while protecting the Black ones?
Did you link the right story? I don't see what it had to do with Twitter.
What I linked to had to do with BLM containing Black Supremacists, bent not merely on subjugating or mocking, but outright killing Whites. That Twitter protects them is covered by TFA itself.
It's sure to drop further once he repeals health care.
This is amazing. I was going to post something snarky to the effect that, had Republicans done some kind of major overhaul of national healthcare in recent years, they would've been blamed for the decline of longevity.
But reality is even stranger than what I imagined — although Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote, the Democrats blame Republicans for nation's worsening health anyway. Because of something they may do in the future!..
Now, the Anonymous Coward may have been sarcastic. But the moderators, who've elevated him to "Score: 4, Insightful" (at the time of this typing), certainly weren't...
"This is an illegal recording without the permission of the instructor. The student will be identified and may be facing legal action.”
Yes, physical size allows for larger cranial volume which is directly linked to intelligence across all primates.
Is it? You do not cite anything to support this claim... At best, the notion is controversial...
This directly allows for greater intelligence later.
So, whales are smarter than us? Men — smarter than women?
In humans brain development is directly tied to prenatal development.
Your original claim was about size, not the more amorphous "development".
Are you equating size with development?
Larger humans is a good thing
Please, elaborate — how is it a "good thing"? I'll admit, that it is nicer to be relatively tall — taller (Napoleon once said: longer) than others. But why is it desirable for humanity to raise the average height?
it indicates greater development
Are giraffes "greater developed" than humans or even gazelles?
will likely be key to our self-direct evolution as masters of both Earth and the galaxy
The key to both will be intelligence and technology. A larger personal body-size is more likely do be an impediment than advantage — you'll need bigger spaceships carrying more supplies. And to what end? To be able to take on some alien savage in hand-to-hand combat — instead of using a weapon?
The flea-bitten bastards of Pizarro conquered the Inca not because they were bigger — he was, but his crew weren't. Cortes was, apparently, shorter than Montesuma as well. But the invaders had firearms...
Researchers estimate cases where the baby cannot fit down the birth canal have increased from 30 in 1,000 in the 1960s to 36 in 1,000 births today
It may be a fascinating field of study, but there are no practical conclusions to make.
What are you going to do — ban the C-sections and have these additional 6+ per mille of children die during birth (possibly taking moms with them)?
For better or worse, humans can't be treated like poodles, where those deviating from the set standards are neutered...
It's the old-school definition
Which you would not cite despite an explicit request...
the definition one uses to become or remain wealthy.
Citing definitions rarely makes one wealthy. Given your cavalier attitude towards the meanings of the very words you are using, I'm beginning to doubt the value of continuing the conversation...
Which means, that whoever earned those dollars lost some of their value. Where did it go
They had value only by convention and that convention changed.
When inflation rises, the interest rate for the best savings accounts will rise as well (ditto new CDs).
Whether you can still beat inflation or not, the point is, you are losing some of the wealth you had. The government, which spent the freshly-printed money before it loses value, gains gained what you lose — thus making it indistinguishable from tax. Whether that's good or bad, it is a form of taxation.
Your arguments make a case for it being a "good" form of taxation — you should stick to that and stop denying, that it is a tax...
I don't believe the president has direct control over the money supply
Well, he does not spend money either, but TFA still blames him for the future "binge" anyway...
Small amounts of inflation are NOT a "tax on wealth." I suppose you might consider it a "tax on money you hide under your mattress."
Wherever I keep it — under mattress, in a sock, or in a savings account — inflation (small or large) taxes it away.
But in the real world, mild inflation encourages people with wealth to get that money out from under their mattress
And even then I am not gaining as much from my investment, as I should've. But, yeah, taxes are often used to discourage some behaviors while encouraging others — a regrettable practice, which itself is a government overreach, I might add.
Unless you have a giant money bin full of enough to keep you going for the rest of your life already, you likely would do much WORSE in a deflationary economy than having mild 1-2% inflation with its supposed "tax."
All of this is irrelevant to my point. Which was, and remains: inflation eats away at savings.
The $100 earned today would buy me 25 cartons of milk. I can not consume so much, so I buy only one carton and save the money. Well, a week later, when I go to buy another carton, it costs slightly more — through no fault of my own, I've lost some of the honestly earned $100.
Deflation may be bad, but that only reinforces, what I said: the two reasons offered by TFA for BitCoin's future rise contradict each other.
Wealth is the ownership of the means of production
That's an interesting definition, could you cite, where you got it from? It seems wrong — as it totally ignores non-productive wealth, such as precious metals, Bitcoins, intellectual property, and currency. By your definition, an owner of, say, a shoe-repair shop is richer than a guy with a $10 mln bank-account...
If dollars have less value, the number of dollars needed to buy the means of production increases
Which means, that whoever earned those dollars lost some of their value. Where did it go — dollars aren't apples, they don't spoil? In a fiat-money situation, the government prints paper money — it gets to spend it first, before inflation diminishes it. When people lose wealth and government gains it — even if not all of it — how is it not tax?
Now, it is not tax on all forms of wealth, merely on savings held in dollars. You may think, you are earning by holding your monies in a saving account, but in reality you barely keep up with inflation — whatever profit you should be getting is taxed away from you. By inflation.
Sendmail may be safely run set-user-id to root. -- Eric Allman, "Sendmail Installation Guide"