I observe lots of non-technological life-forms near my house. I don't see why I couldn't live without technology in some places (I'd die fairly quickly in the winters where I live without tech). I also don't see why I'd possibly want to.
I really don't understand the physics, but I've read that time travel requires either structures of infinite size or some sort of thing with negative mass (I don't know if antimatter might possibly qualify). Further, it apparently is impossible to go back in time to before the construction of the time machine.
That doesn't mean that time travel is impossible, but it makes it look improbable at best and does explain why we don't have large number of people from the future popping in.
We're getting computational devices that might well be on the same complexity scale as human brains. We're not ever going to get intelligence well-defined, so part of AI research is doing stuff that looks plausible and hoping something intelligent happens. That could happen pretty much any time, since we don't know what we're doing.
At least in some Star Trek episodes and movies, a phaser on "disintegrate" will utterly destroy a person, clothes and all, and leave no other visible marks. There also seems to be a requirement to be still, which some of my internal organs never are.
The transporter was "invented" back in the 1960s, when any shuttlecraft operations had to be done expensively in miniatures. The writer's guide said not to include them with anything else that might be expensive, to avoid blowing the budget for the episode. The producers then found that a near-instantaneous way to get characters around was very useful for the plot and keeping the action going.
The employer is functioning in a society that says that people in general have to work to live. Usually, it's considered coercion when it's comply or die.
My immune system can take days to realize what's going on, just like everybody else's. It will react eventually, assuming I'm alive with a functioning immune system long enough.
The bad technology is vital to modern civilization right now. I'd figure that most of our power comes from burning fossil fuels, and electricity production is the low-hanging fruit.
There's two ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the air. One is to not put as much in, and one would be to put it in and then take it out. The first is going to be much more efficient. Therefore, as long as we're still generating electricity with fossil fuels, if we get more power from other sources we use it to reduce the fossil fuel use rather than having some sort of scrubber to remove the C from the CO2 and put in in a form that can be sequestered.
The exception would be if we had energy that wasn't really useful anywhere else but could be used to unburn carbon. For example, we have these organic devices that use solar power to take carbon out of the air to use to build additional structure in the devices, and we can't directly use the sunlight that hits plants.
Except that saying Trump supporters are stupid rednecks is more accurate than saying Obama supporters were stupid ghetto kids, it's approximately the same thing. How many people have been saying "stupid ghetto kids" is racist when used to describe young people in the ghetto who do stupid things? I've seen phrases including "ghetto" used when the speaker meant "black", so it can be used in a racist manner, and that may confuse the superficial observer.
I can buy a month's worth of food, and I can buy a month's worth of shelter. They aren't that different.
Rent is not anything recent. It's been around, in one form or another, for a long, long time, under numerous socioeconomic structures. I looks natural to me.
I was referring to "Democrats offer to help their economic problems by make them dependent on the state", which is only temporarily true. The Democrat response to the problem is retraining, which is an effort to get the individual with skills to make a good living independently. I understand people perceiving the Democrat solution like that, but you stated it as if it were a fact. I don't know how good a solution it is, or how much of the current problems it will solve, but it's a path off any sort of government assistance to independently making a living.
"Further, those poor white people know that the Democrats' plans will be funded with taxpayer money" I also find dubious. Assuming that the Democrat plan works, it will get people off any sort of government assistance programs and into jobs that pay enough to be taxed.
WWII was started by German and Japanese aggression. Hitler used various features of the Versailles Treaty to argue that he should have power. The reparations were in practice not that bad, and Germany did not become impoverished. What happened, in broad strokes, was that the US invested money in Germany, Germany paid reparations to Western countries, and the Western countries sent it off to the US to repay war debts. It kept money in motion, but didn't tremendously affect who had it.
WWI, in particular, was no more far-flung than what went on in the Seven Years' War and the Napoleonic Wars, and wasn't really as devastating as the Thirty Years' War, and all three of those wars went on considerably longer than WWI did. Technology and economic development had a great effect on how WWI was fought, but did not get the scope and length of the war to the level of earlier large conflicts.
Stalin wanted safety for the Soviet Union, ostensibly to finish the Communist revolution. He was afraid of Germany. Initially, he tried negotiating a mutual assistance treaty with Britain and France, in an effort to avoid fighting Germany without strong help, but Britain and France pretty much blew him off. He made a pact with Germany to try to hold off the inevitable clash while creeping up to war. He took what he could as buffer territory. Had he not annexed eastern Poland and the Baltic States, the initial German attack would have been far more devastating. Neither Hitler nor Stalin intended this as any sort of permanent alliance. The Soviets got time to rearm, and Germany got time to attack the West. It was purely pragmatic.
Any knowledge of socialism, combined with any knowledge of what Hitler actually did, would show that Hitler was no socialist. The National Socialist German Workers' Party had a Socialist wing until the mid-thirties, when it was basically murdered. The Nazis stuck firmly to capitalist principles throughout their stay in power. They cut off the cooperation with the Soviets that von Seeckt had started in the 1920s, in which the Soviet Union helped the German Army train and develop new tactics with weapons forbidden by the Versailles treaty, and got to see what the Germans were doing. They pushed the Anti-Comintern Pact.
That there was anything socialist or left-wing about the Nazi party of WWII seems to be modern propaganda from people who want to claim the right wing is morally better than the left, and who count on their listeners having a very tenuous grasp on history.
From what I've figured out, the naval race didn't play much of a part in starting WWI, although it's played up in most of the English-language histories. However, the main alliances were set before it became significant, and since Germany was going to invade Belgium it would force the Brits' hand. The actual events that caused the war were governed by Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Russia (with strong encouragement from France), and Germany, with Britain making some vague gestures in favor of peace. It may have contributed to French belligerence somewhat, since the race is one thing that made Britain turn from pro-German to pro-French, but no more than that.
It had a significant effect in the outcome of the war, in that the German surface navy was a very expensive luxury, and aside from wandering cruisers early in the war and the actions of German warships in the Black Sea accomplished pretty much nothing. If it had been half the size, or somewhat smaller, it would have been more than enough to dominate the Russian Baltic Fleet, and it would have freed up resources to be used somewhere more useful. The German submarines were quite effective, but they weren't part of the naval race, and played little or no part in prewar Anglo-German relations.
The Allied pact to declare war in WWII was a response to German aggression. One big mistake was in not seriously trying for an alliance with the Soviet Union. Stalin's first choice was an alliance with Britain and France (Britain in particular showed no interest), and his second choice was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Allies were going to have to stop German aggression some time or other, once the takeover of all of Czechoslovakia showed that Germany would not stop with territorial expansion. Had Hitler stopped with the Sudetenland, as he promised, the West was willing to stay peaceful.
Democrats tend to be more interested in providing funds for retraining displaced workers, which enables them to make more money independently of the government. The rural whites seem to be more interested in returning the world to a state it will never be in again. A big factory in town that employed a lot of people? To be competitive, that factory needs to automate, which means it doesn't hire that many people. The US industrial sector is very large in output, but it's becoming a smaller and smaller source of jobs, and that trend will continue. You seem to be buying the vision of Democrats that some of those people have.
The difference between country folks and city folks is important. Many of the issues that divide the country run that way, the Republicans favoring the solutions that work in small towns and rural areas, and the Democrats favoring the solutions that work in cities. Unfortunately, too many people on both sides don't see this.
In my experience, the preview window, for some reason, typically fails to display mistakes in a manner I will notice, which are immediately apparent when I click on "Submit".
A book or movie that says "this might happen" in no way gives a scenario less credibility. Elysium builds on things some rich people are doing now. It's not an argument but an example of what could happen (probably not in space, though) if some trends continue.
When I was renting, I'd buy an apartment-month, pay for it once, and then I'd buy another apartment-month and use it, and so on. Rent and food are continuing expenses, and not entirely predictable ones. I don't see the difference.
If there's no need for everybody to communicate with everyone else, the communications costs are likely to scale as log N. There's lots of that kind of job that isn't going to be automated any time soon.
Payroll taxes are not a fixed amount per employee. They're a percentage of amount paid to employees. The big costs of hiring new employees at my level is typically the tens of thousands paid to the recruiters, and the amount you pay the new hire while he or she gets up to speed, not any sort of government regulation.
One of the better directors I've had knew nothing about the business, knew that he knew nothing about the business, and trusted the people who reported to him. It worked pretty well.
Is it working in a satisfactory way? Can it be changed efficiently with changing requirements? Can it be run less expensively? (The used car I bought in 1976 got half the mileage of the similar car I bought in 2008, as an example.) Is it adequately secure and reliable?
There are stupid rednecks in the US. Any argument with that?
GP said nothing about whites in general being stupid rednecks. GP said that Trump's electoral base is stupid rednecks, but maligning a political group isn't racism.
Gitmo wasn't under Obama's direct control. He tried to close it and was stopped by Congress.
How much warrantless wiretapping did go on under Obama? What the NSA was doing wasn't exactly wiretapping, and there was the FISA court for warrants. I don't like what Obama did about surveillance, but it isn't clear to me that he lied.
If you liked your insurance plan, and the insurance company continued to offer it, you could in general keep it. Whether insurance plans were going to continue to be offered was not under Obama's direct control, and neither was the doctor thing. He shouldn't have said it, but it wasn't lying about things under his direct control.
There aren't enough hardcore Trump supporters to win an election, and he's alienating everyone else. He won the Presidency because of all the people who voted against Clinton, not because he was that popular.
Slashdot Mirror
I observe lots of non-technological life-forms near my house. I don't see why I couldn't live without technology in some places (I'd die fairly quickly in the winters where I live without tech). I also don't see why I'd possibly want to.
I really don't understand the physics, but I've read that time travel requires either structures of infinite size or some sort of thing with negative mass (I don't know if antimatter might possibly qualify). Further, it apparently is impossible to go back in time to before the construction of the time machine.
That doesn't mean that time travel is impossible, but it makes it look improbable at best and does explain why we don't have large number of people from the future popping in.
We're getting computational devices that might well be on the same complexity scale as human brains. We're not ever going to get intelligence well-defined, so part of AI research is doing stuff that looks plausible and hoping something intelligent happens. That could happen pretty much any time, since we don't know what we're doing.
At least in some Star Trek episodes and movies, a phaser on "disintegrate" will utterly destroy a person, clothes and all, and leave no other visible marks. There also seems to be a requirement to be still, which some of my internal organs never are.
The transporter was "invented" back in the 1960s, when any shuttlecraft operations had to be done expensively in miniatures. The writer's guide said not to include them with anything else that might be expensive, to avoid blowing the budget for the episode. The producers then found that a near-instantaneous way to get characters around was very useful for the plot and keeping the action going.
The employer is functioning in a society that says that people in general have to work to live. Usually, it's considered coercion when it's comply or die.
My immune system can take days to realize what's going on, just like everybody else's. It will react eventually, assuming I'm alive with a functioning immune system long enough.
The bad technology is vital to modern civilization right now. I'd figure that most of our power comes from burning fossil fuels, and electricity production is the low-hanging fruit.
There's two ways to reduce the amount of CO2 going into the air. One is to not put as much in, and one would be to put it in and then take it out. The first is going to be much more efficient. Therefore, as long as we're still generating electricity with fossil fuels, if we get more power from other sources we use it to reduce the fossil fuel use rather than having some sort of scrubber to remove the C from the CO2 and put in in a form that can be sequestered.
The exception would be if we had energy that wasn't really useful anywhere else but could be used to unburn carbon. For example, we have these organic devices that use solar power to take carbon out of the air to use to build additional structure in the devices, and we can't directly use the sunlight that hits plants.
Except that saying Trump supporters are stupid rednecks is more accurate than saying Obama supporters were stupid ghetto kids, it's approximately the same thing. How many people have been saying "stupid ghetto kids" is racist when used to describe young people in the ghetto who do stupid things? I've seen phrases including "ghetto" used when the speaker meant "black", so it can be used in a racist manner, and that may confuse the superficial observer.
I can buy a month's worth of food, and I can buy a month's worth of shelter. They aren't that different.
Rent is not anything recent. It's been around, in one form or another, for a long, long time, under numerous socioeconomic structures. I looks natural to me.
I was referring to "Democrats offer to help their economic problems by make them dependent on the state", which is only temporarily true. The Democrat response to the problem is retraining, which is an effort to get the individual with skills to make a good living independently. I understand people perceiving the Democrat solution like that, but you stated it as if it were a fact. I don't know how good a solution it is, or how much of the current problems it will solve, but it's a path off any sort of government assistance to independently making a living.
"Further, those poor white people know that the Democrats' plans will be funded with taxpayer money" I also find dubious. Assuming that the Democrat plan works, it will get people off any sort of government assistance programs and into jobs that pay enough to be taxed.
WWII was started by German and Japanese aggression. Hitler used various features of the Versailles Treaty to argue that he should have power. The reparations were in practice not that bad, and Germany did not become impoverished. What happened, in broad strokes, was that the US invested money in Germany, Germany paid reparations to Western countries, and the Western countries sent it off to the US to repay war debts. It kept money in motion, but didn't tremendously affect who had it.
WWI, in particular, was no more far-flung than what went on in the Seven Years' War and the Napoleonic Wars, and wasn't really as devastating as the Thirty Years' War, and all three of those wars went on considerably longer than WWI did. Technology and economic development had a great effect on how WWI was fought, but did not get the scope and length of the war to the level of earlier large conflicts.
Stalin wanted safety for the Soviet Union, ostensibly to finish the Communist revolution. He was afraid of Germany. Initially, he tried negotiating a mutual assistance treaty with Britain and France, in an effort to avoid fighting Germany without strong help, but Britain and France pretty much blew him off. He made a pact with Germany to try to hold off the inevitable clash while creeping up to war. He took what he could as buffer territory. Had he not annexed eastern Poland and the Baltic States, the initial German attack would have been far more devastating. Neither Hitler nor Stalin intended this as any sort of permanent alliance. The Soviets got time to rearm, and Germany got time to attack the West. It was purely pragmatic.
Any knowledge of socialism, combined with any knowledge of what Hitler actually did, would show that Hitler was no socialist. The National Socialist German Workers' Party had a Socialist wing until the mid-thirties, when it was basically murdered. The Nazis stuck firmly to capitalist principles throughout their stay in power. They cut off the cooperation with the Soviets that von Seeckt had started in the 1920s, in which the Soviet Union helped the German Army train and develop new tactics with weapons forbidden by the Versailles treaty, and got to see what the Germans were doing. They pushed the Anti-Comintern Pact.
That there was anything socialist or left-wing about the Nazi party of WWII seems to be modern propaganda from people who want to claim the right wing is morally better than the left, and who count on their listeners having a very tenuous grasp on history.
From what I've figured out, the naval race didn't play much of a part in starting WWI, although it's played up in most of the English-language histories. However, the main alliances were set before it became significant, and since Germany was going to invade Belgium it would force the Brits' hand. The actual events that caused the war were governed by Serbia, Austria-Hungary, Russia (with strong encouragement from France), and Germany, with Britain making some vague gestures in favor of peace. It may have contributed to French belligerence somewhat, since the race is one thing that made Britain turn from pro-German to pro-French, but no more than that.
It had a significant effect in the outcome of the war, in that the German surface navy was a very expensive luxury, and aside from wandering cruisers early in the war and the actions of German warships in the Black Sea accomplished pretty much nothing. If it had been half the size, or somewhat smaller, it would have been more than enough to dominate the Russian Baltic Fleet, and it would have freed up resources to be used somewhere more useful. The German submarines were quite effective, but they weren't part of the naval race, and played little or no part in prewar Anglo-German relations.
The Allied pact to declare war in WWII was a response to German aggression. One big mistake was in not seriously trying for an alliance with the Soviet Union. Stalin's first choice was an alliance with Britain and France (Britain in particular showed no interest), and his second choice was the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The Allies were going to have to stop German aggression some time or other, once the takeover of all of Czechoslovakia showed that Germany would not stop with territorial expansion. Had Hitler stopped with the Sudetenland, as he promised, the West was willing to stay peaceful.
Democrats tend to be more interested in providing funds for retraining displaced workers, which enables them to make more money independently of the government. The rural whites seem to be more interested in returning the world to a state it will never be in again. A big factory in town that employed a lot of people? To be competitive, that factory needs to automate, which means it doesn't hire that many people. The US industrial sector is very large in output, but it's becoming a smaller and smaller source of jobs, and that trend will continue. You seem to be buying the vision of Democrats that some of those people have.
The difference between country folks and city folks is important. Many of the issues that divide the country run that way, the Republicans favoring the solutions that work in small towns and rural areas, and the Democrats favoring the solutions that work in cities. Unfortunately, too many people on both sides don't see this.
In my experience, the preview window, for some reason, typically fails to display mistakes in a manner I will notice, which are immediately apparent when I click on "Submit".
A book or movie that says "this might happen" in no way gives a scenario less credibility. Elysium builds on things some rich people are doing now. It's not an argument but an example of what could happen (probably not in space, though) if some trends continue.
When I was renting, I'd buy an apartment-month, pay for it once, and then I'd buy another apartment-month and use it, and so on. Rent and food are continuing expenses, and not entirely predictable ones. I don't see the difference.
If there's no need for everybody to communicate with everyone else, the communications costs are likely to scale as log N. There's lots of that kind of job that isn't going to be automated any time soon.
Payroll taxes are not a fixed amount per employee. They're a percentage of amount paid to employees. The big costs of hiring new employees at my level is typically the tens of thousands paid to the recruiters, and the amount you pay the new hire while he or she gets up to speed, not any sort of government regulation.
One of the better directors I've had knew nothing about the business, knew that he knew nothing about the business, and trusted the people who reported to him. It worked pretty well.
We don't seem to be able to do very large software projects reliably. The ACA website was unusually successful for a project that size.
Is it working in a satisfactory way? Can it be changed efficiently with changing requirements? Can it be run less expensively? (The used car I bought in 1976 got half the mileage of the similar car I bought in 2008, as an example.) Is it adequately secure and reliable?
There are stupid rednecks in the US. Any argument with that?
GP said nothing about whites in general being stupid rednecks. GP said that Trump's electoral base is stupid rednecks, but maligning a political group isn't racism.
Gitmo wasn't under Obama's direct control. He tried to close it and was stopped by Congress.
How much warrantless wiretapping did go on under Obama? What the NSA was doing wasn't exactly wiretapping, and there was the FISA court for warrants. I don't like what Obama did about surveillance, but it isn't clear to me that he lied.
If you liked your insurance plan, and the insurance company continued to offer it, you could in general keep it. Whether insurance plans were going to continue to be offered was not under Obama's direct control, and neither was the doctor thing. He shouldn't have said it, but it wasn't lying about things under his direct control.
There aren't enough hardcore Trump supporters to win an election, and he's alienating everyone else. He won the Presidency because of all the people who voted against Clinton, not because he was that popular.