I still tend to go through unfamiliar museums by keeping right and working my way around that way so I do not miss anything. I call that the "Doom Technique" because that's how I would explore various levels in Doom, way back when. Vaguely-related note: I still have the original 3.5" floppy containing its predecessor, Castle Wolfenstein.
Thank you. That (along with "lose" always being spelled with an extra "o" - where in the world did that come from?) is one of my pet peeves. It's "free rein," not "free reign!"* Even though the latter does, at least, make a certain amount of sense.
* No, I do not care how many Google hits each particular spelling gets. The original expression is "free rein," and refers to allowing a horse to go wherever it wants.
No, I do not think it is just lies and pipe dreams. I think it, like many things in science, may be subject to wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Fusion energy is, theoretically, the Holy Grail of clean and sustainable energy, but the obstacles to it becoming a practical solution pop up like weeds. Another entry, from my journal: "10/29/78. I was just reading Arthur C. Clarke’s Imperial Earth - about life in 2276 – and decided to write down some of the latest technological developments. 1) Scientists at Princeton have almost achieved a viable way of obtaining power from nuclear *fusion*." At that time, I was eighteen, a sophomore at Haverford College. That was forty years ago: sorry, but when it comes to practical fusion power I'll believe it when I see it. And I would bet a significant sum of money that I won't live long enough to see it.
I lived in a grad student dorm at the University of Texas for my first two years in law school. The first year a grad student in physics gave a talk about the viability of nuclear fusion energy production. He said that about thirty years before then people optimistically predicted that it would be dominating energy production thirty years from then, but that the science had advanced fairly dramatically, and he thought within another thirty years or so we really would see it. By the way, that was in 1981. We have been hearing this about nuclear fusion since the 1950s. But *this* time it's different!
Good heavens. I'm not accusing scientists of being power hungry: I'm just pointing out that people in science (or in government) are people, and that I think it is naive to believe that they are beacons of altruism as compared with the rest of humanity (or, in particular, those in business). Other than that, if you think Venezuela's problems are solely traceable to U.S. sanctions (and, of course, that the sanctions are wholly unjust), that's a rather dramatically different view of reality than what I am familiar with.
You are obviously an intelligent fellow. I regret that my comments prompted the ad hominem tone of your response. I could comment on your equation, but do not think that would lead to productive discussion.
Generally speaking, the alternative to capitalism is socialism or communism, so an article claiming that capitalism is the problem and will essentially "wither away," to quote a prominent 19th century philosopher, is at least implicitly advocating for socialism or communism. I also thought the basis of the article, that fossil fuel-based energy was becoming increasingly uneconomical due to increased capital costs, was fairly naive from an economic standpoint. I was just pointing out a fundamental fallacy in utopian socialistic thinking generally, and the hubris of those who think that central planning is going to be necessary,. and will be effective, to fix large scale economic issues. I am not a pure libertarian: in my opinion, though, small-l libertarianism (but not anarchy) is best for long term prosperity and freedom - but unfortunately results in short term injustice, for which provision must be made (e.g., safety nets for the poor). Socialism is the opposite: it works great in the short term, distributing prosperity evenly, but is a disaster in the long term. And almost all of that has to do with human nature. Sure, people are greedy, power hungry, and self-interested, but they do not somehow magically become altruistic in nature by obtaining a position in government.
Regarding taxation, I understand dramatically increasing carbon/fossil fuels taxes are something a lot of people, particularly on Slashdot, favor. Being of a libertarian bent, I'm personally a bit skeptical that is the best policy.
This time socialism will totally work for the whole world, because the *right* people will be in charge and won't be greedy, or self-interested, or power hungry like those awful capitalists. Because they're *scientists.*
Fair enough. Yes, Earth certainly is a planet. Again, this is not a value judgment about the issue, nor am I (at least, not consicously) trolling. The question is not "is studying the Earth a good thing" or even "is studying the Earth a good thing for the government to spend money on?" The question to me is why *NASA* is doing it. It still seems to me that claiming planetary science and climate studies are within the ambit of aeronautics and space exploration is at best a bit of a stretch. Especially when all the innovation in the latter fields appears to be exclusively in the private sector these days. I was eight years old on July 20, 1969, and still remember how I felt hearing about the moon landing. That was a long, long time ago.
I am a little confused here (actually, have been for some time). By the way, this is totally apart from the argument of whether this is a good idea or not - I express no opinion there.
But I was under the impression that NASA stood for the "National Aeronautics and Space Administration." So I find all this research and involvement in climate issues and trying to defuse volcanoes rather puzzling: how exactly does that help with aeronautics and space? How does that fit in with NASA's purpose? (Sure, if the Earth is destroyed you won't see any space exploration. You won't see any taxation, either, but unless I'm missing something I have not heard reports of the IRS's anti-pollution initiatives.)
Yeah, I know there are all sorts of privacy implications... BUT, to someone whose best friend has ALS and is reduced to having to try to communicate through staring at various letters on a computer screen, it sounds pretty exciting.
Good grief, what a load of horse manure. The whole POINT of something like Google Home is to analyze and profit from one's day to day interaction with the Web. I really do like and use Google's services, especially with respect to synchronizing data among my various devices: BUT it is quite true that we, its users, *are* the product. I have a very nice Google Home Christmas present which has been sitting in its box since December, and the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to activate it. Google may very well be living up to its credo, "Don't Be Evil," but there is a whole galaxy of things third parties can do in their own best interest (and not in yours) that, while not technically "evil," are not necessarily in *your* best interest. Don't be paranoid, but don't be a fool either.
Different concept. Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself." It means no interpretation of a fact or piece of evidence is necessary. You're thinking of the concept of "strict product liability:" when a product causes damages, one does not need to prove actual negligence, just that the product caused the damage.
Sure, Uber could invest in fleets of self-driving cars (which I, actually, doubt will be a significant presence on the roads for a while yet), but doesn't that run against the whole point of Uber and Lyft? That being crowdsourcing ride sharing (and, not so coincidentally, capital costs)? That would seem to turn Uber into just another taxi company, albeit one with a cool mobile app.
I do think self-driving cars are a cool concept, especially for taxis, but think there will have to be some serious breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (i.e., it will have to be actualized, as opposed to being essentially Wikipedia with fast lookup and cross-referencing) before this sort of thing is viable on a large scale.
I'm sure I will get modded down for saying this, but Slashdot has turned into "All About Climate Change - All The Time." I guess that's the passion of the moderators, but I am finding it very tedious. I am less and less inclined to view Slashdot these days, but then again, I expect that's the idea: to change the participating group to those passionate about climate change and environmental activism, versus those who really like technology. Ah well.
That's right: for example, cost of goods sold is a deduction from gross income. So is business rent and utilities. Eliminating Schedule A itemized deductions (i.e., deductions from *net income*) is a relatively trivial simplification of the process. Sure, a flat tax may be somewhat simpler for most people who can file, say, a 1040-EZ or 1040A, but the vast, vast majority of tax issues and audits relate to what exactly constitutes net income. Can or should I deduct business-related meals? To what extent? Promotional expense? Sure, most would agree that office rent is a proper deduction, but who decides if a suite at the local ballpark for the purpose of marketing to clients is a legitimate, deductible business expense? What is the most effective way to amortize/depreciate capital assets and equipment? How about compensation? What's "reasonable?"
That is indeed 99% of the complexity of the tax code, and would not be touched by a "flat tax."
Actually, one theory is that instead of years they were referring to lunar months for the ages, which makes 900 equal to about 75 years. But what I was taught in theology was the numbers, like many numbers in the Bible, were symbolic, intended to symbolize the deteriorating moral state of Man.
Umm... exactly how are these types of legal debts not disposable by bankruptcy? IAAL, and as far as I know non-dischargeable debts are things like taxes, child support obligations, student loan debts, and secured debts (to the extent of the security).
Mea culpa: I now acknowledge that is not what Dawkins said in the interview. (As is practically accepted practice on Slashdot, I did not originally view the interview.) I was responding more to Dawkins's history and to what many antitheists commonly post on Slashdot. My point was, and is, that if the goal is to convince of the truth his approach is irrational. And that deploying irrational strategies to further reason is particularly ironic.
I assume the "load of rubbish" you are referring to is my statement that a true atheist should not characterize theists as ignorant hillbillies. My point is that is an irrational response to the issue: attitudes like yours do nothing to convince, but rather alienate. If your goal is to convince people of the truth, insulting them is counterproductive. And if you are not interested in convincing people of the truth, why are you bothering to engage with them at all?
It depends on what you are being accused of being ignorant of. Sure, I am profoundly ignorant of the things you are, and many, many more subjects; I have no problem admitting that. But if someone accuses me of being ignorant of basic scientific principles *because I am a theist*, that is insulting. Now, I acknowledge that is not what Dawkins said in the interview. Mea culpa: I was responding more to Dawkins's history and to what many antitheists commonly post on Slashdot.
Sorry, I should have clarified: I personally do not feel insulted. I'm well aware that many, if not most, participants on Slashdot think all theists are stupid and ignorant; that is their problem, not mine. I was commenting on how Dawkins's approach is, from a rational point of view, preaching to the choir, and utterly ineffectual in its stated purpose.
Slashdot Mirror
I still tend to go through unfamiliar museums by keeping right and working my way around that way so I do not miss anything. I call that the "Doom Technique" because that's how I would explore various levels in Doom, way back when. Vaguely-related note: I still have the original 3.5" floppy containing its predecessor, Castle Wolfenstein.
Thank you. That (along with "lose" always being spelled with an extra "o" - where in the world did that come from?) is one of my pet peeves. It's "free rein," not "free reign!"* Even though the latter does, at least, make a certain amount of sense. * No, I do not care how many Google hits each particular spelling gets. The original expression is "free rein," and refers to allowing a horse to go wherever it wants.
No, I do not think it is just lies and pipe dreams. I think it, like many things in science, may be subject to wishful thinking and confirmation bias. Fusion energy is, theoretically, the Holy Grail of clean and sustainable energy, but the obstacles to it becoming a practical solution pop up like weeds. Another entry, from my journal: "10/29/78. I was just reading Arthur C. Clarke’s Imperial Earth - about life in 2276 – and decided to write down some of the latest technological developments. 1) Scientists at Princeton have almost achieved a viable way of obtaining power from nuclear *fusion*." At that time, I was eighteen, a sophomore at Haverford College. That was forty years ago: sorry, but when it comes to practical fusion power I'll believe it when I see it. And I would bet a significant sum of money that I won't live long enough to see it.
I lived in a grad student dorm at the University of Texas for my first two years in law school. The first year a grad student in physics gave a talk about the viability of nuclear fusion energy production. He said that about thirty years before then people optimistically predicted that it would be dominating energy production thirty years from then, but that the science had advanced fairly dramatically, and he thought within another thirty years or so we really would see it. By the way, that was in 1981. We have been hearing this about nuclear fusion since the 1950s. But *this* time it's different!
Good heavens. I'm not accusing scientists of being power hungry: I'm just pointing out that people in science (or in government) are people, and that I think it is naive to believe that they are beacons of altruism as compared with the rest of humanity (or, in particular, those in business). Other than that, if you think Venezuela's problems are solely traceable to U.S. sanctions (and, of course, that the sanctions are wholly unjust), that's a rather dramatically different view of reality than what I am familiar with.
You are obviously an intelligent fellow. I regret that my comments prompted the ad hominem tone of your response. I could comment on your equation, but do not think that would lead to productive discussion.
Generally speaking, the alternative to capitalism is socialism or communism, so an article claiming that capitalism is the problem and will essentially "wither away," to quote a prominent 19th century philosopher, is at least implicitly advocating for socialism or communism. I also thought the basis of the article, that fossil fuel-based energy was becoming increasingly uneconomical due to increased capital costs, was fairly naive from an economic standpoint. I was just pointing out a fundamental fallacy in utopian socialistic thinking generally, and the hubris of those who think that central planning is going to be necessary,. and will be effective, to fix large scale economic issues. I am not a pure libertarian: in my opinion, though, small-l libertarianism (but not anarchy) is best for long term prosperity and freedom - but unfortunately results in short term injustice, for which provision must be made (e.g., safety nets for the poor). Socialism is the opposite: it works great in the short term, distributing prosperity evenly, but is a disaster in the long term. And almost all of that has to do with human nature. Sure, people are greedy, power hungry, and self-interested, but they do not somehow magically become altruistic in nature by obtaining a position in government. Regarding taxation, I understand dramatically increasing carbon/fossil fuels taxes are something a lot of people, particularly on Slashdot, favor. Being of a libertarian bent, I'm personally a bit skeptical that is the best policy.
This time socialism will totally work for the whole world, because the *right* people will be in charge and won't be greedy, or self-interested, or power hungry like those awful capitalists. Because they're *scientists.*
Ah, that explains it: I always wondered why Google Hangouts video chat had such pathetic performance! Poor coding.
Fair enough. Yes, Earth certainly is a planet. Again, this is not a value judgment about the issue, nor am I (at least, not consicously) trolling. The question is not "is studying the Earth a good thing" or even "is studying the Earth a good thing for the government to spend money on?" The question to me is why *NASA* is doing it. It still seems to me that claiming planetary science and climate studies are within the ambit of aeronautics and space exploration is at best a bit of a stretch. Especially when all the innovation in the latter fields appears to be exclusively in the private sector these days. I was eight years old on July 20, 1969, and still remember how I felt hearing about the moon landing. That was a long, long time ago.
I am a little confused here (actually, have been for some time). By the way, this is totally apart from the argument of whether this is a good idea or not - I express no opinion there. But I was under the impression that NASA stood for the "National Aeronautics and Space Administration." So I find all this research and involvement in climate issues and trying to defuse volcanoes rather puzzling: how exactly does that help with aeronautics and space? How does that fit in with NASA's purpose? (Sure, if the Earth is destroyed you won't see any space exploration. You won't see any taxation, either, but unless I'm missing something I have not heard reports of the IRS's anti-pollution initiatives.)
Yeah, I know there are all sorts of privacy implications... BUT, to someone whose best friend has ALS and is reduced to having to try to communicate through staring at various letters on a computer screen, it sounds pretty exciting.
Good grief, what a load of horse manure. The whole POINT of something like Google Home is to analyze and profit from one's day to day interaction with the Web. I really do like and use Google's services, especially with respect to synchronizing data among my various devices: BUT it is quite true that we, its users, *are* the product. I have a very nice Google Home Christmas present which has been sitting in its box since December, and the more I think about it, the less inclined I am to activate it. Google may very well be living up to its credo, "Don't Be Evil," but there is a whole galaxy of things third parties can do in their own best interest (and not in yours) that, while not technically "evil," are not necessarily in *your* best interest. Don't be paranoid, but don't be a fool either.
Different concept. Res ipsa loquitur means "the thing speaks for itself." It means no interpretation of a fact or piece of evidence is necessary. You're thinking of the concept of "strict product liability:" when a product causes damages, one does not need to prove actual negligence, just that the product caused the damage.
Sure, Uber could invest in fleets of self-driving cars (which I, actually, doubt will be a significant presence on the roads for a while yet), but doesn't that run against the whole point of Uber and Lyft? That being crowdsourcing ride sharing (and, not so coincidentally, capital costs)? That would seem to turn Uber into just another taxi company, albeit one with a cool mobile app. I do think self-driving cars are a cool concept, especially for taxis, but think there will have to be some serious breakthroughs in artificial intelligence (i.e., it will have to be actualized, as opposed to being essentially Wikipedia with fast lookup and cross-referencing) before this sort of thing is viable on a large scale.
I'm sure I will get modded down for saying this, but Slashdot has turned into "All About Climate Change - All The Time." I guess that's the passion of the moderators, but I am finding it very tedious. I am less and less inclined to view Slashdot these days, but then again, I expect that's the idea: to change the participating group to those passionate about climate change and environmental activism, versus those who really like technology. Ah well.
That's right: for example, cost of goods sold is a deduction from gross income. So is business rent and utilities. Eliminating Schedule A itemized deductions (i.e., deductions from *net income*) is a relatively trivial simplification of the process. Sure, a flat tax may be somewhat simpler for most people who can file, say, a 1040-EZ or 1040A, but the vast, vast majority of tax issues and audits relate to what exactly constitutes net income. Can or should I deduct business-related meals? To what extent? Promotional expense? Sure, most would agree that office rent is a proper deduction, but who decides if a suite at the local ballpark for the purpose of marketing to clients is a legitimate, deductible business expense? What is the most effective way to amortize/depreciate capital assets and equipment? How about compensation? What's "reasonable?" That is indeed 99% of the complexity of the tax code, and would not be touched by a "flat tax."
I have the same capability in my 2011 Infiniti G37. (Don't tell AARC!)
Actually, one theory is that instead of years they were referring to lunar months for the ages, which makes 900 equal to about 75 years. But what I was taught in theology was the numbers, like many numbers in the Bible, were symbolic, intended to symbolize the deteriorating moral state of Man.
Once you have notice of a potential claim, it's too late.
Umm... exactly how are these types of legal debts not disposable by bankruptcy? IAAL, and as far as I know non-dischargeable debts are things like taxes, child support obligations, student loan debts, and secured debts (to the extent of the security).
Mea culpa: I now acknowledge that is not what Dawkins said in the interview. (As is practically accepted practice on Slashdot, I did not originally view the interview.) I was responding more to Dawkins's history and to what many antitheists commonly post on Slashdot. My point was, and is, that if the goal is to convince of the truth his approach is irrational. And that deploying irrational strategies to further reason is particularly ironic.
I assume the "load of rubbish" you are referring to is my statement that a true atheist should not characterize theists as ignorant hillbillies. My point is that is an irrational response to the issue: attitudes like yours do nothing to convince, but rather alienate. If your goal is to convince people of the truth, insulting them is counterproductive. And if you are not interested in convincing people of the truth, why are you bothering to engage with them at all?
It depends on what you are being accused of being ignorant of. Sure, I am profoundly ignorant of the things you are, and many, many more subjects; I have no problem admitting that. But if someone accuses me of being ignorant of basic scientific principles *because I am a theist*, that is insulting. Now, I acknowledge that is not what Dawkins said in the interview. Mea culpa: I was responding more to Dawkins's history and to what many antitheists commonly post on Slashdot.
Sorry, I should have clarified: I personally do not feel insulted. I'm well aware that many, if not most, participants on Slashdot think all theists are stupid and ignorant; that is their problem, not mine. I was commenting on how Dawkins's approach is, from a rational point of view, preaching to the choir, and utterly ineffectual in its stated purpose.