Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Profitable, if self-contradictory (Score 1) 431

by Empiric (#48040937) Attached to: Elon Musk: We Must Put a Million People On Mars To Safeguard Humanity

Well, to slightly modify from "stupid", it's instead absolute fact that a theoretical future possibility is not equivalent to actual present reality and the expenditures we can make toward it with verifiable beneficial results.

Don't try to false dichotomy this. I am not taking the position that the future is valueless or non-existent. I am simply stating when choices affecting "then" are being considered in contrast to choices affecting "now", we should use valid notions of how "then" is related to "now".

Comment: Re:Profitable, if self-contradictory (Score 1) 431

by Empiric (#48040879) Attached to: Elon Musk: We Must Put a Million People On Mars To Safeguard Humanity

I didn't say "humanity" will be dead in 200 years. I said every member of "humanity" will be dead in 200 years.

It's this equivocation that "humanity" is "us", when in fact there is no intersection at all between the future humanity that is being discussed, and us, that is the basis for much of what I have said in this thread.

We can aid a "humanity" that does in fact coincide with "us" (that is, now), or we can make equivalent expenditures for a "humanity" that is theoretical, and definitely not "us". That's an important part of the question here that is being obscured by language and the human psychological tendency to implicitly think as if "we" endure beyond our lifespan. I have no issue with the second notion, but only if it's acknowledged, whereas the context of the proposal indicates a belief this is not true. You can have it one way or the other, logically, but not both.

Comment: Re:Profitable, if self-contradictory (Score 1) 431

by Empiric (#48040625) Attached to: Elon Musk: We Must Put a Million People On Mars To Safeguard Humanity

So... you've got nothing in terms of the difference between the two, to us, then. And when and if those distant-future people exist, you'd similarly have no answer for them relative to the distant future from that point in time.

And yes, the future matters. That's exactly why I'm making my argument.

Comment: Re:Profitable, if self-contradictory (Score 1) 431

by Empiric (#48040445) Attached to: Elon Musk: We Must Put a Million People On Mars To Safeguard Humanity
Okay, so you're moving up to just posting the directly absurd.

I'll give you this, though, if being "pedantic" means posturing as vaguely "above the topic" in knowledge and pretending therefore that simply scoffing at questions in lieu of actually engaging the topic is sufficient, then you are certainly the ideal person to recognize it.

"Ostentatious"... yes, that's the word I was looking for.

Comment: Re:Profitable, if self-contradictory (Score 1) 431

by Empiric (#48039749) Attached to: Elon Musk: We Must Put a Million People On Mars To Safeguard Humanity
Once you've done that, feel free to also note that this isn't even necessary to show that to speak of "us" in a future context where none of "us" will exist in the manner suggested by the statement, is a trick of psychology, having no basis is philosophy or science.

Comment: Re:HL7? (Score 5, Insightful) 161

by Empiric (#48038795) Attached to: Back To Faxes: Doctors Can't Exchange Digital Medical Records

The primary purpose of HL7 seemed to be enabling massive consulting hours clarifying the poorly-defined HL7 standard.

HIPAA is like HL7 version 2.0. They've dispensed with "poorly-defined" and moved up to "completely arbitrary". The boon this provides... for lawyers... cannot be underestimated.

One small step for man, one giant stumble for mankind.

Working...