collectivism isn't theft. property is an illusion anyway
- so is collectivism not theft *or* is property an illusion? AFAIC property is a fact and it starts with your own body, so this nonsense is just that - nonsense:
you belong to nature and it will reclaim you one day.
- the chemicals, molecules and atoms I am made of are as much 'me' as any number of notes thrown together into a hole in a ground is an opera.
*You* are not just water and trace chemical elements you are made of, you do not belong to anybody. You are an entity that was organized into existence via a complex procedure that took billions of years + 9 months and whatever your age is and everything you have experienced since you were conceived and until the moment you die.
Once you die the corpse that is left after is no longer *you*, it's an empty vessel that can no longer be you, you are gone and definitely are not a possession of anybody.
You may want to rethink that dumbass ideology of yours, it's idiotic.
Yeah, but then you're still driving a GM. Remember, this is the company that decided to sell you a car with an ignition switch that's horribly easy to turn off so they could save a few pennies, and led to many fatal accidents.
So then the lone tech worker is stuck in an apartment forever effectively, without pairing up with someone else's income, and how do you fit kids into that picture, if both have to work, etc.
You don't fit kids into that picture. Kids are infeasible in today's society unless you're on welfare or extremely wealthy. Just leave raising the next generation to them.
I'm sure plenty of software engineers realize this, and have realized this for a very long time now.
The problem is that it's not up to them. It's up to managers and executives, who don't like remote workers. From what I've seen, telecommuting is becoming more and more rare; it was more common 10 years ago. Now the managers all want everyone on-site, and they want them working in noisy open-plan offices, sitting at open tables with no partitions whatsoever.
Maybe he fully understands the physics problem with trying to heat a condo with 20-foot ceilings, but his wife insists on cranking up the heat to 75-80, and getting a divorce means not being able to afford living there any more after paying her alimony.
I think we were thrown off point by AC, who doesn't seem to grasp that physical systems can be described in alternative reference frames.
I think he is trying to say that there is no such thing as a geostationary orbit, because satellites in that orbit are actually tracing out a circular (or even more pedantically, spiral) path.
I believe the responder was trying to point out, using the example of a rocket ship travelling to geosynchronous orbit, that "stationary" is a kind trick of perspective when viewed from the frame of fixed stars.
Of course in the rotating frame of where we happen to be sitting on the Earth geostationary satellites are indeed actually stationary.
geosynchronous satellites: when the sun circulates over the north pole and it causes the satellite to exhibit the figure 8 orbit
geostationary : are fixed (fiction) stations , allegedly ground based
That is the most garbled explanation I've ever heard of geosynchronous orbits.
A geosynchronous orbit is one with a period that exactly matches the Earth's rate of rotation.
Geostationary orbits are a special case of geosynchronous orbits where the angle inclination of the orbit to the Earth's equator is zero.
So: a satellite in a geosynchronous orbit that is also geostationary appears to continually hover 22,236 miles above some point on the Earth's equator. If it is in a geosynchronous orbit that is not geostationary, it will appear from the earth to drift north and south of the celestial equator, tracing a figure 8 against the background stars over the course of one Earth rotation.
Of course in both cases the satellite would actually be following an elliptical (in fact almost perfectly circular) path around the Earth. The "stationary" or "figure 8" thing is simply a trick of perspective -- the way car in the next lane traveling at the same speed appears not to be moving.
Yeah, most of you knew all that. But insofar as there's an explanation here, it oughtn't be gibberish.
Single payer in Canada costs about half as much than multiple payer healthcare in the US,
- let me put it this way: I do not care what it 'costs', the real question is *who pays*. Nobody should be *forced* to pay for anybody else.
while yielding better overall outcomes.
- let me put it this way: I do not care about 'overall outcomes', I only care about 1 outcome and that outcome is related to myself. The 'overall outcome' never comes into the picture, it's irrelevant and it's completely misleading.
The only question that matters is this: if you need healthcare can you get it by paying for it without anybody else forcing you to do anything else or to pay for anybody else. All these other considerations are destruction of individual freedoms and destruction of quality in healthcare and they are *not* reducing the cost to those who are paying the large share of it. Nobody should be forced to pay for other people's healthcare and nobody should be prevented (as is done in Canada) from buying healthcare out of pocket.
progress will continue by exploiting specialized hardware for this particular function
Is someone building specialized hardware for that? Last I checked it was still all just GPUs.
But do you think that's a good thing, or a bad thing?
People can adapt to just about anything. If you live in a ditch, then a shack feels like a mansion. If the people around you live in mansions, a perfectly serviceable house seems like a shack.
It's the Red Queen's race:
"Now, here, you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"
And once you've adapted to running twice as fast, you'll have to run twice as fast yet again to feel like you're progressing.
That's why I say the most important thing in your profession, once you have achieved enough income to live modestly and set a little aside for the future, is to find work that is in itself rewarding.
adding that he pays $3000 rent for a two-bedroom house in San Francisco"
That's a pretty good deal for two bedrooms, actually.
The only thing worse than X Windows: (X Windows) - X