If taxes are very high, yes, cutting taxes can increase revenue. If taxes are low, and they are currently at historic lows, cutting taxes will decrease revenues. Unless we make draconian cuts in spending, we'll need to increase taxes to pay off the national debt.
I've been in a situation like that. At one job I had a computer with 8 MB of RAM running Windows 95, so it was constantly swapping. The hard disk kept having errors, so I had to do builds on the file server over 10 Mbps Ethernet instead of on my hard disk. I was developing software for radios, but had only one unit to work with, and that was only the digital board without the analog board. I still managed to write the software so that it worked the first time they hooked up two radios to communicate with each other. Yes, the RAM was a problem and when my computer got upgraded to 12 MB it was much easier to work with, but I didn't blame my computer. I just did the job I was paid to do. Suck it up and just do the work.
Most unproductive workers are unproductive because they're lazy and dumb. They blame the computer because it's easier than admitting they're lazy and dumb. If programmers could write complex programs in the 50s and 60s using punched cards and waiting overnight for the output of their runs, a smart and diligent worker could figure out how to queue up work so they could be productive even with a "slow" computer. Their "slow" computer is thousands of times faster and is available to them nearly all day! Only a poor worker blames his tools. Now if the computer just plain didn't work, that would be a different story...
Not if they reproduce, etc. The code being EOL'ed at some point is one thing, but just months after it was accepted is quite another! It's similar to an infant's death.
Most people can't afford to buy a house, either. So they take out a loan. Let's face it... most people don't consider how much owning something will cost, but only consider the expense of the original purchase and buy the cheapest thing they can. That's why stores that sell inexpensive and low quality items are so popular.
Spending is not causing the deficit. Tax cuts are causing the deficit; this started with the Bush administration. It would probably be good to cut back spending, starting with the largest items on the budget, medicare & medicaid, social security, and defense. But cutting spending alone will not eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt. I have yet to hear a plan from any conservative that will accomplish paying down the debt. They seem to want to cut eduction and research, which are a small part of the budget and essential for future economic success.
Products that use less energy often cost less in the long run because energy is expensive and continuing to get more expensive. A compact fluorescent bulb may cost several times more than an incandescent, but it can save more than $20 in energy costs. As gasoline prices continue to climb, high-efficiency cars will only get more and more attractive economically, and they'll also become cheaper as the technology gets more widespread and economies of scale come into play.
Ah, but from an outsider's frame of reference, it would take the block forever to reach the event horizon. On the other hand, the light from the block would get redder and dimmer until it becomes effectively invisible. Remember, relativity means that time and space are relative, so you must always consider the observer's frame of reference.
Perhaps you could point to an example of this occurring. That would convince me far more than hundreds of Slashdotters claiming it happens without providing any evidence.
I have had information removed from Wikipedia because the person was waging some sort of religious war between competing products. I've also had information removed because someone who thought he knew better put in misinformation. I've also had information removed because someone simply kept vandalizing the article. In all cases, I followed the guidelines and policies and got the information back in. If you give up, you have no one to blame but yourself. Some people who edit Wikipedia are dicks. Don't let them win if they're in the wrong.
Of course, if you tried to fix the bad edits, people would accuse you of owning the article and not letting anyone else contribute. I think that's better than letting the article get bad, but then you also get people coming to Slashdot and claiming that Wikipedia is broken because it's so "hostile" to newcomers.
Wikipedia edits are not based on consensus. They are based on providing a citation to a reliable source that verifies the information. If you make such an edit that follows those guidelines and it gets reverted, there are policies in place to resolve the dispute. I have used these, and the disputes do get resolved. More often than not, however, the dispute is resolved by the person who is not following the rules slinking away and complaining about how unfair Wikipedia is. For example, when an article doesn't contain citations as it should, the article is deleted according to Wikipedia's policies (because there is no way to verify the information in the article), and people come to Slashdot an complain about "deletionists".
I haven't seen where this as occurred. People have tried to point me to articles where this happens, but all I see is people trying to keep an article good by reverting bad edits. I'm sure it does happen, but I haven't seen it. What I have seen is people who edit an article for years, participate in many discussions, hone and refine the article, and then when someone comes along and makes an edit that makes the article worse or reverses a decision that was made they revert the bad edit.
You're somehow forgetting that we can directly observe the genetic differences between species, and we can find and date fossils. Those lines of evidence do indeed confirm that evolution happens, exactly in the way we would expect from the genetic mutations we can observe from one generation to the next. If we didn't have that evidence, you'd be correct that we would not be able to blindly extrapolate what would happen over millions of years from observing just a few decades of mutation, replication, and selection.
No, science never unequivocally tells us anything. Science only gives us models. Long ago, our model of atoms were that they were indivisible particles. Then we had a model in which there were positive and negative charges mixed together. Then we had a model in which electrons orbited the nucleus, which is made up of protons and neutrons. Then we had a model in which protons and neutrons were made up of quarks.
The Higgs boson is based on an untested hypothesis. There is no evidence to back up the model of quantum physics that contains the Higgs boson. If there is evidence found, then it only confirms the model in which the Higgs boson is present. It does not mean that it is a fundamental physical reality. You're making the classic mistake of confusing the model with that which is is modeling. I accept Newton's laws, but I do not believe that someone somewhere is doing differential calculus to compute the trajectories of bodies. Newton's laws are merely a model by which we can make predictions. It does not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with reality itself. Reality and truth is the realm of philosophers, not scientists. Science deals instead only with models and predictions. If a model gives accurate predictions, we use it. It does not mean that the model is real. Of course today's models will look silly in 500 years. But they're the best we have today, so we use them.
The big bang theory does not assume that all the mass and energy in the universe began at the same point. It starts with the observation that the universe is expanding. According to all our knowledge of physics, that would mean that at some point about 14 billion years ago, the universe was very small -- not at a single point, but within a very short distance. This is all based on observation, not an assumption. If we model what would happen if the universe was in a hot, dense state 14 billion years ago, we predict that we would see certain patterns in the cosmic background radiation. When we were finally able to observe the cosmic background radiation, it matched the prediction given by the big bang.
Now as far as it raises the question "How did the universe get to be in a hot, dense state" you are correct that it does not address the issue. If you think about it, every scientific model has the same "flaw". When we write Newton's laws, it tells us nothing about why gravity works the way it does. I suppose you could use God as a placeholder and say God created it. But to use the fact that Newton's laws do not tell us what gravity is or why it behaves the way it does as saying that we need faith to understand gravity, you are misguided. All we can say is that we don't understand it.
As I've explained in a post above, science does not work by directly observing phenomena. Science works by examining evidence and seeing if it is consistent with a hypothesis. The big bang hypothesis makes certain predictions about the cosmic background radiation and the distribution of matter in the universe. If our observations are consistent with what the big bang hypothesis predicts, the observations confirm the hypothesis. This simple explanation is the basis of all scientific experimentation. You can read more about the scientific method.
Over 100 years ago, Arrhenius came up with the hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would lead to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would in turn lead to higher temperatures. We've observed humans burning fossil fuels, observed the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and observed the predicted warming. It's a slam dunk!
You might as well say we can test and prove micro-tectonic motion, such as observing an earthquake that makes a plate move 20 feet, but we cannot test and prove macro-tectonic motion, such as tectonic plate spreading causing the Atlantic ocean. You're correct in that we cannot directly observe this phenomenon because it takes far longer than a human lifetime, we can see the signs in the magnetic fields left in the rocks and the fossil record of animals that lived in South America and Africa. In the same way, we cannot directly observe one species splitting into two and diverging, but we can see the signs left in the genetics of organisms today and in the fossil record. Science works by examining evidence to test which hypotheses are correct, not directly observing phenomena.
There are mechanisms in place for dealing with disruptive editors. When I see disruptive behavior, I contact an admin, and the problem is resolved. It takes some work on my part, but I suppose it's easier to throw your hands in the air and say "See, it's hopeless to do anything on Wikipedia!" Quitter!
Slashdot Mirror
If taxes are very high, yes, cutting taxes can increase revenue. If taxes are low, and they are currently at historic lows, cutting taxes will decrease revenues. Unless we make draconian cuts in spending, we'll need to increase taxes to pay off the national debt.
I've been in a situation like that. At one job I had a computer with 8 MB of RAM running Windows 95, so it was constantly swapping. The hard disk kept having errors, so I had to do builds on the file server over 10 Mbps Ethernet instead of on my hard disk. I was developing software for radios, but had only one unit to work with, and that was only the digital board without the analog board. I still managed to write the software so that it worked the first time they hooked up two radios to communicate with each other. Yes, the RAM was a problem and when my computer got upgraded to 12 MB it was much easier to work with, but I didn't blame my computer. I just did the job I was paid to do. Suck it up and just do the work.
Most unproductive workers are unproductive because they're lazy and dumb. They blame the computer because it's easier than admitting they're lazy and dumb. If programmers could write complex programs in the 50s and 60s using punched cards and waiting overnight for the output of their runs, a smart and diligent worker could figure out how to queue up work so they could be productive even with a "slow" computer. Their "slow" computer is thousands of times faster and is available to them nearly all day! Only a poor worker blames his tools. Now if the computer just plain didn't work, that would be a different story...
I wasn't the one who came up with the original comparison between code being EOL'd and someone dying. I was working within the analogy. Idiot!!!
Not if they reproduce, etc. The code being EOL'ed at some point is one thing, but just months after it was accepted is quite another! It's similar to an infant's death.
This is why it's recommended to simply leave fluorescent lights on if you are going to leave them off for only 15 minutes. In fact, the more energy efficient a bulb is, the less often it makes sense to turn it off and back on again, and thus the longer it will last, saving you even more money. I think eventually LEDs will become more popular than CFLs, but they're still very dim and expensive.
Most people can't afford to buy a house, either. So they take out a loan. Let's face it... most people don't consider how much owning something will cost, but only consider the expense of the original purchase and buy the cheapest thing they can. That's why stores that sell inexpensive and low quality items are so popular.
Spending is not causing the deficit. Tax cuts are causing the deficit; this started with the Bush administration. It would probably be good to cut back spending, starting with the largest items on the budget, medicare & medicaid, social security, and defense. But cutting spending alone will not eliminate the deficit and pay down the debt. I have yet to hear a plan from any conservative that will accomplish paying down the debt. They seem to want to cut eduction and research, which are a small part of the budget and essential for future economic success.
Products that use less energy often cost less in the long run because energy is expensive and continuing to get more expensive. A compact fluorescent bulb may cost several times more than an incandescent, but it can save more than $20 in energy costs. As gasoline prices continue to climb, high-efficiency cars will only get more and more attractive economically, and they'll also become cheaper as the technology gets more widespread and economies of scale come into play.
A wild tea partier appears!
tepples uses "logic and reason".
It's not very effective.
Ah, but from an outsider's frame of reference, it would take the block forever to reach the event horizon. On the other hand, the light from the block would get redder and dimmer until it becomes effectively invisible. Remember, relativity means that time and space are relative, so you must always consider the observer's frame of reference.
It's far worse than you think. These fundamentalists believe that evolution is to blame for the moral decline in society. They don't want anyone to learn evolution, because it leads to sin.
Perhaps you could point to an example of this occurring. That would convince me far more than hundreds of Slashdotters claiming it happens without providing any evidence.
I have had information removed from Wikipedia because the person was waging some sort of religious war between competing products. I've also had information removed because someone who thought he knew better put in misinformation. I've also had information removed because someone simply kept vandalizing the article. In all cases, I followed the guidelines and policies and got the information back in. If you give up, you have no one to blame but yourself. Some people who edit Wikipedia are dicks. Don't let them win if they're in the wrong.
Of course, if you tried to fix the bad edits, people would accuse you of owning the article and not letting anyone else contribute. I think that's better than letting the article get bad, but then you also get people coming to Slashdot and claiming that Wikipedia is broken because it's so "hostile" to newcomers.
Wikipedia edits are not based on consensus. They are based on providing a citation to a reliable source that verifies the information. If you make such an edit that follows those guidelines and it gets reverted, there are policies in place to resolve the dispute. I have used these, and the disputes do get resolved. More often than not, however, the dispute is resolved by the person who is not following the rules slinking away and complaining about how unfair Wikipedia is. For example, when an article doesn't contain citations as it should, the article is deleted according to Wikipedia's policies (because there is no way to verify the information in the article), and people come to Slashdot an complain about "deletionists".
I haven't seen where this as occurred. People have tried to point me to articles where this happens, but all I see is people trying to keep an article good by reverting bad edits. I'm sure it does happen, but I haven't seen it. What I have seen is people who edit an article for years, participate in many discussions, hone and refine the article, and then when someone comes along and makes an edit that makes the article worse or reverses a decision that was made they revert the bad edit.
An edit by anyone who doesn't follow the policies and guidelines or makes an edit that makes an article worse will be reverted.
FTFY
You're somehow forgetting that we can directly observe the genetic differences between species, and we can find and date fossils. Those lines of evidence do indeed confirm that evolution happens, exactly in the way we would expect from the genetic mutations we can observe from one generation to the next. If we didn't have that evidence, you'd be correct that we would not be able to blindly extrapolate what would happen over millions of years from observing just a few decades of mutation, replication, and selection.
No, science never unequivocally tells us anything. Science only gives us models. Long ago, our model of atoms were that they were indivisible particles. Then we had a model in which there were positive and negative charges mixed together. Then we had a model in which electrons orbited the nucleus, which is made up of protons and neutrons. Then we had a model in which protons and neutrons were made up of quarks.
The Higgs boson is based on an untested hypothesis. There is no evidence to back up the model of quantum physics that contains the Higgs boson. If there is evidence found, then it only confirms the model in which the Higgs boson is present. It does not mean that it is a fundamental physical reality. You're making the classic mistake of confusing the model with that which is is modeling. I accept Newton's laws, but I do not believe that someone somewhere is doing differential calculus to compute the trajectories of bodies. Newton's laws are merely a model by which we can make predictions. It does not necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with reality itself. Reality and truth is the realm of philosophers, not scientists. Science deals instead only with models and predictions. If a model gives accurate predictions, we use it. It does not mean that the model is real. Of course today's models will look silly in 500 years. But they're the best we have today, so we use them.
The big bang theory does not assume that all the mass and energy in the universe began at the same point. It starts with the observation that the universe is expanding. According to all our knowledge of physics, that would mean that at some point about 14 billion years ago, the universe was very small -- not at a single point, but within a very short distance. This is all based on observation, not an assumption. If we model what would happen if the universe was in a hot, dense state 14 billion years ago, we predict that we would see certain patterns in the cosmic background radiation. When we were finally able to observe the cosmic background radiation, it matched the prediction given by the big bang.
Now as far as it raises the question "How did the universe get to be in a hot, dense state" you are correct that it does not address the issue. If you think about it, every scientific model has the same "flaw". When we write Newton's laws, it tells us nothing about why gravity works the way it does. I suppose you could use God as a placeholder and say God created it. But to use the fact that Newton's laws do not tell us what gravity is or why it behaves the way it does as saying that we need faith to understand gravity, you are misguided. All we can say is that we don't understand it.
As I've explained in a post above, science does not work by directly observing phenomena. Science works by examining evidence and seeing if it is consistent with a hypothesis. The big bang hypothesis makes certain predictions about the cosmic background radiation and the distribution of matter in the universe. If our observations are consistent with what the big bang hypothesis predicts, the observations confirm the hypothesis. This simple explanation is the basis of all scientific experimentation. You can read more about the scientific method.
Over 100 years ago, Arrhenius came up with the hypothesis that burning fossil fuels would lead to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which would in turn lead to higher temperatures. We've observed humans burning fossil fuels, observed the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and observed the predicted warming. It's a slam dunk!
You might as well say we can test and prove micro-tectonic motion, such as observing an earthquake that makes a plate move 20 feet, but we cannot test and prove macro-tectonic motion, such as tectonic plate spreading causing the Atlantic ocean. You're correct in that we cannot directly observe this phenomenon because it takes far longer than a human lifetime, we can see the signs in the magnetic fields left in the rocks and the fossil record of animals that lived in South America and Africa. In the same way, we cannot directly observe one species splitting into two and diverging, but we can see the signs left in the genetics of organisms today and in the fossil record. Science works by examining evidence to test which hypotheses are correct, not directly observing phenomena.
There are mechanisms in place for dealing with disruptive editors. When I see disruptive behavior, I contact an admin, and the problem is resolved. It takes some work on my part, but I suppose it's easier to throw your hands in the air and say "See, it's hopeless to do anything on Wikipedia!" Quitter!