Originally posted by kmax87Why is small town soul better than big city soul?
Question: which system tends to have fuller employment and preserve a way of life and sense of community and protect the livelihood of generational family business? In 20 years time would the little specialist shop still likely be in business? Most likely if it was in Europe, but if it was in small town USA your "freedom" would have seen it flattened to make ...[text shortened]... by your friendly transnational corporation really been worth it to lose your small town soul?
Originally posted by Jigtiemost would be the perponderence of information, the points which are crucial to understanding the subject. (adding the -ly just makes it an adverb, as I recall from somewhere in grammar school, right? 😉 )
Enlighten me, for I fear I do to.
Therefore, I would call the obtaining YHE critical building block of an object would fall in the category of "most(ly) needed info." It's kinda like saying you have a site that explains how to grow anthrax in your bathtub--then there's not a word on where to get the spores to begin with. A real bait&switch.
Originally posted by PinkFloydYes, but nonetheless that's what (s)he was saying.
It's kinda like saying you have a site that explains how to grow anthrax in your bathtub--then there's not a word on where to get the spores to begin with. A real bait&switch.
Look what I found:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/atomic.html
I have no idea if these pages are accurate or not, because I know
absolutely nothing about the process, but let's assume that they are, or
that there are other (I got a truckload off google) pages that do describe
the process accurately.
The aquisition of purified U-235 is another story entirely. Surely the
goverment of any given country can lay their hands on it, or learn how to
refine it, given the proper channels?
Originally posted by JigtieAgreed. (s)he said MOST and didn't deliver.
Yes, but nonetheless that's what (s)he was saying.
Look what I found:
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-bomb.htm
http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/atomic.html
I have no idea if these pages are accurate or not, because I know
absolutely nothing about the process, but let's assume that they are, or
that there are other (I got a truckload off google) ...[text shortened]... ven country can lay their hands on it, or learn how to
refine it, given the proper channels?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungBut the beginning of it.
"A nuke" is not "the US nuclear arsenal".
The way I see it, there's really only one way to stop the threat of nukes, and
it's not by trying to keep the knowledge from people whose actions you can't
always control. But if everyone in this whole bloody world could be allowed to
lead a meaningful and prosperous (if not always happy) life. Because there's
really no reason to go nuke a whole block of people unless you feel that
life is crap anyways.
Originally posted by kmax87The US has had less unemployment than Europe, generally.
Question: which system tends to have fuller employment and preserve a way of life and sense of community and protect the livelihood of generational family business? In 20 years time would the little specialist shop still likely be in business? Most likely if it was in Europe, but if it was in small town USA your "freedom" would have seen it flattened to make ...[text shortened]... by your friendly transnational corporation really been worth it to lose your small town soul?
As for the rest, if customers want to pay for "way of life" and "sense of community" and "family business" then they will. That's also part of freedom of choice.
It is the same story with the family farm. It is romanticized -- but it was very hard work -- most people today would not voluntarily choose that sort of lifestyle. Even so, around some big cities, certains types of farming have endured because they can provide fresh, local ingredients to restaurants.
It gets back to universal rights in the end.
-You DON'T have a right to a job.
-You DON'T have a right to a certain amount of money.
-You DON'T have a right to health care.
-You DON'T have a right to a certain lifestyle.
-You DO have the right to vote.
-You DO have the right to say what you want.
-You DO have the right to go where you want.*
-You DO have the right to buy what you want.
-You DO have the right to DO what you want.
* unless you are Palestinian or Cuban, etc.
Originally posted by spruce112358You do have a right to good health.
The US has had less unemployment than Europe, generally.
As for the rest, if customers want to pay for "way of life" and "sense of community" and "family business" then they will. That's also part of freedom of choice.
It is the same story with the family farm. It is romanticized -- but it was very hard work -- most people today would not voluntar ...[text shortened]... DO have the right to DO what you want.
* unless you are Palestinian or Cuban, etc.
And you do have a right to a house.
And you do have a right to employment
(basic human rights as formulated by the UN).
You do not have the right to buy what you want.
That is not in the charter.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungwell the terrorists need to know how to make something go boom from a briefcase.
"A nuke" is not "the US nuclear arsenal".
doesn't really matter to them if it has x megatons or y megatons as long as it produces significant damage.
a russian nuke would be just as helpful as a more sophisticated american one.
Originally posted by JigtieAhhh I see the disconnect. You were referring to Nation/States being able to obtain fissionable material; I was talking about individuals---you know, Joe Six-Pack's like myself.
But the beginning of it.
The way I see it, there's really only one way to stop the threat of nukes, and
it's not by trying to keep the knowledge from people whose actions you can't
always control. But if everyone in this whole bloody world could be allowed to
lead a meaningful and prosperous (if not always happy) life. Because there's
really no reason to go nuke a whole block of people unless you feel that
life is crap anyways.
On that point, it seems we disagree only in that I believe in full and total disclosure when it comes to anything, related to science especially, but not exclusively. No "Area 51", no "classified JFK documents", no knowledge doled out on a "need to know" basis.
Originally posted by shavixmirAnd who is guaranteeing that right to good health? What if that right gets violated -- who is to blame? If you have a right and you don't have the thing I am REQUIRED to act in such a way that you get it.
You do have a right to good health.
And you do have a right to a house.
And you do have a right to employment
(basic human rights as formulated by the UN).
You do not have the right to buy what you want.
That is not in the charter.
But what if you smoke? Or eat too much? Or drink? Or drive to fast? Do I still have to provide you with good health? No. Same goes for house/employment.
BTW, the UN is not an elected body and therefore has no authority over anything -- nothwithstanding they occasionally come up with a good suggestion which democratic institutions that DO have such authority are sometimes pleased to follow.
Saying "I have the right to red hair" is not the same thing as saying "I have the right to dye my hair red." The right to red hair means some one needs to provide you with red hair if you want it. The other means you are free to do so, but the achievement is up to you. The second leads to a far better society (i.e. not one based on entitlement) in the long run.
That'at why the phrase "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" is so important. Life is a default. Liberty is necessary so that you can Pursue what you think you need. There is absolutely no guarantee you will get there, though.
If you violate the principle and imagine that you can provide a "right to good health", then what you get is the equivalent of guaranteeing "the right to a roof" and then expecting FEMA to replace roof shingles every time there is a strong wind in Florida. It will work -- if you give FEMA enough money and personnel. But the expense, bureaucracy, and waste is prodigious -- exactly how most health care systems in the world currently function.
Originally posted by spruce112358So, you're saying that privately insuring yourself is better for your health than a public health system (of sorts) like they have in Europe?
if you give FEMA enough money and personnel. But the expense, bureaucracy, and waste is prodigious -- exactly how most health care systems in the world currently function.
Is that what you mean to say here?