HN user
If country A makes and achieves its goal to give the next generation an average IQ of 130, and country B makes its goal to encourage the next generation to do something meaningful (to them), B will serve A before long.
Poor are poor not just because they don't have money but also because they are unable to get out of it. They have to go through unspeakable ordeal just to get one meal a day and this places enormous cognitive load on the entire family.
That seems like it should be true intuitively, but if it were true, you'd expect higher benefit levels to correlate with higher rates of getting out of poverty. The data points to the opposite happening.
For example: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_17.htm
I'm not so sure of that. John von Neumann was approximately as intelligent as a human can be, and his mental health was good as far as I know.
More on judicial combat between a man and a woman:
http://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/trial_by_combat/combat_...
If you have any hobbies, they can take up a lot of storage space. You may want to dedicate a room to them.
You may want an office in which to work or study without interruption from a spouse or children.
Many people enjoy having ample bathroom counter space for products.
A backyard can a safe place for children or pets to play.
Communists, meaning people who were members of the Communist Party or identified as Communists and associated with other Communists, were more likely to have come into contact with Soviet agents and been persuaded to spy or subvert US aims. We are talking about security risks not security certainties. It's entirely reasonable to remove risky people from sensitive positions. Any organization that failed to do so would fail to achieve the objectives given to it through the democratic process; it would serve another master. This is entirely separate from the question of who should choose the objectives of the government.
Ironically, Communists wished to overthrow the US government and were anti-democratic.
Removing enemy agents from positions is not unAmerican.
Removing people with known security risks from sensitive positions is not unAmerican.
He missed hundreds of agents, identified several agents and many more security risks, and spurred heightened security awareness that was a very good thing at the time. Expecting him to know the identity of every Soviet agent before attempting to remove any security risks is unreasonable.
McCarthy identified several agents actively engaged in espionage. KGB records identify hundreds more that he missed.
McCarthy identified many more people in sensitive positions who were security risks, many with Communist associations. Even if those people were not actively engaged in espionage, they should not have held sensitive positions.
KGB/NKVD archives reveal they had hundreds of agents in the executive branch in the 1940s. McCarthy spurred the removal of Soviet moles, Communist sympathizers, and other security risks from sensitive positions. In this, he did the US a great service, as regrettable as false accusations are.
Edit: In response to your questions, it's as if you didn't read what I just wrote. Regarding the Soviet records of infiltration, several books have been written on these records and their revelations.
Why don't you quote the next sentence? "He suggested that a majority of those on the lists could legitimately have been considered security risks, but that a substantial minority could not."
According to your link, the Department of Justice, which included the FBI, had fewer than 20 employees.
Edit: Thanks for acknowledging the mistake. I made the same one here.
Any organization with secrets worth keeping must try to detect spies and repel infiltrators.
It may reduce disastrous false negatives at the cost of an increase in false positives.
In the 1940s, the Soviet Union had hundreds of agents in the executive branch of the US government. KGB records opened in the last 20 years largely vindicate McCarthy (Edit: in that the threat was real; infiltration had happened; most of his targets were Soviet agents, Communists, or associated with Communists; and security risks had to be removed from positions in which they could do harm for the good of freedom-loving people everywhere).
You described differences between Asians and blacks and Latinos. I don't see why that means Asians don't contribute to diversity.
"At the same time, there is no financial pressure to lower the prices of its unchanged and rather low-tech graphing calculators since consumers are happy to keep buying them."
Consumers are required to keep buying them.
Why do you think local food production would be more efficient? My gardening projects have been case studies in inefficiency.
Why would state sponsored overseas farming of thirsty crops for US import be desirable?
Maybe I'm too set in my ways to see what you're talking about, but I don't see this in the comments.
Incorrect. Please read page 2 carefully.
Farm-raised meat tastes nothing like wild game. For that matter, lean cuts of meat taste nothing like fatty cuts, let alone organ meats. Modern consumers prefer less flavorful meats.
You misunderstood the poster above re: gays.
This statement cannot possibly be true. If everyone had access to the best education, it would not be the best education.
1. How so? 2. True, but the comment I responded to made a different claim. 3. is irrelevant. There are always under-represented groups depending on how you look at the data, but if you claim general bias against minorities when some minorities are doing very well, you have some explaining to do.
"Regardless of where the failure is there is clearly something about the software engineering industry and the pipeline leading to it that is biased against minorities"
How can you say that when East and South Asians are so overrepresented?
"There is no intrinsic reason why these numbers should not be proportional to society in the long run, that's why we compare the ratios."
Tall black men are wildly overrepresented in the NBA. Should the NBA be "proportional to society?"
The US population grew by almost 10%, over 27 million, between 2000 to 2010.
If you call a person a racist, you're saying 1) that he has certain views about race, and you may also be saying 2) that he takes certain actions in line with those views. Saying someone can't be racist without power is saying "if criteria for definition 2 aren't met, then criteria for definition 1 are not met," which is silly.
Your definition of racism is at odds with common dictionary definitions of the word. Leftist academics have tried to redefine the word.
Was conking necessary to succeed, or was it done because many blacks preferred the appearance of straight hair?
Sidney Poitier played a doctor in No Way Out in 1950, and his hair doesn't appear to have been straightened.
What does it mean to act white or to act black for that matter?
Aside from expense, what issues do plastic pallets have?
I don't mean to be uncivil.
The claim that low-income students suffer because they are less likely to have families that enrich them is probably not as true as you seem to think.
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2010/11/the_science_of.h...