Comment Re:ask my sig (Score 1) 343
mod+=2;
Proud supporter since 2007,
Paul B.
mod+=2;
Proud supporter since 2007,
Paul B.
And I am sure his positions have not changed since then...
Paul B.
I would say that predicting 2008 housing crash many years in advance would be a pretty good validation of his "theories" that allowing unlimited money creation guided by political reasons leads to rather unpleasant unintended consequences...
But your version of the reality must be different from mine. Does it also happen in your part of multiverse that Obama fulfilled any of his campaign promises, withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan (which, as Commander in Chief, is about the only thing the President can do on his own, and I am sure RP would do it), and did not start a couple of (undeclared!) wars (err, conflicts) of his own?
Maybe you should research his "theories" a bit better.
Proud supported since 2007,
Paul B.
No this one, no... He has been saying the same thing for 30+ years, pretty consistent, in not it, even before it was somewhat popular.
Research for yourself and judge yourself...
Paul B.
I really liked how Fjandr replied to my initial comment, here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2486114&cid=37782706
Paul B.
Will the President's office really consider the top pleas, which include petitions to Legalize and Regulate Marijuana, Forgive Student Loan Debt, and Abolish the TSA?"
But I know of a contender in current race (with not too bad chances of winning it, IMHO), who already said that he would do first and third, and work to reign in the source of the mess which gave us second.
Seriously!
I wanted to mention that, and how in this article everyone on
And yes, 15% down with DOD budget, no war funding, and no TSA! (I was disappointed that it was not "no DHS" though...)
Paul B.
And?
Still, why those jobs can not be performed by the military personnel, if they are crucial for the survival of this country? As I said, under Ron Paul's budget, DOD still has 500B out of 700B currently, while soldiers and officers are safely home. Total of NOAA, USGS and NIST (latter, admitted, is constitutional, in my view, but not explicitly military-related) is less than 1% of the old budget, and a bit more than 1% of the proposed one.
IMHO, Ron Paul was surprisingly non-radical in his proposal (as in, I would advocate cutting more, not less!), he morally knows that the promises made to individual people need to be kept despite the country being broke (SS/VA/Medicare/Medicade).
I am sorry you can not longer consider supporting him (whom would you support instead, then, if I may ask), but I definitely will!
Paul B.
I have to qualify my statement -- it was just my opinion, obviously, NOAA is not explicitly mentioned in Dr. Paul's proposal, though he said elsewhere something along the lines of "small but useful units will be transferred to other Departments".
He is *decreasing* DOD budget, by 15%. I would propose funding NOAA and USGS from *that* decreased budget, since they do have obvious military uses (but then, I suspect, military collects all that data anyway, but with alternative, and much better, "birds"
Paul B.
15% slash (right there, top line on the second page here: http://ronpaul2012.us2.list-manage.com/track/click?u=5fe6ba5e2c7e9376850ed45ac&id=bfc0992023&e=8c0ac983f9) AND defunding all (undeclared) wars, resulting in immediate pull-out from all, what is it now, 5,6,7 places?
And, since most libertarians agree that national defence is legitimate function of Federal government, and knowing weather and coast around your country has obvious military uses, I would see nothing wrong with NOAA and USGS being funded from DOD budget.
"Fix weights and measures" is explicitly constitutional, so, I'd guess, NIST would be also safe under Dr. Paul's watch.
Paul B.
I remember Feynman wrote some about quantum computing. -- Yeah, see, e.g., here: http://www.phy.mtu.edu/~sgowtham/PH4390/Week_02/IJTP_v21_p467_y1982.pdf
Some people say that he coined the term "Quantum computer", others say that he popularized it, and it was originally due to David Deutsch. And of course it was influenced by Fredkin and Toffoli, and others asking about energy requirements for computation. And THAT goes back to von Neumann!
Now, von Neumann gave us not only classical computer view, currently bearing his name, but also showed the mathematical equivalence of Heisenberg's matrix and Schrödinger's wave formulations of quantum mechanics. I think that I've read it somewhere recently (do not remember where, up to
If all the questions that can be answered competently are already being answered competently, how are things going to change with some added computational power? Well, see P vs. NP (BQP in this case, YMMV) -- there are questions that we were trained not to be asking, knowing that we can not get the answer back before the heat death of the Universe!
Paul B.
Back to cave man times parents had to teach their kids not to eat
Just had to, because I went through that sentence several times to parse it, in absence of punctuation it was not easy...
But you and GP are right! And I feel ambivalent as well, but they sure do taste good!
(Damn, did I actually make a grammar nazi comment?
Paul B.
I tend to be more "in your face" type of guy, but can see your approach working better!
To stay on topic, "US books are open" -- which books? Certainly not Federal Reserve Bank books, or why would it take Bloomberg a lawsuit to see *some* of dirty little dealing which were going on, like "shadow TARP" (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0811/62358.html), and why original version of H.R. 1207 was never passed, again?
For the record, if what prosecutors are alleging that poker company was doing is true, I fully support going after them for fraud -- but, I would still not call *them* running Ponzi scheme, unless they were letting new "investors" in and paying them with money siphoned from old "investors", or were operating some kind of "poker-playing coop" and promised "guaranteed" gains -- crazy idea, is not it?
But, knowing gov't attitude towards gambling sites, I would take what they are saying with a grain of salt, until proven otherwise.
Paul B.
I do not think that you get net energy savings (by using the same basic technology, e.g., CMOS at room temeprature or "cold"), if you take into account the fact that cooling things down also costs energy! For example, liquid helium refrigeration costs about 1 kW of wall outlet power to compensate for 1 W dissipated at 4.2 K.
Changing your basic technology to, e.g., some version of superconductor-based logic can help (a lot!), current state of the art (in my very biased opinion, since I am cheering for those guys, and have been involved in related research for years) is here: http://spectrum.ieee.org/semiconductors/design/superconductor-logic-goes-lowpower
Paul B.
Yes, there is if you "erase" intermediate results -- look up 'von Neumann-Landauer limit', kT*ln(2) energy must be dissipated for non-reversible computation.
Reversible computation can theoretically approach zero energy dissipation.
Wikipedia is your friend!
Paul B.
Happiness is twin floppies.
