Oh look, linking to stuff that confirms my assertion. Do you even understand how to argue?
Just so you understand everyone is eventually built for the end user, now that's back to the 99%.
100% of people are end-users in some sense. This doesn't distinguish between the so-called 1% and 99% groups.
Hint, hint, that is why they psychopathic 1% so hate government industry, because it is a continual reminder that we do not need the 1% and that they are an economic waste.
And why would the so-called 1% "hate" government industry? It's a great way for up to 50% or so of the economy to jump into their pockets.
So what is the gun here? So-called "climate change" or the proposed solutions to so-called "climate change"? Since I know guns can kill me, then that sounds to me like the solutions are the gun, since I know those solutions can hurt me as well.
So what? That doesn't tell us which solution is better.
Proactive solutions can be better. Say a neighborhood watch that spots criminals before they have a chance to commit crimes. That can be better (cheaper and more effective) than a beefier police force which attempts to solve crimes after they occur.
But proactive solutions can also be worse (such as surgically altering everyone's brain so that their brains couldn't manifest aggressive behavior).
So merely noting that a solution is proactive or reactive (especially when one ignores the relative effectiveness of the solution), doesn't tell us anything about the effectiveness of the solution.
And you sound like someone who hasn't actually given a thought to the engineering difficulties of getting something into deep space versus keeping it alive in deep space. No offense, but it should be clear to you that it is much harder to get something there that works than to extend the lifespan of something that already works.
But keep in mind that instruments brake down or degrade in unexpected ways over time, presenting unique engineering challenges.
In a near-vacuum? Something tells me you don't engineer spacecrafts for a living.
No, he is quite right. Even if this spacecraft were in near vacuum with no external inputs: heat, radiation, whatever, it would slowly change over time. For example, some metal alloys can develop "whiskers". There are other sorts of migration of atoms over long enough times. Any radioactive isotopes in the craft would decay.
If the vehicle radiates heat in a way that isn't symmetric, then that can generate net forces and torque which can perturb the vehicle's trajectory or spin it.
Once one adds a constant bombardment by hard radiation and micrometeors, new and more rapid alteration processes present themselves. Microscopic structures, even mechanical ones will be corrupted by the radiation directly or by chemical processes initiated by ionization of the materials of the spacecraft. The outside shell of the spacecraft will slowly be worn away by micrometeor impacts (which can be much faster than Solar System meteors with hundreds of km/s of velocity difference possible!).
My point was not that these processes don't exist, but rather that getting the spacecraft into deep space and having it survive for a bit, is much harder than expanding that original lifespan.
That's normally referred to as civil works, a distinction because of the lack of skills required in labour.
By who? Googling around, it seems that the physical products of civil engineering is the only thing actually called "civil works" out there.
What ever happened to the lie about increased productivity and automation, it would seem the benefits only got shared amongst the top psychopathic 1% and the rest simply got screwed over. It's time to start nailing the 1% and teach them a thing or two about being ruthlessly exploited.
And who's going to hire you after we fuck over the people who hire people? I'm not. That's for sure. There's all this take of comeuppance. There's no obvious awareness of reality. Work is just not that valuable any more. And the more lunatics such as yourself drive away those people who create stuff and employ people, the worse it'll get.
I'll make an easy prediction. At no point in the rest of your life, will society ever progress towards your goals above, no matter if society tries or not. It's an approach with failure inherently built in. And you'll be blaming that mean old 1% all the time for holding you back.
Reagan started killing them, and now look at where we are.
Well, the US beat off Japan's economic assault, for starters. That happened over the critical time frame in question. Now that the US is duplicating on a similar scale, Japan's post-recession strategy in the 90s, I imagine we'll see similar failure on similar scales for similar durations.
A large number of those so-called "businessmen" are actually heirs to considerable fortunes such as the Kennedys, Kerry (by marriage), and the Rockefellers. It's an easy career path, if you have the right relatives.
And it's worth noting that a lot of those rich politicians have no business experience whatsoever. Some politicians that have made good income from book deals. For example, Obama and Gingrich. Some politicians have made good income from "lucky" stock or real estate deals such as the Clintons and Pelosi. Some make good money from speaking engagements (ex-presidents from Reagan on up).
The problem is hard and easy. It's hard in that the primary problems of deep space spacecraft are very difficult, such as maintaining electronics for decades in an environment with hard radiation. But it's easy in that the environment doesn't change.
You engineer for a fixed problem. Once you have something that works for a time in deep space, then you can tweak that solution to greatly extend the lifespan.
There's the difference. We aren't abstract, but concepts are by definition abstract. Looking up the relevant first definition of "abstract":
thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances
We are an actual instance, part of a concrete reality.
But take an abstract concept, such as "three". We never observe three. Instead, we observe three things. It has no being in itself, but provides part of a framework for understanding and manipulating our reality and ideas.
For example, knowing that we have three things in a group, then we can do basic arithmetic manipulation of that group. We can add another thing to make four things in the group. We can take one thing away to make two things in the group. We can double the number of things to get six things in the group or add this group to another group, and so on.
From a mathematical point of view, I distinguish between the concept and a representation of of that concept. "Three" is a concept. "Three things" are a representation of the concept of three. The concept doesn't exist, the representation does and can do so even if one didn't intend for it to be a representation of three.
Even if one considers concepts to exist because their representations exist, this has a profound effect on what concepts are considered to exist. For example, not every concept was, is, or will be represented in our universe, not even as an idea in our heads or in some computational machine). There's too many concepts (an uncountable number of them), and too little space (a countable amount in an information sense). In fact, if one somehow able with a suitably powerful "oracle" machine to randomly pick out concepts from the pool of potential concepts, one wouldn't ever pick out a concept that would manifest in our universe.
I'm confused. Do you think the evidence doesn't exist just because you don't know about it?
Well, my thinking here is that we have the more general case where nobody here happens to have such evidence. That indicates to me evidence that there may well not be evidence whether the universe has some universal purpose or was created through chance.
Anyway, there's lots of info about the origin of humanity out there just waiting for you to study it.
And how does that provide evidence for the questions above? I don't see the connection.
I don't think you need me to help you find it, however I will recommend going to the nearest university and ask around there.
Some people are capable of making responsible family planning choices on their own, all it takes is a little education.
And some people are capable of putting out a bunch of kids, no matter how educated they are. The Chinese approach to population control didn't come about because people weren't sufficiently well educated, but because they were having too many kids for the situation.
I never understood the confusion of education with general infrastructure even for making mass behavioral changes. One doesn't assume that education will cure crime, for example. In the absence of any sort of punishment, it just expands the criminal's ability to take stuff.
One doesn't assume it'll cure war since war fundamentally is about societies attempting force on other societies for their own advantage. Until the advantage is removed, the incentive for war remains, no matter the level of education.
And of course, education doesn't do by itself any of the mundane things we associate with physical infrastructure such as transporting people and goods, holding back huge quantities of water, or communicating between distant points on Earth or elsewhere.
There are a number of countries where corporations, a particular form of company, are granted some rights similar to what people enjoy. There are no countries where corporations or any other sort of company are considered people.
They are as efficient at creating goods and services as they are spending natural resources to do the creation. A penalty (tax) increases the overhead of creating things. And when their overhead is so small, any increase is a significant increase. On the other hand, because small businesses are not efficient, this penalty is not going to significantly contribute to their overhead.
And what the point of making society more inefficient?
Well reducing fuel consumption and slowing population growth are good to do anyway, so we should do those things regardless of climate change.
The US already has slow population growth (without immigrants it might even be negative population growth, which is already where you want it to be). And reducing fuel consumption has opportunity costs, meaning that it is not automatically "good" to do anyway.
Of course, the problem is that he's trying to use lack of certainty as an excuse to to avoid taking any action, despite the fact that the science doesn't say anything at all about the best way to fix the issue (or indeed whether it needs fixing...)
So where's the "problem"? A great deal of lack of certainty is a great reason not to do something which you otherwise know will be harmful to society.
So did you not have to take any basic biology courses along the way, or did you just ignore them because they conflict with your theological preferences or something?
Well, what part of basic biology is relevant to the discussion? I'm open to suggestions.
All known organisms have DNA or RNA, evolution (including speciation) is an observed fact...
Does that indicate that the universe has purpose or does it indicate the opposite? It's not clear to me why that should be evidence for either claim.
Unless you're playing some silly semantic game with the meaning of "proof" and "purpose", in which case you're merely really annoying, rather than extremely ignorant.
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the futility of making claims about the supernatural.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why NASA gets stuff that works, and the military gets stuff that lets the contractors line their Olympic-sized pools with money.
Your eyesight is better than mine. I'm unable to discern the difference between the stuff that works and the pools of money.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_engineering which leads to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Works_Administration.
Oh look, linking to stuff that confirms my assertion. Do you even understand how to argue?
Just so you understand everyone is eventually built for the end user, now that's back to the 99%.
100% of people are end-users in some sense. This doesn't distinguish between the so-called 1% and 99% groups.
Hint, hint, that is why they psychopathic 1% so hate government industry, because it is a continual reminder that we do not need the 1% and that they are an economic waste.
And why would the so-called 1% "hate" government industry? It's a great way for up to 50% or so of the economy to jump into their pockets.
So what is the gun here? So-called "climate change" or the proposed solutions to so-called "climate change"? Since I know guns can kill me, then that sounds to me like the solutions are the gun, since I know those solutions can hurt me as well.
So what? That doesn't tell us which solution is better.
Proactive solutions can be better. Say a neighborhood watch that spots criminals before they have a chance to commit crimes. That can be better (cheaper and more effective) than a beefier police force which attempts to solve crimes after they occur.
But proactive solutions can also be worse (such as surgically altering everyone's brain so that their brains couldn't manifest aggressive behavior).
So merely noting that a solution is proactive or reactive (especially when one ignores the relative effectiveness of the solution), doesn't tell us anything about the effectiveness of the solution.
And you sound like someone who hasn't actually given a thought to the engineering difficulties of getting something into deep space versus keeping it alive in deep space. No offense, but it should be clear to you that it is much harder to get something there that works than to extend the lifespan of something that already works.
But keep in mind that instruments brake down or degrade in unexpected ways over time, presenting unique engineering challenges.
In a near-vacuum? Something tells me you don't engineer spacecrafts for a living.
No, he is quite right. Even if this spacecraft were in near vacuum with no external inputs: heat, radiation, whatever, it would slowly change over time. For example, some metal alloys can develop "whiskers". There are other sorts of migration of atoms over long enough times. Any radioactive isotopes in the craft would decay.
If the vehicle radiates heat in a way that isn't symmetric, then that can generate net forces and torque which can perturb the vehicle's trajectory or spin it.
Once one adds a constant bombardment by hard radiation and micrometeors, new and more rapid alteration processes present themselves. Microscopic structures, even mechanical ones will be corrupted by the radiation directly or by chemical processes initiated by ionization of the materials of the spacecraft. The outside shell of the spacecraft will slowly be worn away by micrometeor impacts (which can be much faster than Solar System meteors with hundreds of km/s of velocity difference possible!).
My point was not that these processes don't exist, but rather that getting the spacecraft into deep space and having it survive for a bit, is much harder than expanding that original lifespan.
But keep in mind that instruments brake down or degrade in unexpected ways over time, presenting unique engineering challenges.
Hence, the need for tweaking.
Thus, the "engineering environment" does change.
I disagree because the machine is not the environment.
That's normally referred to as civil works, a distinction because of the lack of skills required in labour.
By who? Googling around, it seems that the physical products of civil engineering is the only thing actually called "civil works" out there.
What ever happened to the lie about increased productivity and automation, it would seem the benefits only got shared amongst the top psychopathic 1% and the rest simply got screwed over. It's time to start nailing the 1% and teach them a thing or two about being ruthlessly exploited.
And who's going to hire you after we fuck over the people who hire people? I'm not. That's for sure. There's all this take of comeuppance. There's no obvious awareness of reality. Work is just not that valuable any more. And the more lunatics such as yourself drive away those people who create stuff and employ people, the worse it'll get.
I'll make an easy prediction. At no point in the rest of your life, will society ever progress towards your goals above, no matter if society tries or not. It's an approach with failure inherently built in. And you'll be blaming that mean old 1% all the time for holding you back.
Reagan started killing them, and now look at where we are.
Well, the US beat off Japan's economic assault, for starters. That happened over the critical time frame in question. Now that the US is duplicating on a similar scale, Japan's post-recession strategy in the 90s, I imagine we'll see similar failure on similar scales for similar durations.
why are all the rich politicians businessmen
A large number of those so-called "businessmen" are actually heirs to considerable fortunes such as the Kennedys, Kerry (by marriage), and the Rockefellers. It's an easy career path, if you have the right relatives.
And it's worth noting that a lot of those rich politicians have no business experience whatsoever. Some politicians that have made good income from book deals. For example, Obama and Gingrich. Some politicians have made good income from "lucky" stock or real estate deals such as the Clintons and Pelosi. Some make good money from speaking engagements (ex-presidents from Reagan on up).
The problem is hard and easy. It's hard in that the primary problems of deep space spacecraft are very difficult, such as maintaining electronics for decades in an environment with hard radiation. But it's easy in that the environment doesn't change.
You engineer for a fixed problem. Once you have something that works for a time in deep space, then you can tweak that solution to greatly extend the lifespan.
abstract
There's the difference. We aren't abstract, but concepts are by definition abstract. Looking up the relevant first definition of "abstract":
thought of apart from concrete realities, specific objects, or actual instances
We are an actual instance, part of a concrete reality.
But take an abstract concept, such as "three". We never observe three. Instead, we observe three things. It has no being in itself, but provides part of a framework for understanding and manipulating our reality and ideas.
For example, knowing that we have three things in a group, then we can do basic arithmetic manipulation of that group. We can add another thing to make four things in the group. We can take one thing away to make two things in the group. We can double the number of things to get six things in the group or add this group to another group, and so on.
From a mathematical point of view, I distinguish between the concept and a representation of of that concept. "Three" is a concept. "Three things" are a representation of the concept of three. The concept doesn't exist, the representation does and can do so even if one didn't intend for it to be a representation of three.
Even if one considers concepts to exist because their representations exist, this has a profound effect on what concepts are considered to exist. For example, not every concept was, is, or will be represented in our universe, not even as an idea in our heads or in some computational machine). There's too many concepts (an uncountable number of them), and too little space (a countable amount in an information sense). In fact, if one somehow able with a suitably powerful "oracle" machine to randomly pick out concepts from the pool of potential concepts, one wouldn't ever pick out a concept that would manifest in our universe.
I'm confused. Do you think the evidence doesn't exist just because you don't know about it?
Well, my thinking here is that we have the more general case where nobody here happens to have such evidence. That indicates to me evidence that there may well not be evidence whether the universe has some universal purpose or was created through chance.
Anyway, there's lots of info about the origin of humanity out there just waiting for you to study it.
And how does that provide evidence for the questions above? I don't see the connection.
I don't think you need me to help you find it, however I will recommend going to the nearest university and ask around there.
Again. No evidence.
Some people are capable of making responsible family planning choices on their own, all it takes is a little education.
And some people are capable of putting out a bunch of kids, no matter how educated they are. The Chinese approach to population control didn't come about because people weren't sufficiently well educated, but because they were having too many kids for the situation.
I never understood the confusion of education with general infrastructure even for making mass behavioral changes. One doesn't assume that education will cure crime, for example. In the absence of any sort of punishment, it just expands the criminal's ability to take stuff.
One doesn't assume it'll cure war since war fundamentally is about societies attempting force on other societies for their own advantage. Until the advantage is removed, the incentive for war remains, no matter the level of education.
And of course, education doesn't do by itself any of the mundane things we associate with physical infrastructure such as transporting people and goods, holding back huge quantities of water, or communicating between distant points on Earth or elsewhere.
Except that one would need to lift a lot of rock. Maybe you could use pumped storage of some gas, say argon or oxygen, from an underground reservoir.
Convince you of what? Shouldn't someone have to actually define Platonic existence first?
Humanity has a long established tradition of not thinking about problems till they emerge.
The strategy has the charm of usually working, but only if one pays attention to problems as they emerge.
There are a number of countries where corporations, a particular form of company, are granted some rights similar to what people enjoy. There are no countries where corporations or any other sort of company are considered people.
They are as efficient at creating goods and services as they are spending natural resources to do the creation. A penalty (tax) increases the overhead of creating things. And when their overhead is so small, any increase is a significant increase. On the other hand, because small businesses are not efficient, this penalty is not going to significantly contribute to their overhead.
And what the point of making society more inefficient?
Well reducing fuel consumption and slowing population growth are good to do anyway, so we should do those things regardless of climate change.
The US already has slow population growth (without immigrants it might even be negative population growth, which is already where you want it to be). And reducing fuel consumption has opportunity costs, meaning that it is not automatically "good" to do anyway.
with no explanation of how to deal with inevitable industry abuses
Note that even in the face of complete government inaction, there is the lawsuit.
Of course, the problem is that he's trying to use lack of certainty as an excuse to to avoid taking any action, despite the fact that the science doesn't say anything at all about the best way to fix the issue (or indeed whether it needs fixing...)
So where's the "problem"? A great deal of lack of certainty is a great reason not to do something which you otherwise know will be harmful to society.
I see no problems mentioned. Merely complaints that ISPs have different interests than consumers of such services.
but it would not make any sense to try to squeeze electric power out during the two weeks of night from some barely adequate storage system.
Why overthink the problem when a simple solution presents itself? Beef up the energy storage system so that it is no longer "barely adequate".
So did you not have to take any basic biology courses along the way, or did you just ignore them because they conflict with your theological preferences or something?
Well, what part of basic biology is relevant to the discussion? I'm open to suggestions.
All known organisms have DNA or RNA, evolution (including speciation) is an observed fact...
Does that indicate that the universe has purpose or does it indicate the opposite? It's not clear to me why that should be evidence for either claim.
Unless you're playing some silly semantic game with the meaning of "proof" and "purpose", in which case you're merely really annoying, rather than extremely ignorant.
I'm not. I'm merely pointing out the futility of making claims about the supernatural.