If you were guaranteed a basic income, you wouldn't need to devote so much wisdom to money matters, and could use it instead to advance knowledge and create technology that would further raise standard of living and keep the currency strong because we produce things others want. (Consider Japan with a 200% debt-to-gdp ratio and a currency whose value they consider too high.)
The value is psychological. If we believe only scarce things have value, then the knowledge in wikipedia is worthless? Sunlight, air is valueless? The more freedom we have, the less it's worth?
Note that physics doesn't operate on this principle. The more mass you have, the more gravity. Mass isn't "worth less" if there's more of it in physics equations.
Psychology is changeable. One way of changing the idea that artificial scarcity creates value is to look at a graph of the money supply in the US. Notice how the great majority of the increase is due to private banks. So why isn't the currency devalued, psychologically, when such exponential increases take place?
Bankers claim some sort of divine, exclusive right to create money, and automatically attach debt to it, because otherwise how would they get attention? But we'll still give them attention, poor dears, while voting for the govt to empower individuals instead of institutions with a basic income, and encouraging innovation (which is what physically raises standard of living) through challenges.
And biz is better? The number of middle managers has been expanding while productivity means that the number of actual ppl doing the work decreases. But biz has to support all that dead weight of managers who do not contribute any value except in terms of ppl skills, pretending to be busy when the boss is around, schmoozing, etc.
Look up the definition of sociopathy; it fits corporations' charters. Corporations don't care about people or emotions, they just want to use people to increase profits.
We the ppl control the government. We get to elect our representatives, or use direct methods such as referendums. I trust government much more than I trust the sociopathic corporation CEO who doesn't swear to uphold the Constitution, doesn't care about the General Welfare, wants to restrict the freedom of speech of anyone speaking against him or his company, and lies to cover up mistakes by his company (salmonella outbreaks, loss of data to hacking, etc.).
'Information isn't free. We know that. It "costs" something.'
What if you record information with dark energy, which seems to be free?
Or what if as Wiener said information is carried by matter and energy, but is ultimately separate from it?
For example, Fermat's Last Theorem was true before it was proved, but that information wasn't contained in matter or energy before Wiles proved it in the 1990s...
In the same way, there are laws of physics we haven't discovered yet, so they aren't expressed in terms of matter and energy in bits. But the information is somewhere.
"The absolute smallest space you could use to record the information about the position and rotation and composition of an atom would be at least the size of an atom"
Isn't that like saying the smallest space you can record this comment is at least as big as this comment...
What about free online classes like Stanford, Khan Academy etc. are providing? What about IRC, where ppl help each other for free? Give up your old feudal paradigms, embrace the new information age where the cost of disseminating knowledge is basically zero.
It's bad because Liberty is an unalienable right, and the government has no business deciding what you should study.
We are tool-builders, and we created money as a tool to help us. Instead we find economists treating money as a God to which we must sacrifice humans (not them, but other, poorer, humans).
Unemployment is a good thing, a sign of economic progress, the result of higher productivity. What we should do is provide a basic income to everyone who wants one, and hold challenges to stimulate innovation and the advance of knowledge. Because it is knowledge that confers the greatest survival benefit by enabling us to better predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic change.
So, teaching awards a "certificate" asserting competency of an individual, that others can then use as a shortcut to determining that individual's competency... but there are so many problems, like cheating, arbitrary standards of competency, teacher incompetency, etc. that we might as well throw out the idea of certifying competency and all make our own determinations:) I suggest assuming competency until proven otherwise.
Millikan measured the charge on an electron by an experiment with falling oil drops, and got an answer which we now know not to be quite right. It's a little bit off, because he had the incorrect value for the viscosity of air. It's interesting to look at the history of measurements of the charge of the electron, after Millikan. If you plot them as a function of time, you find that one is a little bigger than Millikan's, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, and the next one's a little bit bigger than that, until finally they settle down to a number which is higher.
Why didn't they discover that the new number was higher right away? It's a thing that scientists are ashamed of--this history--because it's apparent that people did things like this: When they got a number that was too high above Millikan's, they thought something must be wrong--and they would look for and find a reason why something might be wrong. When they got a number closer to Millikan's value they didn't look so hard. And so they eliminated the numbers that were too far off, and did other things like that. We've learned those tricks nowadays, and now we don't have that kind of a disease.
I think Feynman was optimistic, in the last sentence...
We the People know that govt is supposed to look out for us, so we vote in our best interests. Money is a psychological tool that serves us, we don't serve it. Economics is like a religion with the high priests (bankers, economists) preaching the need for human sacrifice to appease their great god Mammon. Their predictions don't come true, their axioms are flawed, their equations fail to take into account externalities such as innovation, which is where the real focus needs to be. Govt should provide a basic income, and encourage the native spirit of creativity and inventiveness in each of us with challenges.
All those things are basic and can easily be provided for free by govt. The Fed creates $16 trillion to bail out financial institutions, they can pay off the national debt too. What matters is innovation, advancing knowledge; as long as we keep creating we can create as much money as we want and the value will stay strong, like Japan's 200% debt-to-gdp ratio, and they constantly want to lower their currency's value.
Solution: govt provides a basic income, and encourages ppl to innovate and learn and create through challenges (biz can hold challenges too, like netflix, google bug bounties).
It's in title: "Triassic 'Kraken' may have created self-portrait"
For his directly-quoted words, consider the "I think" and "We think" modifiers:
"I think that these things were captured by the kraken and taken to the midden and the cephalopod would take them apart," he says.
"We think that this cephalopod in the Triassic was doing the same thing," says McMenamin. "It was either drowning them or breaking their necks."
Note how he doesn't say "It has to be this way" trying to prove his case absolutely. Instead, it is a suggestion:
He suggests that the remains may indicate the existence of a giant octopus, similar to the Kraken of kegend.
But, says McMenamin, "We're ready for this. We have a very good case."
In conclusion, your analysis from several posts above, is faulty:
"That does not follow. Some As make some Bs. There is something that looks like a B, therefore it was made by an unknown A. It might be sane, but it is not logical.
Because we're dealing with modal logic, possible worlds, and hypotheses, the "therefore it was made" is a conclusion that you have jumped to. The actual claim is something like "therefore it MAY HAVE BEEN MADE..."
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, it happened to Japan?
Also, your fear of inflation is hyperbolic and irrational. "In 1920, I could buy a suit for $20!" But a computer cost $Infinity...
Your predictions remind me of y2k Armageddon!
If you were guaranteed a basic income, you wouldn't need to devote so much wisdom to money matters, and could use it instead to advance knowledge and create technology that would further raise standard of living and keep the currency strong because we produce things others want. (Consider Japan with a 200% debt-to-gdp ratio and a currency whose value they consider too high.)
The value is psychological. If we believe only scarce things have value, then the knowledge in wikipedia is worthless? Sunlight, air is valueless? The more freedom we have, the less it's worth?
Note that physics doesn't operate on this principle. The more mass you have, the more gravity. Mass isn't "worth less" if there's more of it in physics equations.
Psychology is changeable. One way of changing the idea that artificial scarcity creates value is to look at a graph of the money supply in the US. Notice how the great majority of the increase is due to private banks. So why isn't the currency devalued, psychologically, when such exponential increases take place?
Bankers claim some sort of divine, exclusive right to create money, and automatically attach debt to it, because otherwise how would they get attention? But we'll still give them attention, poor dears, while voting for the govt to empower individuals instead of institutions with a basic income, and encouraging innovation (which is what physically raises standard of living) through challenges.
Isn't there a high demand for dollars? So isn't creating more just decreasing the artificial scarcity?
Isn't the "inflation tax" lower than any flat tax that's ever been proposed?
Eternal vigilance. When we do something wrong, call us on it. When we do something right, like the virtual embassy thing, give credit.
Better: beam in free, uncensored internet so the Iranian ppl can bypass govt censorship. Then do the same thing in the US!
It is the place of the US to stand up for unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
And biz is better? The number of middle managers has been expanding while productivity means that the number of actual ppl doing the work decreases. But biz has to support all that dead weight of managers who do not contribute any value except in terms of ppl skills, pretending to be busy when the boss is around, schmoozing, etc.
Look up the definition of sociopathy; it fits corporations' charters. Corporations don't care about people or emotions, they just want to use people to increase profits.
We the ppl control the government. We get to elect our representatives, or use direct methods such as referendums. I trust government much more than I trust the sociopathic corporation CEO who doesn't swear to uphold the Constitution, doesn't care about the General Welfare, wants to restrict the freedom of speech of anyone speaking against him or his company, and lies to cover up mistakes by his company (salmonella outbreaks, loss of data to hacking, etc.).
'Information isn't free. We know that. It "costs" something.'
What if you record information with dark energy, which seems to be free?
Or what if as Wiener said information is carried by matter and energy, but is ultimately separate from it?
For example, Fermat's Last Theorem was true before it was proved, but that information wasn't contained in matter or energy before Wiles proved it in the 1990s...
In the same way, there are laws of physics we haven't discovered yet, so they aren't expressed in terms of matter and energy in bits. But the information is somewhere.
"The absolute smallest space you could use to record the information about the position and rotation and composition of an atom would be at least the size of an atom"
Isn't that like saying the smallest space you can record this comment is at least as big as this comment...
What about free online classes like Stanford, Khan Academy etc. are providing? What about IRC, where ppl help each other for free? Give up your old feudal paradigms, embrace the new information age where the cost of disseminating knowledge is basically zero.
Productivity should measure happiness and quality of life, not number of dollars produced. Money is a tool to serve us, not the other way around.
It's bad because Liberty is an unalienable right, and the government has no business deciding what you should study.
We are tool-builders, and we created money as a tool to help us. Instead we find economists treating money as a God to which we must sacrifice humans (not them, but other, poorer, humans).
Unemployment is a good thing, a sign of economic progress, the result of higher productivity. What we should do is provide a basic income to everyone who wants one, and hold challenges to stimulate innovation and the advance of knowledge. Because it is knowledge that confers the greatest survival benefit by enabling us to better predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic change.
But they've measured the speed of photons accurately with it...(as a post below says)
Doesn't OPERA's equipment work for other experiments? So the voltmeter has been tested on other batteries...
So, teaching awards a "certificate" asserting competency of an individual, that others can then use as a shortcut to determining that individual's competency ... but there are so many problems, like cheating, arbitrary standards of competency, teacher incompetency, etc. that we might as well throw out the idea of certifying competency and all make our own determinations :) I suggest assuming competency until proven otherwise.
Or no notes, but i guess Cage's 4'33" did that already
Consider the following passage from Feynman's Cargo Cult Science:
I think Feynman was optimistic, in the last sentence...
We the People know that govt is supposed to look out for us, so we vote in our best interests. Money is a psychological tool that serves us, we don't serve it. Economics is like a religion with the high priests (bankers, economists) preaching the need for human sacrifice to appease their great god Mammon. Their predictions don't come true, their axioms are flawed, their equations fail to take into account externalities such as innovation, which is where the real focus needs to be. Govt should provide a basic income, and encourage the native spirit of creativity and inventiveness in each of us with challenges.
All those things are basic and can easily be provided for free by govt. The Fed creates $16 trillion to bail out financial institutions, they can pay off the national debt too. What matters is innovation, advancing knowledge; as long as we keep creating we can create as much money as we want and the value will stay strong, like Japan's 200% debt-to-gdp ratio, and they constantly want to lower their currency's value.
At what point does your freedom to not support my free-riding ways become so set in stone that I no longer have the freedom to question your decision?
Solution: govt provides a basic income, and encourages ppl to innovate and learn and create through challenges (biz can hold challenges too, like netflix, google bug bounties).
It's in title: "Triassic 'Kraken' may have created self-portrait"
For his directly-quoted words, consider the "I think" and "We think" modifiers:
Note how he doesn't say "It has to be this way" trying to prove his case absolutely. Instead, it is a suggestion:
In conclusion, your analysis from several posts above, is faulty:
"That does not follow. Some As make some Bs. There is something that looks like a B, therefore it was made by an unknown A. It might be sane, but it is not logical.
Because we're dealing with modal logic, possible worlds, and hypotheses, the "therefore it was made" is a conclusion that you have jumped to. The actual claim is something like "therefore it MAY HAVE BEEN MADE..."