I'm certainly against eugenics on a government level, as it usually doesn't end well for minorities. I don't know how I feel about it on a personal level. Also, at some point it becomes their body as well as the body of another.
The GP was debating the scientific merits. Suggesting that there is a positive feedback mechanism in a system such that the funder would tend to get results that benefit them. Debating the bias of results is debating the core of it's scientific merit. So, please engage him in the debate and, if you disagree, argue why this bias does not exist. Only one of the two of you went on a tangent and threw profanity and personal insults into their post.
Most, yes. 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. Most own small businesses or are self employed. Few are the robber barrens of the past (and present) that use the government to make rules that stifle their competition or protect themselves from prosecution by being buddies with politicians.
Indeed. To clarify what I said, I would say there is a difference between "planning to be" rich and "planning on" being rich. I also regret my use of the word "rich" as that means much different things to people. For me it would be complete financial independence. I'm not shooting for the top 1% as some have suggested. Maybe my kids can make that, though. We are lucky to have two incomes, but our expenses are less than one of ours. We have savings to cover a reasonable time without income and insurance to cover something bigger. Those big things are rare, though. Financial independence will add quite a bit of peace to my wife and my life: where we are know already has. No matter what happens being closer to that will make any problems lighter. I mean, the transmission went our in my wife's (payed off) car. The cost was more than a replacement. Having gone through this situation before I can tell you it is much different feeling to answer "What car do we want and what do we want to spend" than "What car do we want and where can we get the money".
I believe I am remembering it being split along "first generation" wealthy giving more, which is really the population I was referring to. I'm sure throwing out all the elitist trust fund babies (we all hate those) would change those statistics a bit. I can't seem to find it, though, so I retract my statement.
My wife and I have a written budget before we spend anything. We made big sacrifices and redefined want "need" meant to us. We payed of our debt, all of which was from frivolous spending and expenses that should have been expected but weren't planned for. Life opens up a lot when you aren't making payments to anyone. Saving and putting early retirement in reach (not that I'll quit working, but there is peace when you don't have to) becomes much easier, I didn't say top 1%. I don't understand why your reaction to my choices and my distaste for others wanting to forgo my sacrifices and reap my reward for it is to throw political labels on me.
The problem is the beliefs involved in such policies are based on moral beliefs, not results based. Most have a line, be it: infanticide, partial birth abortion, late term abortion, brain or whatever develops, conception or even as far as prevention. I know no one that personally believes infanticide is anything but evil or that plan B is bad but there is a pretty big grey blur in between. If you're someone who thinks that there is a moral line in there somewhere, should you cross it for the result that the cycle of bad choices will cease? Why not something where death is not involved like sterilizing poor women? Well, we'll need to sterilize the men too as to not be sexist. Or is that a moral line that your conscience can't cross?
A common trope by rich people who worked their tails off and sacrificed a lot in the beginning, who are told that "their fair share" has to go to support people who spend their money on frivolous gratifications. I'm not rich yet, but I plan to be. I went into the SS office and half of the people there had out their Androids/iPhones. I am a guy who is pretty into tech, but have gone without a smart phone because the ridiculous price for a data plan isn't worth it for the instant gratification of checking my email between work and home. I go without to get ahead a bit only to be told I now have to subsidize those things for others. My wife and I spend $240 a month total on food, and that includes a couple date nights out a month. Getting fast food or whatever everyday would be so much easier, but I want to improve my place. The lesson in this: Be irresponsible and you get it now and later.
Though, most rich people still look past it and still care enough for humanity that even beyond their higher taxes they are also the most generous and donate a much high percentage to charity. Keep blaming rich people and buying beer and cigarettes (if you are poor) or big screen TVs and new cars (if you are middle class) and the greatest chance in the history of the world for social mobility will never be yours.
I know hippies hate the mutually assured destruction idea... but it works. When in history have two empires struggling for more global power stood nose to nose with such little violence as with the USA and USSR? If you have more to lose than gain, even if you 'win', your perspective changes and you take a step back, or at least won't step into the fight. There is a line where we would be willing to step into a bar fight. There's a line much farther away (probably along the lines of someone attacking you first) that would need to be crossed to get us in a fight with someone with a knife in hand, even if we have a knife of our own. Most people/nations aren't completely irrational and operate off of general survival instincts.
They do accomplish some things "better", certainly for a short time. As with most monopolies that efficiency tends to wane, only the government doesn't fail and get out of the way for a newer efficient model. This progress also has costs, as I stated. Using "the government does things better" model the solution to symptoms is more government intervention, such as in my example. We now have an efficient cost to cost system of road that is, according to many, a big factor in destroying our environment. Now the government is subsidizing corporations, many of them failing to control the problem. Meanwhile subsidizing oil prices by securing our supply with our army. But hey, government made Walmart and it's cheap goods possible, so clearly it is a win for society as a whole.
I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but society is really complicated, and predicting and controlling the outcomes is hardly scientifically measurable in its success.
I've made big assumptions and so have you. Rather than provide more examples or explain how I was completely wrong in my assessment of your simplified generalization that there are currently roads and the government made them do government is good, You made a blanket statement that history is against me with no example.
Don't pretend that I am part of some deluded mass stumbling through life with a blind dedication to some vague unthoughtful hatred of government. Our system of government is based upon popular belief; it's existence and action in growing amounts of our lives is the antithesis of your statement that I am speaking for the masses. My starting point in my world view simple starts with a higher value to personal freedom and higher cost to the it's oppression. I suppose I should step back and say there are things in history that government does better: oppression, slavery, and slaughter. Though, I suppose your definition of "better" depends which side if the incendiary bomb you are on.
Of course, without the government, we wouldn't have roads or the internet
I don't accept that as fact. Linking to new markets and simplifying and lowering cost of supply chains would still be in many peoples interest and with all the tax dollars still in their pocket many might opt to fund the construction. It would be slower and probably more chaotic... organic in nature. There would probably be more toll roads, but that's just paying for it differently and more consciously. I would say we probably wouldn't have as "grand" a road system, but the trade off would be more localized economies, less dependence on oil, fewer greenhouse less and fewer wars for oil. Those seem like values the people who like government also tend to like.
Chuckle at the bad joke and move on. Don't let spite grow out of a lighthearted criticism. Also, if you only manage to hit one idiot with a rock here, you're doing it wrong.
Many factors may affect both soda consumption and problem behaviors of children. Poor dietary behaviors, such as high soda consumption among young children,
may be associated with other parenting practices, such as excessive TV viewing or high consumption of sweets in the child’s diet. Furthermore, parenting practices may be associated with social factors known to be associated with child behavior.
The effort to create a double spend is not free. For most transaction in day to day life the effort cost and chance involved would be more than the transaction itself, so not worth trying. A transaction propagates through the network pretty much instantly and they can be on their way with a cup of coffee/groceries with less risk than a credit card being charged back. And of course, if you're not paying to Visas rates for the transaction you can afford a bit more risk even if it were present. For a car, internet purchases, an overseas transfer or any large transfer were the risk exists for a profitable double spend; an hour is reasonable to wait for full confirmation of the network.
Seriously. I don't want them to be transparent and tell me how they are collecting my communications. I want them to NOT COLLECT my communications without a warrant that has been issued upon just cause.
Slashdot Mirror
there will be pressure to make these services widely available.
And now we're back to government sponsored eugenics.
I'm certainly against eugenics on a government level, as it usually doesn't end well for minorities. I don't know how I feel about it on a personal level. Also, at some point it becomes their body as well as the body of another.
parents will also have the option of aborting if the genetic problems are severe
Or minor. Or because it's a girl.
The GP was debating the scientific merits. Suggesting that there is a positive feedback mechanism in a system such that the funder would tend to get results that benefit them. Debating the bias of results is debating the core of it's scientific merit. So, please engage him in the debate and, if you disagree, argue why this bias does not exist. Only one of the two of you went on a tangent and threw profanity and personal insults into their post.
Your life, sir, is the real american dream. The one people came to the US for, not the one that was sold on 50s sitcoms.
Most, yes. 80% of millionaires are first generation rich. Most own small businesses or are self employed. Few are the robber barrens of the past (and present) that use the government to make rules that stifle their competition or protect themselves from prosecution by being buddies with politicians.
http://www.amazon.com/Millionaire-Next-Door-Thomas-Stanley/dp/0671015206
I think this book will surprise you, if you can read and process it without getting mad and shouting profanities.
Indeed. To clarify what I said, I would say there is a difference between "planning to be" rich and "planning on" being rich. I also regret my use of the word "rich" as that means much different things to people. For me it would be complete financial independence. I'm not shooting for the top 1% as some have suggested. Maybe my kids can make that, though. We are lucky to have two incomes, but our expenses are less than one of ours. We have savings to cover a reasonable time without income and insurance to cover something bigger. Those big things are rare, though. Financial independence will add quite a bit of peace to my wife and my life: where we are know already has. No matter what happens being closer to that will make any problems lighter. I mean, the transmission went our in my wife's (payed off) car. The cost was more than a replacement. Having gone through this situation before I can tell you it is much different feeling to answer "What car do we want and what do we want to spend" than "What car do we want and where can we get the money".
I believe I am remembering it being split along "first generation" wealthy giving more, which is really the population I was referring to. I'm sure throwing out all the elitist trust fund babies (we all hate those) would change those statistics a bit. I can't seem to find it, though, so I retract my statement.
My wife and I have a written budget before we spend anything. We made big sacrifices and redefined want "need" meant to us. We payed of our debt, all of which was from frivolous spending and expenses that should have been expected but weren't planned for. Life opens up a lot when you aren't making payments to anyone. Saving and putting early retirement in reach (not that I'll quit working, but there is peace when you don't have to) becomes much easier, I didn't say top 1%. I don't understand why your reaction to my choices and my distaste for others wanting to forgo my sacrifices and reap my reward for it is to throw political labels on me.
The problem is the beliefs involved in such policies are based on moral beliefs, not results based. Most have a line, be it: infanticide, partial birth abortion, late term abortion, brain or whatever develops, conception or even as far as prevention. I know no one that personally believes infanticide is anything but evil or that plan B is bad but there is a pretty big grey blur in between. If you're someone who thinks that there is a moral line in there somewhere, should you cross it for the result that the cycle of bad choices will cease? Why not something where death is not involved like sterilizing poor women? Well, we'll need to sterilize the men too as to not be sexist. Or is that a moral line that your conscience can't cross?
A common trope by rich people who worked their tails off and sacrificed a lot in the beginning, who are told that "their fair share" has to go to support people who spend their money on frivolous gratifications. I'm not rich yet, but I plan to be. I went into the SS office and half of the people there had out their Androids/iPhones. I am a guy who is pretty into tech, but have gone without a smart phone because the ridiculous price for a data plan isn't worth it for the instant gratification of checking my email between work and home. I go without to get ahead a bit only to be told I now have to subsidize those things for others. My wife and I spend $240 a month total on food, and that includes a couple date nights out a month. Getting fast food or whatever everyday would be so much easier, but I want to improve my place. The lesson in this: Be irresponsible and you get it now and later.
Though, most rich people still look past it and still care enough for humanity that even beyond their higher taxes they are also the most generous and donate a much high percentage to charity. Keep blaming rich people and buying beer and cigarettes (if you are poor) or big screen TVs and new cars (if you are middle class) and the greatest chance in the history of the world for social mobility will never be yours.
I know hippies hate the mutually assured destruction idea... but it works. When in history have two empires struggling for more global power stood nose to nose with such little violence as with the USA and USSR? If you have more to lose than gain, even if you 'win', your perspective changes and you take a step back, or at least won't step into the fight. There is a line where we would be willing to step into a bar fight. There's a line much farther away (probably along the lines of someone attacking you first) that would need to be crossed to get us in a fight with someone with a knife in hand, even if we have a knife of our own. Most people/nations aren't completely irrational and operate off of general survival instincts.
Indeed. It was sarcasm pointing to San Francisco's location in an area with a history of big earthquakes.
You act as though the ground in San Francisco could sudden shift and tear the seawall apart.
They do accomplish some things "better", certainly for a short time. As with most monopolies that efficiency tends to wane, only the government doesn't fail and get out of the way for a newer efficient model. This progress also has costs, as I stated. Using "the government does things better" model the solution to symptoms is more government intervention, such as in my example. We now have an efficient cost to cost system of road that is, according to many, a big factor in destroying our environment. Now the government is subsidizing corporations, many of them failing to control the problem. Meanwhile subsidizing oil prices by securing our supply with our army. But hey, government made Walmart and it's cheap goods possible, so clearly it is a win for society as a whole.
I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but society is really complicated, and predicting and controlling the outcomes is hardly scientifically measurable in its success.
I've made big assumptions and so have you. Rather than provide more examples or explain how I was completely wrong in my assessment of your simplified generalization that there are currently roads and the government made them do government is good, You made a blanket statement that history is against me with no example.
Don't pretend that I am part of some deluded mass stumbling through life with a blind dedication to some vague unthoughtful hatred of government. Our system of government is based upon popular belief; it's existence and action in growing amounts of our lives is the antithesis of your statement that I am speaking for the masses. My starting point in my world view simple starts with a higher value to personal freedom and higher cost to the it's oppression. I suppose I should step back and say there are things in history that government does better: oppression, slavery, and slaughter. Though, I suppose your definition of "better" depends which side if the incendiary bomb you are on.
Of course, without the government, we wouldn't have roads or the internet
I don't accept that as fact. Linking to new markets and simplifying and lowering cost of supply chains would still be in many peoples interest and with all the tax dollars still in their pocket many might opt to fund the construction. It would be slower and probably more chaotic... organic in nature. There would probably be more toll roads, but that's just paying for it differently and more consciously. I would say we probably wouldn't have as "grand" a road system, but the trade off would be more localized economies, less dependence on oil, fewer greenhouse less and fewer wars for oil. Those seem like values the people who like government also tend to like.
If we mine on the dark side we might piss off the aliens that have bases there.
Write a conclusive conclusion without good science to back it up, you deserve such wrath.
Chuckle at the bad joke and move on. Don't let spite grow out of a lighthearted criticism. Also, if you only manage to hit one idiot with a rock here, you're doing it wrong.
Many factors may affect both soda consumption and problem behaviors of children. Poor dietary behaviors, such as high soda consumption among young children, may be associated with other parenting practices, such as excessive TV viewing or high consumption of sweets in the child’s diet. Furthermore, parenting practices may be associated with social factors known to be associated with child behavior.
People shouldn't write their own encryption, because even very smart people frequently screw it up
Like Android developers, for instance.
The effort to create a double spend is not free. For most transaction in day to day life the effort cost and chance involved would be more than the transaction itself, so not worth trying. A transaction propagates through the network pretty much instantly and they can be on their way with a cup of coffee/groceries with less risk than a credit card being charged back. And of course, if you're not paying to Visas rates for the transaction you can afford a bit more risk even if it were present. For a car, internet purchases, an overseas transfer or any large transfer were the risk exists for a profitable double spend; an hour is reasonable to wait for full confirmation of the network.
Seriously. I don't want them to be transparent and tell me how they are collecting my communications. I want them to NOT COLLECT my communications without a warrant that has been issued upon just cause.
There once was a man... Never mind, I was confused. That's a limerick.
Pyramid schemes are not Ponzi schemes.