Fair society is treating people equally, rich or poor, no matter what status they had, no discrimation or favoritism.
I don't like your idea, it's not fair. The poor people in 80% became poor of their laziness and no will to change the situation. Let them be poor if they want. It's only a small amount of people who is poor because of the situation (mostly people with no family and with a terrible disease). It seems that something else is actually meant here like the law should be applicable to everyone equally without discrimination between the poor and the rich. Right now the rich, the truly rich ones, are above the law. This is not fair. It is definitely not about taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. That would be not fair either. |
|
|
|
not at all. Happiness does not depend on money. It is more like a psychological thing which is more connected to the human minds. Don't you think so?
Some people believe that money can buy happiness specialy the rich person,because with that you can buy what ever you want.but for me,true happiness is defined when your heart desires happen.also happiness is when you achieve your goals in life making it successful and the true love that Your family has given to you Some rich people they are happy because of money, But we as a poor person we happy because of our family and love one. Even i will be going to be happy if my family always their to care for me and understand and give some support to achieve my goal in life. Money doesn't really give the happiness that can be attained by that of family and friends, one thing that rich people really lack are true friends, they don't know if their friends are there for them purely for the money they have or because they really care about them. I don't think this is really so. You have to be rich yourself to tell for sure. But I don't think it is very difficult either to tell true friends from false ones. Most normal people will do that intuitively. It is the same with love and romance. If you are honest to yourself and don't mistake the wish for the reality, you can tell with certainty whether you are loved for what you are or just because of your money. In fact, with friends it is even easier because there's no wishful thinking involved. |
|
|
|
Can money buy happiness? Lots of people said bunch of stuff didn’t have time to read through all. It seems like majority of people understand as it does can buy happiness.
There’s different kinds of happiness. In short, yes it can. How ? If you see a person in need of something and he can’t afford it and someone or you or whoever buys him that and gives just like that because they can - I’m sure a person would be happy. Simple example- money brought happiness (or bought). Another example - a kid is awaiting surgery and he needs a transplant which is rare and family can’t afford. If there’s a person or a group who can sponsor or donate the resources/funds to have it done, will it bring happiness to the family and kid ? Money is a tool, a resource. It can bring happiness and it can bring sadness. Managing this resource wisely is a whole another thing.
In some cases one simply can’t buy happiness when it comes to feelings and stuff like that. Those are exclusions.
Topic is titled grammatically incorrect. But oh well, so many ppl in here having English their 2nd or 3rd language I already got used to it .. although when you are reading something poorly written u wanna correct it and u can’t
Money can't buy happiness because no one sells it, and those who do are charlatans. So it is not a problem of money as such. See the point? For example, people say that money can't buy you health, and they are right, to a degree, though it can definitely help you preserve it. But one day everything may change and you might in fact be able to buy immortality. And then happiness may soon follow. |
|
|
|
Hi, guys!
This project looks really promising and very active at that. I want to try mining BTX but since I've never mined anything before apart from testing waters with CPU mining, and I have a small question for you. Which is the best videocard or graphics chipset for mining BTX in respect to profit/price ratio? Sorry if this question has been asked before.
I think Nvidia gpus are the best for timetravel algo How much h/s I can receive from 1060 ? gtx 1060 3gb 10.5 mh/s. do the math Thanks for your help. I checked the prices and the 10x0 Nvidia cards seem to be expensive, especially top models, most likely due to high demand from miners. It may be a better idea to simply buy some coins instead and hold them for a while. |
|
|
|
And what gets lost between them?
If you read a translated book or subtitles you're not reading what the author wrote, it's the translator's effort. I know enough of a couple of languages to know that quite often what's being fed to you is radically different to the original work.
Similarly if you're some guy from Lesotho who only speaks your local dialect, how much of the world's knowledge is being denied to you by the lack of translation? What about your government as they're likely to be the one and only news source in that language? Surely objectivity and neutrality is almost non existent if someone's information sources are that limited. How much of his knowledge is being denied to anyone who doesn't speak what he does?
There must be mountains of information, art and learning that disappears between cultures because of this.
Is this an unpublicised cultural disaster or does the right info always find a way?
Anything worthy of note and public attention will get translated to English eventually or is just written in plain English first. So there's no reason to think that mountains of information get lost. What do you consider as worthy of note and public attention? You can have a different definition of that. Translate a document has a cost, either, the document or whatever needs to have a value and so it will be translated. Either it has no monetary value , in this case, it can be translated by a researcher, or more likely, won't be translated at all Maybe something which general public is interested in? My point is that if you want your idea known to the world, you will have to publish it in English. The same is about translating prior works. If you want them known to a wider public, you will translate them to English. Today, public interest is synonymous with monetary value. |
|
|
|
|
Hi, guys!
This project looks really promising and very active at that. I want to try mining BTX but since I've never mined anything before apart from testing waters with CPU mining, and I have a small question for you. Which is the best videocard or graphics chipset for mining BTX in respect to profit/price ratio? Sorry if this question has been asked before.
|
|
|
|
And what gets lost between them?
If you read a translated book or subtitles you're not reading what the author wrote, it's the translator's effort. I know enough of a couple of languages to know that quite often what's being fed to you is radically different to the original work.
Similarly if you're some guy from Lesotho who only speaks your local dialect, how much of the world's knowledge is being denied to you by the lack of translation? What about your government as they're likely to be the one and only news source in that language? Surely objectivity and neutrality is almost non existent if someone's information sources are that limited. How much of his knowledge is being denied to anyone who doesn't speak what he does?
There must be mountains of information, art and learning that disappears between cultures because of this.
Is this an unpublicised cultural disaster or does the right info always find a way?
Anything worthy of note and public attention will get translated to English eventually or is just written in plain English first. So there's no reason to think that mountains of information get lost. |
|
|
|
Well, every system has its pros and cons. If democracy has the con of majority of stupid people taking wrong decision, then in autocracy only one person can achieve that with 100% certainty. No system is perfect. Its we the people who need to behave and improve as a civilized society to take onus upon us to perform our duties. If every person does his job well, the world will automatically become a better place to live.But the dream of utopia will always be a dream as human beings are tuned to be attracted towards greed, power and lust  I think meritocracy comes quite close to being perfect and efficient. The problem with it is that most people are ignorant and they follow those who can play on their feelings rather than take their thoughts. People choose those whom they like personally, not those who are actually better at something. And until common people become wiser and smarter, this will remain so. |
|
|
|
What do you think?
I think there is no criterion for importance. The people whom we consider important do not consider themselves important. Only others perceive them to be important. If importance is a matter of perception, you have to first perceive yourself important.
Yeah, fake it till you make it! And then waste it! Though I don't really think that "important" people actually went for it. It may be more like their importance came about as a nice bonus or side effect for being valuable in society. The lesson to take home is that to be important you should be useful to the community you live in, and then respect will flow in quite naturally and well deserved. |
|
|
|
I'm sure everyone will answer family planning but in an uneducated parts of a country, it's not going to work. Our government should focus on them so they won't multiply too fast and create more unfortunate people in this world.
The problem is that some governments are not willing to implement family planning measures among the general population. This can be for short term benefits (cheap labor, cannon fodder during wars.etc), or due to pressure from the religious groups. If the government is a dictatorship, then it has more chances of implementing such measures. I for one don't think that introducing family planning policies is a good idea at all. I mean restrictive ones, of course. See what happened in China. At first they were hellbent on restricting childbirth rates, but then they had to admit that this policy was not a very good one. In districts where one-child law had been suspended, families didn't have many more children than in districts where the law was still enforced. Governments would have their hands full here. China can implement a one child policy since they're a communist country and the law is the law. Imagine that in a democratic system? Education that can reach the farthest places in your country would be the best option. People needs to understand the importance of making plans Well, in developed countries governments face quite the opposite issue. The birth rates there don't even make up for the mortality rates, so the governments have to raise immigration quotas for young skilled working people in an effort to compensate for the population decline due to sub-replacement fertility. |
|
|
|
It is not possible for China to take over as the superpower of the world but the USA is still stronger in military power full of sophisticated nuclear weapons, submarines and other advance machines.
But how relevant your military would be once you have a few hundred nuclear warheads, so no one is going to attack you anyway? Given this military near-parity that China now enjoys, we are inevitably confronted with the question which country is more powerful economically. And how good is the US in this field nowadays? |
|
|
|
Can we imagine a society without money ? Now a days the term bitcoin is getting very much interesting to all so is there any chance that in your future there will be bitcoin in exchange of money and if it happens what will be its consequence i thing it will be good because there is many country where the money value is low so its tough to carry a lot of money if bitcoin comes everywhere this problem can be solved.
That won't be a society without money. It will be a society with no fiat money, which seems to be your point. If not, Bitcoin will be money then. Money is anything which you can use as a unit of account. It can be anything which is easily divisible and which doesn't lose its value over time. Bitcoin fits this definition perfectly. |
|
|
|
I believe that having a higher income can give us access to homes in safer neighborhoods, better health care and nutrition, fulfilling work, and more leisure time. However, this only works up to a certain point. Once our income reaches a certain level and our basic needs for food, health care, safety, and shelter are met, the positive effects of money are often offset by the negative effects—such as working longer hours, or in more stressful jobs, to maintain that income. That's why being reach is not necessarily the path to happiness.
That's called the law of diminishing returns. For example, to get a modest raise, you have to work twice as much, and your boss may still think he is doing you a great favor, something like it's my way or the highway type of boss. The point is that radical improvements often require radical changes, so you may have to get rid of your nasty boss as well as your nasty job altogether to move to the next level of prosperity. |
|
|
|
I'm sure everyone will answer family planning but in an uneducated parts of a country, it's not going to work. Our government should focus on them so they won't multiply too fast and create more unfortunate people in this world.
The problem is that some governments are not willing to implement family planning measures among the general population. This can be for short term benefits (cheap labor, cannon fodder during wars.etc), or due to pressure from the religious groups. If the government is a dictatorship, then it has more chances of implementing such measures. I for one don't think that introducing family planning policies is a good idea at all. I mean restrictive ones, of course. See what happened in China. At first they were hellbent on restricting childbirth rates, but then they had to admit that this policy was not a very good one. In districts where one-child law had been suspended, families didn't have many more children than in districts where the law was still enforced. |
|
|
|
Life before marriage is freedom and after is prison.
Totally agree. As they say, it's more entertaining to watch the train crash than to look at the wreckage. Let alone being in that train yourself. When you're married, you're finished. |
|
|
|
Fair can have two meanings, one being justice and the other equal. An equal society is exactly what is sounds like when everyone is equal in everything from rights to money to clothes. A just society is one where everyone gets what they deserve. If you work hard you get money. If you have good habits you will be healthy.
To me an equal society kinds of sounds like socialism but I think that I would prefer to live in a society where everyone is equal. I think however that we live in a more just society than a fair one. So many people are not equal but just as many do not get what they deserve.
What do you think? Do we live in a fair society? Is it more just, equal or something else entirely?
Thanks for the thoughts!
Why could everyone ever be equal if people are born different? Even if all people were equal some would still be more equal than others. I don't think that we live in a fair society either. That's because there is a lot of chance in everyone's life, so there is no way it could be fair, just, or anything to that tune. Some dudes are just more lucky than the rest of the pack, and let me guess this is not what fair means. |
|
|
|
We all know that democracy means rule of the people. However, If a decision is adopted by the majority, It doesn't mean that It's totally true. Especially If the majority haven't good education level. In this case, should we consider that democracy Is dangerous for the global interest of the people ? What should we do in such cases
I hope you get my point
Indeed, democracy can be dangerous. And that's why there is no such thing in real life. The powers that be are just feeding us what they and us think to be democracy but in fact it is no more than a fraud. But this is the case when two evils make a good and two wrongs make a right. If someone superior has forced true democracy upon us, as in experiment, it would be a complete disaster. |
|
|
|
What is the best solution to resolve our problem in overpopulation?
Population cannot be controlled. You can't tell people to stop from giving birth. The best thing to do is to let people be aware of the effect of having to much child. The responsibility of having a lot of kids and it's effect on the economy and society. The higher our population is, the more scarce our resources become. Isn't that what China has actually tried to do? I refer to the one-child policy that was introduced in late 70s by the Chinese authorities which aimed specifically at controlling the population growth. The Chinese government set fines if a family had more than one child. As per Wikipedia, "in 2007, 36% of China's population was subject to a strict one-child restriction, with an additional 56% being allowed to have a second child if the first child was a girl". |
|
|
|
This is especially true in Third World countries. The main reason for this issue is lack of deterrence and punishment laws. To reduce corruption, we must change and update laws.
The thing about corruption in the third world countries is that even the people in power who are supposed to make sure that these things don't happen are the very ones doing it and when that happens, the people beneath them also do it as well. It goes from the top and goes all the way down. Corruption is not supposed to happen at lower tiers and always frowned upon if revealed. But it is assumed not to be existing at the current tier, so each tier is basically stuck because people at that tier don't consider what they are doing as corruption. They don't feel corrupted because they think of it as mutual help and support. So yes, it is sort of "fundamental right". |
|
|
|
We will ask you a strange question: do you want to live? Of course - the majority will follow the answer. But the point is that life is offered in the future. Scientific developments have reached such a level that the resurrection of a person from just one cell, the business of the foreseeable future. For example, having handed over your cells now for storage (and this is just a few hairs), as millions of people in the USA have done, you get a unique chance to appear at least once again on our Earth.
Are you sure that the person built up from "scratch", from just one cell will have anything to do with the personality of an individual whom this cell belongs to? People are arguing whether cryopreserved men will be the same people they were before cryopreservation once they are restored to life. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
