search results matching tag: best kind of correct
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds
- 1
| Videos (1) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (10) |
- 1
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.002 seconds
| Videos (1) | Sift Talk (0) | Blogs (0) | Comments (10) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Capitalism Didn’t Make the iPhone, You iMbecile
newtboy1) I question your sources, because some of the earliest writings ever found were business ledgers dealing with selling grains as I understand it. Capitalism has been a thing since before writing was a thing.
2) um...I think those kids in China would dispute that....THEY made the Iphones, which created a smart phone market by being useful and fun (for most people).
3) do you believe capitalism and the industrial revolution started at the same time, or that capitalism has something to do with surfs, civil rights, or secularism? Capitalism applied to people is indentured servitude, what we lazily call slavery. Unfettered capitalism created a situation where civil rights needed to be delineated and codified, it didn't create them any more than wildfires created firemen imo.
Some people do educate themselves before acting or making purchases, but it's not the norm.
Capitalism says your poor neighbors should die, because capitalism says there is no value to human life...I did a term paper on that. Value is derived from a supply/demand equation, and there's such a glut of humanity that human life has a negative value.
The government paid for around 75% of the technology development. "...it paid for some of the technology...." is incredibly misleading, if technically correct (the best kind of correct). Without a healthy dose of socialism, progress slows to a crawl and only the privileged few can afford it.
1 word....flip-phones. ;-) (I don't even have one of those)
1) Definitely - but without a market improvements fall flat and dont stick. Ancient people had a lot of good ideas but overall progress was really slow and retrograded often until.. well until capitalism became a thing. Abolishing serfdom, general civil rights, separation of church from state and the fall of absolutism made the Iphone possible.
2) No, that is my point. People "discover" things all the time, some of these things are deemed useful by the general public and capitalism provides the tools to finance production and distribution (the profit part is optional - it is entirely legal to sell your invention for any price or indeed give it away for free).
So to get to the original point capitalism did not discover or design the Iphone but it certainly MADE the Iphone.
3) Not impossible but incredibly slow. Generations lived out their entire lives without perceptible changes in their environments prior to the onslaught of capitalism and the industrial revolution. The advent of science from the renaissance onwards was OK, but only once factories and transport infrastructure became a thing did living conditions start to change for everyone.
A big problem with free markets is that they are never really "free". A theoretical free market implies too many things that dont ever happen in real life, like everyone having all relevant information and being able to make a good decision. People just dont do that IRL.
Also not everything can be solved by free markets because you cant just let your neighbors die poor because the market says they deserve it. However the Iphone is really not something the state should subsidize. I understand that it paid for some of the technology that went into designing it. But true socialism would have to make sure everyone could afford one, and would design a cheap bad phone to fit the need.
'Our gun laws will change': New Zealand Prime Minister
newtboyExcellent, so I'm technically correct....the best kind of correct!
...
On the technical part, you're right and I saw it but left that morsel for you.
I was murdered for no reason- Yet I lived.
newtboyHe was pronounced doa, so he's technically correct....the best kind of correct.
He was murdered...but he's feeling much better now. ;-)
I feel like this kid is unclear on the meaning of the word "murdered".
Armadillo Cargo Bike With Hydrogen Fuel Cell, 300 km range
newtboyYou are technically correct, the best kind of correct!
That's no bike. It's got 6 wheels!
Neat design, though.
Bill Maher - Milo Yiannopoulos Interview
newtboyI've known many 14 year olds, male and female, that had not reached full puberty, I was one. Some had not even started it. I admit, he did say he thought the law had set the 'line' at the right place, but went on to say that many 14 year olds and even younger were fully prepared for sex with adults and at least implied that it would not be immoral to have sex with them, just illegal. He didn't say how one would determine which were ready and which weren't that I heard....I guess trial and error.
Language is alive, and the meanings of words change, like it or not. When the common usage is so common that the actual definition is almost never what's meant when using the word, it's time to amend the definition. That's different from one generation who misuses language constantly out of laziness in their thought processes...most educated people at least know what literally means, even if they accidentally misuse the word more and more often.
Common usage today of "pedophile" is not limited to pre-pubescent, it includes mid-pubescent...in fact Merriam Webster's primary definition uses the word "children" as does the medical definition lower on their page.
The top googled legal definition is listed as...
Pedophile Definition: A medical condition causing a sexual preference for young children. ... A person afflicted with a serious mental disorder, a mental abnormality known as pedophilia, a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner.
I think any of those definitions would/should include many if not all 14 year olds in most people's minds.
...but I don't mean to say that you aren't technically correct, the best kind of correct. ;-)
Most Americans literally can't use the word literally right to save their lives. That doesn't change the actual meaning of the word. Same with pedophilia. Males are biologically programmed to be attracted to girls who have reached puberty, it is not a psychological disorder to be aroused by a 14 yr old in a bikini. It is for a 10 year old. If that impulse is acted upon, one is an antisocial pervert, the other is mentally defective.
ShakaUVM
(Member Profile)
ShakaUVMTechnically correct is the best kind of correct.
The trouble with teaching people that the bowling ball and feather will hit at, quoting the physicist in this clip, "exactly the same time", is that (relativity issues aside making the statement a joke anyway) it leads people to have a faulty understanding of how gravity actually works.
It's fine to teach that bowling balls and feathers will hit at *approximately* the same time, due to one mass in the equation being much higher than the other (allowing us to approximate it out), but it seems to never be taught this way. So these students end up with all sorts of wrong ideas about gravity when they get to me to work on n-body solvers.
It's the same problem, for example, as teaching elementary school kids that 5 divided by 0 is 0. It might make that teacher's life a little easier, but causes problems downstream.
Now I'm starting to think you just want to argue. If you're smart enough to make those technical assertions, you're smart enough to know that's not what the experiment was about, and that you're just adding data to confuse the lesson.
The experiment is about the effect of gravity on the moving objects under 2 conditions, and how their mass means nothing when determining THEIR accelerations/speeds in a vacuum. Period.
You want to introduce other, completely unobservable forces and movements to say 'nope'. Technically, you may be correct, but you must completely ignore the purpose and parameters of the experiment and assume inobservably small movements to make your point...a point that does not actually change the experimental findings or the lesson, but does confuse it thoroughly.
Blake Griffin's jaw-dropping one-handed jam over Perkins
bamdrewYou were half correct,... and sometimes that's the best kind of correct.
>> ^RadHazG:
>> ^Stu:
you know he isn't white right?>> ^RadHazG:
White men CAN jump! HA!
Nope. Guess it just looks that way on the video. Hopes suitably dashed.
demon_ix
(Member Profile)
gwiz665Ah, bureaucrat 1.0... we meet again.
In reply to this comment by demon_ix:
>> ^gwiz665:
I thought that was a pretty fine tackle... He stopped, didn't he?
Yeah, gwiz is technically correct. The best kind of correct!
I suppose this is teammate recognition fail
Fail Tackle!
demon_ix>> ^gwiz665:
I thought that was a pretty fine tackle... He stopped, didn't he?
Yeah, gwiz is technically correct. The best kind of correct!
I suppose this is teammate recognition fail
2009 SoCal Videosift Sift-Up
gwiz665You are technically correct.. the best kind of correct, but let's let this one slide, no harm no foul. Know that if blankfist had posted it, he would have been spanked over and over again. Hmm, in fact, that gives me an idea.. oh, hbleusea?
>> ^LittleRed:
Not to rain on anyone's parade, but how is this not a self-link?