And you of course assume that if I suggest that the *minimum* intelligence of a right winger is low, it must mean I am a left winger and therefore think left wingers are smarter.

FYI I'm neither a left nor right winger. I am a free thinker and an independent voter. I have actually voted for twice as many republicans as democrats (2 republicans vs 1 democrat).

I'm not sure why the idea that the dumbest right winger would in fact be dumb is even controversial. The dumbest left winger is no doubt dumb as well, but I don't see why this even needs to be explicitly stated. It should be obvious.

I think you might be overestimating the minimum intelligence of right wingers.

3. A right wing supporter of Scalise, who should (but still doesn't) know the result will be #1.

I think #1 and #3 are both pretty likely.

mostly based around the engineering department, i would be absolutely ok with that... but maybe because i like science fiction more than action?!!!

As with many cosmological argument, that essay called "Imaginary Arguments" by TJ Radcliffe does not prove anything about a potential infinity of nested infinite universes. There is a key hedge there of "given what we currently know of physics". Much of physics (for example the Heisenberg uncertainty principle) is in essence a theory of what we could conceivably learn about the universe and beyond, not actual information on the universe and beyond. Likewise for saying we can see up to a certain distance of some billions of light years in space and time. That tells us essentially nothing about what is beyond those limits. We could, for example, be in an expanding bubble in a larger ocean of such bubbles -- but we could not tell using light-speed-limited electromagnetism. It would take, say, access to universe level bugs or debugger hooks to make an exploit that would let us travel beyond those electromagnetic limits in a human lifetime. :-)

This is where that essay goes off the rails, when i overgeneralizes the issue of what we can know with what might be out there: "Nor will it do to imagine alternative physics to fix all this up: insofar as the philosopher's argument is to have any claim on our attention at all, it must be based on what we know about the universe we actually live in, not some self-contradictory universe of a philosopher's imagination, where particles and computers behave in impossible ways."

That may be a useful sentiment by an observer about an observed box, but it is an overly limiting one when talking about things outside a box the observer appears to be in. At the very best, experimental physics can only tell us about the currently "observable" universe within a very small space-time bubble surrounding the current Earth.

So what if experiments are precise to many digits? When you are dealing with possible infinities and nested universes, anything is possible. It just does not matter how mind-bogglingly large the numbers are, or even if every universe can only simulate 0.5% of itself. The observable universe is already mind-boggling large. What are, say, a few trillion extra zeros tacked on to that regarding data storage needs or time needs for simulations to have billions of virtual turtles simulating nested universes some of the way down? :-)

Or in other words, from xkcd:
"A Bunch of Rocks"
http://xkcd.com/505/

Also, there are probably ways things could appear to be precise in some ways to a limited number of observers (like millions of Earth scientists), but not really being fully fleshed out. However, going down that rabbit hole involves many deep existential questions (like how can I know anything at all exists, or has existed, or will exist, how can I trust my memories, how many observers really exist, etc.) that most physicists may be better off ignoring, either career-wise or for mental health reasons. :-)
http://disciplined-minds.com/
"Upon publication of Disciplined Minds, the American Institute of Physics fired author Jeff Schmidt. He had been on the editorial staff of Physics Today magazine for 19 years. Following advice given in the book itself, Schmidt and free-expression advocates mounted a campaign that brought public judgment to bear on Schmidtâ(TM)s dismissal. Such justice is available to anyone not afraid to go public."

That said, such an essay might fairly criticize specific conclusions in "the simulation argument" itself, since much of that is indeed speculative related to "ancestor simulation" or best practices for living in one. But for anyone who has spent time using computer VMs, as well as the mathematics of infinities, the essay-as-is sounds fairly limited in its thinking.

Of course, even the notion of "infinity" has its controversies: :-)
"Dispute over Infinity Divides Mathematicians "
http://www.scientificamerican....
""How can I stay in any field and continue to prove theorems if the fundamental notions I'm using are problematic?" asks Peter Koellner, a professor of philosophy at Harvard University who specializes in mathematical logic."

Short answer to that mathematician's question -- his paycheck and prestige depends on it. :-( Thus, we need a "basic income" for everyone, so mathematics and theoretical physics can flourish into an unruly jungle with a diversity of notions about infinity. :-)

there was this one issue of security. they should have used iOS, o wait.

i wonder why you are discriminating against nonplanetary languages.

they just want more access to apple's api's to integrate their MDM software and security features in a more user friendly way to stay relevent in mobile devices/messaging/security. the samsung KNOX integration will give them a lot of access to make the user experiance great while providing IT managers control. but unless smae can be achieved for iDevices no one is going to go that route.
IMHO at this point in time the market is finished with their devices and soon maybe finished with their software as well. sounds more like whining than a legit complaint but net neutrality as bait at least it makes past the noise threshold.

Interesting mix of themes in that song, thanks...

Taking your comment seriously, :-) are you suggesting simulated seems to imply fake, but virtual implies essentially the same? Maybe there is some related change in social consciousness on these topics reflected by "virtual" becoming a more commonly used word?

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
"Virtuality, the quality of having the attributes of something without sharing its (real or imagined) physical form"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"Simulation is the imitation of the operation of a real-world process or system over time."

Virtual can also potentially be a subtype of simulation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

So yes, simulation does seem to imply more fakeness (imitation) than virtuality (which implies the essence is still there).

So, I stand corrected! Thank you, fyngyrz! It's virtual turtles all the way down. :-) Sorry for being insensitive about that!

BTW, I watched this excellent video last night of "Inventing the Future" with Robert Tercek, interviewing Bruce Schneier and Julian Sanchez about pervasive surveillance, drones, and related social changes, and the advertisements were all about Microsoft HoloLens:
"Next Future Terrifying Technology Will Blow Your Mind"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

A decade or more ago I saw a video of similar augmented reality demo (Steve Feinberg walking around Columbia university?),.
http://www.cnet.com/pictures/g...
"Steven Feinberg (left), a professor of computer science at Columbia University, created the first outdoor mobile augmented reality system using a see-through display in 1996."

But Microsoft HoloLens looked so much more impressive and integrated, and I can imagine with better head tracking technology like for Oculus Rift, that it would work better. Slashdot has an article on HoloLens from eight hours ago:
http://tech.slashdot.org/story...

But in the context of this discussion, Microsoft's "HoloLens" show how the line between "physical" and "virtual" can start to become blurred.
http://www.microsoft.com/micro...
"The result is the world's most advanced holographic computing platform, enabled by Windows 10. For the first time ever, Microsoft HoloLens brings high-definition holograms to life in your world, where they integrate with your physical places, spaces, and things. Holograms will improve the way you do things every day, and enable you to do things youâ(TM)ve never done before."

Reminds me a bit of Red Dwarf and Arnold Rimmer. :-)

Perhaps many religions are right, and for our situation at least, an omniscient "god" really does know everything we do? And if every timestep of the virtuality/simulation is recorded somehow, then perhaps nothing is ever lost -- except in a stegnographic sense, or perhaps in the sense of having no more significant runtime devoted directly to its continued processing as an entity as it has lost obvious coherence?

People talk about how any singularity might be more about humans merging with machines then machines taking over, and one can wonder if, the first time, if there was one, virtualizing was more about a merging of physical and simulated/computed/virtualized as with HoloLens than one or the other?

Anyway, just random thoughts. It is in the nature of virtualization that you can never be sure what layers really surrounds you, so we may never know...

One other tangential issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
"Virtual machines running proprietary operating systems require licensing, regardless of the host machine's operating system. For example, installing Microsoft Windows into a VM guest requires its licensing requirements to be satisfied."

Good question -- are all the virtual turtles free and open source?

If not, let's hope the license payments are up-to-date: :-)

But [johnsmith@gmail] and [john.smith@gmail] are the same thing. Dots are not significant. Perhaps I misunderstood?

You're assuming that they already know that you have the keys. If they don't know that, then demanding that you open the cabinet amounts to a call for self-incrimination—not because of the contents per se, but because it would show that you had access to the contents. (Perhaps you received a locked cabinet with no key, and have no idea what may be inside.)

Similarly, if they haven't already shown that you have access to the social media account in question, then simply revealing that you know the password would be self-incrimination. Perhaps someone else set up the account in an attempt to frame you.

Illinois has the largest unfunded pension in the US, so demonizing their ridiculously high pensions is exactly what should be happening. They come in #32 out of 50 in state spending per capita, so out of control spending is not the reason the pensions are out of whack. Illinois comes it as #14/50 in total state and local tax revenue per capita as well, so the problem isn't that they aren't taxing enough either.

The pensions are being demonized because they are the problem.

If they know that an account was used for cyber-bullying, but don't know for sure that it was you using the account, revealing that you know the password would already be self-incrimination. You don't need to make up a convoluted password in order to plead the 5th.