Certainly? You shouldn't try to speak for everyone. You don't have any idea how many people like pilk and or dilk. ;-)
I think most adult people are offput at the thought of drinking human milk, but it's undeniably healthy, and almost everyone has done it.

There actually is a highly regarded chef working on pig milk cheese who claims it's delicious, it's not the milk that's the problem there, it's the milking. Sows are not docile and don't have easily milked teats. Same for bitches (female dogs). If they had udders, there would definitely be cultures milking them.

Mongols created an empire from near nothing in part by drinking large quantities of milk, even though it seems they were likely all lactose intolerant when that started. They found it worth the discomfort.
The Massai also owe their existence to drinking milk, and they seem exceptionally healthy.

While it's true, most of the world doesn't NEED milk, they do need calcium and milk may be the only source available when calcium rich vegetables aren't. From precursory research it seems a majority of people around the world do drink some milk, but not enough to meet daily calcium recommendations.

I'll hazard a guess based on your comments that you're vegan. Please don't be a stereotype and food shame non vegans, especially if you're going to be fast and loose with facts to do it.

1) unless that trade is privately controlled, then it is.
2) you said MADE. They make them. ;-)
3) Capitalism isn't technological industry, or civil rights...it's trade and ownership. If an individual can own a business (edit :and profit from freely selling it's products) that's capitalism. Farms count.
Capitalism: an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
4) well, that's one thing we agree on then, but it's hardly a selling point for capitalism to most people.
5) If public funds are used for any public purposes, that's socialism imo. I certainly think basic research where the results are free to the public counts.

1) no, trading is not capitalism.
2) kids in China did not - that is borderline silly. Creating and marketing the iphone created a DEMAND, the MARKET had been in place already (the US constitution, the fed, the dollar, cellular infrastructure, people free to buy things of their own will, the internet et cetera et cetera et cetera ad nauseam - takes a lot of preconceptions to be able to sell such a product)
3) basically yes.
4) I am sure we agree on a lot of things, this is one.
5) I understand government=socialism. The government of the US of A funds a lot of things that would be hard to justify as socialism. Maybe an argument can be made that basic research is a social investment IDK.

Basic research does not equal fast progress though. You can be as clever as Archimedes or Leonardo but steam trains require capitalism to make sense. Iphones required masses of rich crazy americans to take off - a market and demand. Without a market and demand (or a war) progress is slow as f***.

But it (the internet) took off based on the possibility of profit. Got stolen from the nerds.

Of course basic research needs public funding. No direct profit - no market value. Some capitalists (entrepreneurs, people who invest their private property) look beyond direct profit and fund science, or arts, people are whimsical.

Iphones need a market. Without a market who would care if someone invented the Iphone?

Wrong on ALL counts, as usual Bobski.

Trump: pleaded guilty to fraud involving his fake school stealing from "students" before the election, found guilty of charity fraud last month and forced to pay millions back to veterans he stole from/defrauded....Also undeniably guilty of multiple finance and tax evasion charges, but being shielded by Barr until he's out of office

Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort: Sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for financial crimes and lying to Mueller

Konstantin Kilimnik: Charged with obstruction of justice during the Manafort investigation

Trump confidant Roger Stone: Convicted of lying to Congress tampering with a witness and obstructing the 2017 congressional investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about his contacts with Russia on Trump's behalf

Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates: Pleaded guilty to lying to investigators about Trump

Former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen: Pleaded guilty to tax and bank charges, campaign finance violations and lying to Congress for Trump

Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos:in January of 2017, Papadopoulos repeatedly lied about his contacts with Russian agents. He pleaded guilty

Alex van der Zwaan: Served 30 days in prison then deported for lying to investigators about Trump

Sam Patten: Pleaded guilty to failing to register as a foreign lobbyist in order to funnel foreign money to Trump's campaign

Bijan Kian and Skim Alptekin: Charged with conspiring to violate lobbying laws while working for Flynn

Those are just some convicted by Mueller for crimes after the election committed for Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/aug/22/how-many-of-trumps-close-advisers-have-been-convicted-and-who-are-they


Please list all the convictions of Democrats...my research shows Republicans are convicted >91 times for every Democrat found guilty of crimes in office in the last 50 years.

Bobski, you claim to watch OAN, the fake news outlet that hires actual Kremlin agents to spread Russian propaganda that managed to out lie Fox, the inventors of fake news.

Duh.

But.....Bcglorf said: Capitalism (or many unrelated civic freedoms) made science and progress possible. The implication is that without capitalism, science and progress are impossible.
Edit: my mistake, vil said that, not bcglorf.

Also, the video is about contradicting that exact contention.

No they aren't, because America isn't just "an economy based on capitalism", which you yourself pointed out. They all come from innovations in systems and inventions created through American socialism.

Again, pre '68, before America went the socialist route to advance computer sciences, not after. Yes, after we used a combination of socialism and capitalism, we were more successful. That's my point.

China is working on 6g, and nearly ready with 5g. America isn't. That cannot be simply because China stole our advancements since they're ahead of us. They also, as you've admitted, developed better (cheaper/faster) manufacturing methods both because of technological advancements and few or no regulations (which have caused them horrendous issues). Funny enough, removing the regulations for more profit at the expense of the workers/environment is capitalistic, not socialist.

Their 5G is better because it's 1)almost ready to deploy and 2) cheaper. Ours isn't ready for prime time yet, and has used billions in public funds to get where it is. The FCC also proposed a $20 billion fund to expand broadband (5g)....that's not capitalism.

Ahhh, switching topics, eh? I thought the topic is capitalism vs socialism as it relates to invention, not fascism. I'm not going to bite.

Ok, personal enrichment is one of many incentives that drive invention, but invention happens without that incentive daily.

Once again, necessity is the mother of invention, not capitalism or profit.

You miss the point if you claim he contradicts that conclusion, because the systems invented that the examples require were ALL publicly funded. Without the socialist inventions, there would be no capitalistic innovations. No internet=no world wide web. No WiFi means no WiFi. No displays=no mobile computers/phones. No access to phone lines=no data transfers, so no internet, www, etc.

If his numbers are correct, 72% of research spending is public funding, not private. Nuff said.

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.

In reality, it wasn't spare time tinkering at all, it was serious academics doing full time paid research funded by the government. ARPANET, while funded by the defense department, was designed by and connected college researchers, the first transmissions were between UCLA and Stanford in 69, not the military. This was the first networking, the infant internet.
The military system in the 60's was a point to point tonal encryption system that ran on proprietary bell telephone systems with dedicated direct phone lines until the FCC forced Bell to give up it's capitalistic monopoly in 68, allowing for advancements in both the public and eventually private sector that led to the infant internet instead of just individual "computers" (and I use the term lightly here) directly communicating. Remember, back then, almost into the 90's, you needed to know the direct phone number of the other computer to connect (think "War Games"), there was no publicly accessible network.
The first retail internet transaction wasn't until 94.

Also imo, it was weird individuals tinkering in their spare time that made home computing anything more than very expensive word processors/calculators. We've had PCs since the 70's in my home, I remember what they could do then....I'm one of those weird individuals.

Long and short, your 5 different capitalistic ways ALL stem from a purely socialist base and a socialist denial of private for profit monopolies, and most if not all of them were developed and implemented using at least some public funding. Without that, we would still be using bell telephone phone modems to direct dial each other. Without public/private cooperation, neither sector could advance like they have together.
Imo, it's not an either/or situation, it's both.

For research purposes, I bet it's invaluable.
For instance, accurately knowing coral colors makes identification possible, and accurately measuring the vibrancy of those colors could allow better estimates of reef health.

the more i research this idea that sex is a spectrum the more i find the idea completely ridiculous. humans are dimorphic. there are 2 sexes plus anomalies. and none of these linguistic gymnastics changes the argument that people with DSD deserve rights or be treated with respect.

newtboy's on point again, thanks.

Using bcglorf's logic, it is TAXATION that invented the internet. Name me a country (capitalist/communist/socialist or otherwise) that doesn't tax its people, bcglorf. Makes no sense to me. The video's intent is about defining the "who" invented the (early) internet, it's about credit where it's due, not blindly attributing everything to the almighty "capitalism". The video is saying IS IT NOT IT (capitalism).

I wouldn't say the inventors didn't take advantage of its research, it's just that for them it's not (only) about profit. The military benefits with precision-guided missiles, drones & satellites, universities got their connected & online classrooms.

China is ALREADY doing R&D on 6G (https://www.techradar.com/news/china-has-already-kicked-off-its-6g-research)... "capitalism" better catch up, bcglorf!

What MUST be said though, is that the world really should thank the USA to open the tech & infrastructure up to the public (including the world) to make the world a more connected place (even with its many social warts and all).

@newtboy,

"Ok, but don't discount the factual arguments because they are presented with passion. Ignore the emotion and focus on verifying or debunking the facts presented. Because someone on Fox presents their denial argument flatly and dispassionately doesn't make it more correct."

Obviously agreed, exactly what I was saying.

"if the facts are presented clearly and in totality, which she does better than most if not all professional scientific lecturers....sadly"

I think here you are selling scientific lecturers short, or at the least including folks I wouldn't consider scientific at all in the group.

When I think scientific lecturer, I think an actual scientific researcher giving a lecture related to their field of expertise. That even excludes scientific researchers giving lectures outside their field of expertise. I've seen how badly interdisciplinary study types can misjudge their own knowledge of a field. In the hard sciences they can get rooted out faster, but in softer sciences and humanities it's easier for them to keep finding a niche that hides their ignorance.

If you get the CERES team to give a talk on the global energy budget, they will give a lecture a thousand times more complete and accurate, than you, I or Greta ever could. They will confirm the planet is taking in more energy than is leaving. They will confirm their data is corroborated between satellite and ocean heat content measurements. They can say with authority how much energy is being gained, and can even confirm it largely corresponds to what we'd expect from the increased CO2 contributions. If you asked, they would even also admit that the uncertainties on the measured imbalance are larger than the imbalance itself.

Ask them about mating habits for European swallows and you, I or Gretta might well know better than them.

The modern definition of regulated is not the same as the definition used when writing the document.

In the case of the 2nd amendment, regulated means "trained" or "disciplined".

This has been researched and documented.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Meaning_of_%22well_regulated_militia%22

But they're just speaking....criticizing it (Islam).
If they said 1/10 about Judaism or Christianity what they say about Islam, the right would be frothing at the mouth over these anti religion hatemongers. Duh.

Family Research Council...
....the vehemently anti gay, anti choice, anti anything not super Christian group that says gay marriage is the same as bestiality and should be treated the same? Duh.

I like gay people, but they can never be decent parents and shouldn't be allowed to raise children....but no, I don't hate gays.
Bullshit. If I say that about fat and frumpy brunette women, I'm a hater.

Pretty much boils down to these groups all believe 'Our targeted groups should not enjoy the same rights as the rest of us...but that doesn't make us hate groups. '
Yes, yes it does. That's what hate groups are.

More shameful right wing crybaby time over being called out for being hatemongers. "I know you are but what am I." is not an adult or rational argument, but it's all they've got.
Sad. Bigly sad.

Ok...i should have said "all but guaranteed under all BUT the most wildly optimistic projections". Got me.

Since, time and time again, the UN "collaborative summary" has had to be revised upwards, and recent measurements show current melting rates it claimed won't be seen until 2075 in Greenland, yes, I have a low opinion of their political/scientific consensus...but the scenarios I mentioned are not the most extreme I can find, just the most likely if you look at data rather than projections based on the conglomeration of incomplete, cherry picked, and non peer reviewed science as well as full scientific studies.

The IPCC does not carry out original research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena itself. Rather, it assesses published literature including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed sources. Thousands of scientists and other experts contribute on a voluntary basis to writing and reviewing reports, which are then reviewed by governments.
They are not the scientific community, they are an international political body chaired by an economist that makes suggestions hopefully based on real honest science, but not necessarily.


There is plenty of consensus that the IPCC estimates are low....NOAA gives up to a 2.5M rise estimate for RCP8.5...the no mitigation, business as usual model we are outpacing already. Based on their numerical system, we're looking at RCP 10+ because emissions are rising, not flatlined, certainly not lowering.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2018/06/15/is-the-ipcc-wrong-about-sea-level-rise/#712580f03ba0