Fine man. You're not interested in a discussion or ideas. Sigh. We all know how to go look up the current theories on Wikipedia.
If there is anything at all to string theory, then those dimensions are real, not just numbers. I explained galactic rotation above; the bullet cluster is the black hole (super massive of course) that used to be at the center of that galaxy, continuing on with it's singularity and dark gravity 'shadow' intact.
You and I are in a 4 dimensional space time manifold right now. What do you mean you can't be "in" a dimension?
You're the one assuming: That mass within a singularity would still exhibit gravity inverse to the square of the distance from it. The distance to where, exactly? It's a point. Even if you want to go all QM on me and say you can measure from that point; there's no volume. The mass you're looking for can't be in there. And yet it fell in.
Let me put it this way. You have this singularity already. Then you add a little more mass to it. It's still a point, and did not increase in volume. Where did that mass "go"? Any answer that doesn't honor the conservation of mass is a non-starter.
That mod got fixed. But don't be too smug in your theories.;)
I been telling y'all for years. The dark matter is regular old matter that has fallen into the singularity, and is now off in one of those dimensions sting theory describes. It still 'there', it still exists, it has mass; the conservation of mass and energy will *always* be obeyed.
It's just that 'there' is kind of fuzzy, given that the singularity has no volume. It physically can't all be right there, and our measurements confirm that dark matter (we should call it dark gravity btw, because that's all we observe) does not emanate from the black hole at the center of a galaxy. The gravity we see from a black hole is mass that has not yet fallen into the singularity. And theoretically, that mass can't make it into the singularity since time approaches zero the closer you get.
I'm stuck there, on how the mass made it into the singularity in the first place, and the paradox that for a singularity to even exist, at least one bit of mass had to be compressed into a state that our known universe doesn't allow. But we do see the gravitational shadow it casts around a galaxy. Which I submit is the 'size' of that dimension.
Isn't money (the US dollar specifically) a commodity, and very much like gold? Limited, finite supply, high demand,... In fact, not too long ago, the dollar was backed by gold, and so they were exactly the same thing, as far as this conversation goes. That is no longer the case, but they are still very much alike.
I understand your premise is that very little of that real money backs our current economy, and most of the 'money' is multiple generations of debt against the original money. You're right, in that all that debt can't be covered if it is called early, or the least little thing goes wrong.
But that's a symptom, not the cause.
The cause, is that you and I service about $15 trillion in debt on $16.5 trillion of income each year. Here in Feb of 2015, it's probably past 1:1. Own it.
How big is the credit market? I'll tell you: In a given year, it's about as big as all the money that was made that year. Any amount lent over that, is by definition unsecured and risky. But the whole GDP is basically borrowed against, before we, the public, even get to the credit market. Everything we borrow has already been borrowed against.
Why do you think interest rates are zero? There is no more money to be borrowed. And the moment new money comes online, it is borrowed against by the government. Those bankers are doing us a favor, in the short term, keeping the economy going as best they can on the fumes you describe.
I can't argue with any particular point of yours, but you're wrong on the overall premise. If you and I stop borrowing the whole GDP; before people, workers, bankers, whoever; can even take their income, then real first-generation money (the kind that acts a lot like gold) will flow through the economy again. That money definitely displaces the debt that you're on about.
Speaking of government, they are the ones making the banks do this stuff. The banks agree with you, and know they shouldn't be lending all this money. But the government makes them, and if they don't lend enough, then it's negative interest rates, which Europe has done. It costs you money to keep it in the bank, so you have to lend it out, or lose some.
You're right about the situation being insane.
Re:We're not in the "software revolution age"
on
The Software Revolution
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
No. The last 120 years have seen huge advances in technology, and war, along with steel making, agriculture, power generation; has scaled accordingly.
War itself is not any bigger than it used to be, and might even be a bit less in this day and age. Well, the case could be made.
In any case, the Soviets really and truly scared us into inventing some of that. You can't just say, 'Let there be DARPA'.
Your premise hinges on the debt gravy train, which you say just 'slows down', but then you leave it there like it's already been explained.
You leave out all that borrowed money. It still exists. Where is it? Yes, the the flow of newly borrowed money may dry up, but what happened to all that money that was already borrowed? Who has that money now?
What you're missing is that the 'financial sector', which is not the monolithic entity that you make out, has little choice in the matter. The biggest borrower will not be denied. Who it is, that has that money now; the biggest borrower; is the US Federal Government. They're up to borrowing about 80% of the wealth generated each year; leaving 20% of new, real, first generation money to flow into that bubble you describe above. Just enough to keep it humming. Hopefully...
Your answer to that, is to give them everything, rather than pull them back. Let's say you did; you could only do it once. All that fake bank money is gone, and what's left is honest, simple, trade and business. I guess I'm an agrarian farmer now, because my company was financed by that fake bank money. How much currency did I get fiated, exactly? 'Cause I got $815 due next month, and although I'm onboard with the Glorious Revolution, I'm questioning my ability to raise sorghum or corn on this quarter acre lot. But I guess the HOA is gone at this point, so thanks for that at least.
Instead of all that, we could, you know, You and I, just borrow a little less each year. As opposed a little more each year. Or a lot. It'd be a lot easier than your way. It would still sting a little. But that's simply because we're used to living on more than we make. When I say make, I mean everything that exists, that can possibly be borrowed against. Well, what was left after taxes.
Can we try that first? Just cut Federal spending a bit?
No, I like your gut instinct. There is no evidence that the Industrial Revolution was an anomaly in job creation. As Maxo points out, it wasn't all just job creation anyway. Lots of craftsmen and all kinds of people were out of business and disrupted.
But there were no little craftsmen making giant bridges and buildings; that was new stuff and new jobs that didn't exist before. There will be new stuff and opportunities in the next technological revolution.
Yes. Just not on the first shot. By the time they hit that particular building, a few acres around it are craters.
Still somewhat useful, even in modern warfare. Keyword being 'war'. Lately we do 'missions', with precision strikes and little collateral damage, so not very useful there.
So, given the chance, you really think that Georgia would return to that? Who would vote for such a thing? You think whites would instantly throw their black neighbors under the bus? For what gain?
And, I think the black mayor of Atlanta would have a problem with that, not to mention our black President.
No, we haven't really seen one yet. But there's been some societies that were pretty darned close. I think we were close (well, closer) in the 60s - 80s than we are now.
If we could get back to that, but without the racism (the one real test this country has yet to pass) we would be closer than we are now.
Agreed. What you're missing is that more and complex regulations is what actually enhances the powerful corporate interests. You get tricked every time.
I don't really consider myself a libertarian, but I'll wear the label that society currently assigns me. Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster, was my favorite president, if that helps. Strong regulation does not necessarily mean more extensive and complex. In fact, it seems to be an inverse relationship.
As for honesty, I'll give you liberty, and no I don't wan't government enforced fraternity. If you mean equality under the law, then that is every bit as important as liberty. If you mean equality of outcome, then no, I don't care to have that enforced on me either.
Maybe, but the bell curve of things in the universe that people like to average suggests it is more likely that half are slightly above and half are slightly below.
Wouldn't 6 above and 6 below in any 12-set be considered, dare I say it, average?
They're not anti-science. They work at tech firms and live in silicon valley for God's sake.
It's not logical to get the vaccine. As long as almost everybody else gets it, your odds of getting the disease are almost zero. The odds of a bad reaction to the vaccine are slightly above almost zero.
Here's what I don't get; you obviously believe in the vaccine, so your kid got the shot, as did mine, and can't get the disease. We got nothing to worry about, why do we care what other people do?
"You do realize that "level playing field" and "equal opportunity" conflict with "minimal" government and "most local level", right? "
No. That false dichotomy is the message they've been ingraining into us for a long time now. You rule out the possibility, that you can be as free as you can possibly be, *AND*; you live in an egalitarian dynamic wonderful society, where opportunity simply exists as a result.
With heavy-handed top down government, no matter how wonderful the current head of it is, we don't get that chance.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine man. You're not interested in a discussion or ideas. Sigh. We all know how to go look up the current theories on Wikipedia.
If there is anything at all to string theory, then those dimensions are real, not just numbers. I explained galactic rotation above; the bullet cluster is the black hole (super massive of course) that used to be at the center of that galaxy, continuing on with it's singularity and dark gravity 'shadow' intact.
You and I are in a 4 dimensional space time manifold right now. What do you mean you can't be "in" a dimension?
You're the one assuming: That mass within a singularity would still exhibit gravity inverse to the square of the distance from it. The distance to where, exactly? It's a point. Even if you want to go all QM on me and say you can measure from that point; there's no volume. The mass you're looking for can't be in there. And yet it fell in.
Let me put it this way. You have this singularity already. Then you add a little more mass to it. It's still a point, and did not increase in volume. Where did that mass "go"? Any answer that doesn't honor the conservation of mass is a non-starter.
Nice. Dark matter is the result of matter falling into the singularity.
That mod got fixed. But don't be too smug in your theories. ;)
I been telling y'all for years. The dark matter is regular old matter that has fallen into the singularity, and is now off in one of those dimensions sting theory describes. It still 'there', it still exists, it has mass; the conservation of mass and energy will *always* be obeyed.
It's just that 'there' is kind of fuzzy, given that the singularity has no volume. It physically can't all be right there, and our measurements confirm that dark matter (we should call it dark gravity btw, because that's all we observe) does not emanate from the black hole at the center of a galaxy. The gravity we see from a black hole is mass that has not yet fallen into the singularity. And theoretically, that mass can't make it into the singularity since time approaches zero the closer you get.
I'm stuck there, on how the mass made it into the singularity in the first place, and the paradox that for a singularity to even exist, at least one bit of mass had to be compressed into a state that our known universe doesn't allow. But we do see the gravitational shadow it casts around a galaxy. Which I submit is the 'size' of that dimension.
In Nancy's defense, all her cult makes you do is to "just say no"...
Isn't money (the US dollar specifically) a commodity, and very much like gold? Limited, finite supply, high demand, ... In fact, not too long ago, the dollar was backed by gold, and so they were exactly the same thing, as far as this conversation goes. That is no longer the case, but they are still very much alike.
I understand your premise is that very little of that real money backs our current economy, and most of the 'money' is multiple generations of debt against the original money. You're right, in that all that debt can't be covered if it is called early, or the least little thing goes wrong.
But that's a symptom, not the cause.
The cause, is that you and I service about $15 trillion in debt on $16.5 trillion of income each year. Here in Feb of 2015, it's probably past 1:1. Own it.
How big is the credit market? I'll tell you: In a given year, it's about as big as all the money that was made that year. Any amount lent over that, is by definition unsecured and risky. But the whole GDP is basically borrowed against, before we, the public, even get to the credit market. Everything we borrow has already been borrowed against.
Why do you think interest rates are zero? There is no more money to be borrowed. And the moment new money comes online, it is borrowed against by the government. Those bankers are doing us a favor, in the short term, keeping the economy going as best they can on the fumes you describe.
I can't argue with any particular point of yours, but you're wrong on the overall premise. If you and I stop borrowing the whole GDP; before people, workers, bankers, whoever; can even take their income, then real first-generation money (the kind that acts a lot like gold) will flow through the economy again. That money definitely displaces the debt that you're on about.
Speaking of government, they are the ones making the banks do this stuff. The banks agree with you, and know they shouldn't be lending all this money. But the government makes them, and if they don't lend enough, then it's negative interest rates, which Europe has done. It costs you money to keep it in the bank, so you have to lend it out, or lose some.
You're right about the situation being insane.
No. The last 120 years have seen huge advances in technology, and war, along with steel making, agriculture, power generation; has scaled accordingly.
War itself is not any bigger than it used to be, and might even be a bit less in this day and age. Well, the case could be made.
In any case, the Soviets really and truly scared us into inventing some of that. You can't just say, 'Let there be DARPA'.
Your premise hinges on the debt gravy train, which you say just 'slows down', but then you leave it there like it's already been explained.
You leave out all that borrowed money. It still exists. Where is it? Yes, the the flow of newly borrowed money may dry up, but what happened to all that money that was already borrowed? Who has that money now?
What you're missing is that the 'financial sector', which is not the monolithic entity that you make out, has little choice in the matter. The biggest borrower will not be denied. Who it is, that has that money now; the biggest borrower; is the US Federal Government. They're up to borrowing about 80% of the wealth generated each year; leaving 20% of new, real, first generation money to flow into that bubble you describe above. Just enough to keep it humming. Hopefully...
Your answer to that, is to give them everything, rather than pull them back. Let's say you did; you could only do it once. All that fake bank money is gone, and what's left is honest, simple, trade and business. I guess I'm an agrarian farmer now, because my company was financed by that fake bank money. How much currency did I get fiated, exactly? 'Cause I got $815 due next month, and although I'm onboard with the Glorious Revolution, I'm questioning my ability to raise sorghum or corn on this quarter acre lot. But I guess the HOA is gone at this point, so thanks for that at least.
Instead of all that, we could, you know, You and I, just borrow a little less each year. As opposed a little more each year. Or a lot. It'd be a lot easier than your way. It would still sting a little. But that's simply because we're used to living on more than we make. When I say make, I mean everything that exists, that can possibly be borrowed against. Well, what was left after taxes.
Can we try that first? Just cut Federal spending a bit?
No, I like your gut instinct. There is no evidence that the Industrial Revolution was an anomaly in job creation. As Maxo points out, it wasn't all just job creation anyway. Lots of craftsmen and all kinds of people were out of business and disrupted.
But there were no little craftsmen making giant bridges and buildings; that was new stuff and new jobs that didn't exist before. There will be new stuff and opportunities in the next technological revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
That might have been a lame joke, but then you're not that much fun at parties either, are you?
You sure? They did say 'too cheap to meter' at one time.
Yeah, but that's like hating Verizon or Monsanto.
He may be on the wrong side of the nuclear debate, but the only people that like Entergy are Entergy execs.
So long as it floats, very useful.
The buoyancy becomes less after a few Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles hit it from thousands of miles away.
Sorry, but yes.
The weapon to counter, is a missile coming at mach 20 that can be placed on a postage stamp.
Or rather, a dozen of them at once. Shoot that down.
Carriers are just about as obsolete.
Yes. Just not on the first shot. By the time they hit that particular building, a few acres around it are craters.
Still somewhat useful, even in modern warfare. Keyword being 'war'. Lately we do 'missions', with precision strikes and little collateral damage, so not very useful there.
So, given the chance, you really think that Georgia would return to that? Who would vote for such a thing? You think whites would instantly throw their black neighbors under the bus? For what gain?
And, I think the black mayor of Atlanta would have a problem with that, not to mention our black President.
No, we haven't really seen one yet. But there's been some societies that were pretty darned close. I think we were close (well, closer) in the 60s - 80s than we are now.
If we could get back to that, but without the racism (the one real test this country has yet to pass) we would be closer than we are now.
Agreed. What you're missing is that more and complex regulations is what actually enhances the powerful corporate interests. You get tricked every time.
I don't really consider myself a libertarian, but I'll wear the label that society currently assigns me. Teddy Roosevelt, the trust buster, was my favorite president, if that helps. Strong regulation does not necessarily mean more extensive and complex. In fact, it seems to be an inverse relationship.
As for honesty, I'll give you liberty, and no I don't wan't government enforced fraternity. If you mean equality under the law, then that is every bit as important as liberty. If you mean equality of outcome, then no, I don't care to have that enforced on me either.
"Perhaps those 6 below were really far below ..."
Maybe, but the bell curve of things in the universe that people like to average suggests it is more likely that half are slightly above and half are slightly below.
Wouldn't 6 above and 6 below in any 12-set be considered, dare I say it, average?
They're not anti-science. They work at tech firms and live in silicon valley for God's sake.
It's not logical to get the vaccine. As long as almost everybody else gets it, your odds of getting the disease are almost zero. The odds of a bad reaction to the vaccine are slightly above almost zero.
Here's what I don't get; you obviously believe in the vaccine, so your kid got the shot, as did mine, and can't get the disease. We got nothing to worry about, why do we care what other people do?
Then the first logical conclusion to leap to would be that these facilities are representative of the state.
Why would you expect silicon valley to be higher than average?
"You do realize that "level playing field" and "equal opportunity" conflict with "minimal" government and "most local level", right? "
No. That false dichotomy is the message they've been ingraining into us for a long time now. You rule out the possibility, that you can be as free as you can possibly be, *AND*; you live in an egalitarian dynamic wonderful society, where opportunity simply exists as a result.
With heavy-handed top down government, no matter how wonderful the current head of it is, we don't get that chance.
At $90 you're completely right. Break even with fracking is closer to $50, and that changes the equation a bit, doesn't it?
Ouch. Already? No, not HP.
Same old Apple, just without the greatness.