He's taking a machine capable of making just about anything, and using it to make the one thing that just might make people want to regulate it. He's deliberately drumming up fear over something that people should be celebrating it's existence. I wish he would just use a lathe to make his gun parts rather than 3d printers or cnc milling machines. I'd make a thousand, a hundred thousand useful things with this cnc machine before I ever considered making a gun. It's like newspaper was just invented and he's running up to the palace and pointing out to the king that how this new thing can be used to draw pictures of the queen naked..
I think budget cutting will happen just because most people want a functioning society. And it'll be across the board with funding backed by few constituents being particularly hard hit.
Any sane person running a business would realize that both decreasing expenditure and increasing income are essential for financial health, and using only one method would only lead to ruin.
Wealth doesn't vanish, if you don't tax it. It's spent, reinvested, and eventually taxed again. A more serious issue are the people who want to cut spending, but not their Social Security, Medicare, and defense - that's more than half the budget right there folks.
Nevertheless, there are merits to the view that the tax rate is already high enough, but the problem is that the multinational corporations and the wealthy, with the help of politicians, devised various nefarious schemes to decrease the tax they paid, thereby shifting the burden of taxation to the working class.
I'll agree that there is merit to that view, but I think that problem exists in the first place because of high spending. It's easy to obscure tax avoidance in the sea of noise that the federal government creates. And spending also creates bribes for the electorate.
The "nutters" on fiscal policy were the ones that wanted to eliminate funding to hundreds or thousands of programs that would have left millions in such bad shape that an armed revolt would be a reasonable response for many.
You know we could keep a few programs around, say the two or three programs that really help, and get rid of the hundreds or thousands of programs that don't help.
he was as nutty on fiscal policy as modern teabaggers
What makes fiscal responsibility "nutty"? I find the real nuts to be the crowd who thinks we can borrow as much as we like, while completely ignoring inflation.
Nonsense. LBJ, despite getting mired in the Vietnam War, had many effective strengths as a politician. I believe here, Jeb Bush is referring to LBJ's ability to get bipartisan support for his legislation. While I don't have a problem with politicians who can "work across the aisle", I find this suspiciously like George W. Bush, who said much the same thing and then abandoned bipartisanship for a significant part of his tenure.
In comparison, I find Hillary Clinton's casual and persistent corruption and selective rule breaking to be a worse thing than Jeb Bush's choice of role models. Still I wouldn't be broken up, if neither ever was ever elected president.
I think the claim is that some firearm deaths are misreported. For example, I could see a religious incentive to claim that some suicides were actually accidents. But that would err in the wrong direction.
So, then, you acknowledge there is a domain of propositions that are contrary, that cannot be resolved empirically, that is, by science? That there is a domain outside of science's purview?
"Contrary"? I acknowledge that there are in any sufficiently complex axiom system logical statements whose truth can't be determined in that system of logic. Similarly, there are logical statements whose truth value can't be determined just because of the finiteness of our universe. Finally, there's always the possibility of a superuniverse, a space of reality which we can't observe from inside our universe, including the parts we can't observe today, but which one can make empirical observations about things that are supernatural to us here. Or everything we perceive could be faked down to the subatomic level and we actually exist in a universe with far different and alien laws. There are plenty of ways that empiricism can fail us.
Past that, so what? We don't have a means for distinguishing the truth of such statements by any means, empirical or otherwise (unless as in case 2, there is a certificate proof can fit within the confines of the observable universe). For example, an assertion that the entire universe and its processes are divine is identical in consequence to its negation. It has no relevance to us.
Further, many of these ideas have no real value to them. What is "God" and why should we bother with that concept? What is "divine" and why should we care whether something is or isn't divine?
Where? Have I asserted anywhere that "X is true because what I've personally perceived"? I don't believe so. Thus far I've presented only analytic objection to the "anthropic principle" and we have a semantic argument around whether we are for the purposes of discussion considering the concept "reality" to include, or disinclude, a God. Synonymousness of "reality" with "all of existence which includes a God" is just fine with me. Okay with you? That way we could skip the distinction between Pantheism and Panentheism entirely.
An "analytic objection" which includes a claim that the anthropic principle is a tautology, which as far as I can tell, is based on your intangible beliefs.
Have I asserted anywhere that "X is true because what I've personally perceived"?
Of course, you have. You wrote earlier:
Or, one has experienced something in reality that is clearly divine. Empirically. Then contemplating the lines of demarcation become an item of marked interest.
"Experienced" is personal perception.
Ah... so your descendants are you. Strange how many naturalists speak of "us" surviving and think they aren't speaking mystically. Every single one of us will be dead, within 200 years. The people who will be physically living in 200 years, note, will -not- be "us". You could even check the individual fingerprints, just to be sure. So, what actually survives? Information? Since no particular physical organisms actually do, it would appear so. Can you point to where that thing that survives is, exactly, so I can validate it in a material scientific sense?
You said earlier "evolution will eliminate you and your inquiry, and make it completely irrelevant." Death not just of me, but of beings like me is how evolution would do that. Your above comment is what evolution is about - survival of information and patterns beyond the life of the organism itself.
Despite what some might think, Spacex's satellite internet will be more expensive DSL, cable, or LTE in cities or suburbs.
Unless it happens not to be. But I get that internet in the boonies and third world is a market.
As for the people in the boonies, big telecom doesn't want to serve them, and will probably be happy that someone else will take care of them.
Depends how long term they're thinking. SpaceX could turn that into competition for their core markets. A little obstruction now could pay dividends later. Aerospace is particularly notorious for playing this sort of game.
That certainly would be a strong indication the game has changed, eh? SpaceX probably will launch several satellites per rocket. So it's not quite as ambitious as it first sounds, though still should be a big step over the current state of the art.
They see a $20 bill on the ground held down by a rock. The first sees a small amount of money on the ground. The second sees a large amount of money on the ground. Which perception is empirically validated?
Both. I can translate the perceptions of the first into the perceptions of the second and vice versa. In each case, I can figure out the objective fact that there is $20 lying on the ground.
I'm really not sure what is more poignant at this point--your recognition that I am utterly uncompelled to "justify" my perceptions to you,
Apparently, your arguments depend on this perception.
or the irony that simply by waiting silently, evolution will eliminate you and your inquiry, and make it completely irrelevant.
You're going to have to wait a while especially since logic and rationality may not be an evolutionary disadvantage.
The point is, yes you can. The "anthropic principle" is an erroneous word-game. As discussed in a different branch of my responses, it is merely a tautology reducible to "if things were different they would be different" and presents no evidence at all for the thing being argued for on the basis of it.
We have a non-trivial fact, namely, that we exist. That makes it a truism not a tautology. A logical consequence is that the conditions for our existence hold. For example, one can't rule out evolution on the basis of things being complex, because such things have a nonzero probability and hence, we could just be lucky.
Or, one has experienced something in reality that is clearly divine. Empirically. Then contemplating the lines of demarcation become an item of marked interest.
Only if you really did that. I don't see any evidence that confirms your claim - after you might be mistaken or lying, both which are indistinguishable to me empirically from a legitimate claim. In particular, I don't see evidence here that you can distinguish between divine and not divine (especially given your belief that everything is divine, but with varying degrees of rarity).
And no, something does not have to be empirically demonstrated -for you- for it to be empirical.
If I have no means to analyze or confirm your supposedly empirical claims, then it's not empirical for me. Objectivity is the first great step towards scientific observation.
I don't see that viewpoint as having merit. It's an arms race and I'm not interested in my society being able to better squander its resources than the other shiny societies of the world.
For better or worse, central planning is the better way to establish those standards.
I pick option 2, "worse".
The word you're looking for is "government". Governments that are more capitalist do better. With civilizations, it's actually the opposite. Civilizations that had strong kings or empires are the ones that lasted, as their central power established standards and created unified identities.
The US has been around for 240 years. That's a good run by monarchy and empire standards. Iceland and Switzerland have been around even longer.
China, as it relates to the story, had a civilization that lasted thousands of years based on the idea that the well being of the entire nation rests in the central power of the Emperor.
And where is it now? Something better came along.
The Roman Empire set the standards across much of Europe until their fall, which then civilization went all different ways until a bunch of European kings rose to create new civilizations of their own, the more successful ones ended up being the Imperial European powers. America in turn created its own civilization, creating a federal government for itself (this event also shrunk the British civilization... more freedom for one means less civilization for the other). As Americans and Europeans felt more like one "Western" civilization, they created central authority organizations like the EU and UN.
Exchanging civilization for freedom was a great trade. Meanwhile the EU (the only actual central authority) are creating a bunch of problems for the rest of us (though mostly for its member countries). I just don't see the point you're trying to make here.
Slashdot Mirror
He's taking a machine capable of making just about anything, and using it to make the one thing that just might make people want to regulate it. He's deliberately drumming up fear over something that people should be celebrating it's existence. I wish he would just use a lathe to make his gun parts rather than 3d printers or cnc milling machines. I'd make a thousand, a hundred thousand useful things with this cnc machine before I ever considered making a gun. It's like newspaper was just invented and he's running up to the palace and pointing out to the king that how this new thing can be used to draw pictures of the queen naked..
Too bad. I guess he just made you a codefendant.
it's acknowledgement of white privilege.
In other words, yes, you are racist.
Competence and corruption aren't mutually exclusive.
I think budget cutting will happen just because most people want a functioning society. And it'll be across the board with funding backed by few constituents being particularly hard hit.
Spray a liquid stream of molten aluminum onto a shaped frame. Lot easier than a spray on solar panel IMHO.
How about cutting a mere 99% of them then? I'm sure we could keep the handful or less than actually quells rebellions.
Any sane person running a business would realize that both decreasing expenditure and increasing income are essential for financial health, and using only one method would only lead to ruin.
Wealth doesn't vanish, if you don't tax it. It's spent, reinvested, and eventually taxed again. A more serious issue are the people who want to cut spending, but not their Social Security, Medicare, and defense - that's more than half the budget right there folks.
Nevertheless, there are merits to the view that the tax rate is already high enough, but the problem is that the multinational corporations and the wealthy, with the help of politicians, devised various nefarious schemes to decrease the tax they paid, thereby shifting the burden of taxation to the working class.
I'll agree that there is merit to that view, but I think that problem exists in the first place because of high spending. It's easy to obscure tax avoidance in the sea of noise that the federal government creates. And spending also creates bribes for the electorate.
Supposedly, this wasn't illegal when she did it though apparently it is now. And who will prosecute her even if there was wrongdoing?
The "nutters" on fiscal policy were the ones that wanted to eliminate funding to hundreds or thousands of programs that would have left millions in such bad shape that an armed revolt would be a reasonable response for many.
You know we could keep a few programs around, say the two or three programs that really help, and get rid of the hundreds or thousands of programs that don't help.
LBJ would have been as effective as a president as Carter was, except for the "do it for the Dead Kennedy" subtext to everything he did.
No, he demonstrated considerable politic competence and leadership well before a dead Kennedy issued him a blank check.
he was as nutty on fiscal policy as modern teabaggers
What makes fiscal responsibility "nutty"? I find the real nuts to be the crowd who thinks we can borrow as much as we like, while completely ignoring inflation.
All I am hearing here is just more blame passing for ones' own failures.
And there will be a lot more failure where that came from.
Nonsense. LBJ, despite getting mired in the Vietnam War, had many effective strengths as a politician. I believe here, Jeb Bush is referring to LBJ's ability to get bipartisan support for his legislation. While I don't have a problem with politicians who can "work across the aisle", I find this suspiciously like George W. Bush, who said much the same thing and then abandoned bipartisanship for a significant part of his tenure.
In comparison, I find Hillary Clinton's casual and persistent corruption and selective rule breaking to be a worse thing than Jeb Bush's choice of role models. Still I wouldn't be broken up, if neither ever was ever elected president.
I think the claim is that some firearm deaths are misreported. For example, I could see a religious incentive to claim that some suicides were actually accidents. But that would err in the wrong direction.
So, then, you acknowledge there is a domain of propositions that are contrary, that cannot be resolved empirically, that is, by science? That there is a domain outside of science's purview?
"Contrary"? I acknowledge that there are in any sufficiently complex axiom system logical statements whose truth can't be determined in that system of logic. Similarly, there are logical statements whose truth value can't be determined just because of the finiteness of our universe. Finally, there's always the possibility of a superuniverse, a space of reality which we can't observe from inside our universe, including the parts we can't observe today, but which one can make empirical observations about things that are supernatural to us here. Or everything we perceive could be faked down to the subatomic level and we actually exist in a universe with far different and alien laws. There are plenty of ways that empiricism can fail us.
Past that, so what? We don't have a means for distinguishing the truth of such statements by any means, empirical or otherwise (unless as in case 2, there is a certificate proof can fit within the confines of the observable universe). For example, an assertion that the entire universe and its processes are divine is identical in consequence to its negation. It has no relevance to us.
Further, many of these ideas have no real value to them. What is "God" and why should we bother with that concept? What is "divine" and why should we care whether something is or isn't divine?
Where? Have I asserted anywhere that "X is true because what I've personally perceived"? I don't believe so. Thus far I've presented only analytic objection to the "anthropic principle" and we have a semantic argument around whether we are for the purposes of discussion considering the concept "reality" to include, or disinclude, a God. Synonymousness of "reality" with "all of existence which includes a God" is just fine with me. Okay with you? That way we could skip the distinction between Pantheism and Panentheism entirely.
An "analytic objection" which includes a claim that the anthropic principle is a tautology, which as far as I can tell, is based on your intangible beliefs.
Have I asserted anywhere that "X is true because what I've personally perceived"?
Of course, you have. You wrote earlier:
Or, one has experienced something in reality that is clearly divine. Empirically. Then contemplating the lines of demarcation become an item of marked interest.
"Experienced" is personal perception.
Ah... so your descendants are you. Strange how many naturalists speak of "us" surviving and think they aren't speaking mystically. Every single one of us will be dead, within 200 years. The people who will be physically living in 200 years, note, will -not- be "us". You could even check the individual fingerprints, just to be sure. So, what actually survives? Information? Since no particular physical organisms actually do, it would appear so. Can you point to where that thing that survives is, exactly, so I can validate it in a material scientific sense?
You said earlier "evolution will eliminate you and your inquiry, and make it completely irrelevant." Death not just of me, but of beings like me is how evolution would do that. Your above comment is what evolution is about - survival of information and patterns beyond the life of the organism itself.
and the only reason why he's irked is that 'competition' means he'll have to justify his numbers better.
I don't see that at all.
Maybe they're trying to put their fake competitors on double fake probation?
Despite what some might think, Spacex's satellite internet will be more expensive DSL, cable, or LTE in cities or suburbs.
Unless it happens not to be. But I get that internet in the boonies and third world is a market.
As for the people in the boonies, big telecom doesn't want to serve them, and will probably be happy that someone else will take care of them.
Depends how long term they're thinking. SpaceX could turn that into competition for their core markets. A little obstruction now could pay dividends later. Aerospace is particularly notorious for playing this sort of game.
I'm thinking companies like AT&T, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Comcast, etc.
There's a lot of more powerful and hostile players out there than Bezos. I'd start with the big telecoms and the big aerospace companies first.
That certainly would be a strong indication the game has changed, eh? SpaceX probably will launch several satellites per rocket. So it's not quite as ambitious as it first sounds, though still should be a big step over the current state of the art.
They see a $20 bill on the ground held down by a rock. The first sees a small amount of money on the ground. The second sees a large amount of money on the ground. Which perception is empirically validated?
Both. I can translate the perceptions of the first into the perceptions of the second and vice versa. In each case, I can figure out the objective fact that there is $20 lying on the ground.
I'm really not sure what is more poignant at this point--your recognition that I am utterly uncompelled to "justify" my perceptions to you,
Apparently, your arguments depend on this perception.
or the irony that simply by waiting silently, evolution will eliminate you and your inquiry, and make it completely irrelevant.
You're going to have to wait a while especially since logic and rationality may not be an evolutionary disadvantage.
And I'm not.
The point is, yes you can. The "anthropic principle" is an erroneous word-game. As discussed in a different branch of my responses, it is merely a tautology reducible to "if things were different they would be different" and presents no evidence at all for the thing being argued for on the basis of it.
We have a non-trivial fact, namely, that we exist. That makes it a truism not a tautology. A logical consequence is that the conditions for our existence hold. For example, one can't rule out evolution on the basis of things being complex, because such things have a nonzero probability and hence, we could just be lucky.
Or, one has experienced something in reality that is clearly divine. Empirically. Then contemplating the lines of demarcation become an item of marked interest.
Only if you really did that. I don't see any evidence that confirms your claim - after you might be mistaken or lying, both which are indistinguishable to me empirically from a legitimate claim. In particular, I don't see evidence here that you can distinguish between divine and not divine (especially given your belief that everything is divine, but with varying degrees of rarity).
And no, something does not have to be empirically demonstrated -for you- for it to be empirical.
If I have no means to analyze or confirm your supposedly empirical claims, then it's not empirical for me. Objectivity is the first great step towards scientific observation.
It's about your civilization's standards.
I don't see that viewpoint as having merit. It's an arms race and I'm not interested in my society being able to better squander its resources than the other shiny societies of the world.
For better or worse, central planning is the better way to establish those standards.
I pick option 2, "worse".
The word you're looking for is "government". Governments that are more capitalist do better. With civilizations, it's actually the opposite. Civilizations that had strong kings or empires are the ones that lasted, as their central power established standards and created unified identities.
The US has been around for 240 years. That's a good run by monarchy and empire standards. Iceland and Switzerland have been around even longer.
China, as it relates to the story, had a civilization that lasted thousands of years based on the idea that the well being of the entire nation rests in the central power of the Emperor.
And where is it now? Something better came along.
The Roman Empire set the standards across much of Europe until their fall, which then civilization went all different ways until a bunch of European kings rose to create new civilizations of their own, the more successful ones ended up being the Imperial European powers. America in turn created its own civilization, creating a federal government for itself (this event also shrunk the British civilization... more freedom for one means less civilization for the other). As Americans and Europeans felt more like one "Western" civilization, they created central authority organizations like the EU and UN.
Exchanging civilization for freedom was a great trade. Meanwhile the EU (the only actual central authority) are creating a bunch of problems for the rest of us (though mostly for its member countries). I just don't see the point you're trying to make here.