search results matching tag: renaissance

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (79)     Sift Talk (5)     Blogs (4)     Comments (124)   

bobknight33 (Member Profile)

JiggaJonson says...

Also, that Epoch times site guy... and the company


I'm not wasting more time on your nonsense than I have to

BUT LET ME BE CLEAR I WILL MAKE THE BET - THROW DOWN IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT Ya' FUCKING SELL-YOUR-OWN-COUNTRY-OUT-FASCIST-WANNABE
+buuuurp+ ooo sorry about that, just came out, anyway.

im not wasting my time digging because idk it's like at what point do you tell a person who is suffering from a mental illness that you're not taking them seriously anymore?


+pats your head+




nevertheless, from a glancing of the sources cited on the wiki, there's an...odd? story behind this site?

-------------\
Introducing|>>>>>>>>>>>> The Epoch Times! The news source that is so honest we have no fucking clue where they get their money from...except probably china...probably.
-------------/

"The Epoch Times was founded in 2000 by John Tang and other Chinese Americans affiliated with the Falun Gong new religious movement.[26] Tang was a graduate student in Georgia at the time; he began the newspaper in his basement.[21] The founders said they were responding to censorship inside China and a lack of international understanding about the Chinese government's repression of Falun Gong.[27][28] In May 2000, the paper was first published in the Chinese language in New York, with the web launch in August 2000.[29]

According to NBC News, "little is publicly known about the precise ownership, origins or influences of The Epoch Times," and it is loosely organized into several regional tax free non-profits, under the umbrella of the Epoch Media Group, together with New Tang Dynasty Television.[18][21]

The newspaper's revenue has increased rapidly in recent years, from $3.8 million in 2016 to $8.1 million in 2017 (with spending of $7.2 million) and $12.4 million in 2018.[36] Tax documents of the Epoch Media Group indicated that between 2012 and 2016, the group received $900,000 from a principal at Renaissance Technologies, a hedge fund led by the conservative political donor Robert Mercer.[37] Chris Kitze, a former NBC executive and creator of the fake news website Before It's News who also manages a cryptocurrency hedge fund, joined the paper's board as vice president in 2017.[36]

A 2020 report in The New York Times called The Epoch Times' recent wealth "something of a mystery." Steve Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News who produced a documentary with NTD, said "I’d give them a number" on a project budget and "they'd come back and say, 'We’re good for that number.'" Former employees say they were told The Epoch Times is financed by subscriptions, ads and donations from wealthy Falun Gong practitioners.[21]

Capitalism Didn’t Make the iPhone, You iMbecile

vil says...

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.

newtboy said:

1) There are many incentives not based on profit too, as you mentioned. I don't think it's an either/or equation.

2) Didn't iPhones basically create the smartphone market?

3) The implication is that without capitalism, science and progress are impossible.

Rethinking Nuclear Power

spawnflagger says...

I don't see nuclear having a renaissance anytime soon...
Solar and Wind are already cheaper, don't emit CO2, and don't produce nuclear waste that has to be transported and stored in exotic containers for thousands of generations.

Thorium salt reactors also produce waste.

Nuclear does make a useful energy source for NASA space probes though.

Zurich is ready for the end of the world

SFOGuy says...

Place de la Concorde Suisse...John McPhee's book exploring Swiss...paranoia...
---All military age men have an automatic weapon at home; the penalties for using it or even open the ammunition other than military duty are severe
---The bridges and tunnels in to the country are rigged with places for Swiss Army Engineers to stick explosives and drop them all
---Airbases tucked into mountain sides; not nuke proof; but damn hard to get at any other way
etc
etc
etc

"in Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. "

Harry Lime; Orson Well's "The Third Man"...

Beyond LARPing---Full contact sword fighting

AeroMechanical says...

That's a good question. I've only heard about it through a random conversation I struck up with someone who does it. I didn't actually ask, but I just assumed they used wooden or rubber swords or something. I think the folks that do it around here aren't quite this hardcore. Maybe, though. I'm kind of curious now and want to go see what they do.

A set of plate armour can't be cheap. I had a friend who made chainmail to sell at renaissance fairs and a... uh... smock.. whatever they call it... (jerkin?) of that costs about $1000. That's hand-made though, if it's popular there's probably a Chinese factory churning it out by the ton. Airsoft is a new hobby for me this summer, and I thought I was dumping too much money into gear, but I bet it isn't a fraction of what these guys invest.

SFOGuy said:

They hit each other with steel swords and halberds?
Where have I been all these years?
lol

Will Varley - I Got This Email (live)

Wingboard Proof of Concept

lurgee (Member Profile)

Emma: Master Shredder

Your Brain On Shrooms

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Sugar

newtboy says...

I'm not saying you're wrong, but when I have gone to the renaissance fair, the jousting was always done riding on the right hand side, with the shield being held in the left hand and the javelin held in the right, pointed diagonally across the horse. IF they are doing it right, that seems to contradict your statement.

RFlagg said:

To jump in on the left hand/right hand drive thing.

Figure most people are right handed. Early weapons, swords would be worn on the left hip to make it easier to draw. So you step up on the horse from it's left as the sword is in the way for getting up otherwise. Now as you ride your horse down the road, you'll ride on the left, as you want to keep approaching people on your right in case you need to respond to an attack, you are attacking them on your free side and not across the horse. So people get used to riding on the left of the road. This gives left hand drive a certain sense from a historical perspective.

Of course if you are driving a team of horses, then you are probably on the left rear horse, and for vision and control reasons, it's probably best to drive that team down the right side of the road. So a certain sense there too.

Then again, how often do you drive a team without a coach behind the horses? So why not drive from the right hand spot down the left of the road? Unless it has to do with the shotgun position, since then the person there has to shoot across the driver, in which case right hand drive once again makes sense.

None of which answers why some countries do right hand drive vs left. Did the US adopt right hand drive just to be different from the UK? Why did France adopt right hand drive? Did Napoleon's war efforts really lead to the rest of Europe adopting right hand drive? Sounds like an issue for CGP Grey to tackle...

Cenk Uygur debates Sam Harris

enoch says...

@Barbar
what you are speaking of in regards to the 2 religions (judaism/christianity) are the reformations they both experienced.

now there are a myriad of reasons why these reformations occurred:age of enlightenment, renaissance and a new way of thinking=secular philosophy.i could go on but those are the big three.

islam has yet to experience a reformation and reza aslan's book "no god but god" makes the case that islam is in desperate NEED of a reformation,to which harris dishonestly suggests that islam needs while in the same sentence accuses reza of ignoring.the man wrote an entire nook making the case for islamic reformation!

when you are going to criticize belief you have to also ask the "WHY" of that belief.if you strictly confine your arguments to a book then you are ignoring the multitude of factors to the origin of that belief and are actually formulating an argument with the very same absolutist and fundamentalist thinking that you are criticizing.

you are quite literally using fundamentalism to criticize fundamentalism.

example:
harris makes the point that suicide bombers blow themselves up because the quran glorifies martyrdom,with little thought to WHY those young men strapped bombs to their chest in the first place.

when the WHY is the most important question!

and the answer is NOT because the quran demands it of them but rather out of hopelessness brought on by oppression,murder,torture of their friends and family.

the quran offers a rationalization for the suicide bomber.a desperate person will grasp desperately at any thin straw to give their life meaning,but it most certainly not the cause.

this fundamental lack of understanding is why i find harris to be a mediocre atheist thinker.

literalism in regards to scriptural interpretation is a fairly new phenom,(past 100 years),and that includes muslims.

The Migration of Cultural Pioneers over 2600 Years

9547bis says...

Since they mention it's based on a Google DB, I will go out on a limb and say it is probably quite euro-centric. A more fully-featured data set would most likely show much more movements in the Middle-East (Persian empire, Muslim golden age having preceded the Renaissance) and around China (because you don't get to be the largest economy in the world for 18 of the last 20 centuries by standing still and doing nothing).

Oakland CA Is So Scary Even Cops Want Nothing To Do With It

Trancecoach says...

> "dividing large jurisdictions into many smaller jurisdictions would be a drain on commerce"

I don't think this is necessarily so. Both ancient Greece and Renaissance Italy prospered due to multiplicity of competing city-states. The more the competition between states, the more they will have to lower taxes and make the environment business-friendly. It creates a meritocracy as those states that fail to attract "clients," citizens and businesses will not survive. Small states make it very easy to do business with them, as in for example, Singapore, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Bahamas, etc. Small jurisdictions adapt their laws to make it easy to do business with them from abroad. Only big ones, like the US, make it a hassle to deal with from outside the country.

A free market society is as close to a meritocracy as you can get.

In a free market you can only really do well by providing goods and services that others want.

A common legal framework comes from commonality of culture, not from state control. And cultures adapt to each other for purposes of commerce.

Let commerce operate freely and people will find a way to adapt legal protections for successful and peaceful commerce. A small jurisdiction that "rips off" foreign business partners will find itself very quickly with no business partners and.being small, have a hard time surviving. Out of self preservation they will want to be trustworthy for others to want to do commerce with them.

Velocity5 said:

[...]

US Rep. To Deputy Drug Czar: You're 'Part of the Problem'

chingalera says...

What about that Botticelli during the early Italian Renaissance that painted those frescoes of skimpy lingerie ladies like the one in the giant clam shell??
Wonder if this guy is related to old, Sandro??

Passami Che bong, per favore??



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon