|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On August 17 2016 04:56 Doodsmack wrote:
"the ability for humans to collaborate and collectively solve a problem is limited only by the number of people solving said problem and their ability to communicate"
Any complex system is made up of a large number of smaller, simpler systems--that's literally what complexity is. Understanding the entire system is a matter of understanding all of the simpler systems and how they interact. Suppose we take your assumption that an individual human is capable of a small, finite amount of knowledge. Even if they do not understand the entire system, it is possible to drill down far enough and find a simple enough sub-system which a single person is capable of understanding. Actually studying said system may be limited by other technologies (e.g. developments in microscopy, biochemistry, etc. were required for modern medicine to progress), but that's a matter of time. So with an arbitrarily high number of scientists you will understand all the sub-systems and through collaboration put together a picture of the entire system as a whole.
Again, this is how science *already works*. The problems humans are already solving in modern science are of higher complexity than a single human is capable of understanding, and advancements are made through global collaborations of many individuals each studying individually tractable systems. To show that this methodology can't solve problems of arbitrarily high complexity, you'd have to prove that this methodology as is currently being used isn't scalable to an arbitrarily large number of scientists over an arbitrarily long period of time.
EDIT: This doesn't preclude the possibility of humans killing each other off before we solve the problem--since that would mean we don't have an arbitrarily large number of people/amount of time to solve these problems--but that's a different argument.
|
Norway28690 Posts
On August 17 2016 05:04 puerk wrote:
i am not sure why we are focussing so much on biological aging, when it is quite conceivable that we will solve immortality first by brain computer interfacing technology
I agree with this. seems more likely that we'll be able to 'download' a brain than that we'll be able to completely stop cell decay. Also seems like a more secure way of attaining immortality - if it's just you in your regular cells then you still die from accidents or assassinations. Otherwise you can just do like, every month on the 15th you create a new backup, at worst you lose 4 weeks of memories. And then you'll get like, SUPER-assassinations, where people both destroy your physical form and all digital remains.
Thinking about this stuff is cool even if not really US politics. Makes me wanna write a book. 
|
On August 17 2016 05:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 05:04 puerk wrote:
i am not sure why we are focussing so much on biological aging, when it is quite conceivable that we will solve immortality first by brain computer interfacing technology I agree with this. seems more likely that we'll be able to 'download' a brain than that we'll be able to completely stop cell decay. Also seems like a more secure way of attaining immortality - if it's just you in your regular cells then you still die from accidents or assassinations. Otherwise you can just do like, every month on the 15th you create a new backup, at worst you lose 4 weeks of memories. And then you'll get like, SUPER-assassinations, where people both destroy your physical form and all digital remains. Thinking about this stuff is cool even if not really US politics. Makes me wanna write a book.
Watch a play through of Soma and then you will realize that it really terrifying.
|
So trump is down to only a 6 point lead in texas. Depends on what wikileaks does i think hilery may even break 400. God i can only imagine the look on rick perry's face if Texas went blue .
|
if texas looks like it could flip, expect the dems to start dumping resources in. i have a great mental image of david brock paratrooping into houston.
|
On August 17 2016 05:26 Shingi11 wrote:
So trump is down to only a 6 point lead in texas. Depends on what wikileaks does i think hilery may even break 400. God i can only imagine the look on rick perry's face if Texas went blue .
I think polls regarding Georgia and Texas are somewhat misleading. Sure, Georgia and Texas are going insanely well, relative to how well they normally go. But I also feel like that may be due to a lack of attention. I think with an injection of campaigning, Georgia and Texas could be a lock. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. But as I understand, deep blue and deep red states get very little attention from either side. Republicans don't need to spend time in Texas because it will always go red. But if Texas got disillusioned enough, I feel like the existing society of Texas would be easily swayed back towards red.
These states offer an amazing opportunity to cut Trump short though. I think that forcing the GOP to keep Texas and Georgia on lockdown takes their attention away from crucial states like Ohio and Florida. It is forcing the GOP to simply spread itself thinner than it can. August is going to be a very rough month for Trump's fundraising. A decline in fundraising will mean needing to take an unorganized, thin operation and force concessions they can't make. In many ways, I think September 5th will be when we know who will be the next president. If Trump's fundraising is as low as 60 million, it will prompt more people to jump ship. If his fundraising is low and his polling is still bad, I think the ship sinks.
On August 17 2016 05:40 ticklishmusic wrote:
if texas looks like it could flip, expect the dems to start dumping resources in. i have a great mental image of david brock paratrooping into houston.
I think going hard on Texas would be a mistake. I think the focus should be forcing republicans to spend more in Texas than democrats. If democrats keep their fundraising higher, force republicans to defend places they shouldn't need to defend, democrats should be able to secure Ohio and Florida.
|
On August 17 2016 04:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think fracking is likely to be pretty high up on the list over things she's willing to concede in political dealership. I don't have data for this, but it's kinda my impression that people who like fracking like fracking more than people who hate fracking hate it.
Her party has a determined environmentalist base that will forever ideologically oppose fracking. In future struggles with polls or compromise legislation, she stands to gain tossing a bone that way. She's already shown promise on that front on her speeches regarding the coal industry (and Obama before her).
|
I live in GA. We could very well go blue this year. In 2014 the governor + senate races weren't terribly off, and polling had the Dems within margin of victory. Problem was, and I say this as someone on the campaign, we got slaughtered outside of Atlanta. That was to be expected of course, but we were underperforming internals by double digits in some places. I learned only later than the GA Dems are basically the ATL Dems.
This being a presidential election year, Georgia getting slightly bluer (Atlanta grew quite a bit the last few years), serious investment from the DNC and Trump depressing turnout (Erik Erikson is very influential down here and he hates Trump) there's a good shot Clinton carries the state. I'd put her odds at around 35% to 40% right now - if the RNC doesn't shore up the state, they could lose it. Isaakson will likely win the senate race even without help though b/c he's fairly popular and Barksdale is a virtual unknown though.
Texas is iffy. I'm not as familiar, but I agree Clinton can afford to strike there and tie up Republican resources. There's a house seat there and some state/ local elections where the Dems could make gains, though the EV's are a big stretch.
Dems have money to burn now that they've basically locked up PA, CO and VA. I bet a good chunk of that money is going to FL, OH and TX. Also, having GOP donors like Meg Whitman give is very, very good.
|
I need to dig into this more, but my god let this not be real.
Edit: Ok, I can't seem to figure how who it is referencing. Unless it is just Manafort.
|
Oh ffs...
Trump Claims That Obama Bribed NY Attorney General To File Trump University Lawsuit
This is something that went pretty much unnoticed back in February. It stands to reason for all of the nonsense that comes out of Trump's mouth, there might be some absurdity that was missed the first time around. On this one, Trump makes an accusation he cannot support with evidence. Surprise, surprise.
From The Huffington Post:
President Barack Obama arranged for New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to receive a $15,000 donation in exchange for investigating Trump University, Donald Trump alleged in February in comments that were overlooked, likely due to the even more ridiculous and offensive remarks that he was making at the time.
Trump didn’t quite accuse Obama of handing Schneiderman an envelope with $15,000 stuffed in it. Instead, Trump said, Obama appears to have arranged a campaign contribution to Schneiderman from a law firm representing victims of Trump’s scam. (Like Trump’s usual claims, there’s no evidence to support this one.)
“The attorney general of New York meets with Barack Obama in Syracuse,” Trump said at a rally in Bentonville, Arkansas. “The following day he sues me. What they don’t say is, I believe, fifteen thousand or a lot of money was paid to the attorney general by the law firm in California that is suing me.”
This kind of thing is nothing new for Donald Trump. His penchant for telling tall tales with zero evidence is well documented. Naturally, Trump bashed Eric Schneiderman during that same rally:
“All of a sudden the attorney general ― his name is Eric Schneiderman, not respected in New York, doing a terrible job, probably is not electable in New York, but who knows ― and he meets with Obama, gets a campaign contribution, I think, I think it’s fifteen thousand dollars, and all of a sudden, he meets with Obama in, I believe, Syracuse, and the following day or two he brings a lawsuit against me.”
The meeting in question took place in April. The lawsuit was filed against Trump in August. The contributions to Schneiderman were made by people from several law firms back in 2010:
At the time, Trump wasn’t a candidate for president, Schneiderman wasn’t attorney general and Gonzalo Curiel wasn’t the judge in the case. In fact, Curiel wouldn’t be appointed to the federal bench until 2012, two years after Trump’s case got underway in California.
But somehow, Trump was still able to tie all of this together in one neat little conspiracy. What's worse is, his hard core supporters believe every word and will ferociously defend him no matter how obvious it is, he's lying.
Here's the best part:
Trump’s charge is also a useful window into how he perceives the judiciary. Six months after Schneiderman filed suit against Trump in 2013, Trump filed a complaint accusing the attorney general of shaking Trump down for campaign contributions.
Revealed in the complaint was that Trump himself had donated $12,500 to Schneiderman’s campaign in 2010, more than either of the lawyers who Trump accused of trying to buy the attorney general.
Another instance of Trump donating tends of thousands to a fellow Democrat? Say it isn't so! For anybody who is thinking rationally, Trump's attacks on Schneiderman ring hollow, having more to do with being sued by him than anything else. To Trump, a slight (even perceived) is all it takes to turn a person into an enemy. Trump's silly conspiracy theories just make it easier for on-the-fence voters to jump over to Hillary's side.
~ http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/08/16/trump-claims-obama-bribed-ny-attorney-general-file-trump-university-lawsuit/?utm_content=bufferb8bf0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
|
Norway28690 Posts
On August 17 2016 05:59 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 04:30 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I think fracking is likely to be pretty high up on the list over things she's willing to concede in political dealership. I don't have data for this, but it's kinda my impression that people who like fracking like fracking more than people who hate fracking hate it. Her party has a determined environmentalist base that will forever ideologically oppose fracking. In future struggles with polls or compromise legislation, she stands to gain tossing a bone that way. She's already shown promise on that front on her speeches regarding the coal industry (and Obama before her).
From what I'm reading, this years DNC platform certainly does more to combat climate change than any earlier platform. But when I'm reading specifics, like from this blatantly partisan site , they mention something like 12 different goals, fracking however isn't mentioned by name. There's some 'tough stance on fossil fuel companies, even calling for eliminating tax breaks and subsidies for these firms' and 'reform of fossil fuel leasing on public lands'. I feel that stuff like, reducing energy waste, increased use of solar panels, modernizing the electric grid, making manufacturing and power plants cleaner, more public transportation and electric cars, increased bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in urban and suburban areas, these goals can get some bipartisan support. Then I think republicans are likely to fight two battles in particular, keystone pipeline and fracking.
Like, I don't actually know much about the specifics of climate change and how different specific policies will impact the environment. I personally think that climate change is the single biggest threat humanity faces and thus, I prioritize this issue very highly. But I've noticed that some people I consider reasonable, who do think climate change is a global threat (even if not to the extent I do), are still positive towards fracking. This leads me to believe that if there's any single battle that democrats are likely to be willing to concede in getting political support, fracking is going to be that one battle. And regardless of what you may think of Hillary's faulty character, if there's one thing she's been consistent about through her political life, it is that she's willing to concede symbolic causes as part of a greater political package. Now, more regulations, sure, probably fracking will only be permitted in areas where water supplies are deemed completely-ish safe by some metric (it seems like fracking is criticized more for its impact on local water supplies than for its impact on co2 emissions or whatever). Basically, out of all the talked-about climate issues, fracking is prolly the area where I most easily see her offer republicans an olive branch - because it's probably the one area where I myself think I would.
edit: I think sanders supporters are gonna get symbolic victories more in terms of wall street regulation and college tuition, but her climate policies will be geared towards having the biggest climate impact rather than be the most talked-about issues (fracking mostly became such a big deal because some people's tapwater started burning, which is such a weird event that it naturally got a lot of media traction even if that doesn't actually constitute a big threat to the climate compared to other issues).
|
I'm certainly willing to allow fracking in certain areas; as that's what I've heard about the best science on the matter. I might add a few regulations to get better info, but nothing expensive.
I know there are some people who really hate on fracking, regardless of its appropriateness in a specific area.
|
dems don't need to defend ohio if they can get florida. The only path that makes a republican presidential win viable is having texas and florida. Without either its a nonstarter especially with the innate dem electoral advantage as it is.
Its like democrats haveing california and new york.
|
|
|
On August 17 2016 06:26 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Like, I don't actually know much about the specifics of climate change and how different specific policies will impact the environment. I personally think that climate change is the single biggest threat humanity faces and thus, I prioritize this issue very highly. But I've noticed that some people I consider reasonable, who do think climate change is a global threat (even if not to the extent I do), are still positive towards fracking.
The larger concern about fracking is damage to the local environment. Gas itself is a more climate friendly resource than oil or coal, it's also a good deal cheaper. Given the amount of resources that the US has in that regard it would seem stupid to not utilize them, at least as far as climate change is concerned.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Word of advice: don't listen to Kasparov on matters of Russia. He's one of three or four select anti-Russia shills that the West loves to cite but that really have nothing useful to say on the matter.
Also if you read the replies, he's talking about Flynn.
|
On August 17 2016 07:17 LegalLord wrote:Word of advice: don't listen to Kasparov on matters of Russia. He's one of three or four select anti-Russia shills that the West loves to cite but that really have nothing useful to say on the matter. Also if you read the replies, he's talking about Flynn.
Flynn?
They are doubting if the former head of military intelligence should be given access to Trumps security briefing?
/facepalm
|
On August 17 2016 07:17 LegalLord wrote:Word of advice: don't listen to Kasparov on matters of Russia. He's one of three or four select anti-Russia shills that the West loves to cite but that really have nothing useful to say on the matter. Also if you read the replies, he's talking about Flynn.
Does shill now mean just anyone I disagree with? Or do you seriously believe Kasparov is paid to say negative things about Russia rather than him genuinely having those opinions?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 17 2016 07:20 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 07:17 LegalLord wrote:Word of advice: don't listen to Kasparov on matters of Russia. He's one of three or four select anti-Russia shills that the West loves to cite but that really have nothing useful to say on the matter. Also if you read the replies, he's talking about Flynn. Does shill now mean just anyone I disagree with? Or do you seriously believe Kasparov is paid to say negative things about Russia rather than him genuinely having those opinions?
No, he's a specific personality that doesn't really add anything useful to the Russia discussion but that is constantly overcited because he's willing to say mean things about Putin. Paid or not, he's biased in a way that really isn't productive to the discussion. He's one among around four who are like that.
Plenty of Russia commentary out there, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, but most of it isn't blatant shilling if it comes from people with a reasonable degree of expertise.
|
On August 17 2016 07:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2016 07:20 Dan HH wrote:On August 17 2016 07:17 LegalLord wrote:Word of advice: don't listen to Kasparov on matters of Russia. He's one of three or four select anti-Russia shills that the West loves to cite but that really have nothing useful to say on the matter. Also if you read the replies, he's talking about Flynn. Does shill now mean just anyone I disagree with? Or do you seriously believe Kasparov is paid to say negative things about Russia rather than him genuinely having those opinions? No, he's a specific personality that doesn't really add anything useful to the Russia discussion but that is constantly overcited because he's willing to say mean things about Putin. Paid or not, he's biased in a way that really isn't productive to the discussion. He's one among around four who are like that. Plenty of Russia commentary out there, some of which I agree with and some of which I don't, but most of it isn't blatant shilling if it comes from people with a reasonable degree of expertise.
There's more than 4, but otherwise I'd agree. He's basically a celebrity spouting his own opinion, though some of the things he says are understandable due to his personal experiences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
