They should be using that wealth to change public policy to stop taxing economic activity and start taxing net assets. Enormous concentrations of wealth cannot exist without government so those benefiting should pay for the service.
By engaging in "philanthropy" rather than fixing the bug in the tax system, these guys are engaging in moral vanity -- essentially trying to buy respect. They don't get it from me nor anyone really concerned about the welfare of humanity.
The Wrights wrote to several engine manufacturers, but none met their need for a sufficiently lightweight powerplant. They turned to their shop mechanic, Charlie Taylor, who built an engine in just six weeks in close consultation with the brothers. To keep the weight low enough, the engine block was cast from aluminum, a rare practice for the time. The Wright/Taylor engine was a primitive version of modern fuel-injection systems, having no carburetor or fuel pump. Gasoline was gravity-fed into the crankcase through a rubber tube from the fuel tank mounted on a wing strut.
I didn't see anything in that article about how memristors will significantly (ie: exponentially) enable better approximations of K(x) (where K is the representation of x that takes minimum bits). Nor should one expect that something as far removed from the hard work of modeling would significantly enhance intelligence.
It's a good thing the US hasn't deindustrialized itself and industrialized China at the behest of the Chicago School of economics or China might have the capability to field this weapon, in massive quantities, before the US!
But anyway, even if it could, by some incomprehensible miracle, ramp up industrial production of a known technology more rapidly than the US, China would never sell arms to the other side. They don't like money that much!
A little while ago you asked Forth (and now colorForth) originator Chuck Moore about his languages, the multi-core chips he's been designing, and the future of computer languages -- now he's gotten back with answers well worth reading, from how to allocate computing resources on chips and in programs, to what sort of (color) vision it takes to program effectively. Thanks, Chuck!
We don't need a large population with high intelligence and skills to have explosive productivity. You need just a few Wright Brothers' bike shops updated to the modern era. We've replaced those Yeomen during the last half of the twentieth century and it would be relatively easy to get them back were it not for the maldistribution of capital.
With an NPV of US citizenship of approximately $225k, 40 years of immigration liberalization against the will of the majority diluting that value with 48M immigrants to date and Reagan tax cuts approximately $300G/year for the last 30 years and a risk free interest rate of about 3%, there has been a total value of $35T transferred from the middle and upper middle class to the wealthy, their managerial elites and immigrant bioweaponry during the years of boomer fertility.
Clearly these immigrants are from cultures that are a lot more adapted to centralization of wealth and power in corrupt elites, so they not only fit right in with the manifest direction of the US in the last half of the 20th century:
More insideously, these immigrants are better adapted to such a pathological environment so they actively encourage the trend.
Now, let me ask you one question:
If that much wealth has been stolen by the upper class, why should we expect the economy to have a consumer base at all?
The principle victims of this were the mid to late boomers, as early boomers (Bush, Gore, Clinton, etc.) got to ride the demographic wave providing them real estate appreciation and managerial upward mobility. There are also the children of the boomers who were victims. Assuming a 1.6 total fertility rate among the boomer females, we have approximately 125M citizen creditors due that $35T for the breach of the social contract commencing with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. If paid down over a period about as long as it took to run up that social debt, each citizen creditor is due an annuity of $13,000 or about $1100/month.
That wouldn't restore the entire consumer base immediately but it would allow for trickle up to start creating wealth in the quantity required to finance the government.
Its pretty obvious to me that the energy, environment and productivity problems could be solved except for the maldistribution of capital -- and that the de facto goal of continuing this situation is a die off that preserves the managerial elite that benefitted most from the breach of the social contract against those born subsequent to 1950.
The primary question before us is: How can the death burden be shifted to be more equitable?
You can't simply hand-wave away network effects in the free market. When a guy like Bill Gates gets to sit on the potential of Moore's Law and trash it for literally decades of 18 month doublings, we aren't dealing with petty theft.
And yes, I do mean THEFT because the tax base is not charging even approximately the costs of maintaining property rights -- such as control of MS-DOS hence Windows -- it is geared around taxing producers via the 16th Amendment.
A rational market tax system would approximate a mutual insurance company for indemnification of loss of property value and guess what that means?
Taxation of net in-place liquidation value at something like the risk free interest rate of modern portfolio theory.
MSNBC reports that "Pentagon says it's baffled, but scientists suggest it's just a jetliner with spectacular contrail".
Who are these so-called "scientists"?
As any reputable scientist can see it is obviously swamp gas.
Re:21st Century started in 1958?
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
So what do people who study programming languages and actually understand their semantics say about relational paradigms, such as the predicate calculus, as opposed to functional paradigms, such as the lambda calculus?
I mean do these sages seriously think there is not fundamental importance to the fact that functions are degenerate relations?
Re:21st Century started in 1958?
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
That presupposes AOP is a fundamental advance, a presupposition I do not share. The separation of concerns is the root problem with specialization. In reality, you cannot, for example, separate optimization from the expense of doing optimization.
Re:21st Century started in 1958?
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
Church's formalism is great and its hard to beat it but it is a functional formalism and functions are degenerate relations. The predicate calculus is a superior formalism.
If as much effort had gone into fixing up Prolog as has gone into fixing up Lisp, we could have avoided the entire Date and Darwen mess, not to mention ridiculous "rules systems" like Jess.
Re:21st Century started in 1958?
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 1
Hell, the Lambda calculus goes back to the '30s and, really, there haven't been any fundamental advances in LISP compared to that standard which, I'll admit, was beyond practical implementation until recently.
But CLOS? Are you kidding me?
Sure its an advance over Smalltalk but really...
21st Century started in 1958?
on
Land of Lisp
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I find it amazing that, contrary to popular belief, the 21st century started in 1958.
Seriously, guys, who in their right mind believes there have been no major advances in programming languages since Lisp?
Oh, I'll admit that 99.9% of the supposed "advances" have been horseshit...
So you just set up a Grigoriy Perelman Prize for Mathematics where the Prize is you get to run your own mathematics institute the way you want if you prove RSA secure. Grigoriy Perelman wins the prize. Then all DRDO needs to do is create a virtual machine where the only addresses -- including network addresses -- are secure public keys.
The argument ultimately comes down to the time value of the money it takes to build and operate the infrastructure: trains, tracks, rights of way, maintenance, energy, insurance, etc.
Whatever one may say about the Chinese accomplishment one thing is very likely: Their tickets are likely to be very cheap per passenger mile compared to other train infrastructures.
Wrong. He says he didn't require a PhD -- merely that if a qualified applicant also had a PhD he would have been willing to pay more. Read more carefully.
Just no early career people to fill the role (it was a junior applications engineer role).
Clarify: Were you receiving applications from US citizens that would have filled the role, except that they were from programmers that weren't "junior" enough?
It is important to keep changing the technology base in meaningless ways so that as you get older, and have to relearn a new way to do the same WRONG THING programming becomes so painful, you'd rather pull ditch weeds for a living than look at another piece of code.
This is a feature, not a bug, in the computer industry. Why? Because the real purpose of the computer industry is to import as many Indians as possible into the Fortune 500, get them corporate scholarships for MBAs and take over the managerial elite positions of society before the rest of the parasites have succeeded in bleeding it totally dry.
Now, I'll admit that this is possibly a mere side effect of taxing income rather than net liquidation value of assets -- which would have prevented obscenities like Microsoft from ever arising, but there is a point where these things take on a life of their own. At this point we can be assured that the new cognitive elite in technology will do everything in its power to preserve rent seeking in both the private and public sectors so they can "get theirs" before the house of cards collapses.
Slashdot Mirror
They should be using that wealth to change public policy to stop taxing economic activity and start taxing net assets. Enormous concentrations of wealth cannot exist without government so those benefiting should pay for the service.
By engaging in "philanthropy" rather than fixing the bug in the tax system, these guys are engaging in moral vanity -- essentially trying to buy respect. They don't get it from me nor anyone really concerned about the welfare of humanity.
The Wright Brothers had a similar problem:
Agricultural mechanization is for Nazis.
I didn't see anything in that article about how memristors will significantly (ie: exponentially) enable better approximations of K(x) (where K is the representation of x that takes minimum bits). Nor should one expect that something as far removed from the hard work of modeling would significantly enhance intelligence.
So, who is being scammed this time?
The singularity is the Rapture and Kurzeil is Jesus!
It's a good thing the US hasn't deindustrialized itself and industrialized China at the behest of the Chicago School of economics or China might have the capability to field this weapon, in massive quantities, before the US!
But anyway, even if it could, by some incomprehensible miracle, ramp up industrial production of a known technology more rapidly than the US, China would never sell arms to the other side. They don't like money that much!
Thanks for the words of encouragement!
It seem like I've been here before.
We don't need a large population with high intelligence and skills to have explosive productivity. You need just a few Wright Brothers' bike shops updated to the modern era. We've replaced those Yeomen during the last half of the twentieth century and it would be relatively easy to get them back were it not for the maldistribution of capital.
With an NPV of US citizenship of approximately $225k, 40 years of immigration liberalization against the will of the majority diluting that value with 48M immigrants to date and Reagan tax cuts approximately $300G/year for the last 30 years and a risk free interest rate of about 3%, there has been a total value of $35T transferred from the middle and upper middle class to the wealthy, their managerial elites and immigrant bioweaponry during the years of boomer fertility.
Clearly these immigrants are from cultures that are a lot more adapted to centralization of wealth and power in corrupt elites, so they not only fit right in with the manifest direction of the US in the last half of the 20th century:
More insideously, these immigrants are better adapted to such a pathological environment so they actively encourage the trend.
Now, let me ask you one question:
If that much wealth has been stolen by the upper class, why should we expect the economy to have a consumer base at all?
The principle victims of this were the mid to late boomers, as early boomers (Bush, Gore, Clinton, etc.) got to ride the demographic wave providing them real estate appreciation and managerial upward mobility. There are also the children of the boomers who were victims. Assuming a 1.6 total fertility rate among the boomer females, we have approximately 125M citizen creditors due that $35T for the breach of the social contract commencing with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. If paid down over a period about as long as it took to run up that social debt, each citizen creditor is due an annuity of $13,000 or about $1100/month.
That wouldn't restore the entire consumer base immediately but it would allow for trickle up to start creating wealth in the quantity required to finance the government.
Its pretty obvious to me that the energy, environment and productivity problems could be solved except for the maldistribution of capital -- and that the de facto goal of continuing this situation is a die off that preserves the managerial elite that benefitted most from the breach of the social contract against those born subsequent to 1950.
The primary question before us is: How can the death burden be shifted to be more equitable?
And yes, I do mean THEFT because the tax base is not charging even approximately the costs of maintaining property rights -- such as control of MS-DOS hence Windows -- it is geared around taxing producers via the 16th Amendment.
A rational market tax system would approximate a mutual insurance company for indemnification of loss of property value and guess what that means?
Taxation of net in-place liquidation value at something like the risk free interest rate of modern portfolio theory.
Learn to do arithmetic before you start calling other people "dumb".
Who are these so-called "scientists"?
As any reputable scientist can see it is obviously swamp gas.
So what do people who study programming languages and actually understand their semantics say about relational paradigms, such as the predicate calculus, as opposed to functional paradigms, such as the lambda calculus? I mean do these sages seriously think there is not fundamental importance to the fact that functions are degenerate relations?
That presupposes AOP is a fundamental advance, a presupposition I do not share. The separation of concerns is the root problem with specialization. In reality, you cannot, for example, separate optimization from the expense of doing optimization.
Church's formalism is great and its hard to beat it but it is a functional formalism and functions are degenerate relations. The predicate calculus is a superior formalism.
If as much effort had gone into fixing up Prolog as has gone into fixing up Lisp, we could have avoided the entire Date and Darwen mess, not to mention ridiculous "rules systems" like Jess.
But CLOS? Are you kidding me?
Sure its an advance over Smalltalk but really...
Seriously, guys, who in their right mind believes there have been no major advances in programming languages since Lisp?
Oh, I'll admit that 99.9% of the supposed "advances" have been horseshit...
But in the meantime, where's our country?
Oh wait, it just hit me... we're living on it. So I guess all we have to do is tell Washington, DC that since they seceded, we don't have to!
Of course, if it can do that....
So you just set up a Grigoriy Perelman Prize for Mathematics where the Prize is you get to run your own mathematics institute the way you want if you prove RSA secure. Grigoriy Perelman wins the prize. Then all DRDO needs to do is create a virtual machine where the only addresses -- including network addresses -- are secure public keys.
Whatever one may say about the Chinese accomplishment one thing is very likely: Their tickets are likely to be very cheap per passenger mile compared to other train infrastructures.
Where did you advertise?
Wrong. He says he didn't require a PhD -- merely that if a qualified applicant also had a PhD he would have been willing to pay more. Read more carefully.
Clarify: Were you receiving applications from US citizens that would have filled the role, except that they were from programmers that weren't "junior" enough?
This is a feature, not a bug, in the computer industry. Why? Because the real purpose of the computer industry is to import as many Indians as possible into the Fortune 500, get them corporate scholarships for MBAs and take over the managerial elite positions of society before the rest of the parasites have succeeded in bleeding it totally dry.
Now, I'll admit that this is possibly a mere side effect of taxing income rather than net liquidation value of assets -- which would have prevented obscenities like Microsoft from ever arising, but there is a point where these things take on a life of their own. At this point we can be assured that the new cognitive elite in technology will do everything in its power to preserve rent seeking in both the private and public sectors so they can "get theirs" before the house of cards collapses.