The point I was making is that being productive is not as lucrative as exploiting the productivity of others.
But let's look at Woz's $100M fortune, then. Did he make most of that money by doing productive work at Apple, or was it instead a result of the astronomical valuation of Apple stock over the many years since 1987 when he last did any work at Apple?
So sure, let's say that Woz making two orders of magnitude less money than his business "partner" nonetheless puts the two of them in the same financial bracket. Then consider that an overwhelming majority of even Woz's money came not from his work at Apple but from financial investments in Apple. Are we saying that holding onto shares of stock is productive work?
I like to think that the Chinese people are rational agents.
I don't understand this religious devotion to economic growth. Yes, we all like nice things, and economic growth has been responsible for most nice things we have today. However, people seem to have forgotten that economic growth is only desirable as long as it provides us nice things. Economic growth is the means, not the ends.
If economic growth is providing us with nice things alongside stuff like unbreathable air, sour oceans, and sinking coastlines, it's a rational proposition to do a cost-benefit analysis. At some point, the nice things will be outweighed by the shit sandwiches. At some point, rational agents will reflect on their pursuit of economic growth, and will stop shitting on their own parade, of their own volition.
This is already happening today in China, where the truly absurd levels of air pollution have become undeniable. They're no longer building new coal plants (in developed areas), moving to synthetic natural gas (holy oxymoron batman!) instead. Of course, this will cut particulate pollution (smog) with the unfortunate side effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. However, this is still a good example of rational concerns causing rational people to "halt economic growth" because of environmental issues, all on their own. No need for me to "go try halting" anything, rational people will do this themselves.
I'm sure nothing has changed in the past 50 years, of course...
I didn't realize that sugar prices only recently spiked. Also, I didn't know that the trend to move this country from sugar to high fructose corn syrup was a recent development. I was under the impression that it dates back to 1957, with widespread use as far back as the 1970s.
Previous years have very, very similar figures. Click on the country, and you'll see figures back to 1960.
Oh, that's great, all the way back to 1960. That will clearly show us the impact of the embargo that was enacted in, yea, you guessed it, 1960. Your figures have zero information on pre-embargo sugar production, so I'm sure they'll be very useful in quantifying the effects of the embargo.
The US has imposed tariffs on sugar imports, propping up domestic production of sugarcane (Hawaii), sugar beets, and corn. It, however, has NOTHING specifically to do with Cuba, as you claim.
It's obvious that many factors affect the price of fungible commodities. However, you don't explain how tariffs and domestic subsidies, both of which existed prior to the Cuban embargo, caused the price of sugar to spike in this country (and the associated move to non-sugar sweeteners) right around the time of the embargo.
Brazil *IS* the world's largest sugar producer, has been for many years, is very willing to export to the USA, and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CUBA.
Yes, they are, now. Cuba used to be the world's largest sugar producer prior to the embargo. The fact that Brazil came up and took their crown as a result of US policy has nothing to do with the fact that US policy made sugar considerably more expensive for Americans than it used to be.
If it stops where it is, it might be in the wrong lane at a sharp turn. Getting smacked by some other disaster you didn't see isn't necessarily an improvement over the possibility of going over a cliff that might not be there.
If you lose visibility while driving your car, you just take your hands off the wheel and your foot off the brakes? That's a novel approach to life.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the Earth's biosphere got along just fine without us dramatically boosting the atmospheric CO2 content. I have yet to hear any arguments that the industrial revolution prevented some sort of "other disaster", or even any potential mechanisms that could explain how that could be possible. Even the craziest of deniers don't make claims like that, instead focusing on economic factors. There's a whole lot of false equivalence going on here, actually. The alarmists have, in excruciating detail, described how pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the air will bring about environmental disaster. The deniers have not, in any detail, described how pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the air is preventing any environmental disaster.
But a lot of them are such simply because climate alarmists can't be bothered to make a case for why we should do something. It's reasonable that if we're to consider mitigation plans, we should also consider other choices, particularly, the one of doing nothing about the problem.
That's the problem. We are doing something. We're pumping lots of shit into the air. The alarmists are suggesting we stop doing that. Your idea of doing nothing about the problem is more accurately stated as continuing to change the composition of the atmosphere, which doesn't have quite the same cautious sound as "do nothing".
Indeed. The analogy would be better if the car had no windshield, or if the windshield was painted over.
The climate change "alarmists" are the passengers pointing out that the car appears to be moving at a high rate of speed, and that might not be such a great idea, considering we don't know where we're going. Sure, we may be cruising through an infinitely large empty parking lot. Or we may be heading towards a cliff. Considering the car holds the entirety of the world's human population, they're wary of cruising along at high speed.
The climate change "deniers" are the passengers going "WOOOOOO!!!!!!!!" like it was spring break. They enjoy the thrill of moving at a high rate of speed, and really couldn't care less that they can't see where they're going. They have faith that there's no way there could be a cliff up ahead, because, well, that would be inconvenient. They might have to stop the car, and that's just fucking unacceptable, cliffs be damned. They don't want to hear any radical ideas like suggestions to stop the car. That's a radical proposition, since the car's been cruising along for such a long time. A drastic change like stopping the car would only be warranted if we had 100% indisputable proof that we're heading for a cliff, and that the cliff is only two cars lengths ahead of us, and that the cliff is at least 200 feet high, and that Jesus isn't going to levitate the car to safety.
Cuba was once the worlds largest sugar exporter. Until the 1960s, the USA received 33% of their sugar imports from Cuba.
Also, I'd like to point out that fantastic table you link to is for 2014. Not sure how next year's sugar production estimates can explain why sugar prices have been steadily rising in the USA over the last half century, but you'd have us believe it's because Brazil will be the world's biggest sugar producer next year? Non sequitur much?
Government didn't make that happen, actually the very rich did. The rich got there by hiring productive workers to figure out innovative ways of making things simultaneously cheaper and better so that you'd buy from them instead of some other rich guy.
FTFY. Unless you've got examples of rich guys that actually, you know, do productive work.
Your first point is great. 2000 calories of sugar water and 2000 calories of protein mix will both turn into the very same 222 grams of fat if they're both fully metabolized and not expended. Of course, the sugar water is more likely to metabolize fully, but if anything, that's just support for the "it's just physics" argument. A metabolized calorie is a metabolized calorie, regardless of where it's from.
Your second point really just hones in on what the issue is here: metabolism. If you eat some wood chips, they probably aren't getting digested, so you're not going to get the full caloric value out of them. That "insoluble fiber" isn't being metabolized, and you're shitting it all out. Of course, this just further confirms that a metabolized calorie is a metabolized calorie, regardless of where it's from.
Your third point, however, has nothing to do with calorie counting and everything to do with psychology. "Satiety" doesn't have any impact on weight loss whatsoever. Whether you're not eating because you "feel full" or you're not eating because you're exercising your willpower, you're not eating. If you consume and metabolize 1000 calories because you feel like you're starving or you consume 1000 calories despite feeling full because you're a glutton, it's still 1000 calories. Satiety has no bearing on calories being calories.
That being said, I lost a quarter of my body weight over the last few years with only moderate exercise and small changes in my diet. I had a great experience using the MyFitnessPal Android app to track my calorie intake and my exercise. This really helped me identify high-calorie foods that I could cut from my routine and healthier alternatives that are still delicious. After a couple months of calorie counting, I stopped, having learned enough about the foods I enjoy to be able to estimate calories on the fly. Nowadays, I don't even think of calorie content; I just continue with the healthier routine I established. I attribute my weight loss solely to my devotion to the "myth" that CI-CO = dW. Sure, some people might not metabolize everything they eat fully. But there's no way that you're getting more than 400 calories from 100 grams of sugar unless your stomach has turned from a chemical reactor into a nuclear one.
I looked very carefully. You posted in reply to s.petry, who didn't mention anything about the US. s.petry in turn was posting in reply to girlintraining, who also didn't mention anything about the US. Perhaps you can help us by linking to this "post about a US thing" that you were supposedly answering, because it seems to have eluded Slashdot's message threading.
Also, this is a bit off topic, but I can't help but bring it up. You come across as an asshat. If this isn't intentional, then I highly recommend you work on your interpersonal skills. If it is intentional, then congratulations on a job while done.
Speaking of false assumptions... it turns out smokers (and even the obese) have a lower cost to our healthcare system. Surprise!
But let's get to the meat of the matter:
Bullshit, bullshit, BULLSHIT! Your problem is your problem, not mine
Are you suggesting that hospitals are no longer obligated to provide emergency care to uninsured/underinsured persons? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting the problem just to score points for your "healthcare bad!" side of the argument?
Just don't expect me to pay for your replacement lung or cancer treatment.
But... isn't that exactly what's been happening for decades? You're asking us to not expect business as usual, but you have not even hinted at why such an expectation is unreasonable. Hospitals provide emergency care to the uninsured/underinsured, and it's not because of Obamacare. This is an indisputable fact. Why is your argument phrased as opposition to Obamacare when it would be more clearly couched as opposition to the Hippocratic oath?
The root problem is that the ACA essentially forces me to pay for coverage I don't want
You're omitting the other part of the root problem: that hospitals are forced to provide emergency care to uninsured/underinsured persons that don't pay for coverage that they don't want.
Of course you don't like the idea of paying for coverage that you don't want. It stops you from being able to get "free healthcare", paid for by everyone else.
Slashdot Mirror
wear?
That was fucking beautiful. Funniest thing I've seen on slashdot in a long time. Thank you.
The point I was making is that being productive is not as lucrative as exploiting the productivity of others.
But let's look at Woz's $100M fortune, then. Did he make most of that money by doing productive work at Apple, or was it instead a result of the astronomical valuation of Apple stock over the many years since 1987 when he last did any work at Apple?
So sure, let's say that Woz making two orders of magnitude less money than his business "partner" nonetheless puts the two of them in the same financial bracket. Then consider that an overwhelming majority of even Woz's money came not from his work at Apple but from financial investments in Apple. Are we saying that holding onto shares of stock is productive work?
Draw Something.
"Libre" as opposed to "gratis".
The English language conflates two orthogonal concepts with the word "free".
I like to think that the Chinese people are rational agents.
I don't understand this religious devotion to economic growth. Yes, we all like nice things, and economic growth has been responsible for most nice things we have today. However, people seem to have forgotten that economic growth is only desirable as long as it provides us nice things. Economic growth is the means, not the ends.
If economic growth is providing us with nice things alongside stuff like unbreathable air, sour oceans, and sinking coastlines, it's a rational proposition to do a cost-benefit analysis. At some point, the nice things will be outweighed by the shit sandwiches. At some point, rational agents will reflect on their pursuit of economic growth, and will stop shitting on their own parade, of their own volition.
This is already happening today in China, where the truly absurd levels of air pollution have become undeniable. They're no longer building new coal plants (in developed areas), moving to synthetic natural gas (holy oxymoron batman!) instead. Of course, this will cut particulate pollution (smog) with the unfortunate side effect of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. However, this is still a good example of rational concerns causing rational people to "halt economic growth" because of environmental issues, all on their own. No need for me to "go try halting" anything, rational people will do this themselves.
I just realized you're the same guy from the sugar thread!
It's a small slashdot.
I'm sure nothing has changed in the past 50 years, of course...
I didn't realize that sugar prices only recently spiked. Also, I didn't know that the trend to move this country from sugar to high fructose corn syrup was a recent development. I was under the impression that it dates back to 1957, with widespread use as far back as the 1970s.
Previous years have very, very similar figures. Click on the country, and you'll see figures back to 1960.
Oh, that's great, all the way back to 1960. That will clearly show us the impact of the embargo that was enacted in, yea, you guessed it, 1960. Your figures have zero information on pre-embargo sugar production, so I'm sure they'll be very useful in quantifying the effects of the embargo.
The US has imposed tariffs on sugar imports, propping up domestic production of sugarcane (Hawaii), sugar beets, and corn. It, however, has NOTHING specifically to do with Cuba, as you claim.
It's obvious that many factors affect the price of fungible commodities. However, you don't explain how tariffs and domestic subsidies, both of which existed prior to the Cuban embargo, caused the price of sugar to spike in this country (and the associated move to non-sugar sweeteners) right around the time of the embargo.
Brazil *IS* the world's largest sugar producer, has been for many years, is very willing to export to the USA, and HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CUBA.
Yes, they are, now. Cuba used to be the world's largest sugar producer prior to the embargo. The fact that Brazil came up and took their crown as a result of US policy has nothing to do with the fact that US policy made sugar considerably more expensive for Americans than it used to be.
Steve Jobs was worth an estimated $8.3B in 2010.
Steve Wozniak is estimated to be worth $100M, which is about 1.2% of Jobs' wealth.
My point is made.
If it stops where it is, it might be in the wrong lane at a sharp turn. Getting smacked by some other disaster you didn't see isn't necessarily an improvement over the possibility of going over a cliff that might not be there.
If you lose visibility while driving your car, you just take your hands off the wheel and your foot off the brakes? That's a novel approach to life.
Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the Earth's biosphere got along just fine without us dramatically boosting the atmospheric CO2 content. I have yet to hear any arguments that the industrial revolution prevented some sort of "other disaster", or even any potential mechanisms that could explain how that could be possible. Even the craziest of deniers don't make claims like that, instead focusing on economic factors. There's a whole lot of false equivalence going on here, actually. The alarmists have, in excruciating detail, described how pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the air will bring about environmental disaster. The deniers have not, in any detail, described how pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the air is preventing any environmental disaster.
But a lot of them are such simply because climate alarmists can't be bothered to make a case for why we should do something. It's reasonable that if we're to consider mitigation plans, we should also consider other choices, particularly, the one of doing nothing about the problem.
That's the problem. We are doing something. We're pumping lots of shit into the air. The alarmists are suggesting we stop doing that. Your idea of doing nothing about the problem is more accurately stated as continuing to change the composition of the atmosphere, which doesn't have quite the same cautious sound as "do nothing".
Indeed. The analogy would be better if the car had no windshield, or if the windshield was painted over.
The climate change "alarmists" are the passengers pointing out that the car appears to be moving at a high rate of speed, and that might not be such a great idea, considering we don't know where we're going. Sure, we may be cruising through an infinitely large empty parking lot. Or we may be heading towards a cliff. Considering the car holds the entirety of the world's human population, they're wary of cruising along at high speed.
The climate change "deniers" are the passengers going "WOOOOOO!!!!!!!!" like it was spring break. They enjoy the thrill of moving at a high rate of speed, and really couldn't care less that they can't see where they're going. They have faith that there's no way there could be a cliff up ahead, because, well, that would be inconvenient. They might have to stop the car, and that's just fucking unacceptable, cliffs be damned. They don't want to hear any radical ideas like suggestions to stop the car. That's a radical proposition, since the car's been cruising along for such a long time. A drastic change like stopping the car would only be warranted if we had 100% indisputable proof that we're heading for a cliff, and that the cliff is only two cars lengths ahead of us, and that the cliff is at least 200 feet high, and that Jesus isn't going to levitate the car to safety.
Conversely, you're saying that it's easily done, and an ideal solution to this situation.
So can you explain why they're not pursuing this approach? Care to clarify why you think your brilliant idea just hasn't occurred to anyone at Google?
Nonsense, eh?
Cuba was once the worlds largest sugar exporter. Until the 1960s, the USA received 33% of their sugar imports from Cuba.
Also, I'd like to point out that fantastic table you link to is for 2014. Not sure how next year's sugar production estimates can explain why sugar prices have been steadily rising in the USA over the last half century, but you'd have us believe it's because Brazil will be the world's biggest sugar producer next year? Non sequitur much?
Government didn't make that happen, actually the very rich did. The rich got there by hiring productive workers to figure out innovative ways of making things simultaneously cheaper and better so that you'd buy from them instead of some other rich guy.
FTFY. Unless you've got examples of rich guys that actually, you know, do productive work.
Kibbutzes still exist, they create wealth, and their people are free to live their lives as they wish.
I'm fine with any of the criteria you suggest. Any reasonable criteria, really.
By any reasonable criteria, kibbutzes are successful.
The implementation of communism has never worked.
false
Please, give an example or two.
Somalia and Zimbabwe
They don't do communism any more.
No true scotsman
Rhetoric doesn't match reality. Film at 11. I have this vague suspicion that what you consider "capitalist" societies won't end up being such.
Cheeseburger in paradise. Random statement. Insert preemptively snarky comment here.
Ah, this again.
Counterexample.
Oh look. Hundreds of instances of communism. Successful instances.
A metabolized calorie is a metabolized calorie.
Your first point is great. 2000 calories of sugar water and 2000 calories of protein mix will both turn into the very same 222 grams of fat if they're both fully metabolized and not expended. Of course, the sugar water is more likely to metabolize fully, but if anything, that's just support for the "it's just physics" argument. A metabolized calorie is a metabolized calorie, regardless of where it's from.
Your second point really just hones in on what the issue is here: metabolism. If you eat some wood chips, they probably aren't getting digested, so you're not going to get the full caloric value out of them. That "insoluble fiber" isn't being metabolized, and you're shitting it all out. Of course, this just further confirms that a metabolized calorie is a metabolized calorie, regardless of where it's from.
Your third point, however, has nothing to do with calorie counting and everything to do with psychology. "Satiety" doesn't have any impact on weight loss whatsoever. Whether you're not eating because you "feel full" or you're not eating because you're exercising your willpower, you're not eating. If you consume and metabolize 1000 calories because you feel like you're starving or you consume 1000 calories despite feeling full because you're a glutton, it's still 1000 calories. Satiety has no bearing on calories being calories.
That being said, I lost a quarter of my body weight over the last few years with only moderate exercise and small changes in my diet. I had a great experience using the MyFitnessPal Android app to track my calorie intake and my exercise. This really helped me identify high-calorie foods that I could cut from my routine and healthier alternatives that are still delicious. After a couple months of calorie counting, I stopped, having learned enough about the foods I enjoy to be able to estimate calories on the fly. Nowadays, I don't even think of calorie content; I just continue with the healthier routine I established. I attribute my weight loss solely to my devotion to the "myth" that CI-CO = dW. Sure, some people might not metabolize everything they eat fully. But there's no way that you're getting more than 400 calories from 100 grams of sugar unless your stomach has turned from a chemical reactor into a nuclear one.
Well done! Job well done! Ah, serves me right :P
I looked very carefully. You posted in reply to s.petry, who didn't mention anything about the US. s.petry in turn was posting in reply to girlintraining, who also didn't mention anything about the US. Perhaps you can help us by linking to this "post about a US thing" that you were supposedly answering, because it seems to have eluded Slashdot's message threading.
Also, this is a bit off topic, but I can't help but bring it up. You come across as an asshat. If this isn't intentional, then I highly recommend you work on your interpersonal skills. If it is intentional, then congratulations on a job while done.
Cracker's "Low" was a great tune. Even better than the Crash Test Dummies' "Mmm mmm mmm mmm".
I mean, junkie cosmonauts? Makes me want to go searching for a dirty needle.
Hold me closer Tony Danza.
Count the head lice on the highway.
But, the CEO is the person who decides what products the company makes
engineers, designers, upper management
is responsible for making sure those products are built on time
middle management
and sell when they hit the market.
sales
They are the people who ultimately insure the company makes its payroll so workers have jobs and get paid.
accounting, payroll, human resources
If its a publicly traded company you can add on the massive burdens of answering to regulators
legal
shareholders
board of directors
and the media.
public relations, advertising
So... the CEO does nothing.
But let's get to the meat of the matter:
Bullshit, bullshit, BULLSHIT! Your problem is your problem, not mine
Are you suggesting that hospitals are no longer obligated to provide emergency care to uninsured/underinsured persons? Or are you deliberately misrepresenting the problem just to score points for your "healthcare bad!" side of the argument?
Just don't expect me to pay for your replacement lung or cancer treatment.
But... isn't that exactly what's been happening for decades? You're asking us to not expect business as usual, but you have not even hinted at why such an expectation is unreasonable. Hospitals provide emergency care to the uninsured/underinsured, and it's not because of Obamacare. This is an indisputable fact. Why is your argument phrased as opposition to Obamacare when it would be more clearly couched as opposition to the Hippocratic oath?
The root problem is that the ACA essentially forces me to pay for coverage I don't want
You're omitting the other part of the root problem: that hospitals are forced to provide emergency care to uninsured/underinsured persons that don't pay for coverage that they don't want.
Of course you don't like the idea of paying for coverage that you don't want. It stops you from being able to get "free healthcare", paid for by everyone else.
Here's a tiny violin.