This is the opposite of a jigsaw puzzle, so I call it a wasgij puzzle.
Jigsaw puzzles only fit one way and you use the picture to aid you in fitting the pieces.
This wasgij puzzle fit any way you want and you fit them together to form the picture you desire.
Scientists are liberal. (Only about 6% are Republicans, and over 20% state they are Democrats).
Then they realized that science is itself at odds with conservatism. Science is about discovering new things and proposing new ideas, whihc lead to new products and new social movements. Conservatism is about maintaining what works (even if they don't work well), while liberalism is about trying to fix things (even if they already work fine).
All that is fine. Just as liberalism has science, conservaitsm has religion (all about the old ideas - the newest of the big religions, Islam, is more than a milenium old). No big deal.
But then the GOP decided to go old school. They knew that attacking liberalism wasn't enough, they decided to attack the core problem - science - instead of the proposed new ideas.. So they went all out. First attack the proposed solutions. Then attack the claimed problems. Then attack the people doing it. Claim they are 'ivory tower intellectuals', not geniuses that are smarter and better educated. Claim they are engaged in evil 'cloning', without specigying what the evils are. Attack the Genetically modified food as unhealthy instead of saving lives with "golden rice".
As long as unethical people are in control of the conservative movement, science will have a bad name because they will try their best to give it one.
1. People are judgemental,hatefull creatures. I don't want that gossipy B/SOB from Human Resources - you know the one that makes snide comments about everyone's clothing and hair - to know about my intimiate medical details.
2. While I don't do anything wrong, YOU DO. By you I mean the people collecting the information. Corporations and Governments over-reach and embrace tyranny, and even if they don't, they can be bought out/conquered. Ann Frank did not want the nice, sweet, wonderful government of Holland to know anything about her, even though she did nothing wrong. Look how that turned out. That is EXACTLY why we don't want you to know anything.
3. Selective prosecution. People sin. No one is truly innocent (how many priets were caught...) We need to learn to get along with people with faults, not expect everyone to be perfect. But if you know everything about everyone, then you can blackmail those you dislike, while leaving your 'friends' alone. If you truly wish to ask "what do you have to hide" you must first reveal EVERYTHING about yourself AND your family. I want to see the tax returns, psychiatric notes, report cards, arrest reports, of EVERY single employee AND stock holder of Google before they have the gall to say "if you don't have anything to hide..."
They serve two purposes, not one. Frankly, telling time is the least of their purposes.
As a man, a wristwatch is probably the single most expensive a wife/girlfriend or even boyfriend can buy for you. It can be large without being sententious, be jewel encrusted or plain, and can hold much more metal and gems then a ring.
Also, they are more accessible. It is far easier and less obvious to check than to pull out a phone and flip it/turn it on/enter your password.
"LASER" = Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation.
It strikes me as wrong to use the first letter of an acronym as the last letter of another acronym.
It should be HELLASER = High Energy Liquid Light Amplification by Stimulated Emision of Radiation.
The quiet truth is that China has the rare opportunity to leapfrog ahead of the US.
Frankly, their rocket science is not up to our par. Instead of investing in rocket science they could ignore it and go right to Space Fountain. Cheaper in the long run.
The scientific basics are sound, they have the tibetan plateau (great place to build most space industries as it is has huge flat areas that are 5,000 meters above sea level), and they don't have to deal with an entrenched existing industry that doesn't want the competition. Yes, no one has built more than the most rudimentary test version, but the theory says it will work without the scientific advancements in materials that the space elevator needs.
The only thing protecting the US's space advantage is the inherent conservativism that all dictatorships develop. Their government actively discourages independent thinking so instead of trying to build something new, they will most likely stick with the old style rocket technology that the US has already proven to work.
1. This is a real issue. We are running out of Uraniumn (and yes, the price is going up and quite a few people have made a killing buying Uraninum mine stocks).
2. But no, we are not running out. There is plenty of Uraninum, we just need to mine it. We stopped mining it when the Russians began dissasembling their nukes. It was a lot cheaper to buy it from them (not to mention safer, as we ended up with the uranium instead of less reputable people).
3. All we have to do is start enriching, prospecting and mining again. It's not that big a deal, it justs costs us some extra cash.
For those of you that continue to think they are matching similar DNA, if you read the article you will find that they are doing the opposite.
That is, they are trying to create "Hybrid Vigor" - matching people whose DNA matches the LEAST. Among other things this should reduce recessive traits. No more blond haired/blue eyed children, but also no more hemophilia.
Truly I don't. I have a single cell phone provided by my company.
What posses people to waste their cash, signing up for obviously MORONIC contracts? If your company won't pay for your phone, get something without this kind of CRAP from Verizon.
I mean really, do you truly need this junk?
A kidney transplant costs $89,939; plus an average of $16,043 a year for anti-rejection medication.
Assuming 10 years of post transplant life, that is about $250k. If you save your company $250k, then you've enabled them to get better healthcare, which might for example give a new kidney to a man/woman for 10 years.
This of course ignores the more basic things, such as more money = more taxes for ambulance, fire, police, which can directly save a life.
Glenn Beck has said: It's just that almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist."
Fact, the majority of american scientists -- over 90%, believe in Global warming. These are not socialist. Most are Democrats, but no, you don't get the right to tell other people what they believe. Deomcrats are liberals not socialists. We have the right to decide our own political affilialtion, you can't tell me I'm a socialist, anymore than I can tell you that you are a member of the NeoNazi party.
More importantly, not all scientists are Democrats. Yes, 55% say they are Democrats, but 6% say they are Republicans. (2% say they are independent). The independent ones also believe in Global warming.
(P.S. Republicans should be ashamed that so few scientists are Republicans. Yeah, I know the hole 'ivory tower' explanation, but frankly that might be enough to explain 20% or even 15%, but 6% indicates a serious problem).
The main problem with Glenn Beck is not the content, but the delivery.
That is I respect a man that says "I believe Obama is not an American Citizen" a lot more than I respect an asswipe that says "Isn't it interesting that Obama has not publicly denied being a Kenyan." The first man is simple ignorant, the second knows he is wrong, but wants to try an attack his opponent using dirty tricks based on a lie he refuses to stand up and state. The first man is a brave idiot, the second one is an intelligent coward trying to hide. I am proud to call the first a friend, but I would throw the second out of my house.
Glenn Beck is a shmuck, not because of what he believes, but of how he presents it.
1. They gloss over the quantum effects like it is irrelevant. No. I reject your premise that the human mind is 100% deterministic. Quantum effects are not only significant, they are in fact the key point of how the human mind works. Anyone that studies the human mind realizes that we DON'T do certinity. Our behavior can not be predicted (except en masse aka Asimov's Foundation books). When asked about obvious, stated things like who we will vote for, our answers changes merely based on time. Computers think determensitically. Which is why we know they have no free will. Humans think via probabilities, not certanties. When computers are asked to solve a math question, they are always 100% certain they know the answer. When humas do it, we generally are a lot less certain. We know we might be wrong. The machines don't know that.
2. They also assume the question. If you believe in a soul, then the brain could be considered determenisitically created reception device for the soul's commands. Then everything about the brain could be determenstic, in the same way a radio is 100% predicatable, but the descisions, being made off-site in the soul, not the brain, are totally not determenistic.
3. The heart of the problem is a definition power play. Yes, if you define the brain ahead of the time as a determenistic construct, then since determenistic constructs do not allow for free-will, then humans get no soul.
If I were Nevada gambling commission, I would rule that when a Casion claims a win doesn't count because the machine was not working, they must pay the 'winner' all coins the machine took in since the day they can prove it worked (i.e. when it last serviced).
Because since that time, they have been accepting profit from a broken machine.
I agree with you. I see zero reason for traffic to increase in a pandemic.
Yes, more people will work from home via the internet, but at the same time, more people will be watching TV instead of using their work computer.
This is total speculation. In a theoretical, unknown pandemic, with unknown number of people not going to work, and unknown number working (instead of pretending to), etc etc.
Namewise you are correct, I meant to say space fountain, not elevator. Power costs will only be low if we can keep air outside of the fountain core. I am not as sure as some people are that this will be cheap. In general, power costs tend to be higher than people estimate. Note, the power costs are only really high when we are raising the U bend. Once it gets up there, costs become minimal.
The most important part is that we have the technology to build one TODAY.
It is totally correct that we can't make a space elevator right now.
But we could make a space elevator.
1. Take a particle accelerator, preferably one built at a high altitude. You should be able to start at least 4000 meters above sea level (China's Qinghai-Tibet Plateau averages 4,500 meters.
2. Put a bend in the output - straight up.
3. Detach the final u turn that bends the particle stream down again.
4. Add some magnets to recover power from the particle stream. Use it to power the magnets in the final U bend, that is now detached.
5. Focus the energy so that the it is self-centers the now detached final U.
6. Up the power. The detached U bend now floats.
7. Keep raising the power. U bend keeps going up.
8. At low altitudes, the atmosphere will drain massive energy. So build an air-tight 2000 meter tower around the particle stream. At the very least this should take you 6000 meters above sea level. Air pressure is now 50% sea level. This will reduce power consumption
Problems: 1. Power requirements will be HIGH. We will need to build a Nuclear power plant (probably a 2nd on as a backup). 2. We will building the tallest man made structure on Earth, at one of the highest points on Earth. 3. A lot of untested engineering, although the physics is known.
No. The thought process itself is totally rational.
Here it is:
1. I agreed to pay X previously.
2. I am a logical person. (see the steps I am doing right now for proof.)
3. Therefore if a logical person previously agreed to pay X, then X is a valid price.
4. Examine further price changes by comparing to X.
Their is NOTHING irrational about it, it is a great method for for use with little information. Making decisions based on little information is part of life and definitely requires rational methods. As long as no new information is introduced, the method they used is VERY ratioanl. If you are later told that the wholesale price of is X/10, (or 3 times X), then and only then should you ignore the original price X.
The scientist (or more likely the reporter reporting the study) simply was NOT smart enough to realize the value of the RATTIONAL thought process involved and decided it must be stupid, so they called it 'irrational'.
They continue to try and convince the world that THEIR problem is actually the world's problem. No.
People LIKE owning. We don't like 'accessing'. If I want to own a movie, I pay the cost to watch it no more than 3 times. If I want to 'access' a movie with a huge screen and fantastic sound, then I go to a theater and pay less than 1/3 that cost.
If you want to charge for access instead of ownership, without the enhanced screen and audio, then you have to charge a lot less than ownership.
If Disney's new system is going to be priced like ownership, no one will use it.
A bank once told me that because I had signed approval for a single specific company to electronically debit my account, that the bank did not need to inform me WHO was debiting my account.
Just because you have given permission for people to send emails to you, it does not grant them permission to threaten you.
Similarly, if I give someone permission to enter my home, that does not mean I give permission for them to take my TV, grab the cord, and swing it around their head saying "LET ME WATCH FOX NEWS OR I LET GO!!!"
You need at least one book from each of the following authors/sets:
1. Some of the ancient stuff that people call classics and pretend are not Fantasy: Gilgamesh/Beowulf/Dante's Divine Comedy/Iliad/1001 Arabian Nights
2. Jules Verne
3. HG Wells
4. Asimov
5. Tolkien
6. Heinlein
7. Philip K Dick
8. CS Lewis
9. Niven
10. Theodore Sturgeon
11. George Orwell / Aldous Huxley
12. Arthur C Clarke
That is enough. Quite a lot to read. If you haven't read SOMETHING by each of these authors/sets, then you don't really everything that Sci-Fi/Fantasy can be.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the opposite of a jigsaw puzzle, so I call it a wasgij puzzle. Jigsaw puzzles only fit one way and you use the picture to aid you in fitting the pieces. This wasgij puzzle fit any way you want and you fit them together to form the picture you desire.
I like this. It is a far better response than most other gave here (which generally centered on the 'needle in the haystack' response).
Then they realized that science is itself at odds with conservatism. Science is about discovering new things and proposing new ideas, whihc lead to new products and new social movements. Conservatism is about maintaining what works (even if they don't work well), while liberalism is about trying to fix things (even if they already work fine).
All that is fine. Just as liberalism has science, conservaitsm has religion (all about the old ideas - the newest of the big religions, Islam, is more than a milenium old). No big deal.
But then the GOP decided to go old school. They knew that attacking liberalism wasn't enough, they decided to attack the core problem - science - instead of the proposed new ideas.. So they went all out. First attack the proposed solutions. Then attack the claimed problems. Then attack the people doing it. Claim they are 'ivory tower intellectuals', not geniuses that are smarter and better educated. Claim they are engaged in evil 'cloning', without specigying what the evils are. Attack the Genetically modified food as unhealthy instead of saving lives with "golden rice".
As long as unethical people are in control of the conservative movement, science will have a bad name because they will try their best to give it one.
2. While I don't do anything wrong, YOU DO. By you I mean the people collecting the information. Corporations and Governments over-reach and embrace tyranny, and even if they don't, they can be bought out/conquered. Ann Frank did not want the nice, sweet, wonderful government of Holland to know anything about her, even though she did nothing wrong. Look how that turned out. That is EXACTLY why we don't want you to know anything.
3. Selective prosecution. People sin. No one is truly innocent (how many priets were caught...) We need to learn to get along with people with faults, not expect everyone to be perfect. But if you know everything about everyone, then you can blackmail those you dislike, while leaving your 'friends' alone. If you truly wish to ask "what do you have to hide" you must first reveal EVERYTHING about yourself AND your family. I want to see the tax returns, psychiatric notes, report cards, arrest reports, of EVERY single employee AND stock holder of Google before they have the gall to say "if you don't have anything to hide..."
Someone that can, upon hearing the facts, charge the prosecutor with abuse of process and dismiss the case.
I agree with this. You need to get paid extra for extra for being on call. Vendors charge extra if you want 24 hour support, so should the rest of us.
They serve two purposes, not one. Frankly, telling time is the least of their purposes. As a man, a wristwatch is probably the single most expensive a wife/girlfriend or even boyfriend can buy for you. It can be large without being sententious, be jewel encrusted or plain, and can hold much more metal and gems then a ring. Also, they are more accessible. It is far easier and less obvious to check than to pull out a phone and flip it/turn it on/enter your password.
"LASER" = Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. It strikes me as wrong to use the first letter of an acronym as the last letter of another acronym.
It should be HELLASER = High Energy Liquid Light Amplification by Stimulated Emision of Radiation.
Frankly, their rocket science is not up to our par. Instead of investing in rocket science they could ignore it and go right to Space Fountain. Cheaper in the long run.
The scientific basics are sound, they have the tibetan plateau (great place to build most space industries as it is has huge flat areas that are 5,000 meters above sea level), and they don't have to deal with an entrenched existing industry that doesn't want the competition. Yes, no one has built more than the most rudimentary test version, but the theory says it will work without the scientific advancements in materials that the space elevator needs.
The only thing protecting the US's space advantage is the inherent conservativism that all dictatorships develop. Their government actively discourages independent thinking so instead of trying to build something new, they will most likely stick with the old style rocket technology that the US has already proven to work.
2. But no, we are not running out. There is plenty of Uraninum, we just need to mine it. We stopped mining it when the Russians began dissasembling their nukes. It was a lot cheaper to buy it from them (not to mention safer, as we ended up with the uranium instead of less reputable people).
3. All we have to do is start enriching, prospecting and mining again. It's not that big a deal, it justs costs us some extra cash.
That is, they are trying to create "Hybrid Vigor" - matching people whose DNA matches the LEAST. Among other things this should reduce recessive traits. No more blond haired/blue eyed children, but also no more hemophilia.
Truly I don't. I have a single cell phone provided by my company. What posses people to waste their cash, signing up for obviously MORONIC contracts? If your company won't pay for your phone, get something without this kind of CRAP from Verizon. I mean really, do you truly need this junk?
A kidney transplant costs $89,939; plus an average of $16,043 a year for anti-rejection medication.
Assuming 10 years of post transplant life, that is about $250k. If you save your company $250k, then you've enabled them to get better healthcare, which might for example give a new kidney to a man/woman for 10 years.
This of course ignores the more basic things, such as more money = more taxes for ambulance, fire, police, which can directly save a life.
Glenn Beck has said: It's just that almost everyone who does believe in global warming is a socialist."
Fact, the majority of american scientists -- over 90%, believe in Global warming. These are not socialist. Most are Democrats, but no, you don't get the right to tell other people what they believe. Deomcrats are liberals not socialists. We have the right to decide our own political affilialtion, you can't tell me I'm a socialist, anymore than I can tell you that you are a member of the NeoNazi party.
More importantly, not all scientists are Democrats. Yes, 55% say they are Democrats, but 6% say they are Republicans. (2% say they are independent). The independent ones also believe in Global warming.
(P.S. Republicans should be ashamed that so few scientists are Republicans. Yeah, I know the hole 'ivory tower' explanation, but frankly that might be enough to explain 20% or even 15%, but 6% indicates a serious problem).
The main problem with Glenn Beck is not the content, but the delivery.
That is I respect a man that says "I believe Obama is not an American Citizen" a lot more than I respect an asswipe that says "Isn't it interesting that Obama has not publicly denied being a Kenyan." The first man is simple ignorant, the second knows he is wrong, but wants to try an attack his opponent using dirty tricks based on a lie he refuses to stand up and state. The first man is a brave idiot, the second one is an intelligent coward trying to hide. I am proud to call the first a friend, but I would throw the second out of my house.
Glenn Beck is a shmuck, not because of what he believes, but of how he presents it.
2. They also assume the question. If you believe in a soul, then the brain could be considered determenisitically created reception device for the soul's commands. Then everything about the brain could be determenstic, in the same way a radio is 100% predicatable, but the descisions, being made off-site in the soul, not the brain, are totally not determenistic.
3. The heart of the problem is a definition power play. Yes, if you define the brain ahead of the time as a determenistic construct, then since determenistic constructs do not allow for free-will, then humans get no soul.
If I were Nevada gambling commission, I would rule that when a Casion claims a win doesn't count because the machine was not working, they must pay the 'winner' all coins the machine took in since the day they can prove it worked (i.e. when it last serviced). Because since that time, they have been accepting profit from a broken machine.
If they don't have a second, smaller list, restricted to say no more than 1,000 names that would actually be likely to be used, then they are idiots.
You sound like one of the people watching a movie saying "GET OUT OF THE CAR BEFORE THE GAS TANK EXPLODES."
I agree with you. I see zero reason for traffic to increase in a pandemic. Yes, more people will work from home via the internet, but at the same time, more people will be watching TV instead of using their work computer. This is total speculation. In a theoretical, unknown pandemic, with unknown number of people not going to work, and unknown number working (instead of pretending to), etc etc.
Namewise you are correct, I meant to say space fountain, not elevator. Power costs will only be low if we can keep air outside of the fountain core. I am not as sure as some people are that this will be cheap. In general, power costs tend to be higher than people estimate. Note, the power costs are only really high when we are raising the U bend. Once it gets up there, costs become minimal. The most important part is that we have the technology to build one TODAY.
But we could make a space elevator.
1. Take a particle accelerator, preferably one built at a high altitude. You should be able to start at least 4000 meters above sea level (China's Qinghai-Tibet Plateau averages 4,500 meters.
2. Put a bend in the output - straight up.
3. Detach the final u turn that bends the particle stream down again.
4. Add some magnets to recover power from the particle stream. Use it to power the magnets in the final U bend, that is now detached.
5. Focus the energy so that the it is self-centers the now detached final U.
6. Up the power. The detached U bend now floats.
7. Keep raising the power. U bend keeps going up.
8. At low altitudes, the atmosphere will drain massive energy. So build an air-tight 2000 meter tower around the particle stream. At the very least this should take you 6000 meters above sea level. Air pressure is now 50% sea level. This will reduce power consumption
Problems: 1. Power requirements will be HIGH. We will need to build a Nuclear power plant (probably a 2nd on as a backup). 2. We will building the tallest man made structure on Earth, at one of the highest points on Earth. 3. A lot of untested engineering, although the physics is known.
No. The thought process itself is totally rational.
Here it is:
1. I agreed to pay X previously.
2. I am a logical person. (see the steps I am doing right now for proof.)
3. Therefore if a logical person previously agreed to pay X, then X is a valid price.
4. Examine further price changes by comparing to X.
Their is NOTHING irrational about it, it is a great method for for use with little information. Making decisions based on little information is part of life and definitely requires rational methods. As long as no new information is introduced, the method they used is VERY ratioanl. If you are later told that the wholesale price of is X/10, (or 3 times X), then and only then should you ignore the original price X.
The scientist (or more likely the reporter reporting the study) simply was NOT smart enough to realize the value of the RATTIONAL thought process involved and decided it must be stupid, so they called it 'irrational'.
They continue to try and convince the world that THEIR problem is actually the world's problem. No. People LIKE owning. We don't like 'accessing'. If I want to own a movie, I pay the cost to watch it no more than 3 times. If I want to 'access' a movie with a huge screen and fantastic sound, then I go to a theater and pay less than 1/3 that cost. If you want to charge for access instead of ownership, without the enhanced screen and audio, then you have to charge a lot less than ownership. If Disney's new system is going to be priced like ownership, no one will use it.
Just because you have given permission for people to send emails to you, it does not grant them permission to threaten you.
Similarly, if I give someone permission to enter my home, that does not mean I give permission for them to take my TV, grab the cord, and swing it around their head saying "LET ME WATCH FOX NEWS OR I LET GO!!!"
1. Some of the ancient stuff that people call classics and pretend are not Fantasy: Gilgamesh/Beowulf/Dante's Divine Comedy/Iliad/1001 Arabian Nights
2. Jules Verne
3. HG Wells
4. Asimov
5. Tolkien
6. Heinlein
7. Philip K Dick
8. CS Lewis
9. Niven
10. Theodore Sturgeon
11. George Orwell / Aldous Huxley
12. Arthur C Clarke That is enough. Quite a lot to read. If you haven't read SOMETHING by each of these authors/sets, then you don't really everything that Sci-Fi/Fantasy can be.