That's unfair to Albert Einstein. To say that he "fought quantum mechanics to his last breath" fails to acknowledge that he actually helped develop the field, and contributed to it heavily until his death. Yes, he distrusted some of the implied consequences of QM, but that didn't cause him to stick his fingers in his ears and say "La, la, la" until the topic changed. He worked on alternative theories. His efforts weren't irrational. It's more that QM didn't align with his observations of the world, and didn't mesh with other well-understood theories, such as his own general relativity.
All I can say is, most of these points fly in the face of my experience as an American.
I've never heard anyone say they preferred the days of Ma Bell when calling long distance (across town, even) cost $0.28 per minute, in 1970 dollars.
Everyone I've ever heard who blamed borrowers for defaulting, did so because they thought they were stupid and credulous, and in the next breath blamed mortgage companies 10x worse for exploiting that stupidity and credulousness with predatory lending. Again, I've never heard anyone ever say the banks did nothing wrong.
Finally, Wal*Mart IS generally loved, and they are loved _because_ they compete so well, placing downward pressure on prices, unlike Standard Oil and AT&T did. If that ever changes, you can bet people will be crying out for competitive pressures and marketplace diversity, just like they always do.
So, I guess what I mean is:
Why do you say this? Americans I know decry the existence of monopolies, such as Microsoft's and AT&T's back in the 70s. There is backlash against cable monopolies and the idea of Wal*Mart getting too big for anyone's good. We're now talking about the idea of whether banks and insurance companies ought to have size limits before being broken into competing companies, because the failure of any one might create a near-monopolistic situation.
Awesome! I have a one GB mp4 that I'd like your help getting onto a CD-ROM...
Also, a GB of JPEGs and a GB of FLACs.
Thanks so much.
It is *one* theory
Again with the misunderstanding of what a scientific theory is. There can only BE one theory. There are many hypotheses, but those fall away one by one to become a single, very authoritative, theory. If something better comes along, then the theory of evolution goes away and is replaced by the new theory, be it evolution 1.0.1 or ID 188.8.131.52
In a field of grain, you can grow wheat, barley, rye or oats.
That's very true, of course. But you can't grow wheat, barley, and Ford Pintos. I'm arguing that physics, philosophy, and automobile repair are fields of study, while ID is not. It is a platform. An agenda. It's like saying the people paid by the tobacco companies to falsify studies on the effects of tobacco smoke are conducting science. Apples to orangutans.
I'm sure this was unintentional, but it is insulting in the extreme to label ID a 'field'.
The first day of owning a Wii you end up spending more on controllers and games than the console cost.
I don't understand this comment. Are you saying this because the Wii only comes with one controller and one nunchuk, and you have to buy four, whereas the 360 is different? Or are you saying that the cost of the Wiimote ($40) plus nunchuk ($20) plus Wii motion plus ($10 with a game) is too high?
I admit if you bought EVERY controller piece you possibly could right up front it would be a lot of money, but who does that? And is it so different for any other console?
Link to Original Source
It is my contention that those who have much, stole it from those who have not.
Then you imagine an economic system that sums to zero, which is false. You also imagine that a person who creates something of great value to many, and who asks compensation, is a thief. This is also false.
It is also my contention that those who want to live in a world where they can earn much more than others, through any means, are psychopaths who should be driven into the ocean.
Yes, so long as you place great emphasis on "through any means." Those who want to live in a world where they can earn much more than others through honest labor, innovation, and intelligence are not psychopaths, and are among our greatest treasures.
To covet the "American Dream" is to dream of being a tyrant. To achieve it is to be a tyrant. Neither should be tolerated in a sane and equitable society.
You and I must disagree on this point. Apparently you conceive of financial means as, by definition, a denial of others and an evil. I assume that you live in abject poverty and give away any resources as soon as they are acquired, living only on the charity of others? Or do you take the best paying job available over others whose souls are equally deserving, even though their fortunes have left them in want of equal talents? Are you glad to have what you have, and glad you aren't forced to have less? You have very boldly set a standard that will prove difficult to live up to without hypocrisy.
You are relating the beating of slaves to the capitalistic opportunity to build an economic future limited chiefly by one's own capabilities, which represents the opposite of slavery. In a capitalistic system, no one is "beaten" if they choose not to be productive. They simply live the lifestyle of a person with low productivity. Quoth Office Space: "Well, you don't need a million dollars to do nothing, man. Take a look at my cousin: he's broke, don't do shit."
Is it your contention that, for humans, freedom equates to the ability to live comfortably while contributing nothing to your lifestyle? Surely not. That would be a definition of freedom that defies all others.
So you can describe an implementation of communism where there is not a small group of individuals making decisions with far-reaching consequences? If so, how could this work? You have an economic system based on shared wealth and pooled advantage, yet no central mechanism for evening wealth and ensuring no-one accumulates too much economic power?
Also, if I am living in this society, why, exactly, am I interested in working my ass off to create innovative solutions to any of society's problems? It would seem that I could just live as well as anyone off the fat of the economic system, should there prove to be any.
Capitalism is the idea that a small group of individuals ought to be able to make unilateral decisions with wide reaching consequences according to their own arbitrary whims.
Is that not the very definition of working communism? A central authority of chosen individuals making decisions for everyone according to their necessarily flawed understanding of what is best? And I don't think Capitalism is that idea. That may be an unintended consequence, sometimes, but that's hardly the fault of the philosophy. It's merely a feature of human relations. Communism, on the other hand, uses it as its primary mechanism of action.
...you certainly write well for a two year old!
In case you were curious about other things:
- Bill Gates will not send you any money for forwarding an email.
- The Nigerian royal family is not interested in giving you money.
- Your penis will grow larger all by itself until you're about 17. No need to respond to those emails either.