Versioning only ensures that anyone who subsequently performs the calculations will reach the same result - it does not verify the data is complete or correct.
Repeatability was exactly the concern addressed. Having said that, one key difference appears to be that the data is just dumped rather than interpreted. That particular version isn't going to become more or less correct and complete just because my sock puppet army is at work.
And what really can or should a content management system do here to verify correctness and completeness? I think the original insistence on repeatability is precisely because completeness and correctness is a hard problem beyond the scope of a content management system like Wikidata.
I consider this much like Arxiv.org, the pre-print server where papers are dumped without evaluation of how scientifically valid they are. I believe the filter is that you have to either be active (submitting papers to the Arxiv on a regular basis) or referred to by someone who already has access. That simple process doesn't keep all of the crap off, but it does greatly improve the signal to noise.
If we're to survive as a civilization on this planet we're absolutely going to need to improve our understanding of ecosystem engineering dramatically just to have some hope of correcting the damage we've already done.
I see no evidence that we don't already have most of what we need for adequate ecosystem engineering on Earth. The big knowledge gap seems to be climate modeling.
Space-side ecosystems are a whole different matter.
Ok, TL;DR version. Greece is a counterexample. Understand the counterexample rather than complaining that I'm cherrypicking (which is what a counterexample is by definition).
That doesn't answer why on earth anyone would want to live there.
A question which I consider irrelevant. People live all over the place on Earth, often without a reason you'd understand. It's reasonable to expect, even if we can't understand "why", for them to live all over the place in space as well once those capabilities become established.
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of natural resources in the Oort Cloud anyway (and what there is is so widely dispersed it wouldn't exactly be easy to fly around and capture it).
But it wouldn't be hard either for someone living in the Oort cloud in the first place. Moving mass in space is rather easy though time consuming.
Wrong Kevin, The NSA has no ability to walk into your home and arrest you. They do not have the authority to simply turn over data to the FBI, and have you arrested.
What they CAN do, is pass CURRENT information up the ladder. That is it. They have no other real capabilities.
What makes it wrong? Legal obstructions like this only matter when the law is enforced. The NSA may not have the "authority", but it definitely has the power to do just that.
Dinosaurs always have trouble when the climate changes. But even with that trouble, the US was doing great until 2000-2001. I think the combination of the dotcom burst and 9/11 destroyed a lot of the US's competitiveness. Since, the US hasn't done anything to improve its situation.
Wealthy people just buy more cheap shit, creating more pollution.
Not in their backyards. A global increase in wealth eliminates the backyards in which one can pollute.
The only comparative advantage corporations exploit is their ability to drive down wages and not pay for their pollution.
The guy just cited a half-dozen ways that corporate rights exceed those of individuals. Are you stupid?
Let's go over this:
an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison)
Why is that considered a right? There's nothing there to be held accountable "as a citizen". And in the real world of the US, when property is held accountable for a crime as a legal fiction, it's to seize assets that would otherwise be impossible to touch due to the higher standard of proof for showing a person committed a crime. In other words, the reality is both an end-run around the US Constitution and a solid demonstration that property such as corporations doesn't have the rights of people. So no right and advantage goes to people.
Moving on to the next one:
has the revenue generating power of all its employees
Which is the same for all businesses which employ people. So no peculiar advantage of a corporation here. Plus, there's no right to an employee's revenue generating power in the first place. So no right and no advantage.
access to financial markets unavailable to the majority (or all) citizens
Be rich and you'll have exactly the same access. Plus, there's no actual right to access to financial markets. So no right and no advantage - again.
able to live forever
Now we get to the joke rights. This isn't a right any more than you have the right to live forever too. And it's a lot less illegal to kill off a corporation than it is a person. So no right and advantage goes to the person - again.
only accountable (if at all) to its share holders having the same rights as an individual and ability to influence our electoral process with vast sums of money
And the last of the rights as well as being the second joke right. Breaking is law is a criminal act whether or not you are an officer in a corporation. Nothing shields you from that. And vast sums of money influence elections whether or not we have strongly worded constitutional amendments condemning the practice. Bribes from individuals spend just as well as bribes from corporations, so once again, a "right" happens to not actually be a right and happens to give no advantage to corporations.
So we have five alleged "rights", none which actually are rights, none which actually give corporations any advantage, and two of which actually have corporations at a disadvantage.
This entire discourse reminds me why I consider the ranting about corporate personhood to be an embarrassment to human thought. There's no understanding of what a right is. There's no understanding of the actual legal environment of US corporations or the rest of the world. And mysteriously enough, given these minor intellectual hurdles, there's no constructive criticisms of corporate law.
cts, sorry, but I did and I want that one minute of my life back. Whatever you were trying to say there was completely irrelevant to the discussion.
The whole point of counterexamples is not to mock the great intellect and wisdom which you wield, but to challenge it. Here is a case, a rather glaring case, where you are wrong. Confront it and triumph over it.
The point of Greece and the countries like it, is that they too are a mix of capitalism and socialism, but a mix which doesn't work well.
the corruption. the weak banking sector. the low tax collection rate. the disconnect with popular opinion
What mechanism keeps the Scandinavian countries from becoming similarly afflicted? Just because they're doing well now doesn't mean that they'll be doing well a couple of decades from now.
an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison), has the revenue generating power of all its employees, access to financial markets unavailable to the majority (or all) citizens, able to live forever, and only accountable (if at all) to its share holders having the same rights as an individual and ability to influence our electoral process with vast sums of money
I don't see the previous poster getting worked up over the fact that the US government even though it's far more privileged than a corporation is.
But if we give the same rights to corporations and ignore the additional rights they have then their power is greatly outweighs that of the humans alone.
Corporations don't operate in a vacuum. They're run by and for people. The rights of the corporation are merely the rights of those people.
what about greece? who the fuck cares about greece? how does bringing up greece prove or discredit anything?
It is an obvious counterexample to the assertion that a mix of capitalism and socialism is automatically better. That why it matters and why you should care.
It is to my liking. We still have the problem of the assertion that more population growth at current and future levels of technological advancement will lead to lower standards of living.
There are hard physical limits to what we can do. Even if we could convert all of the mass and energy into humans, we'd end up with a finite number of humans with no means, no matter how smart these humans happened to be or how advanced they were technologically, of creating more humans. If we're constrained to something like Earth, those limits are relatively hard due to environmental harm and limits of some of our current resources.
Another problem which probably is the most relevant here, is that population growth is mostly constrained to the poorest parts of the planet and least able to improve their circumstances. This dynamic runs counter to the assertion that more people mean more innovation. The people creation occurs in some of the least innovative areas of the world, though areas which fortunately do have a ready road map for improvement.
yes. i said that a society that balances between socialism and capitalism is best, and that purely capitalist or socialist countries are worst. do you agree?
No. Greece also balances socialism and capitalism, but in a crappy way. My view is that a competently run society of any sort is going to trump an incompetently run society. The huge difference is that there are mechanisms in place in capitalist societies to encourage and reward competence via competitive markets and such that don't exist in more socialism-oriented societies.
What's going to keep the Scandinavian countries competent rather than ending up like Greece? What will keep the US incompetent, if we allow competition and failure, and reduce the power of the bureaucrats?
A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.
How about let's not start with something stupid like banning speech you don't like and destroying the most successful business and non profit organization system humanity has come up with to date.
Free markets have utterly failed when it comes to infrastructure. Why should we trust it with something as important as communications?
Because you don't have anything better to replace it with? Free markets have "failed" here because they haven't been tried.
It is my belief that the government has the right to impose taxes to compensate for negative externalities.
Does the government also have the "right" to subsidize positive externalities? Why should we expect the net externalities of travel and transportation to be negative?
Plus I think the negative externalities of fossil fuel based transportation are ridiculously overstated.
The simple fact is Globalism is bad for the globe.
It's amazing what bullshit is being spun as fact these days. Globalism, which really is global trade, has improved the lot of humanity collectively (though at the expense of some dinosaurs in the developed world). Rich people pollute less than poor people. Rich people have less kids than poor people. True story.
For example, take a gander at the first chart in this link. It shows a 60+% increase in global median wages over the period of 1988-2008, adjusted for inflation, and a substantial increase in wages for people between the 10% and 75% income brackets (at least 30% increase). That is the power of global trade.
And to repeat what I noted before, those wealthier people will care more about the environment, pollute less, and have less children (greatly reducing the dominant over-population problem) than if there wasn't global trade.
Fundamentally transportation is overhead. If your goal is to maximize the sustainable population (and I am not sure that actually is noble pursuit) than the solution will always be to find ways people can get things they need without having to move, and created out of local resources.
No. Learn about comparative advantage some day. There are advantages to having other people do some of the things you could do less effectively yourself (even if, in a context vacuum you could technically do the task better). These often translate into environmental benefits because you spend less resources and generate less pollution doing stuff.
How does "fusion power" help it go 50 times faster?
Higher ISP and decent thrust/weight.
Going fast is a mass problem -- you have to send a lot of mass out behind you to go really fast in space.
And if that mass gets sent out "really faster" then you need less of it and you can have a better mass fraction. The point of something like "fusion power" is to provide the energy for a higher ISP engine.
Maybe you meant "fusion + a whole bunch of mass we can accelerate really fast and fire out our rocket butt?"
If the law was sane to begin with, and cases were weighted on their own merits, lawyers wouldn't need precedent to do the thinking for them.
Oh look, more "preternatural" evidence. Even when the law is "sane", you can have variation just due to how the court interprets the law. Please remember that laws which can only be interpreted in one unique way are "imaginary" not "sane".
Slashdot Mirror
Versioning only ensures that anyone who subsequently performs the calculations will reach the same result - it does not verify the data is complete or correct.
Repeatability was exactly the concern addressed. Having said that, one key difference appears to be that the data is just dumped rather than interpreted. That particular version isn't going to become more or less correct and complete just because my sock puppet army is at work.
And what really can or should a content management system do here to verify correctness and completeness? I think the original insistence on repeatability is precisely because completeness and correctness is a hard problem beyond the scope of a content management system like Wikidata.
I consider this much like Arxiv.org, the pre-print server where papers are dumped without evaluation of how scientifically valid they are. I believe the filter is that you have to either be active (submitting papers to the Arxiv on a regular basis) or referred to by someone who already has access. That simple process doesn't keep all of the crap off, but it does greatly improve the signal to noise.
If we're to survive as a civilization on this planet we're absolutely going to need to improve our understanding of ecosystem engineering dramatically just to have some hope of correcting the damage we've already done.
I see no evidence that we don't already have most of what we need for adequate ecosystem engineering on Earth. The big knowledge gap seems to be climate modeling.
Space-side ecosystems are a whole different matter.
He's probably speaking of the difference between 0.001 C and 0.005C. 3000 years of travel either way and a delta v that's far easier to achieve.
Ok, TL;DR version. Greece is a counterexample. Understand the counterexample rather than complaining that I'm cherrypicking (which is what a counterexample is by definition).
That doesn't answer why on earth anyone would want to live there.
A question which I consider irrelevant. People live all over the place on Earth, often without a reason you'd understand. It's reasonable to expect, even if we can't understand "why", for them to live all over the place in space as well once those capabilities become established.
There doesn't seem to be much in the way of natural resources in the Oort Cloud anyway (and what there is is so widely dispersed it wouldn't exactly be easy to fly around and capture it).
But it wouldn't be hard either for someone living in the Oort cloud in the first place. Moving mass in space is rather easy though time consuming.
Wrong Kevin, The NSA has no ability to walk into your home and arrest you. They do not have the authority to simply turn over data to the FBI, and have you arrested. What they CAN do, is pass CURRENT information up the ladder. That is it. They have no other real capabilities.
What makes it wrong? Legal obstructions like this only matter when the law is enforced. The NSA may not have the "authority", but it definitely has the power to do just that.
Wealthy people just buy more cheap shit, creating more pollution.
Not in their backyards. A global increase in wealth eliminates the backyards in which one can pollute.
The only comparative advantage corporations exploit is their ability to drive down wages and not pay for their pollution.
I guess you don't get comparative advantage then.
The guy just cited a half-dozen ways that corporate rights exceed those of individuals. Are you stupid?
Let's go over this:
an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison)
Why is that considered a right? There's nothing there to be held accountable "as a citizen". And in the real world of the US, when property is held accountable for a crime as a legal fiction, it's to seize assets that would otherwise be impossible to touch due to the higher standard of proof for showing a person committed a crime. In other words, the reality is both an end-run around the US Constitution and a solid demonstration that property such as corporations doesn't have the rights of people. So no right and advantage goes to people.
Moving on to the next one:
has the revenue generating power of all its employees
Which is the same for all businesses which employ people. So no peculiar advantage of a corporation here. Plus, there's no right to an employee's revenue generating power in the first place. So no right and no advantage.
access to financial markets unavailable to the majority (or all) citizens
Be rich and you'll have exactly the same access. Plus, there's no actual right to access to financial markets. So no right and no advantage - again.
able to live forever
Now we get to the joke rights. This isn't a right any more than you have the right to live forever too. And it's a lot less illegal to kill off a corporation than it is a person. So no right and advantage goes to the person - again.
only accountable (if at all) to its share holders having the same rights as an individual and ability to influence our electoral process with vast sums of money
And the last of the rights as well as being the second joke right. Breaking is law is a criminal act whether or not you are an officer in a corporation. Nothing shields you from that. And vast sums of money influence elections whether or not we have strongly worded constitutional amendments condemning the practice. Bribes from individuals spend just as well as bribes from corporations, so once again, a "right" happens to not actually be a right and happens to give no advantage to corporations.
So we have five alleged "rights", none which actually are rights, none which actually give corporations any advantage, and two of which actually have corporations at a disadvantage.
This entire discourse reminds me why I consider the ranting about corporate personhood to be an embarrassment to human thought. There's no understanding of what a right is. There's no understanding of the actual legal environment of US corporations or the rest of the world. And mysteriously enough, given these minor intellectual hurdles, there's no constructive criticisms of corporate law.
Except none of this is a contract violation.
If it's not in the contract, then you didn't pay for it.
read paragraph 2 and 3
cts, sorry, but I did and I want that one minute of my life back. Whatever you were trying to say there was completely irrelevant to the discussion.
The whole point of counterexamples is not to mock the great intellect and wisdom which you wield, but to challenge it. Here is a case, a rather glaring case, where you are wrong. Confront it and triumph over it.
The point of Greece and the countries like it, is that they too are a mix of capitalism and socialism, but a mix which doesn't work well.
the corruption. the weak banking sector. the low tax collection rate. the disconnect with popular opinion
What mechanism keeps the Scandinavian countries from becoming similarly afflicted? Just because they're doing well now doesn't mean that they'll be doing well a couple of decades from now.
an entity that cannot be held accountable as a citizen (cannot go to prison), has the revenue generating power of all its employees, access to financial markets unavailable to the majority (or all) citizens, able to live forever, and only accountable (if at all) to its share holders having the same rights as an individual and ability to influence our electoral process with vast sums of money
I don't see the previous poster getting worked up over the fact that the US government even though it's far more privileged than a corporation is.
But if we give the same rights to corporations and ignore the additional rights they have then their power is greatly outweighs that of the humans alone.
Corporations don't operate in a vacuum. They're run by and for people. The rights of the corporation are merely the rights of those people.
not just the one cherry picked reason that is not the whole story
Spain and Portugal. There's a couple more "cherry picked" examples.
what about greece? who the fuck cares about greece? how does bringing up greece prove or discredit anything?
It is an obvious counterexample to the assertion that a mix of capitalism and socialism is automatically better. That why it matters and why you should care.
More to your liking?
It is to my liking. We still have the problem of the assertion that more population growth at current and future levels of technological advancement will lead to lower standards of living.
There are hard physical limits to what we can do. Even if we could convert all of the mass and energy into humans, we'd end up with a finite number of humans with no means, no matter how smart these humans happened to be or how advanced they were technologically, of creating more humans. If we're constrained to something like Earth, those limits are relatively hard due to environmental harm and limits of some of our current resources.
Another problem which probably is the most relevant here, is that population growth is mostly constrained to the poorest parts of the planet and least able to improve their circumstances. This dynamic runs counter to the assertion that more people mean more innovation. The people creation occurs in some of the least innovative areas of the world, though areas which fortunately do have a ready road map for improvement.
yes. i said that a society that balances between socialism and capitalism is best, and that purely capitalist or socialist countries are worst. do you agree?
No. Greece also balances socialism and capitalism, but in a crappy way. My view is that a competently run society of any sort is going to trump an incompetently run society. The huge difference is that there are mechanisms in place in capitalist societies to encourage and reward competence via competitive markets and such that don't exist in more socialism-oriented societies.
What's going to keep the Scandinavian countries competent rather than ending up like Greece? What will keep the US incompetent, if we allow competition and failure, and reduce the power of the bureaucrats?
Your opinion is that your isp should be legally allowed to not provide you with what you paid for?
Contract violations don't require the FCC to enforce.
A constitutional amendment ending corporate personhood and establishing that money is not speech.
How about let's not start with something stupid like banning speech you don't like and destroying the most successful business and non profit organization system humanity has come up with to date.
Free markets have utterly failed when it comes to infrastructure. Why should we trust it with something as important as communications?
Because you don't have anything better to replace it with? Free markets have "failed" here because they haven't been tried.
What Congress doesn't get involved in, Congress can't damage.
Instead we have unelected bureaucrats doing the damaging. Such an improvement.
It is my belief that the government has the right to impose taxes to compensate for negative externalities.
Does the government also have the "right" to subsidize positive externalities? Why should we expect the net externalities of travel and transportation to be negative?
Plus I think the negative externalities of fossil fuel based transportation are ridiculously overstated.
The simple fact is Globalism is bad for the globe.
It's amazing what bullshit is being spun as fact these days. Globalism, which really is global trade, has improved the lot of humanity collectively (though at the expense of some dinosaurs in the developed world). Rich people pollute less than poor people. Rich people have less kids than poor people. True story.
For example, take a gander at the first chart in this link. It shows a 60+% increase in global median wages over the period of 1988-2008, adjusted for inflation, and a substantial increase in wages for people between the 10% and 75% income brackets (at least 30% increase). That is the power of global trade.
And to repeat what I noted before, those wealthier people will care more about the environment, pollute less, and have less children (greatly reducing the dominant over-population problem) than if there wasn't global trade.
Fundamentally transportation is overhead. If your goal is to maximize the sustainable population (and I am not sure that actually is noble pursuit) than the solution will always be to find ways people can get things they need without having to move, and created out of local resources.
No. Learn about comparative advantage some day. There are advantages to having other people do some of the things you could do less effectively yourself (even if, in a context vacuum you could technically do the task better). These often translate into environmental benefits because you spend less resources and generate less pollution doing stuff.
It is a simple fact that the environment cannot support the ability for any person on earth to fly anywhere else on a whim for under $1000.
Unless, of course, this "simple fact" is not a fact.
People will be living on near-absolute-zero ice balls with no local energy sources
Fission and fusion power would still be available.
Voyager used the major planets aligning to slingshot out of the solar system at speeds that no practical chemical rocket can reach.
Then use something different, for example, fission powered electric propulsion. How many Nobel prizes did I win this time?
Going 50 times faster is "they do it on Star Trek" difficult
No.
How does "fusion power" help it go 50 times faster?
Higher ISP and decent thrust/weight.
Going fast is a mass problem -- you have to send a lot of mass out behind you to go really fast in space.
And if that mass gets sent out "really faster" then you need less of it and you can have a better mass fraction. The point of something like "fusion power" is to provide the energy for a higher ISP engine.
Maybe you meant "fusion + a whole bunch of mass we can accelerate really fast and fire out our rocket butt?"
He never meant anything else.
I admire your preternatural knowledge of me.
"Evidence" in a single other word.
If the law was sane to begin with, and cases were weighted on their own merits, lawyers wouldn't need precedent to do the thinking for them.
Oh look, more "preternatural" evidence. Even when the law is "sane", you can have variation just due to how the court interprets the law. Please remember that laws which can only be interpreted in one unique way are "imaginary" not "sane".