I see in Google image storage terms that photos smaller than a certain resolution do not count towards your storage limit. So has anyone stored tons of photos for free there? How much? I tried storing some, but 2000 photos limit per album made it very inconvenient. Appears too good to be true, is it?
I remember seeing Flickr also allows 1 TB photo + video storage. This too sounds unsustainable if people really use this.
In a narrow interpretation, it can be. But then your question doesn't make sense "before capitalism" isn't a meaningful term in that narrow interpretation. This is because capitalism in this narrow sense has always been used to distinguish it from non-free market, socialistic/communistic ideas. Marx's work on "capital" has done more to define it than any other single influence. So it was an existing thing/phenomenon that came to be defined as capitalism. Hence anyone with any clue doesn't use the term "before capitalism" and expect it to mean the narrow economic sense of capitalism.
Before being defined as capitalism, the major parts of what Marx wrote about was called industrialization. But when prefixed with "free market ", industrialization doesn't cover it all.
It can be interpreted in the broad sense of free, market, capital, and ism - in which sense the question is at least non-trivial. Dense forest fits with that interpretation. I gave you the benefit of doubt but you proved it wasn't warranted.
Why limit oneself to economics, that too narrowly defined, when original statement was about "free market capitalism" ?
I don't think you read or understood my post completely. At any rate, you might see that I wrote forms of capital have changed.
Capital in dense forests is at times access to good food, safe resting place, choice of mates. It is "invested" in becoming stronger and hence get even more access to good food, safe resting place, choice of mates as profit. Sometimes it is not invested well, like many people in modern "capitalistic" societies, and the "capital" is eroded by laziness.
Like current day capitalism, "capital" can even be passed on to one's progeny, and sometimes not. E.g. social status of many wild animals depends on one's parents' social status. There is some "mobility", as hard work, luck and talent can help individuals heighten their own social status.
"Currency" doesn't get more current than physical strength, tirelessness and vigour.
Are you udachny or are you roman_mir ? Seems like you are 2 people. Trolling might be a side effect of schizophrenia?
At any rate, multiple accounts might be a way to game the moderation system. If that is true, you are a bigger troll than even appears from your posts. Though it could be false, and you could be a singular person in a non-obvious way.
Using b(1) definition of "negative" here, negative can be proven.
Since using one definition of negative, a negative can be proven, the statement "you cannot prove a negative" is false. If you randomly redefine negative as "that something didn't happen", probably it might be correct - depending on how precisely "something" is defined. If "something" includes time, place and manner of its happening, its not happening can be proven.
Free market capitalism exists since before humans have existed. It still mostly exists in dense forests.
Just the forms of "capital" has changed since then.
Things that are truly offensive tend to get downrated fairly quickly, which I guess is an improvement over most news sites.
Most commenters have replied to the other sentence of your post, but I disagree with this one. Offensive things do get downrated, but that is not an improvement necessarily. Many insightful statements are offensive, to someone or another. Some are offensive to large groups, even mankind. Downrating all of them, like what happens here, may not be such a great idea.
But maybe mankind is too stupid to see insight in offensive statements
When "we already know" is said in discouraging further research, or to point out the futility of knowledge itself, yes it is analogous to claiming the current "known" is god given truth.
Actually anyone pointing out that some knowledge is unlikely to be helpful is unable to conduct scientific discussion so I realize why you keep claiming to know the people able to have a scientific discussion. But it doesn't work. Because "science happens" even when no good purpose of knowledge can be seen, even when negative purpose is seen.
"We already know" is equivalent to "scientists are never wrong". Get credible.
We already know, for instance, that a big reason that African Americans are so far behind the rest of Americans is due to environmental factors that can be controlled (the difference in income and education between African Americans and black immigrants to the US is good corroboration of evidence
We "already knew" that continents do not move based on our "theory". Wegener's arguments were rejected due to inflexibility of the theory, and that of the theoreticians who did not want a meterologist to interfere in geology. We were proved wrong, Wegener was right, even more advanced theories of tectonics have been proposed since.
so learning how much, if any of this disparity is caused by nature would not be productive, in my opinion.
Maybe. But the research will not stop at just knowing the amount of disparity caused due to various reasons. Elementary black body radiation research figured out that radiation increases by temperature of the body - but the research did not stop there. Lots of other predictions can be made about black body radiation now, which could not have been made if research had stopped at just calculating the amount of radiation emitted by a body.
Similarly, "a big reason" of African Americans being so far behind the rest of Americans might be "known". That does not mean everything about nature vs nurture that is worth knowing is known. What environmental factors exactly at what stage of life, and in what state of mind, influence exactly what attribute of the later personality of the human? Can particular types of influences be diminished, while accentuating particular types of influences? How? Can a particular type of influence be undone later? How? If these things cannot be done, a rigorous proof is required because "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it".
And, like I said earlier, "known" has been wrong many times in the past.
And indeed MANY cultures teach their children to hold overly-driven, businessmen/doctors/lawyers/athletes in high esteem.
Sometimes society holding some trait in high esteem creates a selective pressure AGAINST that trait.
It happens because females from richer families marry men having those traits. Females from richer families are less likely to have too many children for multiple reasons - they get little exercise so become infertile sooner, they get an "education" before marrying so start having kids late etc. Similarly males from richer families marry females having those traits, and for similar reasons have less children than less esteemed people.
proving or disproving the theory that different groups have different innate intelligence levels would do absolutely nothing to advance society, as far as I can predict. People still deserve to be judged on their individual merits regardless of the results of the nature versus nurture debates.
But wouldn't nature vs nurture help us figure out exactly what in nurture is causing what? Schools, parents, society can then get more scientific about their job around children.
You got the numbers, but don't understand anything about them. The biggest problems with Indian education are at the primary education level - which is why a huge number of children never reach school, drop out, or don't learn anything in primary school. And the drop outs have more to do with impecuniosity than with schools - children have to start "work" at an age of 9.
Secondary, and higher education is really much better than that in the US - taking cost, availability and quality into account. Which is why those who do get good primary education somehow, are like the people the GP describes.
We demonstrably already have people willing to trust their life to a system which categorically was NOT designed to operate autonomously. We have armies of insurance providers who issue policies based on measured risk rather than perceived risk. And we have regulators who demonstrably prefer to pass rules favoring whichever way the corporate campaign contributions are blowing.
Not sure where this fits. Irrelevant?
We also have a not inconsiderable number of people content to drive through rush-hour traffic while simultaneously talking on the phone, eating breakfast, and possibly managing their kids. I would bet you good money that there's a certain percentage of them that would jump on the chance to have an electronic chauffeur because they are quite aware of many close calls they've had when driving with lots of distractions, but can't bare to schedule things more safely
You have no clue about how humans think.
Or would just appreciate having some time to themselves during the day instead of having to spend a couple hours a day driving the same stretch of idiot-filled road day after day
This is a different point, and I just replied to your argument of safety. You seem to assume safety and perceived safety are same, but it is clear that there is a very weak link between these 2, sometimes increase in one leads to decrease in the other.
They certainly won't be a *majority* any time soon, but if you can appeal to 0.01% of the population that's 40 000 people in the US alone - plenty viable for a test market, and as time goes on the inevitable horror stories will be weighed against the substantial insurance discounts and general laziness. Assume even 1% of the population is rational enough to recognize that the affordable and much improved mk3 version is in fact a safer driver than they are and first-hand experience at the luxury will spread it like wildfire.
Yes, it will probably take decades after the first one hits the road to really catch on, but that's normal - what percentage of cars on the road today do you suppose are 20+ years old?
I am not sure you realize your statements are schizophrenic. Wildfire? 1%? 0.01%? 20 years?
The original poster said "This is why autonomous cars are a long while away", to which you said "Nonsense". Now you yourself say autonomous cars are a long while away, though not in these words, interspersed with contradictions like wildfire.
Love may laugh at locksmiths, but he has a profound respect for money bags. -- Sidney Paternoster, "The Folly of the Wise"
