I'm tired of the religion of democracy, and the fact that the majority of people in the western world are fanatical devotees to it, despite reason and evidence. People speak of it as if it's magical, instead of the most evil-making mechanism man ever sprung on himself.
I'm a libertarian and Free State Project early mover.
The few friends I have who go to Tea Party events do so while holding their nose for the sole purpose of hopefully spotting/recruiting the 3% of them who have actual potential for rationalism.
I don't know why you equate libertarian with Tea Party. So many of the comments in this thread are tragically ignorant and insulting.
This attitude disturbs me. If I wanted to read retarded, barbaric "bomb them all into the stone-age" rhetoric, I'd go to Fox News. I expect better from Slashdot. There are millions of people in Syria. Some are children. Some are atheists. Some probably contribute to open source software and are active in Arab-spring-style activities.
Are you really comfortably advocating that all those human beings should die? Why? Because the actions of the Syrian government that claims ownership over those human beings do things you disagree with? Because I feel the same way about all governments. That's no excuse for cheering on the death/genocide of that government's domestic victims.
You didn't personally create the patent system, and it doesn't even seem like you agree with it, so why apologize for it?
Bugs the crap out of me when people say "we" with regards to/ apologize on behalf of the actions taken by the government that claims ownership of you.
You are an individual. They are a network of thugs. Stop identifying with them, and stop collectivizing all individuals who live within these imaginary lines called the U S of A.
"This galaxy is the 'greenest' factory yet discovered......leaving no waste."
Green? Waste?
I keep seeing humans applying these fuzzy concepts with apparent emotional significance to inanimate objects and natural processes. What's green about turning hydrogen into stars? Green is suppose to be good, right? Is loose hydrogen bad? Don't stars use fusion to produce radiation? Don't the same people that talk about 'green' incessantly also speak badly of nuclear fusion and radiation? Isn't that called toxic waste when it's on this spinning rock? Speaking of waste, why is hydrogen that's not turned into stars considered waste? That seems highly subjective. Maybe I like scattered hydrogren gas...
I haven't had an opportunity yet to publish any non-trivial open source projects, but when I do, my LICENSE.txt file will simply contain the sentence "There ain't no such thing as intellectual property." and the following link:
https://mises.org/document/3582
Do what you want with my code, and don't bother me about licenses. If you're going to badger me about fantasy concept X vs fantasy concept Y, at least make it fun, like who would win in a fight -- Aragorn or Han Solo?
The official organization known as the Free State Project is simply the bus. It's job is to get people to New Hampshire, not to tell them how to pursue liberty after they get here. (Really, the FSP's only real job is to host the website with the "statement of intent" and the signup and move counters.) Hence, there is no official connection between the FSP and the NHLA, or any other pro-liberty organization started by Free Staters.
However, the NHLA is primarily founded and run by Free Staters.
I've been following the campaign 24/7 for the last four months. I can probably answer any question and be at least 90% accurate to what Paul would have told you.
1) Energy policy - free market, free trade. It's really not that complicated. He wouldn't be a tool of the oil industry, so we wouldn't be starting preemptive wars in the middle east to protect private oil companies' interests. We wouldn't be subsidizing corn for ethanol, which turns out to not be the best answer. Without subsidies, and without regulations, you have a level playing field with competition and price signals. This would result is the fastest emergence of the mass production of energy alternatives, better than the government ever could get by meddling. There's already tons of innovation happening right now in the private sector. Get out of their way!
2) Science education - just because you think a program is a good thing, doesn't mean the Federal government has the authority to take money from citizens by force to pay for it. Science funding and education is not authorized in the constitution, and should not be performed by the Federal government (states still have the perogative, though). HOWEVER: This would be so absolutely at the bottom of the priority list for Paul as to be a non-issue.
3) NSF funding - was rolled into question 2.
4) International collaboration for basic research - what the fuck does this have to do with the federal government? This is the statism disease that is killing our country. Nowadays, anytime anyone thinks of anything that they want to see happen, their first instinct is to turn to the federal government. Come on... with free trade and free travel and free speech, educational and research institutes around the world are perfectly capable of working with each other. Hey, I work on projects with my neighbors sometimes, and it's not cause the FBI came down and talked is into it.
The notion of "nucleics" - tiny nuclear generators built right into electronic devices that would power them for longer than you would live - was, to me, the most exciting part of Asimov's Foundation series. What's shocking to me is how I've never heard a single other person refer to them, until now (you). I've been waiting for years for some hint from science and industry that would make this a reality to some degree. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw this headline, and the reason I clicked on it.
I've often thought of building simulation models to try to predict real world phenomenon, and so I've considered this problem (though only casually - I have no formal training in simulation or statistics).
My usual hypothetical solution is to divide the data set in half (ideally, randomly), use one half to build and train your model, and the second half to test its predictive accuracy.
Most actual monopolies or oligopolies in the US are the *result* of government regulation (or interference in some manner). Actual natural monopolies are quite rare in free markets, and are far easier to deal with than government approved monopolies.
Advertising's sole value is supposedly that it provides information to consumers, but in reality, it is the poorest form of information possible. Every advertiser has incentive to deceive as much as possible to promote their own products over those of their competitors. Every advertiser has incentive to use all known knowledge of the human mind to manipulate people into purchasing the product. Humans are not perfectly protected little balls of free will - they will respond to known stimuli.
You would have to be either retarded or a shill to suggest that a good system is one where the same party that stands to profit is the party that produces the information.
It gets worse. Advertising is an ARMS RACE. Every year more is spent on advertising. Not because of inflation, not because of GDP growth - more in terms of proportion to other costs. Hollywood is the most obvious and easily confirmable example. As mankind becomes more efficient at producing goods and services, there is more room in the budget for advertising. Attention is one of the two truly scarce resources (the other being land), and whoever commands the most attention wins. Economists are well aware of this, and have included it in their model, along with a rationalization that advertising rewards the most efficient producer since that producer has the most room in their budget for advertising. I would comment on this insanity, but insanity is hardly uncommon in the domain of economists.
Because advertising is an arms race, every possible medium for advertising will be leveraged. Coffee cup protectors? Check. Standing in line at the grocery store? Check. Pumping gas? Check. (I hate those damn LCD screens.) Writing on the sky? Check. Painted on your car? Check. Additionally, every bit of advertising makes advertising as a whole less effective, which simply drives the need for more advertising.
The end result is we have an industry that takes in $100B/year in the US alone (and growing), who's output is limited to a) making the world an ugly and annoying place to live b) manipulating people into feeling inadequate and spending money on things they don't need c) NOT providing accurate information about new products and services that might actually add value.
What little value advertising might provide could and should be provided by third parties and the public at large, utilizing modern information technology (ratings/review sites, consumer reports, wikis, comparison shopping, etc). However, people still respond to advertising, so advertisers are still in business.
The only way to make it stop is legislation (which, as a limited government proponent, I'm against), or a cultural shift making advertising as a whole extremely distasteful to the point of rude. If everyone refused to buy a product on the basis of the manufacturer supporting advertising, the insanity would quickly diminish.
This, of course, is unlikely.
In the meantime, we as a nation spend $100B/year reducing our quality of life (that's $100B that could have been spent creating real wealth). It is a tragedy of the commons - the commons being our collective attention resource.
I read slashdot every day, but am driven to post maybe once a year. This is one of those times.
This is Slashdot, News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters. Not the fucking Microsoft sales dept. Stop it with the daily, contradictory reports about Vista sales in various areas. I don't care. No one cares.
Just shut the fuck up already, so we can move on to something interesting. You know, something That Matters.
I for one will take a decrease in national security if it means that my privacy remains intact. You are believing the fallacy. These laws do not increase security. The government and police already have all the tools that they need. These new laws will do one thing - They will decrease my security as well as my privacy. Dude, you misread the original post. The poster said he would take a DECREASE in security to INCREASE his privacy. You read it as the opposite, and then proceeded to heap some learnin on him/her that clearly they already have.
If there's one thing I hate worse than vaporware, it's hype. Show me, don't tell me.
Quit your bitching. They didn't come to us, we linked to them, slashdotted their site, and posted tons of questions about them. They were cool enough to take the time to respond to them, and the answers were somewhat informative - in other words, not just marketing babble (not surprising, since they're inventors, not marketers).
I like to know what might be coming down the pipe, even if it never materializes. *Especially* if it never materializes, because then at least they contributed to the human idea pool, which might inspire others to build the same or related products.
Besides, its not like these guys don't have a track record of delivering.
A similar book: Complexity
on
Emergence
·
· Score: 1
There's another book called Complexity (1992 - M. Mitchell Waldrop (Amazon link)) which is a great early history and overview of the field of complexity and how it was formed (and which emergence is just another name for). Nine years old, but still great reading. Includes the formation of the Sante Fe Institute.
There is nothing amusing about Evolution being praised as important - it is! Any linux advocate who is responsible for implementing a groupware solution for their company (such as myself) and has had negative experience in the past with MS Exchange and Outlook (such as myself) would be thrilled to finally have an alternative for the first time on the horizon.
There are some of you who have complained that there was no central character, or climactic fight scene. Since when are these requirements for a good film? Thats just what you're used to, and frankly, I'd rather watch films that innovate then just rehashing the same structures. How else will we evolve?
Bottom line: a central character and climactic fight scenes are obsolutely *not* necessary for a good film; just necessary for a film to be easily digested by those with a closed mind.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm tired of the religion of democracy, and the fact that the majority of people in the western world are fanatical devotees to it, despite reason and evidence. People speak of it as if it's magical, instead of the most evil-making mechanism man ever sprung on himself.
Here, have some:
http://www.amazon.com/Democracy-The-God-That-Failed-Economics/dp/0765808684
The first half is great. (I suggest ignoring the second half.)
I'm a libertarian and Free State Project early mover.
The few friends I have who go to Tea Party events do so while holding their nose for the sole purpose of hopefully spotting/recruiting the 3% of them who have actual potential for rationalism.
I don't know why you equate libertarian with Tea Party. So many of the comments in this thread are tragically ignorant and insulting.
You should consider getting out of your mom's basement more. Windows Phone is the fastest growing smartphone OS right now.
You posted the exact same comment (word-for-word) further up this thread.
This attitude disturbs me. If I wanted to read retarded, barbaric "bomb them all into the stone-age" rhetoric, I'd go to Fox News. I expect better from Slashdot. There are millions of people in Syria. Some are children. Some are atheists. Some probably contribute to open source software and are active in Arab-spring-style activities.
Are you really comfortably advocating that all those human beings should die? Why? Because the actions of the Syrian government that claims ownership over those human beings do things you disagree with? Because I feel the same way about all governments. That's no excuse for cheering on the death/genocide of that government's domestic victims.
Stop that!
You didn't personally create the patent system, and it doesn't even seem like you agree with it, so why apologize for it?
Bugs the crap out of me when people say "we" with regards to/ apologize on behalf of the actions taken by the government that claims ownership of you.
You are an individual. They are a network of thugs. Stop identifying with them, and stop collectivizing all individuals who live within these imaginary lines called the U S of A.
I hate when people say "we" when referring to the actions of the government that claims ownership of them.
Stop that. You didn't personally send anyone to kill/die, and it sounds like you were against it, too.
"This galaxy is the 'greenest' factory yet discovered... ...leaving no waste."
Green? Waste?
I keep seeing humans applying these fuzzy concepts with apparent emotional significance to inanimate objects and natural processes. What's green about turning hydrogen into stars? Green is suppose to be good, right? Is loose hydrogen bad? Don't stars use fusion to produce radiation? Don't the same people that talk about 'green' incessantly also speak badly of nuclear fusion and radiation? Isn't that called toxic waste when it's on this spinning rock? Speaking of waste, why is hydrogen that's not turned into stars considered waste? That seems highly subjective. Maybe I like scattered hydrogren gas...
I haven't had an opportunity yet to publish any non-trivial open source projects, but when I do, my LICENSE.txt file will simply contain the sentence "There ain't no such thing as intellectual property." and the following link:
https://mises.org/document/3582
Do what you want with my code, and don't bother me about licenses. If you're going to badger me about fantasy concept X vs fantasy concept Y, at least make it fun, like who would win in a fight -- Aragorn or Han Solo?
The official organization known as the Free State Project is simply the bus. It's job is to get people to New Hampshire, not to tell them how to pursue liberty after they get here. (Really, the FSP's only real job is to host the website with the "statement of intent" and the signup and move counters.) Hence, there is no official connection between the FSP and the NHLA, or any other pro-liberty organization started by Free Staters.
However, the NHLA is primarily founded and run by Free Staters.
Can't believe a bunch of you tagged this 'idiocracy'. Ignorant assholes.
Most of you probably don't even know many home/unschoolers. I do. The kids are incredible.
I've been following the campaign 24/7 for the last four months. I can probably answer any question and be at least 90% accurate to what Paul would have told you.
1) Energy policy - free market, free trade. It's really not that complicated. He wouldn't be a tool of the oil industry, so we wouldn't be starting preemptive wars in the middle east to protect private oil companies' interests. We wouldn't be subsidizing corn for ethanol, which turns out to not be the best answer. Without subsidies, and without regulations, you have a level playing field with competition and price signals. This would result is the fastest emergence of the mass production of energy alternatives, better than the government ever could get by meddling. There's already tons of innovation happening right now in the private sector. Get out of their way!
2) Science education - just because you think a program is a good thing, doesn't mean the Federal government has the authority to take money from citizens by force to pay for it. Science funding and education is not authorized in the constitution, and should not be performed by the Federal government (states still have the perogative, though). HOWEVER: This would be so absolutely at the bottom of the priority list for Paul as to be a non-issue.
3) NSF funding - was rolled into question 2.
4) International collaboration for basic research - what the fuck does this have to do with the federal government? This is the statism disease that is killing our country. Nowadays, anytime anyone thinks of anything that they want to see happen, their first instinct is to turn to the federal government. Come on... with free trade and free travel and free speech, educational and research institutes around the world are perfectly capable of working with each other. Hey, I work on projects with my neighbors sometimes, and it's not cause the FBI came down and talked is into it.
The notion of "nucleics" - tiny nuclear generators built right into electronic devices that would power them for longer than you would live - was, to me, the most exciting part of Asimov's Foundation series. What's shocking to me is how I've never heard a single other person refer to them, until now (you). I've been waiting for years for some hint from science and industry that would make this a reality to some degree. It was the first thing I thought of when I saw this headline, and the reason I clicked on it.
I've often thought of building simulation models to try to predict real world phenomenon, and so I've considered this problem (though only casually - I have no formal training in simulation or statistics).
My usual hypothetical solution is to divide the data set in half (ideally, randomly), use one half to build and train your model, and the second half to test its predictive accuracy.
Anyone know if this is actually a valid strategy?
Most actual monopolies or oligopolies in the US are the *result* of government regulation (or interference in some manner). Actual natural monopolies are quite rare in free markets, and are far easier to deal with than government approved monopolies.
Advertising is a tragedy.
Advertising's sole value is supposedly that it provides information to consumers, but in reality, it is the poorest form of information possible. Every advertiser has incentive to deceive as much as possible to promote their own products over those of their competitors. Every advertiser has incentive to use all known knowledge of the human mind to manipulate people into purchasing the product. Humans are not perfectly protected little balls of free will - they will respond to known stimuli.
You would have to be either retarded or a shill to suggest that a good system is one where the same party that stands to profit is the party that produces the information.
It gets worse. Advertising is an ARMS RACE. Every year more is spent on advertising. Not because of inflation, not because of GDP growth - more in terms of proportion to other costs. Hollywood is the most obvious and easily confirmable example. As mankind becomes more efficient at producing goods and services, there is more room in the budget for advertising. Attention is one of the two truly scarce resources (the other being land), and whoever commands the most attention wins. Economists are well aware of this, and have included it in their model, along with a rationalization that advertising rewards the most efficient producer since that producer has the most room in their budget for advertising. I would comment on this insanity, but insanity is hardly uncommon in the domain of economists.
Because advertising is an arms race, every possible medium for advertising will be leveraged. Coffee cup protectors? Check. Standing in line at the grocery store? Check. Pumping gas? Check. (I hate those damn LCD screens.) Writing on the sky? Check. Painted on your car? Check. Additionally, every bit of advertising makes advertising as a whole less effective, which simply drives the need for more advertising.
The end result is we have an industry that takes in $100B/year in the US alone (and growing), who's output is limited to a) making the world an ugly and annoying place to live b) manipulating people into feeling inadequate and spending money on things they don't need c) NOT providing accurate information about new products and services that might actually add value.
What little value advertising might provide could and should be provided by third parties and the public at large, utilizing modern information technology (ratings/review sites, consumer reports, wikis, comparison shopping, etc). However, people still respond to advertising, so advertisers are still in business.
The only way to make it stop is legislation (which, as a limited government proponent, I'm against), or a cultural shift making advertising as a whole extremely distasteful to the point of rude. If everyone refused to buy a product on the basis of the manufacturer supporting advertising, the insanity would quickly diminish.
This, of course, is unlikely.
In the meantime, we as a nation spend $100B/year reducing our quality of life (that's $100B that could have been spent creating real wealth). It is a tragedy of the commons - the commons being our collective attention resource.
I read slashdot every day, but am driven to post maybe once a year. This is one of those times.
This is Slashdot, News for Nerds, Stuff That Matters. Not the fucking Microsoft sales dept. Stop it with the daily, contradictory reports about Vista sales in various areas. I don't care. No one cares.
Just shut the fuck up already, so we can move on to something interesting. You know, something That Matters.
-ofer
from yesterday: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/0 1/1643204
If there's one thing I hate worse than vaporware, it's hype. Show me, don't tell me.
Quit your bitching. They didn't come to us, we linked to them, slashdotted their site, and posted tons of questions about them. They were cool enough to take the time to respond to them, and the answers were somewhat informative - in other words, not just marketing babble (not surprising, since they're inventors, not marketers).
I like to know what might be coming down the pipe, even if it never materializes. *Especially* if it never materializes, because then at least they contributed to the human idea pool, which might inspire others to build the same or related products.
Besides, its not like these guys don't have a track record of delivering.
...when you have google!
---
Duff-Man says "Oh, yeah!"
There's another book called Complexity (1992 - M. Mitchell Waldrop (Amazon link)) which is a great early history and overview of the field of complexity and how it was formed (and which emergence is just another name for). Nine years old, but still great reading. Includes the formation of the Sante Fe Institute.
There is nothing amusing about Evolution being praised as important - it is! Any linux advocate who is responsible for implementing a groupware solution for their company (such as myself) and has had negative experience in the past with MS Exchange and Outlook (such as myself) would be thrilled to finally have an alternative for the first time on the horizon.
I'm bouncing in my seat...
There are some of you who have complained that there was no central character, or climactic fight scene. Since when are these requirements for a good film? Thats just what you're used to, and frankly, I'd rather watch films that innovate then just rehashing the same structures. How else will we evolve? Bottom line: a central character and climactic fight scenes are obsolutely *not* necessary for a good film; just necessary for a film to be easily digested by those with a closed mind.