Not a straw man one bit. I didn't say you made the list, but you accepted it as the topic and your examples.

Again, they didn't personally profit. Government employees don't own patents on what they create on the job, and didn't profit personally from them. That came later from the public sector. Even in the private sector, inventors often don't profit from inventions they create at work, their company does. I'm certainly not saying people don't profit from their inventions, just not in these publicly funded cases.

100% of the examples were based on purely taxpayer funded inventions, created not through capitalism, not created for profit. Publicly funded projects are SOCIALISM. Those who spout hate of anything socialism should immediately get off the internet.

Again, G5 and G6 are being led by communist countries. Invention isn't tied to profit, especially these inventions.

Necessity is the mother of invention, not profit.

Do we need another round? We're going in circles because you insist socialist academic inventions are due solely to the incentive of profit, ignoring their history and origins.

My takeaway from the video is not about Capitalism vs. Socialism that brought about the root of those innovations (i.e. the internet), but the direct, initial involvement of the education sector, military and/or government, NOT the "free market".

@newtboy said: "a 3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections."

Lies.

The most recent IPCC report(AR5) has their section on sea level rise here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf

In the summary for policy makers section under projections they note: " For the period 2081–2100, compared to 1986–2005, global mean sea level rise is likely (medium confidence) to be in the 5 to 95% range of projections from process based models, which give 0.26 to 0.55 m for RCP2.6, 0.32 to 0.63 m for RCP4.5, 0.33 to 0.63 m for RCP6.0, and 0.45 to 0.82 m for RCP8.5. For RCP8.5, the rise by 2100 is 0.52 to 0.98 m"

And to give you maximum benefit of doubt they also comment on possible(unlikely) exceeding of stated estimates:" Based on current understanding, only the collapse of marine-based sectors of the Antarctic ice sheet, if initiated, could cause global mean sea level to rise substantially above the likely range during the 21st century. This potential additional contribution cannot be precisely quantified but there is medium confidence that it would not exceed several tenths of a meter of sea level rise during the 21st century. "

So, to summarize that, the worst case emissions scenario the IPCC ran(8.5), has in itself a worst case sea level rise ranging 0.5-1.0m, so 1.5 to 3ft. They do note a potential allowance for another few tenths of a meter if unexpected collapse of antarctic ice also occurs.

Let me quote you again: "3' rise, which is all but guaranteed by 2100 under the most optimistic current projections"

and yet the most recent collaborative summary from the scientific community states under their most pessimistic projections have a 3 ft as the extreme upper limit...

You also did however state "IPCC (again, known for overly conservative estimates)", so it does seem you almost do admit having low opinion of the scientific consensus and prefer cherry picking the most extreme scenarios you can find anywhere and claiming them as the absolute golden standard...

$200 Billion per year is roughly what McKesson generates in revenues from the sell of opioids they produce.

$6 Billion per year is roughly what Private Prisons and Correctional Facilities in the US generate from imprisoning predominantly black and Brown people.

Legalizing drugs introduce competition to the market thus lowering profits.

Legalizing drugs will reduce future prison populations thus lowering profits.

Legalizing drugs will make drug abuse a health crisis and not a crime. The government can handle a health crisis. This would force people like me to shift a sizable portion of my investments out of the very lucrative sectors that profit from the current regime running the country.

One of my former cow-orkers, who grew up in Malaysia, told me that when he was young his father was walking through the woods and was hit in the head by a falling Brazil nut -- he came to hours later, and was wicked late for dinner. He described the fruit as having nuts like sectors of an orange.

Nice to see them in fact.

Some of the execs I can understand (not condone) behaving like this coming from the private sector, but I'd expect more from a seasoned public official. I guess taxpayer $$ and positions of public trust mean nothing to almost everyone. Damn shameful it is.

From YouTube:


Martin Jeffries
2 days ago
Hi Tom, I'm a merchant navy officer who used to work around there, although I never came across this particular light... Sector Lights and Leading lights (parallax) are the internationally recognised marine signals for this sort of use (white light centre, with red and green lights either side to guide you to a safe channel, which i'm sure you've researched and are aware of), but one thing that doesn't come up too often is lines to specifically avoid, and as such there isn't an internationally recognised means of transmitting this with lights. The signal is pointing towards the danger, which is unusual in maritime practice, but it's certainly not a common light and isn't in the IALA buoyage system used for identifying marine hazards.

If it's in a marina, which i think you mentioned, it'll be specifically to stop boats dropping anchor on the submerged cable within the marina's jurisdiction, and it'll be specifically referenced in the marina's or the solent by-laws as an anomalous regulation. (I don't have time to go and hunt it down, but it'll be there as a local reg.) As far as i'm aware, that's the only possible reason for it. It's an unusual solution to an unusual problem. I could of course be wrong...i bring no hard evidence to the table!
Hope it helps

Hardly a brilliant analysis - more like a brilliant piece of advocacy that, like most of its kind, is long on optimistic projections and very short on real numbers and a real analysis of those numbers. For instance: what is the megawatt hour cost of a solar power generation station that can replicate the power responsiveness and availability factor of a fossil power generation station (over a similar life cycle). He quotes the kwh cost for solar and wind power systems but each and every one of them is "backed up" by a much larger conventional power generation system that, ultimately, is burdened with the costs of maintaining grid stability, grid voltage, and grid frequency. There are huge engineering problems and substantial costs associated with maintaining a power supply that we now require to operate a modern economy. Just ONCE, I would like to see the green power advocates address those challenges and costs in a realistic way instead of glossing over them with their fantasy projections.
And I will say, as an aside, that I have spent my entire working career working in the renewable energy sector and fully agree that we need to transition to a renewable energy economy - but unrealistic projections are going to doom our economy if they are taken as being possible in the near term.

38 minutes of "brilliant analysis" later and wind power still requires subsidies and unbalances grids while nuclear power needs only more concentrated investment capital and long term government guarantees.

Building wind turbines is a good investment because they scale well and have political backing including subsidies. Nuclear power is a long term investment in a volatile sector.

Once the whole planet is run by banks and all continents are politically united, connected by a network of thick cables, wind and solar will have a chance to dominate. Right now you need backups for all those windless nights, safety valves for windy Sundays, and new transmission lines to be safe from crazy neighboring countries.

Earlier today, I was sent a link to an article in Bloomberg titled Why Workers Are Losing to Capitalists. Marx in Bloomberg? Impossibru!

But nevermind Marx. That opinion piece is 800 words, give or take, on labour's share of income. Yet it doesn't mention policy once. Not a single time. It's automation, it's globalisation, it's Gremlins. But not a single peep on policy.

Nothing on union busting. Nothing on taxes on capital vs taxes on labour. Nothing on minimum wages. Nothing on welfare. Nothing on the public sector.

If you read about inequality and related issues in these papers, there's rarely any agency. It's always something abstract like market forces, globalisation, innovation, etc. Nothing on decisions made by people in power, parliament first and foremost, that often had the explicit aim of reducing wages to "increase competitiveness".

A platoon-based realistic multiplayer first-person shooter for PC set during the Second World War.
HUGE BATTLES - 100 players per game, 50 per team

COORDINATE - Win through teamwork, tactics, and communication
​
A NEW METAGAME - Capture sectors and resources to beat your enemy into submission

COMBINED ARMS - Over 20 different player-controlled vehicles and deployed weapons

EPIC THEATER OF WAR - Do battle across a 1:1 scale 4 kilometer-squared map

MORE THAN THE TWITCH - Supply, capture and building systems ​

EXPERIENCE HISTORY - Historically accurate arsenal with realistic weapon behavior

A MODERN ENGINE - Developed for Unreal Engine 4

ECB Research Bulletin:

In an economy with its own fiat currency, the monetary authority and the fiscal authority can ensure that public debt denominated in the national fiat currency is non-defaultable, i.e. maturing government bonds are convertible into currency at par. With this arrangement in place, fiscal policy can focus on business cycle stabilisation when monetary policy hits the lower bound constraint. However, the fiscal authorities of the euro area countries have given up the ability to issue non-defaultable debt. As a consequence, effective macroeconomic stabilisation has been difficult to achieve.

Translation:
- all members of the eurozone effectively use a foreign currency
- they can default, because they do not and cannot issue debt in their currency
- fiscal policy has thus been completely neutered

Ergo, national parliaments have a significantly smaller policy space compared to countries with their own currency. Our parliaments intentionally surrender power to unelected technocrats, even control of the national budget, which is the primary power available to any parliament anywhere.

"Sorry, lad. We cannot pay for healthcare/pension/infrastructure/education/wages/X, we have to maintain a balanced budget to appease the market." Yet it is still illegal to call for the guillotine...

Meanwhile, Japan doesn't give a fuck. The BoJ has been vacuuming up outstanding debt like there's no tomorrow. It currently holds in excess of 40% of all government debt, effectively canceling it. It's just book-keeping. The Treasury issues the debt, the CB buys the debt. Both are part of the consolidated government sector, ergo no debt. "Hyperinflation!", they scream. Can you hear them? Except Japan has been fighting deflation for two decades, with no end in sight.

Yet the inflation-hawks are still treated as persons of authority. Flat-earthers, the lot of 'em.

And my country wants the rest of Europe to sign on to the most moronic law in German history: the "Schuldenbremse", which makes running a deficit illegal at the constitutional level (except for undefined "emergencies"). They are either a) brainwashed, b) idiots, or c) straight up evil. And I'm not sure which one I prefer.

If Planned Parenthood disappeared the private sector would expand to encompass the services lost.

All the services shown in the video can be found elsewhere with little fuss.

@iaui
i do not understand you defense of corporate media pundits,who most certainly failed to recognize the actual political climate of this country.

i am not saying EVERY pundit got it wrong.there were internet political shows that did address the rise of populism,and the reasons behind it,and that trump was a valid threat and not to be dismissed.

but for the most part,corporate media pundits all echoed each others sentiments in regards to this last election cycle.

there is a REASON why bernie sanders populist language resonated with the public,and many of those people were republicans.

there is a REASON why trumps populist language,which was vastly different than sanders,resonated with another sector of the population,and not all of those people were racist,sexist,misogynist homophobes.

and none of those REASONS were addressed by corporate media pundits.they preferred to talk about trumps bombastic speeches,his racism and sexism...total cult of celebrity,because it SOLD,it made them MONEY.

it is those very same corporate media pundits that actually facilitated the rise of donald trump,and his actual presidency,because they simply did not get the current political climate here in america.which is exactly what this video is addressing,that these highly paid,and richly rewarded,pundit class reside in their own tiny,little echo chambers,that happens to reside in close proximity to the very people they have been assigned to watch,criticize and report on.

they failed on an epic scale,and it is no surprise that the majority of americans have abandoned corporate media as if it had herpes,covered in aids.

and to make the argument that this video is suspect SIMPLY because bob posted it,is intellectually dishonest,because it does NOT address the video.i disagree with bob on pretty much everything,but to ignore or disregard this video based solely on the fact that you,or i,disagree with bob politically is just incredibly weak.

now if you wish to defend corporate media political pundits,and opinion makers,and have strong case where this video is wrong in regards to how the pundit class have failed,live in a bubble,and did not understand the underlying frustration and anger boiling underneath americas working class.i am all ears,because in my opinion they have utterly failed the american people.

and i am not dismissing your polling numbers,i am just saying they are not as relevant as you are making them out to be.polls can be manipulated to mean anything you want them to mean,and in my opinion are not a strong basis to formulate an argument to defend corporate media.

but i suspect your argument is more against bob than the video,and your skepticism is based solely on your disagreement with bob politically.not un-warranted i admit,bob has posted some extremely slanted videos,but so haven't we all in our own way.

but in this case?
this video is spot on,even though bob is the one who posted.

do not let your bob bias and prejudice cloud your judgment.