Jim Naseum
-
Posts
2026 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Events
Gallery
Posts posted by Jim Naseum
-
-
Because all you need to know is it's their system and they want it to continue. They aren't interested in telling you this shyte is close to going under.
TLDR; we are screwed and most people don't even know it or why.
I like your comments. I think there is a reduction possible that is easy to follow forward: "The 400 year era of capitalism is played out." That system, a debt based constant growth model, can only continue while new horizons for growth in consumption exist. Growth around the world has slowed. The inverse of the growth curve is interest rates (abstractly). We are now seeing NIRP introduced in parts of the world. Negative interest is a tool to combat negative growth. In short, consumers will be paid to consume! (Again, as an abstract).
I think it's hard to see how consumers can do enough. We are entering the final bubble stage, a grand bubble of leverage throughout all sectors of the economy. The global debt can not be rolled, and collapse is the only possible result.
The transition will be a very wild ride for most.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
2
-
-
This is a petty good brief on the bubble/bust model of oil since the 70s. One aspect I found interesting was the commentary on putting rigs in the hold mode.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article48969.html
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
Hint: Where do the suppose their dead relations go? Why do some of them meditate? Who is it that many of them are confessing to? From whence come the ideas of nihilism? Pantheism? The Trinity? Manifest Destiny?My suggestion would be to inquire with Catholics, Jews, Hindi, Shintos, Buddhists, Humanists, or Protestants you may run into in daily life and see if any of them have a use for understanding the universe.
No more or less than anyone else, best I can tell.
Dave
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
and if it's a guess nobody can test, I will go back to my analogy of "beating one's meat."
Yeah, that was Einstein, endlessly beating his meat until he died of it.
I should not be astonished, and yet I am.
Well, if you're trying to compare blogging on the Klipsch forum to Einstein's pursuits, then there is greatness in all of us I suppose.
You didn't understand. Let me explain it to you. You said an untestable hypothesis was just beating the meat. I pointed out that Einstein's hypotheses were untestable until recently, and therefore, by your standards, he was just beating his meat. I obviously don't agree.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
Creative Destruction is a cornerstone piece of global capitalism. Industries transition, and if a few million get crushed in the move, well that's life. Look at what happened when steel crashed. The USA lost the entire steel making capability, and hundreds of thousands of jobs. Manufacturing? Boom! Software? Boom!
So, now it is oil related.
In the meantime, 315 million people are saving $2 a gallon on gas. With all that savings they can upgrade now to the iPhone 7 in a month or two. That's how it works.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
Seems like some of you decided you'd like to have a "gentlemen's club" in garage sale section, but not everyone is aware of that desire. In a normal gentlemen's club the culture is established before members are "admitted". It's informal, but we'll understood. The section is not like that. So, in fact all expectations are valid expectations. Some will be unhappy.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
1
-
-
I find it almost unbelievable that people don't find any application in their life for believing in some cosmological theory or another.
Open to thoughts. What would be such an application?
Dave
My suggestion would be to inquire with Catholics, Jews, Hindi, Shintos, Buddhists, Humanists, or Protestants you may run into in daily life and see if any of them have a use for understanding the universe. You'd have a better chance of a deeper discussion.
-
and if it's a guess nobody can test, I will go back to my analogy of "beating one's meat."
Yeah, that was Einstein, endlessly beating his meat until he died of it.
I should not be astonished, and yet I am.
-
and if it's a guess nobody can test, I will go back to my analogy of "beating one's meat."
Nobody could test for the existence of atoms for 2 millennia. I would hold there is NOTHING than cannot be tested.
Dave
Why is testing the heart of the matter?
I find it almost unbelievable that people don't find any application in their life for believing in some cosmological theory or another.
-
I will go back to my analogy of "beating one's meat."
Well, don't over do it. You might end up blind.
-
1
-
-
Sad, innit?
More than you know.
Up yours. I know more than you think.
"sadder than you know" - generates that response? Well, funny. Sort of.
-
Sad, innit?
More than you know.
-
OTOH, getting power from black holes orbitting the earth may be a moot point for a couple generations. The reserves of natural gas just keep growing, and the price is falling like a rock.
Reserves are now over 7T ft3. And growing. And of course, there is still oodles of oil, and even larger oodles of coal.
-
I think the estimate in "years" is referencing the distance light travels over time.
Appears to us to travel over time is fundamental to your statement. That's the "relative" part. One not unreasonable interpretation of the Final Anthropic Principle says that when we discover some galaxy or whatever at a new, unbefore discovered distance, that "whatever" came into existence because we, the observers, expect it to be there from our science. So, it took 13 billion years for the light to get here but in fact in came into existence only at the moment we had to find it to support that view.
Dave
Well Mallete, in contrast to the ever-ambitious thread crappers, you seem to have actual knowledge of the subject matter. Can I presume that in the acquisition of that knowledge, you didn't consider that you were simply, how do they keep saying it - "beating the meat?" you found some purpose and some application for the study or not? You don't appear to be apathetic and incurious.
-
I would apply the old truism that "the sum of the parts can be less than, equal to, or greater than the whole."
-
1
-
-
Then it becomes bias to not investigate a cause for those coincidences.
I can't think of any scientist or philosopher, or general cosmologist who would NOT "investigate" the cause, if there were a means to do so. But the whole reason that the various cosmological constants exist as coincidence is because no one can find a cause yet or even propose a means to investigate a cause..
Naturally, when multiple interpretations of phenomena are available, every choice of every interpretation represents a "bias". My argument was that most of the people who argue the APs, have a bias towards hypothesizing a creator. Nothing wrong with that, but it wouldn't be my bias. In general, bias is the reflection of both total life experience, and accumulated interpretations.
-
I doubt Hawking is able to beat his own, but at the same time this is the guy who is warning us how AI will destroy all humans who now speaks of creating black holes for power close to the earth. I wonder if the hole is to be built by our AI robots?
Exactly! The man might be very intelligent, but these soothsayer-like predictions are fun to ponder over but not of a whole lot of use.
Then science is of no use?
So far, you have discounted the use of introspective philosophy and science.
-
Using an SS amp for the low ranges and a tubed amp for the high range has a built in problem of voicing. For an octave or more around the crossover frequency both amps will be playing the same material. The two amps have radically different distortion characteristics, or signatures.
Since the crossover point often occurs in the midrange, vocals will take on an unpredictable quality. Perhaps very poor.
It's hard to see any advantage of any kind by adding a tube to this kind of existing system. Kind of like adding an external hard drive to a tablet. Yes, it can be done, but why?
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
2
-
-
As far as I know, the facts (for example a particular constant), are not disputed by either camp. It's the logical interpretation of those facts that creates a difference of theory. The majority of AP arguments I see amount to this: "there are so many coincidences needed for life that it has to point to a designer." The other camp simply acknowledges the coincidences as coincidence.But, I find no reason to adopt the creator argument that goes along with it.
Doesn't always go along with it. But as with any scientific enquiry, it isn't a matter of what we believe as much as what the facts are. And facts that cannot be ruled out must be considered.
Dave
Once more, it's hard to see what value there is to adding one more layer of untestable hypothesis. As anyone can see, it's just the same as saying, "there was a creator, created by a super creator, which was created by a major creator...... And so on."
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
There are no doubt people uninterested in cosmology, because they are sleepwalking until death catches them. Others pursue the question to the ends of the earth, and for their entire life. I mean, consider the writers of any of the ancient cosmological texts. These guys spent lifetimes on the most minute details of these questions.
Very true. However, there is no indication that those who pursue the question to the ends of the earth are doing anything other than beating their meat. There is nothing to indicate these people are more moral, nicer, better, smarter, more valuable, etc. "Sleepwalking" is a word used to negatively portray those who might see the process as "beating one's meat for no useful reason."
We'll just have to disagree there. Your claim would be similar to saying, "there is no indication that people with masters degrees are any smarter than people who dropped out of high school. They were just wasting time."
You also, by that claim, disavow the value of the beliefs of billions of religious people. And you negate any value to be found in spiritual inquiry. I just can't see how you would arrive at that notion.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
Isn't it interesting how we can sit here and agree to things like, "[T]he universe doesn't exist without the mind to observe it?"
If that's the case, then we have to wonder if enough consensus makes God real?
Not meant to discuss religion. Just a point about faith of any kind in general.
If by "real" you mean "a motivating theme in human behavior" the answer is obviously YES. If by real, you mean, "a locatable, distinct entity of cause for the universe", I'd say the answer is obviously NO.
And this is a source of great confusion of terms I think.
The source of confusion is in the idea that these concepts of "God" and "universe" are different. If the universe exists because the mind observes it, then, ipso facto, observation if the key to its existence. "Locatable" is not a requirement for existence. Where is the universe located?
Your use of the phrase, "a locatable, distinct entity of cause for the universe" is not clear.
Locatable was inarticulate. It's not needed. I'm just referring to an entity distinct from the universe itself. Keep in mind that in pantheism, god is everywhere, god is nature and so on. That's different than a distinct creator which can stand apart from its creation. In cool with the former, but not the latter.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
-
The central premise regarding the adoption of any particular cosmology has to be, "how should I live?" In other words, it's only an interesting topic if the right question is asked.
There are no doubt people uninterested in cosmology, because they are sleepwalking until death catches them. Others pursue the question to the ends of the earth, and for their entire life. I mean, consider the writers of any of the ancient cosmological texts. These guys spent lifetimes on the most minute details of these questions.
-
Isn't it interesting how we can sit here and agree to things like, "[T]he universe doesn't exist without the mind to observe it?"
If that's the case, then we have to wonder if enough consensus makes God real?
Not meant to discuss religion. Just a point about faith of any kind in general.
If by "real" you mean "a motivating theme in human behavior" the answer is obviously YES. If by real, you mean, "a locatable, distinct entity of cause for the universe", I'd say the answer is obviously NO.
And this is a source of great confusion of terms I think.
-
I'm not keen on the various APs, since the number of them seems to keep growing, as do the arguments. At one level I agree that the universe doesn't exist without the mind to observe it. But, I find no reason to adopt the creator argument that goes along with it. The APs, are just a line of cosmological reasoning, and complete with dozens of other lines of reasoning, none of which can be subjected to experimentation.
It's interesting though.
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk
Enough is enough - gas prices are scary low
in Lounge
Posted
The current recovery from the 2008 crisis had been utterly weak. We have not even got real GDP growth above 2.8% after nearly 8 years!
Sent from my SM-T330NU using Tapatalk