Rothbard was an anarchist, and did not support government-funded research.
I stillagree with Rothbard on this point.
I am more an investor than a traditional economist but they are sufficiently related that I have done a lot of research into economics. As such I feel better about giving investment advice (22% ROI last year 18% seems to be my norm but it's still a small sample size.) Some of this stuff is gut feeling like 'I think it's a good time to move some cash from US stocks to foreign funds for the next few weeks..' but a lot of this is based around what makes money over time. The best company to invest in is one that is paying small dividends with the money it can't find anything truly productive to do with and I feel governments work the same way. The average investment pays around say 8% a year after inflation if the government feels it can do better than that it should do so, but if it can't then it should avoid doing that. Not that most governments act that way but the programs that pay a high ROI are worth it because of the ROI not because the government is doing it.
The problem is that there are many programs with a high ROI that are not going to get funded without government money. Take the recent 30% efferent solar cells that are soon to go into production either government or private funding can pay for their research, but the company doing to most innovative research is working with limited funding. Having the government give them 50mil would probably provide a vary high ROI to the economy but so could a lot of other research projects in this area. However, giving that same 50 million to pay for medicine for the poor would probably provide a low ROI. Paying off 50 million in debt could also have a low ROI but when choosing between them it's not a bad idea to pick the highest ROI until dumping more money into it would have a lower ROI (with that extra cash.)
Now it's hard to guess what the ROI of something like fusion research is going to provide 'but few people are willing to take this risk.' I am all for private research, but while it tends to be more innovative than large projects it is slower. My point is not that research should be going with small or large risk pools but rather that if the government is not funding research then most of that money will be spent on things outside of research. I don't think the gov should spend all that high a % of the GDP on research but there are probably 20 - 200 billion$ / year worth of high risk / high average ROI research that can be done each and every year but is not going to take place without government funding.
Let profits accrue to those who risk money in the arena, and let those who prefer to sit on their money do so.
That's a cold statement. The government's job is to help the populace by providing goods and services that are best preformed by a large body working for the good of the community. I understand risk and am willing to take it but I don't think the government should try to act in my best interest rather it should be aiming for the good of society as a whole.
PS: I don't expect to ever go into prison but I think it's a good idea to separate those with HIV in prison from those without because it would be good for society if we reduced the number of people that become infected with the disease. It would be a fairly simple and cheep process to designate a few prisons or areas as quarinted that would have an increasable ROI, but nobody wants to go there because?
PPS: Maybe, but firstly, could the private sector have done it for less? I does not mater if they could have done the research for less money if they where not going to do that research.
Is such a practice bad because nobody wants ice creame cones? NO! It's bad because you could have gotten so much more with the $100.
That's a nice assumption. But it's based around a zero sum game. Gov research has a higher net payoff than anything private industry can do with the money therefore it's better for everyone involved to have that money spent in that fashion. Research is a high-risk game but over time on average it has the highest ROI of any endeavor. The entire semiconductor industry is based off of government research that would not have occurred with private backing.
Research is not a zero sum game. If I take 100$ from you today and give you 10,000$ in 5 years then you may or may not have a problem with it, but that's a vary different issue from the fallacy of the broken window.
The "PUBLIC WORKS" section has some merit but it forget's the long term economic gain from that work. To employ a man as a butler it might cost as much as it would to have him digging a ditch but at the end of a year there would be many ditches but little value from the butler.
PS: Stop posting AC and you might get me to debate you but until that point that's as much as your getting form me.
Macroeconomics is not a simple discipline and I agree with Rothbard that having a vehement opinion on such a complex issue with little background is irresponsible so I suggest you check your numbers before responding.
As you reduce government funding for research you slow down 'the pace of research' so if you want to eliminate gov funding you want to slow down that pace.
Rocketry is used for Science (Hubble + weather sat's, probes ect.), Military (ICBM's, Surface to Air / Air to Air Missiles ect, Spy satellites, Secure Communications ect), Telecommunications (relay Satellites in LEO), Navigation (GPS), Broadcasting (TV, and Radio) and much more and as such it has been worth far more (over time) than the one time 1 trillion$ cost you named. Some specific research programs where of little value where others have become cornerstones of the economy (The Internet) but most of them would not have been funded to the extent they where by private funds.
Many people wished they would have dumped funding into MS when it was starting up but few people will fund the next ruthless 19 year old collage dropout bent on dominating his industry. Government programs might be wasteful in the amount of cash and the directions into which it flows for most endeavors, but with basic research there is no way to know if and when it's going to pay off. Risk drives the economy forward but few people are willing to take this risk. That's one of the main reasons why government funded research is so vital.
The field of trauma surgery was pioneered by military research for the purpose of saving lives on the battlefield, but it's provided incalculable benefits to the public as a whole. Now clearly trauma surgery would have advanced without that military effort, but what private source was going to pick up the slack if they where not interested? In this case it's not a binary question will research take place but the extent and the form of that research.
PS: Most people think of Aviation as a private endeavor started by a few rugged pioneers with their own money but look into the history of development from that point to modern jet's and see how much of that was paved by government spending. We would probably have an aviation industry without government money but it would not be using jet's to the extend and nearly as early without that research.
PPS: On a basic level economic concepts like the rule of diminishing returns seem to limit economic growth, but as efficiencies increase so does the average resources available to individuals and organizations increases and so to does the point at which that comes into play. (Simplified example: A company could spend twice it's R&D budget to increase it's GPU efficiency by 3% which may or may not be worth it, but as they move from a single core GPU to a 50 core GPU the value of that 3% might increase because they could lower the clock speed and increase their yields more as the complexity of the chip increased. ) Increases in efficiency's continuous alter the value of a given technology / research.
Government's get a better return on investment from innovative research than private firms. BR>
Take Satellite TV which is really an outgrowth of several gov funded research programs such as Radar (British), Rockets (Germany, US, Russia), Digital Computing, (British, US) Ect. Now all of those programs and much more where needed to get satellites into orbit but the these Governments got more than just TV satellites out of them they also got weather sat's, GPS and SPY sat's Ect. No single company would find research into rocketry, computing, and radar as useful as these governments do because they get revenue from any person or organization that uses that technology.
Because Governments get revenue from research until the end of time vs. 20 year patents they are much more motivated to release research to everyone and to look into things that don't pay off for years. Do you think the US Gov got less value out of UNIX than Bell Labs?
Research is the only reason why you're not sleeping naked in the woods. Every thing from the P4 to the most club is a direct result of past research. But hay just because it was so useful thought human history does not mean it will continue to be so. Let's slow down avoid looking into things that will not pay off in the next 5 years because that's about as long as corporations are willing to wait and that's just fine with you.
Most people in this country support abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Many of them voted for Bush because they feel other issues are more important.
The federal government is not allowed to fund any organization which does embryonic stem cell research. So if an organization is doing 200 studies using 1000 researchers and 1/2 of them are federally funded then you would think they could use private money to do an embryonic stem cell study. But, if they did that they would lose ALL gov funding to ALL of their projects.
Now can you see why people might object to this? It's not that it bans federal funding for research but it ALSO limits the research these organizations can do with private funding.
PS: When you look at the history of scientific research over the last 100 years most ground breaking research has been paid for by government organizations. Now if you want to give up satellite TV, the internet, computers, and most of the other advances over the last hundred years then your viewpoint might have market but that's hey you don't know what you would be giving up so it must not be that important.
Don't forget about inflation. Your loan is a fixed cost per year but the value of electricity keeps going up at ~3% a year due to inflation. Anyway, with their numbers it's ~30% efferent and 50k a unit. With vary low matence costs.
Even if this is only close to break-even its energy costs are only going to go up and the cost to build these units are only going to go down and the efficiency of later units will probably increase. Plus they are probably getting significant tax breaks like every other power plant in the country.
'principal of irreducible complexity still applies.'
Yes, but mutations will allow life forms to checkout possibilities. Do you have any idea how simple most of those transitions are?
'cillia on bacteria have evolved'
- Mutation
Cillia consist of several proteins useful for other things so the combinations of existing proteins reduce the complexity without requiring intermediate forms of Cillia.
Chlorophyll: Changes light (from the sun) to chemical energy.
TD says that there are 2 types of energy that which is useful for doing work and that which is not. It then says that the amount of energy available for doing useful work can never increase, but you can easily change forms and or get that energy to do useful work like taking a car up a hill or turning dirt into a plant.
There is little diffrence from having a sute that pulls you to the floor vs walking around with suspenders that pull you to the floor. Anyway, I don't think the isues is the lack of foce pulling you down it the lack of shocks on your system. When you walk you keep shifting from no wight on each foot to 2x your wieght on each foot (or more when you run). So a simple suspender system that pulls you to the floor as you run on a treadmill shiould do a lot. (This would also only help you with your bones you would also need something to simulate the strain of pumping blood up hill to the brain. )
Sorry for the late response I wanted to think about the how to respond to this for a while.
there may...whatever reality really is).
I understand the use of the word 'may' in the context that your referring to but scientists accept that just about anything is possible. But, saying anything is possible is not an avenue for advancement they had to come up with a process of finding out which of those possibility's is more likely. The problem with your hypothesis is there is now way to test it which means there is no way to find out the probability of it being correct to any reasonable level which means it's not a valid hypostasis for scientific investigation.
What we are seeing is a... Starts off like an hypothesis but once again how are you going to test it? There is a concept in religious thought that by postulating something it can be shown to be self evident but think how that relates back to the idea that the world is 1 day old. If someone walked up and said "God created the world 1 day ago" How would you go about disagreeing with them?
The approach used by a scientist is to ignore him not because could not be correct but because he has no supporting facts.
You can feel that god is out there and some people are listening to him and others are ignoring him but that is not going to sway people. You need to link how you think the world works with some sort of demonstrate able facts if you want to try and convince people of this.
One of the basic assumptions of science is that the simplest explanation that fits the available facts is more probably true. The idea works something like someone playing poker. They could think that the guy to the left has some set of cards but the simplest explanation is that he has a set of 5 cards that are different from the 5 cards you are holding. In the same way the simplest idea about how the world works is the same set of basic rules work everywhere and throughout the past. The idea is that any set of ideas that says that the rules of the world are changing is more complex so that it's less likely a few simple rules that don't change. You say that the earth is the center of our solar system because it has a special type of gravity that only affects the sun. But, a simpler explanation is that the sun is the center and all mass cause gravity in the same way.
This line of thought works back from "micro evolution" to macroevolution because it's simpler to say that the same rules apply all the way back. The idea that Darwin had and it's hard to discount without coming up with a more complex explanation. After all if you think about it it's a fairly simple idea. Children are more like their parents than they are to other creatures of their species. Their parents had to survive to have kids so over time those things that help survival will spread and those things that hurt survival will go away.
Now you could say that god is directing this process but it's simpler to say he is affecting things at birth than he is keeping them alive over their lifetime. But, with mutation and the idea that most of them are not useful it's easy to see that you don't need god to step into the process anywhere so any theory that uses him is more complex so like the poker game less likely.
I don't dismiss the idea of god lightly, but as I was never taught to believe in him I don't have this gut feeling that he needs to be there and or should be shaping the world. I like the idea that I can walk into a store and buy a winning lottery ticket but by looking past that single possibility I find it's so unlikely that the only reason to do so is to hold the ticket and hope that it's a winner. Now because people do this it's easy to see that peoples actions are effected by what they hope to an irrational level so the fact that the idea of god is appealing means that it's likely that people will make it up and keep hoping it's true even if they don't think it's all that likely.
The point is not that this page shows up but rather that pages will show up that don't have the given search words in them. Google might have simply set a low threashold before they show you pages. Or as seen by the biography page they could give more rank based on how many pages have that work and link to that page.
Anyway, it's easy to test:
Google: Goat Spork tactile shows Goat Spork tactile as it's 4th hit.
Yahoo: Goat Spork tactile does not return that page.
But Yahoo:"tracks 40 to 50 fitness indicators" Forgotten Atrocity gives the page SO:
No, google will add pages that don't include the word you searched for. Thus you can't assume that the page is not in yahoo's index because they did not return it.
EX: Search for "Failure" on google and you get linked to a page that never uses that word. Granted a Biography of President George W. Bush might fit the search criteria but it might not be returned by all search engines even if it was in their database.
I don't think the problem is that parents are not willing to punish their children it's that the children learn to control their parents. Children tend to be extremely fast learners so with a reasonable level of consistency you can train them to behave however it takes for you to reward them. If whining get's you a toy then it's easy to figure out it might get you the next toy.
My fathers approach to parenting was to never reward behaviors that he did not like. If you asked him politely for something chances where good that he would hand over the cash, but if you begged him for it nothing would happen. It took a while to figure out, but doing things he liked seemed to be the only thing that would get him to do more things for you. Which shockingly enough was all it took to keep us inline most of the time. Because as soon as we associated keeping him happy as a good thing all he had to say was "doing X bothers me" and he could exert a lot of influence.
The closet thing to punishment he ever did was his response to temper tantrums. If you got bad enough he would pick you up carry you to a chair / bed and hold / restrain you for a little while after you calmed down. I think that was more so he could tell that you really where clam as apposed to a real punishment.
So one of your arguments is that 1/6 of some length in feet will still give an integral number of inches. Is that *really* worth all the hassle that I humourously illustrated in my previous post?
Ok now that the tread is "over" I am going to admit I was messing with you but the idea is you can change deviding by 6 to multiplying by 2 when going to inches even when dealing with not integer numbers. Pi feet/6 = 2Pi inches. The reason why this is usefull is you can do the same thing when dealing with feet when deviding by 5 you move the decimal point over one place and multiply by 2. So it's easy to find out that 27 feet / (2,3,5,6,10,12) is. vs 27m/(2,5,10) Granted I use metric most of the time, but if you are taking all the mesurments then using metric is less usefull. I think doing the convertion is a good idea now, but if you where going to say build a house from a bunch of trees then metric much less usefull.
1/6 of 37.25 feet is 74.5 inches. That's what's usefull..0001 feet or.0012 inches is the same so you don't need to do the convertions. But you can use them to do more mental math with things like 1/6 of 10 feet is 20 inches or 1 foot 8 inches.
Now what's 5/6th of 10 meters?
Granted when comparing different units can be a pain but when working with units in your head it can be vary usefull.
Personaly I would be happy to drop metric units for most things but the inches > feet converiton is usefull. I could see finding even with your example to be ok if i used the units enough though.
1,760 yards + 440 Anyway, things are about as bad as doing 5/3 km vs 726 m +938m.
Einstein never liked QM. Yes it is that old. It's also the basis for building CPU's. My point is not that it's true or false but rather that one of the implications from QM is that there is no way to build a wall that will always work. 1 chance in 10^500 per year is not 0. It's a direct result of the theory.
Anyway, By shifting the creation of life I mean if "Kim's" story has life start on say mars and show up hereafter that Kim did not explain how life started. Kim is just waving his hand and saying "you asked how life started on earth" so saying it did not start here answers your question. But I don't care if life started on earth I want to know how it showed up.
I have read theories that life started on other planets and got transported here but it still needed to start on that planet some how. The truth is I don't care where it started I care how it started. If life first showed up as some sort of energy being with god like powers then fine but how did that happen. If life started as some sort of living computer made out of silicon then cool but how did that happen.
PS: Some polytheistic religions have a "mother/father" god that sowed up after some other stuff and that "mother" killed off what was around back then and created the world. Asking how that started is often answered by saying well I don't know but "isn't it better to point at that one unknown than to wonder about how everything else in the world works." It's like concentrating your questions and then saying well ok I don't know but it's just one thing I don't know so it's ok.
Slashdot Mirror
Rothbard was an anarchist, and did not support government-funded research.
I stillagree with Rothbard on this point.
I am more an investor than a traditional economist but they are sufficiently related that I have done a lot of research into economics. As such I feel better about giving investment advice (22% ROI last year 18% seems to be my norm but it's still a small sample size.) Some of this stuff is gut feeling like 'I think it's a good time to move some cash from US stocks to foreign funds for the next few weeks..' but a lot of this is based around what makes money over time. The best company to invest in is one that is paying small dividends with the money it can't find anything truly productive to do with and I feel governments work the same way. The average investment pays around say 8% a year after inflation if the government feels it can do better than that it should do so, but if it can't then it should avoid doing that. Not that most governments act that way but the programs that pay a high ROI are worth it because of the ROI not because the government is doing it.
The problem is that there are many programs with a high ROI that are not going to get funded without government money. Take the recent 30% efferent solar cells that are soon to go into production either government or private funding can pay for their research, but the company doing to most innovative research is working with limited funding. Having the government give them 50mil would probably provide a vary high ROI to the economy but so could a lot of other research projects in this area. However, giving that same 50 million to pay for medicine for the poor would probably provide a low ROI. Paying off 50 million in debt could also have a low ROI but when choosing between them it's not a bad idea to pick the highest ROI until dumping more money into it would have a lower ROI (with that extra cash.)
Now it's hard to guess what the ROI of something like fusion research is going to provide 'but few people are willing to take this risk.' I am all for private research, but while it tends to be more innovative than large projects it is slower. My point is not that research should be going with small or large risk pools but rather that if the government is not funding research then most of that money will be spent on things outside of research. I don't think the gov should spend all that high a % of the GDP on research but there are probably 20 - 200 billion$ / year worth of high risk / high average ROI research that can be done each and every year but is not going to take place without government funding.
Let profits accrue to those who risk money in the arena, and let those who prefer to sit on their money do so.
That's a cold statement. The government's job is to help the populace by providing goods and services that are best preformed by a large body working for the good of the community. I understand risk and am willing to take it but I don't think the government should try to act in my best interest rather it should be aiming for the good of society as a whole.
PS: I don't expect to ever go into prison but I think it's a good idea to separate those with HIV in prison from those without because it would be good for society if we reduced the number of people that become infected with the disease. It would be a fairly simple and cheep process to designate a few prisons or areas as quarinted that would have an increasable ROI, but nobody wants to go there because?
PPS: Maybe, but firstly, could the private sector have done it for less? I does not mater if they could have done the research for less money if they where not going to do that research.
Is such a practice bad because nobody wants ice creame cones? NO! It's bad because you could have gotten so much more with the $100.
That's a nice assumption. But it's based around a zero sum game. Gov research has a higher net payoff than anything private industry can do with the money therefore it's better for everyone involved to have that money spent in that fashion. Research is a high-risk game but over time on average it has the highest ROI of any endeavor. The entire semiconductor industry is based off of government research that would not have occurred with private backing.
Research is not a zero sum game. If I take 100$ from you today and give you 10,000$ in 5 years then you may or may not have a problem with it, but that's a vary different issue from the fallacy of the broken window.
The "PUBLIC WORKS" section has some merit but it forget's the long term economic gain from that work. To employ a man as a butler it might cost as much as it would to have him digging a ditch but at the end of a year there would be many ditches but little value from the butler.
PS: Stop posting AC and you might get me to debate you but until that point that's as much as your getting form me.
Macroeconomics is not a simple discipline and I agree with Rothbard that having a vehement opinion on such a complex issue with little background is irresponsible so I suggest you check your numbers before responding.
As you reduce government funding for research you slow down 'the pace of research' so if you want to eliminate gov funding you want to slow down that pace.
Rocketry is used for Science (Hubble + weather sat's, probes ect.), Military (ICBM's, Surface to Air / Air to Air Missiles ect, Spy satellites, Secure Communications ect), Telecommunications (relay Satellites in LEO), Navigation (GPS), Broadcasting (TV, and Radio) and much more and as such it has been worth far more (over time) than the one time 1 trillion$ cost you named. Some specific research programs where of little value where others have become cornerstones of the economy (The Internet) but most of them would not have been funded to the extent they where by private funds.
Many people wished they would have dumped funding into MS when it was starting up but few people will fund the next ruthless 19 year old collage dropout bent on dominating his industry. Government programs might be wasteful in the amount of cash and the directions into which it flows for most endeavors, but with basic research there is no way to know if and when it's going to pay off. Risk drives the economy forward but few people are willing to take this risk. That's one of the main reasons why government funded research is so vital.
The field of trauma surgery was pioneered by military research for the purpose of saving lives on the battlefield, but it's provided incalculable benefits to the public as a whole. Now clearly trauma surgery would have advanced without that military effort, but what private source was going to pick up the slack if they where not interested? In this case it's not a binary question will research take place but the extent and the form of that research.
PS: Most people think of Aviation as a private endeavor started by a few rugged pioneers with their own money but look into the history of development from that point to modern jet's and see how much of that was paved by government spending. We would probably have an aviation industry without government money but it would not be using jet's to the extend and nearly as early without that research.
PPS: On a basic level economic concepts like the rule of diminishing returns seem to limit economic growth, but as efficiencies increase so does the average resources available to individuals and organizations increases and so to does the point at which that comes into play. (Simplified example: A company could spend twice it's R&D budget to increase it's GPU efficiency by 3% which may or may not be worth it, but as they move from a single core GPU to a 50 core GPU the value of that 3% might increase because they could lower the clock speed and increase their yields more as the complexity of the chip increased. ) Increases in efficiency's continuous alter the value of a given technology / research.
Government's get a better return on investment from innovative research than private firms. BR>
Take Satellite TV which is really an outgrowth of several gov funded research programs such as Radar (British), Rockets (Germany, US, Russia), Digital Computing, (British, US) Ect. Now all of those programs and much more where needed to get satellites into orbit but the these Governments got more than just TV satellites out of them they also got weather sat's, GPS and SPY sat's Ect. No single company would find research into rocketry, computing, and radar as useful as these governments do because they get revenue from any person or organization that uses that technology.
Because Governments get revenue from research until the end of time vs. 20 year patents they are much more motivated to release research to everyone and to look into things that don't pay off for years. Do you think the US Gov got less value out of UNIX than Bell Labs?
Research is the only reason why you're not sleeping naked in the woods. Every thing from the P4 to the most club is a direct result of past research. But hay just because it was so useful thought human history does not mean it will continue to be so. Let's slow down avoid looking into things that will not pay off in the next 5 years because that's about as long as corporations are willing to wait and that's just fine with you.
Most people in this country support abortion and embryonic stem cell research. Many of them voted for Bush because they feel other issues are more important.
PS: Most = More than 1/2
The federal government is not allowed to fund any organization which does embryonic stem cell research. So if an organization is doing 200 studies using 1000 researchers and 1/2 of them are federally funded then you would think they could use private money to do an embryonic stem cell study. But, if they did that they would lose ALL gov funding to ALL of their projects.
Now can you see why people might object to this? It's not that it bans federal funding for research but it ALSO limits the research these organizations can do with private funding.
PS: When you look at the history of scientific research over the last 100 years most ground breaking research has been paid for by government organizations. Now if you want to give up satellite TV, the internet, computers, and most of the other advances over the last hundred years then your viewpoint might have market but that's hey you don't know what you would be giving up so it must not be that important.
FYI you need to look at the market cap for each company not the stock price AKA.
IF there where 10,000 Shares of Google at 279$ and 100,000 Shares of Yahoo at 34$
Then Google would be worth 2,790,000$ and Yahoo would be worth 3,400,000$.
Don't forget about inflation. Your loan is a fixed cost per year but the value of electricity keeps going up at ~3% a year due to inflation. Anyway, with their numbers it's ~30% efferent and 50k a unit. With vary low matence costs.
Even if this is only close to break-even its energy costs are only going to go up and the cost to build these units are only going to go down and the efficiency of later units will probably increase. Plus they are probably getting significant tax breaks like every other power plant in the country.
'principal of irreducible complexity still applies.'
Yes, but mutations will allow life forms to checkout possibilities. Do you have any idea how simple most of those transitions are?
'cillia on bacteria have evolved'
- Mutation
Cillia consist of several proteins useful for other things so the combinations of existing proteins reduce the complexity without requiring intermediate forms of Cillia.
Chlorophyll: Changes light (from the sun) to chemical energy.
TD says that there are 2 types of energy that which is useful for doing work and that which is not. It then says that the amount of energy available for doing useful work can never increase, but you can easily change forms and or get that energy to do useful work like taking a car up a hill or turning dirt into a plant.
Did you forget about Mutation?
There is little diffrence from having a sute that pulls you to the floor vs walking around with suspenders that pull you to the floor. Anyway, I don't think the isues is the lack of foce pulling you down it the lack of shocks on your system. When you walk you keep shifting from no wight on each foot to 2x your wieght on each foot (or more when you run). So a simple suspender system that pulls you to the floor as you run on a treadmill shiould do a lot. (This would also only help you with your bones you would also need something to simulate the strain of pumping blood up hill to the brain. )
Sorry for the late response I wanted to think about the how to respond to this for a while.
...whatever reality really is).
there may
I understand the use of the word 'may' in the context that your referring to but scientists accept that just about anything is possible. But, saying anything is possible is not an avenue for advancement they had to come up with a process of finding out which of those possibility's is more likely. The problem with your hypothesis is there is now way to test it which means there is no way to find out the probability of it being correct to any reasonable level which means it's not a valid hypostasis for scientific investigation.
What we are seeing is a... Starts off like an hypothesis but once again how are you going to test it? There is a concept in religious thought that by postulating something it can be shown to be self evident but think how that relates back to the idea that the world is 1 day old. If someone walked up and said "God created the world 1 day ago" How would you go about disagreeing with them? The approach used by a scientist is to ignore him not because could not be correct but because he has no supporting facts.
You can feel that god is out there and some people are listening to him and others are ignoring him but that is not going to sway people. You need to link how you think the world works with some sort of demonstrate able facts if you want to try and convince people of this.
One of the basic assumptions of science is that the simplest explanation that fits the available facts is more probably true. The idea works something like someone playing poker. They could think that the guy to the left has some set of cards but the simplest explanation is that he has a set of 5 cards that are different from the 5 cards you are holding. In the same way the simplest idea about how the world works is the same set of basic rules work everywhere and throughout the past. The idea is that any set of ideas that says that the rules of the world are changing is more complex so that it's less likely a few simple rules that don't change. You say that the earth is the center of our solar system because it has a special type of gravity that only affects the sun. But, a simpler explanation is that the sun is the center and all mass cause gravity in the same way.
This line of thought works back from "micro evolution" to macroevolution because it's simpler to say that the same rules apply all the way back. The idea that Darwin had and it's hard to discount without coming up with a more complex explanation. After all if you think about it it's a fairly simple idea. Children are more like their parents than they are to other creatures of their species. Their parents had to survive to have kids so over time those things that help survival will spread and those things that hurt survival will go away.
Now you could say that god is directing this process but it's simpler to say he is affecting things at birth than he is keeping them alive over their lifetime. But, with mutation and the idea that most of them are not useful it's easy to see that you don't need god to step into the process anywhere so any theory that uses him is more complex so like the poker game less likely.
I don't dismiss the idea of god lightly, but as I was never taught to believe in him I don't have this gut feeling that he needs to be there and or should be shaping the world. I like the idea that I can walk into a store and buy a winning lottery ticket but by looking past that single possibility I find it's so unlikely that the only reason to do so is to hold the ticket and hope that it's a winner. Now because people do this it's easy to see that peoples actions are effected by what they hope to an irrational level so the fact that the idea of god is appealing means that it's likely that people will make it up and keep hoping it's true even if they don't think it's all that likely.
It'
The point is not that this page shows up but rather that pages will show up that don't have the given search words in them. Google might have simply set a low threashold before they show you pages. Or as seen by the biography page they could give more rank based on how many pages have that work and link to that page.
Anyway, it's easy to test:
Google: Goat Spork tactile shows Goat Spork tactile as it's 4th hit.
Yahoo: Goat Spork tactile does not return that page.
But Yahoo:"tracks 40 to 50 fitness indicators" Forgotten Atrocity gives the page SO:
Their methiod is flawed.
They have 3.5 million users an you think their is some reason you should get to talk to a developer?
For 14$ a month you get to play the game not have a chat with somone they have to pay 30+$ an hour.
No, google will add pages that don't include the word you searched for. Thus you can't assume that the page is not in yahoo's index because they did not return it.
EX: Search for "Failure" on google and you get linked to a page that never uses that word. Granted a Biography of President George W. Bush might fit the search criteria but it might not be returned by all search engines even if it was in their database.
With your parent post's numbers:
It started at 8.71%
0.64/8.71 = A loss of ~7.3%
So it looks like nobody knows what they are talking about.
PS: Did not RTFA.
You can use E-Bay to turn virtual game money into virtual bank money.
I don't think the problem is that parents are not willing to punish their children it's that the children learn to control their parents. Children tend to be extremely fast learners so with a reasonable level of consistency you can train them to behave however it takes for you to reward them. If whining get's you a toy then it's easy to figure out it might get you the next toy.
My fathers approach to parenting was to never reward behaviors that he did not like. If you asked him politely for something chances where good that he would hand over the cash, but if you begged him for it nothing would happen. It took a while to figure out, but doing things he liked seemed to be the only thing that would get him to do more things for you. Which shockingly enough was all it took to keep us inline most of the time. Because as soon as we associated keeping him happy as a good thing all he had to say was "doing X bothers me" and he could exert a lot of influence.
The closet thing to punishment he ever did was his response to temper tantrums. If you got bad enough he would pick you up carry you to a chair / bed and hold / restrain you for a little while after you calmed down. I think that was more so he could tell that you really where clam as apposed to a real punishment.
You can make gas from oil or coal.
So one of your arguments is that 1/6 of some length in feet will still give an integral number of inches. Is that *really* worth all the hassle that I humourously illustrated in my previous post?
/6 = 2Pi inches. The reason why this is usefull is you can do the same thing when dealing with feet when deviding by 5 you move the decimal point over one place and multiply by 2. So it's easy to find out that 27 feet / (2,3,5,6,10,12) is. vs 27m/(2,5,10) Granted I use metric most of the time, but if you are taking all the mesurments then using metric is less usefull. I think doing the convertion is a good idea now, but if you where going to say build a house from a bunch of trees then metric much less usefull.
Ok now that the tread is "over" I am going to admit I was messing with you but the idea is you can change deviding by 6 to multiplying by 2 when going to inches even when dealing with not integer numbers. Pi feet
1/6 of 37.25 feet is 74.5 inches. That's what's usefull. .0001 feet or .0012 inches is the same so you don't need to do the convertions. But you can use them to do more mental math with things like 1/6 of 10 feet is 20 inches or 1 foot 8 inches.
Now what's 5/6th of 10 meters?
Granted when comparing different units can be a pain but when working with units in your head it can be vary usefull.
Personaly I would be happy to drop metric units for most things but the inches > feet converiton is usefull. I could see finding even with your example to be ok if i used the units enough though.
1,760 yards + 440
Anyway, things are about as bad as doing 5/3 km vs 726 m +938m.
Sigh, "same type of fame as Lennon, if not the same level"
Read much?
Einstein never liked QM. Yes it is that old. It's also the basis for building CPU's. My point is not that it's true or false but rather that one of the implications from QM is that there is no way to build a wall that will always work. 1 chance in 10^500 per year is not 0. It's a direct result of the theory.
Anyway, By shifting the creation of life I mean if "Kim's" story has life start on say mars and show up hereafter that Kim did not explain how life started. Kim is just waving his hand and saying "you asked how life started on earth" so saying it did not start here answers your question. But I don't care if life started on earth I want to know how it showed up.
I have read theories that life started on other planets and got transported here but it still needed to start on that planet some how. The truth is I don't care where it started I care how it started. If life first showed up as some sort of energy being with god like powers then fine but how did that happen. If life started as some sort of living computer made out of silicon then cool but how did that happen.
PS: Some polytheistic religions have a "mother/father" god that sowed up after some other stuff and that "mother" killed off what was around back then and created the world. Asking how that started is often answered by saying well I don't know but "isn't it better to point at that one unknown than to wonder about how everything else in the world works." It's like concentrating your questions and then saying well ok I don't know but it's just one thing I don't know so it's ok.