This means that immortality is fundementally inachievable.
No, it just means that it is difficult. The Second Law doesn't actually rule out genuine immortality. Now the Second Law coupled with either an inflationary universe (which is what we think we currently have) or contracting universe probably does, but even so one can potentially live a very long time compared to the present age of the universe.
I guess the idea is that Lockheed builds a prototype plant and the elite resort gets a novel power source to add to its cachet. There's probably public funding in there somewhere. Other Peoples' Money goes down better and aids digestion.
Your "teabagger" argument is a bunch of B.S. Tuition has be rising disproportionately prior to the tea party movement.
My argument would be B.S. if the disproportionate rise in tuition came after the tea party movement. Before is consistent with my argument.
Universities charge too much because they can get away with it due to good old fashioned supply and demand. More students seek college in hopes of getting high paying jobs. Couple that with with "cheap" student load backed by the government, Universities are guaranteed money. You won't see tuition rates drop until the student loan bubble bursts.
Unregulated,the future of consumer exploitation is terrifying.
I see several current regulatory obstacles for a would-be intrusive advertiser. For example, suppose they uncover a medical condition through such monitoring. That falls under some pretty serious regulations for how they store, use, and distribute medical data.
Otherwise, I see diminishing returns to this sort of strategy. Ultimately, even with perfect knowledge of the shopper's state of mind and behavior, it's just a somewhat more challenging environment for potential customers. There's only so much you can influence people.
I think the shopper will prevail. And if they make the shopping environment too adversarial, that will show up in loss of sales.
For me, the real concern would be if someone implements a 1984-style total surveillance system based on such technology.
Considering how fucked you would've been with Romney, Obama is still the lesser evil.
While it was great for Obama that he was able to sell this argument during the election, I happen to disagree. There were many things wrong with Romney, for me the most prominent one being whether he actually should have won the Republican nomination in the first place (link is to some shenanigans that look to me like considerable vote fraud hidden in the counting of votes), but he still looked the lesser evil. I figured at least a considerable part of Romney's political efforts would go to just reversing the harm that Obama did with health care, the US economy, and foreign policy, and we'd probably get an economic boost out of Romney due to reduced regulatory uncertainty for businesses.
There are other people working in the govenrment you know.
And I think that's a great set of priorities: other people working, Obama keeps safely golfing. But then anyone who wants a US President who actually works is insane. Superglue that bastard's hands to a golf club and save America!
Everyone here does seem quick to say "Oh just do an ROI calculation on college and don't take it for granted you should go"
Well, sounds good to me. What's the problem?
without recalling that for decades now we've pretty much shoved the idea that "if you don't go to college you're a complete shit and failure of a human being (what are you gonna do, flip burgers? Because people who flip burgers are subhuman shit after all)" down everyone's throats, and most people don't want to be thought of as complete shit.
If something gets said for long enough, it must be true? I guess while I'm musing on this moral, I'll break out my pack of cigarettes. After all, the tobacco companies have been saying that smoking is safe for a bunch of decades too.
Not only is all the responsibility put on the students, but they're the ones least able to be responsible. After all, they're freaking 18-25 years old.
I have a solution to this problem. We given them something to be responsible for, like an education. Then they'll have practice for when they have real problems to deal with. Education is an easy softball pitch compared to what comes next.
IMO, medicine should be focused on giving the best quality of life possible, within the parameters nature has set up -- NOT trying to "cheat" the natural course of things.
If we come up with new ways to live long periods of time in a good state of being, then I'm going to call that the "natural course of things" and move on with my life.
I often hear the complaint that people don't think about what will happen after they die. Of course, this sort of thing usually comes from people who are remarkably incompetent when it comes to thinking about the future, but they do have something of a point to it. Increased longevity has the considerable advantage that it increases the time horizon which people will think about.
I'm sure your immortality will include being able to breath that which is toxic to us now.
Here's an example. If current industrial trends will result in a toxic atmosphere in a millennium, then the current short lived population has considerable incentive to ignore the problem. A long lived population, realizing that they'll be around in a millennium to face the music, will have considerable incentive to do something about the problem.
I think neural network algorithms give some insight here - they start off very flexible and prone to "leaping to conclusions", but gradually grow more stable, then become so fixed in their ways that they almost completely ignore inputs.
So what do you think is better? Fixing this relatively minor problem? Or letting billions of people die like clockwork.
There's two observations to make here. First, a gift is not forced onto another but voluntarily accepted. If aging were a true gift, I'd have taken it back to the store by now.
Second, aging is a pretty horrible thing and I find it odd that someone can't even conceive of the benefits of living even a few more decades in a healthy body. So a horrible burden which is forced onto all of us who live long enough is a "gift". I think it more an abuse of the English language.
Your solution is great for about 1% of the population
Good enough since 1% is much greater than 0%. I suspect the actual fraction is probably closer to 25% than 1%. If you're single and young, then bare bones insurance probably is a better choice.
I'm not sure why you would even bother writing that down.
Canada, France, Germany, Finland, Japan, etc. So, pretty much everyone everywhere except Americans in the US. See also healthcare.
But are they experiencing education costs that grow much faster than the economy does? They do have that problem to a modest degree with health care, let us note, so something will have to give there eventually.
But I think it's quite a bit foolish to look to these countries for a fix when either they don't have the problem or are merely a little behind in the curve with the problem (such as is the case with health care).
Right, because there's no point in learning anything that won't increase your earning potential.
Let's put it a couple of different ways. First, can students collectively afford to borrow for this $40k per year education that doesn't help their earning potential? The whole story is about the problems of heavily indebted former students.
Second, why burn that much when you can spend considerably less and get most of the education you want?
I'll have to dig in sometime to see where the problem lies. I suspect either it's a result of ignoring new home construction or overstating inflation. But let's just say that I disagree with the chart.
Slashdot Mirror
It depends what your quality of life is like. Death would be preferable to an eternity without dignity or in pain.
So we need dignity and general absence of pain? I'll get right on that. Good thing we have Slashdot around to think of these things.
This means that immortality is fundementally inachievable.
No, it just means that it is difficult. The Second Law doesn't actually rule out genuine immortality. Now the Second Law coupled with either an inflationary universe (which is what we think we currently have) or contracting universe probably does, but even so one can potentially live a very long time compared to the present age of the universe.
People have done so many crazy irrational things to try to cheat death.
I would suggest sane, rational things to cheat death myself. It's not as much fun, but at least you don't look like an idiot in the papers.
I guess the idea is that Lockheed builds a prototype plant and the elite resort gets a novel power source to add to its cachet. There's probably public funding in there somewhere. Other Peoples' Money goes down better and aids digestion.
Your "teabagger" argument is a bunch of B.S. Tuition has be rising disproportionately prior to the tea party movement.
My argument would be B.S. if the disproportionate rise in tuition came after the tea party movement. Before is consistent with my argument.
Universities charge too much because they can get away with it due to good old fashioned supply and demand. More students seek college in hopes of getting high paying jobs. Couple that with with "cheap" student load backed by the government, Universities are guaranteed money. You won't see tuition rates drop until the student loan bubble bursts.
Quite true.
Unregulated ,the future of consumer exploitation is terrifying.
I see several current regulatory obstacles for a would-be intrusive advertiser. For example, suppose they uncover a medical condition through such monitoring. That falls under some pretty serious regulations for how they store, use, and distribute medical data.
Otherwise, I see diminishing returns to this sort of strategy. Ultimately, even with perfect knowledge of the shopper's state of mind and behavior, it's just a somewhat more challenging environment for potential customers. There's only so much you can influence people.
I think the shopper will prevail. And if they make the shopping environment too adversarial, that will show up in loss of sales.
For me, the real concern would be if someone implements a 1984-style total surveillance system based on such technology.
Considering how fucked you would've been with Romney, Obama is still the lesser evil.
While it was great for Obama that he was able to sell this argument during the election, I happen to disagree. There were many things wrong with Romney, for me the most prominent one being whether he actually should have won the Republican nomination in the first place (link is to some shenanigans that look to me like considerable vote fraud hidden in the counting of votes), but he still looked the lesser evil. I figured at least a considerable part of Romney's political efforts would go to just reversing the harm that Obama did with health care, the US economy, and foreign policy, and we'd probably get an economic boost out of Romney due to reduced regulatory uncertainty for businesses.
And since college-educated people earn more money and thus pay more taxes, you're entirely right: tax-funded education is not free, it's a net earner.
Net earner implies that you've taken into account the cost of that action as well as its benefit. But you haven't.
There are other people working in the govenrment you know.
And I think that's a great set of priorities: other people working, Obama keeps safely golfing. But then anyone who wants a US President who actually works is insane. Superglue that bastard's hands to a golf club and save America!
Everyone here does seem quick to say "Oh just do an ROI calculation on college and don't take it for granted you should go"
Well, sounds good to me. What's the problem?
without recalling that for decades now we've pretty much shoved the idea that "if you don't go to college you're a complete shit and failure of a human being (what are you gonna do, flip burgers? Because people who flip burgers are subhuman shit after all)" down everyone's throats, and most people don't want to be thought of as complete shit.
If something gets said for long enough, it must be true? I guess while I'm musing on this moral, I'll break out my pack of cigarettes. After all, the tobacco companies have been saying that smoking is safe for a bunch of decades too.
and didn't increase at all until the first child graduated.
Sounds like it's working as expected.
Not only is all the responsibility put on the students, but they're the ones least able to be responsible. After all, they're freaking 18-25 years old.
I have a solution to this problem. We given them something to be responsible for, like an education. Then they'll have practice for when they have real problems to deal with. Education is an easy softball pitch compared to what comes next.
IMO, medicine should be focused on giving the best quality of life possible, within the parameters nature has set up -- NOT trying to "cheat" the natural course of things.
If we come up with new ways to live long periods of time in a good state of being, then I'm going to call that the "natural course of things" and move on with my life.
I'm sure your immortality will include being able to breath that which is toxic to us now.
Here's an example. If current industrial trends will result in a toxic atmosphere in a millennium, then the current short lived population has considerable incentive to ignore the problem. A long lived population, realizing that they'll be around in a millennium to face the music, will have considerable incentive to do something about the problem.
And that's good for the species exactly how?
What is the value of this "species" of which you speak?
I think neural network algorithms give some insight here - they start off very flexible and prone to "leaping to conclusions", but gradually grow more stable, then become so fixed in their ways that they almost completely ignore inputs.
So what do you think is better? Fixing this relatively minor problem? Or letting billions of people die like clockwork.
Aging isn't a disease; it's a gift.
There's two observations to make here. First, a gift is not forced onto another but voluntarily accepted. If aging were a true gift, I'd have taken it back to the store by now.
Second, aging is a pretty horrible thing and I find it odd that someone can't even conceive of the benefits of living even a few more decades in a healthy body. So a horrible burden which is forced onto all of us who live long enough is a "gift". I think it more an abuse of the English language.
I pity the people who can't see this.
I don't. I agree with those people.
Your solution is great for about 1% of the population
Good enough since 1% is much greater than 0%. I suspect the actual fraction is probably closer to 25% than 1%. If you're single and young, then bare bones insurance probably is a better choice.
I'm not sure why you would even bother writing that down.
Because I was being helpful.
I don't just admit to being wrong for the fun of it. There has to be a reason.
Canada, France, Germany, Finland, Japan, etc. So, pretty much everyone everywhere except Americans in the US. See also healthcare.
But are they experiencing education costs that grow much faster than the economy does? They do have that problem to a modest degree with health care, let us note, so something will have to give there eventually.
But I think it's quite a bit foolish to look to these countries for a fix when either they don't have the problem or are merely a little behind in the curve with the problem (such as is the case with health care).
You also have not had to compete with people able to work anytime, begging for hours, all in a climate of 20%+ youth unemployment.
Actually, yes, I have. It turns out being reliable beats having a more flexible schedule.
Right, because there's no point in learning anything that won't increase your earning potential.
Let's put it a couple of different ways. First, can students collectively afford to borrow for this $40k per year education that doesn't help their earning potential? The whole story is about the problems of heavily indebted former students.
Second, why burn that much when you can spend considerably less and get most of the education you want?
So how do you explain the cost increases at private schools which don't receive state support for offsetting tuition?
I'll have to dig in sometime to see where the problem lies. I suspect either it's a result of ignoring new home construction or overstating inflation. But let's just say that I disagree with the chart.
A lot of employers get this. I've never had trouble from my employers that caused such conflicts.