Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I think any time you're coming up with a moral argument against a scientific theory, you've forgotten what science is. Unless of course you deeply believe that the universe is ultimately moral.
I don't follow your logic when you say:
But if at every opportunity of action the universe splits into an infinite number of alternative universes, all going down those paths of different choices, then half of those alternatives will lead to a better world and half will lead to a worse world.
So by every action we condemn the people in half the multiverses to a worse existence.
Certainly every action is either better, or worse, or neutral for some people. Those are the three outcomes. But it doesn't follow from that, that because there are three outcomes that they split across the population. For instance I could discover a cure for cancer. For many people that would be good, for even more neutral. But I don't think the pool of people it was bad for would be that large. And the next branch in the tree, at the next action, could be in their favour anyway. So it's possible that many of the multiverses will steadily get better for everyone. Those are the ones we should choose. Unless we're wankers.
-
I'm sure their concerns are genuine. Everyone's concerns about everyone else who has nukes are genuine. Iran's concerns about France's nukes are genuine.That's why they need nukes. That's the stupid thing about a philosophy of arming up on everyone. Then you've got to either bash them, or they'll have to tool up too.
I'm not sure if the mathematicians are talking about that kind of multiverse. Only decisions that involve quantum uncertainty, which I don't understand is much of a factor in human decisions. Unless we start making choices via quantum random number generators of course, in a Schrodinger's Cat kind of way.
There don't seem to be very many macroscopic events that are affected by quantum uncertainty, except for ones deliberately contrived by humans. Because there are so many quantum events happening all the time that they basically even out. A light source looks like a steady stream until you turn it down to the smallest level. Only then can you count photons, measuring their extremely strange pattern, seeing which way they spin etc. But then again....maybe they're happening all the time and we just don't realize, and call it luck.
-
That's one possibility but it doesn't explain why countries other than the US are more than a little concerned about Iran.
Dude, I'm concerned about Iran. But I don't think bombing them is going to help anything. And the French are not exempt from sabre rattling just by virtue of thinking Iraq was a stupid idea. They certainly don't want any other 4th rate nuclear powers out there. That would undermine their own tenuous status as the lamest power to have the UN Security Council veto.
I'm not surprised Iran want the bomb. The Americans just invaded their next door neighbor on the flimsy pretext that he might possibly be wanting the bomb. The neighbor on the other side was smashed back to the stone age in a brutal revenge war that didn't even bother with the non-diplomacy that surrounded Iraq. Two of their other immediate neighbors have the bomb. Israel has the bomb. They are surrounded by hostile and better armed neighbors.
We can talk all we like about the impracticality of letting Iran get the bomb but their right to it is no less than any of the hypocritical powers ganging up on what they see as a soft whipping boy (for the moment). That the whipping boy is sitting on a sea of oil is hardly a coincidence either.
I personally think they will get the bomb. The Iraq war sealed that.
-
*something can be mathematically proven but a practical nonsense*
I think there are highly practical applications theorized as an outcome of this maths. Quantum computing, for instance, which has the potential to make the silicone revolution look like a mere stepping stone. I especially like the idea of a computer that has exponential power on the number of parts, and consumes quite literally no energy. Ultimate Nerd Power.
-
The war in Iraq is over! According to John Key:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10467590
So who won?
On the day, war was the winner.
-
I actually think that the proliferation of nukes is both inevitable and less scary than people think.
I agree. But I think non-proliferation would be better and will always argue for it. Why arm up, just to disarm? Better would be to disarm now.
However, just because it would be better doesn't mean it's going to happen. I think proliferation will continue, as will the Cold War. The enemy may change but the war will continue, and it will always be fought in the third world. It may also be a war that the US will ultimately lose, in exactly the way the Russians bowed out of it - they will not be able to afford it. Who knows? Wars are dangerous and unpredictable things, which is why they are best avoided.
-
I think Iran is a huge sabre rattling exercise for an administration desperate to take focus from Iraq. All of the military options against Iran are so bad they will only be taken seriously if there is a September 11-like casus belli. But they are a convenient excuse for the utter failure that is the Iraq adventure.
It's the only play-card that BushCo have. Rarking on Iran. They can't possibly get away with any serious military action against Iran other than the spy games they have been playing for years. They don't have the manpower for a land assault, and an aerial assault invites massive casualties which the US might care about, all those pretty fly boys, and probably a lot of sailors too. Guerrilla war would intensify hugely in Iraq. Oil prices would skyrocket. International support for the US would drop to only the banana republics that they can afford. The conflict could easily widen rapidly as well, with US troops heavily committed in both Iraq and Iran, there would be no 'protection of US interests' in the rest of the planet where their fingers are firmly poked, and could easily be bitten off. It's a nightmare scenario all round for the US with no real payoff whatsoever. Bush can't be reelected anyway, but he still could be impeached, or worse.
I'm not saying it's harmless sabre rattling. Far from it, it's extremely dangerous. It is likely to be accelerating any nuclear program that the Iranians do have. It's inviting crazy actions from regional mad-dogs like Israel. It's keeping the price of oil up. It's keeping Iraq unstable. It's giving the Iranians a sense of national unity against a wilful enemy, which can only undermine their civil rights.
But it does at least take withdrawal from Iraq off the table and I think that is the main purpose and always has been. It keeps the War on Terror justified, and thus keeps Bush safe from any other role than Commander in Chief. It doesn't matter that he's as hopeless a CIC as he is as a domestic manager, but under the US system he can safely make national security his number one job and exempt himself and his cronies from any kind detailed scrutiny. As this cabal of creeps winds up I seriously think that is their highest priority, and we've already seen the biggest offenders being retired away safely.
-
Simply because people miss that face-to-face bouncing ideas off each other dynamic that you get from a communal workplace.
I miss the communal workplace period. Its social function is huge. But it doesn't need to be in the CBD.
Kyle:
You can have one running every ten minutes. That's nine buses, and nine drivers etc etc, that you don't pay for. The service is still just as good,...
No it's not. Waiting 10 minutes on average is a lot worse than waiting 1 minute. That's 9 minutes less waiting. If your trip is only 10 minutes in the first place, the more frequent service is roughly twice as good.
Of course most bus trips in Auckland are much longer than 10 minutes. That's partly because they stop everywhere which is also more shit than the equivalent service in a mega city, where express buses are much more frequent too, especially during the peak periods.
I don't agree with linger's maths, but his point that big cities have better PT services from economies of scale is a no-brainer.
-
But that 90 minute figure is really interesting, because before cars, crossing London by horse would have been at least 90 minutes... I'm going to have to think about this.
I think the figure was not referring to the cities that did it before automobiles were widely used. From memory London had major traffic jams in the streets just from carts etc, every day, prior to the undergrounds being put in. They really needed it.
Personally I'm with some other people who have suggested that the more inconvenient cars get, the better public transport will both look, and actually be. If something is bad, and we want to discourage it, up the tariffs on it - purchase and use. Then we'll change the behaviour.
I agree with the first sentence, and not the second. Well, I don't agree automobiles are bad. They have their place. The costs should be true, for sure. After that, you're creating a problem rather than solving it.
Then again, my opinions are formed around not being one for trying to guess what the city of the future will look like. Is this huge rat race of masses of people moving into a small space and out again every day what is going to continue? Do we want it to continue? Personally I don't do it and I don't want to do it. I did it for years and hated it. Everyone I know who does it pretty much hates it. And they especially hate the commuting part, especially on the bus. Is the solution to bypass these outdated concepts of workplaces, rather than legislate against the most convenient form of transport to them, so as to bring the average level of commuting up to something that everyone still hates?
Perhaps I'm dreaming that considerable numbers of people could move towards my mode of work, commuting to the office on foot from the bedroom, and using the vehicle to zip around doing anything that can't be done at home. But I don't think so, not when I see what most people do all day, which resembles my work greatly. They sit at a computer and talk on the phone.
-
Robert, I don't think $/km is as big a factor as time/km. Until the $/km becomes more than $/time (or some relatively fixed fraction thereof), it's still profitable to use a system. So for wealthier people, a high cost faster alternative is always going to win. For people who earn nothing, their time costs a lot less, so slower options are fine.
A transport engineer friend of mine told me once that statistically cities don't move to highly efficient train systems until the average commute time exceeds 90 minutes. When people are spending more than 3 hours per day on average in transport, the alternatives are demanded.
Auckland is probably about halfway there, so its commuting population can grow quite a lot before we start getting really antsy for trains and other alternatives.
I don't see that we need to rush getting that point here faster by disincentivizing using cars. Passing on fair costs is ... fair, and I have no problem with that. Especially if it's ALL the costs, including pollution costs. But to do more than that is just hurting millions of people. Quite the opposite, roads should continue to be improved, in perpetuity. They are fantastically useful public works, and will always be, regardless of whether petrol runs out one day. They are one of the best uses of all that energy, since they reduce energy usage over their life. I think if the gas does run out, we'll be mighty bitter not to have made roads while we had it.
But train lines, undergrounds etc, are excellent too. We should have those.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 … 1066 Older→ First