Messages

I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.

Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.

That seems... sweeping, shallow, and inaccurate. I don't have a tremendous amount of respect for the field of economics, particularly pop economics, but as an academic field it is still developing.

Can you cite some sources for those statements? If not, I'm going to just assume you're going through one of your all-hyperbole phases again and are (hopefully) temporarily incapable of contributing meaningfully to conversations.

I'm reading up on economics just to prove you wrong.
As you can see, my initial statements lack foundation.
It is very likely that it is  one of my all-hyperbole phases (i like that phrase btw), but i will not rest until i have read more economics or have gotten distracted by something.
Well, except for now. now is bed time.

PS Your assumption would be well grounded, if I start making sense you will probably notice.

Other than that, I still think Carthage needs to be burned to the ground Economics sucks.

I don't think that condemning an entire field of study just because it produces many flawed theories is very productive, either. Economics is sort of a conglomeration of anthropology, psychology, history, and statistics, and the systems they're trying to work with are dynamic, complex, and incompletely understood. They aren't CREATING the systems, though; they're DESCRIBING the systems. Sometimes very badly. But still, getting rid of economists because they aren't very good at understanding economic systems is a bit like getting rid of psychologists in the 1930's because they weren't very good at understanding psychology; it wouldn't have made human psychology go away, it would have just impeded the accumulation of knowledge about it.

Economists lack the feedback required to make it a form of science.
They project and project but they never review.
They never even try to estimate the accuracy of their past projections.
And then, having bolstered their ego by ignoring reality, they project some more.
I stand by my point. Fuck 'em all with pointy sticks.

The Ork idea of a good time does involve the sack, rape and pillage of entire systems though.  I think you could argue the Imperium for a lesser evil simply because while it is cruel and vicious it is not arbitrarily so.  They will wipe out an entire planet with orbital bombardment, but they'll do it to contain heretics, not because they thought it was fun.  I mean, Orks are the jokey, lighthearted faction in WH40K, but they're still basically massive bastards.

Hey, Orks don't rape anyone. This is entirely because they're ambulatory algae with no genitals or concept of sexuality, but they still don't rape anyone.

Sorry, should've been more clear, I meant rape in the sense of "rape, loot and plunder" ie; killing and stealing, not the other kind.

So.... that quote was referring to the plant all this time? Huh. I completely misunderstood it all this time.
I guess the world is not as bad as i thought if all these rape, loot and plunder stories from the past are about rapeseed-oil and not about forced sex.

If you're going to be a pedantic ass, for fuck's sake at least make sure you're right first.

rape (v.)
late 14c., "seize prey; abduct, take by force," from rape (n.) and from Anglo-French raper (Old French rapir) "to seize, abduct," a legal term, probably from past participle of Latin rapere "seize, carry off by force, abduct" (see rapid).

Latin rapere was used for "sexually violate," but only very rarely; the usual Latin word being stuprare "to defile, ravish, violate," related to stuprum (n.), literally "disgrace." Meaning "to abduct (a woman), ravish;" also "seduce (a man)" is from early 15c. in English. Related: Raped; raping. Uncertain connection to Low German and Dutch rapen in the same sense.

rape (n.1)
early 14c., "booty, prey;" mid-14c., "forceful seizure; plundering, robbery, extortion," from Anglo-French rap, rape, and directly from Latin rapere "seize" (see rape (v.)). Meaning "act of abducting a woman or sexually violating her or both" is from early 15c., but perhaps late 13c. in Anglo-Latin.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=rape

Also I would generally recommend against trying to pull a pedant move on Cain, in general, because it is a near guarantee that you will be wrong.

Failing when battling a master is more fun than winning when battling the ignorant.
Also, more educational. Your link taught me something, thanks! 

The Ork idea of a good time does involve the sack, rape and pillage of entire systems though.  I think you could argue the Imperium for a lesser evil simply because while it is cruel and vicious it is not arbitrarily so.  They will wipe out an entire planet with orbital bombardment, but they'll do it to contain heretics, not because they thought it was fun.  I mean, Orks are the jokey, lighthearted faction in WH40K, but they're still basically massive bastards.

Hey, Orks don't rape anyone. This is entirely because they're ambulatory algae with no genitals or concept of sexuality, but they still don't rape anyone.

Sorry, should've been more clear, I meant rape in the sense of "rape, loot and plunder" ie; killing and stealing, not the other kind.

So.... that quote was referring to the plant all this time? Huh. I completely misunderstood it all this time.
I guess the world is not as bad as i thought if all these rape, loot and plunder stories from the past are about rapeseed-oil and not about forced sex.

[lower the total value of stuff]

Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

That is because it is completely retarded.

Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (V_m=V_stuff/M_tot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.

Well, raising the minimum wage does increase the value of stuff side of the equation, as labor is indeed considered to be stuff in our economy, and increasing the lowest amount paid for such stuff increases its value overall, but not to a point that has any real or lasting effect. Of course, inflation to a point is a good thing and something economists and the fed like to see... Lately it's been low, we'll have to see where it goes. In the end, there are way too many ways to correct for changes in inflation for that to be a meaningful argument against raising the minimum wage... That's like arguing against going out to dinner because your windshield will get dirty and make it hard to see through.

That's still not inflation.

I assumed he meant amount instead of value, in that case it kinda makes sense in an Economist's sense.

But this shit here? That is the reason economists should be shot on graduation. Labour is what you do to increase the amount of stuff. The moment you start thinking labor is the same as stuff you start thinking that inefficiency is only good for complex (read: interesting) jobs, because in simple(read: boring) jobs the result of doing a simple job more efficiently means that the value won by getting more stuff is completely lost to the lost value of taking less hours to do the labour. While fun and interesting jobs are streamlined away because they benefit the most from reducing workhours.

Fukken economists. They should be drawn, quartered, hung from a tree, shot until they fall down, and run over by a Buick.

I think the idea, to summarize it admittedly somewhat glibly, is that if you could have paralell universes then why not a perpindicular universe

That would require an extra dimension, not using a dimension in new ways.
Also, a mirror universe is something completely different than a parallel universe.

I should really read that link now.
Huh, weird. Does this:

That movement toward high entropy gives time its direction.

Combined with this:

In one universe, time appears to run forwards. In the other, time runs backwards, at least from our perspective.

Mean that the mirror universe moves toward low entropy? Or does it mean that it moves toward high negative entropy? because the first would be time going backwards, and it wouldn't last long. The second would mean that they may be moving through time in a reversed direction to ours but they would experience time the same way we would. So if communication is possible that would mean understanding eachother wouldn't be a big problem.
That is assuming, ... wel lots of things. Interesting food for thought though!

Ok, the US department of labor says that the studies they've reviewed indicate that increases to the minimum wage are not correlated with layoffs, so I was wrong about that. It also says that raising it is not in general bad for the economy. The idea that it may speed up inflation however is conspicuously absent from their list of common myths about the minimum wage

That is because it is completely retarded.

Allow me to explain:
Value of money is the total value of stuff divided by amount of money. (V_m=V_stuff/M_tot)
There are two ways to decrease it: lower the total value of stuff or increase the amount of money.
Neither is done by raising the minimum wage.

Of course, if you take this position, why just two directions? Maybe time moves in all kinds of directions we can't think of. Given a singularity, could there be an infinite number of offshoots?

Isn't time only 1 dimension? If so, that is why it can only move in two directions. Dimensions are by definition only 2 way traffic.
It's like measuring how long a yard-stick is and trying to use age instead of length, it just doesn't make sense.

"I took a dump and it was this thick! Should I be worried?"

I meant that that was one of the main arguments ive heard against minimum wage... since more people will have money, and buy more things with it, then money would be worth less because more demand for items. Or something, it never seemed that minimum wage has such a great impact on things of such great scale.

I know you weren't serious, i just hate such stupid arguments and I have to respond.
Now that you have explained it, their position is even dumber.
Even economists understand it doesn't work that way, and I have absolutely no respect for economists.
For fuck's sake, raising wages does not create money. printing money creates money.
Also, more demand means your economy is growing. This is generally considered a good thing.

The worst thing that could happen as consequence of raising the minimum wage would be that some exploitative companies go belly-up.
Luckily, companies failing is a sign of a healthy economy, just like dying individuals is a sign of a healthy ecology.

But increasing the minimum wage will create inflation.

Oh, well, in that case lets continue fucking over innocent people.
Some abstract number might grow and that is much worse than making a large section of society miserable.

An evangelical christian minister becomes a serial killer after he becomes convinced that he is in hell and that by killing people he can send them to be judged again -- as a result, he stalks and kills the most saintly people he can find.

I like it, but it should be like I Am Legend, so the audience thinks he's the protagonist.

Great!

A wandering hobo stumbles across an enchanted forest whose denizens are all elitist assholes.

I don't get it.

"This is the weirdest sex party I have ever been to!"

Dear friends,

              Months ago I joined this forum along with others on facebook. I'm slightly perplexed. It seems to me that many take discordianism quite seriously. Can someone help me understand exactly why that is?I'm obviously missing the mark.I thought that humor played a great part in the belief.What is it that I'm not getting?

Your humour may not be my humour.

Not all jokes cause detectable laughter.

Not all laughter is out of joy, sometimes one laughs because one wants to scream.

Could you be a bit more specific in your question?
I'm afraid I haven't followed the FB discordian crowds so I don't have the context to make correct assumptions about your thoughts.

I picked that up in the Steam sale, but still have yet to play it

The combat is great, the tactical element in battles is damn good though some mods really help the UI.
Other that that it can be a bit slow though.

You'll love the political elements, kingdoms with lords, each has relatives that may or may not be lords and ladies in the same kingdom, each has a different opinion of their king. Several lords are sexist as fuck and the easiest way to gain fame is to play as a woman and challenge every sexist to combat and beating them up. Soon they will all fear you enough to stop insulting you. The loyalties are complex and constantly changing.

Or you could go the capitalist route stay neutral and just trade and produce until you own factories in every city.

I usually start out playing as a gladiator, the money isn't that great but it makes you very good at fighting and winning tournaments can make you extremely rich. Also, gladiators don't need armies meaning you move very fast over the map and can avoid almost every fight. not having armies also keeps your overhead low. It could be worth it to get a small amount of mounted friends as bodyguards. Fighting against an army on your own is practically impossible on easy settings, let alone on realistic/fun settings.