Mendel tried to share. Wegener tried to share. Aristarchus of Samos tried to share. Society chose to cover their ears, close their eyes, and sing "la la la".
Nirvana is a state of pure blissful knowledge... It has nothing to do with the individual. The ego or its separation is an illusion. Indeed in a certain sense two "I"'s are identical namely when one disregards all special contents — their Karma. The goal of man is to preserve his Karma and to develop it further... when man dies his Karma lives and creates for itself another carrier.
- Writings of July 1918, quoted in A Life of Erwin Schrödinger (1994) by Walter Moore ISBN 0521437679
No self is of itself alone. It has a long chain of intellectual ancestors. The "I" is chained to ancestry by many factors... This is not mere allegory, but an eternal memory.
- Writings of July 1918, quoted in A Life of Erwin Schrödinger (1994) by Walter Moore
My personal favorite: "God knows I am no friend of probability theory, I have hated it from the first moment when our dear friend Max Born gave it birth."
Why can't you spend more money than you take it? In fact the US has done this since its inception, and predictions about its demise have gone unfulfilled. Grandchildren have continued to be better off than their grandparents, despite the hyperbolic paranoia of deficit hawks screaming that the sky is falling since Alexander Hamilton's doctrine of assumption created the first national debt.
Why does artificial scarcity create value? Only if the items are "positional goods"; if they derive value from others not having it. But money should be a tool to help raise standard of living and improve conditions for everyone.
Work on improving 3D printers in your spare time instead of doing the repetitive work that the boss wants you to do, and make that cheap outsourced labor irrelevant.
What exactly is the problem with a high attrition rate? Make the classes free like coursera etc., and let the instructors try to keep the audience interested enough to keep coming back.
This state legalized pot! Sure they've done it with silly restrictions on driving and where it can be sold legally, but it's a lot different from when Reagan was hyping the War on Drugs (to divert attention away from the record deficits he was running up, because he knew they didn't matter but couldn't be honest about it).
So, at the very least, our "fundamental limits" might not hold, if our observations about reality turn out to be like the flatlanders', and there are really more dimensions than we can sense?
Second law of thermodynamics is statistical (Fluctuation Theorem). Can we exploit statistics to find ways to violate the Second Law consistently enough to expand the current "fundamental" limits?
Why didn't Berners-Lee patent the WWW? Why didn't anyone patent the communication protocols for the internet? Why didn't Torvalds patent Linux, or Apache their web server? Why didn't Wales patent wikipedia?
Who owned the Agora, the marketplace, in Athens? Who owned the grounds where farmers sold their produce in medieval villages? This was effectively a commons.
Out of the savage tribe grew up the barbarian village community; and a new, still wider, circle of social customs, habits, and institutions, numbers of which are still alive among ourselves, was developed under the principles of common possession of a given territory and common defence of it, under the jurisdiction of the village folkmote, and in the federation of villages belonging, or supposed to belong, to one stem. [from the Conclusion]
---
From Chapter IV:
Many stems had no force to resist disintegration: they broke up and were lost for history. But the more vigorous ones did not disintegrate. They came out of the ordeal with a new organization—the village community—which kept them together for the next fifteen centuries or more. The conception of a common territory, appropriated or protected by common efforts, was elaborated, and it took the place of the vanishing conceptions of common descent. [...]
It is now known, and scarcely contested, that the village community was not a specific feature of the Slavonians, nor even of the ancient Teutons. It prevailed in England during both the Saxon and Norman times, and partially survived till the last century;(3) it was at the bottom of the social organization of old Scotland, old Ireland, and old Wales. In France, the communal possession and the communal allotment of arable land by the village folkmote persisted from the first centuries of our era till the times of Turgot, who found the folkmotes "too noisy" and therefore abolished them. It survived Roman rule in Italy, and revived after the fall of the Roman Empire. It was the rule with the Scandinavians, the Slavonians, the Finns (in the pittaya, as also, probably, the kihla-kunta), the Coures, and the lives. The village community in India—past and present, Aryan and non-Aryan—is well known through the epoch-making works of Sir Henry Maine; and Elphinstone has described it among the Afghans. We also find it in the Mongolian oulous, the Kabyle thaddart, the Javanese dessa, the Malayan kota or tofa, and under a variety of names in Abyssinia, the Soudan, in the interior of Africa, with natives of both Americas, with all the small and large tribes of the Pacific archipelagoes. In short, we do not know one single human race or one single nation which has not had its period of village communities. This fact alone disposes of the theory according to which the village community in Europe would have been a servile growth. It is anterior to serfdom, and even servile submission was powerless to break it. It was a universal phase of evolution, a natural outcome of the clan organization, with all those stems, at least, which have played, or play still, some part in history.(4)
[...]
wealth was conceived exclusively in the shape of movable property, including cattle, implements, arms, and the dwelling house which—"like all things that can be destroyed by fire"—belonged to the same category(6). As to private property in land, the village community did not, and could not, recognize anything of the kind, and, as a rule, it does not recognize it now. The land was the common property of the tribe, or of the whole stem, and the village community itself owned its part of the tribal territory so long only as the tribe did not claim a re-distribution of the village allotments. The clearing of the woods and the breaking of the prairies being mostly done by the communities or, at least, by the joint work of several families—always with the consent of the community—the cleared plots were held by each family for a term of four, twelve,
"There are fundamental limits to information storage and computation."
Do those limits rely on assumptions about dimensions and time? Might dark energy and/or dark matter change some of those assumptions and thus make limits that feel so fundamental now evaporate?
'The Fed was able to spend so much money so quickly because it has a unique power: It can create money out of thin air, whenever it decides to do so. So, Dzina explains, the mortgage team would decide to buy a bond, they’d push a button on the computer — "and voila, money is created."'
"Section 15 of the Act also permitted Federal Reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government."
'During the 1970s, the Federal Reserve Act was amended to require the Board and the FOMC "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."'
You need to get the subjects' consent. If they let the birds freely choose to participate in the restricted diet, it would be okay. Give each bird subject a choice.
Those tabs don't bring it high enough for me though. So I use books or buy a separate laptop stand and prop it up on boxes so I can get the screen at eye level, and have the keyboard slanted at closer to a 45 degree angle toward me. The point: manufacturers don't pay attention to posture (car seats, for example), so we have to come up with all sorts of kludges if we care about posture. To me it indicates a failure of the free market to accomodate the health needs of consumers. Manufacturers would rather impose poorly-designed products on us and make us adapt to them, than innovate ways of producing customizable products that we can tailor to our needs (laptops with screens that can be raised above the keyboard so we can type at a lower level and still have the screen at eye level, for example). Maybe 3D printing will free us from the rigid one-size-fits-all (or, one size plus a miniscule adjustment that doesn't do nearly enough, like lumbar levers on car seats) tyranny that lazy manufacturers inflict on us.
You mean like heliocentrism was tossed out, because if the earth moves around the sun we should see parallax motion of the stars, but when our instruments weren't sensitive to detect parallax motion of the stars, we concluded the earth doesn't move around the sun?
Slashdot Mirror
Mendel tried to share. Wegener tried to share. Aristarchus of Samos tried to share. Society chose to cover their ears, close their eyes, and sing "la la la".
Rand Paul, start another filibuster about legalizing drugs.
I didn't realize Schroedinger was so mystical. From http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Erwin_Schrödinger:
My personal favorite: "God knows I am no friend of probability theory, I have hated it from the first moment when our dear friend Max Born gave it birth."
Why can't you spend more money than you take it? In fact the US has done this since its inception, and predictions about its demise have gone unfulfilled. Grandchildren have continued to be better off than their grandparents, despite the hyperbolic paranoia of deficit hawks screaming that the sky is falling since Alexander Hamilton's doctrine of assumption created the first national debt.
Why does artificial scarcity create value? Only if the items are "positional goods"; if they derive value from others not having it. But money should be a tool to help raise standard of living and improve conditions for everyone.
Work on improving 3D printers in your spare time instead of doing the repetitive work that the boss wants you to do, and make that cheap outsourced labor irrelevant.
What exactly is the problem with a high attrition rate? Make the classes free like coursera etc., and let the instructors try to keep the audience interested enough to keep coming back.
That's why business funded alternative energy research during the 1990s when oil dropped to $10 a barrel. Oh wait...
Alliance wasn't that bad. No power, but decent overall.
This state legalized pot! Sure they've done it with silly restrictions on driving and where it can be sold legally, but it's a lot different from when Reagan was hyping the War on Drugs (to divert attention away from the record deficits he was running up, because he knew they didn't matter but couldn't be honest about it).
So, at the very least, our "fundamental limits" might not hold, if our observations about reality turn out to be like the flatlanders', and there are really more dimensions than we can sense?
And we vote for the government. We should change copyright and patent law; the power to do so resides in the people.
Second law of thermodynamics is statistical (Fluctuation Theorem). Can we exploit statistics to find ways to violate the Second Law consistently enough to expand the current "fundamental" limits?
Why didn't Berners-Lee patent the WWW? Why didn't anyone patent the communication protocols for the internet? Why didn't Torvalds patent Linux, or Apache their web server? Why didn't Wales patent wikipedia?
Conclusion: you don't have to use patents.
Who owned the Agora, the marketplace, in Athens? Who owned the grounds where farmers sold their produce in medieval villages? This was effectively a commons.
Who owned the fishing rights for the seas?
From "Mutual Aid" by Petr Kropotkin ( http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/4341/pg4341.html ):
---
From Chapter IV:
We're free to change the law by voting. But in the free market, the only way we can fight monopolies is if we have money.
But we the people get to vote out that government. The power rests with us, until we abandon the Constitution.
"There are fundamental limits to information storage and computation."
Do those limits rely on assumptions about dimensions and time? Might dark energy and/or dark matter change some of those assumptions and thus make limits that feel so fundamental now evaporate?
640k ought to be enough for anybody.
They don't print money anymore, they just press a button on a computer: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/08/26/129451895/how-to-spend-1-25-trillion
'The Fed was able to spend so much money so quickly because it has a unique power: It can create money out of thin air, whenever it decides to do so. So, Dzina explains, the mortgage team would decide to buy a bond, they’d push a button on the computer — "and voila, money is created."'
http://www.federalreserveeducation.org/about-the-fed/history/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_Act
"Section 15 of the Act also permitted Federal Reserve banks to act as fiscal agents for the United States government."
'During the 1970s, the Federal Reserve Act was amended to require the Board and the FOMC "to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."'
You need to get the subjects' consent. If they let the birds freely choose to participate in the restricted diet, it would be okay. Give each bird subject a choice.
Why are they starving birds? Says more about the experimenters than about fractals.
At least you know you can be stupider now.
Those tabs don't bring it high enough for me though. So I use books or buy a separate laptop stand and prop it up on boxes so I can get the screen at eye level, and have the keyboard slanted at closer to a 45 degree angle toward me. The point: manufacturers don't pay attention to posture (car seats, for example), so we have to come up with all sorts of kludges if we care about posture. To me it indicates a failure of the free market to accomodate the health needs of consumers. Manufacturers would rather impose poorly-designed products on us and make us adapt to them, than innovate ways of producing customizable products that we can tailor to our needs (laptops with screens that can be raised above the keyboard so we can type at a lower level and still have the screen at eye level, for example). Maybe 3D printing will free us from the rigid one-size-fits-all (or, one size plus a miniscule adjustment that doesn't do nearly enough, like lumbar levers on car seats) tyranny that lazy manufacturers inflict on us.
You mean like heliocentrism was tossed out, because if the earth moves around the sun we should see parallax motion of the stars, but when our instruments weren't sensitive to detect parallax motion of the stars, we concluded the earth doesn't move around the sun?