Or you could start randomly changing peoples grades. Or have people pay you to change there grades. Or blackmail people into paying you to not change there grades to C's and D's. Or you could blackmail someone into paying you so you don't change all there grades to A and then report them. Or...
Anyway, if I had done what you did I would have had a chat with someone higher on the food chain about this mess. Once they say it's ok to try and hack there system then you are an authorised user and your allowed to crack all you want. Suspending you at that point would be something you could have sued over so if nothing else you could gotten those people repremanded.
-Sorry, no spellcheck installed after the reformat... yet.
My cell phone is about as small as it can get and still have a useful interface and with over 10Mbite's of onboard storage it's better than PC where 20 years ago.
In ~10 years I expect at least 10GBites of storage so you can have all the music you want on your cell phone.
In ~20 years I expect around 10TBite of onboard storage at which point you can have 100 HD movies.
That's right in 20 years your cell phone is going to be more capable than PC's are today. The only problem is trying to get a good interface on a device that small. I think you will play simple games, chat with or without video, watch movies, and listen to music. I don't care how good the voice > text interface is it's not going to be a word processor and the interface is not going to make it good for playing games but it is going to kill off the iPod.
Your desire for these things does not justify the use of force to fund them. Are you truly unable to grasp this simple concept? I think so, and that's why I'm not taking you seriously.
That is one way to look at it. I tend to look at government as a compromise I would like defense spending to be around 5% of what it is now for example. But it's a question of how much you're willing to trade. Basically, I would agree to support all the other pork spending as long as we spend a lot of money on basic research. Now it sounds like you're the type of person who wants to keep as much of your money as possible but unless you move you can't stop playing the game. So are you willing to trade a 00.00000005% tax break for say giving up some freedoms you and some other people can form a block and get things done.
Yes, you're forced to compromise but that's the way the system works. If you want to spend a lot of time and effort you can have a disproportionately large impact on how the system works because most people don't vote and don't get involved in anyway at all. I want to spend some of your money you want to pay less how about we work together to cut most programs except research. Or you can try and fight all pork but that's just not going to happen so what are you going to do?
Cool, I got out of over clocking as vary few things I do are CPU bound anymore. But, I think this would be worth looking at even if I am not going to use it. So umm, do you know where I can look at the specs on something like that?
PS: Ok I still tweak the RAM a little but I like my quiet fast CPU just fine right now
First off we are talking federal taxes state and local work in strange ways.
If your self employed and make 80k/year in the US you pay a larger % of your income aka more in taxes than if your self employed and make 300k/year.
The way this works is a ~14% income tax called Social Security and Medicare that cap's out at 90k/year.
Now give or take a few % most people making 70k+ pay around 35% of there income in federal taxes but "tax breaks" don't reduce the amount of SS and Medicare you pay so those making over 90k / year start saving more on there taxes than that pay the 14% of there income in SS / Medicare.
There were also some special taxes like an inheritance tax with a 1.5million minimum that was removed, and I think dividends where altered so there only taxed at 15% instead of 38% which as you might guess is most useful to the rich and helped nobody else out.
Now we do have state and local taxes on top of this so the ~38% income tax cap is not really the limit on what you pay I think on average people pay close to 50% of there income in taxes but most bush "tax breaks" are targeted to the wealthy.
Of course it tends to be worse than this in other areas take the "sin tax" on cigarettes someone making 20k/year that smokes 1pack a day pays just as much into this as someone that smokes and pays 2,000k/year but that's outside of what most people consider when they think of taxes.
And I can gather you have no understanding of context. When a simple example is used to illustrate the fact a mind can differentiate things without a preexisting linguistic context you get stuck with the details and miss the point.
PS: Some people think seeing an IQ > 160 tells them something about my mental capacity but they and you have no clue.
It depends on how you use it. My 5'2" sister loves her 17" dell laptop. It let's her curl up in bed or while she is sunning her self outside as apposed to just using it at her desk. Basically she likes the continence of working wherever she feels like and was more than happy to trade off that vs. using her 9 month old 19" Sony flat screen. (Well, the flat screen is mine now hehe.)
I don't know if she would want a 19" laptop but I don't think an extra 2" is going to make a big difference in how she uses it. Yea the 17" screen looks huge, but it's not vary heavy and it balances just fine on her lap so I think she could use a 19" laptop as long as the weight did not go up much.
PS: Yea, I am a little sickened by how much teck my 14-year-old sister has, but such is life.
There's another reason not to take you seriously. Your answer presupposes that if government doesn't fund research, then nobody will.
NO! I never said that I said that governments fund research that nobody else will. In the world nobody is investing in scramjets outside of governments. QED governments invest in areas that nobody else will.
Some things like H-bombs are less useful but this 'let the markets decide' idea is stupid as you are giving up anything that's not useful right now. Government spending is not efficient but when it comes to research it does not have to be. Research needs to be OPEN and EXPLORITORY. If I want some new Viagra clones I will ask private industry, but if I want nanites, high temperature super conductors, fusion, scram jet's or most other 'novel' teck I am going to look at government spending as the only way until somebody else steps up to the plate.
Ok, that was a much better counter argument than I was expecting to such a flippant post. I was trying to get across that these numbers are not unreasonable while trying to sound funny.
Now I have never look at the "real" data all that closely but I just want to point out some things.
While coal was not the only fuel source in the industrial revolution people switched to it after they ran out of wood.
As I said Oil is not the only source if CO2 we need to look at. You need to note how much total CO2 your adding so include the amount of coal you're burning and how many forest's you're taking down ect.
Over the last few years the US and Europe's use fossil fuels has about maxed out so year to year fluctuations in the economy will have large impact on the yearly use of fossil fuels but you have to look world economy to see what going to happen for the next 70+ years.
According to most data I have seen the Chinese economy has been growing at 10% a year now if that goes on for 50 years there going catch up to America on a person per person basis. I don't think there is going to be enough fossil fuels for a 1.1 ^ 50 = 117.3 fold increase in there economy but extrapolating from the last 20 years of data it looks like there going that way. On the world stage a 3% yearly growth pattern gives 1.03 ^ 70 = 7.9 fold increase in fuel use so it's not as 'insane' as you might think. Given the growth in 2nd and 3rd world economies. Yes it's not going to change much till there close to our level of production but steady exponential growth does large things to small numbers.
Granted I don't think there is enough easy access fuel in the world to keep up that kind of use for 70 - 140 years but history shows humans use all available recourses as fast as they can so who knows. So in many ways it's just a question of how much fossil fuel there are as to how much CO2 is going to end up in the air. I mean it's not like 70 years is the cut off point after which we stop using fossil fuels and go about the next 1,000 years with out using them.
You can have a discussion about whether the benefits of low-cost space travel are worth more or less in real terms than, say, the benefits of a war, or a prescription drug benefit, but if you categorically dismiss it as a Broken Window, then the sloppy thinking is on your end.
You can have a discussion about whether the benefits of low-cost space travel are worth more or less in real terms than, say, the benefits of a war, or a prescription drug benefit, but if you categorically dismiss it as a Broken Window, then the sloppy thinking is on your end.
I want to point out that that was one of the best counter arguments I have ever seen on/. However, by posting this as an AC you're preventing others from seeing it. I mean as long as your going to be so insightful you might as well log in.
Are you willing to give up the internet, computers, satellites, jet planes and a host of other teck for a little cash in your pocket?
O wait I forget you would be making less money now with out government funded research so umm, what do you gain?
Liberty? What liberty it's cash and not much cash at that. I like the libertarian ideals but in the real world private industry does not build highways systems and they don't do basic research. Take scram jet's they can bring the cost to orbit down by a factor of 10 but you don't see any private money going in that direction.... Why?
Thank you for playing, but I won't be taking you seriously anymore.
Why not? Let's look at Viagra well I am 24 and everything works fine so over the next 20 years I am unlikely to pay for it but in 40 years when I might want such a product it's going to be dirt cheep because the patent's will have expired. So your idea is even though it's going to help me out I have no responsibility to pay for it's research?
Research seems to work the same way as roads in that I am never going to donate money to build one but I am more than willing to use them once there built. If you wanted a system where patents lasted till everyone who was alive when it was invented dies that's one thing, but unless you want to extend patents I think it's reasonable to fund research up front to get access to that research faster.
1750 happens to coincide with the start of the industrial revolution in Europe where people started large scale burning of coal. Which would increase the amount of atmospheric CO2.
Now if you look at your data (380 - 280)/ (2005 - 1750) = 100ppm / 255 years or 0.4 PPM / year which is much lower than 1.5ppm. But last year was 1.5 PPM so what's going on? Well I guess the rate is increasing over time. So I guess someone looking at your data would assume that over the next 70 years we will increase by more than 1.5PPM / year.
Now 380 / 70 years would take a PPM increase of 5.42PPM / year, and (380 * 3) / 140 would take 8.14PPM/year but when the rate is going up over time the second number is more conservative. Why? Well 1.5ppm now means we need some years over 5.4. If it was a steady increase of say.1PPM/(year^2) you start at 1.5PMM/year and get up to 9.2 PMM/year. But to at 8.1 PMM/year over 140 years you only need a rate of increase of 0.094PPM/(year^2). Now I don't think there dealing with linear rates but with an exponential rate 140 years is going to seem even more conservative.
But hey who knows, I mean it's not like people are using more fossil fuels now than they where 20 years ago...
Umm, radiometric dating has nothing to do with evolution. As the theory of Evolution predates all forms of radiometric dating.
Now the largest support for evolution has to do with how well it fits into the theory of plate tectonics. Together they provide a vary convincing argument as to the evolution of life on earth.
But if you know better, then feel free to talk with people at Exxon and explain why they should ignore said theory's and use your methods to find OIL. Then again these are people who uses these theory's to make billions, so I think your going to need a more convincing argument than a few cases where radiometric dating failed.
Use one as the base.
Use two in the second layer.
Use 4 in the third layer.
On top of that place a large heatsink and massave fan or a watter cooling system hooked up to a large heatsink and fan.
As long as you use thermoelectric rated for the operating temperature each layer is going to sit at you can stack them like this and get to vary low operating temperatures.
PS: It would be more effecent to use the inner loop of an AC unit instead of a few layers of thermoelectric cell's.
Umm, no just use it as a break. If your orbital velocity where 0 you would hit the sun. So by slowing down you can go to a lower orbit.
PS: There is a lot of math but to this but once your in orbit you need to expend energy to change that orbit. Now if you push to or away from you can change the shape of your orbit but you need to speed up or slow down to change your orbital distance.
All economic growth is a direct result of research. We are a wealthy nation because of our research. But, the amount of time and effort needed to find new technologies keeps increasing. So we need a system that dumps insane amounts of money into research. Yes we could use some of that money to say feed the poor but society gains more from tossing 1 billion to research than it does from spending that money on education or most other projects. As long as people benefit from research they did not fund forcing them to fund research is a reasonable position.
A 1d object in 2d space is thin.
A 2d object in 3d space is thin.
A 3d object in 4d space is thin.
A 122d object in 123d space is thin.
Anyway, you seem to think like those people who say the mind is limited to language forgeting that I can tell Red 32,000 from Red 32,001 on a moniter there both red but they are not the same red. You can think about things you have never seen like black holes or quarks. When I think about X-ray's they have a collor that's distint from all others. It's not red, blue, green, or off white it's X-Ray.
My moniter can show 1024*1024*1024*2 distint colors and even though I have not seen them all I can still picture them just fine. Picture a rock, now picture a rock with changes in density. Is it something you can see?
The universe by definition is everything and therefore would include god if he existed. Saying there is a "first mover out side the system" is silly if he effects the system he is part of the system.
Now logically the start time for the universe is not knowable as it could have started say yesterday at 3:14.0031214926536 PM EST and there would be no way of knowing. Therefore there is only two valid questions did the universe have a beginning or is it eternal. Adding god into the mix does not change the question.
If you say god is eternal then the universe is eternal if you say the universe had a start time then it had a start time which one do you chose?
I would have agreed with you if you had left it at "fait can lead to trough"but how can someone who is "willing to constantly re-evaluate everything they know to be true " have faith?
I mean that would imply that they don't have faith or am I missing something
A 3d object in 4d space is like a 2d object in 3d space in that it's thin and flat. If you rotate them you could stand one / next to another \ to get/\. But if you have just one 3d object in 4d space it's going to fall over.
Picture a new color... Ok X-Ray I have never seen one but fine there it is. In fact I know a lot about it and how it works and I have even pictured them coming out of a gun in the dentist's office and going though my mouth. It's not red blue or green but now your saying I can't picture it?.
My mother is a fairly devote protestant from a long line of preachers. Growing up she demonstrated her in a heartfelt and open fashion.
After a while I asked my father what his beliefs where and he looked me in the eye and said, "Do you bereave in god?"
At which point I had to say, "well no not really."
We then had a hart to hard where he basically said, "I find the belief in god one of mankind's stupider dilutions."
From his perspective all you have to do is prevent sloppy thinking and your kids will notice just how silly a belief in god is. Which is how I plan to deal with it. If my wife wants to do the whole Santa or god thing then I can sit back and keep my mouth shut 99% of the time and still win the argument in the end so why fight over it?
The idea of using wind as a significant portion of US power consumption works as well as using hydropower as a significant portion of US power. Yes it is useful but there is not enough of it to do all that much. Once again this is total power that includes things like cars that are not part of the electric grid.
There are fully functional plans for a working fusion power plant. They are not being used. Saying we are spending money on this is silly because we are not. Fusion is well out of the R&D stage and into the demonstration stage.
Solar has had significant investments which are larger than fusion yet there are 0 profitable solar power plants. By your argument we have been working on it for 50 years and it does not work so we should give up.
In the next 50 years we are going to move to a hydrogen economy powered by coal and nether wind nor solar is going to provide significant sources of power.
Distributed power generation is a misnomer there is economy of scale that is lost when you decentralize.
PS: If you generate power the electric companies are FORCED BY LAW TO BUY IT FROM YOU if you want to invest your money is solar or wind feel free there is NOTING STOPING YOU.
That's one way to look at it. If you look at your numbers and compare them with a simple investment at 6% ROI that 500k costs you around 11,236$ every 2 years anyway so it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
The other problem is roads need to be cut up for many reasons such as underground power, phone, gas, or water lines. At which point spending less money up front starts to look even more appealing.
Slashdot Mirror
That's one option.
... yet.
Or you could start randomly changing peoples grades. Or have people pay you to change there grades. Or blackmail people into paying you to not change there grades to C's and D's. Or you could blackmail someone into paying you so you don't change all there grades to A and then report them. Or...
Anyway, if I had done what you did I would have had a chat with someone higher on the food chain about this mess. Once they say it's ok to try and hack there system then you are an authorised user and your allowed to crack all you want. Suspending you at that point would be something you could have sued over so if nothing else you could gotten those people repremanded.
-Sorry, no spellcheck installed after the reformat
My cell phone is about as small as it can get and still have a useful interface and with over 10Mbite's of onboard storage it's better than PC where 20 years ago.
In ~10 years I expect at least 10GBites of storage so you can have all the music you want on your cell phone.
In ~20 years I expect around 10TBite of onboard storage at which point you can have 100 HD movies.
That's right in 20 years your cell phone is going to be more capable than PC's are today. The only problem is trying to get a good interface on a device that small. I think you will play simple games, chat with or without video, watch movies, and listen to music. I don't care how good the voice > text interface is it's not going to be a word processor and the interface is not going to make it good for playing games but it is going to kill off the iPod.
Your desire for these things does not justify the use of force to fund them. Are you truly unable to grasp this simple concept? I think so, and that's why I'm not taking you seriously. That is one way to look at it. I tend to look at government as a compromise I would like defense spending to be around 5% of what it is now for example. But it's a question of how much you're willing to trade. Basically, I would agree to support all the other pork spending as long as we spend a lot of money on basic research. Now it sounds like you're the type of person who wants to keep as much of your money as possible but unless you move you can't stop playing the game. So are you willing to trade a 00.00000005% tax break for say giving up some freedoms you and some other people can form a block and get things done.
Yes, you're forced to compromise but that's the way the system works. If you want to spend a lot of time and effort you can have a disproportionately large impact on how the system works because most people don't vote and don't get involved in anyway at all. I want to spend some of your money you want to pay less how about we work together to cut most programs except research. Or you can try and fight all pork but that's just not going to happen so what are you going to do?
Cool, I got out of over clocking as vary few things I do are CPU bound anymore. But, I think this would be worth looking at even if I am not going to use it. So umm, do you know where I can look at the specs on something like that?
PS: Ok I still tweak the RAM a little but I like my quiet fast CPU just fine right now
First off we are talking federal taxes state and local work in strange ways.
If your self employed and make 80k/year in the US you pay a larger % of your income aka more in taxes than if your self employed and make 300k/year.
The way this works is a ~14% income tax called Social Security and Medicare that cap's out at 90k/year.
Now give or take a few % most people making 70k+ pay around 35% of there income in federal taxes but "tax breaks" don't reduce the amount of SS and Medicare you pay so those making over 90k / year start saving more on there taxes than that pay the 14% of there income in SS / Medicare.
There were also some special taxes like an inheritance tax with a 1.5million minimum that was removed, and I think dividends where altered so there only taxed at 15% instead of 38% which as you might guess is most useful to the rich and helped nobody else out.
Now we do have state and local taxes on top of this so the ~38% income tax cap is not really the limit on what you pay I think on average people pay close to 50% of there income in taxes but most bush "tax breaks" are targeted to the wealthy.
Of course it tends to be worse than this in other areas take the "sin tax" on cigarettes someone making 20k/year that smokes 1pack a day pays just as much into this as someone that smokes and pays 2,000k/year but that's outside of what most people consider when they think of taxes.
And I can gather you have no understanding of context. When a simple example is used to illustrate the fact a mind can differentiate things without a preexisting linguistic context you get stuck with the details and miss the point. PS: Some people think seeing an IQ > 160 tells them something about my mental capacity but they and you have no clue.
It depends on how you use it. My 5'2" sister loves her 17" dell laptop. It let's her curl up in bed or while she is sunning her self outside as apposed to just using it at her desk. Basically she likes the continence of working wherever she feels like and was more than happy to trade off that vs. using her 9 month old 19" Sony flat screen. (Well, the flat screen is mine now hehe.)
I don't know if she would want a 19" laptop but I don't think an extra 2" is going to make a big difference in how she uses it. Yea the 17" screen looks huge, but it's not vary heavy and it balances just fine on her lap so I think she could use a 19" laptop as long as the weight did not go up much.
PS: Yea, I am a little sickened by how much teck my 14-year-old sister has, but such is life.
There's another reason not to take you seriously. Your answer presupposes that if government doesn't fund research, then nobody will.
NO! I never said that I said that governments fund research that nobody else will. In the world nobody is investing in scramjets outside of governments. QED governments invest in areas that nobody else will.
Some things like H-bombs are less useful but this 'let the markets decide' idea is stupid as you are giving up anything that's not useful right now. Government spending is not efficient but when it comes to research it does not have to be. Research needs to be OPEN and EXPLORITORY. If I want some new Viagra clones I will ask private industry, but if I want nanites, high temperature super conductors, fusion, scram jet's or most other 'novel' teck I am going to look at government spending as the only way until somebody else steps up to the plate.
Ok, that was a much better counter argument than I was expecting to such a flippant post. I was trying to get across that these numbers are not unreasonable while trying to sound funny.
Now I have never look at the "real" data all that closely but I just want to point out some things.
While coal was not the only fuel source in the industrial revolution people switched to it after they ran out of wood.
As I said Oil is not the only source if CO2 we need to look at. You need to note how much total CO2 your adding so include the amount of coal you're burning and how many forest's you're taking down ect.
Over the last few years the US and Europe's use fossil fuels has about maxed out so year to year fluctuations in the economy will have large impact on the yearly use of fossil fuels but you have to look world economy to see what going to happen for the next 70+ years.
According to most data I have seen the Chinese economy has been growing at 10% a year now if that goes on for 50 years there going catch up to America on a person per person basis. I don't think there is going to be enough fossil fuels for a 1.1 ^ 50 = 117.3 fold increase in there economy but extrapolating from the last 20 years of data it looks like there going that way. On the world stage a 3% yearly growth pattern gives 1.03 ^ 70 = 7.9 fold increase in fuel use so it's not as 'insane' as you might think. Given the growth in 2nd and 3rd world economies. Yes it's not going to change much till there close to our level of production but steady exponential growth does large things to small numbers.
Granted I don't think there is enough easy access fuel in the world to keep up that kind of use for 70 - 140 years but history shows humans use all available recourses as fast as they can so who knows. So in many ways it's just a question of how much fossil fuel there are as to how much CO2 is going to end up in the air. I mean it's not like 70 years is the cut off point after which we stop using fossil fuels and go about the next 1,000 years with out using them.
You can have a discussion about whether the benefits of low-cost space travel are worth more or less in real terms than, say, the benefits of a war, or a prescription drug benefit, but if you categorically dismiss it as a Broken Window, then the sloppy thinking is on your end.
/. However, by posting this as an AC you're preventing others from seeing it. I mean as long as your going to be so insightful you might as well log in.
You can have a discussion about whether the benefits of low-cost space travel are worth more or less in real terms than, say, the benefits of a war, or a prescription drug benefit, but if you categorically dismiss it as a Broken Window, then the sloppy thinking is on your end.
I want to point out that that was one of the best counter arguments I have ever seen on
Are you willing to give up the internet, computers, satellites, jet planes and a host of other teck for a little cash in your pocket?
O wait I forget you would be making less money now with out government funded research so umm, what do you gain?
Liberty? What liberty it's cash and not much cash at that. I like the libertarian ideals but in the real world private industry does not build highways systems and they don't do basic research. Take scram jet's they can bring the cost to orbit down by a factor of 10 but you don't see any private money going in that direction.... Why?
Don't forget:
There selling it at a loss.
It's not in stores yet so PC prices will drop by the time it's out.
Or this could be a lie.
Thank you for playing, but I won't be taking you seriously anymore.
Why not? Let's look at Viagra well I am 24 and everything works fine so over the next 20 years I am unlikely to pay for it but in 40 years when I might want such a product it's going to be dirt cheep because the patent's will have expired. So your idea is even though it's going to help me out I have no responsibility to pay for it's research?
Research seems to work the same way as roads in that I am never going to donate money to build one but I am more than willing to use them once there built. If you wanted a system where patents lasted till everyone who was alive when it was invented dies that's one thing, but unless you want to extend patents I think it's reasonable to fund research up front to get access to that research faster.
1750 happens to coincide with the start of the industrial revolution in Europe where people started large scale burning of coal. Which would increase the amount of atmospheric CO2.
.1PPM/(year^2) you start at 1.5PMM/year and get up to 9.2 PMM/year. But to at 8.1 PMM/year over 140 years you only need a rate of increase of 0.094PPM/(year^2). Now I don't think there dealing with linear rates but with an exponential rate 140 years is going to seem even more conservative.
Now if you look at your data (380 - 280)/ (2005 - 1750) = 100ppm / 255 years or 0.4 PPM / year which is much lower than 1.5ppm. But last year was 1.5 PPM so what's going on? Well I guess the rate is increasing over time. So I guess someone looking at your data would assume that over the next 70 years we will increase by more than 1.5PPM / year.
Now 380 / 70 years would take a PPM increase of 5.42PPM / year, and (380 * 3) / 140 would take 8.14PPM/year but when the rate is going up over time the second number is more conservative. Why? Well 1.5ppm now means we need some years over 5.4. If it was a steady increase of say
But hey who knows, I mean it's not like people are using more fossil fuels now than they where 20 years ago...
O SHIT!
Umm, radiometric dating has nothing to do with evolution. As the theory of Evolution predates all forms of radiometric dating.
Now the largest support for evolution has to do with how well it fits into the theory of plate tectonics. Together they provide a vary convincing argument as to the evolution of life on earth.
But if you know better, then feel free to talk with people at Exxon and explain why they should ignore said theory's and use your methods to find OIL. Then again these are people who uses these theory's to make billions, so I think your going to need a more convincing argument than a few cases where radiometric dating failed.
Use one as the base.
Use two in the second layer.
Use 4 in the third layer.
On top of that place a large heatsink and massave fan or a watter cooling system hooked up to a large heatsink and fan.
As long as you use thermoelectric rated for the operating temperature each layer is going to sit at you can stack them like this and get to vary low operating temperatures.
PS: It would be more effecent to use the inner loop of an AC unit instead of a few layers of thermoelectric cell's.
Umm, no just use it as a break. If your orbital velocity where 0 you would hit the sun. So by slowing down you can go to a lower orbit.
PS: There is a lot of math but to this but once your in orbit you need to expend energy to change that orbit. Now if you push to or away from you can change the shape of your orbit but you need to speed up or slow down to change your orbital distance.
Which models gives more money to research?
Is that your only criterion?
YES.
All economic growth is a direct result of research. We are a wealthy nation because of our research. But, the amount of time and effort needed to find new technologies keeps increasing. So we need a system that dumps insane amounts of money into research. Yes we could use some of that money to say feed the poor but society gains more from tossing 1 billion to research than it does from spending that money on education or most other projects. As long as people benefit from research they did not fund forcing them to fund research is a reasonable position.
A 1d object in 2d space is thin.
A 2d object in 3d space is thin.
A 3d object in 4d space is thin.
A 122d object in 123d space is thin.
Anyway, you seem to think like those people who say the mind is limited to language forgeting that I can tell Red 32,000 from Red 32,001 on a moniter there both red but they are not the same red. You can think about things you have never seen like black holes or quarks. When I think about X-ray's they have a collor that's distint from all others. It's not red, blue, green, or off white it's X-Ray.
My moniter can show 1024*1024*1024*2 distint colors and even though I have not seen them all I can still picture them just fine.
Picture a rock, now picture a rock with changes in density. Is it something you can see?
The universe by definition is everything and therefore would include god if he existed. Saying there is a "first mover out side the system" is silly if he effects the system he is part of the system.
Now logically the start time for the universe is not knowable as it could have started say yesterday at 3:14.0031214926536 PM EST and there would be no way of knowing. Therefore there is only two valid questions did the universe have a beginning or is it eternal. Adding god into the mix does not change the question.
If you say god is eternal then the universe is eternal if you say the universe had a start time then it had a start time which one do you chose?
I would have agreed with you if you had left it at "fait can lead to trough"but how can someone who is "willing to constantly re-evaluate everything they know to be true " have faith?
I mean that would imply that they don't have faith or am I missing something
stack them like cards in 4d space
/\. But if you have just one 3d object in 4d space it's going to fall over.
A 3d object in 4d space is like a 2d object in 3d space in that it's thin and flat. If you rotate them you could stand one / next to another \ to get
Picture a new color... Ok X-Ray I have never seen one but fine there it is. In fact I know a lot about it and how it works and I have even pictured them coming out of a gun in the dentist's office and going though my mouth. It's not red blue or green but now your saying I can't picture it?.
PS: What is your point about this stuff anyway?
I don't see the need for a conflict.
My mother is a fairly devote protestant from a long line of preachers. Growing up she demonstrated her in a heartfelt and open fashion.
After a while I asked my father what his beliefs where and he looked me in the eye and said, "Do you bereave in god?"
At which point I had to say, "well no not really."
We then had a hart to hard where he basically said, "I find the belief in god one of mankind's stupider dilutions."
From his perspective all you have to do is prevent sloppy thinking and your kids will notice just how silly a belief in god is. Which is how I plan to deal with it. If my wife wants to do the whole Santa or god thing then I can sit back and keep my mouth shut 99% of the time and still win the argument in the end so why fight over it?
The idea of using wind as a significant portion of US power consumption works as well as using hydropower as a significant portion of US power. Yes it is useful but there is not enough of it to do all that much. Once again this is total power that includes things like cars that are not part of the electric grid.
There are fully functional plans for a working fusion power plant. They are not being used. Saying we are spending money on this is silly because we are not. Fusion is well out of the R&D stage and into the demonstration stage.
Solar has had significant investments which are larger than fusion yet there are 0 profitable solar power plants. By your argument we have been working on it for 50 years and it does not work so we should give up.
In the next 50 years we are going to move to a hydrogen economy powered by coal and nether wind nor solar is going to provide significant sources of power.
Distributed power generation is a misnomer there is economy of scale that is lost when you decentralize.
PS: If you generate power the electric companies are FORCED BY LAW TO BUY IT FROM YOU if you want to invest your money is solar or wind feel free there is NOTING STOPING YOU.
That's one way to look at it. If you look at your numbers and compare them with a simple investment at 6% ROI that 500k costs you around 11,236$ every 2 years anyway so it's not as clear cut as you make it out to be.
The other problem is roads need to be cut up for many reasons such as underground power, phone, gas, or water lines. At which point spending less money up front starts to look even more appealing.