You could make a good case for poverty, disease, hunger, war, poor education, bad governance, political instability, weak trade, or mistreatment of women
I recall that he's doing work on disease and education, and he supports certain political beliefs. It looks like he's making some headway on disease, but his political choices are dubious. He's active in developing and proselytizing "Common Core", a markedly inferior lockstep education system that extends America's slide into inferiority.
That you think that a CEO's actions can be defined exactly, explains why you don't understand that he's worth his salary.
The CEO has a multitude of responsibilities, plus he must create the company's future, plus he must respond to unpredictable events outside the company. If he makes a serious mistake, the company may be destroyed.
The worker seldom does anything not rote, and a mistake means he's broken a widget.
I remember the housing crash - caused by perverse incentives and outright extortion from the government - and the bailouts, a corrupt government approach to a government-caused problem.
The causality runs in both directions, and the direction opposite yours is the more obvious and powerful truth.
A person who believes his actions affect his future is motivated to act to improve his future, which is the best way to improve his future. The person who believes his actions are futile sees no incentive in acting to improve his future, and won't act, and heads toward poverty.
Assuming your claim that "As a percentage of net earnings, the rich contribute far less as an aggregate group than the poor. There's an inverse relationship between income and charity." is true, it explains a lot. Such as why the poor remain poor; they're throwing away their money on the undeserving, the other poor; thereby maintaining their own poverty and removing from the object of their charity the incentive to improve.
The people most effective at production make more when they have more to work with. If they give it away, they have less to work with and thus produce less, civilization loses. The math is pretty simple, but if you try to mix it with pop psychology and an arbitrary moral system, you'll achieve just what you did: nonsense.
Under pure Capitalism there is no such thing as a minimum wage or most other rules that make employment expensive. A minimum wage is the primary cause of unemployment, which can lead to not having enough money to feed oneself.
Both historically and theoretically Capitalism provides the greatest food production.
So we tried to build a public institution that would help all the citizens achieve their full potential: a large, sophisticated government.
Obama would still be a terrible danger to this country if he were not corrupt. It's entirely possible that if his minions were not busy feathering their own nests and hiding their blunders, they'd be much more effectively advancing their evil agenda.
Any attempt to narrow down the driving forces of history results in willfully ignoring some factors and squeezing others into categories into which they do not fit. How do you factor ideology (many cases) or mental disease (Idi Amin's syphilis, for example). I've seen it argued that the Gutenberg press caused the American Revolution. Do you honestly think that influence and wealth ran the Underground Railway, or caused John Brown's attack at Harper's ferry?
There's a very mechanistic answer to that. If you're looking for something "deeper" than that, then the lack is in you and not science. It is not shallow or trivial to say "Life is what you make it."
Where am I going?
Once again, that's up to you.
Why do bad things happen to me and not others?
Usually, that's a question to be addressed to an expert in mental defects. Beyond that, the answers are again mechanistic. You got hit by that car because you were walking in a busy highway, stinking drunk.
In world history and human behavior, religion provided a common moral framework which allowed a society to retain some level of stability as it grew in size.
The problem is that all religions are based on untruths and most of them on lies. Unless all forms of advancement are ruthlessly suppressed, the untruths will be identified and corrected, undermining the religion. Hence religions are inherently unstable, and cannot provide a long term basis for a behaviorally stable advancing society.
What is needed is a rational, true philosophy. Religion by its very nature cannot provide such a philosophy because religions claim to have the ultimate, perfect, immutable truth: sooner or later reality is seen to conflict with the religion and if it changes then it will be seen not to be perfect.
Of course, most people are either too stupid or too uncaring to notice such changes, and historically many religions have lost many of their fundamentals through such changes, resulting in their failure as a guiding force.
But the fact remains that the beginnings of early civilization would never have succeeded in attaining any long term stability without religion.
Early civilization is too far removed in time for us to know what was going on, much less what mechanisms held it together. To say religion held it together and spurred it along is mere speculation without any predictive power. It's much more likely that the advantages of trade, division of labor, and the shift to farming made civilization possible. A common religion is not necessary to civilization as long as enough members accept nonviolence and honesty as their normal practice.
The review is the vision of someone who pisses on everything great, and reserves his praise for urine. Unable to even vaguely understand Heinlein's book, he praises an incompetent movie as brilliant satire. C'est la mort.
It's silly because most weapons have wide applicability. A better rifle or bullet is useful in any conflict. Being able to respond to an attack within hours is a whole lot better than saying "We've just been attacked. It's time to get funding to build a factory to manufacture firearms. Oh, and maybe we should raise an army and teach our gun-fearing populace how to shoot."
The military, any military, uses the advantages it has. Asymmetrical warfare - such as running airplanes into the World Trade Center - means that a weaker enemy can achieve disproportional results. It does not mean that the stronger party should give up its advantages. To act in the face sufficient provocation, the US should retain the ability to turn an aggressor nation into a pool of lava.
FinFET - by exerting control over the channel from three sides instead of just one - allows an improved tradeoff between leakage and speed. It's not just a leakage improvement.
Reconfiguring involves a lot of extra hardware and delay involved in the switching between function sets. I doubt that it will give significant improvements for any but a small number of unusual applications.
Most scientific laws are orders of magnitude more precise than Moore's "law", and are quite stable over time. Moore himself varied the period for doubling from 12 to 24 months over the course of just a few years. That's better than a meteorologist but not as good as an economist, and economic "laws" are mostly poor approximations even on good days.
Slashdot Mirror
I recall that he's doing work on disease and education, and he supports certain political beliefs. It looks like he's making some headway on disease, but his political choices are dubious. He's active in developing and proselytizing "Common Core", a markedly inferior lockstep education system that extends America's slide into inferiority.
What do we need to eradicate your illiteracy?
That you think that a CEO's actions can be defined exactly, explains why you don't understand that he's worth his salary.
The CEO has a multitude of responsibilities, plus he must create the company's future, plus he must respond to unpredictable events outside the company. If he makes a serious mistake, the company may be destroyed.
The worker seldom does anything not rote, and a mistake means he's broken a widget.
And the next week, you'll be wondering why their greedy employer declared bankruptcy and went out of business.
That explains why jobless single women on welfare are rich. Oh, wait...
You're missing something. There's more to micro-credits than poverty.
I remember the housing crash - caused by perverse incentives and outright extortion from the government - and the bailouts, a corrupt government approach to a government-caused problem.
The causality runs in both directions, and the direction opposite yours is the more obvious and powerful truth.
A person who believes his actions affect his future is motivated to act to improve his future, which is the best way to improve his future. The person who believes his actions are futile sees no incentive in acting to improve his future, and won't act, and heads toward poverty.
Assuming your claim that "As a percentage of net earnings, the rich contribute far less as an aggregate group than the poor. There's an inverse relationship between income and charity." is true, it explains a lot. Such as why the poor remain poor; they're throwing away their money on the undeserving, the other poor; thereby maintaining their own poverty and removing from the object of their charity the incentive to improve.
The people most effective at production make more when they have more to work with. If they give it away, they have less to work with and thus produce less, civilization loses. The math is pretty simple, but if you try to mix it with pop psychology and an arbitrary moral system, you'll achieve just what you did: nonsense.
Under pure Capitalism there is no such thing as a minimum wage or most other rules that make employment expensive. A minimum wage is the primary cause of unemployment, which can lead to not having enough money to feed oneself.
Both historically and theoretically Capitalism provides the greatest food production.
Your joke isn't funny.
Obama would still be a terrible danger to this country if he were not corrupt. It's entirely possible that if his minions were not busy feathering their own nests and hiding their blunders, they'd be much more effectively advancing their evil agenda.
Any attempt to narrow down the driving forces of history results in willfully ignoring some factors and squeezing others into categories into which they do not fit. How do you factor ideology (many cases) or mental disease (Idi Amin's syphilis, for example). I've seen it argued that the Gutenberg press caused the American Revolution. Do you honestly think that influence and wealth ran the Underground Railway, or caused John Brown's attack at Harper's ferry?
Wow, do you ever have a narrow vision of religion. Consider Valhalla.
There's a very mechanistic answer to that. If you're looking for something "deeper" than that, then the lack is in you and not science. It is not shallow or trivial to say "Life is what you make it."
Once again, that's up to you.
Usually, that's a question to be addressed to an expert in mental defects. Beyond that, the answers are again mechanistic. You got hit by that car because you were walking in a busy highway, stinking drunk.
Dogmatic is precisely what they're not. Do you not understand what "until proven to the contrary" means?
The problem is that all religions are based on untruths and most of them on lies. Unless all forms of advancement are ruthlessly suppressed, the untruths will be identified and corrected, undermining the religion. Hence religions are inherently unstable, and cannot provide a long term basis for a behaviorally stable advancing society.
What is needed is a rational, true philosophy. Religion by its very nature cannot provide such a philosophy because religions claim to have the ultimate, perfect, immutable truth: sooner or later reality is seen to conflict with the religion and if it changes then it will be seen not to be perfect.
Of course, most people are either too stupid or too uncaring to notice such changes, and historically many religions have lost many of their fundamentals through such changes, resulting in their failure as a guiding force.
Early civilization is too far removed in time for us to know what was going on, much less what mechanisms held it together. To say religion held it together and spurred it along is mere speculation without any predictive power. It's much more likely that the advantages of trade, division of labor, and the shift to farming made civilization possible. A common religion is not necessary to civilization as long as enough members accept nonviolence and honesty as their normal practice.
The review is the vision of someone who pisses on everything great, and reserves his praise for urine. Unable to even vaguely understand Heinlein's book, he praises an incompetent movie as brilliant satire. C'est la mort.
It's silly because most weapons have wide applicability. A better rifle or bullet is useful in any conflict. Being able to respond to an attack within hours is a whole lot better than saying "We've just been attacked. It's time to get funding to build a factory to manufacture firearms. Oh, and maybe we should raise an army and teach our gun-fearing populace how to shoot."
There is a lawyer heading the Science Committee because honest people are rarely elected.
The military, any military, uses the advantages it has. Asymmetrical warfare - such as running airplanes into the World Trade Center - means that a weaker enemy can achieve disproportional results. It does not mean that the stronger party should give up its advantages. To act in the face sufficient provocation, the US should retain the ability to turn an aggressor nation into a pool of lava.
The ultimate limit is the placement of individual atoms. It's already been done, but the process is agonizingly slow.
FinFET - by exerting control over the channel from three sides instead of just one - allows an improved tradeoff between leakage and speed. It's not just a leakage improvement.
Reconfiguring involves a lot of extra hardware and delay involved in the switching between function sets. I doubt that it will give significant improvements for any but a small number of unusual applications.
SOP for several years. I can watch the CPU meter on my three-year-old machine swap cores every 20 to 60 seconds or so.
Most scientific laws are orders of magnitude more precise than Moore's "law", and are quite stable over time. Moore himself varied the period for doubling from 12 to 24 months over the course of just a few years. That's better than a meteorologist but not as good as an economist, and economic "laws" are mostly poor approximations even on good days.
When you stop making racist comments, people might take you seriously. But I doubt it.