For the vast majority of primate evolution, our ancestors lived in "bands." That is, groups that produced no surplus above subsistence and reproduction, and moved to where ever living was best. Approximately 600,000 years ago, our ancestors started developing much higher brain capacity, and 100,000 one several different possible configurations began develop language. Thus virtually all humans have language acquisition skills, and the ability to deal with a moderate set of individuals they are in contact with, along with the ability to acquire understanding of acceptable range of behavior within that group – that is, morality.
Only about 15,000 years ago did we start living in groups larger than a "band" and only about 12,000 years ago did we successfully domesticate animals, which means the ability to look ahead at the results of today's decisions. Permanent markings with meaning are roughly 9000 years old, writing, at best, 6000 years old, and more probably less. Thus while these abilities are highly selective, there are going to be people who are unable to learn to be functionally literate, and are unable to understand ethical implications. There just has not been time for these mechanisms to both be selected for, and for their absence to be as notable as being unable to learn language and morality.
In our present circumstance, for the last 200 years one means of imposing ethical control, however imperfect, was prior restraint through capital. This is only because during that time were capital goods large enough to be expensive, and effective enough to reliably defeat personal capital, the kind one person could make with personal tools, at least under specific conditions. As the sphere where expensive capital could dominate grew, so too grew the power of centralized capital, including a centralized capital driven market-state. The state encourage economic growth, and directed it in ways that produced technology useful to the state for war. In a nutshell, this is Adam Smith's argument in Wealth of Nations: allow individual market behavior, but restrict capital accumulation of certain kinds, and the result will be a more powerful nation state.
However, personal capital has jumped up considerably in the last century. The first examples are now more than 125 years old: telephones, which allowed individuals with no special expertise to communicate over long distances, and automobiles, which allowed people to move along a network at the rate previously reserved for large capital, trains. The states that barred these technologies, were conquered. The states that attempted to use ideological control, lost two waves of military and revolutionary conflicts. Thus came an era of "industrial regulation," regulating industrial capacity and use. Modern copyright, for example, is an industrial regulation. Some industrial regulations failed utterly, for example, prohibition of alcohol. The ones that worked, worked because the bar to making something was high enough, that controlling a small number of people was enough. Alcohol and Marijuana failed because brewing is easy, and distillation not that much harder, growing marijuana is almost too easy for words. In fact, it's difficult to get rid of it once it gets itself established.
The present, where reproduction, once expensive, and specialized production, once limited to skilled individuals, are joining the capital set shouldn't surprise anyone, increasing the power of personal capital has been the direction of societies for hundreds of years, at least since medieval agricultural and military innovations – e.g. longbow, stirrup, moldboard plow. More people with more capability means a more resilient society.
This is also why "pre-civilized" thinking says in the gene pool: much innovation, and virtually all exploration, comes from people who cannot, or will not, or are able not, to function inside the civilized,
It is only someone's job, if the public hires someone to do it. That means "government" and "taxes." If you have an allergy to those words, then no, no one is going to save your ass.
This is why some rather simple fixes to the mortgage system, which could have been done as part of fixing the financial crisis, would allow people to borrow money for reducing energy retrofit. Instead Obama was busy being a Republicans and the Republicans were busy being crazy. Then we get to the libertarians, who were, and statistically speaking are, still in denial about climate change. It isn't that price signals could not be used to fix the problem, it is that the people who were, and are, profiting from the problem on a death bet risk adjusted basis, did not want the price signals in place.
Now market dynamics being what they are, some one will pay for this behavior, namely the people who were not alive (why "perfect intergenerational altruism" is an assumption of infinite horizon models, and the "future discount" is an explicit part of growth theory) to do anything about it. See Externalization of costs. Consider Katrina and Sandy as small down payments on the disutility. There is another group of people suffering, namely people who work, because by delaying conversion of the economy and protecting a capital base whose marginal utility is less than zero, it artificially depresses demand for labor.
That's why nerds are working on web pages rather than a smart grid.
Because the people who are paying the operating costs aren't the ones building the buildings. Banks wouldn't have to slash their mortgage profits, instead interest rates for non-green buildings would be higher, thus shifting the burden back on to the people who made. This is Pigou "taxing bads."
That argument isn't actually very sound. Darwin did not know of DNA, and his genetic theory is actually fairly week. Theories in science are disproven all the time, and it doesn't destroy the rest of science. General Relativity, Chemistry, QCD all work just fine without Darwin. Yes it is oft repeated, but that does not make it a sound scientific argument. After all, theists regularly make the same argument: anything you can't explain is proof of God's or the gods' miraculous nature, as it is all interconnected. It is, but not in this way. A better argument is to challenge the methods of ID in the rest of the physical world, the result is a mess: unlikely events occur all the time, above its supposed "specified complexity" limit, it would have to be a very busy God.
Term limits serving their purpose. It is what people wanted, to install a urinal in the voting booth, and this is the result, and endless churn of legislators there to God's work, rather than the people's business.
Because there are intelligent design processes at work: breeding and GMO, we are the intelligent designers. However the ID apparatus has zero to do with this, nothing they have done could pick out a GMO, or artificially selected organism from the a population, or discover whether a previous extinction event was natural, or the result of human hunting, destroying habitat, or other human driven process.
Corporate profits as a share of the economy are at all time lows, and we need to constrain rapacious labor to improve the economy. Sadly, the numbers do not bear this out. Stop giving out indentured servitude, let people stay here on work visas which allow them to change employers, and charge the same price with the same rights as USC/GC. And by the way, the evidence indicates that people are leaving because the American economy is growing sluggishly, and many countries are more attractive to return to because the are democratizing. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18780 But why listen to data when making policy if it gets in the way of lowering wages, throwing people out of jobs, and creating a non-voting class of workers, who cannot protect their rights with political power, against Citizen United empowered super-people?
Anyone who thinks ground breaking has been done has simply not understood the problem: many current paradigms are loaded with cruft. One important aspect of round breaking is de-crufting how we formulate knowledge. Newton, for example.
More correctly "The chance it is not prime depends on two separate computer clusters running two different versions of the same algorithm both failed."
Slashdot Mirror
Politicians are more afraid of getting shot than having pot smoke blown in their face.
For the vast majority of primate evolution, our ancestors lived in "bands." That is, groups that produced no surplus above subsistence and reproduction, and moved to where ever living was best. Approximately 600,000 years ago, our ancestors started developing much higher brain capacity, and 100,000 one several different possible configurations began develop language. Thus virtually all humans have language acquisition skills, and the ability to deal with a moderate set of individuals they are in contact with, along with the ability to acquire understanding of acceptable range of behavior within that group – that is, morality.
Only about 15,000 years ago did we start living in groups larger than a "band" and only about 12,000 years ago did we successfully domesticate animals, which means the ability to look ahead at the results of today's decisions. Permanent markings with meaning are roughly 9000 years old, writing, at best, 6000 years old, and more probably less. Thus while these abilities are highly selective, there are going to be people who are unable to learn to be functionally literate, and are unable to understand ethical implications. There just has not been time for these mechanisms to both be selected for, and for their absence to be as notable as being unable to learn language and morality.
In our present circumstance, for the last 200 years one means of imposing ethical control, however imperfect, was prior restraint through capital. This is only because during that time were capital goods large enough to be expensive, and effective enough to reliably defeat personal capital, the kind one person could make with personal tools, at least under specific conditions. As the sphere where expensive capital could dominate grew, so too grew the power of centralized capital, including a centralized capital driven market-state. The state encourage economic growth, and directed it in ways that produced technology useful to the state for war. In a nutshell, this is Adam Smith's argument in Wealth of Nations: allow individual market behavior, but restrict capital accumulation of certain kinds, and the result will be a more powerful nation state.
However, personal capital has jumped up considerably in the last century. The first examples are now more than 125 years old: telephones, which allowed individuals with no special expertise to communicate over long distances, and automobiles, which allowed people to move along a network at the rate previously reserved for large capital, trains. The states that barred these technologies, were conquered. The states that attempted to use ideological control, lost two waves of military and revolutionary conflicts. Thus came an era of "industrial regulation," regulating industrial capacity and use. Modern copyright, for example, is an industrial regulation. Some industrial regulations failed utterly, for example, prohibition of alcohol. The ones that worked, worked because the bar to making something was high enough, that controlling a small number of people was enough. Alcohol and Marijuana failed because brewing is easy, and distillation not that much harder, growing marijuana is almost too easy for words. In fact, it's difficult to get rid of it once it gets itself established.
The present, where reproduction, once expensive, and specialized production, once limited to skilled individuals, are joining the capital set shouldn't surprise anyone, increasing the power of personal capital has been the direction of societies for hundreds of years, at least since medieval agricultural and military innovations – e.g. longbow, stirrup, moldboard plow. More people with more capability means a more resilient society.
This is also why "pre-civilized" thinking says in the gene pool: much innovation, and virtually all exploration, comes from people who cannot, or will not, or are able not, to function inside the civilized,
will be more panopticon. Let the plebs do whatever, and they spy on them.
Adverse possession could be applied.
Not novel, not original, prior art, obvious.
"We don't even pretend to care."
"compactness of shape" is an anti-democratic principle to begin with, "one acre one vote" is a rule of the rotten borough.
NYC population density 27,532 sq/mi
That's because they are really externalizing the cost on future users of the building.
And for less than the price of the next wall street driven financial crash.
It is only someone's job, if the public hires someone to do it. That means "government" and "taxes." If you have an allergy to those words, then no, no one is going to save your ass.
Now market dynamics being what they are, some one will pay for this behavior, namely the people who were not alive (why "perfect intergenerational altruism" is an assumption of infinite horizon models, and the "future discount" is an explicit part of growth theory) to do anything about it. See Externalization of costs. Consider Katrina and Sandy as small down payments on the disutility. There is another group of people suffering, namely people who work, because by delaying conversion of the economy and protecting a capital base whose marginal utility is less than zero, it artificially depresses demand for labor.
That's why nerds are working on web pages rather than a smart grid.
Legacy retrofit is done all the time in NYC, since pre-war walk ups are highly desirable.
We are working on harnessing the stupid on the internet, which would be an inexhaustible supply of cheap energy.
Because the people who are paying the operating costs aren't the ones building the buildings. Banks wouldn't have to slash their mortgage profits, instead interest rates for non-green buildings would be higher, thus shifting the burden back on to the people who made. This is Pigou "taxing bads."
That argument isn't actually very sound. Darwin did not know of DNA, and his genetic theory is actually fairly week. Theories in science are disproven all the time, and it doesn't destroy the rest of science. General Relativity, Chemistry, QCD all work just fine without Darwin. Yes it is oft repeated, but that does not make it a sound scientific argument. After all, theists regularly make the same argument: anything you can't explain is proof of God's or the gods' miraculous nature, as it is all interconnected. It is, but not in this way. A better argument is to challenge the methods of ID in the rest of the physical world, the result is a mess: unlikely events occur all the time, above its supposed "specified complexity" limit, it would have to be a very busy God.
Term limits serving their purpose. It is what people wanted, to install a urinal in the voting booth, and this is the result, and endless churn of legislators there to God's work, rather than the people's business.
Because there are intelligent design processes at work: breeding and GMO, we are the intelligent designers. However the ID apparatus has zero to do with this, nothing they have done could pick out a GMO, or artificially selected organism from the a population, or discover whether a previous extinction event was natural, or the result of human hunting, destroying habitat, or other human driven process.
And how would they get a green card if they can't work here?
Corporate profits as a share of the economy are at all time lows, and we need to constrain rapacious labor to improve the economy. Sadly, the numbers do not bear this out. Stop giving out indentured servitude, let people stay here on work visas which allow them to change employers, and charge the same price with the same rights as USC/GC. And by the way, the evidence indicates that people are leaving because the American economy is growing sluggishly, and many countries are more attractive to return to because the are democratizing. http://www.nber.org/papers/w18780 But why listen to data when making policy if it gets in the way of lowering wages, throwing people out of jobs, and creating a non-voting class of workers, who cannot protect their rights with political power, against Citizen United empowered super-people?
Anyone who thinks ground breaking has been done has simply not understood the problem: many current paradigms are loaded with cruft. One important aspect of round breaking is de-crufting how we formulate knowledge. Newton, for example.
More correctly "The chance it is not prime depends on two separate computer clusters running two different versions of the same algorithm both failed."
Also they have the property of having a corresponding perfect number. (sum of all its divisors except itself)
You are confusing Fermat's conjecture, which is different (and wrong), with M-primes.
Actually there is a variety of encryption that uses these numbers.