The other issue is universal application. If the rules are like China and don't apply to foreign born children, we'll have breeder nations and ones that need 1.9 or less for zero growth due to immigration.
I actually think is an important point. I've often felt that the best time for a government to tighten its belt is when there is full private sector employment.
Those who hate Keynesian economics seem to miss that point. The government should grow when times are bad, and shrink when times are good. But while nobody minds the growing government when times are poor (Reagan and Bushes added lots to the debt, while the Republicans assert the Democrats are the big-government party). But it's cuts when things are good that nobody seems to figure out.
When times are good, build a surplus (with the tax rate slightly increased to take advantage of the growth, and the spending cut because the need for welfare is decreased), and when times are bad, deficit spend to employ people and provide services (and no, deficit doesn't necessarily mean debt).
I'm familiar with the studies on this. Ford "overpaid" his workers and thrived. The studies show that trickle down is a lie, but trickle up works. The best boost to an economy is to put more money in the hands of the consumers, and less in the hands of the producers. And companies that over-pay do better than those that don't. Mainly because the metrics used to evaluate "cost" are broken. It costs more to replace people than pay them more to keep them.
I always thought we should have large community homes. Send the kids to work in the homes. Send the old and infirm to live there. Slave labor in children (called "education") and forced herding of the elderly sounds like the best solution.
Yes, though 2-child isn't replacement. You need closer to 2.1, so who gets 3 and who gets 2? You'd have to have a lottery or something.
And you need more than 2 because some people don't reproduce. Also, some children die after the parents are too old to make another, but the child was too young to make their own. So to cover the non-reproduced deaths, you need more than 2.0 children per family.
Those children reproduced at a less-than-replacement rate. But, over a short term, that's still growth. The growth bubble is starting to end (well, almost, it was slowing), so the policy can change to 2 children and still continue to a zero growth sum.
So you've decided to remove yourself from the equation
A quick death, vs a slow death (80 years) has the same effect on the population 100 years from now. So why imply that anyone who disagrees with you needs to commit suicide to prove their point? I've removed myself from the equation, it's jut going to take a few years for that to take effect.
So because you assert they are no better humans, we are no longer hypocritical with our stance on immigration? We were here first, so we make the rules! Except we weren't here first, but those before us were no better, so we claim it with a moral authority for reasons nobody can say. USA USA USA!
This isn't about the natives claiming the moral high ground, but us, who exterminated them, claiming it.
In the US we already have less than 90% of the crime being perpetrated by less than 10% of the population.
Yes, but that 10% isn't well defined. When you retroactively look at the stats, it's easy to see that there are disparities, but there is no statistic that will let you predict the 10% accurately. Sure, you can identify the 10% to a small degree, looking at SES and such, but that's actually much weaker than people think.
I can see why they might be upset with a 1% bump nearly made entirely of Muslim males from shit holes and failed states in the Middle East, in their teens and twenties, who are particularly notorious for their bad behavior.
Notorious for it, but not actually linked to it. Also, what you assume of someone is what they become, so the longer they are treated like criminals, the more likely they are to become one. So your answer becomes a more politically correct way of saying "Fuck them, they are Brown, and pray to the wrong God".
A better example is we are not willing to admit that the Israeli government engages in apartheid.
Like the US and American Samoa?
You are trying to distill a conflict to the most emotionally charged word you can find. It's not accurate. The borders aren't sealed on all sides by Israel, with the underclass living among the Chosen Ones as an underclass. By your definition, the former Soviet Republics were all under apartheid when part of the USSR. Yes, I see how someone could twist the definition to fit, but it simply isn't accurate. The US from 1860 to 1960 was more apartheid than Israel is. Egypt is holding those in Gaza in as much or more than Israel is. Israel has never tried to close the border to keep people from leaving, and if everyone in Gaza decided tomorrow to walk to Egypt, Israel wouldn't stop them. That's not apartheid.
Most people speak about it like the new mutation dominates much quicker. Why would they say that they are finding evolution happens faster than they thought if they already thought what you assert?
So Republicans are liberals, wanting to lock up everyone and give them free health care and a free place to live, and tax the hell out of me to pay for it?
Yes. "Liberal" in the US means "someone I don't like". No more, no less, and unrelated to political leanings. The word is not used in a consistent or logical way. So it's not an issue of the person not belonging to the group, but the group not existing. So there is no such thing as a "liberal". Ever.
Are we to ask them who was killed when they migrated across the land bridge from Asia? There's no evidence humans evolved on this continent at all.
Seems you are asserting that there were no natives when the Native Americans immigrated, thus nobody was killed when they migrated across the land bridge. Or were there tricks to the obvious answer that you are trying to play.
What holocaust? The one that's never happened and never will, but liars cling to to justify their condemnation of others? If all the refugees were to go to Germany today, I read that the Islamic population would go from 3% to 4%. So your assertion is that 4% of the population would be able to holocaust the 96% with impunity? I question your logic, but your illogical racist position has already thrown your logic into question.
There's a common misconception that fear can cause your hair to turn white. It's wrong, but true. What happens is that your hair us going white. It's 10% white, and nobody notices. 30% white and people can see it clearly, but don't point it out. But when you are at 30% white and have a strong fear event, you can have some hair fall out. The hair that falls out is disproportionately non-white. So it gives the appearance of a sudden whitening of your hair, caused by fear.
And my first thought on this was the same thing. Random mutation is long-term. But when a selection event happens, the "hidden" trait isn't created, but selected for. There is no "evolution", but a selection pressure that reveals the previous mutation as a preferential trait, making it appear to happen suddenly and revealed by the "cause" but not actually caused by the "cause".
Then clean it like you clean a fish bowl. Put all the people in suits, a space walk, the airlock or otherwise out of the main areas. Then flood the areas with something that kills everything. Whether UV, poison, or something else is for someone with more resources to solve the problem to figure out. I was surprised that they didn't flash the filter with UV to kill things as they collect.
Too short a list of materials. Combine that with the things allowed in prison, like paper, and you can get some more interesting things. Enough glue and paper and you can use it like paper mache, but much stronger.
I didn't see the blades in question, but I've bought some diamond blades designed for hardened steel at a common store. If not the bars, then maybe a padlock or two somewhere would fall to the blades.
And the local police in Texas will hang up on you or just call forward you to 911. The phones at 911 are recorded, logged, and automated in a way the local numbers aren't. Oh, and when I called the non-emergency number (311) for a police to come out to take a police report for a burglary (non emergency), I was told to hang up and call 911. Dispatch requested by a civilian can only come through 911.
It's been a little while since I called 911 in Texas, but your response is the opposite of my experience in Texas.
Perhaps the universality of 911 isn't as great as we've been lead to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
The other issue is universal application. If the rules are like China and don't apply to foreign born children, we'll have breeder nations and ones that need 1.9 or less for zero growth due to immigration.
I actually think is an important point. I've often felt that the best time for a government to tighten its belt is when there is full private sector employment.
Those who hate Keynesian economics seem to miss that point. The government should grow when times are bad, and shrink when times are good. But while nobody minds the growing government when times are poor (Reagan and Bushes added lots to the debt, while the Republicans assert the Democrats are the big-government party). But it's cuts when things are good that nobody seems to figure out.
When times are good, build a surplus (with the tax rate slightly increased to take advantage of the growth, and the spending cut because the need for welfare is decreased), and when times are bad, deficit spend to employ people and provide services (and no, deficit doesn't necessarily mean debt).
I'm familiar with the studies on this. Ford "overpaid" his workers and thrived. The studies show that trickle down is a lie, but trickle up works. The best boost to an economy is to put more money in the hands of the consumers, and less in the hands of the producers. And companies that over-pay do better than those that don't. Mainly because the metrics used to evaluate "cost" are broken. It costs more to replace people than pay them more to keep them.
I always thought we should have large community homes. Send the kids to work in the homes. Send the old and infirm to live there. Slave labor in children (called "education") and forced herding of the elderly sounds like the best solution.
Yes, though 2-child isn't replacement. You need closer to 2.1, so who gets 3 and who gets 2? You'd have to have a lottery or something.
And you need more than 2 because some people don't reproduce. Also, some children die after the parents are too old to make another, but the child was too young to make their own. So to cover the non-reproduced deaths, you need more than 2.0 children per family.
Those children reproduced at a less-than-replacement rate. But, over a short term, that's still growth. The growth bubble is starting to end (well, almost, it was slowing), so the policy can change to 2 children and still continue to a zero growth sum.
So you've decided to remove yourself from the equation
A quick death, vs a slow death (80 years) has the same effect on the population 100 years from now. So why imply that anyone who disagrees with you needs to commit suicide to prove their point? I've removed myself from the equation, it's jut going to take a few years for that to take effect.
You seem to be arguing with the implications of the article, not me. Yet you contradict me because you feel the need to argue about it with someone.
So because you assert they are no better humans, we are no longer hypocritical with our stance on immigration? We were here first, so we make the rules! Except we weren't here first, but those before us were no better, so we claim it with a moral authority for reasons nobody can say. USA USA USA!
This isn't about the natives claiming the moral high ground, but us, who exterminated them, claiming it.
In the US we already have less than 90% of the crime being perpetrated by less than 10% of the population.
Yes, but that 10% isn't well defined. When you retroactively look at the stats, it's easy to see that there are disparities, but there is no statistic that will let you predict the 10% accurately. Sure, you can identify the 10% to a small degree, looking at SES and such, but that's actually much weaker than people think.
I can see why they might be upset with a 1% bump nearly made entirely of Muslim males from shit holes and failed states in the Middle East, in their teens and twenties, who are particularly notorious for their bad behavior.
Notorious for it, but not actually linked to it. Also, what you assume of someone is what they become, so the longer they are treated like criminals, the more likely they are to become one. So your answer becomes a more politically correct way of saying "Fuck them, they are Brown, and pray to the wrong God".
A better example is we are not willing to admit that the Israeli government engages in apartheid.
Like the US and American Samoa?
You are trying to distill a conflict to the most emotionally charged word you can find. It's not accurate. The borders aren't sealed on all sides by Israel, with the underclass living among the Chosen Ones as an underclass. By your definition, the former Soviet Republics were all under apartheid when part of the USSR. Yes, I see how someone could twist the definition to fit, but it simply isn't accurate. The US from 1860 to 1960 was more apartheid than Israel is. Egypt is holding those in Gaza in as much or more than Israel is. Israel has never tried to close the border to keep people from leaving, and if everyone in Gaza decided tomorrow to walk to Egypt, Israel wouldn't stop them. That's not apartheid.
So fraud by skeptics is excused, so long as it's in the pursuit of bashing people you don't like?
Most people speak about it like the new mutation dominates much quicker. Why would they say that they are finding evolution happens faster than they thought if they already thought what you assert?
What percent of Germany were members of the Nazi party?
33% of voters, in the last election.
What percent of colonial Americans were the founding fathers?
All of them?
Revolution only requires a zealous minority.
Yeah, that's why the KKK and Black Panthers have each had their turn running the US.
So Republicans are liberals, wanting to lock up everyone and give them free health care and a free place to live, and tax the hell out of me to pay for it?
Yes. "Liberal" in the US means "someone I don't like". No more, no less, and unrelated to political leanings. The word is not used in a consistent or logical way. So it's not an issue of the person not belonging to the group, but the group not existing. So there is no such thing as a "liberal". Ever.
Are we to ask them who was killed when they migrated across the land bridge from Asia? There's no evidence humans evolved on this continent at all.
Seems you are asserting that there were no natives when the Native Americans immigrated, thus nobody was killed when they migrated across the land bridge. Or were there tricks to the obvious answer that you are trying to play.
What holocaust? The one that's never happened and never will, but liars cling to to justify their condemnation of others? If all the refugees were to go to Germany today, I read that the Islamic population would go from 3% to 4%. So your assertion is that 4% of the population would be able to holocaust the 96% with impunity? I question your logic, but your illogical racist position has already thrown your logic into question.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=chickens+...
There's a common misconception that fear can cause your hair to turn white. It's wrong, but true. What happens is that your hair us going white. It's 10% white, and nobody notices. 30% white and people can see it clearly, but don't point it out. But when you are at 30% white and have a strong fear event, you can have some hair fall out. The hair that falls out is disproportionately non-white. So it gives the appearance of a sudden whitening of your hair, caused by fear.
And my first thought on this was the same thing. Random mutation is long-term. But when a selection event happens, the "hidden" trait isn't created, but selected for. There is no "evolution", but a selection pressure that reveals the previous mutation as a preferential trait, making it appear to happen suddenly and revealed by the "cause" but not actually caused by the "cause".
Then clean it like you clean a fish bowl. Put all the people in suits, a space walk, the airlock or otherwise out of the main areas. Then flood the areas with something that kills everything. Whether UV, poison, or something else is for someone with more resources to solve the problem to figure out. I was surprised that they didn't flash the filter with UV to kill things as they collect.
Too short a list of materials. Combine that with the things allowed in prison, like paper, and you can get some more interesting things. Enough glue and paper and you can use it like paper mache, but much stronger.
I didn't see the blades in question, but I've bought some diamond blades designed for hardened steel at a common store. If not the bars, then maybe a padlock or two somewhere would fall to the blades.
The century where prisons still use bars, and hacksaw blades still cut bars. Why?
And the local police in Texas will hang up on you or just call forward you to 911. The phones at 911 are recorded, logged, and automated in a way the local numbers aren't. Oh, and when I called the non-emergency number (311) for a police to come out to take a police report for a burglary (non emergency), I was told to hang up and call 911. Dispatch requested by a civilian can only come through 911.
It's been a little while since I called 911 in Texas, but your response is the opposite of my experience in Texas.
Perhaps the universality of 911 isn't as great as we've been lead to believe.