"Materials are enriched in our gadgets when compared to ore."
True, but ore doesn't contain all the hazardous chemicals that exist in electronics. Dealing with the nasty by-products (i.e. safely) is going to be the major expense in this business. As the article describes,
"...the widely-reported practice of burning cables and printed wiring boards to recover the metals they contain..."
Releases all sorts of carcinogens and other toxic chemicals. I cringe just to think about it.
IMO, the only way to make this business work, say in the USA, is a "pay for disposal" fee or to have something like a bottle deposit added to the purchase price.
"A guaranteed basic income can dramatically reduce the problems associated with poverty."
How do you manage that? Where does the wealth come from? According to the article:
"The payment of a basic monthly income, funded with tax revenues..."
"The money comes from various organizations, including AIDS foundations, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and Protestant churches in Germany's Rhineland and Westphalia regions."
So which is it?
The article describes this as a mechanism for distribution of AID (free wealth from outside the country) but the writer seems to suggest that the results would be the same if it was funded out of tax revenue (wealth confiscated from inside the country). That's an absolutely ridiculous generalization for reasons which should be obvious.
1. Raise taxes on everyone to give poor people guaranteed minimum incomes. 2. Wages for unskilled workers must rise dramatically in order to make work a more compelling option than doing nothing and taking the guaranteed minimum income. 3. Costs of all goods and services in the economy (like food) increase sharply.
The taxpayers therefore not only get hit with higher taxes, they get slammed with higher prices for everything they need to buy. The working poor become even poorer and the lower middle class now become the working poor. Dumb idea!
"...humanities(sic) long trail towards ultimate shared thought."
The sharing of thoughts that I get indirectly via sensory input is annoying enough. Last thing I want is to join a hive mind where I'm forced to have thoughts about sports, celebrities and network TV.
It might be interesting to try out, but there's no way I'm signing up for a 2 year subscription.
I think it's merely the fact that throughout most of human evolution, the vast amount of our labor has been dedicated to acquiring enough food to survive. It's no surprise that we're "hard wired" to prefer foods with high caloric density. This is not a problem when food is scarce in general and there is rarely an opportunity for excess consumption, especially of fats and sugars. We still have that built in drive, but now live in an environment(USA anyway) with an over-abundance of cheap high calorie food which has been chemically engineered to satiate that desire. Couple that with the psychological warfare conducted by the food industry, and I think the result is predictable.
I agree with your point about obesity being largely linked to lifestyle choices but I don't think the use of "epidemic" implies "contagion". I heard a lecture where a researcher was presenting evidence suggesting a causal link between the incidence of cancer and proliferation of petro-chemicals in the environment. He described cancer as "an epidemic" in the U.S. merely due to the % of people who will get some form of cancer in their lifetime.
Interesting. I lean strongly toward the "nature" side of the nature/nurture argument, so I think this is good material. However, you can see how the overweight "myth" is at least theoretically compelling.
We're definitely witnessing an observable phenomenon in the (American) population with higher rates of obesity and higher rates of child obesity coupled with a higher incidence of type2 diabetes occurring earlier in life. I don't think the data is in dispute, so obviously "something" is going on. It seems odd that there could be an evolutionary force that was so strongly and so suddenly selecting for the "diabetes genes". This is at most a 1-2 generation phenomenon. The fact that it has occurred contemporaneously with major changes in the "typical" diet makes it hard to discount a correlation. Maybe it's not "obesity". Perhaps mega-doses of HFCS or some other additives are "triggering" these genes, even in people who are able to maintain "healthy" weight? This change in the population has occurred so rapidly that it's very difficult to dismiss a lifestyle-related driver as a "myth" despite research to the contrary.
"The last major attempt to define "standard" nutrition rules in the US is the reason that so many people are obese in the first place... and you *still* have people crusading for high carb diets,"
+1 insightful. That message was drilled into people's heads for so many years, I can't even remember when it started. "Eat a bunch of grains and fruits while minimizing fat and you'll be healthy." Total BS. I'll never again believe anything that the government or the medical industrial complex tries to tell me.
I don't understand how Blackwater(whatever) and Pinkerton refute any arguments made by the parent. They can cause harm, as can any business or individual, but only government can grant them free license to break the law and commit atrocities with full legal immunity. Not to mention the fact that these companies largely exist by fulfilling government contracts.
"without regulation, you have circa-1900 America - 16 hour workdays, minimal pay, zero safety controls and child labor."
Plus a thriving industrial economy, massive growth in both productivity and real wages and a blossoming organized labor movement dealing with the abuses you describe. Not to mention the fact that millions of migrants were coming into the country to take advantage of the opportunities in the industrial economy.
No age was a Utopia, we need a radical shift of resources away from government to achieve the balance you describe. It shouldn't cost $3.8T to enforce labor, safety and environmental laws.
". A corporation can screw you over without involving the government at all."
Sure, they can dump toxic waste in your back yard, but only government can absolve the corporation, its owners and its employees of liability (a tort) for doing so.
"Are you next going to state that without the government, the mortgage crisis would not have happened?"
Without the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (creatures of government) the mortgage crisis would not have happened. Without TARP, HAMP, HAMA, AIG bailout, and trillions in secret Federal Reserve life support, the banks would have been forced to accept the consequences of their own actions, and the damage could have been repaired.
"people involved would likely now still be homeless."
Without the government there would be no more underwater borrowers (certainly not 11 million) and fewer foreclosures. Bankruptcy = sell your assets to pay your creditors. This cleanses that "bad debt" from the system because assets reset to market value (i.e. nobody buys an underwater mortgage asset at full value.)
"you can't let corporate leaders have power to change the laws at will through political contributions, either."
Corporate leaders cannot change a damned thing through "political contributions"! Only elected officials have the power to make and enact laws. If they change laws to serve the corporations instead of the people, it's a problem with GOVERNMENT.
The point is that if government is small and their power is strictly limited (as it should be!) then it doesn't really matter how evil and corrupt a certain group of politicians become because they can do minimal damage.
The left refuses to accept the fact that power is an inherently corrupting influence. Strip the politicians of the power and the corruption (and resulting damage) diminishes. Big powerful government is a failed institution. A group of 536 people who can confiscate $2.2T per year, borrow another $1.6T per year and enact sweeping laws that affect the lives of 330 million people will ALWAYS be corrupt, and the damage they can cause is incalculable.
"It's my soapbox, if you want to say something I won't allow, go get your own soapbox."
"You do not have a right to a soapbox from which to say it..."
I consider "rights" as something inalienable that no government is permitted to take away. In that context, aren't those two statements contradictory? In the former, you're suggesting that I "get my own soapbox". I assume you mean that it is my right to do so.
In the second, you're suggesting that I can be denied the use of a soapbox (even my own)?
Maybe we have a different understanding of "rights"? Under my definition, you have a "right" to a soapbox in the same way you have a "right" to keep and bear arms. You're not "entitled" to have them at no expense, but no government can deprive you of them.
The U.S. federal government stole $2.2T from people last year alone AND obligated them with another $1.6T in debt plus interest. Then you have state, county and local governments which confiscate another $2T from people. The government is the biggest Mafia of all. "Pay up, or we'll throw you in jail. Resist going to jail and we'll get rough with you!"
If there was no government alcohol prohibition, there would have been no Al Capone. In places where gambling and prostitution are not illegal, they aren't controlled by violent criminals. The epidemic of drug related violence is a direct result of idiotic laws against victimless crimes.
At least the robber barons actually PRODUCE things. Unlike the government parasites.
Capitalism would do a better job with education, housing and healthcare if government would stop introducing massive distortions in the market.
The three most dysfunctional sectors of our economy from the standpoint of the consumer are housing, higher education and healthcare. Skyrocketing costs for healthcare and education. Students and mortgage borrowers awash in debt with under-valued assets (homes and useless degrees). Millions unable to access basic medical services. Poor price/quality tradeoffs. This is not because "capitalism has failed", it is because government has decided that their central planners can "manage" these things better than the market. They have failed miserably as all central planning systems do.
Art? Are you F***ing kidding? You're saying that painting, sculpture, theater, music and film would cease to exist without the power of governments? LOL The free market has produced some quite amazing advances in medical technology. If the government would stop its practice of mandates, price controls, cost shifting and barriers to competition, medical services would once again be affordable. Education? Plenty of excellent private schools. If you want the service, pay for it. The free market has been superb with communications. Look at the evolution of cell phone technology. Steadily smaller, faster, cheaper and more capable. Thank $deity government isn't in the cell phone business. Housing? Another government clusterf***. We have an over-abundance of cheap food and I'm confident that we could ensure that people don't die of thirst without having men with guns confiscating our wealth and throwing us in prison.
Was the U.S. transportation infrastructure architected by the free market, or did government road construction compel us into the personal automobile paradigm? How many roads would there be if the people that used them were the ones that paid the full cost of construction and maintenance? How artificially low have petroleum prices been over the years because of U.S. military imperialism and government subsidies?
As long as we have cheap oil and roads that are "free" to the marginal user, there are no market forces at work to really change the paradigm. It's not fair to blame the free market for the equilibrium that has developed because of massive government distortions and misallocation of resources.
Maybe the spike in medieval times could explain some of the Vinland Sagas?
The vikings described finding grape vines and land where the ground didn't freeze during the winter in some part of North America. However, there's no archaeological evidence to indicate that they went far enough South (i.e. based on modern climate) to find such an area.
The fact that companies like Barclays, Goldman Sachs, et al. have been fined millions when their criminal activity nets them BILLIONS makes it difficult for me to think jail time is appropriate for the Google employees in this case.
Is it up to the company serving web advertisements to respect the "intended" functionality of the browser as opposed to the "actual" functionality?
Hopefully you would refrain from shitting all over people's houses for free.
I deliberately skipped over any "news" that mentioned "god particle". If you believe in $deity why would there be only one particle that fit this description?
Slashdot Mirror
"Materials are enriched in our gadgets when compared to ore."
True, but ore doesn't contain all the hazardous chemicals that exist in electronics. Dealing with the nasty by-products (i.e. safely) is going to be the major expense in this business. As the article describes,
"...the widely-reported practice of burning cables and printed wiring boards to recover the metals they contain..."
Releases all sorts of carcinogens and other toxic chemicals. I cringe just to think about it.
IMO, the only way to make this business work, say in the USA, is a "pay for disposal" fee or to have something like a bottle deposit added to the purchase price.
"A guaranteed basic income can dramatically reduce the problems associated with poverty."
How do you manage that? Where does the wealth come from? According to the article:
"The payment of a basic monthly income, funded with tax revenues..."
"The money comes from various organizations, including AIDS foundations, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation and Protestant churches in Germany's Rhineland and Westphalia regions."
So which is it?
The article describes this as a mechanism for distribution of AID (free wealth from outside the country) but the writer seems to suggest that the results would be the same if it was funded out of tax revenue (wealth confiscated from inside the country). That's an absolutely ridiculous generalization for reasons which should be obvious.
1. Raise taxes on everyone to give poor people guaranteed minimum incomes.
2. Wages for unskilled workers must rise dramatically in order to make work a more compelling option than doing nothing and taking the guaranteed minimum income.
3. Costs of all goods and services in the economy (like food) increase sharply.
The taxpayers therefore not only get hit with higher taxes, they get slammed with higher prices for everything they need to buy. The working poor become even poorer and the lower middle class now become the working poor. Dumb idea!
"...humanities(sic) long trail towards ultimate shared thought."
The sharing of thoughts that I get indirectly via sensory input is annoying enough. Last thing I want is to join a hive mind where I'm forced to have thoughts about sports, celebrities and network TV.
It might be interesting to try out, but there's no way I'm signing up for a 2 year subscription.
I think it's merely the fact that throughout most of human evolution, the vast amount of our labor has been dedicated to acquiring enough food to survive. It's no surprise that we're "hard wired" to prefer foods with high caloric density. This is not a problem when food is scarce in general and there is rarely an opportunity for excess consumption, especially of fats and sugars.
We still have that built in drive, but now live in an environment(USA anyway) with an over-abundance of cheap high calorie food which has been chemically engineered to satiate that desire. Couple that with the psychological warfare conducted by the food industry, and I think the result is predictable.
I agree with your point about obesity being largely linked to lifestyle choices but I don't think the use of "epidemic" implies "contagion". I heard a lecture where a researcher was presenting evidence suggesting a causal link between the incidence of cancer and proliferation of petro-chemicals in the environment. He described cancer as "an epidemic" in the U.S. merely due to the % of people who will get some form of cancer in their lifetime.
Interesting. I lean strongly toward the "nature" side of the nature/nurture argument, so I think this is good material. However, you can see how the overweight "myth" is at least theoretically compelling.
We're definitely witnessing an observable phenomenon in the (American) population with higher rates of obesity and higher rates of child obesity coupled with a higher incidence of type2 diabetes occurring earlier in life. I don't think the data is in dispute, so obviously "something" is going on. It seems odd that there could be an evolutionary force that was so strongly and so suddenly selecting for the "diabetes genes". This is at most a 1-2 generation phenomenon. The fact that it has occurred contemporaneously with major changes in the "typical" diet makes it hard to discount a correlation. Maybe it's not "obesity". Perhaps mega-doses of HFCS or some other additives are "triggering" these genes, even in people who are able to maintain "healthy" weight?
This change in the population has occurred so rapidly that it's very difficult to dismiss a lifestyle-related driver as a "myth" despite research to the contrary.
"The last major attempt to define "standard" nutrition rules in the US is the reason that so many people are obese in the first place ... and you *still* have people crusading for high carb diets,"
+1 insightful. That message was drilled into people's heads for so many years, I can't even remember when it started.
"Eat a bunch of grains and fruits while minimizing fat and you'll be healthy." Total BS. I'll never again believe anything that the government or the medical industrial complex tries to tell me.
That's the worst poem that I've ever read. ;-)
I don't understand how Blackwater(whatever) and Pinkerton refute any arguments made by the parent. They can cause harm, as can any business or individual, but only government can grant them free license to break the law and commit atrocities with full legal immunity. Not to mention the fact that these companies largely exist by fulfilling government contracts.
"without regulation, you have circa-1900 America - 16 hour workdays, minimal pay, zero safety controls and child labor."
Plus a thriving industrial economy, massive growth in both productivity and real wages and a blossoming organized labor movement dealing with the abuses you describe. Not to mention the fact that millions of migrants were coming into the country to take advantage of the opportunities in the industrial economy.
No age was a Utopia, we need a radical shift of resources away from government to achieve the balance you describe. It shouldn't cost $3.8T to enforce labor, safety and environmental laws.
". A corporation can screw you over without involving the government at all."
Sure, they can dump toxic waste in your back yard, but only government can absolve the corporation, its owners and its employees of liability (a tort) for doing so.
"Are you next going to state that without the government, the mortgage crisis would not have happened?"
Without the Federal Reserve, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (creatures of government) the mortgage crisis would not have happened. Without TARP, HAMP, HAMA, AIG bailout, and trillions in secret Federal Reserve life support, the banks would have been forced to accept the consequences of their own actions, and the damage could have been repaired.
"people involved would likely now still be homeless."
Without the government there would be no more underwater borrowers (certainly not 11 million) and fewer foreclosures. Bankruptcy = sell your assets to pay your creditors. This cleanses that "bad debt" from the system because assets reset to market value (i.e. nobody buys an underwater mortgage asset at full value.)
"you can't let corporate leaders have power to change the laws at will through political contributions, either."
Corporate leaders cannot change a damned thing through "political contributions"! Only elected officials have the power to make and enact laws. If they change laws to serve the corporations instead of the people, it's a problem with GOVERNMENT.
The point is that if government is small and their power is strictly limited (as it should be!) then it doesn't really matter how evil and corrupt a certain group of politicians become because they can do minimal damage.
The left refuses to accept the fact that power is an inherently corrupting influence. Strip the politicians of the power and the corruption (and resulting damage) diminishes. Big powerful government is a failed institution. A group of 536 people who can confiscate $2.2T per year, borrow another $1.6T per year and enact sweeping laws that affect the lives of 330 million people will ALWAYS be corrupt, and the damage they can cause is incalculable.
"It's my soapbox, if you want to say something I won't allow, go get your own soapbox."
"You do not have a right to a soapbox from which to say it ..."
I consider "rights" as something inalienable that no government is permitted to take away. In that context, aren't those two statements contradictory? In the former, you're suggesting that I "get my own soapbox". I assume you mean that it is my right to do so.
In the second, you're suggesting that I can be denied the use of a soapbox (even my own)?
Maybe we have a different understanding of "rights"? Under my definition, you have a "right" to a soapbox in the same way you have a "right" to keep and bear arms. You're not "entitled" to have them at no expense, but no government can deprive you of them.
"2. The phone company is specifically prohibited from doing that."
Except when they break the law and government later grants them ex-post-facto immunity from any wrongdoing.
Warrantless surveillance and FISA II.
The U.S. federal government stole $2.2T from people last year alone AND obligated them with another $1.6T in debt plus interest. Then you have state, county and local governments which confiscate another $2T from people. The government is the biggest Mafia of all. "Pay up, or we'll throw you in jail. Resist going to jail and we'll get rough with you!"
If there was no government alcohol prohibition, there would have been no Al Capone. In places where gambling and prostitution are not illegal, they aren't controlled by violent criminals. The epidemic of drug related violence is a direct result of idiotic laws against victimless crimes.
At least the robber barons actually PRODUCE things. Unlike the government parasites.
Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment.
Capitalism would do a better job with education, housing and healthcare if government would stop introducing massive distortions in the market.
The three most dysfunctional sectors of our economy from the standpoint of the consumer are housing, higher education and healthcare. Skyrocketing costs for healthcare and education. Students and mortgage borrowers awash in debt with under-valued assets (homes and useless degrees). Millions unable to access basic medical services. Poor price/quality tradeoffs. This is not because "capitalism has failed", it is because government has decided that their central planners can "manage" these things better than the market. They have failed miserably as all central planning systems do.
Art? Are you F***ing kidding? You're saying that painting, sculpture, theater, music and film would cease to exist without the power of governments? LOL The free market has produced some quite amazing advances in medical technology. If the government would stop its practice of mandates, price controls, cost shifting and barriers to competition, medical services would once again be affordable. Education? Plenty of excellent private schools. If you want the service, pay for it. The free market has been superb with communications. Look at the evolution of cell phone technology. Steadily smaller, faster, cheaper and more capable. Thank $deity government isn't in the cell phone business. Housing? Another government clusterf***. We have an over-abundance of cheap food and I'm confident that we could ensure that people don't die of thirst without having men with guns confiscating our wealth and throwing us in prison.
"an absurdly big market failure."
Market failure my ass.
Was the U.S. transportation infrastructure architected by the free market, or did government road construction compel us into the personal automobile paradigm? How many roads would there be if the people that used them were the ones that paid the full cost of construction and maintenance? How artificially low have petroleum prices been over the years because of U.S. military imperialism and government subsidies?
As long as we have cheap oil and roads that are "free" to the marginal user, there are no market forces at work to really change the paradigm. It's not fair to blame the free market for the equilibrium that has developed because of massive government distortions and misallocation of resources.
Maybe the spike in medieval times could explain some of the Vinland Sagas?
The vikings described finding grape vines and land where the ground didn't freeze during the winter in some part of North America. However, there's no archaeological evidence to indicate that they went far enough South (i.e. based on modern climate) to find such an area.
Putting cookies on people's computers is hardly analogous to stealing stuff from people's house.
This is more like Apple building an invisibility cloak (i-Cloak?) and then fining Google because they're able to see you and follow you around.
The fact that companies like Barclays, Goldman Sachs, et al. have been fined millions when their criminal activity nets them BILLIONS makes it difficult for me to think jail time is appropriate for the Google employees in this case.
Is it up to the company serving web advertisements to respect the "intended" functionality of the browser as opposed to the "actual" functionality?
Hopefully you would refrain from shitting all over people's houses for free.
It's an election year. Better pay up on your protection money *cough* "campaign contributions" sometime between now and November.
"- Because this quantum wave easily collapses in the presence of human voice ;-)"
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and give the appearance of stupidity than to open it and remove all doubt ". ;-)
(source unknown)
I deliberately skipped over any "news" that mentioned "god particle". If you believe in $deity why would there be only one particle that fit this description?
Log in and do some meta-moderation.
"Hating on Americans must be trending."
Well, in fairness, they were talking about the American MEDIA, which deserves about as much bashing as can possibly be delivered.