DoNotRemoveBeforeFlight

Glad to be of service. BACK TO BIG MONEY CONTROLLING NEWS =_=||| http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/04/ipcc-report_n_5092182.html Seriously? This is what happens when people are spoon-fed with bullshit since young. They can't be easily changed and they are willing to challenge science with their flawed logic. It is no longer "Global Warming", but Climate Change, because GW is a misnomer. Has spring arrived in USA yet? I guess... not. While it was still freezing late last year in US, there's the super typhoon which hit Philippines the worst! Oh, not to forget increasingly more hurricanes for US in future. That's Climate Change! Mainstream media is still not reminding us enough of the implications of centuries-old poor resource management. Not to mention Republicans and Democrats are never coming to an agreement on this.

AND THIS TOPIC IS STILL GETTING SIDE-TRACKED.

My... mistake? This is a forum, relax. C9lvzzH0STw Sorry, I had to. "Economic ruin" and "chaos" are the hallmark of an immature democracy (with respect to previous examples). Sure, removal of corrupt communism (take care, communism is an ideology, not a bad thing but prone to corrupt leaders) is perhaps kind of a good thing, of course there are some setbacks. But the point is, dissolving the USSR peacefully is way better than a civil war. The Russians, its neighbors (Europe, China, Japan, Korea) and the US are tired from WWII, they don't want another armed conflict to fight/intervene/buffer. In fact, USSR was drained dry thanks to the space race... and trying to build a Death Star... when the US tricked them into doing so. Opening the country is a good move to rescue itself...

Exactly. But the force must be the right one, too. Like I said, the problem lies in ourselves. Until now, there's no other solution to greed and prejudice but civics, arts, and academic education. Peaceful and long-term solutions are the mark of a modern, mature, and civilized society.

Has everyone forgotten that education makes a lot of difference? The way people are brought up since young and form an integrated society is never impossible. Evidence includes low crime rates, high & affordable standard of living, high literacy rate, and good healthcare in countries like Canada, Norway, Switzerland (YEAH!), etc. I would not count in Singapore although it fits the profile, because the low-middle income class is starting to complain about social inequality. Anyway, look at Norway. Plenty of fish and oil, but the government keeps a close watch on the fishery and oil companies, and redistribute the profits to the citizens. Is no one happy enough? Then we have the Swiss, true direct democracy, but rarely run into trouble. Violence is absolutely unnecessary which only satisfies our desire to beat the shit out of someone else. If we were to violently wage a war against the selfish assholes, we are perpetuating a gigantic flaw of our psychology, and it's like telling our kids that there's no exception to freedom, let them do what they want. The politics in Thailand, Taiwan and Hong Kong are a mess thanks to unregulated protests and rallies because of bestowing democracy to immature societies. So if we were to perform an uprising too early, before we educate ourselves how things should run for us to prosper as long as possible, it is not going to solve the problem which lies in ourselves.

Assuming anyone ever reads this boring crap... I got too engrossed writing the above, I forgot to conclude it. We all have to agree that the debt is too much and there must be an alternative way to save the uneconomical economy. Consumerism is no longer the key driver of the economy, so the country must find another way to circulate the money, export more and clear its foreign debt. If anyone thinks that arms and defense manufacturing can do it, that is so wrong on multiple levels. Neither is recruiting more young adults to join the army. "Making F35s creates jobs!" "Open Walmart and Target near a military base creates jobs!" Those are fair arguments... but... "The Army creates jobs!" Sure, but how are you gonna get the money to pay them? More debt? Any economist will wholeheartedly agree that to reduce unemployment, pave way for sustainable economic growth, foster a better society, and raise the standard of living and quality of life, the country needs to invest in education (the right one, that is), innovation, and technology. These create a lot more jobs than anything that has to do with the military or supermarkets, which besides the armed forces, the limit to the number of employees is very low. How many workmen can you fit in a highly secure factory, or logistics support staff in Walmart? Unless you strip them of technology, there is no way you can employ more people. Neither can you develop the country. NASA may be somewhat related to the military, but at least they employ Americans to develop fantastic technology that was once thought to be completely sci-fi, and apply them to enhance our lives. If the government keeps spending but most of the money never makes it back, the plan's screwed. There's negative returns because the multiplier effect barely took place. Net export still sucks, because the country is still importing more bulks of stuff (even with tariffs) than what could have been made domestically (and more efficiently). The power has shifted to emerging economies that hold most of the manufacturing industries of the world, but USA is still clinging onto Wall Street and government spending. That's not going to work. Wall St does not even produce anything, and therefore unproductive. No actual value is made out of it. So, to sum it up: USA must spend its dollars somewhere truly productive.

What the... you know history is repeating itself, right? Corporations are acquiring one another... in the same bed... it's close to a complete monopoly. Ordinary folks can't escape it, unless they farm their own stuff. Hey, anyone watched the news? Fort Hood shooting. Meanwhile, many are starving, shot, bombed, and mauled somewhere in the open. Does the mainstream media ever covers PMC shooting people for no goddamn reason?

This. EDIT: It's cool for the fans, but although Ross has a never-ending stream of ideas, he would have to plan on what to discuss on a podcast. iirc Ross did once with a bunch of other Mind series (hosted by IRAMightyPirate)...

We will never know about paradoxes and much about q-physics until we try... I like to think that whatever we're doing now changes the future, but attempting to change the past may not cause a paradox or wipe out the present timeline, but simply creates a divergence. I think we're still stuck trying to cram new discoveries to conform with classic physics, particularly Newtonian physics, conservation of energy and classical wave theory. Anyway, q-physics is not that hard if we stop guiding ourselves with classic physics but start from scratch. I mean, for starters, the photoelectric effect need not follow classical wave... Should we move this topic somewhere else? I don't think it belongs here.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/02/singapore_data_storage_institute_a_drive/ I'm getting you this as soon as it's out in the market. A*STAR is still looking for mass-production lines, I think. Oh, I'm gonna send you some HDD before that. Maybe we can talk about this in my email I'd sent you. A template reply. That is very unprofessional. Agreed. Hey people, Ross has a life to lead like you and me. And he's a working adult, he can't rely on our donations alone.

I think why drugs are a taboo and illegal is deeply rooted from the social and economic consequences of drug abuse. Think the Opium Wars as an example. Although opium is known for its anesthetic and calming properties, it was widely consumed by Chinese laborers as recreational drugs. But because it is highly addictive, the economy shifted to opium consumption and this severely drained China's resources into the pockets of opium traders and producers. Of course, even worse poverty in the country. Back then those addicted to opium were not educated about its ill-effects, and the authorities (besides some being corrupt) were unaware of this problem due to lack of survey and knowledge. Luis also covered some of the stupid ways drugs could be used. Drugs derived from plants were originally considered medicine, or herbs if you like. Marijuana, poppy seeds etc. as we know have medicinal properties. Like fatty and sugary food, they should be consumed with care. When the state forbids drug usage (with the best intention of preventing drug abuse in mind), it can create a sense of taboo in society. Drugs used for well-being is therefore shunned. The best course to deter and prevent abuse is through intense and repetitive education using hard facts. There's also the vice of drugs being "cool", "social acceptance", and the all-time favorite: "tripping and getting high", propagating in certain places. This might have stood from those with the intention to profit from drug abuse. (Duh.) Misinformation and unlawful sale and production of drugs should have been contained if the relevant authorities are competent.

That would be fun. But a countdown to the final episode is kind of sad if you think about it. I mean it's the LAST episode... A countdown to The End (?).

You are right. The film may very well be biased since it holds an extreme opposing view towards MPAA's CARA without an antithesis to what it stands for. But hey, the message is there. That's what the film is suppose to do, right? My point about "profit" is just an opinion, actually. You are welcome to provide a counterargument to what the film is about. I'm only an outside observer. The only first-hand experience I had of USA is traveling in California, not bureaucracy.

That is the great question of quantum mechanics; is the universe deterministic? One of the more interesting things QM has to say about determinism is contained in the violations of Bell's Inequality. Essentially, we know experimentally that for some conditions, at least, the state of a system cannot be determined before its measurement, and hence there can be no knowledge of its state before the measurement, and no prediction of the outcome. There's a really good article on Bells Inequality in an old issue of Physics Today. Short and sweet!

I remember watching This Film is Not Yet Rated (2006), and I think it really relates to the media industries. The media distracts us from real problems to action flicks and other mediocre crap... but war documentaries are being censored. This discourages producers from filming stuff that matters and the higher-ups are attempting social engineering in a way that harms the country but benefiting the few. This can also suppress the inquisitive minds. I don't get it. If they want to profit from it long-term, why not just guide the people into developing themselves, become more efficient at work, go into scientific advancement, sell those stuff to other countries. Profit! And everyone's happy. What they're doing now is unsustainable and myopic. Really.

According to infinite divisibility in probability theory, anything can happen, literally. Who knows if shit's gonna hit the fan anytime? To find the chance that if something's going to happen, maybe we can try a q-computer... except it's still in development. The advantage is it calculates simultaneously... the downside is it's difficult to build and maintain. Predict the future or not, live everyday as your last. EDIT: I just forgot. For a computer to calculate and predict the future, you need numbers and formulas. The probability theory WITH Permutations & Combinations theory is not enough. As everything is interdependent, even finding out the formula for choosing a urinal (as an example, look it up) can take some time, but it still ends up as a theory. A more practical example is if your house is going to be broken into tonight. The burglar(s) would need preparation, like getting tools and selecting targets. Then they have to travel to the target before acting. Now imagine what if they could not get the tools, or get into a road accident, or simply your house is not being targeted. All these things that you have to factor in! By the way, is this really a civilization problem?

I'm so glad that I found this dinosaur buried here. It's funny while how some economists are constantly throwing warning signs at everyone, but the guy on the steering wheel is still crashing the bus into something. It's also ironic that we have the other economists running the very banks and government agencies that everyone's dependent on, but likes to treat everything as a giant laboratory with little or no negative consequences. So to the lecture... What a refresher. The following severely lacks vocabulary, so please take your time. That's how dry Economics is, and I'm going to regurgitate some stuff. 1) I was taught that Aggregate Demand (AD) = C + I + G + Net Exports... not GDP = those. (Notice 'taught', so whoever had a different education may argue otherwise.) GDP, Gross Domestic Product, is the nominal value of total market value of goods and services produced within the geographical boundaries of a country within a period of time (usually a year), regardless if it's produced by nationals or foreigners. There's also the real GDP, which is when you take inflation into account. Before we look at how we get GDP, let's look at some of the definitions. AD = Total desired spending on domestically produced goods and services by all sectors (hence C, I, G and exports) in a given time period at different price levels. Then we have Aggregate Supply (AS, I mean where else do you get stuff even if you demand?) = Total output that firms in an economy (that is, the country) are willing and able to supply at different price levels in a given period of time. Let's ignore time and assume we have a price equilibrium. At that point, where we have reasonable output (AS) to meet some of the AD (since wants are unlimited, you can only do so much), we have the economy's real national output, which translates to GDP. So, I found Mauldin's first definition of GDP is flawed. The second one is fine. 2) Over-expenditure (aka "dis-save") of government is applicable in practice. But Mauldin skipped how the debt/deficit came about. But I think we all know. 3a) Multiplier is a very important savior to the economy when you inject government expenditure in the perfect situation. So at the 12th minute mark where he explains that the velocity of money is not fast enough, it's because of leakages of income. Leakage as in savings. Savings do not contribute to the circular flow of income, to get firms to produce, to pass corporate profits to workers' salaries, to pass salaries/income to spend on stuff, and to pass household and corporate income to government revenue. Since the multiplier is falling, means an increasing amount money that the government tried to inject (not supply, I will explain that later) from its own pocket went missing! Not literally missing, but missing from the circular flow. Is it under some pillow? Household safe? Or maybe in an ordinary savings bank account? We don't know. But what we do know is that the money is not helping the economy at all because it isn't being spent on the right things. We can't say for sure if some rich bastard is hoarding an unnecessarily big savings, but that's another story. 4) Growth of Federal Assets... huh. From a foreign observer's perspective, what the hell? It sounds to me like the banks are leaching off the Feds... hey wait, where did the interests come from? Oh yeah, bonds and other countries. 5) About delta-GDP. Population = workforce, productivity = efficiency of resources (incl. labor). But for some reason he ran into the crowding out effect of an expansionary fiscal policy. "Each $1 rise in G reduces $1 private spending." Private spending can mean both consumption and investment. What I'd studied is when the rise in G is financed by borrowing from private capital markets, the increase in demand for funds by the government will drive interest rates up, discouraging private investment (and consumption) because of higher costs of borrowing. That's what's happening in USA now. 6) "When government debt rises to 90% of GDP, it seems to reduce potential GDP (growth) by about 1% annually." Damn. I think there are a few factors in play here. Speculation (trust and confidence in the government and the market), and politics could be the big ones. Starting off with speculation, it's like playing with stocks. Anyone who invests in stocks know very well that speculation, though indirect, can produce drastic consequences. So what's up with the government? Debt. Debt from the Feds and other countries is simply bad. Greenspan claimed that the US can repay any debt. That's an outright lie from an intelligent economist. While debt from other countries is real, internal debt is artificial. It is in a way supplying more money, increasing its liquidity, in the economy. There is no way to pay back something that is created out of thin air, might as well write it off like how banks do it with a bankrupt. But no, the system is made in such a way it has to continue because it is the money system. Write that off and chaos ensues. So the people thinks that the country is in debt, and higher than before, that must mean they got to tighten their purses, right? That's the speculation, almost like a reflex. With less consumption (and private investment), less money is spent by the consumers and firms themselves on improving their productivity (like private education, automation etc.). Therefore, ceteris paribus, lower potential economic growth. This links to point 5 above. I talked about Greenspan, so I don't wanna divulge about my opinion of American politics. Side-note: Discretionary fiscal policy is politically unpopular with the people. ...kind of losing focus... it's midnight here. I don't feel like continuing the next day. 7) Right, government is not the engine of growth. The government does not produce any "worthwhile" goods and services because the goods and services it produces are public goods, stuff that no one is willing to pay for, That includes public services, law enforcement, military etc. Private (and small) firms are needed to employ people to produce stuff for consumption and development. 8) Inflation is said by academics to be necessary evil. Mauldin is right about how bad deflation is, since deflation = general price level falls = lower production = shrinkage = unemployment... ...you get the idea. 9) As a case study: Japanese Disease... uh... that's what happens when you try to advance too fast. Crowding out effect, inefficiency in resource allocation... Nationalism and sexism (preference for male employees over female) is not helping. And so is not foreseeing a greying population. What? 10) Emerging markets adds on to the global competition. Spotlight's on China. If USA were to continue to carry out protectionist measures, there's little room for improvements for American steel, chemical products etc. that is in competition with China. The Comparative Advantage theory may seem a bit farfetched, but if USA were to only produce what it's good at to sell to China, and vice versa, (kind of like exchanging), it'd be cool. 11) EU debt crisis (Greece, Spain, Italy...) could very likely be due to deregulation... like USA. Let lose the leash, and banks are allowed to do whatever they like... Here comes the moral hazard! 12) Biotech! Nanotech! Space industries! Very cool stuff that people will be all over these like they were hyped about smartphones. Silicon Valley may have to make way for these sunrise industries. I just hope things don't start to look like Deus Ex. Dystopian... ugh. Side-note: We can no longer rely on silicon and semiconductors for higher work-intensive computers in the near future, thanks to the heating effect. I think Ross understands this. But I think q-computers still have a long way to go. We are also still stuck in the 20th Century when it comes to portable batteries. 14) FOREX has a direct impact on an economy. For USA: Appreciate the dollar and import prices fall, but exports become more expensive in foreign currency. Depreciate and you get the reverse. Multiple assumptions included, Marshall-Lerner conditions and whatnot. Now that the dollar appreciates, people will tend to import stuff, and by importing stuff domestic producers are endangered as they are losing the competition. Other countries are also less likely to buy the now-relatively expensive US exports. This implies possible retrenchment, unemployment of resources... and so on. That's no good. USA then suffers from a bigger deficit, BIGGER current account deficit, coupled with slow or even negative growth.

And who's going to lead the country? For a truly direct democratic country like Switzerland, culture must, first and foremost, be corrected. You are getting nowhere near liberalism, freedom, and democracy if the people do not start on the same correct footing. Heck, study the Swiss to the core if you have yet to understand how frigging nice they are. Back to big money and news. It's great that we have access to alternative news, but they are sometimes unreliable. Sure, you may consider Wikileaks as a news source, but stuff like Gawker isn't exactly the best. Remember, sponsors are everywhere (almost). And then we have sleepers! Ordinary twitter accounts became 'reporters' out of the blue. Any web analysts (or people like you and me) could have spotted this! Anyway, you would not be in any way influenced by half-truths or bogus news if you simply have a habit of inquiring (or questioning everything). I don't mean becoming paranoid and suspicious, but rather just ask yourself if what you see and hear is credible, consistent, and corroborate with other accounts. Yeah, this sounds right out from your school. CCC is still being reminded again and again within law professions, humanities, and anywhere else that comes in contact with important information. But money just likes to be superior. Let's take the ongoing MH370 saga as an example. While big money may not play a big role in this case, it is truly a test of trust and confidence of information. Malaysia threw its neighbors and China into a wild goose chase before saying,"Hey, shit's not there. It's on the other side!" when M'sia knew it all along. And of course this includes the inconsistency of accounts with authority figures and the M'sia Airlines giving contradictory statements. Then, we have people coming up with wild theories of what happened to the flight with some taking the news for granted. This is thus also a prime example of mindless consumption of news. So this doesn't mean you can take Wikileaks for granted as well. A certain someone almost slipped false info into the archives. How can we prevent big money from feeding crap into the media? As individuals, we can't. As an organization, perhaps, but you would have to deal with stupid defamation and law loopholes. An uprising of the ordinary citizens? Utopian, but possible. But then again, it's uncertain how it would turn out. As for ourselves, you can always choose whether or not to turn on your TV.

Not applicable to Syria. For now. Egypt almost went into a full-blown civil war. A civil war may or may not rebuild a country in the sense that it fights fire with fire. Too many damn factors. Who is leading the charge? Who is supplying the forces? Would the damages (property, infrastructure, environment, and psychological and physical health) be recovered? If so, how long? How would the country be run later? How would the country rebuild its economy and international relations? There are a lot of future implications in this modern age if a civil war were to break out. Hidden and unforeseeable ones, too.

At least they can't truly control all of us. But yeah, it's obsession with power and more wealth. What the hell? Can we convince them that the surplus money that they are hoarding has no real value because they're not going to use it anyway? I mean, sure, their kids can inherit (assuming that), but that again has no worth at all. It's just sitting in some vault in the alps or in an excessively secure computer. I hope the world moves on to a system of non-inflatable form of exchange of goods and services, and gets Swiss-cultured (Culture! Not turning into cheese or yoghurt!) Anyway, back to the topic. Mainstream media is, well, like any other corporations, for-profit. Somehow their revenue must come in one way or another. Ads, sponsors, and (big) shady sponsors. Of course, it is to work to their benefit. There's nothing you can't buy with money, right? (Assuming the paper wealth is still guaranteed.) Monsanto pays reporters to speak about how highly "ethical" their farms are, Coca-Cola advertizes Vitamin Water and Minute Maid, and so on.

Can we redirect and focus back to the topic, please? Anyway, I found this an interesting description of USA's "economic" situation: How you interpret it is up to you.

I see a bigger problem with a civil war erupting in the US. Look at the Syrian civil war or any other recent ones out there, the arms or so-called "defense" industries easily profit from any armed conflicts. The States already has plenty of such companies and if a war actually breaks out to "kill the corrupt", instead the fighting gets nowhere to solving the problem, even if a new government is installed. It all ends up being a facade.

IF you are talking about Freeman's Mind... You do realize that Morgan is often suited for the calm, wise old man personality? From what I gather, even in movies, like Now You See Me, his character never explodes into fits of rage until he found out he was framed at the end. Take another example like the Almighty movies, he's God. You know, it's kinda creepy if you have Gordon shooting stuff up while speaking softly and be chill about everything. If you were to spend some time imagining Morgan taking up the character of Gordon, it's weird. It sounds more like a Let's Play. Here we have Ross to fill in the role of a psychopath (who arguably has a higher chance of surviving in a situation like Half-Life), which is perfect. But if I read your question wrongly, were you referring to story/movie/documentary narration? If so, go to Youtube, watch Ross's Game Dungeon, and also watch Through the Wormhole (narrated by Morgan), then you may see the difference. It's about genre, really. LIke I said, Morgan's best suited for slower-paced stuff, but we often hear Ross like a gibbering genius, even when he reviews Eternam.