It's too bad racism distracts us from other important issues, like privacy and government snooping.
It is indeed too bad racism distracts us from other important issues. But who's fault is that? You spent your entire post ranting about imaginary racism (or racism exhibited by a single poster on a single story) rather than discussing real problems. Maybe you should take your own advice here?
Once they are filled, its unlikely water is pumped out unless there's a suitable place to dump it.
There is - in the reactors or by evaporation. I gather this is part of their cooling system. In which case, they want to both circulate the water through the reactor and cool it off at some point.
On the other hand you have people seeking to break into computer systems and networks, including those of Americans. They oughta be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
But it probably wouldn't happen. Those kinds of people are so useful when it comes to putting other people against the wall.
I thought everyone was agreed that we want to stop employers exploiting wage disparity between nations.
Not here. The more exploitation the better off the exploited will be. And the so-called "race to the bottom" will destroy a lot of the free lunch sense of entitlement of the developed world.
So? Just because one problem may be harder or even more important than the other doesn't mean the lesser problem isn't hard nor important, and that I can't talk about it.
Hence, why I quoted you extensively so you could see the context for my remarks. But there is another important reason to be concerned. Distribution of wealth has intimate connections with the creation of wealth via trade and ownership. If I make something, but am unable to trade it to another who desires it, then that greatly weakens the value of the thing to me. Wealth is often such because of its ability to be transferred at one's choosing to others, like money, precious metals, property, etc.
I reverse the roles you assign to trade. My view is that trade is the most significant tool of wealth distribution that we have today, but a lesser contributor to wealth creation.
Socialism here is a double edged blade. It can aid wealth distribution, but it can also hinder it. For example, it is rather easy for the politically connected to suborn a wealth redistribution scheme so they are a recipient of it. I'm more concerned here with wealth transfer than with the creation of public goods, but both can be suborned in a way that inhibits wealth creation and diffusion.
To give a more concrete example, a few years back I received unemployment insurance which is a socialist intervention that happens to distribute wealth. But my money was accessible only via debit card from an account with US Bank (which as you can gather from the obvious name is a US-located bank), a concentration of wealth since they then would pull in fees from my account and increase their concentration of wealth. In other words, in the process of redistributing wealth, the state agency in question had created a rent seeking opportunity for US Bank.
Here, the net effect was probably to distribute wealth, but that's not always the case with socialist programs.
Another problem with socialist wealth transfer is that it can hinder wealth creation either directly by harming wealth creation efforts (if you take wealth away from someone who is creating it, then they have less capital on hand to create more wealth) or by creating incentives to engage in behavior that destroys wealth (for example, the "Cash for Clunkers" automobile program in the US in mid 2009 which subsidized the destruction of usable autos).
The primary power of socialism is in the creation of infrastructure that assists in wealth creation and distribution. For example, the presence of private ownership of capital is capitalist in nature. The creation of rules that allow anyone to be private owners of capital and to prevent the strong from taking that capital by force is socialist in nature.
Well, I already explained above that the wealth doesn't get distributed quickly enough. For every person who managed to migrate to the wealth generating US and uplifted themselves, there's more who didn't outside the US. You win the battle, but you lose the war. So "that" is not so much a strategy as it is a tactic.
I don't think you get my point. With the exception of some peoples who are near completely isolated from the rest of the world, the US is distributing wealth to the entire world wealth via trade. You don't have to live in the US to receive these benefits. Nor do you even have to trade directly with a party of the US.
I already acknowledged the US did fine for itself when it isolated itself (yea yea it also did some trading). However, the rest of the world that US distanced itself from did not see much uplifting.
The US has always done a lot of trading with the rest of the world. That's not what caused the absence of uplifting. Instead, I'd say that deep flaws in these other societies and their governments created the conditions for economic stagnation and great income variance.
Thomas Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence when he called certain things "unalienable" rights "endowed by their Creator". I suppose I could google for "founding fathers" who attributed the US Constitution (or the accompanying Bill of Rights) to divine provenance or the like. It is worth noting for an interesting example, that the Mormon Church holds that the US Constitution is divinely inspired based on a scripture that states:
According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
This may be a bit vague, but it was supposedly was part of a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, who was a US citizen at the time in the state of Ohio.
When change happens the market does not always react the way that it did.
FIFY. I know most of us are used to the perfect grammer and sintax of the vast majority of Slashdot postings, but sometimes the unwashed masses manage to sneak pst the gatehouse.
I was thinking this very thing. When Gorbachev revealed to the world the seriousness of Chernobyl, his prompt response only a day and a half late, endangered a mere few million people, who probably would not have all been saved anyway. Well, I'm sure the next iteration of COMMUNISM will fail less hard.
Now would be a good time to buy some 2015 puts. It won't be all roses just because Ballmer gets (maybe) out of the way. You still have the fundamental problem that Microsoft is an Office and Windows company in a world that doesn't need either.
Again, irrelevant. I wasn't trying to discuss which problem is harder, I'm only talking about one of the problems, and how it was resolved in actual history.
If that's what you meant then you shouldn't have written earlier:
The problem is uplifting billions, not creating the wealth to uplift those billions. It doesn't matter if wealth is created by happy free market capitalism, or if Jesus returned and just willed a billion loaves of bread out of thin air. The problem is still getting all that bread to to people and uplifting them.
Now, if the hardness of the problem is "irrelevant", then when are you going to start talking about The Problem of getting breathable oxygen to the people who need it? Someone can't be eating bread and getting uplifted, if they're dead from asphyxiation.
But as it turns out, it's easy to deliver oxygen to people, so we don't have to talk about that as a problem. Similarly, it's rather easy to deliver wealth to people via trade and other economic activity than to create that wealth in the first place. You need to have infrastructure for viable trade, but it's a lot less than what is needed for wealth creation. Hence, wealth creation is the more important problem, not its distribution.
At no time during the history of the US, has this occurred. The US has always been a nation of trade. That alone keeps wealth from staying solely in the US
Again, that does not contradict what I said. Trade implies both sides can offer something of value. Whatever foreign trade US did do was to other productive people, while many more less productive did not receive the wealth.
If that's what you meant, then you shouldn't have written:
The US did create a lot of value, but they kept it to themselves. The US used to prefer isolationism, non-interventionism, and the libertarian non-aggression principle. That was great for the millions uplifted in the US and it exploded into an economic powerhouse, but those outside the US were SOL if they can't get into the US.
Due to centuries of US trade with the rest of the world, we see the above statement was wrong.
Also, we need to recall that just because someone doesn't work in a job that trades directly with the US, doesn't mean that they aren't doing productive labor. Wealth diffuses. Those who earn wealth from the West or create it themselves, then purchase goods and services from everyone else in the community. So that trade with the US doesn't just benefit the relatively small fraction directly involved, but everyone else in the society who works.
(plus the US has supported various activities have opened global trade, such as anti-piracy and more recently open trade).
You're proving my point. Those activities that open global trade are socialist actions.
Socialism is also obstructing global trade and subsidizing piracy allegedly for the benefit of your citizens and the local economy. Socialism can help or hinder just like many potential tools. In this case, it helps when the form of socialism happens to fit other ideological molds as well, such as free trade capitalism.
Charity has never been enough to uplift billions. Humans have been charitable for far longer than the period we're discussing, yet uplifting was slow.
So? Why is such a big problem supposed to be solvable with only one tool? But having said that, why do you think the one true tool is "socialism" rather than "trade".
I'm pointing out there's no correlation between a "consume" strategy and uplifting billions (unless again, you meant government consumption)
Well, there is the wealth generated by that strategy which then gets distributed throughout society. That's easily observable (for example, look at fracking in North Dakota state in the
Your linked article merely says the facility is operating under trial runs and has some problems that delay its regular operation. It doesn't work yet, but there is such a water treatment facility.
Childhood cancers are almost universally aggressive...
[...]
Basically the point is it's hard to suffer observation bias when something kills you dead fairly quickly even if it's missed.
Observation bias works like that. When you looking harder, you see stuff that you didn't see before. I bet they're also more aggressively classifying what were non-cancers as cancer now.
The only way to be sure that one filters out observation bias is to compare to a control sample. I believe in this case at these small levels of increase in incidence, we will see similar increases in thyroid cancers among children not exposed.
While some religion has been used to control people, that's never been the reason people join. They don't join religions because they need to install a bigger joystick on their head. Religion meets some human needs.
There is no divine inspiration in the bible. Most of the bibles new testament fables are more than 10,000 years old.
So what? There's a reason those stories have survived for so long.
Couple that with what sound like much nicer facilities
"Much nicer facilities" which don't actually help deliver a better education.
and it seems like a better deal.
Well, there are a lot of gullible cows in the education corral. What makes this a better deal for the student? That they can go more deeply into debt before they drop out of college?
You say this as if there are not terrorists running around who would blow up an airliner.
And he is saying this as if there were. One can't distinguish the number and quality of the terrorists blowing up stuff by his words. I think that is quite appropriate because while there's always excuses for tyranny, such as terrorists who blow up airliners, there isn't always this degree of tyranny. The US is in much greater danger now than if it had merely terrorists who killed people.
Don't compare a document crafted by a number of real people who had been-there-seen-that to a religious work widely regarded as ancient history of even fiction. Principles are the foundation of all good and effective constructs - they should never be abandoned.
Can't see why not. Perhaps you ought to reconsider that ancient history/fiction as well. The Bible and other such religious works are not just collections of arbitrary stories any more than the US Constitution is just a collection of arbitrary rules.
Slashdot Mirror
It's too bad racism distracts us from other important issues, like privacy and government snooping.
It is indeed too bad racism distracts us from other important issues. But who's fault is that? You spent your entire post ranting about imaginary racism (or racism exhibited by a single poster on a single story) rather than discussing real problems. Maybe you should take your own advice here?
True, but it doesn't matter what the amount is if nobody's bothering to look.
What makes you think no one is bothering to look?
Once they are filled, its unlikely water is pumped out unless there's a suitable place to dump it.
There is - in the reactors or by evaporation. I gather this is part of their cooling system. In which case, they want to both circulate the water through the reactor and cool it off at some point.
Kill what? This would help a lot more people than it'd hurt. Which is pretty good by social engineering standards.
On the other hand you have people seeking to break into computer systems and networks, including those of Americans. They oughta be first against the wall when the revolution comes.
But it probably wouldn't happen. Those kinds of people are so useful when it comes to putting other people against the wall.
So if you want to do something different than buying local food, you can't.
Or buy local real estate, local equipment, local hires, etc. There's a lot more than food for sale in India.
I thought everyone was agreed that we want to stop employers exploiting wage disparity between nations.
Not here. The more exploitation the better off the exploited will be. And the so-called "race to the bottom" will destroy a lot of the free lunch sense of entitlement of the developed world.
What did Outlook ever do to you, anyway?
It got onto my work PC desktop. Every time I read email, I stick another pin in the Outlook doll.
You missed "grammar". And it should be "Your a moron".
So? Just because one problem may be harder or even more important than the other doesn't mean the lesser problem isn't hard nor important, and that I can't talk about it.
Hence, why I quoted you extensively so you could see the context for my remarks. But there is another important reason to be concerned. Distribution of wealth has intimate connections with the creation of wealth via trade and ownership. If I make something, but am unable to trade it to another who desires it, then that greatly weakens the value of the thing to me. Wealth is often such because of its ability to be transferred at one's choosing to others, like money, precious metals, property, etc.
I reverse the roles you assign to trade. My view is that trade is the most significant tool of wealth distribution that we have today, but a lesser contributor to wealth creation.
Socialism here is a double edged blade. It can aid wealth distribution, but it can also hinder it. For example, it is rather easy for the politically connected to suborn a wealth redistribution scheme so they are a recipient of it. I'm more concerned here with wealth transfer than with the creation of public goods, but both can be suborned in a way that inhibits wealth creation and diffusion.
To give a more concrete example, a few years back I received unemployment insurance which is a socialist intervention that happens to distribute wealth. But my money was accessible only via debit card from an account with US Bank (which as you can gather from the obvious name is a US-located bank), a concentration of wealth since they then would pull in fees from my account and increase their concentration of wealth. In other words, in the process of redistributing wealth, the state agency in question had created a rent seeking opportunity for US Bank.
Here, the net effect was probably to distribute wealth, but that's not always the case with socialist programs.
Another problem with socialist wealth transfer is that it can hinder wealth creation either directly by harming wealth creation efforts (if you take wealth away from someone who is creating it, then they have less capital on hand to create more wealth) or by creating incentives to engage in behavior that destroys wealth (for example, the "Cash for Clunkers" automobile program in the US in mid 2009 which subsidized the destruction of usable autos).
The primary power of socialism is in the creation of infrastructure that assists in wealth creation and distribution. For example, the presence of private ownership of capital is capitalist in nature. The creation of rules that allow anyone to be private owners of capital and to prevent the strong from taking that capital by force is socialist in nature.
Well, I already explained above that the wealth doesn't get distributed quickly enough. For every person who managed to migrate to the wealth generating US and uplifted themselves, there's more who didn't outside the US. You win the battle, but you lose the war. So "that" is not so much a strategy as it is a tactic.
I don't think you get my point. With the exception of some peoples who are near completely isolated from the rest of the world, the US is distributing wealth to the entire world wealth via trade. You don't have to live in the US to receive these benefits. Nor do you even have to trade directly with a party of the US.
I already acknowledged the US did fine for itself when it isolated itself (yea yea it also did some trading). However, the rest of the world that US distanced itself from did not see much uplifting.
The US has always done a lot of trading with the rest of the world. That's not what caused the absence of uplifting. Instead, I'd say that deep flaws in these other societies and their governments created the conditions for economic stagnation and great income variance.
That's easily observable (for exa
No because no one claims they came from on high.
Thomas Jefferson did in the Declaration of Independence when he called certain things "unalienable" rights "endowed by their Creator". I suppose I could google for "founding fathers" who attributed the US Constitution (or the accompanying Bill of Rights) to divine provenance or the like. It is worth noting for an interesting example, that the Mormon Church holds that the US Constitution is divinely inspired based on a scripture that states:
According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
This may be a bit vague, but it was supposedly was part of a revelation given to Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, who was a US citizen at the time in the state of Ohio.
When change happens the market does not always react the way that it did.
FIFY. I know most of us are used to the perfect grammer and sintax of the vast majority of Slashdot postings, but sometimes the unwashed masses manage to sneak pst the gatehouse.
I was thinking this very thing. When Gorbachev revealed to the world the seriousness of Chernobyl, his prompt response only a day and a half late, endangered a mere few million people, who probably would not have all been saved anyway. Well, I'm sure the next iteration of COMMUNISM will fail less hard.
Now would be a good time to buy some 2015 puts. It won't be all roses just because Ballmer gets (maybe) out of the way. You still have the fundamental problem that Microsoft is an Office and Windows company in a world that doesn't need either.
Sure but rules are not the same thing as cherry picking written down versions of oral history.
Cherry picking rules is not in any way the same as cherry picking versions of oral history? Sure.
Who threw that peanut?!
That reason is called ignorance.
You can label it whatever you want. But humans need socialization and support when things go wrong. A religion is one way to provide that.
Again, irrelevant. I wasn't trying to discuss which problem is harder, I'm only talking about one of the problems, and how it was resolved in actual history.
If that's what you meant then you shouldn't have written earlier:
The problem is uplifting billions, not creating the wealth to uplift those billions. It doesn't matter if wealth is created by happy free market capitalism, or if Jesus returned and just willed a billion loaves of bread out of thin air. The problem is still getting all that bread to to people and uplifting them.
Now, if the hardness of the problem is "irrelevant", then when are you going to start talking about The Problem of getting breathable oxygen to the people who need it? Someone can't be eating bread and getting uplifted, if they're dead from asphyxiation.
But as it turns out, it's easy to deliver oxygen to people, so we don't have to talk about that as a problem. Similarly, it's rather easy to deliver wealth to people via trade and other economic activity than to create that wealth in the first place. You need to have infrastructure for viable trade, but it's a lot less than what is needed for wealth creation. Hence, wealth creation is the more important problem, not its distribution.
At no time during the history of the US, has this occurred. The US has always been a nation of trade. That alone keeps wealth from staying solely in the US
Again, that does not contradict what I said. Trade implies both sides can offer something of value. Whatever foreign trade US did do was to other productive people, while many more less productive did not receive the wealth.
If that's what you meant, then you shouldn't have written:
The US did create a lot of value, but they kept it to themselves. The US used to prefer isolationism, non-interventionism, and the libertarian non-aggression principle. That was great for the millions uplifted in the US and it exploded into an economic powerhouse, but those outside the US were SOL if they can't get into the US.
Due to centuries of US trade with the rest of the world, we see the above statement was wrong.
Also, we need to recall that just because someone doesn't work in a job that trades directly with the US, doesn't mean that they aren't doing productive labor. Wealth diffuses. Those who earn wealth from the West or create it themselves, then purchase goods and services from everyone else in the community. So that trade with the US doesn't just benefit the relatively small fraction directly involved, but everyone else in the society who works.
(plus the US has supported various activities have opened global trade, such as anti-piracy and more recently open trade).
You're proving my point. Those activities that open global trade are socialist actions.
Socialism is also obstructing global trade and subsidizing piracy allegedly for the benefit of your citizens and the local economy. Socialism can help or hinder just like many potential tools. In this case, it helps when the form of socialism happens to fit other ideological molds as well, such as free trade capitalism.
Charity has never been enough to uplift billions. Humans have been charitable for far longer than the period we're discussing, yet uplifting was slow.
So? Why is such a big problem supposed to be solvable with only one tool? But having said that, why do you think the one true tool is "socialism" rather than "trade".
I'm pointing out there's no correlation between a "consume" strategy and uplifting billions (unless again, you meant government consumption)
Well, there is the wealth generated by that strategy which then gets distributed throughout society. That's easily observable (for example, look at fracking in North Dakota state in the
Your linked article merely says the facility is operating under trial runs and has some problems that delay its regular operation. It doesn't work yet, but there is such a water treatment facility.
Childhood cancers are almost universally aggressive...
[...]
Basically the point is it's hard to suffer observation bias when something kills you dead fairly quickly even if it's missed.
Observation bias works like that. When you looking harder, you see stuff that you didn't see before. I bet they're also more aggressively classifying what were non-cancers as cancer now.
The only way to be sure that one filters out observation bias is to compare to a control sample. I believe in this case at these small levels of increase in incidence, we will see similar increases in thyroid cancers among children not exposed.
what stories go in it is decided by each branch of christianity
So thought went into what stories to include, just like how thought went into what rules to include in the US Constitution.
There is no divine inspiration in the bible. Most of the bibles new testament fables are more than 10,000 years old.
So what? There's a reason those stories have survived for so long.
Couple that with what sound like much nicer facilities
"Much nicer facilities" which don't actually help deliver a better education.
and it seems like a better deal.
Well, there are a lot of gullible cows in the education corral. What makes this a better deal for the student? That they can go more deeply into debt before they drop out of college?
You say this as if there are not terrorists running around who would blow up an airliner.
And he is saying this as if there were. One can't distinguish the number and quality of the terrorists blowing up stuff by his words. I think that is quite appropriate because while there's always excuses for tyranny, such as terrorists who blow up airliners, there isn't always this degree of tyranny. The US is in much greater danger now than if it had merely terrorists who killed people.
Don't compare a document crafted by a number of real people who had been-there-seen-that to a religious work widely regarded as ancient history of even fiction. Principles are the foundation of all good and effective constructs - they should never be abandoned.
Can't see why not. Perhaps you ought to reconsider that ancient history/fiction as well. The Bible and other such religious works are not just collections of arbitrary stories any more than the US Constitution is just a collection of arbitrary rules.