There are no dietary needs that cannot work on a vegan diet, because chemically, it is possible to extract all necessary nutrients from plants and bacteria. Ok, but how realistic is that? Well, for a lot of people, you can just buy such things. Suppose one in ten thousand cannot practically be vegan for some true physiological reason, and one in ten cannot be vegan for some socio-economic reason. Is that really an argument against others going vegan?
The wild plants thing is irrelevant, because we invented this thing called agriculture.
Commonly eaten vegetables cause less pollution than commonly eaten livestock. Yes, veganism is an absolute position, but it doesn't claim to be better for the environment 100% of the time. It's a heuristic that is better maybe 90% of the time. Eating imported palm oil is probably worse for the environment than eating locally sourced crickets and mealworms. But honesty, who does that? People who complain about vegans actually want to eat stuff like bacon hamburgers and shit, and you are going to have a hard time cherrypicking results that claim THAT is better for the environment.
You pay x% on profits after your expenses, period.
Writing off expenses is pretty much the biggest loophole there is. A company will find ways of expensing everything. And this encourages corporations to pay their executives giant salaries. Tax on
If every student should learn programming, than they should also learn astrophysics, and architecture, and rocket science, and medicine, and every other job there is.
Wrong, because you need programming to do astrophysics, architecture, and rocket science(--not sure about medicine...certainly for research at least--), and not the other way around.
Your opinion is different, but you haven't said anything factually contrary to Mike Hearn. Does it really take 6-14 hours for the blockchain to clear? (I don't know, I'm not in the game.) My understanding is that Bitcoin is getting too popular for its size limits. My understanding is that under the libertarian free-market philosophy, this is simply a case of demand outstripping supply, and not a problem, since the price will increase until demand levels out. The other idea which Hearn et al are pursuing is to increase the supply. The drawback is that it will be incompatible with the old system. It sounds like, objectively, the new system is better, but the old guards will prefer the old system because they already have very significant assets invested in it.
You mean "Incorrect". You know moderations are only allowed to start with "in-" You know, to along with our other moderations inconsequential, inflammatory, incongruous, incessant, insightful, interesting, informative, inane, insipid.
Only if the lender uses force (including state force) to recoup a debt. The state should not be helping lenders to recoup debts. Then the legal concept of bankruptcy would be unnecessary. Debtor can just not pay.
The problem with this (small societies) arrangement is that historically these different tribes end up killing each other. We formed large empires to bring some level of peace and stability over a larger area. And this requires imposing rules on everyone because different groups want different things and you can't have them fighting over it.
You could argue that this just shifts the conflicts to a higher level, now between empires. True, but it's not as bloody as tribal warfare.
Maybe instead of a mesh, use a liquid spray to trap particles. Maybe use some kind of vortex to centrifugally separate particulates. I don't know the answer. But I don't think there is no answer.
I think the word devastating is quite apt. Air pollution from road transportation causes early death of some 53000/yr in US [1]. Diesel pollution probably supplies some disproportionate contribution.
I don't think there's one single reason that dominates why I hate cars. There are many reasons which all contribute significantly, and space really isn't that high on the list. Pollution is a very big one but I think the constant danger factor is the biggest one. A lot of drivers are just assholes who purposefully endanger my life with their driving style just to prove some kind of point, which seems to be their ability to act with impunity with their bigger vehicle, because USA, that's why. And it's not just this minority of drivers that is the problem. All drivers are inattentive and dangerous (some more than others). Maybe if AI drivers replace humans, this problem will go away, but until then, every car is a threat to my personal safety and that adds stress to every commute.
So what is the problem with making free information more easily available? Voter fraud done by lone wolves as opposed to by political parties? That sounds like an improvement.
There are (reasonably) clear expectations on what is allowable in the Olympics. No enhancements, no doping (although supplements are a bit of a grey area). There is a little bit of arbitrariness required to make clear rules. But it's nowhere as bad as in Cyborg Olympics. Where's the limit? We can't have rocket cars with a little bit of human DNA thrown in there competing in the 100m dash. How do you clearly define what a cyborg is in a way that will hold up in light of rapidly increasing technology?
Slashdot Mirror
There are no dietary needs that cannot work on a vegan diet, because chemically, it is possible to extract all necessary nutrients from plants and bacteria. Ok, but how realistic is that? Well, for a lot of people, you can just buy such things. Suppose one in ten thousand cannot practically be vegan for some true physiological reason, and one in ten cannot be vegan for some socio-economic reason. Is that really an argument against others going vegan?
The wild plants thing is irrelevant, because we invented this thing called agriculture.
Commonly eaten vegetables cause less pollution than commonly eaten livestock. Yes, veganism is an absolute position, but it doesn't claim to be better for the environment 100% of the time. It's a heuristic that is better maybe 90% of the time. Eating imported palm oil is probably worse for the environment than eating locally sourced crickets and mealworms. But honesty, who does that? People who complain about vegans actually want to eat stuff like bacon hamburgers and shit, and you are going to have a hard time cherrypicking results that claim THAT is better for the environment.
If you are concerned about fertilizer runoff, you could go organic.
You pay x% on profits after your expenses, period.
Writing off expenses is pretty much the biggest loophole there is. A company will find ways of expensing everything. And this encourages corporations to pay their executives giant salaries. Tax on
If every student should learn programming, than they should also learn astrophysics, and architecture, and rocket science, and medicine, and every other job there is.
Wrong, because you need programming to do astrophysics, architecture, and rocket science(--not sure about medicine...certainly for research at least--), and not the other way around.
You know the best way to abolish corporate income taxes? By abolishing corporations.
Your opinion is different, but you haven't said anything factually contrary to Mike Hearn. Does it really take 6-14 hours for the blockchain to clear? (I don't know, I'm not in the game.) My understanding is that Bitcoin is getting too popular for its size limits. My understanding is that under the libertarian free-market philosophy, this is simply a case of demand outstripping supply, and not a problem, since the price will increase until demand levels out. The other idea which Hearn et al are pursuing is to increase the supply. The drawback is that it will be incompatible with the old system. It sounds like, objectively, the new system is better, but the old guards will prefer the old system because they already have very significant assets invested in it.
That was done in phase 0 testing.
Do they do animal testing with drugs like this on chimps or monkeys to ascertain this kind of safety ahead of time before giving it to humans?
RTFA
It's easy money. I know poor people who do this. It's kind of fucked up, but that's how it is.
There needs to be a mod option "Wrong".
You mean "Incorrect". You know moderations are only allowed to start with "in-"
You know, to along with our other moderations inconsequential, inflammatory, incongruous, incessant, insightful, interesting, informative, inane, insipid.
secret: your petitions are exponentially more effective when you include a check.
Only if the lender uses force (including state force) to recoup a debt. The state should not be helping lenders to recoup debts. Then the legal concept of bankruptcy would be unnecessary. Debtor can just not pay.
Did Palpatine use mind tricks to ascend to power and/or to turn Anakin, or was he just that devious?
The problem with this (small societies) arrangement is that historically these different tribes end up killing each other. We formed large empires to bring some level of peace and stability over a larger area. And this requires imposing rules on everyone because different groups want different things and you can't have them fighting over it.
You could argue that this just shifts the conflicts to a higher level, now between empires. True, but it's not as bloody as tribal warfare.
Corporations no longer operate for the greater good of a people but for shareholder value.
Hasn't it always been that way? At least, since Dodge vs. Ford Motor Co.?
Maybe instead of a mesh, use a liquid spray to trap particles. Maybe use some kind of vortex to centrifugally separate particulates. I don't know the answer. But I don't think there is no answer.
I think the word devastating is quite apt. Air pollution from road transportation causes early death of some 53000/yr in US [1]. Diesel pollution probably supplies some disproportionate contribution.
1. http://news.mit.edu/2013/study...
Should pollution be measured in g/km, or number of people killed/km? How should we measure the latter?
We should measure the former since that's the most direct measurement, and leave the mortality analysis for another study.
I don't think there's one single reason that dominates why I hate cars. There are many reasons which all contribute significantly, and space really isn't that high on the list. Pollution is a very big one but I think the constant danger factor is the biggest one. A lot of drivers are just assholes who purposefully endanger my life with their driving style just to prove some kind of point, which seems to be their ability to act with impunity with their bigger vehicle, because USA, that's why. And it's not just this minority of drivers that is the problem. All drivers are inattentive and dangerous (some more than others). Maybe if AI drivers replace humans, this problem will go away, but until then, every car is a threat to my personal safety and that adds stress to every commute.
Or people could develop better filters. People who claim that there is only one real solution lack imagination.
Or worse, in 150 years we discover that the planet that the generation ship is headed for is unsuitable for some reason.
So what is the problem with making free information more easily available?
Voter fraud done by lone wolves as opposed to by political parties? That sounds like an improvement.
This drone delivery thing is just PR to make Amazon look like a futuristic, forward-thinking company. It's not actually going to be used.
There are (reasonably) clear expectations on what is allowable in the Olympics. No enhancements, no doping (although supplements are a bit of a grey area). There is a little bit of arbitrariness required to make clear rules. But it's nowhere as bad as in Cyborg Olympics. Where's the limit? We can't have rocket cars with a little bit of human DNA thrown in there competing in the 100m dash. How do you clearly define what a cyborg is in a way that will hold up in light of rapidly increasing technology?