True. They believe however because of evidence placed in front of them. Experiements which they can repeat on their own.
Experiments that they never actually repeat, presented to them by anonymous sources that they never actually question.
Yes, namely that for something to be true, it has to be observable and repeatable. The horror!
I find no philosophy horrific; save one: intolerance in the name of tolerance.
Whoa there, I think you hurt your brain too much. The 'traditions' which you claim are always being challanged.
Who, recently, has bothered to challenge peer review?
Newtonian physics has been replaced with Einsteins theories. His theories are also being challenged.
The theories are the outcome of the traditions, not the traditions themselves.
At any rate, much of what we know has been tested time and again. What do you gain by retesting something after its already been tested to death?
Yet we never actually test the traditions themselves- peer review for instance, but there are others. The theories are the work of the system, not the system itself.
I guess that's why we never figured out how to build vehicals that can go to the moon and back.
Did we? Reliably? Seems to me we had more failure than success in that area- which is the reason mankind has not set foot on the moon in 20 years.
Or why we don't have nuclear power, or microwaves or computers. The truth is that if you're trying to prove something and thus setup an improper experiement, you will be found out when others look at your research.
None of these are perfect, they all just barely work. However, the problem isn't with the successes or failures- but with the blind faith in the system itself.
You've seen god, hell, angels and the devil?
Yes, but that's not the point. In fact, it's as much beside the point as bringing in Newton vs Einstien- that's the outcome of the system of Reasonable Theology, not the system itself.
Journals do get reviewed.
Yes, that's the meaning of peer review- but why trust the reviewer, whom you don't know, over the peer committee, who you don't know? Or for that matter, why trust the peer committee, who you don't know, over the reviewer, who you don't know? Ultimately, it's all taken on Faith.
How many bogus experiements have appeared here on/. and then another story comes along saying the scientists used improper methods to conduct the exeriment?
Once again, that's the system working as designed, not questioning the system itself.
You need to read David Hume I think.
I have- I think he's as biased as any other human.
I disagree. Compassion, Humanity, Empathy are all traits that exist without needing Faith, thank you very much,
Prove it. There's no rational reasoning to assume that you need to take care of anybody other than yourself; in fact, doing so is extremely detrimental to your own profit.
and those are the traits.. that is, a respect for and an understanding of the emotional content of life.. that prevent rationalized atrocities from occurring, not faith.
Except, those emotions ARE faith. They have no reasonable proof behind them; they have no "valid evidence" of their existance.
You might need Faith to balance reason. I just need some human understanding.
Two words that mean exactly the same thing.
Faith not only does not have a monopoly on that, and I would argue that for the common practitioner, it is an obstacle to real understanding by short circuiting the critical thinking process.
If you were really being a critical thinker, you'd abandon the fake emotionalism.
Those who take their faith very serious AND use reason can of course take it to a much higher level of understanding than most. But it's not a necessary component, just one possible route to understanding.
If you use Reason Alone, you will never progress to having an emotional life, because emotionalism is beyond reason, in the realm of Faith.
Nice oxymoron, if its an objective ideology then it can't be religious, can it. (that's a rhetorical question the faithful will likely answer incorrectly, the answer is no its no religious)
Human beings are incapable of separating themselves from bias- so it doesn't matter if you are faithfull or unfaithful, "objective ideology" will always be religious because human beings are incapable of being objective, as you have proven with the rest of your post.
The reason these scientists are banding together is because science is being censored by religious zealots through the government, just like those facist islamist states. The objective of their organization is not to censor but to bring objectiveness to a government which affects all of us, christians, muslims, buddhists, aethiests, etc.
Which of course is impossible, since all of these ideologies are mutually exclusive. Thus the belief they can bring "objectiveness", which doens't exist, to government is at best a waste of time.
Its funny how the zealots believe that stopping them from forcing their religion on the rest of us is somehow censorship. Nobody is taking your religion away, just keep it to yourself and out of OUR government.
Any time you stop another person from speaking, and discriminate against them in job applications, you are committing censorship, whether you admit it or not. As I said, human beings are incapable of being truly objective- and with this line you've proved that you ARE NOT OBJECTIVE.
I'd like to point out that I wasn't just putting forth Ayn Rand's sect of objectivism, but rather the broader set of those who believe in the concepts of "valid evidence" and "the scientific method". This includes everything from Randian fundamentalists, or as Robert Heinlien named them, Professional Witnesses, to those who believe they can be unbiased in one area of their lives and extremely biased, even discriminatory, in other areas.
Seems wierd, I looked up the definition of religion
Mind revealing where, so that we know the bias of the dictionary used?
Doesnt fit anything there, you would have to be religious to stretch a skepticism (which is what science is) into a religion, and the codified way of reducing skepticism as an ideological code similar to faith.
And yet, Ayn Rand did, and so have several atheists since then, so there's no problem there.
Also, science doesnt require you have actual faith in anything, but you can have faith in God or Gods or your little toe, and you are still a scientist.
Yes you can, but I'm talking about this 527 which claims that science should not have an ideological basis of ANY sort- including the ideology of not having faith in anything.
So it seems to be opposite of a religion since there is no faith implied, there is no resounding philosophy
Everything has a resounding philosophy- especially those who claim to have none, which is a resounding philosophy in and of itself.
In other words, you protest too much and fail to reveal your own biases.
Well, excuuuuuse the scientists for ignoring hallucinations and fevre-dreams, and being so narrow-minded that they only use valid evidence in their considerations.
All of life is merely hallucination and fevre-dreams, and words like "valid evidence" I've read before from trials presided over by Bishops and Mullahs. So excuse me for being somewhat skeptical that a human being can be unbiased.
You make an interesting point, but which do you prefer - Government using Reason or Government using Religion? A period where Faith overrules Reason is known as a "Dark Age", whereas a time where Reason overrules Faith is known as an "Enlightened Age" or a "Renaissance".
I don't see any real difference between the two- Reason without Faith becomes inhuman rather quickly (after all, the obvious answer to global warming would be nuclear war- allowing the evolutionary process to start over with better, radiation hardened species); and as you say, Faith without Reason is the Dark Ages.
Enlightenment and Renaissance only happens when the two are in balance.
I'll choose SEFORA as friends. I prefer Technocrats over Talibans.
Well, I do too- notice I posted this same discussion to Technocrat.net- but being a technocrat does not neccessarily have to decry faith- in fact, that's the difference between Engineering and Science (practical vs theoretical).
Actually it is- but like most religions, it has its fundamentalists and its moderates.
and you don't have to be an Objectivist to subscribe to the scientific method.
You also don't have to be a Roman Catholic to believe in the Virgin Birth (Islamics do as well), or a Buddhist to follow the eightfold path. What is your point?
Where do you get that being objective, or wanting people to be objective, is a religious ideology?
It has believers. It has a codeified set of ideological rules. It has stupid traditions that are so accepted that nobody questions them. Looks like a religious ideology to me.
All these crazy religious ideologies running around with their preaching of the word "THINK"
Well, that's what the Pope said recently- and in response the religion of peace killed nuns and rioted. But that's not my point. My point is that an unbiased human being has never existed- call it Seeber's Uncertainty Principle: Any experiment run by human beings will discover a scientific truth compatible with the biases of the human being runing the experiment.
And people running around saying "I REFUSE TO THINK and BE OBJECTIVE!"
Well, it's more along these lines "I refuse to think, and instead I believe in only what I see and not what I don't see". It's a little more complex than that- the traditions of peer review and committees muddle the concept out more to "I believe what is printed in peer reviewed journals without asking who the anonymous peers are", but it works out to the same thing.
I just see this kind of funny war between objective thinkers and subjective thinkers. The objective thinkers are measurably winning, but the subjective thinkers THINK they are winning, even though they have no proof.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder- it is a religious belief that doesn't really exist. Both subjective and objective thinkers are useful, but both are fooling themselves when they claim a lack of bias.
You maybe read those words somewhere and decided that stringing them together made you sound intellectual?
Not at all. Humans contain an infinite ability to place irrational belief in just about anything- including rationalism.
The whole problem with ideology is that it elevates certain beliefs over the evidence.
Exactly, yes.
Science is the un-ideology, the un-religion. It is the hole left behind when you take away superstition and willful ignorance.
No, unfortuneately it isn't. It's just the superstition and willful arrogance of assuming that what you see is real, and what you don't see isn't. Of course, it's more complicated than that these days- tradition screws up any religion and the ideology of objectivism is no different, with traditions of peer reviewed journals and blind acceptance of what is printed in them, combined with the absolute rejection of that which isn't. But the core is the arrogance that says you, personally, can be objective- when no human being has ever achieved a perfect lack of bias yet.
Next oxymoron please, this one's done...
Too bad you failed to prove that it's an oxymoron. Instead, it's just moronic.
"In what it described as a Bill of Rights for scientists and engineers, the group said that researchers who receive federal funds should be free to discuss their work publicly, and that appointments to federal scientific advisory committees should be based on scientific qualifications, not political beliefs. It said the government should not support science education programs that 'include concepts that are derived from ideology,' an apparent reference to creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design."
Ok, so let me get this straight: In an effort to remove political and religious beliefs from federal scientific advisory commissions, this group of scientists has banded together to form a 527 (political activism group) to promote the religious ideology of objectivism.
When scientists start attempting to use governmental censorship just like any Islamic or Southern Baptist, well, with friends like these who needs enemies?
1. The government would never let anyone or any corporation buy up that much land.
Money buys government. With enough money, there will be no politician who will object.
2. Robots can't replace all segements of the economy because then people would be BORED. The main central problem with socialism is it does not provide for more than people's basic needs. People have dreams and ambitions too. Believe it or not there are people out there who actually DO want to work and labor and struggle. Since you think robots would be doing everything such people would leave your "project", so many so that you'd have very few humans there.
Actually- boredom creates creativity. If all the huans were able to order the robots around, the lack of struggle would create wonderful things. Look into where the writer of Harry Potter was before she was published to see why.
3. EMPs.
This is the main danger. Of course, if one plans properly, electronics can be hardened...
4. Do you think the entire world would be lagging behind on robotic technology, military ordinance and the like? If it came down to it your project could be nuked.
And that, in short, is the real reason why it's a pipe dream.
Ummmm... The serial port is the console interface for each server, and a terminal server allows an admin to access all of the servers' consoles (think command-line interface) from one machine. Pretty standard datacenter policy, methinks.
I use VNC in my datacenter for that, and then block VNC's ports at the firewall. This allows me to manage servers anywhere on a given subnet without running around with a RS232 cable...I thought that everybody had swtiched to this technology long ago, it's been available in varioius software packages (Remote Desktop on XP, PC Anywhere, Closeup, etc) for over 10 years now. Once there, it's easy to pop up a command line interface in Windows, or use SSH to get a telnet window into the server.
Thank you- you're the first person to teach me something NEW. I didn't know GPUs still used 12V technology- especially since they all seem to output TTL level voltages.
You've never seen a console port on a disk array, router, switch or UPS? That RJ-45 socket speaks RS-232 and will connect to your serial port with the right cable.
I have- but what part of choose your hardware carefully do you people not understand? RS232 is a rather outdated protocol at this point. My two latest computer purchases do not speak RS232 natively- but they DO have multiple USB ports.
Ok, so I missed one- but I haven't seen a server with RS232 ports in ages, and USB has pretty much taken over serial communications at this point if you once again, pick your hardware carefully.
In the old days, disk drive motors and fans. But many of these now run on 5V, hence the cheap USB-powered drive cases out there. Chips at CMOS power levels run at 3.3v, TTL is 5v, but hardly anything runs at 12v anymore. It seems to me that if they'd just pick their hardware carfully, they could run their entire server rack off of 5v+- rails.
Perhaps this is a ploy to get public to see how 'wasteful' with their trillions the Medicare, Social Security, GI Bill, NSF, and other programs are? And then argue for more tax cuts?
Yep, that's the intent- though it's more things like farm subsidies and the highway bill that will shock people. IF they were doing it right, they'd also show us the defense budget and income/expenditure ratios.
WHat marraige penalty? You file jointly, you get a bigger deduction. I don't see a penalty there. Oh, you want an even bigger deduction than you would have gotten alone? And why do you deserve that? Typical conservative spin- not getting a bonus deduction is now a penalty.
The actual penalty was more along these lines: A TWO income family, fileing jointly, got a smaller deduction than two independant people filing singly. About $600 less, on the standard deduction. All the "elimination of the marriage penalty" did was make the standard deduction for filing jointly exactly 2x the standard deduction for filing singly.
Of course, good luck if you're a bigamist with two wives....
I have BDS on the conservative side- and I consider this to be the second thing ever dubbya has done right (the first being the removing of the marriage penalty from income taxes, thus supporting heterosexual marriage). Just about everything else he's failed at.
Well, I'm not sure what happens exactly internally. All I know is when the spark gap above the train goes off (and boy- one of these days I've got to look up the power requirements of a Max, that's some big blue spark) the sound cuts off just like the initial buffering when I turn the headset on. Switch to a new pattern, switch to a new frequency, the effect is the same: silence in the headset until negotiation with the host is finished.
With modern equipment, it's a lot easier (when you place the value for human life as high as we do in the West) to topple a building from afar, than ring its front door. During the war in Iraq, the US hasn't permitted itself (not too often, anyhow) such a course of action. Should China ever attempt to invade the US, the battle will look nothing like the one in Iraq. Nobody, far from the frontlines though he may be, would think, under THAT situation, that you (Americans) have the luxury of so called "humanity". Knowing you have the nukes, and that you are prepared to use them, what could motivate China into such a war?
The fact that we don't have enough soldiers left at home to launch those nukes, or the fact that we haven't exactly been pouring money into maintaining our ICBM fleet. Take your pick. We can't even aford guns for our troops on our southern border, despite the fact that we've already lost park rangers to the Mexican drug smugglers. The US military is a pathetic shell of it's former self. And China knows it.
Do remember, by the way, China's neighbours. They're not that small. Not all of them are on very friendly terms with China. The US hasn't such a problem. The US government people could stand to take far more damage and still keep their heads, if not their seats.
Oh, you're very naive if you think we could count on Mexico or Canada, if there was enough bribery money involved. And what would it matter to those in Washington DC if Kansas fell? Means nothing- their power structure comes from campaign contributions from international corporations, they care nothing for the American people anymore.
At no point was I talking about the US invading China. We were talking about China invading the US, when and if the US shirks its financial debts. (And invasion is all we can talk about, since any other militaristic course of action will still have costs, but no benefits.)
Yes, so was I. You don't really think we have any military left to speak of here in the United States do you? They're all in Afghanistan and Iraq, protecting those nations (and doing a bad job of it). What few are left don't even have GUNS, let alone any other equipment.
Whether China does or doesn't use nuclear weapons on this hypothetical war, China is open to a retaliation by nuclear weapons from the US.
Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the US doesn't have the capability to use those weapons.
"Conventional" as well as nonconventional attacks simply aren't worth it when you could lose as much as China can.
What have they got to lose? 3/4ths of their nation is desert.
Strategic advantage in what form?
Purchasing the companies that make parts for ICBMs, to sabotage our replacement parts, could be one attack vector once they have enough money. Another that seems to be a current attack vector is using their investment power to make sure that no American company has the capability to manufacture computer equipment. Car and truck parts have also moved to China, as have TV sets and telephones, bullets and guns. If you can't supply your army, it isn't worth very much.
I meant China is insane in your scenario...
No, just has different aims than you do. Of course, that's the definition of insanity to most human beings, who can't seem to dispasionately think like another culture.
How is exportation heeding their cause for infrastructure if they don't import anything back?
Extra exportation means extra manufacturing and shipping capability. Which is better, to use Chinese tax money to build all of that, or to use money from western corporations to build all of that? I'll give you a hint- they've tied their money supply to the dollar. Without dollars, the yuan is worthless.
How is it any different than, say, dumping the cargo in the middle of the ocean?
Dumping the cargo in the middle of the ocean doesn't sell it to stupid
Slashdot Mirror
True. They believe however because of evidence placed in front of them. Experiements which they can repeat on their own.
/. and then another story comes along saying the scientists used improper methods to conduct the exeriment?
Experiments that they never actually repeat, presented to them by anonymous sources that they never actually question.
Yes, namely that for something to be true, it has to be observable and repeatable. The horror!
I find no philosophy horrific; save one: intolerance in the name of tolerance.
Whoa there, I think you hurt your brain too much. The 'traditions' which you claim are always being challanged.
Who, recently, has bothered to challenge peer review?
Newtonian physics has been replaced with Einsteins theories. His theories are also being challenged.
The theories are the outcome of the traditions, not the traditions themselves.
At any rate, much of what we know has been tested time and again. What do you gain by retesting something after its already been tested to death?
Yet we never actually test the traditions themselves- peer review for instance, but there are others. The theories are the work of the system, not the system itself.
I guess that's why we never figured out how to build vehicals that can go to the moon and back.
Did we? Reliably? Seems to me we had more failure than success in that area- which is the reason mankind has not set foot on the moon in 20 years.
Or why we don't have nuclear power, or microwaves or computers. The truth is that if you're trying to prove something and thus setup an improper experiement, you will be found out when others look at your research.
None of these are perfect, they all just barely work. However, the problem isn't with the successes or failures- but with the blind faith in the system itself.
You've seen god, hell, angels and the devil?
Yes, but that's not the point. In fact, it's as much beside the point as bringing in Newton vs Einstien- that's the outcome of the system of Reasonable Theology, not the system itself.
Journals do get reviewed.
Yes, that's the meaning of peer review- but why trust the reviewer, whom you don't know, over the peer committee, who you don't know? Or for that matter, why trust the peer committee, who you don't know, over the reviewer, who you don't know? Ultimately, it's all taken on Faith.
How many bogus experiements have appeared here on
Once again, that's the system working as designed, not questioning the system itself.
You need to read David Hume I think.
I have- I think he's as biased as any other human.
I disagree. Compassion, Humanity, Empathy are all traits that exist without needing Faith, thank you very much,
Prove it. There's no rational reasoning to assume that you need to take care of anybody other than yourself; in fact, doing so is extremely detrimental to your own profit.
and those are the traits.. that is, a respect for and an understanding of the emotional content of life.. that prevent rationalized atrocities from occurring, not faith.
Except, those emotions ARE faith. They have no reasonable proof behind them; they have no "valid evidence" of their existance.
You might need Faith to balance reason. I just need some human understanding.
Two words that mean exactly the same thing.
Faith not only does not have a monopoly on that, and I would argue that for the common practitioner, it is an obstacle to real understanding by short circuiting the critical thinking process.
If you were really being a critical thinker, you'd abandon the fake emotionalism.
Those who take their faith very serious AND use reason can of course take it to a much higher level of understanding than most. But it's not a necessary component, just one possible route to understanding.
If you use Reason Alone, you will never progress to having an emotional life, because emotionalism is beyond reason, in the realm of Faith.
Nice oxymoron, if its an objective ideology then it can't be religious, can it. (that's a rhetorical question the faithful will likely answer incorrectly, the answer is no its no religious)
Human beings are incapable of separating themselves from bias- so it doesn't matter if you are faithfull or unfaithful, "objective ideology" will always be religious because human beings are incapable of being objective, as you have proven with the rest of your post.
The reason these scientists are banding together is because science is being censored by religious zealots through the government, just like those facist islamist states. The objective of their organization is not to censor but to bring objectiveness to a government which affects all of us, christians, muslims, buddhists, aethiests, etc.
Which of course is impossible, since all of these ideologies are mutually exclusive. Thus the belief they can bring "objectiveness", which doens't exist, to government is at best a waste of time.
Its funny how the zealots believe that stopping them from forcing their religion on the rest of us is somehow censorship. Nobody is taking your religion away, just keep it to yourself and out of OUR government.
Any time you stop another person from speaking, and discriminate against them in job applications, you are committing censorship, whether you admit it or not. As I said, human beings are incapable of being truly objective- and with this line you've proved that you ARE NOT OBJECTIVE.
I'd like to point out that I wasn't just putting forth Ayn Rand's sect of objectivism, but rather the broader set of those who believe in the concepts of "valid evidence" and "the scientific method". This includes everything from Randian fundamentalists, or as Robert Heinlien named them, Professional Witnesses, to those who believe they can be unbiased in one area of their lives and extremely biased, even discriminatory, in other areas.
Seems wierd, I looked up the definition of religion
Mind revealing where, so that we know the bias of the dictionary used?
Doesnt fit anything there, you would have to be religious to stretch a skepticism (which is what science is) into a religion, and the codified way of reducing skepticism as an ideological code similar to faith.
And yet, Ayn Rand did, and so have several atheists since then, so there's no problem there.
Also, science doesnt require you have actual faith in anything, but you can have faith in God or Gods or your little toe, and you are still a scientist.
Yes you can, but I'm talking about this 527 which claims that science should not have an ideological basis of ANY sort- including the ideology of not having faith in anything.
So it seems to be opposite of a religion since there is no faith implied, there is no resounding philosophy
Everything has a resounding philosophy- especially those who claim to have none, which is a resounding philosophy in and of itself.
In other words, you protest too much and fail to reveal your own biases.
Well, excuuuuuse the scientists for ignoring hallucinations and fevre-dreams, and being so narrow-minded that they only use valid evidence in their considerations.
All of life is merely hallucination and fevre-dreams, and words like "valid evidence" I've read before from trials presided over by Bishops and Mullahs. So excuse me for being somewhat skeptical that a human being can be unbiased.
You make an interesting point, but which do you prefer - Government using Reason or Government using Religion? A period where Faith overrules Reason is known as a "Dark Age", whereas a time where Reason overrules Faith is known as an "Enlightened Age" or a "Renaissance".
I don't see any real difference between the two- Reason without Faith becomes inhuman rather quickly (after all, the obvious answer to global warming would be nuclear war- allowing the evolutionary process to start over with better, radiation hardened species); and as you say, Faith without Reason is the Dark Ages.
Enlightenment and Renaissance only happens when the two are in balance.
I'll choose SEFORA as friends. I prefer Technocrats over Talibans.
Well, I do too- notice I posted this same discussion to Technocrat.net- but being a technocrat does not neccessarily have to decry faith- in fact, that's the difference between Engineering and Science (practical vs theoretical).
Objectivism isn't a religion
Actually it is- but like most religions, it has its fundamentalists and its moderates.
and you don't have to be an Objectivist to subscribe to the scientific method.
You also don't have to be a Roman Catholic to believe in the Virgin Birth (Islamics do as well), or a Buddhist to follow the eightfold path. What is your point?
Where do you get that being objective, or wanting people to be objective, is a religious ideology?
It has believers. It has a codeified set of ideological rules. It has stupid traditions that are so accepted that nobody questions them. Looks like a religious ideology to me.
All these crazy religious ideologies running around with their preaching of the word "THINK"
Well, that's what the Pope said recently- and in response the religion of peace killed nuns and rioted. But that's not my point. My point is that an unbiased human being has never existed- call it Seeber's Uncertainty Principle: Any experiment run by human beings will discover a scientific truth compatible with the biases of the human being runing the experiment.
And people running around saying "I REFUSE TO THINK and BE OBJECTIVE!"
Well, it's more along these lines "I refuse to think, and instead I believe in only what I see and not what I don't see". It's a little more complex than that- the traditions of peer review and committees muddle the concept out more to "I believe what is printed in peer reviewed journals without asking who the anonymous peers are", but it works out to the same thing.
I just see this kind of funny war between objective thinkers and subjective thinkers. The objective thinkers are measurably winning, but the subjective thinkers THINK they are winning, even though they have no proof.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder- it is a religious belief that doesn't really exist. Both subjective and objective thinkers are useful, but both are fooling themselves when they claim a lack of bias.
...ummm...religious ideology of objectivism?
You maybe read those words somewhere and decided that stringing them together made you sound intellectual?
Not at all. Humans contain an infinite ability to place irrational belief in just about anything- including rationalism.
The whole problem with ideology is that it elevates certain beliefs over the evidence.
Exactly, yes.
Science is the un-ideology, the un-religion. It is the hole left behind when you take away superstition and willful ignorance.
No, unfortuneately it isn't. It's just the superstition and willful arrogance of assuming that what you see is real, and what you don't see isn't. Of course, it's more complicated than that these days- tradition screws up any religion and the ideology of objectivism is no different, with traditions of peer reviewed journals and blind acceptance of what is printed in them, combined with the absolute rejection of that which isn't. But the core is the arrogance that says you, personally, can be objective- when no human being has ever achieved a perfect lack of bias yet.
Next oxymoron please, this one's done...
Too bad you failed to prove that it's an oxymoron. Instead, it's just moronic.
You missed the obvious- the scientific method itself is an ideology, of the skeptical religion of objectivism.
"In what it described as a Bill of Rights for scientists and engineers, the group said that researchers who receive federal funds should be free to discuss their work publicly, and that appointments to federal scientific advisory committees should be based on scientific qualifications, not political beliefs. It said the government should not support science education programs that 'include concepts that are derived from ideology,' an apparent reference to creationism and its ideological cousin, intelligent design."
Ok, so let me get this straight: In an effort to remove political and religious beliefs from federal scientific advisory commissions, this group of scientists has banded together to form a 527 (political activism group) to promote the religious ideology of objectivism.
When scientists start attempting to use governmental censorship just like any Islamic or Southern Baptist, well, with friends like these who needs enemies?
1. The government would never let anyone or any corporation buy up that much land.
Money buys government. With enough money, there will be no politician who will object.
2. Robots can't replace all segements of the economy because then people would be BORED. The main central problem with socialism is it does not provide for more than people's basic needs. People have dreams and ambitions too. Believe it or not there are people out there who actually DO want to work and labor and struggle. Since you think robots would be doing everything such people would leave your "project", so many so that you'd have very few humans there.
Actually- boredom creates creativity. If all the huans were able to order the robots around, the lack of struggle would create wonderful things. Look into where the writer of Harry Potter was before she was published to see why.
3. EMPs.
This is the main danger. Of course, if one plans properly, electronics can be hardened...
4. Do you think the entire world would be lagging behind on robotic technology, military ordinance and the like? If it came down to it your project could be nuked.
And that, in short, is the real reason why it's a pipe dream.
Ummmm ... The serial port is the console interface for each server, and a terminal server allows an admin to access all of the servers' consoles (think command-line interface) from one machine. Pretty standard datacenter policy, methinks.
I use VNC in my datacenter for that, and then block VNC's ports at the firewall. This allows me to manage servers anywhere on a given subnet without running around with a RS232 cable...I thought that everybody had swtiched to this technology long ago, it's been available in varioius software packages (Remote Desktop on XP, PC Anywhere, Closeup, etc) for over 10 years now. Once there, it's easy to pop up a command line interface in Windows, or use SSH to get a telnet window into the server.
And exactly what do you use such a server for? Not for internet, that's for damned sure, 115kbaud is far too slow to serve a 1.5TB line....
Thank you- you're the first person to teach me something NEW. I didn't know GPUs still used 12V technology- especially since they all seem to output TTL level voltages.
You've never seen a console port on a disk array, router, switch or UPS? That RJ-45 socket speaks RS-232 and will connect to your serial port with the right cable.
I have- but what part of choose your hardware carefully do you people not understand? RS232 is a rather outdated protocol at this point. My two latest computer purchases do not speak RS232 natively- but they DO have multiple USB ports.
RS232
Ok, so I missed one- but I haven't seen a server with RS232 ports in ages, and USB has pretty much taken over serial communications at this point if you once again, pick your hardware carefully.
In the old days, disk drive motors and fans. But many of these now run on 5V, hence the cheap USB-powered drive cases out there. Chips at CMOS power levels run at 3.3v, TTL is 5v, but hardly anything runs at 12v anymore. It seems to me that if they'd just pick their hardware carfully, they could run their entire server rack off of 5v+- rails.
Perhaps this is a ploy to get public to see how 'wasteful' with their trillions the Medicare, Social Security, GI Bill, NSF, and other programs are? And then argue for more tax cuts?
Yep, that's the intent- though it's more things like farm subsidies and the highway bill that will shock people. IF they were doing it right, they'd also show us the defense budget and income/expenditure ratios.
True- given his propensity for reading only what he wants and not what the law says, it's still a possibility he'll mess up the execution.
WHat marraige penalty? You file jointly, you get a bigger deduction. I don't see a penalty there. Oh, you want an even bigger deduction than you would have gotten alone? And why do you deserve that? Typical conservative spin- not getting a bonus deduction is now a penalty.
The actual penalty was more along these lines: A TWO income family, fileing jointly, got a smaller deduction than two independant people filing singly. About $600 less, on the standard deduction. All the "elimination of the marriage penalty" did was make the standard deduction for filing jointly exactly 2x the standard deduction for filing singly.
Of course, good luck if you're a bigamist with two wives....
I have BDS on the conservative side- and I consider this to be the second thing ever dubbya has done right (the first being the removing of the marriage penalty from income taxes, thus supporting heterosexual marriage). Just about everything else he's failed at.
Well, I'm not sure what happens exactly internally. All I know is when the spark gap above the train goes off (and boy- one of these days I've got to look up the power requirements of a Max, that's some big blue spark) the sound cuts off just like the initial buffering when I turn the headset on. Switch to a new pattern, switch to a new frequency, the effect is the same: silence in the headset until negotiation with the host is finished.
With modern equipment, it's a lot easier (when you place the value for human life as high as we do in the West) to topple a building from afar, than ring its front door. During the war in Iraq, the US hasn't permitted itself (not too often, anyhow) such a course of action. Should China ever attempt to invade the US, the battle will look nothing like the one in Iraq. Nobody, far from the frontlines though he may be, would think, under THAT situation, that you (Americans) have the luxury of so called "humanity". Knowing you have the nukes, and that you are prepared to use them, what could motivate China into such a war?
The fact that we don't have enough soldiers left at home to launch those nukes, or the fact that we haven't exactly been pouring money into maintaining our ICBM fleet. Take your pick. We can't even aford guns for our troops on our southern border, despite the fact that we've already lost park rangers to the Mexican drug smugglers. The US military is a pathetic shell of it's former self. And China knows it.
Do remember, by the way, China's neighbours. They're not that small. Not all of them are on very friendly terms with China. The US hasn't such a problem. The US government people could stand to take far more damage and still keep their heads, if not their seats.
Oh, you're very naive if you think we could count on Mexico or Canada, if there was enough bribery money involved. And what would it matter to those in Washington DC if Kansas fell? Means nothing- their power structure comes from campaign contributions from international corporations, they care nothing for the American people anymore.
At no point was I talking about the US invading China. We were talking about China invading the US, when and if the US shirks its financial debts. (And invasion is all we can talk about, since any other militaristic course of action will still have costs, but no benefits.)
Yes, so was I. You don't really think we have any military left to speak of here in the United States do you? They're all in Afghanistan and Iraq, protecting those nations (and doing a bad job of it). What few are left don't even have GUNS, let alone any other equipment.
Whether China does or doesn't use nuclear weapons on this hypothetical war, China is open to a retaliation by nuclear weapons from the US.
Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that the US doesn't have the capability to use those weapons.
"Conventional" as well as nonconventional attacks simply aren't worth it when you could lose as much as China can.
What have they got to lose? 3/4ths of their nation is desert.
Strategic advantage in what form?
Purchasing the companies that make parts for ICBMs, to sabotage our replacement parts, could be one attack vector once they have enough money. Another that seems to be a current attack vector is using their investment power to make sure that no American company has the capability to manufacture computer equipment. Car and truck parts have also moved to China, as have TV sets and telephones, bullets and guns. If you can't supply your army, it isn't worth very much.
I meant China is insane in your scenario...
No, just has different aims than you do. Of course, that's the definition of insanity to most human beings, who can't seem to dispasionately think like another culture.
How is exportation heeding their cause for infrastructure if they don't import anything back?
Extra exportation means extra manufacturing and shipping capability. Which is better, to use Chinese tax money to build all of that, or to use money from western corporations to build all of that? I'll give you a hint- they've tied their money supply to the dollar. Without dollars, the yuan is worthless.
How is it any different than, say, dumping the cargo in the middle of the ocean?
Dumping the cargo in the middle of the ocean doesn't sell it to stupid