The same consideration is why Angela Merkel is importing lots of young people into Germany. Given a choice between national identity/coherent society and the welfare ponzi scheme Merkel has chosen the latter.
Except it won't work, because the new young people are not going to take care of the old Germans. Maybe they'll take care of their jewelry and wallets.
Data caps do nothing to stop congestion as everybody is free to download at full speed up until their cap during which time congestion reigns.
That's not true. I have 1GB mobile cap, and I'm careful to ration it throughout the month. I'm not going to blow the whole cap on the first day, and then get nothing for the rest of it. And they're not getting any more money. I chose the cheapest deal I could find, that's why the cap is so low.
This could also be completely mitigated by restricting speeds to a manageable level. That's your overselling of resources.
At rather have a cap + high speeds than effectively the same cap at a lower speed.
But that's not what ISPs want to sell. They want to sell you insane speeds with anemic data amounts, because it's cheaper to put high speed connections to your home than it is to ensure that their backbones can actually handle it if everyone actually used what they pay for.
If the premium package is expensive enough, they can use the money to upgrade the backbones, and still have more profit at the end of the day.
I know. It's a story to help explain the problem. Money is basically an standardized IOU. It doesn't do you any good to put an IOU in a box, and get it out 50 years later, when the counterparty isn't able to work any more.
It doesn't cover technological advances.
Exactly, but that wasn't the point. The point was that "saving money" is no solution. That doesn't mean that there can't be any other solution, such as higher productivity, robots, or more efficient caretaking.
Robots. We need robots to do the work. The Japanese figured this out a few years ago
Robots could help, but we're still not anywhere near the point that robots can take over a significant part of the work force. Also, society still needs resources, including fertile land and clean water, as well as energy.
Imagine an isolated island with a population of young but sterile people. Everything is going great, and they are saving money (made from seashells) in a big box to pay for their retirement. Do you see the problem ? Money does you no good if there are not enough workers. You'll simply get inflation.
Much has already been made of the growing productivity of workers
Exactly. So it's not a matter of solving the problem by "saving more". You solve the problem by providing more worker productivity.
You can't really solve the problem of an ageing population by saving more. You also need young people to do the work, and lots of saved money in combination with fewer workers means the prices will go up. Working more would help, but only if the person is physically and mentally capable to do the work.
As long as you only live off the interest, you'll never deplete the principal.
Problem is that interest (minus inflation) comes from economic growth, and there won't be continued growth if growing parts of the population are retired.
Here's what I think: fluctuations in the star's surface, or the atoms in the rock aren't conscious because they aren't self referential. In order to be self referential through an encoding, you must have a decoder as well. Our bodies convert the brain's encoding into muscle control, and the subsequent motion of our body is visualized and encoded through our optic system back into the proper encoded states in the brain, forming a complete self-referential loop. There's nothing in the star or rock doing the same thing.
No, the point is that we agree a simple drug recreates a very similar experience as does near-death in some people, and he can demonstrate that. This means that the experience is no longer evidence for anything that happens "after death". If you want to claim that drug-induced hallucinations are an evidence of God or a quantum sea, then go right ahead, but realize that it's only based on speculation, not evidence.
I prefer to have the study read by people more knowledgable than me, such as Dr Karl Jansen, who said: "Ketamine administered by intravenous injection is capable of reproducing all of the features of the NDE which have been commonly described.". Why won't you read his studies and get your feet back on the ground? You still have time.
Yes. I'm sure self-delusion would work if someone was suitably motivated. Many similar cults have proven that. The trick is convincing people who are not already sharing your fantasy world.
Slashdot Mirror
The same consideration is why Angela Merkel is importing lots of young people into Germany. Given a choice between national identity/coherent society and the welfare ponzi scheme Merkel has chosen the latter.
Except it won't work, because the new young people are not going to take care of the old Germans. Maybe they'll take care of their jewelry and wallets.
Data caps do nothing to stop congestion as everybody is free to download at full speed up until their cap during which time congestion reigns.
That's not true. I have 1GB mobile cap, and I'm careful to ration it throughout the month. I'm not going to blow the whole cap on the first day, and then get nothing for the rest of it. And they're not getting any more money. I chose the cheapest deal I could find, that's why the cap is so low.
This could also be completely mitigated by restricting speeds to a manageable level. That's your overselling of resources.
At rather have a cap + high speeds than effectively the same cap at a lower speed.
But that's not what ISPs want to sell. They want to sell you insane speeds with anemic data amounts, because it's cheaper to put high speed connections to your home than it is to ensure that their backbones can actually handle it if everyone actually used what they pay for.
If the premium package is expensive enough, they can use the money to upgrade the backbones, and still have more profit at the end of the day.
What if we just send the elderly to the Moon ?
Would you, as a voter, accept that scenario meekly?
Voting only works if there's a credible candidate that does what you want.
That's not the world we live in.
I know. It's a story to help explain the problem. Money is basically an standardized IOU. It doesn't do you any good to put an IOU in a box, and get it out 50 years later, when the counterparty isn't able to work any more.
It doesn't cover technological advances.
Exactly, but that wasn't the point. The point was that "saving money" is no solution. That doesn't mean that there can't be any other solution, such as higher productivity, robots, or more efficient caretaking.
Robots. We need robots to do the work. The Japanese figured this out a few years ago
Robots could help, but we're still not anywhere near the point that robots can take over a significant part of the work force. Also, society still needs resources, including fertile land and clean water, as well as energy.
In the U.S. it always seems to be an excuse for price-gouging, though
I live in communist Europe, and I get 100/33 with no data caps.
And you have a reason you say this?
Imagine an isolated island with a population of young but sterile people. Everything is going great, and they are saving money (made from seashells) in a big box to pay for their retirement. Do you see the problem ? Money does you no good if there are not enough workers. You'll simply get inflation.
Much has already been made of the growing productivity of workers
Exactly. So it's not a matter of solving the problem by "saving more". You solve the problem by providing more worker productivity.
Why do you think everyone would want that?
Obviously not everyone would want that. It's a bit crowded. Maybe 1000 acres ?
You can't really solve the problem of an ageing population by saving more. You also need young people to do the work, and lots of saved money in combination with fewer workers means the prices will go up. Working more would help, but only if the person is physically and mentally capable to do the work.
It's not just the cost of the medical procedure, but also the extended cost of living.
If there's no scarcity it doesn't matter who build theirs first.
As long as you only live off the interest, you'll never deplete the principal.
Problem is that interest (minus inflation) comes from economic growth, and there won't be continued growth if growing parts of the population are retired.
We don't use stone knives anymore, why do we still use antiquated concepts like money and scarcity?
Very good question. Why can't we all have 10 acre beachfront properties in a nice climate ?
the insurance company will probably pick up the tab anyway.
Which they'll pass on to their other clients.
If old people are going to stay around, they should consider going back to work too, otherwise it won't be affordable.
Here's what I think: fluctuations in the star's surface, or the atoms in the rock aren't conscious because they aren't self referential. In order to be self referential through an encoding, you must have a decoder as well. Our bodies convert the brain's encoding into muscle control, and the subsequent motion of our body is visualized and encoded through our optic system back into the proper encoded states in the brain, forming a complete self-referential loop. There's nothing in the star or rock doing the same thing.
Of course, global warming isn't science. It's fiction. People have caught on, so global warming is no longer about definite predictions.
Here's a graph for you: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gist... Look at the red line. It's global, and it's warming.
But the real issue is that those costs don't include storage, which wind/solar will require, but nuclear will not...
How do you suppose cars will work on nuclear energy without storage ?
So, he rejects your position.
No, the point is that we agree a simple drug recreates a very similar experience as does near-death in some people, and he can demonstrate that. This means that the experience is no longer evidence for anything that happens "after death". If you want to claim that drug-induced hallucinations are an evidence of God or a quantum sea, then go right ahead, but realize that it's only based on speculation, not evidence.
I prefer to have the study read by people more knowledgable than me, such as Dr Karl Jansen, who said: "Ketamine administered by intravenous injection is capable of reproducing all of the features of the NDE which have been commonly described.". Why won't you read his studies and get your feet back on the ground? You still have time.
Yes. I'm sure self-delusion would work if someone was suitably motivated. Many similar cults have proven that. The trick is convincing people who are not already sharing your fantasy world.
Find me an NDE study featuring extensive recountings of seeing bunnies post-death
I'm afraid those aren't really convincing. You'd just argue that the people who saw bunnies were deluded or lying.
And the software? It must be quite a job to kill bugs.
The software doesn't necessarily have to be complicated. A few simple rules combined with a huge state space could end up hosting a universe.