Words are words, actions are actions. Because words can be defined differently for the speaker than for the listener, and because multiple parses exist, and because it could be meant humorously or sarcastically or ironically, etc., you cannot create a direct causal link between an action and words. The words always go into the brain first and that is where the action starts, in the reaction to the words, which is an act of will, and not the words themselves' fault.
If you have a problem with someone's speech, point it out with your own speech. Using force to silence someone is wrong. The founding fathers recognized this (because all the arguments you make were used against THEM).
The idea that govt activities have to pay for themselves has to go. The military doesn't pay for itself, but it's a good idea to have a strong defense. In the same way free broadband won't pay for itself but it's a good idea to have a population with unfettered access to information. Therefore govt should print the money to pay for it, because the resulting benefits from the free access to knowledge and the possibilities for ad hoc collaboration among individuals innovating on their own without the need for the hierarchies and sales structures of biz, will keep the US producing things others want; and therefore the currency will remain strong. Like Japan's currency is too high despite a 200% debt-to-gdp ratio.
If it's a good idea, economics should not stop it. The point of life is to advance knowledge and raise standard of living, not to pay interest to bankers who want you to believe they have a divine, exclusive right to create money and automatically attach debt to it.
Business is better at incremental innovation, not so good at disruptive innovations like computers, the atom bomb, the internet (all funded by govt). Biz is too focussed on next quarter's shareholders' report to invest enough in the long-term R&D that creates truly disruptive innovations. So govt should deficit-spend if necessary to keep the disruptive innovations coming, which can then be turned over to biz to improve incrementally and bring to the masses. Synergy! As long as we keep advancing knowledge and innovating things other want, we can print as much money as we like and run as big deficits as we feel, and the currency will remain strong.
When biz does start spending on more disruptive-type innovation again like during the 1990s, govt can balance its budget...
" if the paper turns out to be wrong then it's going to make the entire ATLAS Collaboration look bad"
Who cares about looks? Only shallow ppl. If you ignore them, they'll have to find some other way to get attention than focussing so much on looks all the time.
It's funny how tea partiers take govt money like Mary Rakovich taking Medicare and Joe Miller's wife getting unemployment when he campaigned saying unemployment insurance was unconstitutional.
What would you say to critics who might say that that smacks of hypocrisy, that Conservative activists who want to do away with programs like that are also benefiting from programs like that? RAKOVICH: Thank God that it was there [...]
U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller confirmed Monday night that his wife -- once hired to work as a part-time clerk for the same Alaska court in which he was serving as a U.S. magistrate judge -- went on unemployment after she left the job.
Do we need to cut anything? Think hard about where money comes from - under the fractional reserve system, banks can multiply deposits by 10. Why shouldn't govt do the same?
The economic problem is not the central problem of mankind. The advance of knowledge and innovation is. How can we encourage the natural curiosity and sense of wonder that leads to creative solutions? The mentality of "Katie bar the door" is not conducive to invention.
What govt should do is provide a basic income (as founding father Tom Paine proposed in 1795's "Agrarian Justice") and stimulate innovation through challenges (of course private businesses such as Google, Netflix etc. can hold challenges too).
In conclusion, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter, Alexander Hamilton held that debt is a blessing, Lincoln printed over $400 million greenbacks, and the Panic of 1837 followed Jackson's paying off the national debt.
results will naturally be biased subject to a-priori notions (either explicit or implicit) that are assumed before any evidence is ever collected, yielding results that are true or false relative to given assumptions.
and
Bayesian inference usually relies on degrees of belief, or subjective probabilities, in the induction process, and it does not necessarily claim to provide an objective method of induction.
So GP's point is supported; subjectivity is involved in any claims of what is "extraordinary".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence was used to deny Aristarchus's 3rd century BC heliocentric theory. "Where's the parallax motion of the stars, if the earth is rotating? Any why isn't the wind stronger if the planet is spinning?" But there is parallax motion, their instruments just weren't sensitive enough; and the wind objection seems to be the real extraordinary claim. In conclusion, instead of following homilies like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", the Greeks should have been developing the instruments to test the heliocentric claim properly. Instead we had to wait almost 2 millenia before science finally admitted the extraordinary was true...
We produce enough food to feed everyone. Let govt provide a basic income, so ppl can do what they really want to do instead of what a boss tells them to. Enough of us will want to do journalism because we love it that it will work.
But can I talk to Watson? Only if I submit my question in the form of an answer, because that's what he's been trained on. The problem with statistics is that it can miss the "against all odds" truths. I think we need both statistical and symbolic approaches, a hybrid. Or use agents that use different approaches and let feedback from the user determine the most appropriate response for the particular context (and user preference)...
Kennedy faced a similar problem in the early 1960s, as I heard recently on an NPR story about the Peace Corps. An early proponent had proposed it to some big philanthropy organization, but the representative shook his head and said "American youth aren't that idealistic." But Kennedy didn't believe that, and managed to draw out some inner altruistic quality of American youth that many thought didn't exist.
Let me say in conclusion, this University is not maintained by its alumni, or by the state, merely to help its graduates have an economic advantage in the life struggle. There is certainly a greater purpose, and I'm sure you recognize it. Therefore, I do not apologize for asking for your support in this campaign. I come here tonight asking your support for this country over the next decade.
I'm of the opposite opinion. The reason libraries have to put time limits on lending is because the resource is scarce. But books can be replicated digitally for practically nothing. Putting lending limits on e-books is a clear case of creating scarcity where none need exist. Technology has given us the tools to provide information for free to all, but our psychology limits us to thinking in terms of scarcity and imposing it if it doesn't exist.
What economic laws are operating in Japan, which holds some $900 billion of US foreign debt (second only to China by a small percentage), which came up with hybrids during their so-called "lost decade", and which has a 200% debt-to-gdp ratio?
The problem is that externalities are far more important than economists admit. Like dark energy and dark matter make up some 96% of the universe...
In conclusion, when "the laws of economics" are used to justify causing needless suffering, take it with a grain of salt.
Slashdot Mirror
Words are words, actions are actions. Because words can be defined differently for the speaker than for the listener, and because multiple parses exist, and because it could be meant humorously or sarcastically or ironically, etc., you cannot create a direct causal link between an action and words. The words always go into the brain first and that is where the action starts, in the reaction to the words, which is an act of will, and not the words themselves' fault.
If you have a problem with someone's speech, point it out with your own speech. Using force to silence someone is wrong. The founding fathers recognized this (because all the arguments you make were used against THEM).
Biden's a right-wing fascist?
The idea that govt activities have to pay for themselves has to go. The military doesn't pay for itself, but it's a good idea to have a strong defense. In the same way free broadband won't pay for itself but it's a good idea to have a population with unfettered access to information. Therefore govt should print the money to pay for it, because the resulting benefits from the free access to knowledge and the possibilities for ad hoc collaboration among individuals innovating on their own without the need for the hierarchies and sales structures of biz, will keep the US producing things others want; and therefore the currency will remain strong. Like Japan's currency is too high despite a 200% debt-to-gdp ratio.
If it's a good idea, economics should not stop it. The point of life is to advance knowledge and raise standard of living, not to pay interest to bankers who want you to believe they have a divine, exclusive right to create money and automatically attach debt to it.
Business is better at incremental innovation, not so good at disruptive innovations like computers, the atom bomb, the internet (all funded by govt). Biz is too focussed on next quarter's shareholders' report to invest enough in the long-term R&D that creates truly disruptive innovations. So govt should deficit-spend if necessary to keep the disruptive innovations coming, which can then be turned over to biz to improve incrementally and bring to the masses. Synergy! As long as we keep advancing knowledge and innovating things other want, we can print as much money as we like and run as big deficits as we feel, and the currency will remain strong.
When biz does start spending on more disruptive-type innovation again like during the 1990s, govt can balance its budget...
" if the paper turns out to be wrong then it's going to make the entire ATLAS Collaboration look bad"
Who cares about looks? Only shallow ppl. If you ignore them, they'll have to find some other way to get attention than focussing so much on looks all the time.
It's funny how tea partiers take govt money like Mary Rakovich taking Medicare and Joe Miller's wife getting unemployment when he campaigned saying unemployment insurance was unconstitutional.
Sources: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1010/30/se.02.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alaskadispatchcom/joe-millers-wife-took-une_b_751529.html
Do we need to cut anything? Think hard about where money comes from - under the fractional reserve system, banks can multiply deposits by 10. Why shouldn't govt do the same?
The economic problem is not the central problem of mankind. The advance of knowledge and innovation is. How can we encourage the natural curiosity and sense of wonder that leads to creative solutions? The mentality of "Katie bar the door" is not conducive to invention.
What govt should do is provide a basic income (as founding father Tom Paine proposed in 1795's "Agrarian Justice") and stimulate innovation through challenges (of course private businesses such as Google, Netflix etc. can hold challenges too).
In conclusion, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter, Alexander Hamilton held that debt is a blessing, Lincoln printed over $400 million greenbacks, and the Panic of 1837 followed Jackson's paying off the national debt.
are you blindly believing it was a bug because they told you so?
Yeah, and the US govt should sue companies like msn that do business with China, since China doesn't allow freedom of speech.
From the wikipedia article:
and
So GP's point is supported; subjectivity is involved in any claims of what is "extraordinary".
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence was used to deny Aristarchus's 3rd century BC heliocentric theory. "Where's the parallax motion of the stars, if the earth is rotating? Any why isn't the wind stronger if the planet is spinning?" But there is parallax motion, their instruments just weren't sensitive enough; and the wind objection seems to be the real extraordinary claim. In conclusion, instead of following homilies like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", the Greeks should have been developing the instruments to test the heliocentric claim properly. Instead we had to wait almost 2 millenia before science finally admitted the extraordinary was true...
Quit, and run an office in your grow house.
We produce enough food to feed everyone. Let govt provide a basic income, so ppl can do what they really want to do instead of what a boss tells them to. Enough of us will want to do journalism because we love it that it will work.
But can I talk to Watson? Only if I submit my question in the form of an answer, because that's what he's been trained on. The problem with statistics is that it can miss the "against all odds" truths. I think we need both statistical and symbolic approaches, a hybrid. Or use agents that use different approaches and let feedback from the user determine the most appropriate response for the particular context (and user preference)...
This is why we need the govt to keep funding PBS.
They should have put more of a debt burden on their grandchildren who would at least be around to pay it or see it forgiven.
Kennedy faced a similar problem in the early 1960s, as I heard recently on an NPR story about the Peace Corps. An early proponent had proposed it to some big philanthropy organization, but the representative shook his head and said "American youth aren't that idealistic." But Kennedy didn't believe that, and managed to draw out some inner altruistic quality of American youth that many thought didn't exist.
http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=about.history.speech
Words != actions
Therefore, trolling != murder or paedophilia or theft.
---
murder = involuntarily depriving someone of life
cows = someone
Therefore, meat = murder.
freedom to pursue happiness as a troll is a self-evident, unalienable right.
when's he going to drop the bank leaks?
"Why are we still pretending its the dark ages and information is some kind of scarse and privileged entity?"
Because some ppl are happier creating artificial scarcity, because they fear they wouldn't get any attention otherwise.
I'm of the opposite opinion. The reason libraries have to put time limits on lending is because the resource is scarce. But books can be replicated digitally for practically nothing. Putting lending limits on e-books is a clear case of creating scarcity where none need exist. Technology has given us the tools to provide information for free to all, but our psychology limits us to thinking in terms of scarcity and imposing it if it doesn't exist.
What economic laws are operating in Japan, which holds some $900 billion of US foreign debt (second only to China by a small percentage), which came up with hybrids during their so-called "lost decade", and which has a 200% debt-to-gdp ratio?
The problem is that externalities are far more important than economists admit. Like dark energy and dark matter make up some 96% of the universe...
In conclusion, when "the laws of economics" are used to justify causing needless suffering, take it with a grain of salt.
Yeah, because if you have to vote on laws you shouldn't see what all sides have to say.