npts2020

I say goooo Roger. There definitely needs to be a broader discussion about control of the world's resources and how they are used, thanks for helping facilitate it. IMO nothing will come of this, it is simply harassment by those who don't like what he has to say and resent that his platform reaches so many people.

Not sure yet. I do know she relieved Boeing and anyone else being sued as a result of the Malaysian Airlines flight 370 crash a few years ago from any accountability in US courts. It seems most of her rulings and activity have been tangential or irrelevant to large corporate interests but I would be happy to be corrected, after all, you have 8-9 years of district and appellate court activity to choose from.

Friendliness to corporate interests has been the primary prerequisite for nomination to SCOTUS for decades, not any views about abortion, guns, drugs etc. Those doing the nominating don't care about any of the latter except that it's useful politically to not solve any of those latter things.

Those things are fantastic. Dump all of the ingredients in before going to bed, set the timer and when you wake up you have fresh hot bread.

I don't care to get in a discussion about building reactors or nuclear bombs and would pretty much agree with all of this but still maintain that if you have the ability to build one you can almost certainly build the other.

Also, the configuration required for slow vs instant energy release but if one has the materiel and know-how to build one they can almost certainly build the other.

How does raising minimum wage increase the amount of money in circulation? Seems to me all it does is redistribute toward the creators, more of the wealth created. I should have clarified that money used to buy real goods rather than buying investments type of circulation. Buying back shares of stock doesn't create jobs, people being able to go out for a movie and dinner does.

As evidenced by what? The scientists doing this for over a decade now seem to think it is fairly accurate and their results correspond well with statistics collected via other methods. How significant? Also, keep in mind that urine in the street ends up in the sewage, anyway. WRT the OP it makes sense the the more money in circulation, the more jobs will be created.

Not exactly. It is done by testing sewage effluence. Drug usage can be inferred from the percentages of certain chemicals contained therein.

Probably because the model or artist's paramour showed up when they were doing something besides painting.

Cat litter is a pretty good absorbent and can be powderized if desired. It is used industrially for many things, including sopping up oil spills and radioactive liquids.

Ya, but it's probably better than calling your town "Artificial Stimulation".

This will only be possible when resources are routinely used for the common good rather than individual enrichment.

Sure but one has to assume none of that is "moral". Capitalist philosophy says it is perfectly moral to take advantage of others so long as it doesn't hurt the bottom line.

Disadvantage 1; seems to me a laser would cauterize the grass as it cuts so no fresh mowed grass smell. 2; could be a fire hazard. 3; few fields are flat enough.

One way would be to measure participation in a given activity but it seems any method will be imprecise because you are trying to quantify a subjective human judgment.

I'm sure it is possible but so long as the system is based on money rather than tangible things, those with the money are unlikely to ever allow it to happen. Some work has to be hard, there aren't enough machines in the world with the skill sets to do all of it.

I don't recall ever claiming the market to be "free". AFAIK such a thing has never existed but fact of the matter is the market is less free in no small part because of abuses of that freedom.

Depends on what is meant by "short term". To drosophila a human lifetime is an extremely long time. To the universe, all of human existence is very short period.

Most people are nice but the "market" seems to reward those who are least moral the most. Besides, once you introduce anything like "ethics" or "morals" into the market, it is no longer "free". It is regulated by those morals and ethics.

If humans universally had the same morals a free market with morals would be a given. However, not everyone agrees on what is "moral" (indeed, some seem to see nothing as moral) which will certainly IMO lead to a market free from morals and full of abuses of all kinds.