We can probably have the same fun with whatever philosophy you attach yourself to. IMHO, the only philosophy that has shown real, tangible results has been science. It is entirely possible that some other culture came up with something better 1000 years ago, but I haven't seen evidence of that.
Surely you aren't arguing that the clash between omnipotence and free will hasn't been contentious? It's hardly something that was ever settled to everyone's satisfaction. I've never seen a convincing argument that omnipotence is even possible: "Can God make a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" The concept of omnipotence creates a paradox IMHO. The typical (and most accepted response) is to argue that "omnipotence" is not defined as "can do anything", but rather "can do anything that God can do"... I believe they use the term "in his nature". Well, at that point, you can put restrictions on God that make him conform to the observations of science, mathematics, and logic. Once you've done that, what did you need him for again?
I've heard other lines of defense which mostly concentrate on dissecting the juvenile "stone so heavy" example. But this just leads to a progression of slightly less juvenile examples of logical restrictions and the argument goes back and forth until one is forced to admit that God is constrained by logic, IMHO. Some refuse to go so far, but I'm not swayed by their argument. CS Lewis was in this camp, seemingly at peace with saying God can do anything while simply dismissing questions about God's ability to do "impossible" things. I'm in the camp that impossible things shouldn't exist to an omnipotent being. If omnipotent God wanted to show me a square circle, then He could do so. I'm perfectly happy to settle on a different definition of the word "omnipotent", but to me that is a way of winning a semantic argument at the expense of losing a major part of your deity.
So long as you had to write the programs yourself, that is fine. I'm more concerned about professional-style exams where there is a mix of math questions and questions where you are expected to recall the answer from memory.
I found one of these in a desk drawer when we were moving from one building to another. Jackpot. It's way more limited than my old 48GX, but it does RPN!
We are calculating total cost of a depreciating asset. One can apply the exact same math to a used car - I'm not sure why you'd jump to the conclusion that I buy new cars. I mentioned the subsidy for the Leaf, but only in passing.
Yes, it can't be 20K more. It could easily be 5k more, though. A Suburban could burn through that much in 2 years, no problem. 5k extra on something like a Versa is crazy, since it would take forever to use that much gas.
That's an interesting idea - a truck or minivan that is economical to run on small trips, but also has long-trip capability. The larger size, weight, and cost of the truck would make the battery less of a problem compared to these ridiculously small things that they battery power now. The fuel savings would be much easier to achieve when you are replacing a 15 MPG truck instead of a 30+ MPG compact.
I suspect the battery pack would need to be astoundingly large. But for me, it'd be great if the minivan could be electric for my 20 mile round trip commute, but could still be filled up when we go on family trips.
People suggest rentals, but the problem with renting a minivan is that they all are spoken for on holiday weekends when everyone gets the same idea as you. I was car-less in NYC for 5 years, so I've been there, done that. Zip Cars were awesome, but relying on them for long weekends was folly.
For me it isn't range, it is cost. My wife does a 100% city 10-mile round-trip commute. I literally only need 20 miles of charge for that car (to account for accessory use and the occasional shopping trip) - let's go crazy and double it so that when the battery loses capacity we still have the necessary range. Right now, there is nothing affordable on the market. A Leaf, even massively subsidized, would never pay itself back for my wife's commute when compared with something like a Versa (or even an Altima).
And the goods they buy [fixed] have a low labor component in their value--most of their value derives from intrinsic scarcity.
I don't agree with this statement. You listed Harvard, which employs 4600 people to service 21,000 students (and that's not counting the 11,000 medical staff they employ). Artwork and jewelry is extremely labor intensive - almost always hand-made. Trophy houses cost millions and employ dozens in their construction and maintenance. Yachts are usually hand-made and are incredibly labor intensive to maintain. Sports teams are big employers, and drive construction and economic development in the areas which they are located: construction jobs, tons of service jobs.
as most wealthy people are children of wealthy people
I think we'd need to define "wealthy" at this point. Certainly Bill Gates came from a privileged background, but it's not as if his parents were on a Forbes list. We certainly need to improve the economic mobility of the poor - factory jobs were a fortuitous stand-in for education, but we won't be able to lean on those anymore. I don't know how anyone can stick to libertarian ideals without people starting on as level a playing field as is practical.
As a result, many people vote against taxes that only affect multi-millionaires.
And yet, we just raised the top income tax bracket for 2013, and the entitlements portion of the federal budget continues to eclipse all other spending.
I think you are right that factory work is done for, but I'm pretty sure that the rich will need something to do with all of that money, and the voting majority won't let them keep all of it. Things will be incredibly painful for a while, since retraining people doesn't seem to work in the wild. But I'm fairly confident that in the long-term, people will find things to keep themselves occupied in an era of automated production - and so long as some semblance of democracy holds up, the electorate will keep voting themselves raises.
Are you sure you aren't seeing a Japanese vs. American resale trend? I notice a huge gap between the two on the used market. With Toyotas a little, but with Hondas especially.
I only referred to the working poor because it was in the parent post. I know a few pretty well-off guys who drive beaters. I am currently beater-less, because my wife needs something reliable for her daily ghetto commute (often at odd hours) and I drive the minivan, which we use for longer trips and I want it to be reliable. Pre-kids, I was more willing to get towed... still have AAA:)
Most well off people seem to head straight for the Prius IMHO. If gas mileage really mattered to me, I'd probably do the math on whatever made sense for my commute distance. Right now I only fill the tank once every couple of weeks so I don't really care, and a hybrid would be really stupid financially. I also don't buy new cars, so I'm not sure a hybrid would be smart.
Well, yes, but trucks used to be excluded entirely. And you get a lot more return on investment by improving their fuel economy, since it started so poor. Making a 20MPG truck into a 21MPG truck is better than making a 30MPG sedan into a 31MPG sedan, and half of all "cars" sold were "trucks".
The problem with that reasoning is that CAFE standards only apply to the fleet average. My 1998 Saturn got nearly 40 MPG on the highway. If gas cost was an issue for me, I had that very affordable option 15 years ago - and there were equally efficient cars before that. Not only that, the efficient cars tended to be cheap: a 1989 Geo Metro was $6,000 and got over 40 MPG.
Anyway, teenagers and the working poor always had cheap and efficient cars available. Safety standards may have actually made things worse for them over time, not better.
Slashdot Mirror
And if we had a single coal plant, no one would be worried.
Yes, because we have many examples of nuclear power plants melting down after getting hit by tropical cyclones.
But... but... I invite my friends and get more lives! ;p
Repetition is good. My favorite repetitive MMOs are Candy Crush, or anything by Zinga. :p
We can probably have the same fun with whatever philosophy you attach yourself to. IMHO, the only philosophy that has shown real, tangible results has been science. It is entirely possible that some other culture came up with something better 1000 years ago, but I haven't seen evidence of that.
Surely you aren't arguing that the clash between omnipotence and free will hasn't been contentious? It's hardly something that was ever settled to everyone's satisfaction. I've never seen a convincing argument that omnipotence is even possible: "Can God make a stone so heavy that even he cannot lift it?" The concept of omnipotence creates a paradox IMHO. The typical (and most accepted response) is to argue that "omnipotence" is not defined as "can do anything", but rather "can do anything that God can do"... I believe they use the term "in his nature". Well, at that point, you can put restrictions on God that make him conform to the observations of science, mathematics, and logic. Once you've done that, what did you need him for again?
I've heard other lines of defense which mostly concentrate on dissecting the juvenile "stone so heavy" example. But this just leads to a progression of slightly less juvenile examples of logical restrictions and the argument goes back and forth until one is forced to admit that God is constrained by logic, IMHO. Some refuse to go so far, but I'm not swayed by their argument. CS Lewis was in this camp, seemingly at peace with saying God can do anything while simply dismissing questions about God's ability to do "impossible" things. I'm in the camp that impossible things shouldn't exist to an omnipotent being. If omnipotent God wanted to show me a square circle, then He could do so. I'm perfectly happy to settle on a different definition of the word "omnipotent", but to me that is a way of winning a semantic argument at the expense of losing a major part of your deity.
Yes, but now we call it the tablet market.
So long as you had to write the programs yourself, that is fine. I'm more concerned about professional-style exams where there is a mix of math questions and questions where you are expected to recall the answer from memory.
I found one of these in a desk drawer when we were moving from one building to another. Jackpot. It's way more limited than my old 48GX, but it does RPN!
Because the programmable calculators can do more than just math.
We are calculating total cost of a depreciating asset. One can apply the exact same math to a used car - I'm not sure why you'd jump to the conclusion that I buy new cars. I mentioned the subsidy for the Leaf, but only in passing.
Yes, it can't be 20K more. It could easily be 5k more, though. A Suburban could burn through that much in 2 years, no problem. 5k extra on something like a Versa is crazy, since it would take forever to use that much gas.
That's an interesting idea - a truck or minivan that is economical to run on small trips, but also has long-trip capability. The larger size, weight, and cost of the truck would make the battery less of a problem compared to these ridiculously small things that they battery power now. The fuel savings would be much easier to achieve when you are replacing a 15 MPG truck instead of a 30+ MPG compact.
I suspect the battery pack would need to be astoundingly large. But for me, it'd be great if the minivan could be electric for my 20 mile round trip commute, but could still be filled up when we go on family trips.
People suggest rentals, but the problem with renting a minivan is that they all are spoken for on holiday weekends when everyone gets the same idea as you. I was car-less in NYC for 5 years, so I've been there, done that. Zip Cars were awesome, but relying on them for long weekends was folly.
If $35 every 6 months tilts the balance, then electric has come a long way, indeed.
For me it isn't range, it is cost. My wife does a 100% city 10-mile round-trip commute. I literally only need 20 miles of charge for that car (to account for accessory use and the occasional shopping trip) - let's go crazy and double it so that when the battery loses capacity we still have the necessary range. Right now, there is nothing affordable on the market. A Leaf, even massively subsidized, would never pay itself back for my wife's commute when compared with something like a Versa (or even an Altima).
And the goods they buy [fixed] have a low labor component in their value--most of their value derives from intrinsic scarcity.
I don't agree with this statement. You listed Harvard, which employs 4600 people to service 21,000 students (and that's not counting the 11,000 medical staff they employ). Artwork and jewelry is extremely labor intensive - almost always hand-made. Trophy houses cost millions and employ dozens in their construction and maintenance. Yachts are usually hand-made and are incredibly labor intensive to maintain. Sports teams are big employers, and drive construction and economic development in the areas which they are located: construction jobs, tons of service jobs.
as most wealthy people are children of wealthy people
I think we'd need to define "wealthy" at this point. Certainly Bill Gates came from a privileged background, but it's not as if his parents were on a Forbes list. We certainly need to improve the economic mobility of the poor - factory jobs were a fortuitous stand-in for education, but we won't be able to lean on those anymore. I don't know how anyone can stick to libertarian ideals without people starting on as level a playing field as is practical.
As a result, many people vote against taxes that only affect multi-millionaires.
And yet, we just raised the top income tax bracket for 2013, and the entitlements portion of the federal budget continues to eclipse all other spending.
I think you are right that factory work is done for, but I'm pretty sure that the rich will need something to do with all of that money, and the voting majority won't let them keep all of it. Things will be incredibly painful for a while, since retraining people doesn't seem to work in the wild. But I'm fairly confident that in the long-term, people will find things to keep themselves occupied in an era of automated production - and so long as some semblance of democracy holds up, the electorate will keep voting themselves raises.
Can we be legitimately concerned about indefinite human unemployment and the long-term phasing out of capitalism yet?
I'm personally not worried, but knock yourself out :)
Seriously, do you think we'll all just stop doing stuff once our basic needs are met?
Don't tell the BBC - I was just listening to a guy on there talking about the typhoon that hit the Philippines in terms of miles per hour.
NASA is on prepay.
Well, sure, but NASA uses station wagons full of tapes hurtling through space.
Are you sure you aren't seeing a Japanese vs. American resale trend? I notice a huge gap between the two on the used market. With Toyotas a little, but with Hondas especially.
I only referred to the working poor because it was in the parent post. I know a few pretty well-off guys who drive beaters. I am currently beater-less, because my wife needs something reliable for her daily ghetto commute (often at odd hours) and I drive the minivan, which we use for longer trips and I want it to be reliable. Pre-kids, I was more willing to get towed... still have AAA :)
Most well off people seem to head straight for the Prius IMHO. If gas mileage really mattered to me, I'd probably do the math on whatever made sense for my commute distance. Right now I only fill the tank once every couple of weeks so I don't really care, and a hybrid would be really stupid financially. I also don't buy new cars, so I'm not sure a hybrid would be smart.
I suspect he meant North America, but I can only speculate.
Well, yes, but trucks used to be excluded entirely. And you get a lot more return on investment by improving their fuel economy, since it started so poor. Making a 20MPG truck into a 21MPG truck is better than making a 30MPG sedan into a 31MPG sedan, and half of all "cars" sold were "trucks".
The problem with that reasoning is that CAFE standards only apply to the fleet average. My 1998 Saturn got nearly 40 MPG on the highway. If gas cost was an issue for me, I had that very affordable option 15 years ago - and there were equally efficient cars before that. Not only that, the efficient cars tended to be cheap: a 1989 Geo Metro was $6,000 and got over 40 MPG.
Anyway, teenagers and the working poor always had cheap and efficient cars available. Safety standards may have actually made things worse for them over time, not better.