This is a farce. 2 sides of the same exact coin are arguing about who is made of a purer metal. Give a fucking break, if you have half a brain cell for each 10 people, you still should be able to see through this charade.
Gary Johnson 2012.
Only an idiot would think that who you chose on election day doesn't matter. Neither side is "good", but that doesn't mean that they're equally bad.
The best part about this shit is that Republicans apparently really believe that Bob Jobcreator will refuse to make $500,000 if he can't make $1,000,000. No, he'd rather do nothing at all and get $0 and let someone else who isn't allergic to paying taxes have the $500,000. Yessirree, welfare is so awesome Bob would rather live on foodstamps and sleep in the slums than work half a million dollars because he can't keep all of it.
It also assumes rich people will use the money they don't pay in taxes for something constructive, rather than sitting on it, gambling it on the stock market, or slipping it off to another country to avoid paying tax on it at all.
Can somebody help me with this question I have had regarding the Romney Tax Plan?
From what I understand, Romney's tax plan is to drop everyone's marginal tax rate and then eliminate deductions, credits etc. In his debate speech just now, he noted that the top 5% of people are still going to be paying 60% of the taxes. If his plan is revenue neutral (meaning they still take in as much as they currently do) doesn't that mean, the lower 95% are still paying the same 40% of taxes that they are paying now? If so... how does that tax plan change anything? Whether you say it's through deductions or just a lower rate everyone is still paying the same amount of taxes no?
I suspect that the top 5% gather a lot more than 60% of the income.
Also, last I heard neither he nor his campaign have actually listed any deductions they would eliminate that would have more than the most trivial impact on revenues. Mostly they say they're *not* going to eliminate some particular deduction, when asked about it.
You know the drill -
Democrat: tax and spend
Republican: tax less, spend more, and also balance the budget
That kind of mathmagics is what got us into the hole we're in now.
Romney mentioned no taxes to be paid for mutual funds and capital gains tax. Well guess what? Most middle class folks who have money invested in mutual funds and other investments have small actually irrelevant gains to pay taxes on
I'm already outraged at the current 15% rate. Why should people who get richer by sitting on a big pile of money all year pay a lower tax rate than some of us who work our butts off all year?
I wonder if we'll ever get to the point that faking is so good that it can't be detected. (I wouldn't be surprised if spy agencies can already fake them so good that no one else can detect it.)
Think of the implications for creating political scandals, or for getting "undesirables" thrown in prison.
Perhaps you're unaware that homosexuality has been observed in other mammals too.
But to bring this back on topic, we could speculate on whether you're a troll or a simulated troll, and devise clever methods to test our speculations.
Maybe the limited capability of the Turing Machine is just part of the specification of the simulation?
In another thread someone said that math is invariant regardless of where you are in the hierarchy of simulations. But that's not true: your simulation can diverge from your own reality in arbitrary ways.
Perhaps you can't make your simulation more powerful than your own capabilities in certain ways, e.g. simulating continuous quantities with floating point numbers. But you can certainly make it weaker, e.g. use integers when you have the capability for floating point.
The word 'simulation' suggests something not real -- a model of reality. But even if the physics of our universe were shown to be discrete at the lowest level, that would prove not that it is a simulation, but only that it might be a simulation. It could simply be reality, which is more likely.
No, it would only prove that it might be a discrete simulation, as opposed to a continuous-state simulation. Or reality.
The real question, as in where the rubber meets the road, is how does one experience God? What are the direct personal experiences of those people who have tried the hardest? I have yet to meet somebody that has taken up the injunction (in order to see this, you must do this) seriously (years, not weeks or months) and not experienced a profound shift.
Also, you might pause to wonder why various people who believe in different gods have "experienced God".
Scientists "assume" that the big bang was a real event because big piles of evidence indicate that it was.
Religionists "assume" that their god created the world because big piles of tradition claim s/he did.
Not much in common between the two, unless you're an idiot who thinks "where you there?" is a good argument against something you don't want to believe.
Now 4 years later I'll be voting for Obama based on his performance
What performance? He took credit for a preexisting withdrawal timeline in Iraq. Gitmo is still open. He sent a surge into Afghanistan. He had a friendly Congress for half his term and got nothing done. You must have a really low bar when it comes to performance.
I think the logic is, it's not getting worse as fast as it was under the prior regime.
So, Government takes my money under penalty of violence and then spends it asking "So, uh, what exactly should we do with all this money?"
Solutions are best found through variation and selection, processes that are quashed and stifled by central planning; the power structure should be decentralized and localized as much as possible, and that is precisely the point of the Free Market.
Yeah, 'cause everyone knows business are just lining up for an opportunity to spend their money on the kind of basic research the Federal government has funded for the past 60-70 years.
1. Cheap and easy ways to clean water for the world 2. Cheap and easy ways to provide light for the world 3. Cheap and easy ways to feed the world 4. Cheap and easy ways to maintain sanitation 5. Cheap and easy ways to provide education to the world.
Yeah, the last Savior only took care of the first three.
Slashdot Mirror
This is a farce. 2 sides of the same exact coin are arguing about who is made of a purer metal. Give a fucking break, if you have half a brain cell for each 10 people, you still should be able to see through this charade.
Gary Johnson 2012.
Only an idiot would think that who you chose on election day doesn't matter. Neither side is "good", but that doesn't mean that they're equally bad.
The best part about this shit is that Republicans apparently really believe that Bob Jobcreator will refuse to make $500,000 if he can't make $1,000,000. No, he'd rather do nothing at all and get $0 and let someone else who isn't allergic to paying taxes have the $500,000. Yessirree, welfare is so awesome Bob would rather live on foodstamps and sleep in the slums than work half a million dollars because he can't keep all of it.
It also assumes rich people will use the money they don't pay in taxes for something constructive, rather than sitting on it, gambling it on the stock market, or slipping it off to another country to avoid paying tax on it at all.
That's inflation, will there be a question on this?
Not likely. I don't watch debates because they're basically a forum where the moderator sets up opportunities for talking points.
Can somebody help me with this question I have had regarding the Romney Tax Plan?
From what I understand, Romney's tax plan is to drop everyone's marginal tax rate and then eliminate deductions, credits etc.
In his debate speech just now, he noted that the top 5% of people are still going to be paying 60% of the taxes.
If his plan is revenue neutral (meaning they still take in as much as they currently do) doesn't that mean, the lower 95% are still paying the same 40% of taxes that they are paying now? If so... how does that tax plan change anything? Whether you say it's through deductions or just a lower rate everyone is still paying the same amount of taxes no?
I suspect that the top 5% gather a lot more than 60% of the income.
Also, last I heard neither he nor his campaign have actually listed any deductions they would eliminate that would have more than the most trivial impact on revenues. Mostly they say they're *not* going to eliminate some particular deduction, when asked about it.
You know the drill -
Democrat: tax and spend
Republican: tax less, spend more, and also balance the budget
That kind of mathmagics is what got us into the hole we're in now.
Romney mentioned no taxes to be paid for mutual funds and capital gains tax. Well guess what? Most middle class folks who have money invested in mutual funds and other investments have small actually irrelevant gains to pay taxes on
I'm already outraged at the current 15% rate. Why should people who get richer by sitting on a big pile of money all year pay a lower tax rate than some of us who work our butts off all year?
He's nothing but an opportunist. He's a prick
You don't say who "He" is, but since he's a politician I'm pretty sure you're right on both counts.
More politics!!!
I sure am eager for November 7 to come around. Meanwhile, can I just forward all the robocalls I'm getting to this discussion?
Interestingly, I recently read that when Japan joined the Axis they passed a law forbidding persecuting the Jews in Japan.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I wonder if we'll ever get to the point that faking is so good that it can't be detected. (I wouldn't be surprised if spy agencies can already fake them so good that no one else can detect it.)
Think of the implications for creating political scandals, or for getting "undesirables" thrown in prison.
Perhaps you're unaware that homosexuality has been observed in other mammals too.
But to bring this back on topic, we could speculate on whether you're a troll or a simulated troll, and devise clever methods to test our speculations.
Where's my lightcycle?
Coming up right after we get all the flying cars out.
Maybe the limited capability of the Turing Machine is just part of the specification of the simulation?
In another thread someone said that math is invariant regardless of where you are in the hierarchy of simulations. But that's not true: your simulation can diverge from your own reality in arbitrary ways.
Perhaps you can't make your simulation more powerful than your own capabilities in certain ways, e.g. simulating continuous quantities with floating point numbers. But you can certainly make it weaker, e.g. use integers when you have the capability for floating point.
Ok, so we haven't found a flaw. All life is genetic algorithms...
Actually, the X-Men are people whose GA has found a flaw in the simulation.
The word 'simulation' suggests something not real -- a model of reality. But even if the physics of our universe were shown to be discrete at the lowest level, that would prove not that it is a simulation, but only that it might be a simulation. It could simply be reality, which is more likely.
No, it would only prove that it might be a discrete simulation, as opposed to a continuous-state simulation. Or reality.
The real question, as in where the rubber meets the road, is how does one experience God? What are the direct personal experiences of those people who have tried the hardest? I have yet to meet somebody that has taken up the injunction (in order to see this, you must do this) seriously (years, not weeks or months) and not experienced a profound shift.
Also, you might pause to wonder why various people who believe in different gods have "experienced God".
Nice attempt at false equivalency.
Scientists "assume" that the big bang was a real event because big piles of evidence indicate that it was.
Religionists "assume" that their god created the world because big piles of tradition claim s/he did.
Not much in common between the two, unless you're an idiot who thinks "where you there?" is a good argument against something you don't want to believe.
...what they tried with the head in Prometheus.
I'd recommend putting on a raincoat first.
Now 4 years later I'll be voting for Obama based on his performance
What performance? He took credit for a preexisting withdrawal timeline in Iraq. Gitmo is still open. He sent a surge into Afghanistan. He had a friendly Congress for half his term and got nothing done. You must have a really low bar when it comes to performance.
I think the logic is, it's not getting worse as fast as it was under the prior regime.
genetic modifications of *
Really, it's ok to say "penis size" here.
Cause it is the root of all evil...
You can send it to me. I'm specially trained to handle it.
So, Government takes my money under penalty of violence and then spends it asking "So, uh, what exactly should we do with all this money?"
Solutions are best found through variation and selection, processes that are quashed and stifled by central planning; the power structure should be decentralized and localized as much as possible, and that is precisely the point of the Free Market.
Yeah, 'cause everyone knows business are just lining up for an opportunity to spend their money on the kind of basic research the Federal government has funded for the past 60-70 years.
How bout -
1. Cheap and easy ways to clean water for the world
2. Cheap and easy ways to provide light for the world
3. Cheap and easy ways to feed the world
4. Cheap and easy ways to maintain sanitation
5. Cheap and easy ways to provide education to the world.
Yeah, the last Savior only took care of the first three.
As the saying goes, the longer it takes you to get it, the longer you roll on the floor when you do.
I believe Kurzweil is confused
I believe he's just trying to keep his name in the news. 15 minutes isn't enough for some people.
A financial company outsourcing its IT ought to be considered criminal negligence.
(Though an own employee could do the same thing, in this case.)