Economists still believe in infinite growth in a finite world.
I don't think they do. It's just that many of them (the ones we hear about most, too) don't concern themselves enough with the long term that finite natural resources become a serious issue.
This is unfortunate, and it's all the more unfortunate that such "long term" issues are now not so long-term anymore, to say nothing of those that are hitting us right now.
"Sustainability" has been a key word in several areas of macroeconomics for decades. Unfortunately not in all areas of economics. Also, it was long taken in a narrow, technical meaning.
Indeed, and mouse click events will be tweeted individually. The client can access them by "following" the relevant window!
Along the same line, framebuffers will be replaced with tumblr accounts.
The only people who are literally too stupid to live are the people who can't remember how to breathe.
And even then, we put those on breathing machines.
At this point what we are stuck with is a bunch of people who are too stupid to die.
You're so right. It did seem strange when I read it, but then I was in a hurry to get this posted and go back to something resembling work, so I must have turned my critical thinking off.
And who or what is IHS?
Oh, that one's easy: it's Jesus. It's been a shorthand for his name since the 14th century.
See for example this:
The letters IHS were the first three letters of the Greek name of Jesus IHSOYS, which stood for Yahweh. They could also be the abbreviation of ‘Iesus Hominum Salvator’, Jesus the Saviour of Mankind. The use of these letters as symbols of Christ may have originated with Saint Bernardino of Siena (1380-1444) who made a plaque in Volterra with these letters inscribed, surrounded by rays of light.
So for clarity, they should have written:
Of the 20 million consumer devices estimated to have shipped in 2013 with wireless charging capabilities, nearly all were built with the Qi specification, according to Jesus, the Saviour of Mankind.
Indeed, in the grand scheme, you are suggesting that we take guns out of the hands of the individual, and put them solely in the hands of the State; that sounds like a transfer of power from the Weak to the Strong...
Try to use your firearm against the power of the US government or its agents, and then come tell us how that went.
That power was transfered in its entirety long ago. Here I'm merely paraphrasing Bruce's argument above, btw.
"eventually, they'll set the minimum and maximum wages to the same levels"
"I do think at a certain point you've made enough money."
and you say (of GP):
"His argument would only be fallacious if it weren't exactly what is being proposed by the left today"
Do you stand by that comment? Can you see the nuance between the two statements quoted above?
Do you think saying "some people have earnings that are unreasonably low / high" (respectively 7$ an hour, a bazillion an hour), is exactly the same as saying "everybody should earn the same?". Because that's what you just wrote.
First you get (...) Then, when that's done, they move on to (...) Then, of course, they'll have to (...) Then, eventually, they'll (...)
Thank you for a textbook example of the slippery slope fallacy.
Just kidding, those are so common as to be plain boring these days.
Or, if marketing to some segments of the population: "our cars are motherfuckers".
Agreed, "our cars are tits" doesn't sound that good.
Having lived on both shores of the Atlantic, I very much believe that both systems would have a lot to learn from each other.
That is, if there was a substantial discussion instead of all the name-calling.
I know, this is slashdot, but in real life it's not that much better.
You know, with this little jab you probably hit the nail on the head (that must hurt, btw). One thing is the intrinsic properties of a given trade, and how they play with sex-dependent preferences, and another is the group culture that builds up within a trade. That very much depends on history, and... the gender ratio of that field, to begin with.
“Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement.”
J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring
The very same quote popped up in my mind immediately. However strange it may feel to refer to Tolkien on this issue, this particular quote has something unusually profound and humane to it. I ascribe it to Tolkien's experience in world war I, when death must have become very real and familiar to him.
It gets clearer if you flip a couple pages of the magazine and read the "In this issue" box:
Before you write to comment on our cover's "unusual" design approach (created by artist Robert Tinney), keep in mind the proximity of April 1st.
Healthcare (...) is available for all. It does not come cheap
You understand that the second statement might be perceived as conflicting with the first one. Or maybe plain cynical.
Caviar is available for all, too.