Lee Smolin has another view, saying that science progresses by testing every crazy idea before you get on to the right one. I think you're way too concerned with the social aspect of looking like a crackpot, and the social rewards of scapegoating others as crackpots. Science shouldn't care about what is likely based on assumptions. It should try to devise tests for things and see how well models can explain. Bringing emotional words like "ridiculous" into the process is fundamentally unscientific and says more about you than about the scientific method.
But this is the attitude that led researchers after Millikan to replicate his erroneous results, massaging their more correct results to look more like his, because he was such an authority.
If government didn't exist or didn't regulate, capitalism would create it and create the regulations necessary to protect its players. Example: the private banking system evolved centralization on its own long before the Fed. J. P. Morgan ended the Panic of 1907 by creating his own "clearinghouse certificates" which supplied needed liquidity to the system. But even capitalists recognized it probably wasn't a good idea to rely on Morgan to get them out of another crisis; Morgan, being a profit-minded capitalist, was in a position where he could help his friends and hurt his enemies, take advantage of competitors' weakness to buy them at a ridiculously low price, etc. The Fed, being non-profit (returning its profits to the Treasury each year), was a better solution because it could help even Morgan's enemies in a Panic by supplying necessary liquidity.
If the government didn't enforce patents, the moral hazards and perverse incentives of capitalism would create ways. Like the RIAA/MPAA manipulate torrents to introduce fake downloads, etc.
One solution to capitalism is to fuyll democratize the money supply. Free individuals from having to play the capitalist game by providing a Basic Income to anyone who wants it. Leave business alone to innovate in their way, but encourage individuals to innovate disruptively on their own. Hold challenges to stimulate the natural instinct for creativity and wonder in each of us.
So individuals can come up with 3D-printed car designs, and business could refine them. Labor costs should go down as businesses automate more and outsource innovation to challenges. Inflation shouldn't increase because there would be no wage-price spiral, individuals on a Basic Income could work at Walmart if they wanted to, so Walmart wouldn't have to raise its prices.
Even if inflation became a problem, we can deal with it by indexing everything to inflation. Since the relationships between prices and cash flows don't change, inflation becomes invisible. Israel used this method for decades; with modern automation, the "drag" that led them to abandon it can be eliminated, so that the indexing is seamless.
So, 3D-printed cars would be good for capitalism. But won't the capitalist car makers fight them tooth and nail? Like dealerships fight Tesla trying to sell direct to consumers? Capitalism is rife with perverse incentives and moral hazards. Slavery was eminently capitalist. Adam Smith thought that workers should have a right to sell their own labor; but capitalism, left to its pure self, won't respect that right. You need something higher than capitalism, like a government committed to the General Welfare.
Why should there be starvation, when we produce a huge food surplus? Why should there be homelessness, when there are something like 10 million empty houses? The reason starvation and homelessness exist is precisely so House Republicans can boss the poor around, imposing artificial scarcity to satisfy their control-freak urges.
This post says it better than I can, with plenty of evidence supplied. Repubs have fought net neutrality tooth and nail from day 1. Wheeler's just crying uncle at this point. Quitter.
Hate to be captain obvious, but it was a response to something about dems convincing people that repubs are the party of the rich, no? Two can play at that game, is the relevance.
Where are the republicans calling for an amendment to overrule Citizens United? Where are the Rebublicans calling for net neutrality? Where do the Koch brothers spend their money?
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
Doesn't the CMB indicate that re-ionisation occured much earlier, with the latest redshift being 7 which is well before a billion years since the Big Bang?
Passwords are an annoying hack. Trying to force users to accept more and more onerous conditions to satisfy this hack is just laziness. Think up a better system.
Right, so my original motive for the first post in this thread, was to challenge the smugness of the guy who said his physics teacher described cosmology as being like biology before Darwin. My point was, physics has problems too. One of those problems being the supposedly sacrosanct law of conservation of energy.
Slashdot Mirror
Really good markup of the parent's argument.
Can the search engine select reviews with those keywords?
The best solution is a basic income. Free writers to write because that's what they want to do, not because they have to for a living.
Lee Smolin has another view, saying that science progresses by testing every crazy idea before you get on to the right one. I think you're way too concerned with the social aspect of looking like a crackpot, and the social rewards of scapegoating others as crackpots. Science shouldn't care about what is likely based on assumptions. It should try to devise tests for things and see how well models can explain. Bringing emotional words like "ridiculous" into the process is fundamentally unscientific and says more about you than about the scientific method.
But this is the attitude that led researchers after Millikan to replicate his erroneous results, massaging their more correct results to look more like his, because he was such an authority.
If government didn't exist or didn't regulate, capitalism would create it and create the regulations necessary to protect its players. Example: the private banking system evolved centralization on its own long before the Fed. J. P. Morgan ended the Panic of 1907 by creating his own "clearinghouse certificates" which supplied needed liquidity to the system. But even capitalists recognized it probably wasn't a good idea to rely on Morgan to get them out of another crisis; Morgan, being a profit-minded capitalist, was in a position where he could help his friends and hurt his enemies, take advantage of competitors' weakness to buy them at a ridiculously low price, etc. The Fed, being non-profit (returning its profits to the Treasury each year), was a better solution because it could help even Morgan's enemies in a Panic by supplying necessary liquidity.
If the government didn't enforce patents, the moral hazards and perverse incentives of capitalism would create ways. Like the RIAA/MPAA manipulate torrents to introduce fake downloads, etc.
One solution to capitalism is to fuyll democratize the money supply. Free individuals from having to play the capitalist game by providing a Basic Income to anyone who wants it. Leave business alone to innovate in their way, but encourage individuals to innovate disruptively on their own. Hold challenges to stimulate the natural instinct for creativity and wonder in each of us.
So individuals can come up with 3D-printed car designs, and business could refine them. Labor costs should go down as businesses automate more and outsource innovation to challenges. Inflation shouldn't increase because there would be no wage-price spiral, individuals on a Basic Income could work at Walmart if they wanted to, so Walmart wouldn't have to raise its prices.
Even if inflation became a problem, we can deal with it by indexing everything to inflation. Since the relationships between prices and cash flows don't change, inflation becomes invisible. Israel used this method for decades; with modern automation, the "drag" that led them to abandon it can be eliminated, so that the indexing is seamless.
So, 3D-printed cars would be good for capitalism. But won't the capitalist car makers fight them tooth and nail? Like dealerships fight Tesla trying to sell direct to consumers? Capitalism is rife with perverse incentives and moral hazards. Slavery was eminently capitalist. Adam Smith thought that workers should have a right to sell their own labor; but capitalism, left to its pure self, won't respect that right. You need something higher than capitalism, like a government committed to the General Welfare.
MOOCs are free. There's the "verified" option that costs a nominal fee, but you don't have to choose it.
Why should there be starvation, when we produce a huge food surplus? Why should there be homelessness, when there are something like 10 million empty houses? The reason starvation and homelessness exist is precisely so House Republicans can boss the poor around, imposing artificial scarcity to satisfy their control-freak urges.
The people could practice non-violent noncooperation. Worked for Gandhi.
This post says it better than I can, with plenty of evidence supplied. Repubs have fought net neutrality tooth and nail from day 1. Wheeler's just crying uncle at this point. Quitter.
Hate to be captain obvious, but it was a response to something about dems convincing people that repubs are the party of the rich, no? Two can play at that game, is the relevance.
I guess McCain probably doesn't think money is speech, but then he's a maverick in his own party, right?
Where are the republicans calling for an amendment to overrule Citizens United? Where are the Rebublicans calling for net neutrality? Where do the Koch brothers spend their money?
The one that challenges the Republican views that:money is speech, and since the rich have more money they should get to decide what speech I should listen to.
Doesn't the CMB indicate that re-ionisation occured much earlier, with the latest redshift being 7 which is well before a billion years since the Big Bang?
The discrepancy between CMB measurements and quasar measurements of reionization is presented in Week 5 of Greatest Unsolved Mysteries of the Universe.
Passwords are an annoying hack. Trying to force users to accept more and more onerous conditions to satisfy this hack is just laziness. Think up a better system.
Are they really more annoying than the popups and popunders and intrusive audio ads?
Yes of course. Some of us just don't care enough if our random login to some website we visited once isn't secure.
Passwords are security through obscurity. We need a better system altogether.
It was reverse psychology.
As usual, the guy saying "cost prohibitive" has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Typical financier.
Arthur C. Clarke?
Given no further context, the default assumption is that physics is in a much better state than cosmology. That was what I was reacting to.
Right, so my original motive for the first post in this thread, was to challenge the smugness of the guy who said his physics teacher described cosmology as being like biology before Darwin. My point was, physics has problems too. One of those problems being the supposedly sacrosanct law of conservation of energy.