Which is why fuel-cell powered notebooks are interesting.
That is interesting. A notebook with the cell processor running off of fuel. Who would have thought of that? Is that what the new PS3 is? Did they design this so that you don't stay in closed room playing games too long?
it's mostly our irrational fear of everything nuclear
Some are afraid, but I noticed with both the Spider-Man and Hulk series, nuclear stuff was the cause of those characters in the comic books, but in the movies the thing that caused the damage was the "fear" of the time, bio-engineering. In other words, people were afraid of nuclear stuff back then, now they are more afraid of bio-engineering stuff.
And unless you want to subject passengers to uncomfortable amounts of G-force, your acceleration has to be relatively slow
Maybe they should talk to George Lucas and the guys at ILM. The Millenium Falcon went to Faster-Than-Light speeds and they didn't seem to have any problems.
Its this long slow acceleration at subsonic speeds that will account for most of the drag, not the relatively short period of time that you spend at Mach 3
They could get around this easily by going around the earth twice. That way you spend more time at Mach 3, and since that is where you save more fuel, more time at mach 3 means more savings.
But that's the point. The free-market works whether we fight each other or not, it works whether we are good or not, it works whether we are greedy or not. The only time it doesn't work is when one of the parties is dishonest (e.g., I pay with counter-feit bills, I recieve counter-feit products, but those are both crimes to which we have to answer and there is recourse so that is stopped). Socialism and communism ONLY work when everyone is not greedy. That's a nice ideal, and would certainly be a lovely world to live in, but that's not the world we do live in, so why try to force it on people who don't want to do it? If the people wanted it, they wouldn't have to fight the wars that happened in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. And don't tell me that Korea and Vietnam were wars only because of US involvement. My father-in-law was a general for the south vietnamese. That war started long before the US decided to get involved.
That's an excellent question. My question is how did it happen? There are certainly some situations where the six-figure medical bill is unavoidable. Those are fairly rare. But a man who needs a heart transplant because of the foods he ate and the lifestyle he lived is a different story. Someone who paid for cigarettes and then found out they have lung cancer should have known better. Someone who paid for their precious alcohol and then develops cirosis of the liver (I know I spelled that wrong) shouldn't be too surprised. People who think drugs are OK then end up in the ER should not be amazed at their new-found bills. People who eat junk food and watch TV all day and then get awe-struck at their poor health in later life should be slapped.
But the answer you are looking for is Insurance. Most people deal with pending six-figure medical bills with insurance. Then, if that's not enough, they get a loan. Then they pay that loan off. And that means they can't afford that new car or TV or cable service or they have to shop around for better deals on food and clothes while they are paying it off. What's wrong with that? I was almost able to afford a new computer this past winter. Then I got viral meningitis and my savings totally went to that and then some more. I might not get a new compy for another year. Oh well. I couldn't have prevented it, but it was something that happened. My life is not much worse for it. I survived and put off the luxuries of life for some time.
Some won't. That's why there is the ADA, charities, and the like, for those who just can't.
* Every man will always remain able to fish.
Very few always remain able, that's why there are savings plans, IRAs, and as a last resort (the way it was intended) social security.
* There will always be good weather to fish.
Weather goes in cycles. Sometimes it's good, somtimes, it's not. Most of the times it's good. If it's not, move.
* No one will starve while learning how to fish.
The original idea behind welfare was to help people get on their feet. Not be their feet. My wife's family was on welfare for a couple years. Now they own their own house and all the kids old enough have gone to good colleges. My wife has her bachelor's and is working on a Master's degree. It helped while they "learned", now they have learned.
* There are enough good fishing spots for everyone.
This is hard to carry over in the analogy of fishing, but having everyone being able to "fish" creates more places to "fish". That is, more people have jobs, more people have money, more people will pay other people for products and services.
* No one is being kept from accessing a fishing spot by others.
Hence we need to make sure Monopolies don't exist and that starting a business isn't difficult. We need to eliminate hoops to get a job, etc.
* There are enough fish around for everyone to catch.
This was my personal favorite. If there aren't enough fish to catch, what is the gov't going to give? I'll bypass the analogy. If there isn't enough wealth, who does the gov't steal from to give to the poor? But if everyone is working and making money, why does the gov't need to give?
Europeans know their government spends tons on charity so they spend less themselves.
This may or may not be true. But it's faulty logic. I could just as easily say that the European governments spend tons on charity because the people won't do it themselves. Or maybe the people spend less on charity simply because they can't due to high taxes. As an example one might spend $10 on charity but because the gov't took $9 in taxes and they feel $1 isn't enough they don't donate that $1. Therefore only $9 (assuming no loss in other gov't spending) goes to charity.
The collapse was thus blamed on the system rather than the underlying infrastructure and corruption problems
there has never been a communist country
Could it be that there never will be, simply because it's not possible so long as humans are involved. The reason I and many others support the free market is that it takes human greed into account, but doesn't fall apart if greed disappears. Communism assumes the rich are the only greedy and that by taking their stuff and giving it to the poor they will suddenly not be greedy. It also assumes the poor are not rich because they are not greedy and they will never be greedy. But most are because most people are.
(/wonders what Epistax will do when it figures out America's "most socialist institution" is very heavily free market based and totally voluntary)
At first I thought that maybe 'querty' was a new layout for keyboards. So I did a google search on it and found nothing. Then I just realized that spelling has gotten so bad that people can't even type letters in a row. It's QWERTY. It's named for the layout of the letters on the keyboard such that the Q, the W, the E, the R, the T and the Y are in a row. For crying out the freaking loud, you sir, fail it big time.
And that is different than the boss how? The boss got the highest he was able to make the worker work/buyer buy without losing the contract. What's the difference?
When did I ever say let's give money to the rich through tax breaks? Never. Less gov't all the way around for everybody.
But let's look at your argument the way you formed it and pretend that is what we are talking about. So the rich guy goes and buys an SUV. The money then goes through the same cycle, and eventually trickles down and back up and everywhere in between. What's the problem.
And many of you are still missing my main point. Which is not economics or business practices. It is this: Why should the gov't force these decisions on people? Why can't I get a tax break so that I can donate it to the charity or even person that I see fit? The money will be used much more effectively and not lost in some gov't beauracracy.
It's not a flaw in my argument. My argument is the rich get richer without making the poor poorer. The flaw in your argument, if there is one, is that you think that being poor is a bad thing. I am where you talk about. I am poor. So I don't get a new car every year. I don't get a new computer every year. I do have a place over my head and food on the table for the which I am thankful. And there are people out there without those things. So let's all chip in and help them, you (Some Llama) and me(Chosen Reject). If you can help, do so. If you don't because you can't, then we all understand. If you don't because you won't, too bad for you.
Does ownership of the means of production by the few not force people to work for the owners in order to eat?
No it doesn't. Like I said earlier, I went to the jungles of Vietnam for a month. There isn't anybody there that I would consider rich at all. I am considered poor in the US, but I am much more well off than any of the people I stayed with. And yet they aren't working for any owners other than themselves in order to eat.
Yet they are poor. So a lesson learned here is this. Having a lot of rich people around is good. Look at industrial nations, like the US, UK, Australia, Japan, etc. You find the poor in those places aren't nearly as poor as those in Vietnam, China, or Africa. Some people want to make everybody richer by eliminating the rich. I say nobody is richer that way, there are only more people with less money to go around. I want poor people who are better off. This is done by having the rich around. Wouldn't you agree?
Someday I hope to own my own home. If I want to eat, I will need to work for the owner(me) to do so. I work for a company right now. If I want to get paid I need to work for the owner of the company. If I don't like his terms or anyone elses, then I start my own business. If I want I can live off the fat of the land. But I will probably have to work for it even then.
And that is life. If you want something, work for it. Strive hard to get it. You might not get everything, though. But whoever said you will? Who said you are entitled to such? It sounds like you want to be fed without working. When has that ever been the case, and why should it be now? You want something? Then work for it.
If your basic needs aren't being met there are plenty of people out there willing to help. I can even chip in a bit every once in a while and do so when I can. Which is the original argument I made. If you are in need, I may be able to help, and there are others who are able and willing as well. But that is my and their choice. Don't give me a government that makes me, or anyone else, do it. It's really easy to give away other people's money. It takes someone a little bigger to give away their own.
So the person gets to go home, was fairly paid for his efforts, has food, and a home of his own. I claim he was fairly paid because if he wasn't then that is an entirely different subject. And by fair, I mean that the employee and employer agreed to the pay and the amount of work. What's the problem? Or did you think that because someone else got paid more than you that suddenly it's not fair.
The worker entered into an agreement and he is able to pay for the necesseties of life. He did his part and got his share. Why should he be entitled to anything more? You might ask the same for the boss. I would respond that it doens't matter. The worker already made the agreement and was justly and fairly compensated. The boss isn't necessarily entitled to anything more, but he took more because there was more to take. His getting richer did NOT make the worker poorer. The boss did not make up the profit by paying less to the worker.
But let's look at it again. You said: Their boss gets a little richer by charging more than they pay for their workers' efforts (ie profit). Profit is revenue - cost. If the boss made no profit then he did his part for no compensation. Therefore he would have been even more generous than the worker. The worker agreed to the pay in the idea that he would profit, but the boss did not get such reward.
But that last part is irrelevant. The rich did NOT get richer by taking money from the poor. They got richer, yes, but is the poor worker poorer? No.
Except that life and code are different. Life will find a way to exist, though it may not. Code does not do that. Life could find a way to exist in such a way that humans would all die. If your code is acting up like that then you just turn off the computer. If a strain of bacteria or a virus started to kill us all off...well, just take a malaria, TB, polio, HIV, AIDS, et al.
The base of ID's claim lies on the belief
that the design of some rudimentary living organisms are just too complex to be built by accident
I'm not saying anything for or against ID, but if they claim it couldn't happen by accident, then humans doing it on purpose doesn't really disclaim that.
The first half of your post I agree with. I want my government to do a few things, and unnecessarily aiding business is not one of them. I want them involved, sure. I want them to stop things like monopolies, oligopolies, price gouging, really bad environmental policies, and the like. I don't want them giving benefits to a business no matter how helpful that business is to the governments coffers. I do however, like the idea of helping small businesses. Maybe a tax break for the first year or two, I'm not sure. I haven't thought too deeply about it simply because I don't want to start a business.
At the same time that we cut the business ties with government, let's also stop doing things that cause problems, like people becoming dependent on welfare and social security. Are those things the governments responsibilites? No. They are the individuals first. Then the families, then maybe any communities that individual might be a part of. Of course, it is all voluntary, and I believe it should never go beyond the individual if that individual isn't putting forth his own effort, be it whatever it may be.
There may not be infinite resources or man power, but there is sufficient. Until the whole world is owned by a few and the rest of us are just slaves, then there may be problems, but life is still good and the problems are still solvable. Believe in humankind, don't just bash it and become more cynical. Just because we don't have economic theories like you mention, doesn't mean we are any more screwed than we are now.
Really? So when the rich buy a house, you are saying that the house was built by the rich? Most likely the company that did it was probably well-off as is the management. But they didn't build the house either. The workers did. They got paid as well. They rich also didn't install the plumbing and do the electrical work. Nor did the rich cut the trees down, make the PVC, or put insullation on the wires. Making the rich richer does make the poor richer. Just more slowly. Then you say relatively. Which I never discounted nor do I now. The richest man in the world is certainly much more rich than the poorest person in the world, but it's not just the extremes. The average wealth of the world is going up but the average poor (the true poor, not ones like me who the government considers poor) are still struggling to eat and house themselves. Hence I propose volunteer work and donations.
And they don't catch up.
It's a sad world when you can't catch up. But it's not terrible when it's only difficult. Education is a key, as is giving more as individuals. We as a world need to combat the problem. But "we" is defined as those who willingly do it, not those who are taxed are have laws that state they must.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you were trying to be funny, maybe not. Either way, you ought to be flogged.
Yes, yes I could. I would like him to make us all a nice quiche.
I'm not sure why this is flamebait. I was about to say the same thing.
Personally, I'd like to see Jean Claude Van Damme or Steven Seagal. /ducks
You should try any game from the Trackmania series. The physics is a little over the top but it is a very fun game (partly due to the physics).
That is interesting. A notebook with the cell processor running off of fuel. Who would have thought of that? Is that what the new PS3 is? Did they design this so that you don't stay in closed room playing games too long?
Some are afraid, but I noticed with both the Spider-Man and Hulk series, nuclear stuff was the cause of those characters in the comic books, but in the movies the thing that caused the damage was the "fear" of the time, bio-engineering. In other words, people were afraid of nuclear stuff back then, now they are more afraid of bio-engineering stuff.
Maybe they should talk to George Lucas and the guys at ILM. The Millenium Falcon went to Faster-Than-Light speeds and they didn't seem to have any problems.
Its this long slow acceleration at subsonic speeds that will account for most of the drag, not the relatively short period of time that you spend at Mach 3
They could get around this easily by going around the earth twice. That way you spend more time at Mach 3, and since that is where you save more fuel, more time at mach 3 means more savings.
But that's the point. The free-market works whether we fight each other or not, it works whether we are good or not, it works whether we are greedy or not. The only time it doesn't work is when one of the parties is dishonest (e.g., I pay with counter-feit bills, I recieve counter-feit products, but those are both crimes to which we have to answer and there is recourse so that is stopped). Socialism and communism ONLY work when everyone is not greedy. That's a nice ideal, and would certainly be a lovely world to live in, but that's not the world we do live in, so why try to force it on people who don't want to do it? If the people wanted it, they wouldn't have to fight the wars that happened in Russia, China, Korea, Vietnam, etc. And don't tell me that Korea and Vietnam were wars only because of US involvement. My father-in-law was a general for the south vietnamese. That war started long before the US decided to get involved.
Amen.
But the answer you are looking for is Insurance. Most people deal with pending six-figure medical bills with insurance. Then, if that's not enough, they get a loan. Then they pay that loan off. And that means they can't afford that new car or TV or cable service or they have to shop around for better deals on food and clothes while they are paying it off. What's wrong with that? I was almost able to afford a new computer this past winter. Then I got viral meningitis and my savings totally went to that and then some more. I might not get a new compy for another year. Oh well. I couldn't have prevented it, but it was something that happened. My life is not much worse for it. I survived and put off the luxuries of life for some time.
Some won't. That's why there is the ADA, charities, and the like, for those who just can't.
* Every man will always remain able to fish.
Very few always remain able, that's why there are savings plans, IRAs, and as a last resort (the way it was intended) social security.
* There will always be good weather to fish.
Weather goes in cycles. Sometimes it's good, somtimes, it's not. Most of the times it's good. If it's not, move.
* No one will starve while learning how to fish.
The original idea behind welfare was to help people get on their feet. Not be their feet. My wife's family was on welfare for a couple years. Now they own their own house and all the kids old enough have gone to good colleges. My wife has her bachelor's and is working on a Master's degree. It helped while they "learned", now they have learned.
* There are enough good fishing spots for everyone.
This is hard to carry over in the analogy of fishing, but having everyone being able to "fish" creates more places to "fish". That is, more people have jobs, more people have money, more people will pay other people for products and services.
* No one is being kept from accessing a fishing spot by others.
Hence we need to make sure Monopolies don't exist and that starting a business isn't difficult. We need to eliminate hoops to get a job, etc.
* There are enough fish around for everyone to catch.
This was my personal favorite. If there aren't enough fish to catch, what is the gov't going to give? I'll bypass the analogy. If there isn't enough wealth, who does the gov't steal from to give to the poor? But if everyone is working and making money, why does the gov't need to give?
This may or may not be true. But it's faulty logic. I could just as easily say that the European governments spend tons on charity because the people won't do it themselves. Or maybe the people spend less on charity simply because they can't due to high taxes. As an example one might spend $10 on charity but because the gov't took $9 in taxes and they feel $1 isn't enough they don't donate that $1. Therefore only $9 (assuming no loss in other gov't spending) goes to charity.
-1 faulty logic
there has never been a communist country
Could it be that there never will be, simply because it's not possible so long as humans are involved. The reason I and many others support the free market is that it takes human greed into account, but doesn't fall apart if greed disappears. Communism assumes the rich are the only greedy and that by taking their stuff and giving it to the poor they will suddenly not be greedy. It also assumes the poor are not rich because they are not greedy and they will never be greedy. But most are because most people are.
(/wonders what Epistax will do when it figures out America's "most socialist institution" is very heavily free market based and totally voluntary)
At first I thought that maybe 'querty' was a new layout for keyboards. So I did a google search on it and found nothing. Then I just realized that spelling has gotten so bad that people can't even type letters in a row. It's QWERTY. It's named for the layout of the letters on the keyboard such that the Q, the W, the E, the R, the T and the Y are in a row. For crying out the freaking loud, you sir, fail it big time.
And that is different than the boss how? The boss got the highest he was able to make the worker work/buyer buy without losing the contract. What's the difference?
But let's look at your argument the way you formed it and pretend that is what we are talking about. So the rich guy goes and buys an SUV. The money then goes through the same cycle, and eventually trickles down and back up and everywhere in between. What's the problem.
And many of you are still missing my main point. Which is not economics or business practices. It is this: Why should the gov't force these decisions on people? Why can't I get a tax break so that I can donate it to the charity or even person that I see fit? The money will be used much more effectively and not lost in some gov't beauracracy.
It's not a flaw in my argument. My argument is the rich get richer without making the poor poorer. The flaw in your argument, if there is one, is that you think that being poor is a bad thing. I am where you talk about. I am poor. So I don't get a new car every year. I don't get a new computer every year. I do have a place over my head and food on the table for the which I am thankful. And there are people out there without those things. So let's all chip in and help them, you (Some Llama) and me(Chosen Reject). If you can help, do so. If you don't because you can't, then we all understand. If you don't because you won't, too bad for you.
No it doesn't. Like I said earlier, I went to the jungles of Vietnam for a month. There isn't anybody there that I would consider rich at all. I am considered poor in the US, but I am much more well off than any of the people I stayed with. And yet they aren't working for any owners other than themselves in order to eat.
Yet they are poor. So a lesson learned here is this. Having a lot of rich people around is good. Look at industrial nations, like the US, UK, Australia, Japan, etc. You find the poor in those places aren't nearly as poor as those in Vietnam, China, or Africa. Some people want to make everybody richer by eliminating the rich. I say nobody is richer that way, there are only more people with less money to go around. I want poor people who are better off. This is done by having the rich around. Wouldn't you agree?
Someday I hope to own my own home. If I want to eat, I will need to work for the owner(me) to do so. I work for a company right now. If I want to get paid I need to work for the owner of the company. If I don't like his terms or anyone elses, then I start my own business. If I want I can live off the fat of the land. But I will probably have to work for it even then.
And that is life. If you want something, work for it. Strive hard to get it. You might not get everything, though. But whoever said you will? Who said you are entitled to such? It sounds like you want to be fed without working. When has that ever been the case, and why should it be now? You want something? Then work for it.
If your basic needs aren't being met there are plenty of people out there willing to help. I can even chip in a bit every once in a while and do so when I can. Which is the original argument I made. If you are in need, I may be able to help, and there are others who are able and willing as well. But that is my and their choice. Don't give me a government that makes me, or anyone else, do it. It's really easy to give away other people's money. It takes someone a little bigger to give away their own.
The worker entered into an agreement and he is able to pay for the necesseties of life. He did his part and got his share. Why should he be entitled to anything more? You might ask the same for the boss. I would respond that it doens't matter. The worker already made the agreement and was justly and fairly compensated. The boss isn't necessarily entitled to anything more, but he took more because there was more to take. His getting richer did NOT make the worker poorer. The boss did not make up the profit by paying less to the worker.
But let's look at it again. You said: Their boss gets a little richer by charging more than they pay for their workers' efforts (ie profit). Profit is revenue - cost. If the boss made no profit then he did his part for no compensation. Therefore he would have been even more generous than the worker. The worker agreed to the pay in the idea that he would profit, but the boss did not get such reward.
But that last part is irrelevant. The rich did NOT get richer by taking money from the poor. They got richer, yes, but is the poor worker poorer? No.
Except that life and code are different. Life will find a way to exist, though it may not. Code does not do that. Life could find a way to exist in such a way that humans would all die. If your code is acting up like that then you just turn off the computer. If a strain of bacteria or a virus started to kill us all off...well, just take a malaria, TB, polio, HIV, AIDS, et al.
I'm not saying anything for or against ID, but if they claim it couldn't happen by accident, then humans doing it on purpose doesn't really disclaim that.
-1 Faulty logic.
At the same time that we cut the business ties with government, let's also stop doing things that cause problems, like people becoming dependent on welfare and social security. Are those things the governments responsibilites? No. They are the individuals first. Then the families, then maybe any communities that individual might be a part of. Of course, it is all voluntary, and I believe it should never go beyond the individual if that individual isn't putting forth his own effort, be it whatever it may be.
There may not be infinite resources or man power, but there is sufficient. Until the whole world is owned by a few and the rest of us are just slaves, then there may be problems, but life is still good and the problems are still solvable. Believe in humankind, don't just bash it and become more cynical. Just because we don't have economic theories like you mention, doesn't mean we are any more screwed than we are now.
And they don't catch up.
It's a sad world when you can't catch up. But it's not terrible when it's only difficult. Education is a key, as is giving more as individuals. We as a world need to combat the problem. But "we" is defined as those who willingly do it, not those who are taxed are have laws that state they must.
This would be true if criminals could even start to figure out that they shouldn't leave finger prints.