... Underscores the real problem here. This is far too politicized to be judged scientifically anymore. There are very few open minds left and those few that are open are not listened to by anyone.
Consider for the sake of argument if everything you know about this issue is wrong. Just for the sake of argument. Now reexamine these little niche issues one at a time to see if they have anything interesting to say WHILE in that frame of mind.
This is something I do every time I get new information. I take all my opinions, convictions, and beliefs... and I put them in neutral. Then I read it all IN that frame of mind. Often I will be reading something that contradicts my previous understanding. And unless I kept that frame of mind I would probably prejudge and discount it without properly considering it.
Everyone does this from time to time. The best scientists in the world have been caught doing this occasionally. You never stop being human.
What is so distressing about AGW for me is that we're all so polarized on the issue that we can't even talk about it anymore without breaking into our little factional camps can calling each other names.
Then increase taxes to 100 percent or you're a moron.
The laffer curve is completely obvious.
On the one side you have 0 percent taxation where you get zero percent revenue.
On the other side you have 100 percent taxation where you get all the money.
If you take literally everything then you'll destroy the economy and get less money.
If we graph the line from point 1A to point 2A then what you should find is that revenue peaks in the middle and then falls off dramatically.
That is the laffer curve. And anyone that says it doesn't exist is right up there with fucktards that think gravity is a myth or that we didn't land on the moon.
yawn... you can't raise revenue any higher. They're already raising it as high as they can. If they raised it higher they'd get less money. We've already hit the laffer curve.
Which means we're looking at over 1 trillion in CUTS.
And as to the negative consequences of that... bring it.
Your bank records exist despite changing hardware and software because the data is kept in use. Its kept alive. It is added to, modified... active. Your genetic records could be kept active. Keep them part of a patient record and they'll be copied, migrated, translated, from one system to the next to the next to the next for as long as you live.
Only when the data goes dormant can it rot. By all means... have long term storage media for long term data archiving. But the best means of keeping data current is to keep it moving.
All that said... the data we're talking about can't be that much data. A few terabytes should be more then what you need to store that kind of stuff for one person. And that kind of storage is already cheap.
A big part of exclusivity is secrecy. The most exclusive establishments do not advertise. Their names are passed around hand to hand. The simple fact that we the unwashed masses know about this service means its ill suited for its purpose.
Perhaps it might serve as an effective trap for the new rich... but the whole thing strikes me as more then a little absurd. Especially when you can find the royal families of a few countries on Facebook.
Why these all or nothing contracts? Give some of the contracts to one and some to the other. Do it on a launch by launch basis. Just pay for what they actually do...
I have no problem with religion being studied scientifically however religion and science are not the same thing or even related beyond both being outgrowths of "philosophy" which is to say they are both outgrowths of "thought" but they are profoundly different types of thought.
I don't think we're pessimistic because they wrote of dark futures. I think we're pessimistic because we see our society rotting and see no way to cut the rot out and rebuild.
Same. Though assuming you were Musk and were putting some stores out there for people to look around... how would you structure it?
One thing that might be a reasonable compromise is if the Tesla franchise had to be exclusive. Consider fast food franchises... they're exclusive. You can't sell subway sandwiches and Quiznos sandwiches in the same restaurant.
What is more, the corporate office can set policy, set prices, etc. Do that and you can let dealerships sell the cars while at the same time controlling how it is done.
I'd generally agree. Another issue is why we have so few car companies. We could have smaller car companies that make few cars and are perhaps regional brands. Look at restaurants or ISPs or whatever that only exist in one part of the country. We could have the same thing with cars. The dealerships make getting into the car making business more complicated. They can't directly sell their cars. They can't put an AD in the paper saying "this car, with these specs, at this price, to your door... call this number." And that's wrong.
If no one has to deal with the dealerships then I think they'll be more reasonable companies because they'll understand that if they're unreasonable they'll be bypassed.
If they were offering Tesla what they wanted or needed maybe tesla wouldn't see a need to bypass them.
Tesla for example likes to have their dealerships in normal store fronts where they have ONE car in the middle of the store and a lot of information. They sort of look and feel like apple stores. Very minimalistic, hip, modern. If the dealerships were willing to do that then maybe Tesla wouldn't have needed to do this.
Tesla points out that new car companies in the US tend to fail and they blame the dealership system for this because they say they're invested in existing auto companies and brands.
For Tesla to be comfortable the existing dealerships would have to be willing to commit themselves to Tesla in the same way that Tesla's company run dealerships are committed to Tesla.
And even then... Tesla doesn't have to deal with the dealerships. That whole model of sales is obviously going to come under challenge from all the other car companies now that will all ask "why do we have to deal with you when Tesla can do what they want?"
Maybe Toyota or Ford will want to have their own stores. And the dealerships are going to have to justify themselves to those organizations.
I don't want to disagree with you because I don't know if you'll listen to me. Some people here have taken correction very poorly and all things being equal... I'd like to avoid the drama.
Let me just say that science and religion have very little in common IF you approach science scientifically. There are a lot of people that try to turn science into a belief system and their version of science which is not science is similar to religion. However, it is a perversion of science or a misunderstanding of science and not science itself.
Science does not ask you to believe anything. It merely asks you to gather empirical facts, reason them in testable ways, propose theories based on that, and then test those theories again using empirical testing.
I won't bother explaining how that differs from religion because that should be obvious... pointing out the difference is both tedious and a waste of my time. But you should see how they're not similar at all.
That said, the people that wrote this article for NPR want to turn science into a religion. And for that they must destroy science because science as itself is not a belief system. It is a process.
You can be a christian, a jew, a hindu, an atheist, a capitalist, a communist... and still be a scientist. Science takes no sides and cares nothing for these belief systems. You can be a hardcore party chinese communist or a died in the wool American capitalist and be equally scientific.
Why? Because science is spock-like. It doesn't care about your petty factional disputes between your primate social groups. None of it matters to science. The person writing that article for NPR wants science to take sides.
If science does that... it will destroy itself in the process. And the people advocating this either do not understand that or worse do not care because all that matters to them is winning some pathetic political fight.
And if you look around slashdot... you'll find many of their minions. People that pretend to advocate for science when really they just want to use science... to chain it... to enslave it... to pervert it... to whore it... to use it up... taint it... leave nothing left.
And I find that offensive. They must be repelled, disgraced, lampooned, thrown down, and rhetorically pushed up against a wall and shot. It is unacceptable.
They win and science dies. And for what? For a few months or a couple years of undeserved clout in political games until they've so tainted the scientists that misusing their names no longer even gathers support.
People must understand. Science is not a belief system. It is a process.
Its like baking a cake. A recipe for baking a cake is not a belief system. It is a recipe. Simply saying "but you believe you'll make a cake if you follow the recipe" is not sufficient to call it a belief system. You could as easily say that directions to the corner grosery store are also a belief system because I believe it will lead there. Never mind that I know it will lead there. Never mind that it can be tested. Never mind that science not only is willing to accept correction but challenges you to do it.
Religions, ideologies, and belief systems in general do not challenge you to disprove them. They tell you that "X is true" period and refuse to accept correction. Ask any belief system if they really want to get into a discussion about whether their core beliefs are valid or not. None of them are willing to have that discussion. They assume they're correct.
Do people that believe in freedom want to defend why slavery is wrong? Do people that believe in communism want to defend why that is right or wrong? Do people that believe in any given religion want to defend why their god is right or wrong about anything? Not really. They just assume it and in many cases will fight to the death to protect their belief system. But will they actually argue for it on a rational basis?
Nope.
And neither would science argue for itself if it were turned into a belief system. Sci
I said as much in my first post. that said, I don't think the tech has no application at all and especially resent the notion that 3d printing is a fad. It isn't a fad anymore then the automobile was a fad.
VR isn't a matrix spinal tap. Its a monitor pasted onto your face with head tracking technology to sync the image to your head position. Lets not get carried away.
They'll only exist as long as people use them. We're already seeing the copper lines get phased out. We're already seeing VoIP gain ascendancy over traditional phone infrastructure.
What does VoIP mean when the phone system doesn't exist anymore or is no longer relevant? Its just peer to peer voice conferencing.
The phone won't exist for much longer. Its already mostly a computer at this point and has no need for a conventional phone network to communicate between handsets.
But I don't see what that has to do with VR in the class room and why we should go to the effort?
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because when obvious logic contradicts your stupid argument its suddenly acceptable to attempt to invalidate logic itself.
Good work. Your position is officially religious. Go get a book to chant over and stop bothering people trying to have rational discussions.
... Underscores the real problem here. This is far too politicized to be judged scientifically anymore. There are very few open minds left and those few that are open are not listened to by anyone.
Consider for the sake of argument if everything you know about this issue is wrong. Just for the sake of argument. Now reexamine these little niche issues one at a time to see if they have anything interesting to say WHILE in that frame of mind.
This is something I do every time I get new information. I take all my opinions, convictions, and beliefs... and I put them in neutral. Then I read it all IN that frame of mind. Often I will be reading something that contradicts my previous understanding. And unless I kept that frame of mind I would probably prejudge and discount it without properly considering it.
Everyone does this from time to time. The best scientists in the world have been caught doing this occasionally. You never stop being human.
What is so distressing about AGW for me is that we're all so polarized on the issue that we can't even talk about it anymore without breaking into our little factional camps can calling each other names.
Then increase taxes to 100 percent or you're a moron.
The laffer curve is completely obvious.
On the one side you have 0 percent taxation where you get zero percent revenue.
On the other side you have 100 percent taxation where you get all the money.
If you take literally everything then you'll destroy the economy and get less money.
If we graph the line from point 1A to point 2A then what you should find is that revenue peaks in the middle and then falls off dramatically.
That is the laffer curve. And anyone that says it doesn't exist is right up there with fucktards that think gravity is a myth or that we didn't land on the moon.
there is always a war... by that standard the dollar will collapse before they fix it.
yawn... you can't raise revenue any higher. They're already raising it as high as they can. If they raised it higher they'd get less money. We've already hit the laffer curve.
Which means we're looking at over 1 trillion in CUTS.
And as to the negative consequences of that... bring it.
Tell you what. You loan the US government 1 trillion dollars interest free per year and I'll sign off on your little plan.
Short of that, we're destroying ourselves.
The IRS is raking in record income to the US federal government.
You aren't out of money because the IRS isn't taking it in... you're out of money because you're spending too much of it.
By all means... fix corruption... but while you're at it... balance the fucking budget.
Facebook stopped being something you wanted to be on when your aunts and uncles started making accounts.
Facebook stopped being something you wanted to be on when your boss/employer started checking it.
Facebook stopped being something you wanted to be on when the government started sniffing around it for information about you.
Facebook stopped being something you wanted to be on when judges decided it was a reasonable means to serve legal documents.
Get off facebook... it is only down hill from here.
Your bank records exist despite changing hardware and software because the data is kept in use. Its kept alive. It is added to, modified... active. Your genetic records could be kept active. Keep them part of a patient record and they'll be copied, migrated, translated, from one system to the next to the next to the next for as long as you live.
Only when the data goes dormant can it rot. By all means... have long term storage media for long term data archiving. But the best means of keeping data current is to keep it moving.
All that said... the data we're talking about can't be that much data. A few terabytes should be more then what you need to store that kind of stuff for one person. And that kind of storage is already cheap.
A big part of exclusivity is secrecy. The most exclusive establishments do not advertise. Their names are passed around hand to hand. The simple fact that we the unwashed masses know about this service means its ill suited for its purpose.
Perhaps it might serve as an effective trap for the new rich... but the whole thing strikes me as more then a little absurd. Especially when you can find the royal families of a few countries on Facebook.
Google it. Takes a bit to set up but its great. Smaller then 1 mb.
The only way you're going to connect those two is by redefining religion or redefining science or redefining both.
I don't find that argument compelling because both religion and science are well established concepts immutable to that sort of argument.
Absent redefinition they're not equatable. You can try to redefine the meaning of 'is' or 'was' or 'will be'... but its just a word game.
Why these all or nothing contracts? Give some of the contracts to one and some to the other. Do it on a launch by launch basis. Just pay for what they actually do...
I have no problem with religion being studied scientifically however religion and science are not the same thing or even related beyond both being outgrowths of "philosophy" which is to say they are both outgrowths of "thought" but they are profoundly different types of thought.
I don't think we're pessimistic because they wrote of dark futures. I think we're pessimistic because we see our society rotting and see no way to cut the rot out and rebuild.
Same. Though assuming you were Musk and were putting some stores out there for people to look around... how would you structure it?
One thing that might be a reasonable compromise is if the Tesla franchise had to be exclusive. Consider fast food franchises... they're exclusive. You can't sell subway sandwiches and Quiznos sandwiches in the same restaurant.
What is more, the corporate office can set policy, set prices, etc. Do that and you can let dealerships sell the cars while at the same time controlling how it is done.
I'd generally agree. Another issue is why we have so few car companies. We could have smaller car companies that make few cars and are perhaps regional brands. Look at restaurants or ISPs or whatever that only exist in one part of the country. We could have the same thing with cars. The dealerships make getting into the car making business more complicated. They can't directly sell their cars. They can't put an AD in the paper saying "this car, with these specs, at this price, to your door... call this number." And that's wrong.
If no one has to deal with the dealerships then I think they'll be more reasonable companies because they'll understand that if they're unreasonable they'll be bypassed.
If they were offering Tesla what they wanted or needed maybe tesla wouldn't see a need to bypass them.
Tesla for example likes to have their dealerships in normal store fronts where they have ONE car in the middle of the store and a lot of information. They sort of look and feel like apple stores. Very minimalistic, hip, modern. If the dealerships were willing to do that then maybe Tesla wouldn't have needed to do this.
Tesla points out that new car companies in the US tend to fail and they blame the dealership system for this because they say they're invested in existing auto companies and brands.
For Tesla to be comfortable the existing dealerships would have to be willing to commit themselves to Tesla in the same way that Tesla's company run dealerships are committed to Tesla.
And even then... Tesla doesn't have to deal with the dealerships. That whole model of sales is obviously going to come under challenge from all the other car companies now that will all ask "why do we have to deal with you when Tesla can do what they want?"
Maybe Toyota or Ford will want to have their own stores. And the dealerships are going to have to justify themselves to those organizations.
I don't want to disagree with you because I don't know if you'll listen to me. Some people here have taken correction very poorly and all things being equal... I'd like to avoid the drama.
Let me just say that science and religion have very little in common IF you approach science scientifically. There are a lot of people that try to turn science into a belief system and their version of science which is not science is similar to religion. However, it is a perversion of science or a misunderstanding of science and not science itself.
Science does not ask you to believe anything. It merely asks you to gather empirical facts, reason them in testable ways, propose theories based on that, and then test those theories again using empirical testing.
I won't bother explaining how that differs from religion because that should be obvious... pointing out the difference is both tedious and a waste of my time. But you should see how they're not similar at all.
That said, the people that wrote this article for NPR want to turn science into a religion. And for that they must destroy science because science as itself is not a belief system. It is a process.
You can be a christian, a jew, a hindu, an atheist, a capitalist, a communist... and still be a scientist. Science takes no sides and cares nothing for these belief systems. You can be a hardcore party chinese communist or a died in the wool American capitalist and be equally scientific.
Why? Because science is spock-like. It doesn't care about your petty factional disputes between your primate social groups. None of it matters to science. The person writing that article for NPR wants science to take sides.
If science does that... it will destroy itself in the process. And the people advocating this either do not understand that or worse do not care because all that matters to them is winning some pathetic political fight.
And if you look around slashdot... you'll find many of their minions. People that pretend to advocate for science when really they just want to use science... to chain it... to enslave it... to pervert it... to whore it... to use it up... taint it... leave nothing left.
And I find that offensive. They must be repelled, disgraced, lampooned, thrown down, and rhetorically pushed up against a wall and shot. It is unacceptable.
They win and science dies. And for what? For a few months or a couple years of undeserved clout in political games until they've so tainted the scientists that misusing their names no longer even gathers support.
People must understand. Science is not a belief system. It is a process.
Its like baking a cake. A recipe for baking a cake is not a belief system. It is a recipe. Simply saying "but you believe you'll make a cake if you follow the recipe" is not sufficient to call it a belief system. You could as easily say that directions to the corner grosery store are also a belief system because I believe it will lead there. Never mind that I know it will lead there. Never mind that it can be tested. Never mind that science not only is willing to accept correction but challenges you to do it.
Religions, ideologies, and belief systems in general do not challenge you to disprove them. They tell you that "X is true" period and refuse to accept correction. Ask any belief system if they really want to get into a discussion about whether their core beliefs are valid or not. None of them are willing to have that discussion. They assume they're correct.
Do people that believe in freedom want to defend why slavery is wrong? Do people that believe in communism want to defend why that is right or wrong? Do people that believe in any given religion want to defend why their god is right or wrong about anything? Not really. They just assume it and in many cases will fight to the death to protect their belief system. But will they actually argue for it on a rational basis?
Nope.
And neither would science argue for itself if it were turned into a belief system. Sci
I said as much in my first post. that said, I don't think the tech has no application at all and especially resent the notion that 3d printing is a fad. It isn't a fad anymore then the automobile was a fad.
VR has a place. Its just not in the class room.
VR isn't a matrix spinal tap. Its a monitor pasted onto your face with head tracking technology to sync the image to your head position. Lets not get carried away.
Sounds like a great way to not learn anything while having a mediocre time.
They'll only exist as long as people use them. We're already seeing the copper lines get phased out. We're already seeing VoIP gain ascendancy over traditional phone infrastructure.
What does VoIP mean when the phone system doesn't exist anymore or is no longer relevant? Its just peer to peer voice conferencing.
because we don't have enough porn...
The phone won't exist for much longer. Its already mostly a computer at this point and has no need for a conventional phone network to communicate between handsets.
But I don't see what that has to do with VR in the class room and why we should go to the effort?