|
So basicly they aren't much worse than other nations...
I understand reasons of tax avoidance and such...
|
|
|
|
If wealth distribution were equalized, it would sink to a lower common denominator because once people rely on a set income their drive for wealth is extremely diminished and they don't work as hard, then eventually people starve... but hey it would be equal, so that's... good?
If no one works, then who will grow the food crops? Who will patrol your town? Who will look after the public transportation and other facilities? It is bound to fail. Why would anyone stop working?  Wealth distribution is just a data or a property of a system. I think most people are not speaking about giving everyone the same amount of money (it will never happen), but a shift from a greed oriented world to a cooperation and common good oriented world. binary people are amusing. If everyone gets more to reasonable point everyone ends up with more, at least the vast majority that is 99% to 99.9%. As I said it's not zero-sum game. In the end some people earn more, but everyone earning more means that majority spends more and spending means more money earned and better quality of live for everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Economy isn't zero-sum game. So more equal wealth distribution in the end means that wealth the rich have has more power and can get more goods. And other hand it's also numbers game. 1 000 people spending 10 000 000 is less than 100 000 000 spending 10 000.
Most of the development has come from specialisation and without reasonable wealth distribution this can't happen.
So it's just question of how to get the money in hands of majority...
|
|
|
|
First lets do these:
1. Hang the Clintons (both Hillary and Bill) for bombing to death thousands of Serbian children, and then lying about it.
2. Hang George Bush for causing the death of 1 million Iraqis.
3. Hang Obama for bullying every nation in the world, other than the US.
3. Hang Obama for many many murders committed... Many well documented. |
|
|
|
Price isn't the real killer, it's the consistency. Hydro is good solution in many ways, but there isn't that much of it in most places...
I am not a big lover of hydro energy. For generating hydropower, huge dams should be constructed which results in the flooding of millions of hectares of forest and agricultural land. It also alters the natural flow of water. True, but it is superior compared to other techniques in many ways. Price, availability, reliability and ability to change amount of production is superior compared to any other method. Point is that hydro is nearly one viable option to compensate the renevables. |
|
|
|
Ok, and now count the number of deaths caused by wind farms.
Wind energy is extremely expensive. And it destroys the natural beauty as well. I will not support wind farms, unless they are capable of producing energy at the rate of less than $ 0.02 per KWH. With 90% availability over the course of year... Never forget that factor. Price isn't the real killer, it's the consistency. Hydro is good solution in many ways, but there isn't that much of it in most places... |
|
|
|
Ok, and now count the number of deaths caused by wind farms.
Over 100... Now just to compare it to produced energy... |
|
|
|
I think what Bryant was trying to say is that with something like coal power, we really do know the number of increased fatalities due to the mining, and the additional bad stuff that goes into the air, and it is orders of magnitude higher than that from atomic power.
Exactly. Note down the number of people who have died during the last century from respiratory illnesses. Then, note down the number of people who have died of radiation poisoning during the same period. Which one will be higher? Any guesses? Also separate the ones who have died from radiation related diseases resulting from particles released in coal burning... |
|
|
|
We need really new breakthroughs like nuclear fusion, not the shitty gas that destroys environment in the large scales!
Even the current technology of generating electricity using nuclear fission is far better than burning gas or coal to generate the same. I don't know why all those environmentalists oppose nuclear energy. If you take all the necessary security precautions, nuclear energy is the cheapest and cleanest form of energy which is available to us. If you're talking about cold fusion and other forms of Nuclear Power that don't have major meltdowns which will cause the end of humanity then I'm all for it but these people who think it's a good idea to put nuclear bombs right next to highly populated areas scare the shit out of me and it makes you realise just how little they give a fuck about human beings. Nuclear bombs? Nuclear is best CO2 free way of producing energy. Coal and shale gas isn't bad if pollution is something not cared about. |
|
|
|
|
Just think how bad mobile networks and other radio networks would be without regulation?
The strongest transmitter would win, and usefulness of the system would likely be very low...
Wifi would also be interesting, just think about the microwave ovens without proper protections, wreaking havoc to data transmissions...
In some cases forcing regulation and standards is beneficial.
|
|
|
|
shit happens
You consider the murder of innocent people "shit" ? As if bombing people from unmanned aircraft and "accidentally" killing innocent people is acceptable in any way? The problem is that the alternative to drones is a land invasion and slaughter of the "guilty." Even assuming the "guilty" (using scare quotes as the war on terror is mostly bullshit) are killed, a few 10s of 1000s of innocents would die as the marines fought their way there. Or you guys could just stop invading other countries and mind your own business.. no offense 9/11 happened. Until there is no chance of it happening again, its fair to say that countries that harbour suspects will be seeing military action of some kind. So, response to these military actions is clearly killing as many enemy combatants(that is anyone on USA soil) by those who are ready to sacrifice themselves for common good(that is their society's good). It works in both ways. Very few in your government are ready for real solutions. That is working towards situation where neither side wants to kill enemy combatants... Which is either peace or killing all of the opposition. Later hasn't ever worked out well... Revenge runs very deep in humans. Maybe someday we will overcome that. Not that there won't be outliers in every society, but that is just early prevention and care... |
|
|
|
Wow, just wow.. I cannot fathom as to why someone would want to live out the rest of their life on Mars with no return ticket. I see so many problems with this already..
I don't understand why someone would want to be farmer, or any sort of frontier either...  Some people think they like to go to the unexplored and live there... |
|
|
|
|
No they aren't people.
They are just entities build to protect and separate the owners and runners from actions.
|
|
|
|
|
What are entry requirements for Somalia?
Just hire sufficient private security get some land there and settle in.
|
|
|
|
There's definitely a lot that can be automated like cooking and teaching. These are relatively simple things. But, can you really automate neurosurgery/heart surgery in the next year? It is possible; There are surgery simulators out there. So if we took Surgeon Simulator 2013 and upgraded it to have easier controls, more intuitive controls with very high detail simulations of surgery we could, by using machine learning, learn all the necessities of surgery from average users. Yes I know sounds crazy, but as more people successfully complete the surgery with a A.I. observing the best players it can learn what to do and by observing the unsuccessful players it will learn what not to do. I think it will be easier and more expedient to design nanobots that would make repairs (in the way natural healing occurs) without actual surgery than build a robot able to carry out neurosurgery... Truth is that the modern surgery methods sometimes already use remote control. So we really aren't that faraway from pure robots. Automating minimaly invasive techniques shouldn't be too complex problem. |
|
|
|
When you justify using force to force people to be part of your system, you are justifying tyranny. Even if your system is measurably great in some way, or many ways. The ends (greatness in economic growth or some other measure) do not justify the means (infringing the right of other people to their life, liberty, and/or property).
It is our moral judgment that we erroneously extend on state which is beyond morality. You just can't attach your idea of means not justifying ends to state, whether you like it or not. It would be equal to saying that it is immoral when one animal kills another. Such judgments are simply inapplicable here... My basic argument is that there is no way you can justify infringing on someone else's rights to life, liberty, and property. So yes, I can say that no ends justify those means. For example I am opposed to animal cruelty. Is it your argument that people who are cruel to animals that they own should not be prosecuted? What gives you the right to dictate that? Telling you to keep your hands off of that which isn't yours and not to harm others is an imposition of morality to you? Isn't believe that there is exist or should exist private property a moral one? Someone could believe that everything belongs to everyone and as such it would be immoral to keep others from it. |
|
|
|
|
It depends if Paypal get's real (fiat-based) competitors in market that overtake it.
So it's more of destruction of Paypal and less about bitcoin-based provider overtaking it. And I don't see bitcoin overtaking it ever.
Not that paypal isn't horrible company. They work if you are on paying side, but on receiving...
|
|
|
|
Switzerland is one of the most highly taxed countries in the world. They also provide great healthcare & drug rehabilitation programs. However setting a basic income of $2800 monthly will make it near impossible for certain businesses to operate.
That's what I have been saying all along. Some people want to raise the taxes from 40% to 400%. How is that even possible? Just tax 100% of 2.8k from those who don't need it to live. Simple |
|
|
|
|
Even if the fracking method is technically sound and doesn't contaminate surroundings. I'm not so sure about storage of the fluids above the surface.
The truth is we don't have any really good solutions. Everything has risks and costs attached to it. I am for one for nuclear. Renewables are good if they do fair competition that is pay for their load balancing...
I would wait on fracking for decade or two. It's not like the gas is going anywhere...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
