Actually, it is the point, because the question wasn't, "Is the US sufficiently free today?" but "Is the US slipping?" If we're slipping, then that means we must be worse than we used to be. I argue that we are not slipping, and use past data points to illustrate. It's certainly possible that we are "slipping" on a relative scale, in the sense that the enormous lead in freedom over, say, continental Europe that we enjoyed in the early 19th century no longer exists. But this is to the credit of Europe, not to the detriment of the US.
You think we're slipping? Maybe, but consider our past: black slavery, Red Scares, HUAAC, "separate but equal", Prohibition, and on and on. I think the US is arguably freer than any time in its past. But if you think more clearly-written federal guidelines on the ability to subpoena library records and similar changes are at all comparable to our past, then I guess you're right.
You're looking at changes over a span of 2 generations and invoking evolution? That's ridiculous. These changes are purely environmental. If you take two groups of people with similar genes, feed one group well from birth and give them education, while starving the other group and keeping them stupid and oppressed - guess what? You end up with two groups that don't look very similar (example: North Koreans vs. South Koreans).
Hey, you're the one who denied it two posts ago (I asked what resources NZ spent preventing terrorism - you claimed that you did nothing except carry out an angelic foreign policy). What I want to know is why, since you claim your foreign policy has never been affected by terrorism, you bother spending said resources when you could be saving more lives spending them on cancer research or auto safety. But you have no interest in answering this question.
As an aside, I can't believe you'd characterize the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior as a terrorist act. This was an attack authorized by the French government (including Mitterand, FYI). And its goal was not terror. Not every reprehensible act is terrorism.
So New Zealand doesn't, for example, monitor incoming shipments to see if they're carrying weapons or explosives? You just rely on the fact that you haven't "pissed anyone off"? I find this extremely hard to believe.
Incidentally, I don't believe that any loss of freedom is justified because it has prevented terrorism (if it has). I also don't believe America has seen much loss of freedom since 9/11 (if you think the ability to subpoena library records is a major loss of freedom, for example, you might be interested to know that this was perfectly possible before 9/11; most of the alleged "losses" fall into this category.
But your argument goes beyond this, because it essentially claims that I can judge where to allocate government resources based on the simple numerical comparison of where the most lives are being lost. Do you believe that if the government can save 2 lives by spending $1 million on X and 1 by spending $1 million on Y, that X must be chosen? Could there be any other factors involved in the decision, or is it just this simple?
So suppose the terrorists nuke Manhattan and kill 2 million people. By your numbers, at least this number of people die every year from heart disease and cancer. Does this make nuking Manhattan an acceptable risk of freedom? After all, Manhattan would only have gotten nuked once, but all these people die every year.
I guess I'm still not getting it. Maybe it would help if you would explain it to me in a different way - what resources does New Zealand spend to prevent terrorism? Why aren't they spending those resources on cancer research or making cars safer? And don't these terrorism prevention techniques (including, I assume, entrance controls, ID systems, money-laundering regulations on financial institutions, etc.) reduce your freedom? When was the last time NZ had a terrorist attack and why are this sort of tyranny acceptable?
I don't quite get these "arguments". If a disease kills 3,000 people per day, does this justify the murder of less than 3,000 people per day? Does it mean we shouldn't try to stop it? Does it mean all our resources should go to curing the disease first? What is the point of these numerical comparisons?
A sibling post of mine has a good reply to this (what's the value of an idea-producer if the ideas have no value?), but another reply is that the value of an idea has a strong component of luck. That is, while Beethoven and Einstein produced a consistent sequence of good ideas, there are many thousands more people who had one great idea. A butterfly flaps its wings in Malaysia and maybe he doesn't have that great idea - or the idea doesn't become recognized as great.
You might say we don't want to reward luck. But I saw we do, because when someone gets lucky every now and then, that gives creators the incentive to create and maybe get lucky. You can't win if you don't play, as they say.
Definitely. That may have happened, too. But that's not the only explanation, because I've gotten calls for several different unknown [alleged] deadbeats, including at phone numbers that I've had for 6+ years.
I would sort-of-understand if they were calling me about a relative. It would be scummy, sure, but at least it would make sense. But so far the only calls I've received (and I've received many, believe me) have been for people I've never even heard of.
I suspect having a very common name helps - I'm probably on a "likely alias" list somewhere.
What I'd like to know is this: Can I sue collection agencies who call my house looking for the wrong person? They either leave me a message or, worse, ask me to hold to speak to a representative, but when I try holding and telling them I'm not their man, typically after about 10 minutes of holding the call drops. Then the next day I get another message from the same people. Very frustrating!
A couple of times I have actually managed to get to a person and tried to explain that I'm not the one. They're very unwilling to listen to this: "What is your social security number?" "I don't give out my social security number to strangers. Who is this and what is it in reference to?" "We can't give out that information?" "This is a collection agency, right? I have no debts in default, so I'm sure I'm not the person you want." "If you give us your social security number, we can check to see if it matches the one we're looking for." "Sorry, I won't unless you tell me exactly who you are. Or you could give ME the social YOU are looking for and I'll tell you if it matches mine." (repeat a few more times) "Look, what type of account is it that's in default?" "Ummm.... it's a Citibank Visa." "Well, there you go. I've never even owned a Citibank Visa. Bye." (click).
As fun as this sort of conversation can be, it's not worth the messages and the holds/dropped calls.
Sure, but the picks may not be random. If you accept that someone can be right 80% of the time, then they can be wrong 80% of the time and hence right only 20% of the time. Ironically, a sports gambler who is right only 15% of the time is more valuable than one who is right 75% of the time. You simply hear his picks then do the opposite. It's the one who picks 50% who is informationally worthless.
Actually, lunar rocks are unlike Earth rocks in that they contain far less hydrogen. You're right they they do have some. But such a tiny amount that gathering up the regolith would take significant time and energy - heating it to extract the gases is cheap by comparison.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, it is the point, because the question wasn't, "Is the US sufficiently free today?" but "Is the US slipping?" If we're slipping, then that means we must be worse than we used to be. I argue that we are not slipping, and use past data points to illustrate. It's certainly possible that we are "slipping" on a relative scale, in the sense that the enormous lead in freedom over, say, continental Europe that we enjoyed in the early 19th century no longer exists. But this is to the credit of Europe, not to the detriment of the US.
You think we're slipping? Maybe, but consider our past: black slavery, Red Scares, HUAAC, "separate but equal", Prohibition, and on and on. I think the US is arguably freer than any time in its past. But if you think more clearly-written federal guidelines on the ability to subpoena library records and similar changes are at all comparable to our past, then I guess you're right.
You're looking at changes over a span of 2 generations and invoking evolution? That's ridiculous. These changes are purely environmental. If you take two groups of people with similar genes, feed one group well from birth and give them education, while starving the other group and keeping them stupid and oppressed - guess what? You end up with two groups that don't look very similar (example: North Koreans vs. South Koreans).
This has zero to do with evolution.
Hey, you're the one who denied it two posts ago (I asked what resources NZ spent preventing terrorism - you claimed that you did nothing except carry out an angelic foreign policy). What I want to know is why, since you claim your foreign policy has never been affected by terrorism, you bother spending said resources when you could be saving more lives spending them on cancer research or auto safety. But you have no interest in answering this question.
As an aside, I can't believe you'd characterize the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior as a terrorist act. This was an attack authorized by the French government (including Mitterand, FYI). And its goal was not terror. Not every reprehensible act is terrorism.
So New Zealand doesn't, for example, monitor incoming shipments to see if they're carrying weapons or explosives? You just rely on the fact that you haven't "pissed anyone off"? I find this extremely hard to believe.
Incidentally, I don't believe that any loss of freedom is justified because it has prevented terrorism (if it has). I also don't believe America has seen much loss of freedom since 9/11 (if you think the ability to subpoena library records is a major loss of freedom, for example, you might be interested to know that this was perfectly possible before 9/11; most of the alleged "losses" fall into this category.
But your argument goes beyond this, because it essentially claims that I can judge where to allocate government resources based on the simple numerical comparison of where the most lives are being lost. Do you believe that if the government can save 2 lives by spending $1 million on X and 1 by spending $1 million on Y, that X must be chosen? Could there be any other factors involved in the decision, or is it just this simple?
So suppose the terrorists nuke Manhattan and kill 2 million people. By your numbers, at least this number of people die every year from heart disease and cancer. Does this make nuking Manhattan an acceptable risk of freedom? After all, Manhattan would only have gotten nuked once, but all these people die every year.
I guess I'm still not getting it. Maybe it would help if you would explain it to me in a different way - what resources does New Zealand spend to prevent terrorism? Why aren't they spending those resources on cancer research or making cars safer? And don't these terrorism prevention techniques (including, I assume, entrance controls, ID systems, money-laundering regulations on financial institutions, etc.) reduce your freedom? When was the last time NZ had a terrorist attack and why are this sort of tyranny acceptable?
I don't quite get these "arguments". If a disease kills 3,000 people per day, does this justify the murder of less than 3,000 people per day? Does it mean we shouldn't try to stop it? Does it mean all our resources should go to curing the disease first? What is the point of these numerical comparisons?
A sibling post of mine has a good reply to this (what's the value of an idea-producer if the ideas have no value?), but another reply is that the value of an idea has a strong component of luck. That is, while Beethoven and Einstein produced a consistent sequence of good ideas, there are many thousands more people who had one great idea. A butterfly flaps its wings in Malaysia and maybe he doesn't have that great idea - or the idea doesn't become recognized as great.
You might say we don't want to reward luck. But I saw we do, because when someone gets lucky every now and then, that gives creators the incentive to create and maybe get lucky. You can't win if you don't play, as they say.
What?!
Long, maybe. But not fruitful if that's all you're doing with it.
The first rule of patent law is: Never let the facts get in your way.
Sorry, but I patented "free speech" back in 1973. You owe me $1 million.
Doesn't "artificial price" mean "price I'm unwilling to pay"?
Definitely. That may have happened, too. But that's not the only explanation, because I've gotten calls for several different unknown [alleged] deadbeats, including at phone numbers that I've had for 6+ years.
I would sort-of-understand if they were calling me about a relative. It would be scummy, sure, but at least it would make sense. But so far the only calls I've received (and I've received many, believe me) have been for people I've never even heard of.
I suspect having a very common name helps - I'm probably on a "likely alias" list somewhere.
What I'd like to know is this: Can I sue collection agencies who call my house looking for the wrong person? They either leave me a message or, worse, ask me to hold to speak to a representative, but when I try holding and telling them I'm not their man, typically after about 10 minutes of holding the call drops. Then the next day I get another message from the same people. Very frustrating!
A couple of times I have actually managed to get to a person and tried to explain that I'm not the one. They're very unwilling to listen to this: "What is your social security number?" "I don't give out my social security number to strangers. Who is this and what is it in reference to?" "We can't give out that information?" "This is a collection agency, right? I have no debts in default, so I'm sure I'm not the person you want." "If you give us your social security number, we can check to see if it matches the one we're looking for." "Sorry, I won't unless you tell me exactly who you are. Or you could give ME the social YOU are looking for and I'll tell you if it matches mine." (repeat a few more times) "Look, what type of account is it that's in default?" "Ummm.... it's a Citibank Visa." "Well, there you go. I've never even owned a Citibank Visa. Bye." (click).
As fun as this sort of conversation can be, it's not worth the messages and the holds/dropped calls.
Try using deodorant.
Well.... here.
That was easy. :)
Which is really important, since most cell phones last way more than five years.
Of course! (Even though Democrats were the biggest supporters of segregation at the time. You're only allowed to whisper this.)
It just occurred to me... Microsoft itself is a Blue Chip of Death!
Sure, but the picks may not be random. If you accept that someone can be right 80% of the time, then they can be wrong 80% of the time and hence right only 20% of the time. Ironically, a sports gambler who is right only 15% of the time is more valuable than one who is right 75% of the time. You simply hear his picks then do the opposite. It's the one who picks 50% who is informationally worthless.
I'll be able to heat up my Chef Boy-R-Dee without taking it out of the can!
Actually, lunar rocks are unlike Earth rocks in that they contain far less hydrogen. You're right they they do have some. But such a tiny amount that gathering up the regolith would take significant time and energy - heating it to extract the gases is cheap by comparison.