugenics, segregation, forced sterilizations, camps and all that. Unfortunately, their new project, namely social justice and reducing inequality seems to still very harmful.
Generational wealth may not be necessary, but generational help is certainly necessary. All the things your parents and grand parents gave you helped you. When your sold away or your parents are imprisoned, this disappears.
That's a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, since single parenthood didn't become prevalent among blacks until the late 1960's, generations after the end of slavery. Incarceration rates among blacks also shot up in the mid-70's after half a century of stability and long after the end of slavery. Giving the timing and history of these social ills, they are clearly not in any way due to slavery, but due to progressive social policies in the 1960's.
My only point was that conservatives riot.
No, that wasn't "your only point". You made the ridiculous claim that (I am quoting) "The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating" and tried to defend the indefensible in various ways.
We just have to go further back to find a time when they felt disenfranchised, but we're probably going to get there again in my lifetime.
Unlikely. The left postulates this long litany of rights: right to education, right to healthcare, right to economic equality, right to welfare, right to housing, etc. All of these amount to extracting stuff from their fellow human beings through the coercive power of the state. Any political resistance to those "rights" is considered "disenfranchisement", the taking away of rights, by the left.
Conservatives and libertarians can't be disenfranchised that way because we don't believe in these rights in the first place. And the few rights we do believe in are pretty tough to take away. Furthermore, if the state takes too much of our property, we do one of a few things: organize politically, leave the country, or stop producing and take the free crap the government hands out until it collapses under its own weight. I've done all of those, no riots needed.
In any case, I don't see a big comeback for the left or for progressives. Without the migration of third world peasants into the country, the left would already be history in the US, which is why Democrats are so desperate to push that. In the unlikely event that the left were to make a comeback in the US, we'd follow in Venezuela's footsteps, see a massive exodus of smart and productive people from the US, and become irrelevant as a nation.
No, I'm not "confusing Democratic and progressive". When I say "progressive" I mean it. Progressivism in politics is an ideology that holds that government should intervene in society and people's lives based on science and reason in order to achieve progress. Progressives often can't conceive that others reject the idea that that is the function of government. Conservatives divide mainly into social conservatives and classical liberals. Social conservatives believe that government should impose traditional values, which in the US means protection of religious expression, self-reliance, small government, and free markets. Classical liberals roughly believe the same thing, though for different reasons.
Republicans were progressive for a long time and Democrats had many conservative trends. It wasn't until the Civil Rights Act that rascists seemed to all become Republican.
It is true that after the 1960's, many racists became Republicans. But your interpretation of that, namely that there was some switcheroo between parties and progressivism/conservatism is wrong. The big change that happened in the 1960's was that Democrats changed from a progressivism based on blaming race to a progressivism based on blaming racism.
To the degree that one can formulate a kernel of a consistent ideology on race and liberty in the two parties and ideologies, it's probably the following. Republicans and conservatives are rooted in classical liberalism: free markets, small government, individual liberties. That means government should not make distinctions based on race: no segregation, no eugenics, no slavery, but also no reparations, no affirmative action, no anti-discrimination laws, and no ideological indoctrination. Progressives and Democrats believe that government should promote progress by intervening in society, and at the beginning of the 20th century that meant segregation and eugenics, and at the beginning of the 21st century, that means affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, government handouts and redistribution, and teaching people what they ought to believe.
Obviously, that made the post-1960's Democrats unattractive to people holding racist beliefs and attractive to minorities looking for government support, but so what? Classical liberalism doesn't become immoral suddenly because progressives decide in the 1960's that they want to flip from being racists statists to being anti-racist statists. The error of progressives is statism, not the particular issue-du-jour they mobilize the state for.
There have never been any reparations for slavery.
And who should pay reparations and to who? The vast majority of whites in America are related to people who either fought against slavery or immigrated after slavery. There were many black slave holders, and many black slave traders. The single identifiable group of people with close family relations to slave holders is blacks themselves. And where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to make octoroons pay reparations to quadroons? Furthermore, massive amounts of money have already been transferred from whites to blacks over the last century; when does it stop?
Slavery prevented generations of African's from handing down wealth and creating strong family bonds.
I'm an immigrant and my parents started off dirt poor; you don't need generations of inherited wealth to succeed. Inherited wealth (like welfare) alleviates poverty in the short term, but it actually prevents people from developing the kind of skills they need to succeed. Hence, the old observation "from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations".
As for family bonds, black single parenthood started rising sharply after the Civil Rights Act, the 1960's Counterculture, and the massive expansion of the welfare state in the 1960's; in 1960, it was about 20%, in
In the trial of 100 lung cancer patients, scientists saw precipitous rises in tumor DNA in the blood of patients who would go on to relapse months, or even a year, later. In the latest trial
I suppose if the DNA test comes back negative, you don't have to X-ray or you can scrutinize the X-ray more carefully. But, still, it doesn't seem all that useful.
These are big businesses with massive financial backing. Many of them currently dominate their respective markets, and many have business models based on advertising and high bandwidth usage. When they ask for "net neutrality", they are asking for protectionist legislation that cements in their current market positions and protects them from newer, smaller competitors and from non-advertising based revenue models. That's because net neutrality redistributes the cost of providing bandwidth and therefore favors advertising-based revenue and bandwidth intensive businesses.
Would some progressive care to explain why government employees like these should be protected from cheap, young, foreign labor, while at the same time other workers should be forced to compete with cheap, young, Mexican migrants?
Slashdot Mirror
(Absolute) poverty has already been wiped out in the US.
There are two methods of distributing wealth: voluntarily through markets, and using force through the government. The first one works, the second one doesn't.
If you replace all the horse drawn carriages with automobiles, what will all the stable hands, whip makers, and wagon makers do! The sky is falling! Let's turn communist while we still can, lest everybody starve!
Look, I used to be a progressive myself, I know all the arguments you're making. Sowell used to be a Marxist. Many other people start out as leftist and abandon those beliefs as they grow up and understand the world better. I'm afraid it's you who remains ignorant and, sadly, rather bigoted as well.
I studied piano for several years. That doesn't make me a pianist.
Why would you have published a thesis if you didn't finish your degree?
Anyway, thanks for the background; it's much clearer now where you're coming from.
Since loss and recovery takes place at the block level, it's best if you arrange for error recovery (and compression) to take into account block boundaries.
You mean like packet radio?
It seems to me this would be a lot more useful if it directly incorporated forward error correction.
I don't have any "overlords".
You, of course, have, but you only have yourself to blame for that.
Ah, yes, a desire for autarky, common among fascists and other believers in totalitarian ideologies.
Sorry, I don't care about autarky either way. Markets should decide how much farmland we need and that's it.
If WWIII is in the offing, people will naturally switch back to agriculture in time anyway.
It is completely unacceptable that history majors like Amber Rudd, who evidently has not the slightest understanding of technology, end up in positions like Home Secretary. or "Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change". Rudd seems to be an object lesson in how money and political connections trump competency and skill.
No, not "partially true", absolutely and fully true. Any "cryogenically frozen brain" is damaged beyond healing or repair.
Of course. People's brains have been cooled so far that any activity stopped and retained their memory after warming. Most memories are "nonvolatile"; only short-term memories are volatile.
Any "cryogenically frozen brain" is mush: the crystallization of the water inside the brain destroys the tissue. Eventually, we may be able to work around that, but we aren't there yet.
No, not all of them. But, of course, IT workers become more efficient over time as well, so you need fewer of them to do a given task over time, or, equivalently, the same number of IT workers can do more work over time.
Increased efficiency is the only way humanity can make material progress.
And then some competitor will come out with a cheaper machine with open source software.
Actually, most farming should be offshored; it's only prevented from offshoring because of massive political lobbying. The result is higher cost of living for Americans, illegal immigration, and keeping developing nations in poverty.
Global warming generally leads to increased precipitation. In any case, climate change is too slow to be relevant to farmers operating today.
What makes someone a scientist is that they do research and publish. What research have you done and where is it published?
Automation will mean that millions of low-paying, back-breaking agricultural jobs will be carried out by machines. 50-70% of those farm workers are in the country illegally.
Those jobs will be replaced by thousands of well-paying jobs in IT, programming, design, manufacturing, and maintenance, filled by educated Americans that pay more in taxes than they require in services.
And at the same time, agricultural products will end up being cheaper and higher quality.
That's a good deal all around.
- Using cheap young foreign labor (migrant Mexicans) to compete with American blue collar workers? You approve!
- Using cheap young foreign labor (Indian IT workers) to compete with American IT workers? You disapprove!
Obviously, "as a progressive", you fail to see the hypocrisy in this.
Under rational standards, disparate impact is not evidence of discrimination.
In addition, under classically liberal and conservative views, discrimination by private employers should be legal, and universities ought to be private employers.
And you know what? That's just what Sowell says! There is little rational basis for progressive economic or social policies because economics and social science are barely sciences. Yet, progressives and leftists justify massive redistribution and massive interference in the economy with economics and social science, which is why their ideologies make so little sense. You still haven't read him, have you?
Yes, it's wonderful that progressives have given up on eugenics, segregation, forced sterilizations, camps and all that. Unfortunately, their new project, namely social justice and reducing inequality seems to still very harmful.
That's a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, since single parenthood didn't become prevalent among blacks until the late 1960's, generations after the end of slavery. Incarceration rates among blacks also shot up in the mid-70's after half a century of stability and long after the end of slavery. Giving the timing and history of these social ills, they are clearly not in any way due to slavery, but due to progressive social policies in the 1960's.
No, that wasn't "your only point". You made the ridiculous claim that (I am quoting) "The 1960's rioters were the conservatives trying to stop progressives from integrating" and tried to defend the indefensible in various ways.
Unlikely. The left postulates this long litany of rights: right to education, right to healthcare, right to economic equality, right to welfare, right to housing, etc. All of these amount to extracting stuff from their fellow human beings through the coercive power of the state. Any political resistance to those "rights" is considered "disenfranchisement", the taking away of rights, by the left.
Conservatives and libertarians can't be disenfranchised that way because we don't believe in these rights in the first place. And the few rights we do believe in are pretty tough to take away. Furthermore, if the state takes too much of our property, we do one of a few things: organize politically, leave the country, or stop producing and take the free crap the government hands out until it collapses under its own weight. I've done all of those, no riots needed.
In any case, I don't see a big comeback for the left or for progressives. Without the migration of third world peasants into the country, the left would already be history in the US, which is why Democrats are so desperate to push that. In the unlikely event that the left were to make a comeback in the US, we'd follow in Venezuela's footsteps, see a massive exodus of smart and productive people from the US, and become irrelevant as a nation.
No, I'm not "confusing Democratic and progressive". When I say "progressive" I mean it. Progressivism in politics is an ideology that holds that government should intervene in society and people's lives based on science and reason in order to achieve progress. Progressives often can't conceive that others reject the idea that that is the function of government. Conservatives divide mainly into social conservatives and classical liberals. Social conservatives believe that government should impose traditional values, which in the US means protection of religious expression, self-reliance, small government, and free markets. Classical liberals roughly believe the same thing, though for different reasons.
It is true that after the 1960's, many racists became Republicans. But your interpretation of that, namely that there was some switcheroo between parties and progressivism/conservatism is wrong. The big change that happened in the 1960's was that Democrats changed from a progressivism based on blaming race to a progressivism based on blaming racism.
To the degree that one can formulate a kernel of a consistent ideology on race and liberty in the two parties and ideologies, it's probably the following. Republicans and conservatives are rooted in classical liberalism: free markets, small government, individual liberties. That means government should not make distinctions based on race: no segregation, no eugenics, no slavery, but also no reparations, no affirmative action, no anti-discrimination laws, and no ideological indoctrination. Progressives and Democrats believe that government should promote progress by intervening in society, and at the beginning of the 20th century that meant segregation and eugenics, and at the beginning of the 21st century, that means affirmative action, anti-discrimination laws, government handouts and redistribution, and teaching people what they ought to believe.
Obviously, that made the post-1960's Democrats unattractive to people holding racist beliefs and attractive to minorities looking for government support, but so what? Classical liberalism doesn't become immoral suddenly because progressives decide in the 1960's that they want to flip from being racists statists to being anti-racist statists. The error of progressives is statism, not the particular issue-du-jour they mobilize the state for.
And who should pay reparations and to who? The vast majority of whites in America are related to people who either fought against slavery or immigrated after slavery. There were many black slave holders, and many black slave traders. The single identifiable group of people with close family relations to slave holders is blacks themselves. And where are you going to draw the line? Are you going to make octoroons pay reparations to quadroons? Furthermore, massive amounts of money have already been transferred from whites to blacks over the last century; when does it stop?
I'm an immigrant and my parents started off dirt poor; you don't need generations of inherited wealth to succeed. Inherited wealth (like welfare) alleviates poverty in the short term, but it actually prevents people from developing the kind of skills they need to succeed. Hence, the old observation "from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations".
As for family bonds, black single parenthood started rising sharply after the Civil Rights Act, the 1960's Counterculture, and the massive expansion of the welfare state in the 1960's; in 1960, it was about 20%, in
I suppose if the DNA test comes back negative, you don't have to X-ray or you can scrutinize the X-ray more carefully. But, still, it doesn't seem all that useful.
These are big businesses with massive financial backing. Many of them currently dominate their respective markets, and many have business models based on advertising and high bandwidth usage. When they ask for "net neutrality", they are asking for protectionist legislation that cements in their current market positions and protects them from newer, smaller competitors and from non-advertising based revenue models. That's because net neutrality redistributes the cost of providing bandwidth and therefore favors advertising-based revenue and bandwidth intensive businesses.
Under leftist legal theories of discrimination, intent doesn't matter, only disparate impact.
Would some progressive care to explain why government employees like these should be protected from cheap, young, foreign labor, while at the same time other workers should be forced to compete with cheap, young, Mexican migrants?