Did I miss a joke? Almost syntactically, if the conjectured black hole evaporates, there is not much interesting left. I bothered to look at the links too. Duh?
Precise is good. US manned space exploration is dead. Indeed, there s reasonable evidence that OMB is in charge of NASA. From there, it is reasonable to wonder about the future of unmanned space exploration by the US.
On the other hand, what do I know? Perhaps you can point to concrete officially announced plans for a manned misson even to a lagrange point?
And if everything is all so sensible and rosy, it is odd that there is substantial concern that Obama et al is violating the law with his cutbacks. So he says "not quite". Ah well, the recession is over.
Looking at this, the ussr explosions do not seem to be obvious hookum.
as far as some experts say, you can get a gaggle of talking heads to say about anything, and here it looks like a nuclear option is opposed politically and strongly, so you can expect about any sort of FUD. As far as risks and no experience, sure, fine point, one of the reasons you do serious prep studies.
for a bit, the big question has been: is the seabed there generally fractured so that the only real option to seal the leaks is nuclear explosives. BP does not like this question because they want to eventually make money off the oil field. Of course, there are a lot of questions they do not like.
Now I read that there are two fractures anyway.
Suppose it turns out we need nukes. There is significant preparation time. Just in case, we should already have been working on preparation. Things like engineering studies, etc. Do you feel like holding your breath for these studies to start up?
So I am not some environmentalist. I do not get big upset about birds dying unpleasantly, though that response might speak well of those who do. But the following statement seems credible to me: biggest environmental disaster in USA history. Simply being a patriot might make you wonder about the response of the political class.
last I looked the government there was secular and some were trying hard to keep it that way. Perhaps you are upset because it seems a theocracy just committed an act of war against Turkey and the turks were pissy abut it.
lots of definitions of fascism. the one I favor is murderous austerity during a depression.
I do not know why you are picking on this kid. His oath is not to the government. If you do the usual civilian oath, that is not to the government either. On the other hand, how very many of those wonderful government types are in fact in violation of their oath? And we do have more than a few prominent war criminals, pretty much open and shut, floating around the USA. With more data, I figure we could come up with some really credible criminal treason charges.
When I was in the army, a draftee, a long time ago, your advice might have made more sense, but now I just do not see it. Figure the entire Iraq war is a war crime and involves criminal treason and then reason from there.
And note I do not necessarily get all pissy about war crimes. For instance, it is a big no-no to kill prisoners, but it happens all the time. It is not something that is supposed to be a happy thing, but everyone who pays attention understands about it. So we have a nice little atrocity here. So it is really really not supposed to happen and I am pissy about some of the crap defenses I read here. But decent well-trained troops are going to end up doing stuff like this. So we can be unhappy about the cover up and we can wonder if in this particular case the troops should be burned. But if we were still able to trust the command structure, we could trust things to be sorted out. But no one can really trust much about the government, including the military command. And neither can this leaker kid.
You have a real emphasis on correlation and you talk about "correlation" and "real correlation" and I suspect the latter is hard to pin down. If you look at causality as a general concept in a hard science, pretty much all they want is the cause to happen before the result as far as correlation is concerned. Of course, they want lots of other things too. Perhaps the following question is in order: what discovery of a general principle of the universe had its origin in a statistical analysis? So I say wrong, really wrong.
I guess there a couple hundred causality models around. I have hardly bothered to study them, but I have read some glosses. Interestingly, causality often has to be artificially graphed into a TOE.
Now I expect you use some sort of kinesthetic causality model and I do not. As it happens, as a partial result, you could figure I am more inclined to observe correlation is not causation. Oh well. But it does seem likely to me that your argument is based on a causality mode I reject. Yours looks to be pretty standard. Are you even able to state it well enough to actually defend it as say a general principle of the universe?
I sort of figure an honest awger and a honest denier would like to see lot of new data from a lot of different sources. But let speculate that awg is flakey. Then figure the reasons are at a geopolitical level. For instance, to eliminate sovereigny (spelling) or real tech progress, then new good data might well be inconvenient.
If you figure this is just a dem sort of behavior, looking at Cheney and at GW doing geopolitics would be instructive.
It seems to me that Obama and the OMB want to kill manned exploratory spaceflight. And even more than that. Consider that everyone but USA is going to the moon and soon. But so far not manned. Of course, last I looked Bolton had to check with OMB to go to the john. I am sure OMB just cannot justify it from a bean counter perspective, but they really really want a mars colony. On the other hand, there is widespread suspicion that Obama and OMB are breaking the law with their cutbacks. All this is really consistent with your perspective.
so I do not particularly elevate facts, per se. For instance, I do not favor empericism or reductionism. But I am pleased if I manage to do a little clear thinking, which turns out to have, IMO, not much to do with ideology. Ideology seems to me to relate closely to belief, but is not the same thing.
Here seems to be part of the problem. Back in revolutionary times, we had the highest cultural level in the world. It is an assertion that seems hard to avoid. Near universal literacy. Very high level of discourse in the public square. I am talking USA.
I would take a lot of care in making that assertion about our present. Asking what happened is useful.
come on. I guess the legalization of derivatives in 1990 and the final repeal of glass-steagall in 1999, on a bipartisan basis did not set all this up. and on aig, where did the money go? bail outs of banks and investment houses, not even necessarily domestic. can you say "credit default swaps"?
with the failure to start putting glass-steagall back in , mmh, last week?, under termendous pressure from wall street and the white house, figure that congress has simply lost authority with the population. Even an incumbent that is actually trying to deal in the general welfare, rare admittedly, cannot win an election. consider , mmh, was it alabama or was it west virginia?
Obama? people's hatred of congress is now starting to focus on him. Somehow the BP thing is a last straw.
Looking at ungovernability, TFA, we have ungovernability because, as the eu finance minister said, "it is the banks that count". as the population goes down the tube, in august 2009 we could see a mass strike process starting up. Reference Birmingham 63, leipzig, dvr, oct 89. So the tea party is a place to go to vent, not for decent policy, but we are dealing with something very broad and the policy leadership is yet to be determined. And it is not going to be Congress.
So we are in revolutionary times. The french revolution did not go well. Where did Lafeyette screw up? He tried to kiss "congress" ass.
Your gloss on Godel is fine. Using truth as math people use it, yah, any axiomatic system of some minimal complexity, but still finite numbers of axioms, is either going to fail to prove true something that is true, or prove the same assert both true and false. So, does empericism have some axioms?
Your idea of a successful proof, within limited scope, is really how the math types adopt to the situation. It seems to me that this avoids any philosophical issue, which issue was the intent of the proof. (taking out Wittigistein ? was likely the original motivation. It is fun that for a while a lot of people wanted to add a new math axiom, to invalidate the proof.
Since you might enjoy some unrelated gossip, Godel who was best buds with Einstein, turned to physics and demonstrated time travel fell out of the current physics. Godel specifically dealt with a mass distribution obstacle and people still say he did not manage it. Einstein would never quite sign off on the proof. But people, wheeler comes to mind, put in a new physical law to invalidate the proof. This still pops up now and then.
Evaluating Godel, you pretty much start by figuring he was the best logician of the millenium. Now he decided someone was trying to kill him and feared poision in his food..So he died of malnutriton
We talk a little about high school math and such. Godel's proof is not all that long and does not require a lot of background. So the logic is twisty and you need some attention span. There are a lot of helpful glosses on the proof. Honestly, I figure for a bright high school student, that can do some clear thinking, learning the proof is quite doable. So the business math students are not going to do well on it. Really, a teacher that understands the proof, a library, and say a year, should get the result.
I do not know about racists one way or another, but the fed encouraged fannie mae to guarantee and buy all this bad paper, so the fed, by your analysis, had something to do with the paper being written.
Now say 2005 Ortzag and some other incompetents ( including some sort of Nobel prize winner) were asked to see if the reserves freddie and fannie has were adequate to the increased risk. My, his numbers were that there was a 1 in 500,000 to a 1 in 3 million risk of a fannie default. No increased reserves were needed.
Doing a little ad hominem, this is the guy who did the obamacare economic design. Big in the obama admin. Don't you get lots of warm fuzzies?
blaming delay for the mortgage crisis is not a pull it out of your ass statement.
I googled tom delay mortgages and got lots of hits. It is hard to say exactly, but it looks like Barney Frank pinned the blame for the meltdown on Delay. It appears that Delay was House majority leader at a critical time, so it is credible that he bears a lot of responsibility.
Personally I start out pointing to Nixon in 1971 and Summers in 1999, but pretty much everything ended up deeply bipartisan.
So I figure the poster is a rabid dem and you are some sort of rabid republician. Why would anyone expect any truth to make it through all that crap ideology on both sides?
running into the ground is a weaker analysis than I would do.
We would generally label founding father types patriots, except they were so much such radical and dedicated crazies, they were certainly violating all our current terrorism laws. Hah, lots of places in New England there are simply not any fancy houses around from that era. All the houses like pretty much belonged to the Loyalists and they simply got burned out in the period leading up to the Revolution. Sometimes the Loyalists would manage to try to call out the local volunteer fire department. At that time, these were usually subscription things but somehow no one would show up.
So here is the thing. Just recently, there is some patriotism breaking out in what you would think are quite unlikely places. Even on Wall Street and in Congress. So you might want to try for a unifying policy, expressing an actual common interest, that unites tea baggers and rank and file wall street types, among others, based pretty much on a patriotic impulse to save the country. McCain Cantwell amendmend to the Dodd bill (glass steagall reinstatement) represents the critical element of such a policy and it is being debated this afternoon. If you move your ass, it might even be likely to pass, this week.
oh fine. But let us note that nature's creator is usually a deist thing and so pretty much always doing transcendence and comes directly out of british empericism. And local theists pretty much deal in immanance and really feel a need for a very personally involved God. And I am a monist and so am likely to do neither transcendence or immanance and while I am finer with a quite active God, why distinguish God from the universe? And for the colonial enterprise, Leibniz is the obvious source. I seem to recall Columbus comes out of the Leibniz networks for a start.
anyway, what I remember from currlicium (spell) issues in my youth, here was the theory. The local school board would pick the issue that they thought was "the unfinished business of the american enterprise" and put that into the school experience. maybe what we should be complaining about is centralization of decision making and that might have one of its drivers in what we here would classify as dead tech.
I hear vague claims that the feds are moving toward defining all this stuff for us. If so, great warm and fuzzies everywhere. NOT
So I think you are screwing up on Godel, but given my original training is math, it may be I am too narrow in my treatment of defining truth when I think math. On the other hand, the universe exists outside of my psych, and outside of the social constructs. We need at least, as a species, to have social constructs that have effacicy (spell). And then every once in a while someone manages to consciously come up with a general principle of the universe. This is quite a trick. If the universe is lawful and knowable, then we could be getting some physical traction. So why not do a metric on the constructs that orders on consistency with general principles? Then you might have an actual physical ordering and maybe a generator of sorts for new general physical principles, and break a bit out of the psych viewpoint. Oh well, a bit of a rant. I think the real deal is that some thought systems really really require a core of unlawfulness.
But I thought I was weakest on religion, so that was what I intended to work with. Here is a cut.
religion/rldn/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA –noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice. 7. religions, Archaic . religious rites. 8. Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow. —Idiom 9. get religion, Informal . a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices. b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
Looking at the first definition I do not see supernatural in this high rank result. Now I have a hard time to find something to go in the category "not natural" While I do not do theist or deist, I am fine with having a God. I might even be pretty religious, although it is not something I particular notice and anyway, if I talk to a fundie, they tend to run off screaming. And as far as evidence lack as opposed to religious, if I play emperical, I look at an assert like "physics is infinite" and think that it cannot be proved in a finite time. So evidence gathering seems to me to be not quite the right approach.
Your approach at first glance sounds oh sensible. But last I heard there were a couple hundred causality models and I doubt we use the same one. I do not even value "particular" events in most cases. And you somehow equate "truth" and math and I suppose the obvious thing to say is to compare the Hilbert-Russell program to Godel. And your sig cites Goethe, but he had interesting things to say on related issues using Euler as a bad example. I think it fair to say that your approach has a lot of what I call religious basis. This is not meant to be a perjogative. For instance, I assert the universe is lawful and knowable. I consider this to be basically a religious assertion. And I am not a deist:-) It is sort a matter of faith, if you get me. So if the kids had enough background, the raising of "religion" is not a problem.
Hmm, I think this is radically false, but I recently read an assert that the fundamental basis of continued human existence has always been "faith and hope". The basis of human existence seems like a fine thing to talk about in school.
I kind of liked your post. I liked particularly the bit about teaching kids that people often have different opinions. I do have an observation that you might not have heard before about what is fearful to many, oh, social structures. I think what is most to be feared is someone with a fundamental orientation toward truth-seeking. And so somehow the kids never even get tools that are useful that way. And literally God forbid that a Deist gets any ink.
Volker now attacks glass steagall but a few months ago he was pushing it. But in any case, it is well reported that he said not too long ago that the only useful banking innovation in the last few? decades was the ATM machine. And i think he challenged the assembled parasites to name one good thing all these wonder banking innovations have done. But Volker is universally understood to be stupid and such. Well, at this point, I would give you gutless.
McCain Cantwell amendment to the Dudd bill is getting some publicity this week end. I am sure you not only hate it, but I suppose everything FDR did to clean up the banking system. Well he did it on the momentum of the Pecora commmision. And what do you think Cuomo? is up to. Shall we call it Pecora II. I think and I hope your crap is going down hard and all the way. Maybe starting Monday.
Let us remember your wonder derivatives were illegal before 1990 and with a little luck again illegal this year and forever after.
I do not know about stupid bank fees, but I recall that ACH is as you say extremely well documented. And there is a setup for a testing protocol built in. There is a spec book that I imagine is say $100 and freely available. If you were not particular about language or schedule or, what is the word, maybe track record, I figure you are talking $10k to do the client software from scratch. If you want it done this quarter in C++ by a name, say $200k. But no real cost analysis here. This was a long time ago, but I think I called my bank to see what sort of obstacles they would put up. As best I understood from a single conversation, there were no obstacles or fees. I suppose it might be relevant that there were personal relationships. For what it is worth this was a regional chain and if you want the name, email me.
Now I have heard that the usa labor component of a ton of steel is less than the transport cost from asia for a ton of steel. Also I hear that steel manufacturing in the usa has been going downhill for quite some time. Generally, I would figure lack of capital investment, and for that, I would look to a number of things revolving around crap financial monetary systems, which these days everyone sort of notices. Note that here I am not particularly interested in beating up on industrial capitalists. Because of some accounting background, I particularly like to look at the difficulty in devaluing obsolete capital "assets" by the individual firm. So where am I screwing up?
That is worse than I would have thought, but I am not going to try to argue. Yet an underdog can win by a landslide a dem congressional primary with a prominent slogan "Save NASA".
There is a lot of sort of religious belief out there. Pooh, think of the "invisible hand"! But at a deep level a persons useful activity is picking a historical current to support. And in the US, there has been a tradition that one of these currents is exploration and some really important related orientations. Now it is extremely obvious that religious belief and actions are not necessarily in synch. And the tea party is IMO part of an activity of a new choosing. The process was last seen in the USA in Birmingham 63.
In both theory and emperically, we are really talking about 80% of the population involved in this. So what do you want them to choose? What are you going to choose?
While Texas Governor Rick Perry was handily winning the Republican gubernatorial primary and Houston Mayor Bill White demolished his Democratic opponents in the same race, there was another less noticed race that may soon garner national attention.
In Texas 22nd Congressional district, covering Galveston and environs (and once represented by Tom DeLay), the Democratic nominee is Kesha Rogers, an active leader of the Larouche Youth Movement. Her policy platform is based upon the following issues: Barack Obama should be impeached for treason because of the bank bailout and there should be a manned space program to the moon and Mars.
I realize that I tend to think of politics as fun, and as a long-term strategic game more than those who fight in the trenches every day. But, there are 435 House members; the probability that this one seat will determine the majority in the House in January seems remarkably low. So, if I were a Republican, I’d concede this one House race. Imagine the fun the next two years would bring us.
from astar:
Note the reference to manned spaceflight. The slogans were "Impeach Obama" and "Save NASA". With a shoestring campaign, doing street organizing, she got a majority of the votes in a three way race. Not precisely mathematically true, she got twice as many votes as the annoited (spell) candidate.
The white house was livid. Anyway, the local hacks read her out of the party. Now doing that for calling for impeaching obama sound pretty normal to me. And the hacks were so inclined. But they were not allowed to. Instead we get racist, anti-feminist, anti-semitic (spell) and so on as the reasons. And in doing the google for this post, I saw one claim that she was a Birther! I suppose it is useful to say she is female and black.
I saw some sort of offical claims that she won because her web site, using the usual patriotic motif, looked too much like Obama's and voters got confused.
So since I am talking a lot, let us try for a deeper analysis, or at least raise the right question. So a lot of you have noticed a bit of a shift in the population. This was noticeable in August 2009. In retrospect fourth quarter 2008. Everyone has heard of the tea party. what was it, the Brown race, in Mass., Bennett in Utah. Consider the situation the last time that happened in Utah. And a bit of a significant counter-example, the west virginia senator. So to me, it is all part of a rare and big thing, which has historical examples. The last time in the US was a bit in Birmingham 63. And otherwise, Leipzig, 89. Maybe Greece 2010. So what is your analysis?
Regarding nasa, if the Larouchies manage to define things, the spirit of the times will include a big big mars colony a hundred years out. and the r&d to do it starting yesterday. Of course, as LaRouche says, most of the time when you try to change history, you fail. But really, at this point, what the future is going to be is pretty much subjective, what goes on in your head.
Slashdot Mirror
Did I miss a joke? Almost syntactically, if the conjectured black hole evaporates, there is not much interesting left. I bothered to look at the links too. Duh?
Precise is good. US manned space exploration is dead. Indeed, there s reasonable evidence that OMB is in charge of NASA. From there, it is reasonable to wonder about the future of unmanned space exploration by the US.
On the other hand, what do I know? Perhaps you can point to concrete officially announced plans for a manned misson even to a lagrange point?
And if everything is all so sensible and rosy, it is odd that there is substantial concern that Obama et al is violating the law with his cutbacks. So he says "not quite". Ah well, the recession is over.
consider
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html
this was the top google hit.
Looking at this, the ussr explosions do not seem to be obvious hookum.
as far as some experts say, you can get a gaggle of talking heads to say about anything, and here it looks like a nuclear option is opposed politically and strongly, so you can expect about any sort of FUD. As far as risks and no experience, sure, fine point, one of the reasons you do serious prep studies.
for a bit, the big question has been: is the seabed there generally fractured so that the only real option to seal the leaks is nuclear explosives. BP does not like this question because they want to eventually make money off the oil field. Of course, there are a lot of questions they do not like.
Now I read that there are two fractures anyway.
Suppose it turns out we need nukes. There is significant preparation time. Just in case, we should already have been working on preparation. Things like engineering studies, etc. Do you feel like holding your breath for these studies to start up?
So I am not some environmentalist. I do not get big upset about birds dying unpleasantly, though that response might speak well of those who do. But the following statement seems credible to me: biggest environmental disaster in USA history. Simply being a patriot might make you wonder about the response of the political class.
last I looked the government there was secular and some were trying hard to keep it that way. Perhaps you are upset because it seems a theocracy just committed an act of war against Turkey and the turks were pissy abut it.
lots of definitions of fascism. the one I favor is murderous austerity during a depression.
I do not know why you are picking on this kid. His oath is not to the government. If you do the usual civilian oath, that is not to the government either. On the other hand, how very many of those wonderful government types are in fact in violation of their oath? And we do have more than a few prominent war criminals, pretty much open and shut, floating around the USA. With more data, I figure we could come up with some really credible criminal treason charges.
When I was in the army, a draftee, a long time ago, your advice might have made more sense, but now I just do not see it. Figure the entire Iraq war is a war crime and involves criminal treason and then reason from there.
And note I do not necessarily get all pissy about war crimes. For instance, it is a big no-no to kill prisoners, but it happens all the time. It is not something that is supposed to be a happy thing, but everyone who pays attention understands about it. So we have a nice little atrocity here. So it is really really not supposed to happen and I am pissy about some of the crap defenses I read here. But decent well-trained troops are going to end up doing stuff like this. So we can be unhappy about the cover up and we can wonder if in this particular case the troops should be burned. But if we were still able to trust the command structure, we could trust things to be sorted out. But no one can really trust much about the government, including the military command. And neither can this leaker kid.
You have a real emphasis on correlation and you talk about "correlation" and "real correlation" and I suspect the latter is hard to pin down. If you look at causality as a general concept in a hard science, pretty much all they want is the cause to happen before the result as far as correlation is concerned. Of course, they want lots of other things too. Perhaps the following question is in order: what discovery of a general principle of the universe had its origin in a statistical analysis? So I say wrong, really wrong.
I guess there a couple hundred causality models around. I have hardly bothered to study them, but I have read some glosses. Interestingly, causality often has to be artificially graphed into a TOE.
Now I expect you use some sort of kinesthetic causality model and I do not. As it happens, as a partial result, you could figure I am more inclined to observe correlation is not causation. Oh well. But it does seem likely to me that your argument is based on a causality mode I reject. Yours looks to be pretty standard. Are you even able to state it well enough to actually defend it as say a general principle of the universe?
I sort of figure an honest awger and a honest denier would like to see lot of new data from a lot of different sources. But let speculate that awg is flakey. Then figure the reasons are at a geopolitical level. For instance, to eliminate sovereigny (spelling) or real tech progress, then new good data might well be inconvenient.
If you figure this is just a dem sort of behavior, looking at Cheney and at GW doing geopolitics would be instructive.
It seems to me that Obama and the OMB want to kill manned exploratory spaceflight. And even more than that. Consider that everyone but USA is going to the moon and soon. But so far not manned. Of course, last I looked Bolton had to check with OMB to go to the john. I am sure OMB just cannot justify it from a bean counter perspective, but they really really want a mars colony. On the other hand, there is widespread suspicion that Obama and OMB are breaking the law with their cutbacks. All this is really consistent with your perspective.
so I do not particularly elevate facts, per se. For instance, I do not favor empericism or reductionism. But I am pleased if I manage to do a little clear thinking, which turns out to have, IMO, not much to do with ideology. Ideology seems to me to relate closely to belief, but is not the same thing.
Here seems to be part of the problem. Back in revolutionary times, we had the highest cultural level in the world. It is an assertion that seems hard to avoid. Near universal literacy. Very high level of discourse in the public square. I am talking USA.
I would take a lot of care in making that assertion about our present. Asking what happened is useful.
come on. I guess the legalization of derivatives in 1990 and the final repeal of glass-steagall in 1999, on a bipartisan basis did not set all this up. and on aig, where did the money go? bail outs of banks and investment houses, not even necessarily domestic. can you say "credit default swaps"?
with the failure to start putting glass-steagall back in , mmh, last week?, under termendous pressure from wall street and the white house, figure that congress has simply lost authority with the population. Even an incumbent that is actually trying to deal in the general welfare, rare admittedly, cannot win an election. consider , mmh, was it alabama or was it west virginia?
Obama? people's hatred of congress is now starting to focus on him. Somehow the BP thing is a last straw.
Looking at ungovernability, TFA, we have ungovernability because, as the eu finance minister said, "it is the banks that count". as the population goes down the tube, in august 2009 we could see a mass strike process starting up. Reference Birmingham 63, leipzig, dvr, oct 89. So the tea party is a place to go to vent, not for decent policy, but we are dealing with something very broad and the policy leadership is yet to be determined. And it is not going to be Congress.
So we are in revolutionary times. The french revolution did not go well. Where did Lafeyette screw up? He tried to kiss "congress" ass.
Your gloss on Godel is fine. Using truth as math people use it, yah, any axiomatic system of some minimal complexity, but still finite numbers of axioms, is either going to fail to prove true something that is true, or prove the same assert both true and false. So, does empericism have some axioms?
Your idea of a successful proof, within limited scope, is really how the math types adopt to the situation. It seems to me that this avoids any philosophical issue, which issue was the intent of the proof. (taking out Wittigistein ? was likely the original motivation. It is fun that for a while a lot of people wanted to add a new math axiom, to invalidate the proof.
Since you might enjoy some unrelated gossip, Godel who was best buds with Einstein, turned to physics and demonstrated time travel fell out of the current physics. Godel specifically dealt with a mass distribution obstacle and people still say he did not manage it. Einstein would never quite sign off on the proof. But people, wheeler comes to mind, put in a new physical law to invalidate the proof. This still pops up now and then.
Evaluating Godel, you pretty much start by figuring he was the best logician of the millenium. Now he decided someone was trying to kill him and feared poision in his food..So he died of malnutriton
We talk a little about high school math and such. Godel's proof is not all that long and does not require a lot of background. So the logic is twisty and you need some attention span. There are a lot of helpful glosses on the proof. Honestly, I figure for a bright high school student, that can do some clear thinking, learning the proof is quite doable. So the business math students are not going to do well on it. Really, a teacher that understands the proof, a library, and say a year, should get the result.
I do not know about racists one way or another, but the fed encouraged fannie mae to guarantee and buy all this bad paper, so the fed, by your analysis, had something to do with the paper being written.
Now say 2005 Ortzag and some other incompetents ( including some sort of Nobel prize winner) were asked to see if the reserves freddie and fannie has were adequate to the increased risk. My, his numbers were that there was a 1 in 500,000 to a 1 in 3 million risk of a fannie default. No increased reserves were needed.
Doing a little ad hominem, this is the guy who did the obamacare economic design. Big in the obama admin. Don't you get lots of warm fuzzies?
blaming delay for the mortgage crisis is not a pull it out of your ass statement.
I googled tom delay mortgages and got lots of hits. It is hard to say exactly, but it looks like Barney Frank pinned the blame for the meltdown on Delay. It appears that Delay was House majority leader at a critical time, so it is credible that he bears a lot of responsibility.
Personally I start out pointing to Nixon in 1971 and Summers in 1999, but pretty much everything ended up deeply bipartisan.
So I figure the poster is a rabid dem and you are some sort of rabid republician. Why would anyone expect any truth to make it through all that crap ideology on both sides?
running into the ground is a weaker analysis than I would do.
We would generally label founding father types patriots, except they were so much such radical and dedicated crazies, they were certainly violating all our current terrorism laws. Hah, lots of places in New England there are simply not any fancy houses around from that era. All the houses like pretty much belonged to the Loyalists and they simply got burned out in the period leading up to the Revolution. Sometimes the Loyalists would manage to try to call out the local volunteer fire department. At that time, these were usually subscription things but somehow no one would show up.
So here is the thing. Just recently, there is some patriotism breaking out in what you would think are quite unlikely places. Even on Wall Street and in Congress. So you might want to try for a unifying policy, expressing an actual common interest, that unites tea baggers and rank and file wall street types, among others, based pretty much on a patriotic impulse to save the country. McCain Cantwell amendmend to the Dodd bill (glass steagall reinstatement) represents the critical element of such a policy and it is being debated this afternoon. If you move your ass, it might even be likely to pass, this week.
oh fine. But let us note that nature's creator is usually a deist thing and so pretty much always doing transcendence and comes directly out of british empericism. And local theists pretty much deal in immanance and really feel a need for a very personally involved God. And I am a monist and so am likely to do neither transcendence or immanance and while I am finer with a quite active God, why distinguish God from the universe? And for the colonial enterprise, Leibniz is the obvious source. I seem to recall Columbus comes out of the Leibniz networks for a start.
anyway, what I remember from currlicium (spell) issues in my youth, here was the theory. The local school board would pick the issue that they thought was "the unfinished business of the american enterprise" and put that into the school experience. maybe what we should be complaining about is centralization of decision making and that might have one of its drivers in what we here would classify as dead tech.
I hear vague claims that the feds are moving toward defining all this stuff for us. If so, great warm and fuzzies everywhere. NOT
You are fun to play with.
So I think you are screwing up on Godel, but given my original training is math, it may be I am too narrow in my treatment of defining truth when I think math. On the other hand, the universe exists outside of my psych, and outside of the social constructs. We need at least, as a species, to have social constructs that have effacicy (spell). And then every once in a while someone manages to consciously come up with a general principle of the universe. This is quite a trick. If the universe is lawful and knowable, then we could be getting some physical traction. So why not do a metric on the constructs that orders on consistency with general principles? Then you might have an actual physical ordering and maybe a generator of sorts for new general physical principles, and break a bit out of the psych viewpoint. Oh well, a bit of a rant. I think the real deal is that some thought systems really really require a core of unlawfulness.
But I thought I was weakest on religion, so that was what I intended to work with. Here is a cut.
religion /rldn/ Show Spelled[ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.
get religion, Informal .
a.
to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.
to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
Looking at the first definition I do not see supernatural in this high rank result. Now I have a hard time to find something to go in the category "not natural" While I do not do theist or deist, I am fine with having a God. I might even be pretty religious, although it is not something I particular notice and anyway, if I talk to a fundie, they tend to run off screaming.
And as far as evidence lack as opposed to religious, if I play emperical, I look at an assert like "physics is infinite" and think that it cannot be proved in a finite time. So evidence gathering seems to me to be not quite the right approach.
Your approach at first glance sounds oh sensible. But last I heard there were a couple hundred causality models and I doubt we use the same one. I do not even value "particular" events in most cases. And you somehow equate "truth" and math and I suppose the obvious thing to say is to compare the Hilbert-Russell program to Godel. And your sig cites Goethe, but he had interesting things to say on related issues using Euler as a bad example. I think it fair to say that your approach has a lot of what I call religious basis. This is not meant to be a perjogative. For instance, I assert the universe is lawful and knowable. I consider this to be basically a religious assertion. And I am not a deist:-) It is sort a matter of faith, if you get me. So if the kids had enough background, the raising of "religion" is not a problem.
Hmm, I think this is radically false, but I recently read an assert that the fundamental basis of continued human existence has always been "faith and hope". The basis of human existence seems like a fine thing to talk about in school.
I kind of liked your post. I liked particularly the bit about teaching kids that people often have different opinions. I do have an observation that you might not have heard before about what is fearful to many, oh, social structures. I think what is most to be feared is someone with a fundamental orientation toward truth-seeking. And so somehow the kids never even get tools that are useful that way. And literally God forbid that a Deist gets any ink.
Volker now attacks glass steagall but a few months ago he was pushing it. But in any case, it is well reported that he said not too long ago that the only useful banking innovation in the last few? decades was the ATM machine. And i think he challenged the assembled parasites to name one good thing all these wonder banking innovations have done. But Volker is universally understood to be stupid and such. Well, at this point, I would give you gutless.
McCain Cantwell amendment to the Dudd bill is getting some publicity this week end. I am sure you not only hate it, but I suppose everything FDR did to clean up the banking system. Well he did it on the momentum of the Pecora commmision. And what do you think Cuomo? is up to. Shall we call it Pecora II. I think and I hope your crap is going down hard and all the way. Maybe starting Monday.
Let us remember your wonder derivatives were illegal before 1990 and with a little luck again illegal this year and forever after.
I do not know about stupid bank fees, but I recall that ACH is as you say extremely well documented. And there is a setup for a testing protocol built in. There is a spec book that I imagine is say $100 and freely available. If you were not particular about language or schedule or, what is the word, maybe track record, I figure you are talking $10k to do the client software from scratch. If you want it done this quarter in C++ by a name, say $200k. But no real cost analysis here. This was a long time ago, but I think I called my bank to see what sort of obstacles they would put up. As best I understood from a single conversation, there were no obstacles or fees. I suppose it might be relevant that there were personal relationships. For what it is worth this was a regional chain and if you want the name, email me.
sincere question
Now I have heard that the usa labor component of a ton of steel is less than the transport cost from asia for a ton of steel. Also I hear that steel manufacturing in the usa has been going downhill for quite some time. Generally, I would figure lack of capital investment, and for that, I would look to a number of things revolving around crap financial monetary systems, which these days everyone sort of notices. Note that here I am not particularly interested in beating up on industrial capitalists. Because of some accounting background, I particularly like to look at the difficulty in devaluing obsolete capital "assets" by the individual firm. So where am I screwing up?
That is worse than I would have thought, but I am not going to try to argue. Yet an underdog can win by a landslide a dem congressional primary with a prominent slogan "Save NASA".
There is a lot of sort of religious belief out there. Pooh, think of the "invisible hand"! But at a deep level a persons useful activity is picking a historical current to support. And in the US, there has been a tradition that one of these currents is exploration and some really important related orientations. Now it is extremely obvious that religious belief and actions are not necessarily in synch. And the tea party is IMO part of an activity of a new choosing. The process was last seen in the USA in Birmingham 63.
In both theory and emperically, we are really talking about 80% of the population involved in this. So what do you want them to choose? What are you going to choose?
On the other hand,
While Texas Governor Rick Perry was handily winning the Republican gubernatorial primary and Houston Mayor Bill White demolished his Democratic opponents in the same race, there was another less noticed race that may soon garner national attention.
In Texas 22nd Congressional district, covering Galveston and environs (and once represented by Tom DeLay), the Democratic nominee is Kesha Rogers, an active leader of the Larouche Youth Movement. Her policy platform is based upon the following issues: Barack Obama should be impeached for treason because of the bank bailout and there should be a manned space program to the moon and Mars.
I realize that I tend to think of politics as fun, and as a long-term strategic game more than those who fight in the trenches every day. But, there are 435 House members; the probability that this one seat will determine the majority in the House in January seems remarkably low. So, if I were a Republican, I’d concede this one House race. Imagine the fun the next two years would bring us.
from astar:
Note the reference to manned spaceflight. The slogans were "Impeach Obama" and "Save NASA". With a shoestring campaign, doing street organizing, she got a majority of the votes in a three way race. Not precisely mathematically true, she got twice as many votes as the annoited (spell) candidate.
The white house was livid. Anyway, the local hacks read her out of the party. Now doing that for calling for impeaching obama sound pretty normal to me. And the hacks were so inclined. But they were not allowed to. Instead we get racist, anti-feminist, anti-semitic (spell) and so on as the reasons. And in doing the google for this post, I saw one claim that she was a Birther! I suppose it is useful to say she is female and black.
I saw some sort of offical claims that she won because her web site, using the usual patriotic motif, looked too much like Obama's and voters got confused.
So since I am talking a lot, let us try for a deeper analysis, or at least raise the right question. So a lot of you have noticed a bit of a shift in the population. This was noticeable in August 2009. In retrospect fourth quarter 2008. Everyone has heard of the tea party. what was it, the Brown race, in Mass., Bennett in Utah. Consider the situation the last time that happened in Utah. And a bit of a significant counter-example, the west virginia senator. So to me, it is all part of a rare and big thing, which has historical examples. The last time in the US was a bit in Birmingham 63. And otherwise, Leipzig, 89. Maybe Greece 2010. So what is your analysis?
Regarding nasa, if the Larouchies manage to define things, the spirit of the times will include a big big mars colony a hundred years out. and the r&d to do it starting yesterday. Of course, as LaRouche says, most of the time when you try to change history, you fail. But really, at this point, what the future is going to be is pretty much subjective, what goes on in your head.