The true purpose should be obvious. Social Security cannot survive, so they're going to try to cut it down as much as possible, weeding out as many as they can. I'm not saying that is good or bad - Social Security should not exist at all, so no ethical judgments can be made about its individual actions, except to say that they're all bad moves. If they announced an irrevocable plan for shutting it all down, then I could said that is a good thing, insofar as it actually cannot be revoked.
By your reasoning, because the metal and plastic that makes up a calculator can't do math, neither can a calculator. You're committing the "fallacy of composition".
Nice strawman. You attack some other interpretation of some other theory - completely unrelated to quantum or Bohmian theory-, and then assert that because *that* interpretation makes all the same predictions as its rival theory, therefore Bohmian mechanics must make all the same predictions as quantum theory. Of course you don't come right out and say it, but if it's not implied by your statement, then your statement has no point.
the only benefit to it is that it pretends to satisfy the philosophical preconceptions
The point is precisely that that is *not* the only benefit. The benefits are quite real and necessary for any progress to be made in melding quantum and relativistic theories. Bell and Bohm have already covered all the implications in decades-old papers. Check out the bibliography in that SEP entry for the details.
The "progress" you're referring to is in the application of theory. The theory itself has been dead for decades. The progress I was referring to is in the theory. As quantum theory can't deal with all scenarios, it is incomplete. Of course, it will be a long time before application has a need for better theory in order to continue to advance, but in the mean time, the theory is going nowhere.
I'm not sure what nonprobabilistic interpretations you're referring to - certainly not deBroglie-Bohm. Bohmian mechanics does not reject probability, but doesn't embrace it like standard interpretations. Instead, probability is simply a useful predictor, and nothing more, as would be the case with any other notion of "probability" applied in any other circumstance. Only in standard QM interpretations do you get the probability seen as something physical, and get the absurd consequences of observer-dependent reality and volitional particles. *rolls eyes*
This speaks to the absurdity of standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, and nothing else. The only cure, which physicists strangely resist, is a return to the deBroglie interpetation that was greatly expanded by Bohm and Bell. More information from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It was the wishy-washy "primacy of consciousness" philosophy pushed by the likes of Bohr that got us to this dead end, and only a reality-based philosophy is going to lead to new insight. So long as we interpret the results incorrectly, we are destined to fall into the same trap.
Strange Luck! One of the worst decisions by Fox was to cancel that gem. I'll never forget Struck By Lightning (so long as they continue to play that Live song on the radio).
A man has the right to the product of his mind, and to do with it what he sees fit. If you believe you had a right to the text of a book, to do with it as you pleased, then why didn't you write the book in the first place? A right to property is a right to action, like all other rights; it is not a right to an object, but a right to the actions, means, and results of producing an object.
Not necessarily. If an inventor is only able to get a loan on the possibility that the loan provider can get some profit from it (as is always the case), the loan provider will not be as likely to make such a loan if, should the inventor die tomorrow, their money would be lost forever.
The government should give to noone. The government's only proper role is to uphold and protect individual rights. If you want to donate to worthy causes, feel free to do so, and to encourage your friends and family to, but don't force us all to pay for your pet program because you feel pity for the world and think you know how to solve everything.
Maybe in whatever alternate reality you come from, but here the facts don't meet your story line.
On the contrary, the facts of reality back it up perfectly.
You had an SEC that was asleep at the wheel. You had Republican love for deregulation leading to the credit swap market being larger than the GDP entire planet.
Is this your "evidence" - a bunch of free-floating notions, with no connection to actual events?
The problem began with the Fed's move to artificially lower interest rates in the name of "affordable housing". Combine that with the implicit government backing of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which turned toxic assets into pure "gold" that could be traded as "securities", again in the name of "affordable housing". Combine that with community reinvestment plans from local/state and federal governments, which forced banks to accept loans from high risk individuals, again in the name of "affordable housing". These all came together to create a bubble that burst once interest rates went back up.
Ahh yes, the "deregulation" that resulted in the existing financial market - the most highly regulated market in America. You're a dolt to believe that we had capitalism at any time in recent history.
When the entire market can be swayed with the snap of a finger from the Fed, it should not be at all surprising that people have been forced to forget about the long-term and only deal with what is immediately in front of them. The prospects of arbitrary government bailouts, money devaluation on a whim, and overnight interest rate manipulation, all contribute to this problem. Whatever happened to 99-year loans? Nobody can bear to look that far ahead when a force-backed entity such as the government and Fed can rapidly induce sweeping changes in the economy.
I have some nightmare Taurus stories from when I was a kid (not too long ago). On a family trip to an amusement park, the car broke down across the street from a gas station, in a thunderstorm, right next to a telephone pole. Immediately to the side of the station wagon was a sign that said, "Warning: Quicksand". I didn't know there was quicksand in Ohio. Thanks to the folks at Ford, now I know. The storm got so back that my little sister started to panic and bang on the car window. She was about ready to run screaming into the woods when my grandparents finally arrived to pick us all up.
The last time we used that thing was on yet another failed family vacation, to Sea World. It broke down, permanently, a mile from our destination. We pushed it off the road, walked to Sea World, and enjoyed the rest of the day.
Again, I'm not getting it. Nobody said that the censorship would come overnight once regulations - any at all - are instated. The existence of regulation simply paves the way for censorship. It's the slippery slope being played out in reality.
If so, it's just as flawed, because ISPs and telecommunications have been under heavy government regulation under the FCC and DTIA since at least 1950.
I don't understand how the existence of past regulation refutes my opposition to all regulation. Can you clarify?
it's not like you can just start putting up telephone lines on public land or charging more for service in Peoria than New York City.
Alright, so now you've identified the restriction that has created these monopolies: one can't lay down competing lines on public land. The local government won't allow it. They've created the monopoly that is allowing crappy service providers to persist in providing crappy service. The fix for this should be obvious. Either the government should start allowing competitors to build parallel lines, or there should be no public land. While the latter is more preferable, I'm open to the former.
This is net neutrality in action. Once you hand over responsibility to the government, your service is only as good as those in power see fit. Internet censorship becomes a political whim, to be used when it is politically profitable for campaigns.
That may not be enough for most devices out there. You'll probably also have to take out the battery, and even then there could be an internal battery that keeps the tracking going. Your best bet, whenever you don't want people to track you through your cell phone, would be to smash it to bits, or coat it in honey and feed it to a bear.
Slashdot Mirror
You mean the Download Statusbar addon?
"IE"? What is that? I cannot recall... :P
The true purpose should be obvious. Social Security cannot survive, so they're going to try to cut it down as much as possible, weeding out as many as they can. I'm not saying that is good or bad - Social Security should not exist at all, so no ethical judgments can be made about its individual actions, except to say that they're all bad moves. If they announced an irrevocable plan for shutting it all down, then I could said that is a good thing, insofar as it actually cannot be revoked.
By your reasoning, because the metal and plastic that makes up a calculator can't do math, neither can a calculator. You're committing the "fallacy of composition".
Scientology is fascinating, isn't it?
Hrm? De Broglie's interpretation predates Scientology by 25 years...
....
Oh, right, right... you were trolling! Good show!
We're practically re-enacting this dialogue from arXiv:quant-ph. Rather than make all the same mistakes, you'd be better off just reading that piece.
the only benefit to it is that it pretends to satisfy the philosophical preconceptions
The point is precisely that that is *not* the only benefit. The benefits are quite real and necessary for any progress to be made in melding quantum and relativistic theories. Bell and Bohm have already covered all the implications in decades-old papers. Check out the bibliography in that SEP entry for the details.
The "progress" you're referring to is in the application of theory. The theory itself has been dead for decades. The progress I was referring to is in the theory. As quantum theory can't deal with all scenarios, it is incomplete. Of course, it will be a long time before application has a need for better theory in order to continue to advance, but in the mean time, the theory is going nowhere.
I'm not sure what nonprobabilistic interpretations you're referring to - certainly not deBroglie-Bohm. Bohmian mechanics does not reject probability, but doesn't embrace it like standard interpretations. Instead, probability is simply a useful predictor, and nothing more, as would be the case with any other notion of "probability" applied in any other circumstance. Only in standard QM interpretations do you get the probability seen as something physical, and get the absurd consequences of observer-dependent reality and volitional particles. *rolls eyes*
This speaks to the absurdity of standard interpretations of quantum mechanics, and nothing else. The only cure, which physicists strangely resist, is a return to the deBroglie interpetation that was greatly expanded by Bohm and Bell. More information from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It was the wishy-washy "primacy of consciousness" philosophy pushed by the likes of Bohr that got us to this dead end, and only a reality-based philosophy is going to lead to new insight. So long as we interpret the results incorrectly, we are destined to fall into the same trap.
Now they just need to perfect it for water.
Strange Luck! One of the worst decisions by Fox was to cancel that gem. I'll never forget Struck By Lightning (so long as they continue to play that Live song on the radio).
A man has the right to the product of his mind, and to do with it what he sees fit. If you believe you had a right to the text of a book, to do with it as you pleased, then why didn't you write the book in the first place? A right to property is a right to action, like all other rights; it is not a right to an object, but a right to the actions, means, and results of producing an object.
More than the authors life is excessive.
Not necessarily. If an inventor is only able to get a loan on the possibility that the loan provider can get some profit from it (as is always the case), the loan provider will not be as likely to make such a loan if, should the inventor die tomorrow, their money would be lost forever.
"They are calling on Congress to grant patents only where an invention has social value"
And of course, such a thing as "social value" can be easily determined before the product has the ability to hit the market...
The government should give to noone. The government's only proper role is to uphold and protect individual rights. If you want to donate to worthy causes, feel free to do so, and to encourage your friends and family to, but don't force us all to pay for your pet program because you feel pity for the world and think you know how to solve everything.
Maybe in whatever alternate reality you come from, but here the facts don't meet your story line.
On the contrary, the facts of reality back it up perfectly.
You had an SEC that was asleep at the wheel. You had Republican love for deregulation leading to the credit swap market being larger than the GDP entire planet.
Is this your "evidence" - a bunch of free-floating notions, with no connection to actual events?
The problem began with the Fed's move to artificially lower interest rates in the name of "affordable housing". Combine that with the implicit government backing of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, which turned toxic assets into pure "gold" that could be traded as "securities", again in the name of "affordable housing". Combine that with community reinvestment plans from local/state and federal governments, which forced banks to accept loans from high risk individuals, again in the name of "affordable housing". These all came together to create a bubble that burst once interest rates went back up.
Ahh yes, the "deregulation" that resulted in the existing financial market - the most highly regulated market in America. You're a dolt to believe that we had capitalism at any time in recent history.
When the entire market can be swayed with the snap of a finger from the Fed, it should not be at all surprising that people have been forced to forget about the long-term and only deal with what is immediately in front of them. The prospects of arbitrary government bailouts, money devaluation on a whim, and overnight interest rate manipulation, all contribute to this problem. Whatever happened to 99-year loans? Nobody can bear to look that far ahead when a force-backed entity such as the government and Fed can rapidly induce sweeping changes in the economy.
I have some nightmare Taurus stories from when I was a kid (not too long ago). On a family trip to an amusement park, the car broke down across the street from a gas station, in a thunderstorm, right next to a telephone pole. Immediately to the side of the station wagon was a sign that said, "Warning: Quicksand". I didn't know there was quicksand in Ohio. Thanks to the folks at Ford, now I know. The storm got so back that my little sister started to panic and bang on the car window. She was about ready to run screaming into the woods when my grandparents finally arrived to pick us all up.
The last time we used that thing was on yet another failed family vacation, to Sea World. It broke down, permanently, a mile from our destination. We pushed it off the road, walked to Sea World, and enjoyed the rest of the day.
Found On the Roadside Dead.
If the person(s) copying Plato's work missed one little mark, the location would not be the Atlantic, but rather in the Aegean sea.
Data corruption?? Have we learned nothing from Ma.gnolia?! Keep a backup!
Again, I'm not getting it. Nobody said that the censorship would come overnight once regulations - any at all - are instated. The existence of regulation simply paves the way for censorship. It's the slippery slope being played out in reality.
If so, it's just as flawed, because ISPs and telecommunications have been under heavy government regulation under the FCC and DTIA since at least 1950.
I don't understand how the existence of past regulation refutes my opposition to all regulation. Can you clarify?
it's not like you can just start putting up telephone lines on public land or charging more for service in Peoria than New York City.
Alright, so now you've identified the restriction that has created these monopolies: one can't lay down competing lines on public land. The local government won't allow it. They've created the monopoly that is allowing crappy service providers to persist in providing crappy service. The fix for this should be obvious. Either the government should start allowing competitors to build parallel lines, or there should be no public land. While the latter is more preferable, I'm open to the former.
Apparently you didn't read my post, but only the subject line.
This is net neutrality in action. Once you hand over responsibility to the government, your service is only as good as those in power see fit. Internet censorship becomes a political whim, to be used when it is politically profitable for campaigns.
That may not be enough for most devices out there. You'll probably also have to take out the battery, and even then there could be an internal battery that keeps the tracking going. Your best bet, whenever you don't want people to track you through your cell phone, would be to smash it to bits, or coat it in honey and feed it to a bear.