The Fed created some $4 trillion to bail out banks. Off-balance sheet, they created another $16 trillion to bail out foreign banks. We can create money to solve a lot of problems. The artificial scarcity of money is imposed and political, not a necessity.
Better fix: create money to create better technological solutions. Why should we sacrifice human lives to the great god Mammon? Does money serve us, or do we serve money?
By that definition, the hard drive on a computer increases in entropy when they make bigger ones. But we want more entropy then, because we can store what we choose on it. We don't have to limit ourselves to the disordered states.
So the identification of entropy with "everything falls apart" is misleading. More entropy serves us in many cases: a zipped file has less entropy than the uncompressed version, but we can't read the zipped version. In computational linguistics, maximum entropy models are useful.
Just because there's a possibility of more "disordered" states doesn't mean we have to choose them.
If you can explain the disorder, haven't you created a meta-order that formally describes the disorder? What is the limit on the creation of such meta-orders?
The private sector understands the alchemy of money creation, and creates at least an order of magnitude more money than governments do. The BIS reports that $76 trillion in OTC derivatives were created out of thin air by private entitites in 2013 alone. There is plenty of room for government to create the money for a basic income.
Make it unconditional basic income. And opt-in, no one has to take it. Government and private businesses can hold challenges to stimulate individuals to innovate, but government doesn't require you to do anything.
How about the Fed give money to individuals instead of corporations? Or just use fiscal policy, funded by the Fed at zero cost to taxpayers.
Inflation is psychological. Deal with it through indexation of everything (savings accounts, transfer payments, everything) as Israel does, successfully.
"I mean if you had no choice but to gather/hunt for food the entire day or otherwise you wouldn't survive, that would be the economy dictating to you that you cannot really do much of anything beyond just surviving."
Pre-Reagan America had a government that didn't charge for national parks, but James G. Watt changed that.
Government should provide for the General Welfare. It can and should create money to do so. The Fed has proven it can create money at will, and the stock market has reached record heights. Use that power of money creation to empower individuals instead of corporations, in the form of a Basic Income, say. Then people can work on open source, wikipedia, and challenges if they choose, instead of entering the morally hazardous world of the market with its perverse incentives.
"someone with the purse strings to finance some of these things on behalf of the common good"
Government should, because it is mandated to "provide... for the General Welfare." Create a Basic Income (financed by the Fed at zero cost to taxpayers), and give people the choice to work on what they are interested in, instead of what some little Napoleon boss thinks they should work on.
"There is more of a distinction between Ford Cars (i.e. more differences between the F-150 and the Focus) than there are between Ford's catalogue and Dodge's catalogue."
Right, so can you say anything about the "intelligence" of a Ford car compared to a Dodge car, just based on one sample? The chance that the Dodge shares the same "intelligence" or "reliability" as the Ford can be greater, for any two cars selected at random, than the Ford compared to another Ford.
I think any divides found are more an artifact of twitter and the phrases examined, than some inherent limit of the internet.
I think individuals are free to adopt or not adopt neologisms as they see fit, without regard to their language or geographical location. I think users of this site, for instance, can propogate memes such as "In Soviet Russia" jokes without thought to the location they're typing from.
Because average differences are less than differences between any two individuals of the different groups. Often enough that you can't make blanket statements like Watson did, about "Anyone who's ever had a black employee..."
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
Most human genetic variation is found within populations, not among them.
Individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.
Thus, I share little with you, though you are presumably of my race. I feel more kinship to blacks than to whites like you.
How has he been censored? Is there prior restraint on his book? How has he been destroyed? Will $4.1 million help him or "destroy" him further?
The hyperbolic paranoia in the above post is ubiquitous amongst conservatives. They see everything as a mortal threat. They're like precious little princesses who can't sleep because there's a pea on a mattress 100 feet below them. Prima donna whiners.
Our analysis focuses on the frequency, w, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population. We compare w to the error rates of several classification methods, using data sets that vary in number of loci, average allele frequency, populations sampled, and polymorphism ascertainment strategy. We demonstrate that classification methods achieve higher discriminatory power than w because of their use of aggregate properties of populations. The number of loci analyzed is the most critical variable: with 100 polymorphisms, accurate classification is possible, but w remains sizable, even when using populations as distinct as sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans. Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race.
A black from sub-Saharan Africa can donate organs to a white from Northern Europe, but not necessarily to another black from sub-Saharan Africa.
Conservatives think it's fine to censor speech they don't agree with. Like the Bonghits 4 Jesus Supreme Court case, where conservatives were very happy that the speech was censored. Typical conservative hypocrisy.
"I would also note that almost no one here is actually a scientist, much less a Nobel prize winner. So no one is all that qualified to debunk his idea. There are certainly falsifiable points in his premise on race (and probably plenty of research to support it). All that need be done is produce and make the argument, and the issue should be closed. But no, that's not sufficient, he has to be punished."
He infamously critiqued Plato's definition of man as an 'animal, biped and featherless' by appearing in the philosopher's academy with a plucked fowl exclaiming to have found 'human being.' The incident apparently caused Plato to add to his definition, "having broad nails."
Where were Diogenes's credentials? He was homeless. Science doesn't care about credentials, just the evidence. My own evidence speaks out against the Watson quotations I've read on here. I think he doesn't get out enough to meet blacks who are intelligent. Or listen to Louis Armstrong, for example.
What is this "punishment" fetish? Was he prevented from speaking or selling his prize or posting racist rants on his blog or wherever?
Is this purely a "social" punishment you're so frightened of? Do you want to legislate how society should treat Watson when he spouts racism that is easily refutable by my own personal experience (he said "anyone who's had a black employee knows I'm right about blacks being inferior" or something similar)? But if someone like me says something you disagree with, then it's okay to punish them socially?
Is that the double standard you're espousing here?
He's guilty of confirmation bias. He's as bad as Jefferson saying blacks can't be educated because Jefferson never met an educated black man. But since educated black men exist now, Watson's worse. Ignorant at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.
Slashdot Mirror
The Fed created some $4 trillion to bail out banks. Off-balance sheet, they created another $16 trillion to bail out foreign banks. We can create money to solve a lot of problems. The artificial scarcity of money is imposed and political, not a necessity.
Better fix: create money to create better technological solutions. Why should we sacrifice human lives to the great god Mammon? Does money serve us, or do we serve money?
By that definition, the hard drive on a computer increases in entropy when they make bigger ones. But we want more entropy then, because we can store what we choose on it. We don't have to limit ourselves to the disordered states.
So the identification of entropy with "everything falls apart" is misleading. More entropy serves us in many cases: a zipped file has less entropy than the uncompressed version, but we can't read the zipped version. In computational linguistics, maximum entropy models are useful.
Just because there's a possibility of more "disordered" states doesn't mean we have to choose them.
If you can explain the disorder, haven't you created a meta-order that formally describes the disorder? What is the limit on the creation of such meta-orders?
http://subbot.org/coursera/big...
Dark Energy and the Big Bang are violations of energy conservation laws.
Conservation doesn't necessarily hold in General Relativity, either. Where does the energy of red-shifted photons go?
The private sector understands the alchemy of money creation, and creates at least an order of magnitude more money than governments do. The BIS reports that $76 trillion in OTC derivatives were created out of thin air by private entitites in 2013 alone. There is plenty of room for government to create the money for a basic income.
Make it unconditional basic income. And opt-in, no one has to take it. Government and private businesses can hold challenges to stimulate individuals to innovate, but government doesn't require you to do anything.
How about the Fed give money to individuals instead of corporations? Or just use fiscal policy, funded by the Fed at zero cost to taxpayers.
Inflation is psychological. Deal with it through indexation of everything (savings accounts, transfer payments, everything) as Israel does, successfully.
"I mean if you had no choice but to gather/hunt for food the entire day or otherwise you wouldn't survive, that would be the economy dictating to you that you cannot really do much of anything beyond just surviving."
But hunter-gatherers had more leisure time than we do:
Pre-Reagan America had a government that didn't charge for national parks, but James G. Watt changed that.
Government should provide for the General Welfare. It can and should create money to do so. The Fed has proven it can create money at will, and the stock market has reached record heights. Use that power of money creation to empower individuals instead of corporations, in the form of a Basic Income, say. Then people can work on open source, wikipedia, and challenges if they choose, instead of entering the morally hazardous world of the market with its perverse incentives.
"someone with the purse strings to finance some of these things on behalf of the common good"
Government should, because it is mandated to "provide ... for the General Welfare." Create a Basic Income (financed by the Fed at zero cost to taxpayers), and give people the choice to work on what they are interested in, instead of what some little Napoleon boss thinks they should work on.
"There is more of a distinction between Ford Cars (i.e. more differences between the F-150 and the Focus) than there are between Ford's catalogue and Dodge's catalogue."
Right, so can you say anything about the "intelligence" of a Ford car compared to a Dodge car, just based on one sample? The chance that the Dodge shares the same "intelligence" or "reliability" as the Ford can be greater, for any two cars selected at random, than the Ford compared to another Ford.
I think any divides found are more an artifact of twitter and the phrases examined, than some inherent limit of the internet.
I think individuals are free to adopt or not adopt neologisms as they see fit, without regard to their language or geographical location. I think users of this site, for instance, can propogate memes such as "In Soviet Russia" jokes without thought to the location they're typing from.
Because average differences are less than differences between any two individuals of the different groups. Often enough that you can't make blanket statements like Watson did, about "Anyone who's ever had a black employee..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
Most human genetic variation is found within populations, not among them.
Individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population.
Thus, I share little with you, though you are presumably of my race. I feel more kinship to blacks than to whites like you.
How has he been censored? Is there prior restraint on his book? How has he been destroyed? Will $4.1 million help him or "destroy" him further?
The hyperbolic paranoia in the above post is ubiquitous amongst conservatives. They see everything as a mortal threat. They're like precious little princesses who can't sleep because there's a pea on a mattress 100 feet below them. Prima donna whiners.
Consider the abstract of Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations:
A black from sub-Saharan Africa can donate organs to a white from Northern Europe, but not necessarily to another black from sub-Saharan Africa.
Conservatives think it's fine to censor speech they don't agree with. Like the Bonghits 4 Jesus Supreme Court case, where conservatives were very happy that the speech was censored. Typical conservative hypocrisy.
Where's the prior restraint, in Watson's case?
So should Watson. Listen to some Jelly Roll Morton.
"I would also note that almost no one here is actually a scientist, much less a Nobel prize winner. So no one is all that qualified to debunk his idea. There are certainly falsifiable points in his premise on race (and probably plenty of research to support it). All that need be done is produce and make the argument, and the issue should be closed. But no, that's not sufficient, he has to be punished."
Remember Diogenes of Sinope?
Where were Diogenes's credentials? He was homeless. Science doesn't care about credentials, just the evidence. My own evidence speaks out against the Watson quotations I've read on here. I think he doesn't get out enough to meet blacks who are intelligent. Or listen to Louis Armstrong, for example.
What is this "punishment" fetish? Was he prevented from speaking or selling his prize or posting racist rants on his blog or wherever?
Is this purely a "social" punishment you're so frightened of? Do you want to legislate how society should treat Watson when he spouts racism that is easily refutable by my own personal experience (he said "anyone who's had a black employee knows I'm right about blacks being inferior" or something similar)? But if someone like me says something you disagree with, then it's okay to punish them socially?
Is that the double standard you're espousing here?
Differences among individuals classified as being of the same race are greater than the differences between races.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
You'd think he'd be smart enough to realize that selling it would cost him more in taxes than just keeping it. Oh wait, he still made tons of money.
He's guilty of confirmation bias. He's as bad as Jefferson saying blacks can't be educated because Jefferson never met an educated black man. But since educated black men exist now, Watson's worse. Ignorant at best, intellectually dishonest at worst.