your contention that ONLY personal profit drives invention or innovation.

I'm afraid I've never argued that, I can lead by agreeing whole heartedly that such a contention is false.

I merely pointed out that in a video about how 'capitalism didn't create the iphone', the authors own examples of innovations that lead to the iphone are all 100% from within an economy based on capitalism. My very first post stated clearly that it's not a purely capitalist system, but that it is noteworthy that not a one of the examples chosen by the author making his point came from a socialist country.

Can you offer a comparative American/Russian timeline of computer innovations
Well, I could actually. If you want to deny the fact that Russia basically halted their computer R&D multiple times in the 70s, 80s and 90s in place of just stealing American advances because they were so far behind I can cite examples for you...

And for some unknown to you reason China is beating the ever loving pants off America lately.
1. Factually, no they are not. The fastest network gear, CPU and GPU tech are all base on American research and innovation. America is still hands down leading the field in all categories but manufacturing cost, but that isn't for reasons of technological advancement but instead a 'different approach' to environmental and labour regulations.
2. Within the 5G space you alluded to earlier, there is an additional answer. Their 5G isn't 'better' but rather 'cheaper' for reasons stated in 1. The existence of their 'own' 5G tech though isnt' because Huawei's own R&D was caught up so fast through their own innovation. Instead if you look into the history of network companies, Canadian giant Nortel was giving Cisco a solid run for it's money for a time, until they utterly collapsed because of massive corporate espionage stealing almost all of their tech and under cutting them on price. China's just using the same playbook as Russia to catch up.

Russia beat America into space

Well, if you want to go down that road the conclusion is that fascism is the key to technological advancement, as America and Russia were largely just pitting the scientists they each captured from the Nazis against one another.

Once again though, my point has never been that only capitalism can result in innovation. Instead, I made the vastly more modest proposal that personal profit from inventions is beneficial to innovation. I further observed that the video author's own examples support that observation, and in that contradict his own conclusion.

I thought about putting it in that category but I wasn't sure. And thank you for the promote I was about to beg lol.

"there's got to be more to the equation than just nuttiness times membership."

Absolutely agreed.

Regarding white supremacist killings and violence, and classing right/left and tada the left is less violent is something I don't agree on.

Now I don't say that to disagree with any particular fact you present, I just reject the methodology of creating 2 categories(left/right) and lumping everyone into one or the other and drawing conclusions. I think it oversimplifies things to the point of being a problem of it's own. It makes it easy to be apathetic(clearly the problem is the 'other' guys) and even dehumanizing("they" are clearly evil or in bed with evil).

The two camps thing is way too easy to get pulled into(I'm imperfect staying out of it too), but it just ends in horrible divisive garbage like refusing to vote Democrat because they are "left" and antifa is left, so can't promote them...

Odd how the the timing coincides with the release of IQOS in the USA. That is a totally bizarre and inexplicable machine without the knowledge that it was engineered by lawyers: "We need to get into that non-combustable category somehow, but it also has to be a tobacco product."

1) I'm not opposed to suicide. If life makes you unhappy, I don't insist you suffer through it. People who judge themselves unworthy of life fall into that category.

2) I've been at it for 45 years+-. It has nothing to do with strength, it's about a compulsion to work towards fairness, knowing it won't ever be reached, at least in my lifetime. I'm strong enough to never condone or excuse clear racism as long as I draw breath.

3) ? You would catch the arsonists before the home owner and their children and not lay blame at their feet. I would let the arsonist burn, locking them inside the house they ignited after saving the family. He's the one with the gas can and lighter if you can't identify who is who.
Calling out wholly inappropriate behavior/speech is never a waste of time. Gaining the trust of racists at the expense of their victims and society as a whole is worse than a waste of time, it's supporting racism.

4) My point. Let them get it, while not allowing your gift to be stolen or misused for harm or other things they get judged harshly for. No judgement, no opportunity for misuse, not just throwing money at a problem, helping a person.

Put this in the TOP FIVE FUNNIEST BLR category!

I'm sure the tow, to get her up to speed, has to do with reducing wind and weight. The addition of the gearing needed to get her to up to those speeds without assistance would be ridiculous.

The point is, she broke a previous record using the same rules as the first person. If a pro wants to break the record he (or she) can follow the same rules. I have a feeling not many pros would take the risk and would be happy being on the lower shelf or different category. She accepted the challenge. AND SHE'S NOT EVEN A PRO!

https://data.ers.usda.gov/reports.aspx?ID=17854
(pick california durr)
Looks okay to me
---------------------------
https://apps.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?reqid=70&step=30&isuri=1&major_area=0&area=06000&year=2018,2017,2016,2015,2014,2013,2012,2011,2010&tableid=526&
category=5526&area_type=0&year_end=-1&classification=naics&state=0&statistic=-1&yearbegin=-1&unit_of_measure=levels
--------------------------------
^copy/paste whole link
here's more detailed information about industry in California specifically, looks like it's been growing steady for a while.

Also, note the sharp uptick in government spending starting ~2014 -current numbers late 2018

That spending doesn't account for all of the growth, but there's a parallel growth happening in the "All industry total" category, defined as - "The All industry total includes all Private industries and Government."

@bobknight33
I still think you're a russian troll making the rounds.

I heavily edited my comment because it came out much harsher in text.

Sounds like you've been thru a lot. I can only wish you well.

I used to suffer from nephrotic syndrome, I nearly died in my teens. I had ulcers opening up on my skin, my joints so swollen they would not bend. Daily blood tests etc. A plant based diet saved my life and as you can tell I can not stop telling people about it.

It seems to solve almost every western chronic disease. And even though the science backs it up clearly doctors and the public see it in the same category as homeopathy. I don't know what is keeping you so ill but I can tell with confidence that if you eat the ForksOverKnives.com way you will have more time at the very least. I can only encourage you to try it for a week or two and feel it for yourself.

*doublepromote some *quality engineering solutions.

2.0 should be more focused on a larger payload and range and less on speed to open up new categories and areas for deliveries, imo. They seem to have the small payload, rapid delivery model on lock.

They have a point about crowded American air space, but there's also plenty of America with no air service at all that could make good use of this tech and they should never have to think about encountering another plane if they stay under 20000 ft. in many places.

In 2018, 100% of supercomputers run Linux.
actually you'll have to go back more than 10 years to see even slight share of other OSs :
https://www.top500.org/statistics/overtime/
(choose Category "Operating System Family" and Submit)

I do place CNN and Fox in the same category.
That is how low CNN has sunk and how much better Fox has become in my experiences watching what amounts to garbage reporting on a whole.
Trump did this today blah blah blah but yes he still lusts after his daughter.
He is actually saying she is just a really hot looking young woman as he works in that business but lets go there anyway.
Fox is not pure propaganda.
You don't watch it enough to see the right people to know of what of you speak.
I don't simply watch what appeals to me or justifies my point of view which too many people like you are doing with the rise of the internet.
Relying on late night comedy shows who never show Fox News or Trump saying anything good is useless too.
Shep Smith, Bret Baier and Chris Wallace are pretty decent at giving you the news.
Yes Fox is a joke at times and seems to be in Trumps pocket but there is good reporting on there and some good reporters.
You just have to skip the garbage like Hannity a lot of the time and the judge jeannie idiot all of the time.
Laura Ingram seems to be there just to act the asshole.
Tucker can be good sometimes looking at the current insane trends.
I watch several sources everyday to get an overall view on how things get reported and it is eye opening.
I never liked what the Republicans and Fox did to Obama but 2 wrongs don't make a right and after all Fox News is just entertainment right?
CNN has been around how long?
It was once very respected.
You don't seem to be grasping my point.
I don't like most of how Trump does things.
Even when he is doing something good he ruins it sometimes by the way he words it.
I think he is being led by people and could have been a lot more palpable to the left but they have pulled the strings and yanked him back most everytime.
The birther thing showed how low class he will always be despite his money and gross looking home with all the ugly so called appointments.
I am saying he is playing the media and it is suffering as a result and the media by acting unprofessionally is playing along.

It isn't as rare as you think. There are numerous accounts of false accusations that don't make it as far as court or they do and the accused choose to take a plea versus chancing half their life.

Brent E. Turvey, a criminologist, wrote a 2017 book that dispels this notion. His research, and that of two co-authors, cited statistical studies and police crime reports. One academic study showed that as many as 40 percent of sexual assault charges are false. Mr. Turvey wrote that the FBI in the 1990s pegged the falsity rate at 8 percent for rape or attempted rape complaints.

“There is no shortage of politicians, victims’ advocates and news articles claiming that the nationwide false report for rape and sexual assault is almost nonexistent, presenting a figure of around 2 percent,” writes Mr. Turvey, who directs the Forensic Criminology Institute. “This figure is not only inaccurate, but also it has no basis in reality. Reporting it publicly as a valid frequency rate with any empirical basis is either scientifically negligent or fraudulent.”

A recent study supports this assessment. The Pentagon issues an annual report on sexual assaults in the military. Nearly one-quarter of all cases last year were thrown out for lack of evidence, according to a report released in May.

As far as the rape every 98 seconds, I am unsure where you found that number. There were 95,730 rapes under the revised FBI definitions (which include more categories that previously were not considered rape, like child molestion, under the legacy definitions) in the last year I could find which was 2016. These are the combined rapes of men, women, and children for that year. That means the actual rape of a 'person' is occurring somewhere around every 5-6 minutes. Now if you are going by a different statistic, like the CDC ones that include such a wide definition of what constitutes 'rape' that it isn't funny, you might get the result you quoted. I wouldn't go by those stats, even TIME magazine had to call out the CDC for overstating the numbers.

As far as Trump goes, he is a complete idiot dickhead. He shouldn't have insulted anyone, least of all Dr. Ford. I will point out one thing though, and this is subjective in that your viewpoint will differ from mine, Dr. Ford is an alleged rape survivor. She has made the claim and took a polygraph test, but other than that she can only claim that in her recollection she was at a party where Brett Kavanaugh was also at supposedly. She also claimed to be heavily intoxicated. If you want to believe her Ex, she has lied in her testimony. (https://heavy.com/news/2018/10/christine-ford-boyfriend-ex-letter-blasey/) Heavy leans left, so this isn't a bobknight cherry picking of information.

Now, why would she come forth and deal with all the negatives of making the claim? I guess that is the kicker, normally you would expect a person to really be telling the truth if they are going to be put through hell. I would put forward though that this was one of the most hotly contested confirmations for SCOTUS ever. Even more so than for Bork, and I remember that one clearly. In my opinion, far more than for Thomas. If you were adamantly opposed to a person sitting on the Supreme Court, had went to school with that person, and were willing to fall on your sword for your beliefs, you might do it.

In any case, that is just supposition on my part.

First off you must acknowledge that there are great cops and bad cops. Racist cops fall into the bad cop category.

Arming anyone for the purpose of defending themselves against cops is nothing more than an emotional knee jerk reaction and highly unrealistic as a solution.

The starting point for this problem is better police training and stricter background checks and oversight.

Giving black men guns to defend themselves is a racist move in itself and a no win situation. The outcome will still be lives destroyed.

But I agree with your sentiment of black men being used as target practice for bad cops. We must still stand with the good cops.

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.