Why do Libertarians think this kind of shit only cuts one way?
It cuts the way you want it to cut. If you don't like being poor, do what you have to do to be rich. It happens every day. Why do you think you see people flooding across our border?
I've know several immigrant from Mexico (some legal and some not). I've seen many of them that came with nothing but the clothes on their back that worked hard and have become business owners operating restaurants, groceries and a number of other enterprises.
These people did not have near the opportunity that all these whining Americans have had, but they've become successful and some are driving around in BMW's now. They just took advantage of the opportunities that were there.
Most Americans just sit there and whine "this other guy has so much more money than me and can afford all these things... it's not fair. My boss makes me work so hard and pays me so little I can barely pay my bills." In the meantime, this whiny bitch has 2 cars, a house (with central air conditioning and heat), enough food to be a big fat ass (from observations made at Wal-Mart anyway), cable tv, internet, a computer (even if they still don't have the brains to use it), cell phones for the whole family and plenty of other shit that is not a necessity.
In the meantime, the immigrants share housing, share transportation, share food costs and don't blow their cash just to try to impress the neighbors. They're shooting for the goal... not trying to pretend they've made it and whining because they can't get further.
There is no one in this country that is being held in a job against their will. And there are very few that with some common sense and determination that can't go as far as they wish.
The problem is they just want to be gratified now rather than work for it. So, shut the fuck up and go back to reading your Marx. That shit has turned out so well everytime it's been tried, huh?
And yes... the Libertarians are pissed. The Democrats and Republicans are nothing but power mongers and the populace is too stupid to understand basic economics... apparently evenso in a place supposedly teaming with educated people like Slashdot.
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Any "skilled" job does NOT start at $10 an hour. I'm honestly tired of people complaining about how much people that put the effort into getting an education and taking the white collar route get paid because they don't work as "hard" as the people that are breaking their backs. It's supply and demand. Sure, there's plenty of jackasses that are in a cushy job because they knew someone. But, there are multitudes more that put the effort in to get there. An uneducated, trained monkey (yeah, that's flame bait) can be found for a dime a dozen.
I worked my ass off and went to college at night while most of the other people I grew up with put in their 40 hours and then just hung out and drank beer watching sports with their friends. Now, I make as much as any 4 of them put together. Sure, they say I don't work hard because I sit at a desk. But, I busted my ass to get here. You get out what you put in. And for those that didn't make the effort to put much in, shut the fuck up and go vote for Obama. And before I get labeled a cold-hearted Republican, fuck McCain, too.
I'm ready to leave this fucking country because the masses are too soft and too stupid. I don't mind a little social support, but you fuckers are just too goddamn lazy for me anymore.
So, not trying to win, but make your opponent lose, and force the tie-breaker where the rules are in your favor. Very interesting strategy, I don't know if it was good or bad that it failed. I don't remember the Whig platform.
Not to pick on you. I'm sure that you're just making an observation. But, it's good that it failed. You're comment about not knowing unfortunately illustrates the state of American politics and the direction that the country is headed. It's about the ends justifying the means. As long as you get what you want, it doesn't matter if we're gaming the system.
On Slashdot, it's fashionable to discuss Bush in 2000. But, the Dem's did the same thing in Chicago in 1960. It doesn't matter which party. They've got us neatly divided in 2. So, it's easy for them to keep us conquered. Thus, they keep any real alternatives off the ballot.
The "cool kids" will, of course, tell you that everything is the same, everything sucks, and you should give up on trying to make a positive change in any part of your life or any part of your country.
Those people are dead wrong. Thats what they said about Gore and Bush, and I think its pretty obvious that a Gore presidency would have been 100% better for America. Dont give in to mindless peer-pressured apathy.
100% better than a negative number is still a negative number. Gore would have just fucked up things in a different way.
And I'm not giving in to the mindless apathy. I'm just preparing to leave the country. $40+ trillion (present value) in unfunded liabilities for this government on top of the $2+ trillion they're already spending a year does not paint a rosy picture for the future of the US. People don't understand how dire that really is. The US is headed down economically and other parts of the world are stepping up to take its place.
Sure, the rest of the world still depends on the US economically. But, do you honestly believe that they're going to keep their eggs in that basket when they see the holes growing in the bottom.
Bitch about paper ballots that give different counts with every count. Then bitch when it's computerized because the count stays the same. Sure, the machines should be running on open source software and provide paper backups. That's where the pressure needs to be applied. It doesn't help things when we demonize computerized voting because the mass of the population doesn't have a good enough understanding to know the difference. So, they only see it as an argument of computerized vs. not.
Regardless, our problem isn't about counting the votes on the ballots. Our problem is actually getting REAL alternatives on the ballots to begin with. Republicrat/Demican domination of our system is what's bringing us down... not the way we count the votes for the two-winged oligarchy.
Mexico does, however, serve as a good example of the type of country you get if you let libertarian ideals of no regulation and limited government go to their natural conclusion: a few rich families control basically everything worth controlling, and a majority of everyone else is dirt poor and suffers.
Troll. You obviously have Libertarian ideals confused with a governmental culture of corruption. Without governmental backed power, the control doesn't exist. Mexico has never been a Libertarian society as neither has ANY other nation in modern times. Almost every country in the modern history of the world has been mixed economy with governments that push their ways into any aspect of the populace's lives that they can. There is no example of Libertarian failure because there has been no real attempt at it. And Mexico hasn't even been anywhere near it. I suppose you believe that the ideals of socialism and communism have created much greater societies for humanity in the world? I wonder how the parents of the melamine poisoned babies feel about their benevolent Chinese governments swift reaction to the issue with the baby formula.
Power given to anything greater than the individual will always lead to tyranny against individuals. Whether it's government, corporations, or simply just in-groups, it doesn't matter. True libertarianism is about the freedom and power of the individual and not the institutionalization of power. And I find no example of that existing in modern time. Of course, I may be wrong. I'd love to hear of such a place, though.
I don't know how many of you view the TED podcasts, but just last week they posted Jonathan Haidt's presentation of his research on this. It's a pretty good explanation.
You have a problem in your argument... Taking money through taxes is not stealing. You might not like it, and you may not agree with it, but it isn't illegal.
Also, taxes aren't a bad thing. They pay for all sorts of things like roads, emergency services, weather radars and a bunch of other things that you don't think are important - until you don't have them.
I wouldn't know. I've never not had them. I'd be willing to give it a go to be convinced, though.
The Dark Matter in US is pulling a ball busting amount of money away from tax payers to Large Banks.
In this area of Universe known as Capitol Hill and White House, the normal laws of space-time continumm is suspended so that banks which screw up your money get your money to bail out themselves.
No. The laws still apply. This is just the American society and economy going supernova right before it collapses into a big black hole.
In the old system, if you
tank badly enough in the
beginning you have to do
extraordinarily well to get a
passing grade.
Wouldn't it make more
sense to weight the tests
and assignments so that
the early assignments
wouldn't have as big an
impact?
Wouldn't work. You'd actually need to have teacher that could understand the concept of weighting. That's way above the average level of intelligence of American government school teachers.
Well, you don't seem to understand journalism. These guys can't just tell you "X says Y", because that would violate their fucked-up notion of journalistic impartiality. They _have_ to present the opposite point of view too, even if they have to scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel to have an opposing point of view.
You, my friend, are obviously not a viewer of Fox News... or CNN if you happen to lean to the right. There are VERY FEW "journalists" that don't let their bias through. People just flock to the one's that they share bias with. You can't have objective media in a subjective society.
There's a clear indication of the lack of statistical knowledge possessed by the masses. While you may be joking, other people with a common understanding of statistics probably think that's true.
The statistical error in that statement is, of course, that you are making the assumption that intelligence is normally distributed. It could very well not be and, in fact, that 3 out of 4 people have below average intelligence. In my experience, that seems to be closer to reality. But, I do live in the US. So, take it for what it is.
The same effect was seen with statements about tax revenue.
I'm just curious about what statements you are speaking of there...
I'm assuming (which gives me the distinct possibility of being wrong) that it has something to do with the effect of tax rates on the amount of revenue collected by government. And since you seem to be beating on the Bush supporters (which on about 95% of what he has done I am not), I'm assuming (once again opening myself to being incorrect) that your position is that raising taxes brings in more revenue to government.
That would be a true if we were starting at a 0% tax rate. It of course be incorrect if we were starting at a 100% rate.
Tax revenue and the effect of the tax rates is a maximization problem. Unfortunately, no one in our government seems to be interested in trying to work on the maximization of revenues.
The leftists want to take the rates to the ceiling despite the fact that the government could take in more money by utilizing a lower rate. It's generally about class warfare rhetoric and geared toward "punishing" the "rich."
The right wants to (well at least in argument, but the 6 years of Bush and his Republicans in congress didn't follow it... a clear illustration that they don't have any true principals) cut taxes to the ground to shrink government. It's really based around letting their friends avoid paying that much.
The problem is there is a point that could maximize revenues and keep enough in the private sector to create jobs and economic growth. Unfortunately, I doubt all the lawyers that are running our government took many math classes that covered maximization problems. They all just use their rhetoric to rob the people... either they overtax or undertax them and don't get enough money to keep the government out of the red, which just makes the future tax consequences for everyone greater.
The politics and crony-ism need to be taken out of tax policy in order to maximize revenues and ensure economic growth. The US tax system is nothing but a tool for buying votes, which is the only real objective our so called representatives in government seem to have.
Only in an blindly idealistic place like slashdot does this get modded +5, Insightful. I totally agree that a lot of American costs are directed to legal cost centers and the over lawyerization of the American marketplace is troubling. However, the statement about that's why Asian companies are less likely to fail is an overly simplistic view of the market dynamics at work with those different environments. It's true that Asian companies rely less on patents to protect any competitive advantage that they have. That's because they rely less on being innovators in those areas and more on copying already existing technologies and improving manufacturing efficiency. So, the Asian (which by the way I hate to generalize the use of the term because there are many different cultures that are "Asian"... here I'm specifically thinking of China and India... I think Japan's stance on IP is likely different from those two) competitive advantage is in efficiency in execution which is driven in many ways by their lower relative cost of living and therefore cost of labor. Also, in China, the government itself creates the barriers to entry. So, who needs a patent in China? American companies are trying to use patents to protect that R&D investment against that particular Asian competitive strategy. So, they are trying to artificially limit that competition because our government chooses to use that method to limit competition. Sure, the Asians don't use patents like the Americans... That's because they and their governments have a different business model.
The USA is a republic, which is a form or representative democracy. The reason people stress this fact is because of advances in technology that allow public opinion to be measured and reported. By using polls to continuously monitor public opinion and use that data to create and drive policy is inherently dangerous because it slides more toward pure democracy. I know that the general consensus is that the more democracy, the better. The problem is when we start considering everyone's opinion on every single subject related to policy. Most people (in the good ole US of A, anyway) only really pay attention to what the important drivers are in the American Idol karaoke competition. It's actually quite frightening if you think that these people who received their illustrious educations from America's notoriously great public education system would have that much of a say so in something such as national energy policy. SURE, they're all definitely impacted by it and that impact must be considered. However, I'd venture to say that less than 0.1% of the population is actually qualified enough to have an intelligent and well-thought position on the subject. BUT... the news media (conservative and liberal) use polls to say, "SEE!!! The people don't like your way. They like our way. SO, that's what we should do." It's a great way to work if all you want to do is get re-elected. It completely sucks if you actually want to really solve problems. And you should never forget to beware the tyranny of the majority.
Then again I have seen those 20 year olds voting for those politicians that really care about the environment and the world's state, while those 40 year olds voted for their 'connection' that promised them a better job, a bigger loan, more money, etc.
Don't confuse the idealistic nature of the 20 year old for maturity. In fact, you can chalk that up to immaturity. The 40 year old is looking out for himself, sure. However, that's not a matter of immaturity. Mr. 40 year old is being pragmatic. Despite what many people would wish, the environmental movement is dead. How many of these politicians the 20 year old is voting for are winning (at least in the US where I am)? The fact is, the entire system is made up of people giving each other hand jobs or some equivalent. Everybody has their hand in the pie and no one is going to give up their piece.
Tom DeLay has been unanimously admonished by the House ethics committee run by his own party 3 times now? 4 times?
I'm by no means a Tom DeLay supporter. In fact, I'd love to see him disappear from public life. However, I have to clarify the record with respect to the house ethics committee and Republican control of it. The House ethics committee is made up of equal numbers of representatives from both parties. To get an admonishment all you need is a tie. So, all the democrats vote for/republicans against and the committee has decided to admonish DeLay. The term "House ethics committee" is an oxymoron. It's simply another political propaganda tool used by both parties against each other.
If I recall my physics classes correctly, energy can neither be created or destroyed. So, if the potential energy isn't really energy, then where does the energy the water picks up on the way down come from? It has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the store of energy that the water has by being at a height. Potential energy is just as real as kinetic energy. It's not just a construct. It's the representation of the energy stored within something. Does gasoline not contain potential energy by its chemical makeup? If it didn't, there'd be no point in burning it to release that energy.
In essence, a plasma double layer is the electrostatic equivalent of a waterfall. Just as water molecules pick up energy as they fall between the two different heights...
Water molecules do not pick up energy as they fall. There potential energy is simply converted into kinetic energy. However, they had the energy all along in the form of potential energy.
My whole point is that this technology should not have been abandoned. Why isn't it still being researched?
Great question. It should be researched. However, all the big automakers are spending most of their own money on reducing the emisssions of fossil fueled vehicles. Sure, they could move to an electric technology and completely reduce emissions. However, that takes time. Time the manufactures don't have because governments across the globe have set agressive emission requirements that have to be met if they expect to continue to sell new cars. So, instead of investing a big chunk of their R&D budget into some alternative, they are investing in squeezing the most they can out of what they currently have. Sure, it's a decision made almost entirely accoring to profit estimates, but if they don't base their decision on making money in the future, they're never going to be around long enough to produce those wonderful electric cars. They have to keep selling cars to stay in business. It might be easier to get the automakers to put more money into these real alternatives instead of just trying to squeeze more out of a gallon of gasoline if the emission requirements weren't staring them in the face as something they have to deal with immediately. Rush a solution and you'll get a bad solution. Sure, they might never reduce emissions without those government requirements. But, don't complain that they're not spending enough on INSERT YOUR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION HERE, when they're having to devote considerable resources just to make what they have now fit in a new smaller box. Sure, you can make an argument that they've got plenty of money, but that's not necessarily the case. Have you checked GM's income statements lately?
I'm not against finding a better alternative or reducing emissions. However, running around, screaming about the sky falling, and forcing automaker into a corner to meet agressive emission reductions are all reactionary. Sure, there's a problem. Trying to get a quick fix is only going to make it worse and prolong the real solution.
The fact that economics cannot properly account, even remotely, the degradation of the environment and account for how this will impact us in ten to 100 years means that its recommendations should be taken within a strictly constrainted box.
It's not a problem with economics. Economics can only account for the costs that are known. Environmental science is to blame. Environmental scientists can't agree on what the negative effects are. How can an economist be expected to calculate a cost if the experts in the arena can't even form a consensus on exactly what the negative effects are?
Economics is just like any other science in that the variables have to be known to make an accurate prediction. It's not the job of the economists to determine the environmental effects, only what their costs are. When environmental scientists have conclusively determined that, blame the economist if the economics are wrong.
it would be a massive shock to science to find out that those two didn't mean the planet was heating up.
Yes... but what you are talking about is the hypothesis... scientists are shocked all the time to find out that how they thought something SHOULD work doesn't actually work that way... that's the experimental validation or invalidation of the hypothesis... a theory does not a hypothesis make... at least for honest scientists...
it were Microsoft instead of Apple? I'm an Apple guy and no fan of Microsoft. I'm just wondering how upset rather than apologetic people on/. would be if it were Microsoft not "sharing" with the open source community...
That said... as long as Apple is operating within the license, they're not violating it. If people believe that it's a violation is of the spirit of the license type, then maybe the license should be updated...
I'd be very curious to see some figures on how much money was spent on spam-started purchases last year....
It's not so much about the total as the cost per lead generated (from what I recall from my marketing classes). Advertising channels are judged by cost per lead generated. To place an ad in a magazine, newspaper, on radio/tv, etc, it costs significant money. To send spam, it's a significantly smaller cost (virtually free if you already have the hardware/software/connectivity). So, even though SPAM probably generates a lot smaller number of quality leads per person exposed, it's still more cost effective than the alternatives... at least from a cash flow perspective. They obviously don't factor the loss of goodwill (which some companies actually assign a monetary value to in their accounting as an asset) in with their decision.
I'd hope that much is obvious. Of course an extremely small chance is still a chance, but it's a chance so incredibly slim that it might as well be zero for the purposes of day to day life.
I am not saying there is absolutely definitely 100% NOT a God, or a Santa or Martian Teapots - in fact, I thought I'd made it quite clear that it's impossible to ever disprove such a thing. I'm just saying that these things almost certainly do not exist.
I agree that the whole thing is really irrelevant to everyday life. However, my argument is that we don't know enough about things to be able to say that there is almost certainly there is no creator. I would agree that there is almost certainly no God in the sense that fundamentalists (of whatever persuasion) would have us believe.
What you're talking about here is a God of the Gaps. Nothing we know so far has given us any evidence to suggest that there is a God, so you say "Ah! But what about all the stuff we don't know! maybe there's proof of God in there!" - well, maybe there is, maybe there isn't.
I never said that the fact that we don't know things proved that there was a God. I honestly don't know or really care. Like you said, it's not really relevant to everyday life. However, our science only takes us back to the big bang... what happened before... why did it happen... where did it happen... if we are in the universe, where is the universe. Those questions still lie in the domain of philosophy. There's a pretty good probability that, as far as we concerned, they always will. Either we will be destroyed before we can figure it out or we will be limited by what we are capable of perceiving. The same arguments against a creator are just as applicable to string theory. Is the universe really just made up of a bunch of vibrating strings? I don't know. I don't really care either. It doesn't matter to everyday life. Just like the creator. But, it's an intriguing mental exercise to run through the what-if's... for both philisophical arguments.
Slashdot Mirror
Why do Libertarians think this kind of shit only cuts one way?
It cuts the way you want it to cut. If you don't like being poor, do what you have to do to be rich. It happens every day. Why do you think you see people flooding across our border?
I've know several immigrant from Mexico (some legal and some not). I've seen many of them that came with nothing but the clothes on their back that worked hard and have become business owners operating restaurants, groceries and a number of other enterprises.
These people did not have near the opportunity that all these whining Americans have had, but they've become successful and some are driving around in BMW's now. They just took advantage of the opportunities that were there.
Most Americans just sit there and whine "this other guy has so much more money than me and can afford all these things... it's not fair. My boss makes me work so hard and pays me so little I can barely pay my bills." In the meantime, this whiny bitch has 2 cars, a house (with central air conditioning and heat), enough food to be a big fat ass (from observations made at Wal-Mart anyway), cable tv, internet, a computer (even if they still don't have the brains to use it), cell phones for the whole family and plenty of other shit that is not a necessity.
In the meantime, the immigrants share housing, share transportation, share food costs and don't blow their cash just to try to impress the neighbors. They're shooting for the goal... not trying to pretend they've made it and whining because they can't get further.
There is no one in this country that is being held in a job against their will. And there are very few that with some common sense and determination that can't go as far as they wish.
The problem is they just want to be gratified now rather than work for it. So, shut the fuck up and go back to reading your Marx. That shit has turned out so well everytime it's been tried, huh?
And yes... the Libertarians are pissed. The Democrats and Republicans are nothing but power mongers and the populace is too stupid to understand basic economics... apparently evenso in a place supposedly teaming with educated people like Slashdot.
skilled factory worker
Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Any "skilled" job does NOT start at $10 an hour. I'm honestly tired of people complaining about how much people that put the effort into getting an education and taking the white collar route get paid because they don't work as "hard" as the people that are breaking their backs. It's supply and demand. Sure, there's plenty of jackasses that are in a cushy job because they knew someone. But, there are multitudes more that put the effort in to get there. An uneducated, trained monkey (yeah, that's flame bait) can be found for a dime a dozen.
I worked my ass off and went to college at night while most of the other people I grew up with put in their 40 hours and then just hung out and drank beer watching sports with their friends. Now, I make as much as any 4 of them put together. Sure, they say I don't work hard because I sit at a desk. But, I busted my ass to get here. You get out what you put in. And for those that didn't make the effort to put much in, shut the fuck up and go vote for Obama. And before I get labeled a cold-hearted Republican, fuck McCain, too.
I'm ready to leave this fucking country because the masses are too soft and too stupid. I don't mind a little social support, but you fuckers are just too goddamn lazy for me anymore.
/rant
So, not trying to win, but make your opponent lose, and force the tie-breaker where the rules are in your favor. Very interesting strategy, I don't know if it was good or bad that it failed. I don't remember the Whig platform.
Not to pick on you. I'm sure that you're just making an observation. But, it's good that it failed. You're comment about not knowing unfortunately illustrates the state of American politics and the direction that the country is headed. It's about the ends justifying the means. As long as you get what you want, it doesn't matter if we're gaming the system.
On Slashdot, it's fashionable to discuss Bush in 2000. But, the Dem's did the same thing in Chicago in 1960. It doesn't matter which party. They've got us neatly divided in 2. So, it's easy for them to keep us conquered. Thus, they keep any real alternatives off the ballot.
The "cool kids" will, of course, tell you that everything is the same, everything sucks, and you should give up on trying to make a positive change in any part of your life or any part of your country.
Those people are dead wrong. Thats what they said about Gore and Bush, and I think its pretty obvious that a Gore presidency would have been 100% better for America. Dont give in to mindless peer-pressured apathy.
100% better than a negative number is still a negative number. Gore would have just fucked up things in a different way.
And I'm not giving in to the mindless apathy. I'm just preparing to leave the country. $40+ trillion (present value) in unfunded liabilities for this government on top of the $2+ trillion they're already spending a year does not paint a rosy picture for the future of the US. People don't understand how dire that really is. The US is headed down economically and other parts of the world are stepping up to take its place.
Sure, the rest of the world still depends on the US economically. But, do you honestly believe that they're going to keep their eggs in that basket when they see the holes growing in the bottom.
Bitch about paper ballots that give different counts with every count. Then bitch when it's computerized because the count stays the same. Sure, the machines should be running on open source software and provide paper backups. That's where the pressure needs to be applied. It doesn't help things when we demonize computerized voting because the mass of the population doesn't have a good enough understanding to know the difference. So, they only see it as an argument of computerized vs. not.
Regardless, our problem isn't about counting the votes on the ballots. Our problem is actually getting REAL alternatives on the ballots to begin with. Republicrat/Demican domination of our system is what's bringing us down... not the way we count the votes for the two-winged oligarchy.
Mexico does, however, serve as a good example of the type of country you get if you let libertarian ideals of no regulation and limited government go to their natural conclusion: a few rich families control basically everything worth controlling, and a majority of everyone else is dirt poor and suffers.
Troll. You obviously have Libertarian ideals confused with a governmental culture of corruption. Without governmental backed power, the control doesn't exist. Mexico has never been a Libertarian society as neither has ANY other nation in modern times. Almost every country in the modern history of the world has been mixed economy with governments that push their ways into any aspect of the populace's lives that they can. There is no example of Libertarian failure because there has been no real attempt at it. And Mexico hasn't even been anywhere near it. I suppose you believe that the ideals of socialism and communism have created much greater societies for humanity in the world? I wonder how the parents of the melamine poisoned babies feel about their benevolent Chinese governments swift reaction to the issue with the baby formula.
Power given to anything greater than the individual will always lead to tyranny against individuals. Whether it's government, corporations, or simply just in-groups, it doesn't matter. True libertarianism is about the freedom and power of the individual and not the institutionalization of power. And I find no example of that existing in modern time. Of course, I may be wrong. I'd love to hear of such a place, though.
I don't know how many of you view the TED podcasts, but just last week they posted Jonathan Haidt's presentation of his research on this. It's a pretty good explanation.
You have a problem in your argument... Taking money through taxes is not stealing. You might not like it, and you may not agree with it, but it isn't illegal.
Also, taxes aren't a bad thing. They pay for all sorts of things like roads, emergency services, weather radars and a bunch of other things that you don't think are important - until you don't have them.
I wouldn't know. I've never not had them. I'd be willing to give it a go to be convinced, though.
The Dark Matter in US is pulling a ball busting amount of money away from tax payers to Large Banks. In this area of Universe known as Capitol Hill and White House, the normal laws of space-time continumm is suspended so that banks which screw up your money get your money to bail out themselves.
No. The laws still apply. This is just the American society and economy going supernova right before it collapses into a big black hole.
In the old system, if you tank badly enough in the beginning you have to do extraordinarily well to get a passing grade.
Wouldn't it make more sense to weight the tests and assignments so that the early assignments wouldn't have as big an impact?
Wouldn't work. You'd actually need to have teacher that could understand the concept of weighting. That's way above the average level of intelligence of American government school teachers.
Well, you don't seem to understand journalism. These guys can't just tell you "X says Y", because that would violate their fucked-up notion of journalistic impartiality. They _have_ to present the opposite point of view too, even if they have to scrape the bottom of the proverbial barrel to have an opposing point of view.
You, my friend, are obviously not a viewer of Fox News... or CNN if you happen to lean to the right. There are VERY FEW "journalists" that don't let their bias through. People just flock to the one's that they share bias with. You can't have objective media in a subjective society.
There's a clear indication of the lack of statistical knowledge possessed by the masses. While you may be joking, other people with a common understanding of statistics probably think that's true.
The statistical error in that statement is, of course, that you are making the assumption that intelligence is normally distributed. It could very well not be and, in fact, that 3 out of 4 people have below average intelligence. In my experience, that seems to be closer to reality. But, I do live in the US. So, take it for what it is.
The same effect was seen with statements about tax revenue.
I'm just curious about what statements you are speaking of there...
I'm assuming (which gives me the distinct possibility of being wrong) that it has something to do with the effect of tax rates on the amount of revenue collected by government. And since you seem to be beating on the Bush supporters (which on about 95% of what he has done I am not), I'm assuming (once again opening myself to being incorrect) that your position is that raising taxes brings in more revenue to government.
That would be a true if we were starting at a 0% tax rate. It of course be incorrect if we were starting at a 100% rate.
Tax revenue and the effect of the tax rates is a maximization problem. Unfortunately, no one in our government seems to be interested in trying to work on the maximization of revenues.
The leftists want to take the rates to the ceiling despite the fact that the government could take in more money by utilizing a lower rate. It's generally about class warfare rhetoric and geared toward "punishing" the "rich."
The right wants to (well at least in argument, but the 6 years of Bush and his Republicans in congress didn't follow it... a clear illustration that they don't have any true principals) cut taxes to the ground to shrink government. It's really based around letting their friends avoid paying that much.
The problem is there is a point that could maximize revenues and keep enough in the private sector to create jobs and economic growth. Unfortunately, I doubt all the lawyers that are running our government took many math classes that covered maximization problems. They all just use their rhetoric to rob the people... either they overtax or undertax them and don't get enough money to keep the government out of the red, which just makes the future tax consequences for everyone greater.
The politics and crony-ism need to be taken out of tax policy in order to maximize revenues and ensure economic growth. The US tax system is nothing but a tool for buying votes, which is the only real objective our so called representatives in government seem to have.
Only in an blindly idealistic place like slashdot does this get modded +5, Insightful. I totally agree that a lot of American costs are directed to legal cost centers and the over lawyerization of the American marketplace is troubling. However, the statement about that's why Asian companies are less likely to fail is an overly simplistic view of the market dynamics at work with those different environments. It's true that Asian companies rely less on patents to protect any competitive advantage that they have. That's because they rely less on being innovators in those areas and more on copying already existing technologies and improving manufacturing efficiency. So, the Asian (which by the way I hate to generalize the use of the term because there are many different cultures that are "Asian"... here I'm specifically thinking of China and India... I think Japan's stance on IP is likely different from those two) competitive advantage is in efficiency in execution which is driven in many ways by their lower relative cost of living and therefore cost of labor. Also, in China, the government itself creates the barriers to entry. So, who needs a patent in China? American companies are trying to use patents to protect that R&D investment against that particular Asian competitive strategy. So, they are trying to artificially limit that competition because our government chooses to use that method to limit competition. Sure, the Asians don't use patents like the Americans... That's because they and their governments have a different business model.
The USA is a republic, which is a form or representative democracy. The reason people stress this fact is because of advances in technology that allow public opinion to be measured and reported. By using polls to continuously monitor public opinion and use that data to create and drive policy is inherently dangerous because it slides more toward pure democracy. I know that the general consensus is that the more democracy, the better. The problem is when we start considering everyone's opinion on every single subject related to policy. Most people (in the good ole US of A, anyway) only really pay attention to what the important drivers are in the American Idol karaoke competition. It's actually quite frightening if you think that these people who received their illustrious educations from America's notoriously great public education system would have that much of a say so in something such as national energy policy. SURE, they're all definitely impacted by it and that impact must be considered. However, I'd venture to say that less than 0.1% of the population is actually qualified enough to have an intelligent and well-thought position on the subject. BUT... the news media (conservative and liberal) use polls to say, "SEE!!! The people don't like your way. They like our way. SO, that's what we should do." It's a great way to work if all you want to do is get re-elected. It completely sucks if you actually want to really solve problems. And you should never forget to beware the tyranny of the majority.
Then again I have seen those 20 year olds voting for those politicians that really care about the environment and the world's state, while those 40 year olds voted for their 'connection' that promised them a better job, a bigger loan, more money, etc.
Don't confuse the idealistic nature of the 20 year old for maturity. In fact, you can chalk that up to immaturity. The 40 year old is looking out for himself, sure. However, that's not a matter of immaturity. Mr. 40 year old is being pragmatic. Despite what many people would wish, the environmental movement is dead. How many of these politicians the 20 year old is voting for are winning (at least in the US where I am)? The fact is, the entire system is made up of people giving each other hand jobs or some equivalent. Everybody has their hand in the pie and no one is going to give up their piece.
Tom DeLay has been unanimously admonished by the House ethics committee run by his own party 3 times now? 4 times?
I'm by no means a Tom DeLay supporter. In fact, I'd love to see him disappear from public life. However, I have to clarify the record with respect to the house ethics committee and Republican control of it. The House ethics committee is made up of equal numbers of representatives from both parties. To get an admonishment all you need is a tie. So, all the democrats vote for/republicans against and the committee has decided to admonish DeLay. The term "House ethics committee" is an oxymoron. It's simply another political propaganda tool used by both parties against each other.
If I recall my physics classes correctly, energy can neither be created or destroyed. So, if the potential energy isn't really energy, then where does the energy the water picks up on the way down come from? It has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is the store of energy that the water has by being at a height. Potential energy is just as real as kinetic energy. It's not just a construct. It's the representation of the energy stored within something. Does gasoline not contain potential energy by its chemical makeup? If it didn't, there'd be no point in burning it to release that energy.
In essence, a plasma double layer is the electrostatic equivalent of a waterfall. Just as water molecules pick up energy as they fall between the two different heights...
Water molecules do not pick up energy as they fall. There potential energy is simply converted into kinetic energy. However, they had the energy all along in the form of potential energy.
My whole point is that this technology should not have been abandoned. Why isn't it still being researched?
Great question. It should be researched. However, all the big automakers are spending most of their own money on reducing the emisssions of fossil fueled vehicles. Sure, they could move to an electric technology and completely reduce emissions. However, that takes time. Time the manufactures don't have because governments across the globe have set agressive emission requirements that have to be met if they expect to continue to sell new cars. So, instead of investing a big chunk of their R&D budget into some alternative, they are investing in squeezing the most they can out of what they currently have. Sure, it's a decision made almost entirely accoring to profit estimates, but if they don't base their decision on making money in the future, they're never going to be around long enough to produce those wonderful electric cars. They have to keep selling cars to stay in business. It might be easier to get the automakers to put more money into these real alternatives instead of just trying to squeeze more out of a gallon of gasoline if the emission requirements weren't staring them in the face as something they have to deal with immediately. Rush a solution and you'll get a bad solution. Sure, they might never reduce emissions without those government requirements. But, don't complain that they're not spending enough on INSERT YOUR ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION HERE, when they're having to devote considerable resources just to make what they have now fit in a new smaller box. Sure, you can make an argument that they've got plenty of money, but that's not necessarily the case. Have you checked GM's income statements lately?
I'm not against finding a better alternative or reducing emissions. However, running around, screaming about the sky falling, and forcing automaker into a corner to meet agressive emission reductions are all reactionary. Sure, there's a problem. Trying to get a quick fix is only going to make it worse and prolong the real solution.
The fact that economics cannot properly account, even remotely, the degradation of the environment and account for how this will impact us in ten to 100 years means that its recommendations should be taken within a strictly constrainted box.
It's not a problem with economics. Economics can only account for the costs that are known. Environmental science is to blame. Environmental scientists can't agree on what the negative effects are. How can an economist be expected to calculate a cost if the experts in the arena can't even form a consensus on exactly what the negative effects are?
Economics is just like any other science in that the variables have to be known to make an accurate prediction. It's not the job of the economists to determine the environmental effects, only what their costs are. When environmental scientists have conclusively determined that, blame the economist if the economics are wrong.
Yes... but what you are talking about is the hypothesis... scientists are shocked all the time to find out that how they thought something SHOULD work doesn't actually work that way... that's the experimental validation or invalidation of the hypothesis... a theory does not a hypothesis make... at least for honest scientists...
it were Microsoft instead of Apple? I'm an Apple guy and no fan of Microsoft. I'm just wondering how upset rather than apologetic people on /. would be if it were Microsoft not "sharing" with the open source community...
That said... as long as Apple is operating within the license, they're not violating it. If people believe that it's a violation is of the spirit of the license type, then maybe the license should be updated...
I'd be very curious to see some figures on how much money was spent on spam-started purchases last year....
It's not so much about the total as the cost per lead generated (from what I recall from my marketing classes). Advertising channels are judged by cost per lead generated. To place an ad in a magazine, newspaper, on radio/tv, etc, it costs significant money. To send spam, it's a significantly smaller cost (virtually free if you already have the hardware/software/connectivity). So, even though SPAM probably generates a lot smaller number of quality leads per person exposed, it's still more cost effective than the alternatives... at least from a cash flow perspective. They obviously don't factor the loss of goodwill (which some companies actually assign a monetary value to in their accounting as an asset) in with their decision.
I agree that the whole thing is really irrelevant to everyday life. However, my argument is that we don't know enough about things to be able to say that there is almost certainly there is no creator. I would agree that there is almost certainly no God in the sense that fundamentalists (of whatever persuasion) would have us believe.
I never said that the fact that we don't know things proved that there was a God. I honestly don't know or really care. Like you said, it's not really relevant to everyday life. However, our science only takes us back to the big bang... what happened before... why did it happen... where did it happen... if we are in the universe, where is the universe. Those questions still lie in the domain of philosophy. There's a pretty good probability that, as far as we concerned, they always will. Either we will be destroyed before we can figure it out or we will be limited by what we are capable of perceiving. The same arguments against a creator are just as applicable to string theory. Is the universe really just made up of a bunch of vibrating strings? I don't know. I don't really care either. It doesn't matter to everyday life. Just like the creator. But, it's an intriguing mental exercise to run through the what-if's... for both philisophical arguments.