For starters, when it comes to God and what not, please believe what ever you want.
With that said, words have fixed meanings and your "personal deffinition" of agnostic is wrong. Here is a correct one https://www.merriam-webster.co... .
Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
"More to the point, why did editors and moderators feel this qualifies as "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"?"
Huh? This totally news for nerds. It's literally exploring how emerging technology is affecting the world we live in. Much of the best science fiction is this.
By the way, no one likes the douche bag that tries to look like they're making peace while putting the person they're talking to into a completely false characterization. If you had any integrity at all this conversation could in fact have ended with "hey, we're opposite ends of the political spectrum and that is what it is". But no, you chose to intentionally miss-characterize what I have been repeatedly saying while trying to look like the "good guy".
Holly Jesus Christ. For I think the fourth fucking time, it's that Texas has sacrificed all of it's public land in the name of economic advancement. I've fucking told you this several times now. Texas' economic model is based on maximum exploitation of it's public land to its long term determent. Blue states are able to achieve economic success without this.
You keep on trying to bring the federal government into this and it's fucking meaningless.
"Your criticism was that Texas has high economic growth, while maintaining personal ownership."
More words in my mouth. When will you stop making shit up? Lying just makes you look weak.
Texas certainly has high economic growth and meanwhile exploits every resource to its fullest to its long term determent which has been my point all along. Texas has used its exclusive ownership of its territory to exploit it to its extreme, thus making the states "rural" regions look like a dump. This point has been clearly made twice now and you continue to try to distort it.
Oil is going up in value again in a significant fashion and you crow on about the wise governance of Texas when it has nothing to do with that. Every time oil prices plunge Texas all of a sudden looks like the red state it is.
When on earth did I ever say I liked any part of California being owned by the fed? You're just making shit up now.
All I've commented on is how Texas seems to have no concept for land management at all so that anyone can buy land anywhere and then abandon anything they want there.
"I hear that a lot from Californians. Yeah California is big. Big economy. Right up there with India, Mexico, China. For me, I don't want an economy like India and Mexico. "
One of the worst parts of Texas is simply driving through it. Texas has been so driven by economic growth that it has almost not public land left. Driving through the desert there is like driving through some sort of post apocalyptic scenario of abandoned business'. Texas' economy is exactly like that of the countries you try put on California with no supporting arguments. Nothing is sacred and everything is for sale.
And how about your one proper hub of innovation? Oh, Austin? They're bluer than any blue state.
"If you ever get to a point where you're dead broke because all of the stable companies have left California, and you hear about getting a 3,500 square foot house in Dallas for $250,000, near the new Toyota headquarters, come on over if you want. Only thing - if you do end up fleeing from economic failure, try not to bring the same failing ideas with you. That's all. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy California as long as you live there."
Thanks. When the oil markets finally collapse and Texas looses it's primary means of economic growth you're not invited over.
Lean on your outlier crutch all you want. Blue states provide prosperity. Red states do not.
Thanks for the tip! On behalf of California, one of the most prosperous states in the union, I would like to ask you to please stay out of California.
Okay, okay - I know you might be reading this and thinking "he doesn't have the ability to ban me from the state". That's cool. I don't.
Our governance isn't perfect but we generally have no desire to be run like a broke ass red state. It's great you're making this one issue all about how absolutely horrible California laws are but we've been blue for a long time now and are still the 5th largest economy in the world. Meanwhile, red states have their own preposterous laws just like California does and are also the most economically backward in the union so maybe mind your own garden.
Eh.,, Sure, 25% sure seems big when viewed on it's own. Putting it into some proper context and it's barely anything. A guaranteed one time spike in housing prices that results in less then a 2% increase in the value of the average home is barely anything.
Your 25% percent statistic would only be worrying if it looked like it was going to be a permanent increase in housing price inflation. It's not though, so the metric you're pushing is meaningless in the context of this conversation.
I don't think that's an incorrect normalization but let's humor you.
Zillow predicts housing prices in California will rise 7.7% in the next year ( https://www.zillow.com/ca/home... ). That comes out to an increase of value of $42,049.70 for the average house in the state. Adding an extra $10k that will result in the increases in mortgage payments being offset by a lower electricity bill is relatively meaningless.
This standard is for new homes. How on earth will it result in a loss of business for power companies? A loss of growth, sure. A loss of current business, not at all.
That 10k would only result in a few extra hundred up front on the down payment. After that, on a 30 year loan the savings on the electric bill would very likely cancel out the extra costs associated with the higher monthly mortgage payment.
If you're concerned about people of lesser means ability to buy a house, California's local governments being massively anti housing growth contributes infinitely more to that problem then anything the state has done.
Slashdot Mirror
For starters, when it comes to God and what not, please believe what ever you want.
With that said, words have fixed meanings and your "personal deffinition" of agnostic is wrong. Here is a correct one https://www.merriam-webster.co... .
Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
"More to the point, why did editors and moderators feel this qualifies as "news for nerds" or "stuff that matters"?"
Huh? This totally news for nerds. It's literally exploring how emerging technology is affecting the world we live in. Much of the best science fiction is this.
Does it?
Jesus, you're a semantics asshole aren't you? You actually have no vested interest in this other than the proper wording, right?
I'm sorry, I thought this would have been completely assumed but clearly it was not.
Cool, so back to (illegal) emulators.
An AI as we currently call it would never recognize the utter uselessness of its actions. It would just do them. Hence my claim.
By the way, no one likes the douche bag that tries to look like they're making peace while putting the person they're talking to into a completely false characterization. If you had any integrity at all this conversation could in fact have ended with "hey, we're opposite ends of the political spectrum and that is what it is". But no, you chose to intentionally miss-characterize what I have been repeatedly saying while trying to look like the "good guy".
Cool, so back to emulators.
"it's a bit unclear what your point is."
Holly Jesus Christ. For I think the fourth fucking time, it's that Texas has sacrificed all of it's public land in the name of economic advancement. I've fucking told you this several times now. Texas' economic model is based on maximum exploitation of it's public land to its long term determent. Blue states are able to achieve economic success without this.
You keep on trying to bring the federal government into this and it's fucking meaningless.
"Your criticism was that Texas has high economic growth, while maintaining personal ownership."
More words in my mouth. When will you stop making shit up? Lying just makes you look weak.
Texas certainly has high economic growth and meanwhile exploits every resource to its fullest to its long term determent which has been my point all along. Texas has used its exclusive ownership of its territory to exploit it to its extreme, thus making the states "rural" regions look like a dump. This point has been clearly made twice now and you continue to try to distort it.
Oil is going up in value again in a significant fashion and you crow on about the wise governance of Texas when it has nothing to do with that. Every time oil prices plunge Texas all of a sudden looks like the red state it is.
All you're doing is putting words in my mouth.
"your point is that having a big economy is bad?"
Clearly I was not claiming that as can be easily inferred by me discussing the wealth of California and Blue states in general in several posts.
And blue states achieve brilliant economic growth while maintaining proper land usage.
When on earth did I ever say I liked any part of California being owned by the fed? You're just making shit up now.
All I've commented on is how Texas seems to have no concept for land management at all so that anyone can buy land anywhere and then abandon anything they want there.
That's a nice fiction you've got there but let me put things plainly for you.
California's country side is not full of hazardous federal waste sites. Texas' "country side" does in fact look like a big spread out dump.
No, 5th. http://fortune.com/2018/05/05/...
Nice completely made up response though
"I hear that a lot from Californians. Yeah California is big. Big economy. Right up there with India, Mexico, China. For me, I don't want an economy like India and Mexico. "
One of the worst parts of Texas is simply driving through it. Texas has been so driven by economic growth that it has almost not public land left. Driving through the desert there is like driving through some sort of post apocalyptic scenario of abandoned business'. Texas' economy is exactly like that of the countries you try put on California with no supporting arguments. Nothing is sacred and everything is for sale.
And how about your one proper hub of innovation? Oh, Austin? They're bluer than any blue state.
"If you ever get to a point where you're dead broke because all of the stable companies have left California, and you hear about getting a 3,500 square foot house in Dallas for $250,000, near the new Toyota headquarters, come on over if you want. Only thing - if you do end up fleeing from economic failure, try not to bring the same failing ideas with you. That's all. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy California as long as you live there."
Thanks. When the oil markets finally collapse and Texas looses it's primary means of economic growth you're not invited over.
Lean on your outlier crutch all you want. Blue states provide prosperity. Red states do not.
Thanks for the tip! On behalf of California, one of the most prosperous states in the union, I would like to ask you to please stay out of California.
Okay, okay - I know you might be reading this and thinking "he doesn't have the ability to ban me from the state". That's cool. I don't.
Our governance isn't perfect but we generally have no desire to be run like a broke ass red state. It's great you're making this one issue all about how absolutely horrible California laws are but we've been blue for a long time now and are still the 5th largest economy in the world. Meanwhile, red states have their own preposterous laws just like California does and are also the most economically backward in the union so maybe mind your own garden.
Obviously, not at all.
Because some one other than us will see a thread this deep...
Thanks for clarifying I'm not talking to a person, I'm talking to a robot.
Eh.,, Sure, 25% sure seems big when viewed on it's own. Putting it into some proper context and it's barely anything. A guaranteed one time spike in housing prices that results in less then a 2% increase in the value of the average home is barely anything.
Your 25% percent statistic would only be worrying if it looked like it was going to be a permanent increase in housing price inflation. It's not though, so the metric you're pushing is meaningless in the context of this conversation.
What the hell are you going on about? A 10k increase on 550K is less than 2%.
I don't think that's an incorrect normalization but let's humor you.
Zillow predicts housing prices in California will rise 7.7% in the next year ( https://www.zillow.com/ca/home... ). That comes out to an increase of value of $42,049.70 for the average house in the state. Adding an extra $10k that will result in the increases in mortgage payments being offset by a lower electricity bill is relatively meaningless.
This standard is for new homes. How on earth will it result in a loss of business for power companies? A loss of growth, sure. A loss of current business, not at all.
That 10k would only result in a few extra hundred up front on the down payment. After that, on a 30 year loan the savings on the electric bill would very likely cancel out the extra costs associated with the higher monthly mortgage payment.
If you're concerned about people of lesser means ability to buy a house, California's local governments being massively anti housing growth contributes infinitely more to that problem then anything the state has done.