Corporations are such a huge interference in the free market, I'm not sure the answer is to create something just as powerful that can counterbalance it. I think we might want to restrict what a corporation is a bit more. I'm not sure that limited liability makes sense for the people making the day-to-day decisions. Limited liability should probably only apply to passive investors.
Remember that corporations are a simple trick of law, and we can do with them as we please.
Insane is when you post this as AC, because you live in the Land of the Free.
That's insane, alright, but it's not the country with the delusional paranoia. The US is fucking insane, but if there was a rankled bureaucrat that somehow took offense to "define sane", had sufficient power and time to find your post on Slashdot, could then decode your Slashdot identity, and finally track you down to persecute you... don't you think he'd be able to get your IP address?
Thanks for pointing that out, I did know about that study, but didn't see that much relevance.
You keep mentioning generational effects of nutrition, so I thought a study about the generational effects of nutrition was rather relevant.
But it does provide more logic for their diet being part of the reason their average life expectancy is not even more abysmally short.
I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that the Inuit have a healthier-than-average life. I can find a bunch of people selling diet products making such claims, but nothing in any journals. I did find a study pointing out how unhealthy they are.
But that extra 10 years you get may just suck in comparison to dieing when your body started to fail you rather then extending it with science (TM).
Yes, it's hard for me to believe that the bed-ridden Walmart whales will have a decent set of "golden years".
There is actually some evidence that what your grandfather ate affects your longevity. For some reason, people who had a starving parent (and grandparent) seem to live longer. It's weird and not fully understood, and it only works when the ancestor was starving just prior to puberty.
90 yr old Eskimo women, yet they die at 40 from heart disease in suburbia
That's not true. The life expectancy of obese, unhealthy, diabetic suburbanites is higher than Eskimos by around 10 years.
Don't get me wrong, packaged and processed foods are objectively lower in nutritional value than fruits and vegetables. And there are certainly compounds found in raw foods that are not found in cooked foods. But the opposite is also true. Humans have been cooking food for at least 100,000 years - at this point it is part of our DNA.
And we know a lot more about nutrition then you give us credit for. Vegans can thrive on a completely non-animal diet, despite it being unnatural. They can do this by being very careful about what they eat and using dietary supplements.
My goodness, the Pottenger Cat Study? How is that an analog for human cooking? He fed them no taurine, and the cats can't make it themselves. Mystery solved.
Well, if you are going to go the "random correlation" route, how about life expectancy? That's gone up the last 20 years as well. It's also clearly responsible for the depletion of our fisheries, obesity, antibiotic resistance, and the rise of diabetes. I imagine it correlates nicely with some stock prices as well.
I don't think they have to stream the MP3s - they could be using Safari's persistent storage.
In any case, on my Android phone I use Subsonic and get decent battery life. Subsonic streams music from your home server, but in practice it spends a few seconds downloading each song and the data connection sleeps for most of the time you are listening. I also use Pandora and find it to be acceptable.
It's true... it's simple and fast. Little projects that I wouldn't have bothered to put on SourceForge are trivial to push to GitHub. It's a little feature-sparse, but I suppose that's the point.
I know you can find examples of just about any weapon being used in a crime, but statistically, shotguns are not as big of a problem as pistols. And why would they be? I can legally carry around a pistol, but simply having a sawed-off shotgun gets me jail time unless I jump through hoops. Tightly controlling pistols would probably increase the use of sawed-off weapons, but on balance I bet there would be fewer homicides - and this view is supported by comparing parts of our country to other very similar countries with different gun laws.
I'm very weary of concealed carry without mandatory training, which kind of precludes the poor anyway. I suppose we could subsidize the courses. I do not agree that one has a "right" to discharge a firearm in an urban environment, even if in self defense. In rural areas, we could conceivably have totally different rules.
Sawed off shotguns get used quite often --- the difference is a felon isn't required to fill out the paperwork..
No they don't. Unless the shotgun on this list is frequently sawed off. The article does not mention that. Either way, 90% of the list is handguns. And absolutely no rifles, which is the bone I was picking in the first place. Why the hell are the anti-gun people going after weapons that aren't even on this list? I believe that they are doing it to score easy political points with their base, rather than have any meaningful reform.
The poor should not be allowed to concealed carry? Discrimination.
At no point in this discussion did I make that argument. I do think that making guns more expensive would increase their scarcity (duh), but at no point did I advocate forbidding the poor from having them. Unless they live in an urban area, where I don't think concealed carry should exist at all. You might convince me that hollow points are safe enough to use in an urban environment, but certainly a normal round is not. And definitely not by someone without firearms training.
The kinds of regulations I think are needed would definitely increase the cost of weapons, but we're still talking smartphone territory.
Take a look at Britain sure less gun crime, but murder rates and violent assaults have more than tripled in the last two decades without guns.
We would "kill" for Britain's homocide rate.
Yes I wont get the quick death of a bullet but instead I get to get beaten to death with a pipe or a rock while my wife is sexually assaulted and then beaten slowly to death as well. Good trade off there.
Can we avoid straw men?
That is why the EU has listed Britain as the most dangerous country in the EU.
And the rest of the EU is a pistol owning paradise?
Sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons are available for a $200 tax payment
So lets do that with handguns. When's the last time a sawed-off shotgun or fully automatic weapon was used in a significant amount of crime? Handguns are used because they are cheap and easily concealed.
Outlawing inexpensive firearms discriminates against the poor being able to own firearms
Not firearms - pistols. Rifles can still be had dirt-cheap. That should be adequate for home defense.
which by your own admission, would not be cease to exist, but would instead become knife or blunt object or other forms of attacks.
Which would you rather be sitting in the hospital recovering from? The fact is that guns are more efficient weapons than knives or bats. That's the whole point of guns. The homicide rate demonstrably will go down, even if violent crime does not.
All gun control laws do is remove choices from law-abiding citizens. They do not magically disarm criminals.
Can't this be said about every single law on the books? Why do we have driver's licenses?
And I'm not talking about magic. I know you can't "disarm" criminals. But you can make it a lot harder for them to get handguns, if only by making them more expensive. Have you looked at the list of guns typically used in crimes? The 38 special is on there, of course - but most of the list consists of crappy semiautomatics that no self-respecting gun enthusiast would be caught dead owning. Those pistols find their way into the hands of criminals in about a year. If you got rid of just that category of crappy cheap pistol, you could seriously put a dent in the availability of guns to criminals.
If you want gun control, move somewhere it's already in place.
We have gun control. Where is your sawed-off shotgun? Where is your fully-automatic rifle? I don't see how the second amendment protects all weapons.
I contend that religion is used to justify what people want to do anyway. Just because someone commits an atrocity in the name of religion does not mean that person would not have done so without the religion. I'm not personally religious, but I can see how it comforts people. Falsely, sure, but sometimes a placebo is the best course of treatment.
Slashdot Mirror
Corporations are such a huge interference in the free market, I'm not sure the answer is to create something just as powerful that can counterbalance it. I think we might want to restrict what a corporation is a bit more. I'm not sure that limited liability makes sense for the people making the day-to-day decisions. Limited liability should probably only apply to passive investors.
Remember that corporations are a simple trick of law, and we can do with them as we please.
Probably on a planet where he'd be arrested for hate speech.
Insane is when you post this as AC, because you live in the Land of the Free.
That's insane, alright, but it's not the country with the delusional paranoia. The US is fucking insane, but if there was a rankled bureaucrat that somehow took offense to "define sane", had sufficient power and time to find your post on Slashdot, could then decode your Slashdot identity, and finally track you down to persecute you... don't you think he'd be able to get your IP address?
Thanks for pointing that out, I did know about that study, but didn't see that much relevance.
You keep mentioning generational effects of nutrition, so I thought a study about the generational effects of nutrition was rather relevant.
But it does provide more logic for their diet being part of the reason their average life expectancy is not even more abysmally short.
I cannot find any evidence whatsoever that the Inuit have a healthier-than-average life. I can find a bunch of people selling diet products making such claims, but nothing in any journals. I did find a study pointing out how unhealthy they are.
But that extra 10 years you get may just suck in comparison to dieing when your body started to fail you rather then extending it with science (TM).
Yes, it's hard for me to believe that the bed-ridden Walmart whales will have a decent set of "golden years".
There is actually some evidence that what your grandfather ate affects your longevity. For some reason, people who had a starving parent (and grandparent) seem to live longer. It's weird and not fully understood, and it only works when the ancestor was starving just prior to puberty.
So hey, you aren't completely out in left field :)
AND...
Boy, I bet his mom's basement is just riddled with scorch marks.
90 yr old Eskimo women, yet they die at 40 from heart disease in suburbia
That's not true. The life expectancy of obese, unhealthy, diabetic suburbanites is higher than Eskimos by around 10 years.
Don't get me wrong, packaged and processed foods are objectively lower in nutritional value than fruits and vegetables. And there are certainly compounds found in raw foods that are not found in cooked foods. But the opposite is also true. Humans have been cooking food for at least 100,000 years - at this point it is part of our DNA.
And we know a lot more about nutrition then you give us credit for. Vegans can thrive on a completely non-animal diet, despite it being unnatural. They can do this by being very careful about what they eat and using dietary supplements.
My goodness, the Pottenger Cat Study? How is that an analog for human cooking? He fed them no taurine, and the cats can't make it themselves. Mystery solved.
That seemed like a pretty informative post. Why not counter his arguments rather than name call?
Well, if you are going to go the "random correlation" route, how about life expectancy? That's gone up the last 20 years as well. It's also clearly responsible for the depletion of our fisheries, obesity, antibiotic resistance, and the rise of diabetes. I imagine it correlates nicely with some stock prices as well.
"These are made from organic, free range, heritage breed dogs. Fed only the highest-grade cat meat with absolutely no fillers or antibiotics."
Forget horse, for shock value I would serve dog burgers at every function until people stopped coming! :)
It's a taboo in the US, like dog meat.
I don't think they have to stream the MP3s - they could be using Safari's persistent storage.
In any case, on my Android phone I use Subsonic and get decent battery life. Subsonic streams music from your home server, but in practice it spends a few seconds downloading each song and the data connection sleeps for most of the time you are listening. I also use Pandora and find it to be acceptable.
It's true... it's simple and fast. Little projects that I wouldn't have bothered to put on SourceForge are trivial to push to GitHub. It's a little feature-sparse, but I suppose that's the point.
LOL, I hadn't thought of that, thanks. Hopefully they'll dance in a circle chanting their gang name like in West Side Story.
I know you can find examples of just about any weapon being used in a crime, but statistically, shotguns are not as big of a problem as pistols. And why would they be? I can legally carry around a pistol, but simply having a sawed-off shotgun gets me jail time unless I jump through hoops. Tightly controlling pistols would probably increase the use of sawed-off weapons, but on balance I bet there would be fewer homicides - and this view is supported by comparing parts of our country to other very similar countries with different gun laws.
I'm very weary of concealed carry without mandatory training, which kind of precludes the poor anyway. I suppose we could subsidize the courses. I do not agree that one has a "right" to discharge a firearm in an urban environment, even if in self defense. In rural areas, we could conceivably have totally different rules.
Because some tools are more likely to result in death. In my view, a "stabbing" is better than "a homicide".
Some kinds of homicide are not even possible without a firearm, drive-by shootings being an obvious example.
LOL, yeah, I guess you got me there... :)
Sawed off shotguns get used quite often --- the difference is a felon isn't required to fill out the paperwork..
No they don't. Unless the shotgun on this list is frequently sawed off. The article does not mention that. Either way, 90% of the list is handguns. And absolutely no rifles, which is the bone I was picking in the first place. Why the hell are the anti-gun people going after weapons that aren't even on this list? I believe that they are doing it to score easy political points with their base, rather than have any meaningful reform.
The poor should not be allowed to concealed carry? Discrimination.
At no point in this discussion did I make that argument. I do think that making guns more expensive would increase their scarcity (duh), but at no point did I advocate forbidding the poor from having them. Unless they live in an urban area, where I don't think concealed carry should exist at all. You might convince me that hollow points are safe enough to use in an urban environment, but certainly a normal round is not. And definitely not by someone without firearms training.
The kinds of regulations I think are needed would definitely increase the cost of weapons, but we're still talking smartphone territory.
Take a look at Britain sure less gun crime, but murder rates and violent assaults have more than tripled in the last two decades without guns.
We would "kill" for Britain's homocide rate.
Yes I wont get the quick death of a bullet but instead I get to get beaten to death with a pipe or a rock while my wife is sexually assaulted and then beaten slowly to death as well. Good trade off there.
Can we avoid straw men?
That is why the EU has listed Britain as the most dangerous country in the EU.
And the rest of the EU is a pistol owning paradise?
Sawed off shotguns and fully automatic weapons are available for a $200 tax payment
So lets do that with handguns. When's the last time a sawed-off shotgun or fully automatic weapon was used in a significant amount of crime? Handguns are used because they are cheap and easily concealed.
Outlawing inexpensive firearms discriminates against the poor being able to own firearms
Not firearms - pistols. Rifles can still be had dirt-cheap. That should be adequate for home defense.
which by your own admission, would not be cease to exist, but would instead become knife or blunt object or other forms of attacks.
Which would you rather be sitting in the hospital recovering from? The fact is that guns are more efficient weapons than knives or bats. That's the whole point of guns. The homicide rate demonstrably will go down, even if violent crime does not.
All gun control laws do is remove choices from law-abiding citizens. They do not magically disarm criminals.
Can't this be said about every single law on the books? Why do we have driver's licenses?
And I'm not talking about magic. I know you can't "disarm" criminals. But you can make it a lot harder for them to get handguns, if only by making them more expensive. Have you looked at the list of guns typically used in crimes? The 38 special is on there, of course - but most of the list consists of crappy semiautomatics that no self-respecting gun enthusiast would be caught dead owning. Those pistols find their way into the hands of criminals in about a year. If you got rid of just that category of crappy cheap pistol, you could seriously put a dent in the availability of guns to criminals.
If you want gun control, move somewhere it's already in place.
We have gun control. Where is your sawed-off shotgun? Where is your fully-automatic rifle? I don't see how the second amendment protects all weapons.
Sorry to sound cold, but one is not significant to me. 9000 pistol homicides vs 1 thwarted rape and 1 potentially thwarted rape.
I contend that religion is used to justify what people want to do anyway. Just because someone commits an atrocity in the name of religion does not mean that person would not have done so without the religion. I'm not personally religious, but I can see how it comforts people. Falsely, sure, but sometimes a placebo is the best course of treatment.