Miggs
Well-Known Member
No, I didn't. Reading 101. Try it some time.
Billionaires
- Thread starter b_line
- Start date
No, I didn't. Reading 101. Try it some time.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
So you said that because you are trying to help him avoid becoming a douche?
I won't respond. Wouldn't want salt13 calling me out on my manners again, would I?
Miggs
Well-Known Member
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Thanks. It's real, unlike his sig which he mocked up because he was butt hurt.
Yep, I'm loving all the creative innovation taking place in this thread. It sure is adding a lot of value to the discussion.
And I have faith that there is a wealth of new ideas that will be shared, sooner or later.
So this is what progress looks like!
And I have faith that there is a wealth of new ideas that will be shared, sooner or later.
So this is what progress looks like!
NAOS
Well-Known Member
Siro, this interaction between us was really very simple. Do you honestly feel like you did your part to engage in a "two way conversation"? For my part, I'm very comfortable with the questions I asked in response to your post.
NAOS
Well-Known Member
I'm seriously surprised at the level with with "progress" is being launched around here without any parachute. We're just barreling toward a net good, so who needs one? And at the ways in which "humanity" is being used as a general category. Together: "human progress." Wow.
It's moral zealotry. And while it's just me typing right now, I can assure you that thousands of well-informed people would like you to know (via proxy) that you've provided extremely thin evidence. (But you did rehearse a nice synopsis of the neoclassical synthesis in the opening pages of this thread. #Goosebumps)
Oh hush now
Didn't Steve Jobs say that the key is to give people what they want before they know they want it
Didn't Steve Jobs say that the key is to give people what they want before they know they want it
NAOS
Well-Known Member
This is actually a good reply to Joe's post. I honestly think the best thing to do when you're in the company of someone who is repeating the mantra of others -- especially in such rich detail -- is to assume they're trying to joke or manipulate. Either way, laughter is good. If they get offended, then it's highly probable they were attempting a manipulation, or, alternatively, they are themselves a product of manipulation. An offended response is revealing: if they were manipulating, how much should you care if they are offended? if they are products of manipulation, then what exactly are you offending? Is it the conviction they bring to the moral purpose they find in the mantra?
What kind of person shares a moral story and gets offended when others have the strength to laugh instead of kneel?
If you laugh and offend somebody, and then that person starts making broad generalizing statements about who they are and what they sincerely believe and then go on to explain how the people who disagree with them secretly harbor a pessimistic outlook on life, then........... (wait, let me recap this situation quickly: you're laughing, and then being told that you're a pessimist)...... well then, either up the mockery or get the **** out of there. Personally, I think it feels good to mock moral convictions of the economic variety.
LMFAO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiF1NeDffOE
If you offend a preacher who then attempts to give you a brief history of the world, then you really need to get the **** outta there.
Last edited:
NAOS
Well-Known Member
--TECHNOLOGY! DEAR BENEFICENT GOD, CAN YOU HEAR ME?! THOU PROVIDETH ALL SOLUTIONS WHEN WE ARE IN NEED!! Never will we run out of wood or oil thanks to your inevitable march toward the Good, dear God! Those who understand and trust your unlimited power and resources have a lightness of being and a clear vision; those who don't bubble up through the world like the useless goo of tar pits, and, like them, they will eventually be washed clean!
I heard that before Steve Jobs cleared his first math class.
Henry E. Eyring told me that the secret to being a good husband was in knowing what your wife wants quick enough to make it your own idea.
Fun Stuff
This thread has surpassed my hopes as a generator of interesting and divergent comments.
If I ever quit laughing at myself or the world, I'll go sit in the Hogup cave and contemplate the rising and falling levels of the Great Salt Lake and the causes, and consequences, that might be somehow correlated. Oh yah, and take pics of the jet traffic too.
Energy is the fundamental basis of technology. If you have enough energy from other sources you can synthesize all the oil-based materials you need from carbon dioxide and water. The Navy had a problem of what to do with the carbon dioxide generated by humans or engines onboard subs, and found some scientists who developed the technology to reduce the carbon dioxide back to methane.
They're still working on cold fusion reactions, and other nuclear technologies, for having all the energy they could need onboard. Never need refueling technologies.
I have heard that we have vast clouds of protons separated from vast clouds of electrons in our upper atmosphere, moving a high speed. I'm willing to debate the origin of our magnetic field, but for some reasons our researchers have not measured the exact size or variance of these resources, or of the hydrogen being generated by collisions of these ions. In a universe that is 99.9999999999999% hydrogen, oxygen is limiting factor on a lot of stuff necessary to life. Pretty sure every planet has some kind of "solar wind" shield. . . . fragmented hydrogen atoms could be as much as .01% of the total hydrogen. . . . more material than all the stars combined. . . . have any astrophysicists ever measured the spectroscopic lines for protons and electrons in space?
We can make oil products from wood, as long as we have enough carbon dioxide to support photosynthesis in our atmosphere. If you look at all forms of life as a basis for "moral good", carbon dioxide has got to right up there with oxygen and water. I wouldn't quibble about a few hundred feet in ocean level or polar ice cap melting, I'd just build dikes or move the cities. Having global management representing the vested interests of coal and oil cartelists interested in reducing consumption of their products while maintaining the same levels of sales comes from the "morality" of a John D. Rockefeller, whose genius was directed at eliminating competitors and restricting supplies to keep prices high, compounded with a global model for ultimate monopoly comprehended in the words "Use Theirs First".
Apparently, morality is about the same thing as wealth, entirely existing in the minds of the humans. . . . . particularly in the more egocentric and megalomaniacal humans.
Put me down as solid with NAOS on this thread.
Siro, for some reason, subordinates his humanity to his belief system, which places inordinate value on "intelligence", and so he thinks computer-assisted intelligence equates with a superior humanity. That's called Transhumanism, and it qualifies as a religious cult.
This thread has surpassed my hopes as a generator of interesting and divergent comments.
If I ever quit laughing at myself or the world, I'll go sit in the Hogup cave and contemplate the rising and falling levels of the Great Salt Lake and the causes, and consequences, that might be somehow correlated. Oh yah, and take pics of the jet traffic too.
Energy is the fundamental basis of technology. If you have enough energy from other sources you can synthesize all the oil-based materials you need from carbon dioxide and water. The Navy had a problem of what to do with the carbon dioxide generated by humans or engines onboard subs, and found some scientists who developed the technology to reduce the carbon dioxide back to methane.
They're still working on cold fusion reactions, and other nuclear technologies, for having all the energy they could need onboard. Never need refueling technologies.
I have heard that we have vast clouds of protons separated from vast clouds of electrons in our upper atmosphere, moving a high speed. I'm willing to debate the origin of our magnetic field, but for some reasons our researchers have not measured the exact size or variance of these resources, or of the hydrogen being generated by collisions of these ions. In a universe that is 99.9999999999999% hydrogen, oxygen is limiting factor on a lot of stuff necessary to life. Pretty sure every planet has some kind of "solar wind" shield. . . . fragmented hydrogen atoms could be as much as .01% of the total hydrogen. . . . more material than all the stars combined. . . . have any astrophysicists ever measured the spectroscopic lines for protons and electrons in space?
We can make oil products from wood, as long as we have enough carbon dioxide to support photosynthesis in our atmosphere. If you look at all forms of life as a basis for "moral good", carbon dioxide has got to right up there with oxygen and water. I wouldn't quibble about a few hundred feet in ocean level or polar ice cap melting, I'd just build dikes or move the cities. Having global management representing the vested interests of coal and oil cartelists interested in reducing consumption of their products while maintaining the same levels of sales comes from the "morality" of a John D. Rockefeller, whose genius was directed at eliminating competitors and restricting supplies to keep prices high, compounded with a global model for ultimate monopoly comprehended in the words "Use Theirs First".
Apparently, morality is about the same thing as wealth, entirely existing in the minds of the humans. . . . . particularly in the more egocentric and megalomaniacal humans.
Put me down as solid with NAOS on this thread.
Siro, for some reason, subordinates his humanity to his belief system, which places inordinate value on "intelligence", and so he thinks computer-assisted intelligence equates with a superior humanity. That's called Transhumanism, and it qualifies as a religious cult.
The following errors occurred with your submission
NAOS has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space. (Have tried twice.)
NAOS
Well-Known Member
should be plenty of space now.
b_line
Well-Known Member
Re siro's assertion that capitalism is the key factor in the west's dominance: I studied Chinese economic history for a while and this learned some really interesting things about progress and innovation. As far as innovation goes, the chinese, and Asians in general have the advantage in sheer time of dominance. This is not due to some innate ability because of genetics or anything like that, but due to the fact that they basically have had thousands of years living in a resource rich area with a huge land mass. They basically had unlimited room to expand and grow enough food for what amounted to a huge population boom well in advance of any population boom around the world.
The Chinese had a multitude of inventions that allowed for world travel well before any Europeans (excluding vikings) were making long sea voyages (read about zheng he the Chinese admiral for more on this). They had more than enough knowledge and resources to have an industrial revolution as early as 900 ad. But what stopped them? There are probably a lot if things that stopped them, but one thing that I came across a lot in my reading back then was the Chinese affinity for confucian values of self sufficiency and not stretching beyond ones own means. There was basically a conscious choice by leaders of the Chinese people on multiple occasions, over about 800 years, to avoid too advanced of a technological age. This was even perpetuated into Mao's rule with "the great leap forward" followed by re education and turning inward for answers to their problems of growth.
While I am not 100% sold on capitalism being the vehicle for industrial revolution (imo, it's a stronger chance that the printing press was the vehicle, or that ingenuity had reached a critical mass and could not be held back any longer), it does have some merit.
The world would certainly be vastly different had Asians been the ones who spread modern technology.
Side note on the Americans of 1000 years ago: those people were pretty advanced in their own right, and at least as prosperous as contemporary Europe. They lacked one insurmountable advantage, they didn't have the exposure to disease that Eurasians did, and obviously lacked immunity. If native Americans would have had exposure to a few more large animals, we could be living in a world dominated by aztec, incan and maya people.
The Chinese had a multitude of inventions that allowed for world travel well before any Europeans (excluding vikings) were making long sea voyages (read about zheng he the Chinese admiral for more on this). They had more than enough knowledge and resources to have an industrial revolution as early as 900 ad. But what stopped them? There are probably a lot if things that stopped them, but one thing that I came across a lot in my reading back then was the Chinese affinity for confucian values of self sufficiency and not stretching beyond ones own means. There was basically a conscious choice by leaders of the Chinese people on multiple occasions, over about 800 years, to avoid too advanced of a technological age. This was even perpetuated into Mao's rule with "the great leap forward" followed by re education and turning inward for answers to their problems of growth.
While I am not 100% sold on capitalism being the vehicle for industrial revolution (imo, it's a stronger chance that the printing press was the vehicle, or that ingenuity had reached a critical mass and could not be held back any longer), it does have some merit.
The world would certainly be vastly different had Asians been the ones who spread modern technology.
Side note on the Americans of 1000 years ago: those people were pretty advanced in their own right, and at least as prosperous as contemporary Europe. They lacked one insurmountable advantage, they didn't have the exposure to disease that Eurasians did, and obviously lacked immunity. If native Americans would have had exposure to a few more large animals, we could be living in a world dominated by aztec, incan and maya people.
Kim Stanley Robinson wrote an interesting book that basically retold world history with Europe never recovering from the plague and therefore Asians and Native Americans taking on a significantly different role. It's called "The Year's of Rice and Salt"
KSR also wrote an awesome series on Mars colonization.
b_line
Well-Known Member
That sounds interesting. Gonna have to read that.