I know.. I'm not making a hockey stick arguement. But the fact is there is already dissapearing potable water in heavily populated areas of china as well as the US. We are, right now, operating beyond currently sustainable levels in energy and water usage, and that in turn is and will be placing pressure on food.
And, more people are demanding more as "all boats rise". Consumption is skyrocketing even though population is merely growing. What do people do who don't have kids? They consume...
well, thanks for that... that's clear enough, it just seems different than what little I know of the entangled pair thing. Do the entangled pairs change states without any further action from the researcher, simultaneously? Or can the research trigger A state change, just not choosing what kind of state change?
I was under the impression the experimenter could manipulate one of the pair, and the other would react appropriately.. but that the mystery was in how it "knew" that it was time to react. If I have that wrong it's no wonder i am confused.
Aren't you cute. The population has grown and at some point resources simply won't stretch far enough for all of us.
What exactly do you think is going to happen then? We'll all sit down, sing Kumbaya, and work out a peaceable solution, with the rich folk voluntarily slashing their standard of living so we can all subsist?
I think it would be pretty hard to say that unless we make some serious changes in the way we do things, 250m violent deaths will be the "good old days". Assuming we don't completely destroy ourselves while fighting over water, energy, and food.
I hope you're right, but I don't see the basis for your optimism.
I have to ask: why is it that because the information is not determined by a researched and then transmitted, that it is not information?
It would seem to me... as an absolute lay person, of course... that information is being transmitted in the quantum entanglement example, it's simply not USEFUL or controlled information to us. But obviously, somehow the remote particle has to be "told" it's time to change in some way when the first particle changes. Whatever mechanism transmits or conducts that "signal"... and please excuse my ignorance, I'm just trying to use the vocabulary I have... is able to so beyond the speed of c.
If that's not accurate, is it possible to explain why in plain english? I'm very curious.
Why is it +5, interesting to say "Someone will figure it out, " in two paragraphs?
We use everything we can, because we are self-absorbed, for good reasons and for bad. Good, because you never know how good your own abilities at forecasting your effects on your environment are, so not doing anything for fear of damaging something would have us all sit down and starve to death in acute analysis paralysis. But Bad, because there is ALSO a tendency to say "fuck people I don't know"... whether directly, or through our actions regardless of our words... and just "get what's ours". Which is, everything we can get, without regard for global impact or future impact.
IN part, because some people have the attitude that "someone will figure it out".
So, how about that "timber blip" on Easter Island? Did that allow them to work out some new technology that supplanted the need for timber? Or did they just grind to a halt because they figured "hey, what's the worst that can happen, we'll figure it out"?
History is full of situations where people exceeded carrying capacities (or carrying capacities changed because of diseased crops, drought, etc) and DID NOT save themselves by technological progression.
In this particular case, you would need the convective action of the baseboard to make heating the envelope shell a feasible backup heat method. Radiant heating (the type of heating I specialize in) does not have a strong enough convective component to work in that particular kind of situation, so it would heat the basement, but it wouldn't drive much upward air flow into the envelope shell.
I'm not sure about AC.. I don't think he has any, but I focus on heating and so I don't know what the experience was in cooling season.
It's more than just mildew/mold, though that's very important. If you do make a house airtight, you also have pollutant concentrations to worry about. You can't really get around the need for ventilation in any kind of tight home, whether you address moisture or not.
I design heating systems. I had a potential client with an Enertia home. It can technically keep you within occupied ranges, but that doesn't mean you're comfortable all the time. He had to run some baseboard heaters in the envelope of the house to stay at comfortable levels.
You mean, like civil rights? The right to vote? Maternity leave? Daycare at work? Flexible hours?
Yeah, that'll never work. Guys would never stand for it. That's not happening anywhere, right?
As a business owner who sets the rules you're talking about, I'm working on this issue for my own company, so thanks for the good wishes. When you grow up, you too might realize that people can actually do things without just magically changing all of society. Those things do have an effect over time. You do remember the article this is all in reference to, right?
I understand what you are saying. and pragmatically, you have a point, that anyone should take control over their own destiney, including women who want to play in what is currently a man's world.
However, it is far more equitable to raise conciousness in men, than it is to tell women what they already know. Or do you think they don't understand? I think they understand quite well. If it were as simple as "step up and act like a man" then they would be doing it. But many don't, because it's not that simple. So what's the point of pointing out that pragmatic, and probably true, but useless observation? Wouldn't it be more advantageous to point out to men that there is more to the world that their own narrow view of it?
You don't understand. I"m not saying "the brain is magic". I'm saying you don't even have one consistent set of rules that goes across different scales.. quantum theory and relativity do not agree. We know for a fact that we do not know the real "laws of physics" by that very mechanism.. if we did really get it, we wouldn't need multiple frameworks to describe physical behaviour at different scales.
So there is no ground for you to say that whatever mechanism drives conciousness is or is not at all related to WHAT YOU CURRENTLY KNOW as "laws of physics", as your current laws of physics are flawed and you do not know in what way they will be fixed.
Furthermore, quantum mechanics are not exactly "mundane"... maybe if you spend all day studying it, it gets mundane, but it's not some intuitive or directly obvious mechanism. And you're also wrong that all observable systems have no "magical, unknown force or component to them". They ALL have unknown force or components. Again, until you have one set of rules that defines the playing ground, you are obviously not at "the answer" yet.. and you cannot assume that the answers you are currently using are otherwise perfect, just because they are useful in the frameworks you have so far. Again, think of newtonian physics. very, very useful. Seemingly accurate to the precision available to the people of the time, within the bounds of the knowledge they had at their time. Not at all true.
So I"m not saying that there is a force that is NOT UNDERSTANDABLE at work, though I don't see any reason to think it is understandable any more than I think we're going to be able to predict the future state of our universe, ever, because I don't see any reason to think that the complexity and interreactions with the environment CAN'T be so complex as to render it out of our reach... but I think it's just not CURRENTLY understood (obviously that is true, or we could not even have this debate). I am saying... you don't know what conciousness is, and your own laws of physics are obviously flawed. I would carry just a measure of humility, if I were you, in realizing that you do not have the answers either.
Your laws of physics still don't explain an awful lot. Wouldn't it be a tad presumptuous to claim that intelligence must conform to what we aren't even sure we know yet?
I believe that they probably do comform to natural law, but I do not share your faith that we have define natural law as tightly as you seem to think we have.
When we really understand, say, gravity, sleep, and we have a unified theory that can make physical predictions at large and small scales, then maybe I'll consider it otherwise. But for now, I'd be *slightly* more humble at the presumptions. Those are pretty big things we don't really have perfectly figured out yet. We obviously know enough to work with the universe around us, that's great. But as newtonian phyics shows, you don't have to really understand something to be able to make some useful predictions.
So perhaps you should be a little less sure until it's a sure thing that we really do understand how the universe *really* works. I'm not saying give every idea equal weight... but perhaps not calling people a "crackpot" who are a little more open to the idea that perhaps we don't know as much as some of us think we do would be an acceptable compromise.
That doesn't point to a damn thing. Are you claiming that NYC in particular has policies in place that discriminate against men?
I'd be very curious in what local ordinance.. as it would have to be, or this mechanism would be operating over a larger area... is causing that discrimination.
Why exactly, to get ahead, should a woman have to turn herself into a man?
Just because men do something, WE shouldn't have to change at all to accomodate the woman? The woman is the one who should do ALL the changing?
I'm with you a little in wanting people in general to stand up and take care of their own shit more. But you know what? When you grow up with that mindset, as a man, as opposed to the mindset of a woman who (for instance) has always been at the bottom of the physical power scale, that's really easy to say.
Maybe it's just as hard for me NOT to be an asshole as it is for her to be an asshole. On that line, which end should we be pushing for?
Except, the post says women in one age group in NYC make more than men, and suddenly men everywhere are making less than women (at least, judging by the outrage).
Aren't women allowed to make more in some places? Wouldn't that mean things were fair, if women made more in some places, and men made more in other places?
Well, it would be, if they were by similar amounts in similar numbers of places. Yet, so far it is only in one big place in one small age group.
the gender gap in lifestyle expectations would explain the gender gap in wages, if women got paid the same amount for the same job as men did. for a very long time, that was not even remotely true. So things are starting to change. GOOD.
Also, do we really want to just sit back and say "work more to get more" at the expense of a person's health and well being?
If so, why do we get mad when athlethes take drugs to improve their performance, at the same cost?
Wouldn't it be better for all of us, if we tried to limit how self-destructive you had to be to "get ahead"?
I'm not saying I know how or that we should even try to set up a system like that. But even something as simple as "work more to get more", which seems very simple, has a whole slew of connotations I don't feel like are talked about very often. I think there are valid points on both sides of that discussion.
For what it's worth, removing heat with water is inherently more efficient than blowing air with fans, as it is easier to move any given quantity of heat in water than it is to blow it away in air. Electrical usage in, say, heating or cooling systems is significantly lower with hydronics than with air systems, for example.
Unfortunately in this case they aren't doing away with the fan, just using a smaller one. It would be much cooler (ahem) if they instead could engineer a passive heat dissipation radiator which did not rely on a fan at all. Cooler still if they engineered a thermosiphoning loop, for completely passive cooling with no moving parts and no energy draw at all. Sounds like the temperature differentials at work here might be enough to make such a loop work, but it would impact the design of the computer case itself...
Of course you'd still be dumping heat into the room... fine in the winter, but you're ultimately paying for cooling somewhere if you are using AC in the summer. But at least then you would consume/pay to remove it only once.
I don't have a good answer either, but I suspect it's about more than money.
I think poor people come in many flavors. Some are poor only because of circumstance, but they have support anyway. They have loving parents, or at least capable parents, that show them that hard work can pay off, teach them to set goals, do things to make things happen. People who move to a foreign country to make their lives better, for example, are not couch potatoes. It takes some serious balls to give up any personal connection or cultural connection to what you once knew, and go somewhere where you look different/speak different or what have you and start on the bottom rung and work your way up.
so they don't have money, but they are not truly poor, to be a little corny about it... they are getting something of value and worth from somewhere.
However there are poor people who are poor perhaps both because of circumstance AND who do NOT have the support.. they do not have loving, or capable parents (missing one of those two things). For example, I know some very very bright people working at McDonalds (100% self supporting though), or who have poor educational background, because they never got over a childhood abuse and some idea that nothing they ever did would ever make a difference took root and they gave up. Or, they were literally told they were shit for their entire childhood... and on some deep level, you have to believe that if you're told it enough while you are young enough.
So they do not believe they have the power to change their circumstance... everything is doomed to fail. So why try? It would be dumb to, if you knew it was doomed to fail. Why get the hopes up one more time?
I think it's a mental prison more than a physical one. Not all poor people are in that same place. But the ones that are, are very likely to stay poor and also to engage in antisocial behaviour. Reaching those people would not only be good for them, but it would be good for the rest of us too. Giving them opportunity is one way, but it's limited. The mental prison needs to be broken somehow.
How?
Well if it were that easy, we'd already be living in Utopia....
First, your brother isn't going to be able to make millions as a musician, most likely. That was a short blip in the history of music that's about to go the way of the dodo.
Second, to make a living at music, he's going to have to tour so the local market doesn't get too saturated, do paid gigs, etc. He can't rely on album sales.
Finally, they might want to try asking for donations.
Regardless of whether you like it, whether it's right, or not... the world is changing, and music is changing, and there isn't a damn thing you, me, or he can do about it. Recording music and distributing it is a trivial task. Playing it isn't. Again I'm not saying filesharing is good, but it's irrelevant whether it's good or bad. The only way to shut it down involves an awful lot of control over our lives by some authority figures that would basically have to amount to continual spying 24/7 to monitor our behaviour.
So your brother and his bandmates need to figure out what they need to do to make a living. Pretty soon, recording contacts won't even be an option. Then what?
Live shows, promotions, merchandise. And best of luck.
Slashdot Mirror
If you produce more, someone has to consume it, or you get fired.
Regardless, if you aren't busy raising kids, you're going to do something with all that extra time and money, aren't you?
I know.. I'm not making a hockey stick arguement. But the fact is there is already dissapearing potable water in heavily populated areas of china as well as the US. We are, right now, operating beyond currently sustainable levels in energy and water usage, and that in turn is and will be placing pressure on food.
And, more people are demanding more as "all boats rise". Consumption is skyrocketing even though population is merely growing. What do people do who don't have kids? They consume...
Right. So we can infinitely expand the carrying capacity of the earth?
That's beyond optimistic. That's a delusion of grandeur.
Ok. That's not nearly as fun as the way I thought it worked hehe... but thanks for taking the time to set me straight!
well, thanks for that... that's clear enough, it just seems different than what little I know of the entangled pair thing. Do the entangled pairs change states without any further action from the researcher, simultaneously? Or can the research trigger A state change, just not choosing what kind of state change?
I was under the impression the experimenter could manipulate one of the pair, and the other would react appropriately.. but that the mystery was in how it "knew" that it was time to react. If I have that wrong it's no wonder i am confused.
Aren't you cute. The population has grown and at some point resources simply won't stretch far enough for all of us.
What exactly do you think is going to happen then? We'll all sit down, sing Kumbaya, and work out a peaceable solution, with the rich folk voluntarily slashing their standard of living so we can all subsist?
I think it would be pretty hard to say that unless we make some serious changes in the way we do things, 250m violent deaths will be the "good old days". Assuming we don't completely destroy ourselves while fighting over water, energy, and food.
I hope you're right, but I don't see the basis for your optimism.
I have to ask: why is it that because the information is not determined by a researched and then transmitted, that it is not information?
It would seem to me... as an absolute lay person, of course... that information is being transmitted in the quantum entanglement example, it's simply not USEFUL or controlled information to us. But obviously, somehow the remote particle has to be "told" it's time to change in some way when the first particle changes. Whatever mechanism transmits or conducts that "signal"... and please excuse my ignorance, I'm just trying to use the vocabulary I have... is able to so beyond the speed of c.
If that's not accurate, is it possible to explain why in plain english? I'm very curious.
Why is it +5, interesting to say "Someone will figure it out, " in two paragraphs?
We use everything we can, because we are self-absorbed, for good reasons and for bad. Good, because you never know how good your own abilities at forecasting your effects on your environment are, so not doing anything for fear of damaging something would have us all sit down and starve to death in acute analysis paralysis. But Bad, because there is ALSO a tendency to say "fuck people I don't know"... whether directly, or through our actions regardless of our words... and just "get what's ours". Which is, everything we can get, without regard for global impact or future impact.
IN part, because some people have the attitude that "someone will figure it out".
So, how about that "timber blip" on Easter Island? Did that allow them to work out some new technology that supplanted the need for timber? Or did they just grind to a halt because they figured "hey, what's the worst that can happen, we'll figure it out"?
History is full of situations where people exceeded carrying capacities (or carrying capacities changed because of diseased crops, drought, etc) and DID NOT save themselves by technological progression.
Yeah, that's why BP is dumping billions on solar energy, right?
They just want to make sure they are at least six decades ahead of the curve.
That BP, always thinking ahead beyond the natural lifespan of anyone currently working at the company. Way to go guys!
In this particular case, you would need the convective action of the baseboard to make heating the envelope shell a feasible backup heat method. Radiant heating (the type of heating I specialize in) does not have a strong enough convective component to work in that particular kind of situation, so it would heat the basement, but it wouldn't drive much upward air flow into the envelope shell.
I'm not sure about AC.. I don't think he has any, but I focus on heating and so I don't know what the experience was in cooling season.
It's more than just mildew/mold, though that's very important. If you do make a house airtight, you also have pollutant concentrations to worry about. You can't really get around the need for ventilation in any kind of tight home, whether you address moisture or not.
I design heating systems. I had a potential client with an Enertia home. It can technically keep you within occupied ranges, but that doesn't mean you're comfortable all the time. He had to run some baseboard heaters in the envelope of the house to stay at comfortable levels.
even choosing which facts to report is a form of subjective slant in reporting.
there is no such thing as objective reporting. this allows for more discussion. good stuff.
You mean, like civil rights? The right to vote? Maternity leave? Daycare at work? Flexible hours?
Yeah, that'll never work. Guys would never stand for it. That's not happening anywhere, right?
As a business owner who sets the rules you're talking about, I'm working on this issue for my own company, so thanks for the good wishes. When you grow up, you too might realize that people can actually do things without just magically changing all of society. Those things do have an effect over time. You do remember the article this is all in reference to, right?
I understand what you are saying. and pragmatically, you have a point, that anyone should take control over their own destiney, including women who want to play in what is currently a man's world.
However, it is far more equitable to raise conciousness in men, than it is to tell women what they already know. Or do you think they don't understand? I think they understand quite well. If it were as simple as "step up and act like a man" then they would be doing it. But many don't, because it's not that simple. So what's the point of pointing out that pragmatic, and probably true, but useless observation? Wouldn't it be more advantageous to point out to men that there is more to the world that their own narrow view of it?
You don't understand. I"m not saying "the brain is magic". I'm saying you don't even have one consistent set of rules that goes across different scales.. quantum theory and relativity do not agree. We know for a fact that we do not know the real "laws of physics" by that very mechanism.. if we did really get it, we wouldn't need multiple frameworks to describe physical behaviour at different scales.
So there is no ground for you to say that whatever mechanism drives conciousness is or is not at all related to WHAT YOU CURRENTLY KNOW as "laws of physics", as your current laws of physics are flawed and you do not know in what way they will be fixed.
Furthermore, quantum mechanics are not exactly "mundane"... maybe if you spend all day studying it, it gets mundane, but it's not some intuitive or directly obvious mechanism. And you're also wrong that all observable systems have no "magical, unknown force or component to them". They ALL have unknown force or components. Again, until you have one set of rules that defines the playing ground, you are obviously not at "the answer" yet.. and you cannot assume that the answers you are currently using are otherwise perfect, just because they are useful in the frameworks you have so far. Again, think of newtonian physics. very, very useful. Seemingly accurate to the precision available to the people of the time, within the bounds of the knowledge they had at their time. Not at all true.
So I"m not saying that there is a force that is NOT UNDERSTANDABLE at work, though I don't see any reason to think it is understandable any more than I think we're going to be able to predict the future state of our universe, ever, because I don't see any reason to think that the complexity and interreactions with the environment CAN'T be so complex as to render it out of our reach... but I think it's just not CURRENTLY understood (obviously that is true, or we could not even have this debate). I am saying... you don't know what conciousness is, and your own laws of physics are obviously flawed. I would carry just a measure of humility, if I were you, in realizing that you do not have the answers either.
I read the blog post, missed the article. You're absolutely right, mea culpa.
Your laws of physics still don't explain an awful lot. Wouldn't it be a tad presumptuous to claim that intelligence must conform to what we aren't even sure we know yet?
I believe that they probably do comform to natural law, but I do not share your faith that we have define natural law as tightly as you seem to think we have.
When we really understand, say, gravity, sleep, and we have a unified theory that can make physical predictions at large and small scales, then maybe I'll consider it otherwise. But for now, I'd be *slightly* more humble at the presumptions. Those are pretty big things we don't really have perfectly figured out yet. We obviously know enough to work with the universe around us, that's great. But as newtonian phyics shows, you don't have to really understand something to be able to make some useful predictions.
So perhaps you should be a little less sure until it's a sure thing that we really do understand how the universe *really* works. I'm not saying give every idea equal weight... but perhaps not calling people a "crackpot" who are a little more open to the idea that perhaps we don't know as much as some of us think we do would be an acceptable compromise.
....in one city.
That doesn't point to a damn thing. Are you claiming that NYC in particular has policies in place that discriminate against men?
I'd be very curious in what local ordinance.. as it would have to be, or this mechanism would be operating over a larger area... is causing that discrimination.
Why exactly, to get ahead, should a woman have to turn herself into a man?
Just because men do something, WE shouldn't have to change at all to accomodate the woman? The woman is the one who should do ALL the changing?
I'm with you a little in wanting people in general to stand up and take care of their own shit more. But you know what? When you grow up with that mindset, as a man, as opposed to the mindset of a woman who (for instance) has always been at the bottom of the physical power scale, that's really easy to say.
Maybe it's just as hard for me NOT to be an asshole as it is for her to be an asshole. On that line, which end should we be pushing for?
Except, the post says women in one age group in NYC make more than men, and suddenly men everywhere are making less than women (at least, judging by the outrage).
Aren't women allowed to make more in some places? Wouldn't that mean things were fair, if women made more in some places, and men made more in other places?
Well, it would be, if they were by similar amounts in similar numbers of places. Yet, so far it is only in one big place in one small age group.
the gender gap in lifestyle expectations would explain the gender gap in wages, if women got paid the same amount for the same job as men did. for a very long time, that was not even remotely true. So things are starting to change. GOOD.
Also, do we really want to just sit back and say "work more to get more" at the expense of a person's health and well being?
If so, why do we get mad when athlethes take drugs to improve their performance, at the same cost?
Wouldn't it be better for all of us, if we tried to limit how self-destructive you had to be to "get ahead"?
I'm not saying I know how or that we should even try to set up a system like that. But even something as simple as "work more to get more", which seems very simple, has a whole slew of connotations I don't feel like are talked about very often. I think there are valid points on both sides of that discussion.
For what it's worth, removing heat with water is inherently more efficient than blowing air with fans, as it is easier to move any given quantity of heat in water than it is to blow it away in air. Electrical usage in, say, heating or cooling systems is significantly lower with hydronics than with air systems, for example.
Unfortunately in this case they aren't doing away with the fan, just using a smaller one. It would be much cooler (ahem) if they instead could engineer a passive heat dissipation radiator which did not rely on a fan at all. Cooler still if they engineered a thermosiphoning loop, for completely passive cooling with no moving parts and no energy draw at all. Sounds like the temperature differentials at work here might be enough to make such a loop work, but it would impact the design of the computer case itself...
Of course you'd still be dumping heat into the room... fine in the winter, but you're ultimately paying for cooling somewhere if you are using AC in the summer. But at least then you would consume/pay to remove it only once.
No, that's different. Putting on a sweater will actually keep you warm.
I don't have a good answer either, but I suspect it's about more than money.
I think poor people come in many flavors. Some are poor only because of circumstance, but they have support anyway. They have loving parents, or at least capable parents, that show them that hard work can pay off, teach them to set goals, do things to make things happen. People who move to a foreign country to make their lives better, for example, are not couch potatoes. It takes some serious balls to give up any personal connection or cultural connection to what you once knew, and go somewhere where you look different/speak different or what have you and start on the bottom rung and work your way up.
so they don't have money, but they are not truly poor, to be a little corny about it... they are getting something of value and worth from somewhere.
However there are poor people who are poor perhaps both because of circumstance AND who do NOT have the support.. they do not have loving, or capable parents (missing one of those two things). For example, I know some very very bright people working at McDonalds (100% self supporting though), or who have poor educational background, because they never got over a childhood abuse and some idea that nothing they ever did would ever make a difference took root and they gave up. Or, they were literally told they were shit for their entire childhood... and on some deep level, you have to believe that if you're told it enough while you are young enough.
So they do not believe they have the power to change their circumstance... everything is doomed to fail. So why try? It would be dumb to, if you knew it was doomed to fail. Why get the hopes up one more time?
I think it's a mental prison more than a physical one. Not all poor people are in that same place. But the ones that are, are very likely to stay poor and also to engage in antisocial behaviour. Reaching those people would not only be good for them, but it would be good for the rest of us too. Giving them opportunity is one way, but it's limited. The mental prison needs to be broken somehow.
How?
Well if it were that easy, we'd already be living in Utopia....
Well, there are two sides to this.
First, your brother isn't going to be able to make millions as a musician, most likely. That was a short blip in the history of music that's about to go the way of the dodo.
Second, to make a living at music, he's going to have to tour so the local market doesn't get too saturated, do paid gigs, etc. He can't rely on album sales.
Finally, they might want to try asking for donations.
Regardless of whether you like it, whether it's right, or not... the world is changing, and music is changing, and there isn't a damn thing you, me, or he can do about it. Recording music and distributing it is a trivial task. Playing it isn't. Again I'm not saying filesharing is good, but it's irrelevant whether it's good or bad. The only way to shut it down involves an awful lot of control over our lives by some authority figures that would basically have to amount to continual spying 24/7 to monitor our behaviour.
So your brother and his bandmates need to figure out what they need to do to make a living. Pretty soon, recording contacts won't even be an option. Then what?
Live shows, promotions, merchandise. And best of luck.