Page 40 of 60 FirstFirst ... 30383940414250 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 400 of 595

Thread: Billionaires Blast off

  1. Top | #391
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    20,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    36,386
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Your jabber proves you missed the point - many innovators are not motivated by wealth.
    It's not jabber - it's showing that your claim does not fit the example you provided.
    Just because Orville Wright died with a net worth of "only" 10 million (in today's dollars) does in no way show he was not motivated by wealth. Because
    a) 10 million net worth is still pretty wealthy
    b) the brothers made some business blunders that limited their wealth creation no matter their motivation
    c) the big commercial success of aviation came many decades after their first flight

  2. Top | #392
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,932
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,838
    Rep Power
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Please consider what is actually being said.
    You pretend you can take it without taking it.
    Fair pay for productive work is not taking from the employer. Taking advantage of an imbalance of power by paying the workers as little as possible, it's the employer who takes potential earnings from employees.

    Which means that you have it backwards.

  3. Top | #393
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    20,700
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    36,386
    Rep Power
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    Protein sources cost more money in the US than do junk food items loaded with fat, salt, sugar, calories with little actual nutrition to offset those negatives. Even if you are including inexpensive plant based diets --those generally require access to a decent kitchen with pots and pans. Sure, you can live on canned beans (full of sodium) but you need a way to cook rice to complement the amino acids in the beans and to provide all amino acids/full proteins required for human beings to function well.
    Cheese doesn't have to be cooked. Cheddar is something like 23% protein by mass (6.5g per ounce).
    And in the US poor (and lower middle class with a couple of children) are eligible for food stamps. Really, in the US nobody has to starve because they are too poor, and if they do (I am skeptical of that graph though) it is for some other reason.

    These are things that you and I take for granted but a lot of people really don't have a working stove or pots and pans.
    Define "many people" that do not have access to anything kitchen-like, i.e. not even a hot plate? And if you don't have access to a rudimentary kitchen, there are inexpensive burrito stands and the like. Even something like a McD cheeseburger (for variety) which is only a couple of bucks gives you 14g of protein. Grocery store rotisserie chickens are affordable sources of fully cooked animal protein. The Publix rotisserie chicken is $7.34 and has 154 g of protein. More than enough for two average-sized people's daily protein requirements and enough to provide a protein-rich meal for the whole family if they get some protein with other meals (peanut butter sandwiches, or cheese and ham or something for lunch)

    Fresh fruits and vegetables are also really hard to come by if you are poor,
    Are they really? And the claim of the graph was that these deaths were due to protein starvation, so fresh fruits and veggies are not directly related.

    compounded by the fact that at least in inner cities, it's harder to find a good source for fresh fruits and vegetables in a market you can get to by foot or public transport.
    And whose fault is that? Grocery stores selling fresh fruit and veggies would be happy to make money in the inner cities if they could operate at a profit there. Note also that in Portland, a proposed grocery store was prevented from opening because of the outcry by the "community". They said it would lead to ...

  4. Top | #394
    Member *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    24,504
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    41,057
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by laughing dog View Post
    Your jabber proves you missed the point - many innovators are not motivated by wealth.
    It's not jabber - it's showing that your claim does not fit the example you provided.
    Just because Orville Wright died with a net worth of "only" 10 million (in today's dollars) does in no way show he was not motivated by wealth. Because
    a) 10 million net worth is still pretty wealthy
    b) the brothers made some business blunders that limited their wealth creation no matter their motivation
    c) the big commercial success of aviation came many decades after their first flight
    Innovation today comes from some corporate owned scientist.

    They don't own what they invent and don't decide what problems they will try to solve.

    If they were told to do away with management with a more efficient AI system they easily could.

    And relieve workers of tons of dead weight riding on their backs.

  5. Top | #395
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    5,236
    Archived
    6,261
    Total Posts
    11,497
    Rep Power
    79
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jayjay View Post

    The only feature of cell phones that requires "government launched satellites" is GPS, and it's not essential.
    Not essential but a standard feature.

    Government funded research is the engine of the US economy.

    Not a bunch of greedy capitalists.
    There were cell phones in the 90s, before GPS became a "standard feature". And that's pretty much the only part of the phone that requires infrastructure that I can't see existing without government doing the legwork. Specifically, the military. anyone can invent satellite navigation, but it takes a lot of resources to actually build the satellites, launche them to orbit, and keep maintaining the constellation. And it's something that's hard to start in small scale because you can't do triangulation with just one or two satellites.

    the argument that we wouldn't have cell phones / microwave ovens / cars / whatever without governments is true only in the broadest sense that without governments we'd still all be hunter gatherers with nothing more advanced than fire or bows and arrows. But just because the government spent a few bucks on some basic research fifty years ago doesn't mean we owe our eternal gratitude to the military-industrial complex for inventing this gadget or that.

  6. Top | #396
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    NOT laying back and thinking of England
    Posts
    12,465
    Archived
    3,655
    Total Posts
    16,120
    Rep Power
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Cheese doesn't have to be cooked. Cheddar is something like 23% protein by mass (6.5g per ounce).
    And in the US poor (and lower middle class with a couple of children) are eligible for food stamps. Really, in the US nobody has to starve because they are too poor, and if they do (I am skeptical of that graph though) it is for some other reason.
    Real cheese--not the horrid processed stuff--is more expensive than beans and rice. Plus, cheese is full of fat and a not inconsiderable amount of sodium. I write this as a cheese lover. When I was really poor, cheese was a real luxury for me. Food stamps are great but if you've never tried to feed your family on them, you really don't know what you're talking about.

    Define "many people" that do not have access to anything kitchen-like, i.e. not even a hot plate? And if you don't have access to a rudimentary kitchen, there are inexpensive burrito stands and the like. Even something like a McD cheeseburger (for variety) which is only a couple of bucks gives you 14g of protein. Grocery store rotisserie chickens are affordable sources of fully cooked animal protein. The Publix rotisserie chicken is $7.34 and has 154 g of protein. More than enough for two average-sized people's daily protein requirements and enough to provide a protein-rich meal for the whole family if they get some protein with other meals (peanut butter sandwiches, or cheese and ham or something for lunch)
    Do you not realize that all of those convenience foods are loaded with fat and sodium? Have you looked at the sodium content for ham?????

    All of what you mentioned is exactly what a lot of people without much money do to feed themselves. There are too many people who cannot afford to do that, or only can do it rarely. Food stamps don't work at burrito stands, none of which are in my town, despite there being a couple of Mexican restaurants.

    The diet you are suggesting is full of fat and sodium which both contribute to poor health and is simply out of reach of a lot of people. And not necessarily available everywhere or for purchase with food stamps.

    Fresh fruits and vegetables are also really hard to come by if you are poor,
    Are they really? And the claim of the graph was that these deaths were due to protein starvation, so fresh fruits and veggies are not directly related.
    Yeah, they are. I know what I spend each week on fresh fruits and vegetables and it's not something I could do if I were poor. When I was poor, a bag of carrots and a bag of apples needed to last for at least a couple of weeks. At least. Oranges were a rare treat.

    compounded by the fact that at least in inner cities, it's harder to find a good source for fresh fruits and vegetables in a market you can get to by foot or public transport.
    And whose fault is that? Grocery stores selling fresh fruit and veggies would be happy to make money in the inner cities if they could operate at a profit there. Note also that in Portland, a proposed grocery store was prevented from opening because of the outcry by the "community". They said it would lead to ...
    Grocery stores and restaurants operate on very slim profit margins. Fresh fruits and vegetables have shorter shelf lives compared with canned. They cost more for stores to carry and are riskier. You need to be sure of your profit.

  7. Top | #397
    Content Thief Elixir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Mountains
    Posts
    17,532
    Archived
    707
    Total Posts
    18,239
    Rep Power
    65

    U.S. Navy controls inventions that claim to change "fabric of reality"

    Inventions with revolutionary potential made by a mysterious aerospace engineer for the U.S. Navy come to light.

    https://bigthink.com/surprising-scie...change-reality

    YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK?

    The U.S. Navy controls patents for some futuristic and outlandish technologies, some of which, dubbed "the UFO patents," came to light recently. Of particular note are inventions by the somewhat mysterious Dr. Salvatore Cezar Pais, whose tech claims to be able to "engineer reality." His slate of highly-ambitious, borderline sci-fi designs meant for use by the U.S. government range from gravitational wave generators and compact fusion reactors to next-gen hybrid aerospace-underwater crafts with revolutionary propulsion systems, and beyond.

    Of course, the existence of patents does not mean these technologies have actually been created, but there is evidence that some demonstrations of operability have been successfully carried out. As investigated and reported by The War Zone, a possible reason why some of the patents may have been taken on by the Navy is that the Chinese military may also be developing similar advanced gadgets.

    Among Dr. Pais's patents are designs, approved in 2018, for an aerospace-underwater craft of incredible speed and maneuverability. This cone-shaped vehicle can potentially fly just as well anywhere it may be, whether air, water or space, without leaving any heat signatures. It can achieve this by creating a quantum vacuum around itself with a very dense polarized energy field. This vacuum would allow it to repel any molecule the craft comes in contact with, no matter the medium. Manipulating "quantum field fluctuations in the local vacuum energy state," would help reduce the craft's inertia. The polarized vacuum would dramatically decrease any elemental resistance and lead to "extreme speeds," claims the paper.
    I don't know much (anything) about creating quantum vacuums, but it doesn't sound like stuff that someone could undertake in their garage. Nor does this sound like something for which an enterprising individual might succeed via a go-fund-me campaign, or even by recruiting venture capitalists to invest in. Yet the return might (or might not) dwarf the accomplishment of creating a reusable rocket booster - the only truly novel part of Musk and Bezos' celebrated endeavor (Binnie flew higher in SpaceShipOne - twice - some seventeen years ago).

    I'm not trying to say that anything truly new always requires government investment, but some things require risks that the private sector simply will not shoulder.

  8. Top | #398
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33,055
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,807
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Please consider what is actually being said.
    You pretend you can take it without taking it.
    Fair pay for productive work is not taking from the employer. Taking advantage of an imbalance of power by paying the workers as little as possible, it's the employer who takes potential earnings from employees.

    Which means that you have it backwards.
    Reality doesn't have the concept "fair". It's purely a way of pretending workers should be paid more than market rates.

  9. Top | #399
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    33,055
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    129,807
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Define "many people" that do not have access to anything kitchen-like, i.e. not even a hot plate? And if you don't have access to a rudimentary kitchen, there are inexpensive burrito stands and the like. Even something like a McD cheeseburger (for variety) which is only a couple of bucks gives you 14g of protein. Grocery store rotisserie chickens are affordable sources of fully cooked animal protein. The Publix rotisserie chicken is $7.34 and has 154 g of protein. More than enough for two average-sized people's daily protein requirements and enough to provide a protein-rich meal for the whole family if they get some protein with other meals (peanut butter sandwiches, or cheese and ham or something for lunch)
    Even cheaper: Beans and rice in a crock pot. Non-perishable until cooked, also.

  10. Top | #400
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Burnsville, MN
    Posts
    6,477
    Archived
    2,911
    Total Posts
    9,388
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post

    Fair pay for productive work is not taking from the employer. Taking advantage of an imbalance of power by paying the workers as little as possible, it's the employer who takes potential earnings from employees.

    Which means that you have it backwards.
    Reality doesn't have the concept "fair". It's purely a way of pretending workers should be paid more than market rates.
    That isn't actually true. The concept of "fair" is what happens when probabilistically positive and negative behavior is rewarded based on an artificial allotment based on the probability rather than the probabilistic outcome, so as to allot rewards based on values and behaviors rather than randomizations.

    Some things must not be perfectly fair. Too much fairness robs a system of it's dynamism. But fairness certainly allows for more useful outcomes at selection; Too much individual variation against a core attribute makes it impossible to reliably prevent false negatives/positives on the axis of discrimination.

    It's really a matter of tuning the balance between fairness and probabilistics so as to encourage enough bad selection to guarantee the presence of abnormal or borderline capabilities (dynamism) but ensure that the majority of success happens because of work.

    Reality comes into it that this is going to create better outcomes for agents that adopt the strategy. We have adopted it, and the conclusion is "the system as it stands does not include enough fairness for optimal function".

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •