Furthermore, if they all happened to be rich bastards anyway low income taxes would still be sufficient. Tax levels are just one part of this equation.
People will oppose the enforcers and enforcement measures taken by systems that they deem to be immoral and in opposition to them. That is the simplest explanation; so many people engage in civil disobedience that there will always be resistance to these sorts of proposals.
You're joking, right? Regardless of the merit of the federal spending program, or the current state of the Californian government's books, you ought to care if an entire state of people fell out of the union. Particularly California. It's a major sea trade center, the site of a historical gold rush, and the center of America's modern movie industry. Think of all the money the Californian citizens generate and try to consider that objectively outside of the state government deficit, the actions of the fed and your own political slant.
Regardless of what's going on right now in the government and the economy, you'd be right fucked if California dropped off the face of the map. Or, better yet, if we gave it back to Mexico. It was kinda theirs to begin with before we shot a bunch of Mexicans and called it ours.
You ought to, considering that you'd no longer enjoy the benefits of all the federal income tax they pay. How would America fund its frivolous, misguided wars without all of that hard currency?
The univeristy simply wants you to submit original material for every class. You can't ride all the way through college just by turning in the same A+ paper every term.
So, encouraging competition in the labor market by reducing trade barriers and wage restrictions is now being a communist?
I don't want to redistribute anything. I just want everyone to be able to compete for work on equal terms. When that happens, wages in more developed countries will fall while wages in less developed countries will rise, until they equalize.
Wage restrictions and immigration controls have nothing to do with social darwinism. In fact, they impede it, by ensuring that you get overpaid for your work when someone else would gladly do it for less. You're the less efficient, wasteful being that needs to be stamped out of existence, not them.
I'm not a socialist, you're just a bad capitalist. You're such a bad capitalist that when I suggest relaxing labor restrictions, you call me a communist. Way to make yourself look like a total idiot.
Equal consideration != Equal time. These other topics you've suggested would all be great things to discuss with children because they highlight the importance of the scientific method and what can go wrong when it isn't applied. We teach kids about Copernicus and Galileo all the time, and that isn't considered to be a waste.
My basic point was that the summary writer seems to be falling down a precarious, hypocritical slope himself by purporting to be a supporter of science, but then construing critical thinking and questioning the validity of theories to be a bad thing.
That might not be what he meant exactly but the way he said those things with a straight face really illustrates what could happen if we aren't careful -- one unquestionable state-sanctioned dogma will simply be replaced by a new one, instead of being replaced by a rational, scientific curiosity. We ought to raise our children to question things and not to take what they are told for granted. If that takes up some extra classroom time then so be it.
Because clearly, the world will only be right and pure if other people are unemployed while we are overpaid, as opposed to everyone earning a modest wage. Is global wage equalization too much for you? That means you're a spoiled, anti-competitive brat.
Who is keeping "score" here? Encouraging students to be critical thinkers is not a bad thing. The summary writer sounds just as bad as the theists he is denouncing; he wants to mind-guard people from the idea of God in the same way they want to mind-guard people from the idea that there might not be a God; they want to prevent people from critiquing religious theory by banning the teaching of evolution. He wants to prevent people from critiquing evolutionary theory by banning religious theory. This isn't a game where you keep score, it's an important philosophical debate of profound significance to our entire society. Don't we value free speech and open debate?
Maybe he is able to reduce the expense of college by living with his parents in that particular town. Maybe he is in a long-term committed relationship with someone and he doesn't want to end it to pursue his education.
Personally, I don't own a laptop because I enjoy getting the most powerful hardware for my buck and making a tricked-out gaming desktop machine. I use the computer labs at my major state university all of the time to write papers and print documents when I feel like doing work on campus (I live in an off-campus apartment so going all the way home just to work on a paper isn't always feasible). Furthermore, I find it easier to stay on-task when I am working in a school computer lab. There's less distractions, like the water-pipe I keep near my desk at home and the copy of Crysis I have installed at home as well!
Computer labs are here to stay for a long, long time. This is just an anomaly. Nothing to see here.
"The world would be no poorer if there were no more killergames."
Said the man who trains to kill for a profession. Aren't police simulators basically violent videogames (or "worse")? Isn't he effectively calling for an end to police training? Why can't videogames train defenders and tender warriors as well as they could train murderous villains? How many of the cops on this man's police force also play Counter-Strike and Far Cry? Did it turn them into serial killers or mass murderers?
The work by Lineweaver's group already suggests that they are there (simply from a proability basis). The question to ask is where they are relative to our state of development?
There is little point in asking a question we can't yet answer. Finding one is a necessary precursor to answering that question.
And if one truly understands computer science, and life science, and nanotechnology, then they are out there, they are developed (much further along than we currently are) and they have most probably have evolved into a Matrioshka Brain architecture.
You seem pretty sure of yourself that anyone who "understands" simply must conclude that there must be other Earth-like planets with life as we know it and it must be more developed than us. Didn't all of that science and the scientific method teach you to be a little more conservative in your assumptions, Bradbury?
Slashdot Mirror
Furthermore, if they all happened to be rich bastards anyway low income taxes would still be sufficient. Tax levels are just one part of this equation.
People will oppose the enforcers and enforcement measures taken by systems that they deem to be immoral and in opposition to them. That is the simplest explanation; so many people engage in civil disobedience that there will always be resistance to these sorts of proposals.
We should execute every pot-smoker and prostitute in America and bury them in mass graves. Fuck yeah!
At worst you make no difference
I don't really buy that one.
The roots of this correlation likely have little to do with literal geography and more to do with socio-economic groupings, local prices, and so on.
That would probably encourage child abuse.
This sounds like a job for Team America World Police
You're joking, right? Regardless of the merit of the federal spending program, or the current state of the Californian government's books, you ought to care if an entire state of people fell out of the union. Particularly California. It's a major sea trade center, the site of a historical gold rush, and the center of America's modern movie industry. Think of all the money the Californian citizens generate and try to consider that objectively outside of the state government deficit, the actions of the fed and your own political slant.
While Schwarzenegger's administration has estimated the gap between state income and outgo over the next 18 months at $40 billion, California is responsible for 13% of the United States' gross domestic product (GDP). The state's GDP is at about $1.7 trillion (as of 2006).
Regardless of what's going on right now in the government and the economy, you'd be right fucked if California dropped off the face of the map. Or, better yet, if we gave it back to Mexico. It was kinda theirs to begin with before we shot a bunch of Mexicans and called it ours.
You ought to, considering that you'd no longer enjoy the benefits of all the federal income tax they pay. How would America fund its frivolous, misguided wars without all of that hard currency?
The univeristy simply wants you to submit original material for every class. You can't ride all the way through college just by turning in the same A+ paper every term.
What areas does it work for you? I've looked at getting Clear in Portland but the 97239 area code is not reported as being covered on Clear.com
the extent to which the consumer is satisfied is measured by the entrepeneur's profits/losses
Wow! Standard Oil satisfied its consumers the most!
I think there are some variables missing from your analysis. Monopoly pricing is the most elementary example.
So, encouraging competition in the labor market by reducing trade barriers and wage restrictions is now being a communist?
I don't want to redistribute anything. I just want everyone to be able to compete for work on equal terms. When that happens, wages in more developed countries will fall while wages in less developed countries will rise, until they equalize.
Wage restrictions and immigration controls have nothing to do with social darwinism. In fact, they impede it, by ensuring that you get overpaid for your work when someone else would gladly do it for less. You're the less efficient, wasteful being that needs to be stamped out of existence, not them.
I'm not a socialist, you're just a bad capitalist. You're such a bad capitalist that when I suggest relaxing labor restrictions, you call me a communist. Way to make yourself look like a total idiot.
Equal consideration != Equal time. These other topics you've suggested would all be great things to discuss with children because they highlight the importance of the scientific method and what can go wrong when it isn't applied. We teach kids about Copernicus and Galileo all the time, and that isn't considered to be a waste.
My basic point was that the summary writer seems to be falling down a precarious, hypocritical slope himself by purporting to be a supporter of science, but then construing critical thinking and questioning the validity of theories to be a bad thing.
That might not be what he meant exactly but the way he said those things with a straight face really illustrates what could happen if we aren't careful -- one unquestionable state-sanctioned dogma will simply be replaced by a new one, instead of being replaced by a rational, scientific curiosity. We ought to raise our children to question things and not to take what they are told for granted. If that takes up some extra classroom time then so be it.
Because clearly, the world will only be right and pure if other people are unemployed while we are overpaid, as opposed to everyone earning a modest wage. Is global wage equalization too much for you? That means you're a spoiled, anti-competitive brat.
Who is keeping "score" here? Encouraging students to be critical thinkers is not a bad thing. The summary writer sounds just as bad as the theists he is denouncing; he wants to mind-guard people from the idea of God in the same way they want to mind-guard people from the idea that there might not be a God; they want to prevent people from critiquing religious theory by banning the teaching of evolution. He wants to prevent people from critiquing evolutionary theory by banning religious theory. This isn't a game where you keep score, it's an important philosophical debate of profound significance to our entire society. Don't we value free speech and open debate?
Maybe he is able to reduce the expense of college by living with his parents in that particular town. Maybe he is in a long-term committed relationship with someone and he doesn't want to end it to pursue his education.
Don't assume you have all the facts.
I think you got trolled. 10/10
The moral high ground has been removed thanks to Gitmo.
Never mind the trail of tears.
Personally, I don't own a laptop because I enjoy getting the most powerful hardware for my buck and making a tricked-out gaming desktop machine. I use the computer labs at my major state university all of the time to write papers and print documents when I feel like doing work on campus (I live in an off-campus apartment so going all the way home just to work on a paper isn't always feasible). Furthermore, I find it easier to stay on-task when I am working in a school computer lab. There's less distractions, like the water-pipe I keep near my desk at home and the copy of Crysis I have installed at home as well!
Computer labs are here to stay for a long, long time. This is just an anomaly. Nothing to see here.
"The world would be no poorer if there were no more killergames."
Said the man who trains to kill for a profession. Aren't police simulators basically violent videogames (or "worse")? Isn't he effectively calling for an end to police training? Why can't videogames train defenders and tender warriors as well as they could train murderous villains? How many of the cops on this man's police force also play Counter-Strike and Far Cry? Did it turn them into serial killers or mass murderers?
Your analysis presumes that television will never die. I find that to be unlikely.
Super fast!
The work by Lineweaver's group already suggests that they are there (simply from a proability basis). The question to ask is where they are relative to our state of development?
There is little point in asking a question we can't yet answer. Finding one is a necessary precursor to answering that question.
And if one truly understands computer science, and life science, and nanotechnology, then they are out there, they are developed (much further along than we currently are) and they have most probably have evolved into a Matrioshka Brain architecture.
You seem pretty sure of yourself that anyone who "understands" simply must conclude that there must be other Earth-like planets with life as we know it and it must be more developed than us. Didn't all of that science and the scientific method teach you to be a little more conservative in your assumptions, Bradbury?
Yet another fucking idiot who equates the principle of evolution with a theory of creation.