"Your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic" does not say "your tap water doesn't intend itself to contain arsenic". It's your municipality doing the intending.
Going right from "we're in the same bed" to "I PENIS U!" is kind of a jarring shift. Have you tried snuggling up first and nudging at the comfort barriers to see if she decides you need to back off?
Sexual advances imply some risk. If you're on the couch with some girl and you want to get frisky, asking bluntly is... not attractive. At all. It's more likely to get you a sharp "no" (or a laugh at how hilariously stupid you are, and a signal to pretend you were just kidding and never talk about this again) than sliding up, slipping an arm around her, and physically presenting the suggestion that she should "get closer"... you know, *closer*. A *lot* closer.
An arm around someone might seem innocuous, but *touching* someone can be *extremely* upsetting. Run a finger down a girl's arm when she's not open to a sexual advance and she'll take the intimate suggestion in full meaning--and immediately want to be *far* away from you. You might as well grab her tits; the only real difference is we've got some social conventions where we've acknowledged this boundary is okay to break, *that* boundary is you being an asshole, and so you have a way to step across a line while clearly signalling that you're harmless and willing to back off if it ain't working. With all that in mind, slinging an arm around a girl is possessive and intimate, which is a *lot* of presumption.
Possessive and intimate will get you good responses where a blunt query will get you laughed at. They'll also get you bad responses, because if the answer is no then you've just done something *extremely* uncomfortable to someone.
This extends even when you've got a girl in bed. You can't just go pushing your boxers up to her and groping at her tits if you haven't acknowledged how far this is going. You have to push the right buttons, and she might put the brakes on anyway because she's just not looking to go that far. Pushing those buttons, of course, carries risk; and drawing up the legal framework beforehand is really awkward and uncomfortable for all parties involved. Everyone really wants to go in blind and see what comes out the other end, but they also don't want to get pulled into something that's beyond their comfort level at that exact moment; the fact that your comfort level changes moment-to-moment makes this impossible to spec out ahead of time unless you're either well into the "no physical contact" stage or blatantly getting together to hook up.
All that said, some people keep pushing--hard--when they've gotten push-back. That's harassment. Today we've taken the harassment to social minefield levels, where getting distracted by a girl's showy dress can get you pulled into HR for looking at her tits and ass for 1 second, because of course you would.
Fortunately for me, my peculiar mix of psychiatric defects automatically disables sexual attraction in professional contexts (and most other contexts). I simply don't like interacting with people. Prosopagnosia... don't even remember what my parents's faces look like WHILE I'M TALKING TO THEM. SPD... I don't have any emotional attachment to any human being. My academic understanding of all this crap doesn't translate to any form of social skill set, so I'm not picking up girls like crazy; even if I could, I wouldn't bother, because it's too much strain trying to satisfy the complex social needs of that kind of interaction. No romance, no emotional needs, and no particular sexual attraction means I can just skip out on all that bullshit. I guess normal people would consider that some kind of giant hole in their lives, but it doesn't really occur to me.
You were replying to a comment about people shot by police
"Shooting" is pretty specific; the comment expanded on the "on-going grand jury investigation into misconduct by the FBI, where the FBI is refusing to disclose information? And it's come to light that the FBI had tampered with evidence" concept with further examples of misconduct which seem to be tampered with, whether or not a shooting was involved. We could bring in the guy who was choked to death for selling cigarettes, for example.
Well, since the medical examiner told everyone who bothered to read the report exactly what happened, I can't imagine how you could NOT know what happened. The base of his skull struck an exposed bolt in the side of the police van, which damaged his spinal cord and caused near instantaneous death.
What did the medical examiner tell us was the cause of the base of Gray's skull striking an exposed bolt? Forceful and willful manhandling by the officer? Rough driving in an attempt to throw Gray around in the back? Failure to properly secure the prisoner? Fluke accident?
There's a media circus and a string of court battles going on about exactly that. Who knows what actually happened? Did the officer willfully perform negligently and cause this injury; or is it a possible outcome of proper procedure, occurring in this case despite said proper procedure?
At this point we know the prosecution can neither gather evidence nor build a case supporting any malice; and we're still left without a resolution as to *what* *exactly* *happened*. We don't know how this occurred. We don't have a thorough understanding of what dynamics lead to Gray's skull striking the van. There was no powerful defense mounted; there was inadequate evidence of a crime--a good reason to not convict someone of a crime, but not particularly enlightening on what events transpired in any revealing detail.
That's why we have a Constitutional law claiming innocence unless proven guilty: you can readily fail to prove someone's guilt in a crime without anyone in the world being able to demonstrate that person's innocence. This is derivative of being unable to prove that something happened while simultaneously not being able to demonstrate that it *didn't* happen, which is itself derivative of being unable to prove that something happened while simultaneously not being able to demonstrate what event occurred in the given time and place instead.
In the case of Gray, we're unable to demonstrate any culpable behavior on the part of the officers, and we're also unable to explain what specifically lead to the event of Gray's death. Maybe the officer reached back and shoved him into the bolt; maybe he tried to struggle free of restraints and tipped himself over onto it; maybe something else happened. Nobody knows.
It's also notable you can't live on fresh carrots. 25%-40% carbohydrate intake is tolerable (varies between people): above that and you start producing cholesterols that stick to your arterial walls and thicken your blood. Diets high in fats--even saturated fats--are healthier than high-carbohydrate diets; high-protein diets are arguably more healthy than high-fat diets, except that ingesting more than ~300g (1200kcal) of protein per day exceeds what your kidneys can handle, and can cause poisoning. You need fat (especially cholesterol) to absorb vitamins anyway, so an appreciable amount of fat in your diet is healthy.
None of this matters at all when you're eating 3,500kcal/day and spend 18 hour sitting on your ass. "Diets high in fats" has a limited connotation in that context: if half your intake is fat, that's only 100g, and some of those TastyCakes have like 42g of saturated fat alone; you can't exactly shove fruit pies down your throat all day without ingesting tons and tons of calories. A 66g Bratwurst has 17g of fat and is pretty fatty (78% fat); an egg (hen) is only 58% fat; and a steak is 64% fat and 36% protein at 250g, meaning you can eat about 3 of those and get all 2,000kcal for the day. Mashed potatoes are 29% fat (they contain butter and heavy cream) and 65% carbohydrate.
In the end, a diet of steak and potatoes is going to give you 55% fat, 15% carbohydrate (low), and 30% protein--which is actually not horrible for you. You can get away with more carbs and less fat (45% fat, 25% carbohydrate, 30% protein) by replacing some of the steak with beans or vegetables of some kind. In any case, steak and sausage are heavy fat contenders, and these high-fat (55%) diets are ~120g of fat per day; any reasonably-diverse diet at 2,000kcal is going to come under 100g of fat, and it's not going to turn you into a giant lard-ass with clogged arteries and diabeetus.
But yes, as you've probably observed, give people salt, fat, and sugar, and they'll eat 4,000kcal/day of potato chips and popcorn.
The problem is with endless compensation due to logical ownership of something which no longer costs practically anything.
True, and how do you differentiate?
Physical property theft always has a victim and loss. Copying something illegally is technically theft but the effects are nowhere near physical property theft.
I just demonstrated that it's the same thing. Producing a physical object requires R&D, and also large amounts of human labor time per copy. Intellectual property like movies tends to require *much* more human labor investment up-front to create the blueprint, as it were, and only a tiny amount of human labor per copy. That means stealing a car involves stealing $26,000 of actual work that went into each car *after* $1,000,000 to design the damned thing; while copying movies involves looking bluntly at $180,000,000 of actual work and rolling your eyes because you making a copy moved $0 of tangible object out of anyone's hands.
How do you compare the 200,000 man-hours spent laboring to create a video game to the thousands of hours spent laboring to create a car? The answer is, apparently, you ignore them and focus on the 20 man-seconds of labor taken to create the plastic disc *holding* the video game.
Most of your argument is hand-waving and anger at people you assume don't do any work and have more money than you. Nothing concrete, nothing philosophical besides whining that they don't deserve anything. You also argue that people pirating are more likely to buy things anyway--a muddy argument equating positive to negative rather--and that you "can't stop piracy", and so shouldn't try; that wanders away from the discussion of whether or not people who worked deserve to be compensated for their work, and whether taking their work without compensation is tangentially related to theft.
A lot of things are observable from the Ice Bucket Challenge.
First: ALS affects a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. 36,000 people worldwide. Diverting resources to ALS diverts those resources away from efforts which affect hundreds of millions of people. That means you get to pat your back for pulling bread from 10,000 starving childrens's mouths to feed ONE starving child somewhere a few miles away instead. (Okay, that's not the right metaphor; it's more like you diverted the truck to another state before it even got there, which would necessarily have to bring *all* the food on that particular truck with it; if you were going to take out of people's hands, you wouldn't really take so much. The image is more powerful, though.)
Second, people are prone to pat themselves on the back for finding not-definitely-useful information. They found a gene link. That's a link, but not necessarily causative. This could mean basically nothing, or it could be a tiny step in a long, long chain of things. Economically, this kind of research becomes less-expensive and faster with technology: tiny steps like this every decade give way to steps like this every few months; with the overtaking pace, you can actually just wait for technology to catch up, then *start* your research, and actually arrive at the end point at the same time as a research base started 40 years prior. If this turns out nothing for the next several years, and then an explosion of genetic research techniques appears, then this particular research was an enormous waste of time and resources.
Third, as you observed, everyone wants to imagine they helped. They wave their hands around, put a dollar in a bin with 18 billion dollars, and claim they were part of something when their entire effort was a skipped trip to the vending machine.
The difference between theft and copyright infringement is one of immense philosophical complexity.
Deprivation of property is nothing more than deprivation of the labor entailed to obtain that property. You bought a car? That cost you $28,000, which you worked for; but why did you work for $28,000? Because the car salesmen spend time seeking out, talking with, and servicing customers; the cashiers spend time being available to take your money; there are delivery drivers who must bring SIX CARS from far-off to stock them in this enormous 500-car lot; someone makes those cars in the factories; someone makes the steel, the paint, and the plastics; someone mines for the ore, and produces the power required to make those things. These are all human labors, time which must be taken to make the thing.
If someone steals your car, they steal the outcome of nearly $28,000 of labor. It's probably more like $24,000-$26,000, and only that high because the automaker has negotiated for bulk purchase of steel and paint at razor-thin margins ($1 billion of profits at 0.1% vs no profits at your usual 15%, Mr. Carnergie), and the steelmaker has used the promise of an enormous contract to bid down the ore and coal miners on contingency of receiving and maintaining the automaker contract. These people's labors also went into production (organization and operation of production, which means less total human labor than self-organized artisans). You have to fork over all that cash to get a new one, or else insurance has to fork it over (and insurance rates are slightly higher than costs, meaning the cost of basic levels of theft is paid by the insured).
Theft isn't about tangible, physical objects; it's about time.
On the other hand, if you make copies of a work, that deprives no one of tangible property. There is no cost of labor of pressing a DVD for which you have stolen a man's life and livelihood; there is no cost of labor of shipping which you have taken without payment; there is no plastic or metal or ink which a man has made with his time and for which you have failed to pay. Why, then, would it be theft?
Movies are made by the labor of screen writers, actors, special effects artists, directors, producers, marketers, musicians, sound engineers, construction workers, fuel miners, energy producers, iron and steel manufacturers, and so forth. Seemingly-endless human labor time is poured into the production of a small piece of information, a tiny thing which you can reproduce with hardly a fraction of a penny's worth of additional human labor.
It is for this effort they demand compensation.
What justification do you have for depriving these people of compensation for their labor?
The only justification is that your particular action doesn't cost them anything, directly. They only labored at what we price at millions of dollars of wages to produce a thing which can then be copied for a fraction of nothing; you only took that fraction of nothing. They expect, for their work, some form of compensation, and you don't see why you should give them such a thing.
That is the philosophical comparison of theft of property versus theft of intellectual property. That is why it's called "intellectual property": it really takes the labor of a man to make it.
Those chemicals are fat and salt. Your body needs calories and you evolved in a calorie-poor world. Hell, it's always calorie-poor; we expand until population exceeds our ability to scale production, and create a poor class. When we uncap this, we expand more.
I've done that to a few services in Linux distributions, third-party Windows utilities (FoolProof Security for Windows 98), and other stuff that just won't go away.
It'd be even better if they started covering the amount of economic and environmental damage every Olympic games causes to its host. The hosts think they're going to get a $500 billion tourism industry overnight, and expend tens of billions of dollars (a drop in the bucket for the U.S. Federal government; kind of hefty for a U.S. state; crippling for a city, U.S. or otherwise) ripping out forests, tearing down housing, excising shopping centers, and doing whatever else they need to do to place and supply an enormous stadium. Then it's over, and the stadium rots; tourism doesn't expand; and the heavy cost of hosting the Olympics turns into a long-term burden with no economic upside.
The media doesn't cover this because the Olympics gives them a big ad spot to sell, and destroying the Olympics would cost them. Independent print-only online media with no broadcast sponsor could cover it, and they would get minimal circulation. The only way to hit the public mind is to get CNN, Fox, and NBC.
The same thing with Freddie Gray here, the guy who got shot in his car in front of his kid, the black dude with the autistic kid, and everyone else the cops basically walked up to and shot
Do you see the commas? Those are separators in list items. It doesn't say, "Freddie Gray--the guy who got shot in his car"; it says, "(1)Freddie Gray here, (2)the guy who got shot in his car in front of his kid, (3)the black dude with the autistic kid, and (4)everyone else the cops basically walked up to and shot." That's four separate items.
Is English not your primary language? Perhaps you should educate yourself before attempting to interact with people speaking English, as it makes you look ignorant when you come up with some badly-mangled interpretation of what's been said. That goes as well for the word salad you're using in place of proper English, although at least it's readable (the last thing in your post is a declaration that education makes a person appear ignorant).
This is a real concern, as opposed to bullshit "ethical" concerns which are just there for the group circle-jerk.
We live in a world where people define right-and-wrong separate from a group of procedural rules that tell them when to ignore those right-and-wrong things and declare non-wrong things inappropriate while doing non-right things because it would be unethical to not commit some atrocity.
Ethics are why we don't abort a non-sentient blastocyst with no brain, instead demanding it develop into a heavily-neglected child of an abusive welfare family that tried to do the right thing by avoiding creating an animal that would just grow up to be a tormented drug criminal raised in an addiction household.
Ethics are why we don't experiment with *cells* because they happen to be *human* cells, even though such experimentation could save lives and end real suffering (caveat: embryonic stem cell research is, thus far, patently useless and has little potential to cure anything; adult stem cell research has provided a great deal of medical advances).
Are they seriously preparing an argument against cheap food and the alleviation of poverty because it would be unethical to create an animal that, were it not SLAUGHTERED FOR FOOD, might not live a full life? Meat chickens are slaughtered after what, 42 days? Cornish hens after some 21 or 26 or something. The damn things live for 6 years; who cares if the clones are only capable of living for a year and a half? They'll be rolled in the eleven herbs and spices long before then!
I would imagine a driving mode which automatically reacts to the surroundings would avoid illegally impeding the flow of traffic by driving at the nominal speed rather than some arbitrary pre-determined speed.
"Making money laundering harder" isn't really sensible. All implementations are hubris and rather inconvenient for model-citizens.
In the United States, carrying a certain sum of cash is indication of criminal activity. This is done to combat money laundering and drug trade. They might not be able to charge you with a crime, but they can seize your cash; it's called asset forfeiture. In Alabama, if the police pull you over for a broken tail light, they can demand you display your wallet contents (notably by way of demanding to see your license), and seize any cash if you have more than $100. United States border control looks for "large sums", which might be $2,000 or $5,000, notably if you don't declare that you have a "large sum"; the official definition is $10,000, but smaller sums become large sums by way of fuzzy laws (i.e. if you pull $9,995 from a bank, the bank has to report that you seem to be skirting the mandatory reporting law for transactions over $10,000, even though you didn't actually pull a legally-defined "large sum", because you seem to have specifically avoided pulling a large sum).
Hmmmm, repeatedly insisting that a solution that has failed to work repeatedly over the decades is the answer to all our problems.
Overland transport failed to work for thousands of years. Too expensive. Making steel was laughably labor-intensive--some time in the 1800s, we invented a hot-blast furnace, and suddenly the same wages that paid for 400 tonnes of steel were all that the making of 84,000 tonnes of steel incurred. Once that happened, someone invented a cheap way to roll steel into rails, and we got railroads. Why do you think moving things by truck and train is called "shipping" if ships aren't involved?
Feudalism was the only viable system in extremely-poor economies.
Inflation has eaten our economy alive.
My Universal Social Security is funded by a separate flat income tax on all taxable income. This automatically adjusts for inflation, but not for productivity: it's always the exact same proportion of the per-capita income, and it increases in buying power year over year.
I know how all of this works. I've done back-projections to show when and why the plan I developed doesn't work, when it became viable, and what long-term behaviors it shows over time in real-world conditions using real-world populations and total incomes.
You still seem to ignore the whole "taking $1 trillion of tax burden off the middle- and lower-classes" thing. Are you in favor of taxing the middle classes as much as you can squeeze from them?
Tokens are obtainable. They're afraid someone will obtain your phone, and advocate using another non-phone thing someone could obtain instead. It's weird.
Not even that. The Docker control system (docker-compose, or any of the clustering stuff) should mount keys and configurations as a volume, which you handle through a separate supply chain (which is better-controlled).
How about instead of "giving" them money we continue to have jobs so that people can work.
Jobs are paid for by the consumer. Jobs are created by consumer capacity to buy. Consumer capacity to buy is a factor of the consumer's income (paid for by other consumer spending) and the cost of goods (which, at a minimum, must cover the wages of the labor-hours involved in producing those goods).
Unemployment baselines are a natural part of an economy that's grown population until it hit scarcity, then stopped growing. New technology makes products cheaper, moving some people out of their jobs temporarily, then allowing the consumer to use the extra money left over after prices (eventually) come down (fail to keep up with inflation) to buy new things, creating replacement jobs. When new technology also allows scaling production up without scaling the required labor *faster* (15% more workers to make 10% more goods), scarcity is uncapped, and the population can again grow.
Fiat currency is backed by production. It's backed by the useful output of labor. That whole pile of income rolled over every year represents everything that was made and sold. Print twice as much money and make (and sell) twice as much stuff and you have zero change in the buying-power of a dollar; print twice as much money and make the same amount of stuff and your dollar is worth half as much.
Why did they make SNAP all card based and put restrictions on what you can purchase? Because an extremely large percentage of people were not purchasing food for their kids, they were drinking and smoking the money away.
This is why I specify against a cash payment per child, and instead for an EBT system for children of low-income families: avoids *increasing* the risk in a basic income system above current baseline. This risk is low (and more personal) for individuals receiving payments for themselves: when it's their own stomach that's rumbling, they'll look for food.
Taking from the productive people to give to the unproductive incentivizes non-productivity.
Current welfare is taken away when you become productive. That means you might get $10.50/hr of welfare services and have FedEx offer you a $10.75/hr job; that's a quarter an hour, and fuck that. Universal Social Security continues to pay, and the top tax bracket is still only 40%, so a $10.75/hr job is still actually adding more than $8.50/hr to your pocket after taxes versus not working.
Mind you, I'm working off a model that costs $1 trillion less, counting the downward movement of income as a "cost", so the taxes taken are relatively close to the modern model and the final result is *much* less taxes retained. A single individual with a $150,000 income has $3,800 more money per year under my system.
Slashdot Mirror
"Your tap water isn't intended to contain arsenic" does not say "your tap water doesn't intend itself to contain arsenic". It's your municipality doing the intending.
Going right from "we're in the same bed" to "I PENIS U!" is kind of a jarring shift. Have you tried snuggling up first and nudging at the comfort barriers to see if she decides you need to back off?
It's kind of a ginormous gray area.
Sexual advances imply some risk. If you're on the couch with some girl and you want to get frisky, asking bluntly is... not attractive. At all. It's more likely to get you a sharp "no" (or a laugh at how hilariously stupid you are, and a signal to pretend you were just kidding and never talk about this again) than sliding up, slipping an arm around her, and physically presenting the suggestion that she should "get closer"... you know, *closer*. A *lot* closer.
An arm around someone might seem innocuous, but *touching* someone can be *extremely* upsetting. Run a finger down a girl's arm when she's not open to a sexual advance and she'll take the intimate suggestion in full meaning--and immediately want to be *far* away from you. You might as well grab her tits; the only real difference is we've got some social conventions where we've acknowledged this boundary is okay to break, *that* boundary is you being an asshole, and so you have a way to step across a line while clearly signalling that you're harmless and willing to back off if it ain't working. With all that in mind, slinging an arm around a girl is possessive and intimate, which is a *lot* of presumption.
Possessive and intimate will get you good responses where a blunt query will get you laughed at. They'll also get you bad responses, because if the answer is no then you've just done something *extremely* uncomfortable to someone.
This extends even when you've got a girl in bed. You can't just go pushing your boxers up to her and groping at her tits if you haven't acknowledged how far this is going. You have to push the right buttons, and she might put the brakes on anyway because she's just not looking to go that far. Pushing those buttons, of course, carries risk; and drawing up the legal framework beforehand is really awkward and uncomfortable for all parties involved. Everyone really wants to go in blind and see what comes out the other end, but they also don't want to get pulled into something that's beyond their comfort level at that exact moment; the fact that your comfort level changes moment-to-moment makes this impossible to spec out ahead of time unless you're either well into the "no physical contact" stage or blatantly getting together to hook up.
All that said, some people keep pushing--hard--when they've gotten push-back. That's harassment. Today we've taken the harassment to social minefield levels, where getting distracted by a girl's showy dress can get you pulled into HR for looking at her tits and ass for 1 second, because of course you would.
Fortunately for me, my peculiar mix of psychiatric defects automatically disables sexual attraction in professional contexts (and most other contexts). I simply don't like interacting with people. Prosopagnosia... don't even remember what my parents's faces look like WHILE I'M TALKING TO THEM. SPD ... I don't have any emotional attachment to any human being. My academic understanding of all this crap doesn't translate to any form of social skill set, so I'm not picking up girls like crazy; even if I could, I wouldn't bother, because it's too much strain trying to satisfy the complex social needs of that kind of interaction. No romance, no emotional needs, and no particular sexual attraction means I can just skip out on all that bullshit. I guess normal people would consider that some kind of giant hole in their lives, but it doesn't really occur to me.
You were replying to a comment about people shot by police
"Shooting" is pretty specific; the comment expanded on the "on-going grand jury investigation into misconduct by the FBI, where the FBI is refusing to disclose information? And it's come to light that the FBI had tampered with evidence" concept with further examples of misconduct which seem to be tampered with, whether or not a shooting was involved. We could bring in the guy who was choked to death for selling cigarettes, for example.
Well, since the medical examiner told everyone who bothered to read the report exactly what happened, I can't imagine how you could NOT know what happened. The base of his skull struck an exposed bolt in the side of the police van, which damaged his spinal cord and caused near instantaneous death.
What did the medical examiner tell us was the cause of the base of Gray's skull striking an exposed bolt? Forceful and willful manhandling by the officer? Rough driving in an attempt to throw Gray around in the back? Failure to properly secure the prisoner? Fluke accident?
There's a media circus and a string of court battles going on about exactly that. Who knows what actually happened? Did the officer willfully perform negligently and cause this injury; or is it a possible outcome of proper procedure, occurring in this case despite said proper procedure?
At this point we know the prosecution can neither gather evidence nor build a case supporting any malice; and we're still left without a resolution as to *what* *exactly* *happened*. We don't know how this occurred. We don't have a thorough understanding of what dynamics lead to Gray's skull striking the van. There was no powerful defense mounted; there was inadequate evidence of a crime--a good reason to not convict someone of a crime, but not particularly enlightening on what events transpired in any revealing detail.
That's why we have a Constitutional law claiming innocence unless proven guilty: you can readily fail to prove someone's guilt in a crime without anyone in the world being able to demonstrate that person's innocence. This is derivative of being unable to prove that something happened while simultaneously not being able to demonstrate that it *didn't* happen, which is itself derivative of being unable to prove that something happened while simultaneously not being able to demonstrate what event occurred in the given time and place instead.
In the case of Gray, we're unable to demonstrate any culpable behavior on the part of the officers, and we're also unable to explain what specifically lead to the event of Gray's death. Maybe the officer reached back and shoved him into the bolt; maybe he tried to struggle free of restraints and tipped himself over onto it; maybe something else happened. Nobody knows.
It's also notable you can't live on fresh carrots. 25%-40% carbohydrate intake is tolerable (varies between people): above that and you start producing cholesterols that stick to your arterial walls and thicken your blood. Diets high in fats--even saturated fats--are healthier than high-carbohydrate diets; high-protein diets are arguably more healthy than high-fat diets, except that ingesting more than ~300g (1200kcal) of protein per day exceeds what your kidneys can handle, and can cause poisoning. You need fat (especially cholesterol) to absorb vitamins anyway, so an appreciable amount of fat in your diet is healthy.
None of this matters at all when you're eating 3,500kcal/day and spend 18 hour sitting on your ass. "Diets high in fats" has a limited connotation in that context: if half your intake is fat, that's only 100g, and some of those TastyCakes have like 42g of saturated fat alone; you can't exactly shove fruit pies down your throat all day without ingesting tons and tons of calories. A 66g Bratwurst has 17g of fat and is pretty fatty (78% fat); an egg (hen) is only 58% fat; and a steak is 64% fat and 36% protein at 250g, meaning you can eat about 3 of those and get all 2,000kcal for the day. Mashed potatoes are 29% fat (they contain butter and heavy cream) and 65% carbohydrate.
In the end, a diet of steak and potatoes is going to give you 55% fat, 15% carbohydrate (low), and 30% protein--which is actually not horrible for you. You can get away with more carbs and less fat (45% fat, 25% carbohydrate, 30% protein) by replacing some of the steak with beans or vegetables of some kind. In any case, steak and sausage are heavy fat contenders, and these high-fat (55%) diets are ~120g of fat per day; any reasonably-diverse diet at 2,000kcal is going to come under 100g of fat, and it's not going to turn you into a giant lard-ass with clogged arteries and diabeetus.
But yes, as you've probably observed, give people salt, fat, and sugar, and they'll eat 4,000kcal/day of potato chips and popcorn.
The problem is with endless compensation due to logical ownership of something which no longer costs practically anything.
True, and how do you differentiate?
Physical property theft always has a victim and loss. Copying something illegally is technically theft but the effects are nowhere near physical property theft.
I just demonstrated that it's the same thing. Producing a physical object requires R&D, and also large amounts of human labor time per copy. Intellectual property like movies tends to require *much* more human labor investment up-front to create the blueprint, as it were, and only a tiny amount of human labor per copy. That means stealing a car involves stealing $26,000 of actual work that went into each car *after* $1,000,000 to design the damned thing; while copying movies involves looking bluntly at $180,000,000 of actual work and rolling your eyes because you making a copy moved $0 of tangible object out of anyone's hands.
How do you compare the 200,000 man-hours spent laboring to create a video game to the thousands of hours spent laboring to create a car? The answer is, apparently, you ignore them and focus on the 20 man-seconds of labor taken to create the plastic disc *holding* the video game.
Most of your argument is hand-waving and anger at people you assume don't do any work and have more money than you. Nothing concrete, nothing philosophical besides whining that they don't deserve anything. You also argue that people pirating are more likely to buy things anyway--a muddy argument equating positive to negative rather--and that you "can't stop piracy", and so shouldn't try; that wanders away from the discussion of whether or not people who worked deserve to be compensated for their work, and whether taking their work without compensation is tangentially related to theft.
A lot of things are observable from the Ice Bucket Challenge.
First: ALS affects a tiny, tiny fraction of the population. 36,000 people worldwide. Diverting resources to ALS diverts those resources away from efforts which affect hundreds of millions of people. That means you get to pat your back for pulling bread from 10,000 starving childrens's mouths to feed ONE starving child somewhere a few miles away instead. (Okay, that's not the right metaphor; it's more like you diverted the truck to another state before it even got there, which would necessarily have to bring *all* the food on that particular truck with it; if you were going to take out of people's hands, you wouldn't really take so much. The image is more powerful, though.)
Second, people are prone to pat themselves on the back for finding not-definitely-useful information. They found a gene link. That's a link, but not necessarily causative. This could mean basically nothing, or it could be a tiny step in a long, long chain of things. Economically, this kind of research becomes less-expensive and faster with technology: tiny steps like this every decade give way to steps like this every few months; with the overtaking pace, you can actually just wait for technology to catch up, then *start* your research, and actually arrive at the end point at the same time as a research base started 40 years prior. If this turns out nothing for the next several years, and then an explosion of genetic research techniques appears, then this particular research was an enormous waste of time and resources.
Third, as you observed, everyone wants to imagine they helped. They wave their hands around, put a dollar in a bin with 18 billion dollars, and claim they were part of something when their entire effort was a skipped trip to the vending machine.
The difference between theft and copyright infringement is one of immense philosophical complexity.
Deprivation of property is nothing more than deprivation of the labor entailed to obtain that property. You bought a car? That cost you $28,000, which you worked for; but why did you work for $28,000? Because the car salesmen spend time seeking out, talking with, and servicing customers; the cashiers spend time being available to take your money; there are delivery drivers who must bring SIX CARS from far-off to stock them in this enormous 500-car lot; someone makes those cars in the factories; someone makes the steel, the paint, and the plastics; someone mines for the ore, and produces the power required to make those things. These are all human labors, time which must be taken to make the thing.
If someone steals your car, they steal the outcome of nearly $28,000 of labor. It's probably more like $24,000-$26,000, and only that high because the automaker has negotiated for bulk purchase of steel and paint at razor-thin margins ($1 billion of profits at 0.1% vs no profits at your usual 15%, Mr. Carnergie), and the steelmaker has used the promise of an enormous contract to bid down the ore and coal miners on contingency of receiving and maintaining the automaker contract. These people's labors also went into production (organization and operation of production, which means less total human labor than self-organized artisans). You have to fork over all that cash to get a new one, or else insurance has to fork it over (and insurance rates are slightly higher than costs, meaning the cost of basic levels of theft is paid by the insured).
Theft isn't about tangible, physical objects; it's about time.
On the other hand, if you make copies of a work, that deprives no one of tangible property. There is no cost of labor of pressing a DVD for which you have stolen a man's life and livelihood; there is no cost of labor of shipping which you have taken without payment; there is no plastic or metal or ink which a man has made with his time and for which you have failed to pay. Why, then, would it be theft?
Movies are made by the labor of screen writers, actors, special effects artists, directors, producers, marketers, musicians, sound engineers, construction workers, fuel miners, energy producers, iron and steel manufacturers, and so forth. Seemingly-endless human labor time is poured into the production of a small piece of information, a tiny thing which you can reproduce with hardly a fraction of a penny's worth of additional human labor.
It is for this effort they demand compensation.
What justification do you have for depriving these people of compensation for their labor?
The only justification is that your particular action doesn't cost them anything, directly. They only labored at what we price at millions of dollars of wages to produce a thing which can then be copied for a fraction of nothing; you only took that fraction of nothing. They expect, for their work, some form of compensation, and you don't see why you should give them such a thing.
That is the philosophical comparison of theft of property versus theft of intellectual property. That is why it's called "intellectual property": it really takes the labor of a man to make it.
I never get out of my car. Just drive up, switch to FM, and turn the engine off.
Those chemicals are fat and salt. Your body needs calories and you evolved in a calorie-poor world. Hell, it's always calorie-poor; we expand until population exceeds our ability to scale production, and create a poor class. When we uncap this, we expand more.
Brilliant idea. You should get off the Internet and move far away from civilized human beings.
I've done that to a few services in Linux distributions, third-party Windows utilities (FoolProof Security for Windows 98), and other stuff that just won't go away.
It'd be even better if they started covering the amount of economic and environmental damage every Olympic games causes to its host. The hosts think they're going to get a $500 billion tourism industry overnight, and expend tens of billions of dollars (a drop in the bucket for the U.S. Federal government; kind of hefty for a U.S. state; crippling for a city, U.S. or otherwise) ripping out forests, tearing down housing, excising shopping centers, and doing whatever else they need to do to place and supply an enormous stadium. Then it's over, and the stadium rots; tourism doesn't expand; and the heavy cost of hosting the Olympics turns into a long-term burden with no economic upside.
The media doesn't cover this because the Olympics gives them a big ad spot to sell, and destroying the Olympics would cost them. Independent print-only online media with no broadcast sponsor could cover it, and they would get minimal circulation. The only way to hit the public mind is to get CNN, Fox, and NBC.
Reading comprehension, dude. This is a list:
The same thing with Freddie Gray here, the guy who got shot in his car in front of his kid, the black dude with the autistic kid, and everyone else the cops basically walked up to and shot
Do you see the commas? Those are separators in list items. It doesn't say, "Freddie Gray--the guy who got shot in his car"; it says, "(1)Freddie Gray here, (2)the guy who got shot in his car in front of his kid, (3)the black dude with the autistic kid, and (4)everyone else the cops basically walked up to and shot." That's four separate items.
Is English not your primary language? Perhaps you should educate yourself before attempting to interact with people speaking English, as it makes you look ignorant when you come up with some badly-mangled interpretation of what's been said. That goes as well for the word salad you're using in place of proper English, although at least it's readable (the last thing in your post is a declaration that education makes a person appear ignorant).
People would rather panic about 0.000001mg of formaldehyde in their water than admit glyphosate is less-toxic than table salt.
You mean one-button controllers instead of something competent?
This is a real concern, as opposed to bullshit "ethical" concerns which are just there for the group circle-jerk.
We live in a world where people define right-and-wrong separate from a group of procedural rules that tell them when to ignore those right-and-wrong things and declare non-wrong things inappropriate while doing non-right things because it would be unethical to not commit some atrocity.
Ethics are why we don't abort a non-sentient blastocyst with no brain, instead demanding it develop into a heavily-neglected child of an abusive welfare family that tried to do the right thing by avoiding creating an animal that would just grow up to be a tormented drug criminal raised in an addiction household.
Ethics are why we don't experiment with *cells* because they happen to be *human* cells, even though such experimentation could save lives and end real suffering (caveat: embryonic stem cell research is, thus far, patently useless and has little potential to cure anything; adult stem cell research has provided a great deal of medical advances).
Are they seriously preparing an argument against cheap food and the alleviation of poverty because it would be unethical to create an animal that, were it not SLAUGHTERED FOR FOOD, might not live a full life? Meat chickens are slaughtered after what, 42 days? Cornish hens after some 21 or 26 or something. The damn things live for 6 years; who cares if the clones are only capable of living for a year and a half? They'll be rolled in the eleven herbs and spices long before then!
I would imagine a driving mode which automatically reacts to the surroundings would avoid illegally impeding the flow of traffic by driving at the nominal speed rather than some arbitrary pre-determined speed.
Sales and use taxes, such as VAT, are one of the most-effective ways to eliminate jobs. Any state that has a sales tax or a VAT is already loony.
"Making money laundering harder" isn't really sensible. All implementations are hubris and rather inconvenient for model-citizens.
In the United States, carrying a certain sum of cash is indication of criminal activity. This is done to combat money laundering and drug trade. They might not be able to charge you with a crime, but they can seize your cash; it's called asset forfeiture. In Alabama, if the police pull you over for a broken tail light, they can demand you display your wallet contents (notably by way of demanding to see your license), and seize any cash if you have more than $100. United States border control looks for "large sums", which might be $2,000 or $5,000, notably if you don't declare that you have a "large sum"; the official definition is $10,000, but smaller sums become large sums by way of fuzzy laws (i.e. if you pull $9,995 from a bank, the bank has to report that you seem to be skirting the mandatory reporting law for transactions over $10,000, even though you didn't actually pull a legally-defined "large sum", because you seem to have specifically avoided pulling a large sum).
Hmmmm, repeatedly insisting that a solution that has failed to work repeatedly over the decades is the answer to all our problems.
Overland transport failed to work for thousands of years. Too expensive. Making steel was laughably labor-intensive--some time in the 1800s, we invented a hot-blast furnace, and suddenly the same wages that paid for 400 tonnes of steel were all that the making of 84,000 tonnes of steel incurred. Once that happened, someone invented a cheap way to roll steel into rails, and we got railroads. Why do you think moving things by truck and train is called "shipping" if ships aren't involved?
Feudalism was the only viable system in extremely-poor economies.
Inflation has eaten our economy alive.
My Universal Social Security is funded by a separate flat income tax on all taxable income. This automatically adjusts for inflation, but not for productivity: it's always the exact same proportion of the per-capita income, and it increases in buying power year over year.
I know how all of this works. I've done back-projections to show when and why the plan I developed doesn't work, when it became viable, and what long-term behaviors it shows over time in real-world conditions using real-world populations and total incomes.
You still seem to ignore the whole "taking $1 trillion of tax burden off the middle- and lower-classes" thing. Are you in favor of taxing the middle classes as much as you can squeeze from them?
Tokens are obtainable. They're afraid someone will obtain your phone, and advocate using another non-phone thing someone could obtain instead. It's weird.
Not even that. The Docker control system (docker-compose, or any of the clustering stuff) should mount keys and configurations as a volume, which you handle through a separate supply chain (which is better-controlled).
How about instead of "giving" them money we continue to have jobs so that people can work.
Jobs are paid for by the consumer. Jobs are created by consumer capacity to buy. Consumer capacity to buy is a factor of the consumer's income (paid for by other consumer spending) and the cost of goods (which, at a minimum, must cover the wages of the labor-hours involved in producing those goods).
Unemployment baselines are a natural part of an economy that's grown population until it hit scarcity, then stopped growing. New technology makes products cheaper, moving some people out of their jobs temporarily, then allowing the consumer to use the extra money left over after prices (eventually) come down (fail to keep up with inflation) to buy new things, creating replacement jobs. When new technology also allows scaling production up without scaling the required labor *faster* (15% more workers to make 10% more goods), scarcity is uncapped, and the population can again grow.
Fiat currency is backed by production. It's backed by the useful output of labor. That whole pile of income rolled over every year represents everything that was made and sold. Print twice as much money and make (and sell) twice as much stuff and you have zero change in the buying-power of a dollar; print twice as much money and make the same amount of stuff and your dollar is worth half as much.
Why did they make SNAP all card based and put restrictions on what you can purchase? Because an extremely large percentage of people were not purchasing food for their kids, they were drinking and smoking the money away.
This is why I specify against a cash payment per child, and instead for an EBT system for children of low-income families: avoids *increasing* the risk in a basic income system above current baseline. This risk is low (and more personal) for individuals receiving payments for themselves: when it's their own stomach that's rumbling, they'll look for food.
Taking from the productive people to give to the unproductive incentivizes non-productivity.
Current welfare is taken away when you become productive. That means you might get $10.50/hr of welfare services and have FedEx offer you a $10.75/hr job; that's a quarter an hour, and fuck that. Universal Social Security continues to pay, and the top tax bracket is still only 40%, so a $10.75/hr job is still actually adding more than $8.50/hr to your pocket after taxes versus not working.
Mind you, I'm working off a model that costs $1 trillion less, counting the downward movement of income as a "cost", so the taxes taken are relatively close to the modern model and the final result is *much* less taxes retained. A single individual with a $150,000 income has $3,800 more money per year under my system.
All that and she still has time to file her nails?