e=mc^2

[Anonymous No.3792730]

now that its been proven false, what else (besides energy) falls apart when this equation falls apart? what other theories or formulas have been derived from it?

[Anonymous No.3792754]

anyone?

[Anonymous No.3792762]

Most importantly, the nature of time dilation is called into question.

People want to jump on the "time travel is now possible" bandwagon, but if special relativity has been disproved, why should exceeding C cause a particle to move backward in time?

[Anonymous No.3792770]

>implying anyone on /sci/ actually knows anything about science

[Anonymous No.3792774]

F=ma

A=pi*r^2

etc.

Everything is out the window.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3792785]

>>3792730
>Yo /sci/, what if known physics was wrong, then what would happen according to known physics?

We first need a correct model, and that would win you a Nobel prize.

[Anonymous No.3792789]

>conservative
>technologically progressive

These are contradictory positions unless your implying that improving technology doesn't have social impacts. (in which case full retard, etc)

[Anonymous No.3792796]

>3792774

I heard some scientists are also debating whether:

S=D/T applies anymore. Now that time can be negative.

[Anonymous No.3792799]

>>3792774
wait.... F=ma is out?!

Fuuuuuuck

Do I have to re learn Physics?

[Anonymous No.3792803]

>>3792789
except that conservative values lead to the greatest scientific and technological advancements (see fascism and libertarian/american capitalism) and liberalism (i.e. marxism) leads to failure and collapse (see modern europe and russia)

[Anonymous No.3792813]

>>3792796
what makes you think time can be negative? are you saying exceeding the speed of light makes time go in reverse?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3792819]

>>3792803
...
Except that's blatantly false. All of the cool shit happens from government funded research programs.

[Anonymous No.3792828]

>>3792803
>except that conservative values lead to the greatest scientific and technological advancements

Except they don't, they lead to rejection of anything that runs contrary to how the world 'is'. The only thing conservative values are good at is weapons development.

[Anonymous No.3792833]

>>3792819
HAHAHAHAHAHA oh wow

[Anonymous No.3792842]

The first thing we'll notice is that nuclear power plants will stop working. The lasers in your CD or DVD drive will cease functioning as well, so no more indestructible media.

On the upside, nuclear weapons will not be capable of reaching critical mass, so they are no long a danger to our existence.

[Anonymous No.3792844]

>>3792803

Feel free to use your Super Autism powers to redefine words any fucking way you like.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3792848]

>>3792833
Going to the Moon.

[Anonymous No.3792851]

Fixed your picture bro.

[Anonymous No.3792859]

>>3792844
butthurt liberal who pretends liberalism has anything to do with liberation detected

[Anonymous No.3792861]

>3792813

Yeah time dilation. Read up on the wiki.
As you approach the speed of light, time approaches 0.
If you pass it, theoretically, you are going back in time.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3792869]

>>3792859
Shouldn't you be out picketing an abortion clinic or a gay wedding?

[Anonymous No.3792871]

>>3792851
this

conservatives are destroying our world and blaming it on us.

it's just what they do.
until we eat them.

[Anonymous No.3792903]

>>3792851
lol you think you can have such an advanced society by giving everyone free stuff? oh wow. you must not be paying attention to whats happening in the west lately (thanks to liberals who think like you)

hint: its becoming more like the right side while libertarian/freedom embracing societies like hong kong are looking more like the left side

why is this board full of delusional atheist/liberal teenagers?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3792914]

>>3792903
>why is this board full of delusional atheist/liberal teenagers?
26 well employed person here. There is no god. Unrestricted laissez faire is retarded and evil. Communism is retarded too. You're retarded for putting all political questions on a one dimensional scale.

[Anonymous No.3792923]

>>3792914
>get proven wrong, claim to be an 'independent thinker' who thinks 'everything sux'

atheist teen detected. why argue then if youre just going to pretend to be a nihilist lol

[Anonymous No.3792932]

>>3792903
You fail to define free stuff. The hand outs in the west are mostly money with only a tiny percentage being what I consider stuff.

Those hand outs are also unequally distributed based on highly subjective notions about reality.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3792938]

>>3792923
I am not a nihilist. I am an atheist. Two very different things.

[Anonymous No.3792941]

>>3792859

'liberation'... like in Liberation Theology?

NO.. that that's a BAD little Asspie.

I am a neurotypical Libertarian.

[Anonymous No.3792944]

>>3792903

>hint: its becoming more like the right side while libertarian/freedom embracing societies like hong kong are looking more like the left side

China is a communist country. While it's true that in some economic zones a very unrestricted form of capitalism is practiced, those regions have very small centers of wealth like the gorgeous city districts you're referring to, and vastly larger regions of ghettos and general squalor which were carefully (and controversially) hidden from sight by divider walls during the Beijing olympics so that tourists wouldn't have to see the conditions that most Chinese citizens are subject to.

[Anonymous No.3792952]

>>3792903
liberal 40 year old multimillionaire business owner and employer here.

suck it poorfag. Can't afford to help others so you twist your mind around until you can condemn others for helping?

weak. very weak. you're the shit sticking to the bottoms of our collective shoes.

[Anonymous No.3792959]

>>3792903

With sufficient levels of automation, it would be perverse to deny anybody any physical thing.

Not that I think some fucked up Venus Project shit should happen, since placing control over the means in the hands of a computer is equally perverse. Just that modern ideas of economies don't apply in that kind of environment.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3792965]

Political biases are not scientific. I think we should strive to detach ourselves from them. The more we associate with one side or the other the more your own tribalistic nature sways us. We stop favoring the paths that make sense and start favoring the paths that "our side" likes and that the "other side" doesn't like.

[Anonymous No.3792966]

>>3792851
>Leftist society
>good
>Hasn't seen how fucked up the world is right now
>Doesn't know we are close to a economic collapse
>Believes it is everyone but their fault
>The liberals 'SECURITY IS GOOD, GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO EVERYTHING' agenda is fucking everything up
>Hasn't seen how shit Obama was as president
>Not voting for a libertarian like Ron Paul

You are right, the way to combat debt through social programs is MORE SOCIAL PROGRAMS.

[Anonymous No.3792972]

>>3792799
>mfw I passed Mechanics this year
>mfw I got to use the easy f=ma equation
>mfw everyone after me will have to use some super complex uber-formula

SUCKS2BE U!!!

[Anonymous No.3792975]

>>3792965
the 'other side' doesn't like science.

if you like science I think your side has already been chosen.

[Anonymous No.3792977]

>>3792952
What business, if you don't mind me asking? Also, how did you end up here? No offense, but 4chan isn't very popular among your demographic.

[Anonymous No.3792981]

>>3792944
hong kong is not china, they operate under very different rules and indeed freedom embracing hong kong is looking more and more like the left side, and rapidly too because no liberal regulations are making buildings take 20 years to complete. but even china is looking like the left side because they are no longer communist. they are fascists right now, but the media wont tell you this because fascism is hitler hurrrr liberalism marxism rox hurrr

[Anonymous No.3792983]

>>3792730

OP, 10/10

[Anonymous No.3792985]

>>3792952

Younger small business owner here. I've mostly escaped the consequences of the current recession and feel the same. If one is making enough that they and their family are secure, judiciously putting money back into the community improves it in a way that benefits me, as I have to live in it, and enables others to reach a state of security as well. It's the difference between saying "I've got mine, fuck you", which leads to a very few people living well while everyone else starves, and "I want to live in a healthy, functioning community not comprised mainly of vagrants and criminals". The way you achieve that is by helping the rest of the community get where you are.

Anyway bro fist, keep on being rad.

[Anonymous No.3792992]

e=mc^2 is still e=mc^2


The speed of light didn't change dumbass, we just found something that moves faster.

HURR DUUURRRR

[Anonymous No.3793004]

>>3792966

>The liberals 'SECURITY IS GOOD, GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO EVERYTHING' agenda is fucking everything up

That isn't how we got here. It was the greed of *private bankers* that caused the recession we're presently in.

[Anonymous No.3793016]

>>3792985
>>3792952

except your money isnt being used to help anyone. 75% of it id being used to do the paper work to finally end up in some poor persons hands. why? because you worship government. give your money to charity instead of telling everyone they should give it to the government so people can bribe them and charge them 20 dollars for a muffin when they have some tax payer funded meeting

liberals = dumbest people on the planet

[Anonymous No.3793023]

>>3792952
>Rich people support liberalism

Hahahahaha, it's funny because more poor people are rightwing, they don't even mind loss of welfare! Well, except the immigrants.

[Anonymous No.3793032]

>>3792992
HURR DURR that formula is based on the fact that nothing can go faster than light

[Anonymous No.3793043]

>>3792966
>Thinking the world's problems aren't caused by greed
>Thinking greed isn't a tool used extensively by right wing thought
>Claim the world is leftist

If you don't correctly identify the problems you'll never come to accurate answers just FYI.

>Voting for Ron Paul
>Voting for an anti-science nutcase

And my hope for humanity slides a little farther.

[Anonymous No.3793049]

>>3793032
HUUUR DUUR If the formula works it doesn't fucking matter if something goes faster, its still correct. All of our mathematical equations didn't suddenly become wrong after working for years just because cern THINKS they found something faster than light.

[Anonymous No.3793053]

>>3793016

>except your money isnt being used to help anyone.

Yeah it is.

>75% of it id being used to do the paper work to finally end up in some poor persons hands.

No it isn't. I don't donate to any charity that doesn't have transparent bookkeeping. I know exactly where my money goes.

>why? because you worship government.

What? No I don't. I disagree with you, that's no reason to make false, demeaning accusations.

[Anonymous No.3793060]

>>3793004
No, it was because our government decided to bail out those *private bankers* which it itself is a leftist approach.

Under libertarianism the banks would just go bankrupt, the government would not bail out those companies.

If you want anyone to blame for it, I suggest you take a look at the baby boomers, everything they did they did recklessly and without forethought for the future.

[Anonymous No.3793066]

>>3792977
you haven't heard of my business, and if you have heard of my business neither you or I wants the other to know we hang out here.

I heard of 4chan on some article on MSNBC over a year ago. Checked it out and stuck around.

>>3792985
Yep, whether you call it noblesse oblige or goodwill or advertising or scholarships all businesses give to charity and their communities.

It's some silly poorfag idea that people shouldn't be helped.

[Anonymous No.3793067]

>>3793016

>liberals = dumbest people on the planet

Actually, the inverse is true.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm

[Anonymous No.3793071]

>>3792952
>>3792985

What automation are you two planning to employ in the future given that you seem to value human freedom?

[Anonymous No.3793077]

>>3793049

HUUUR DUUR I still see the sun moving and not earth. Our planet didn't suddenly start moving after standing still for years just because some dude THINKS they discovered it moves!

[Anonymous No.3793078]

>>3792730
It's just as likely that there was a measurement error, either due to equipment malfunction or external forces, or that the neutrinos "cheated" by not travelling the entire distance in normal space-time.

[Anonymous No.3793088]

>>3793043
>anti-science nutcase

Ron Paul is not 'anti-science' he is just pro-life, though he himself said that he would not interfere his beliefs into politics.

The man is the only person who understands and likes the constitution and he has the same beliefs our great forefathers who created this country had.

If you do not like his policies you probably don't really like Americas true values.

What was it that Benjamin Franklin once said? 'Those who give up Liberty for Security deserve neither.'

[Anonymous No.3793089]

>>3793060

It should be obvious that there is no party in the US that is willing to let these big businesses compete in a fair market.

Republicans, Democrats, they all support corporate welfare. That they both have other fucked up wasteful social programs that make them seem different hardly matters compared to the big problem of corporate welfare.

[Anonymous No.3793100]

>>3793077
Your argument is gaining no ground, stop.

[Anonymous No.3793102]

>>3793071
some things machines can't do.
maybe even most things.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3793104]

>>3792975
It doesn't matter why you join a side. What matters is that you joined a side. First it may be a good vote to disagree with the "other side", but as time goes by the dark paleolithic recesses of your brain will be telling you to disagree with everything "they" say and agree with everything "we" say (we meaning the group you associate with). In no time at all you are throwing out perfectly logical arguments and agreeing with illogical arguments just because of the pin they stick on their shirt.

The only way I've found to avoid this is to refuse to associate with either side. Just state what your position is for each topic on a case by case basis.

[Anonymous No.3793119]

>>3793067
liberal idiot detected. everyone knows that liberals are white, race is what correlates to iq not political leaning. liberals use this to their advantage because if you mention it theyll just shout racisttt!11

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793138]

>>3793119
>denies evidence when it disagrees with his beliefs
Yep.

[Anonymous No.3793144]

>>3793071
See that's the thing, leftists pretend they value 'freedom' yet they want to make hate-speech illegal, will not see the side of a rightest, wants to ban religion, ban freedom of speech, ban anti-semitic remarks, ban fascism, ban capitalism, ban privatization and ban America. It's like they don't see the irony in their argument, they think that MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL + LESS CONTROL OF THE PEOPLE = FREEDAMS THE TERRIRISTS TOOK FRUM US, PATRIOT ACT! PATRIOT ACT!

[Anonymous No.3793146]

>>3793071

Not those guys, but;

As much as possible. Automation is good. It would take some kind of legislation limiting access to it in order to make it a divisive issue.

If the stage comes that one persons day of work will support many, many people, and people could dip in or out of this work at will, it would be perverse to actually charge for it.

An economy of ideas would still operate, of course. You can't stop the free market, except that you can try to keep it down and make a black market. And why would you want to?

[Anonymous No.3793155]

>>3793071

Without being any more specific, I own two food packing plants. One for meat and the other for baked goods, from the same supplier. We use pick n' pack robots from ABB to arrange items either for a type of vacuum shrink wrapping or for placing things like cupcakes into the plastic trays that hold 8 cupcakes each. The robots can visually recognize the products and quickly take them from their chaotic arrangement on the conveyor belts and place them into configuration for final packaging far quicker than any human worker and without error. They have proven more expensive to maintain than originally promised but that's due to a handful of fluke incidents that won't happen for the bulk of users.

What I've been doing is shaving ten percent off of our profits and making donations of it. Eventually when we have more robots I'd like to increase that. I've been preferentially choosing charities that help those already with homes, cars and jobs, my reasoning being that if I only pay this lost employment opportunity back to people once they are on the street the end result is everyone will be on the street, fed by a meager income shaven off the top of the profits from fully automated companies. What we really need is to pool that money, from every company with a significant number of robots and then make it available as a sort of living expense grant to the lower middle class, so as to keep their standard of living from sagging due to job opportunities being lost to increasing automation.

I think when enough other companies do this, enough money will be paid back to the middle class that it will be able to sustain itself entirely from this revenue. The tax based programs already in place to handle the poor will take care of those on the street, this scheme I'm trying out is intended to prevent automation from destroying the middle class in the first place.

[Anonymous No.3793157]

>>3793104
I agree in large part. I consider myself strongly liberal but disagree with most liberals on gun control, pc speech, the death penalty, muslim invasion, illegal immigration and a number of other issues.

however the label doesn't imply a specific belief set to anyone with a brain, it merely indicates a tendency or attitude. Anyone that buys that heavily into stereotypes based on labels shouldn't be doing science, and probably shouldn't be voting.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793158]

>>3793144
I apologize for the stupid democrats and the stupid Europeans. I am firmly against banning religion and hate speech.

[Anonymous No.3793165]

>>3793066
>It's some silly poorfag idea that people shouldn't be helped.

Would you agree with the idea that poorfags pursue endless greed ideals simply because they have no idea what it's like to have enough to do what they need/want when they need/want to do so? Basically that being poor is detrimental to the mindset of individuals?

[Anonymous No.3793166]

>e=mc^2
>its been proven false,


no you fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.3793179]

>>3793043

>Never actually read any of Ron Paul's proposals or tried to understand his viewpoint
>Calls him an anti-science nutcase

There are many things you can criticize his ideas on. The short term effects of his foreign policy ideas, the feasibility of a partial return to the gold standard, whatever flaws you may perceive in the Constitution, etc
But calling him an anti-science nutcase is ultimate proof of ignorance and that you get all of your information about him from Huffingtonpost and from heavily edited and out of context Youtube videos.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793190]

>>3793179
IIRC, he questions and/or denies human evolution. He's anti-science.

[Anonymous No.3793194]

>liberal atheists claiming they like science and theyre 'rational hurr'
>repeat lies about ron paul like sheeple

hmmmm

yep, liberal atheists are dumber than the people they criticize

[Anonymous No.3793195]

>>3793089
A free market is a fair market, if you care about America and want to see true 'equality' you would vote libertarian, these policies we have now obviously do not work, if you vote for anyone other than Ron Paul you are NOT going to see any change to the system and America will fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI-yStFdjfQ&feature=youtu.be

[Anonymous No.3793199]

>>3793088
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/08/29/scitech/main20098876.shtml

You were saying?

[Anonymous No.3793210]

>>3793119

>liberal idiot detected. everyone knows that liberals are white, race is what correlates to iq not political leaning.

But conservatives are even more uniformly white, yet liberals still outscore them. How do you account for this disparity? Your existing explanation fails to do so.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793214]

>>3793195
Part 1 of 2

When discussing policy, you need to first identify your desired ends. Once those have been identified, you then need to identify possible policies than will acheive those ends. The first question is a moral question. The second question is a question of material fact. See: Hume's is-ought problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

For me, the purpose of government and economy is a happy, materially wealthy, free population. Economy is merely a means to that end.

Part of that end is private property. I want people to be able to have their own shit that is theirs. This is not an inviolable end. That is, I consider that taxes can be just if they accomplish sufficient good. I also believe as a moral starting point that those who have more have less claim to private property. That is, I respect less the right of private property when you have a dozen cars, a beach house, and a private jet.

Related: The Locke / Adam Smith justification of private property with the labor theory of value is bunk. It rests upon the premise that if I collect a bunch of apples and let them go to waste, it does you no harm because you are free to go collect some other apples from nature. In the real world, apples are fixed, and if I let some apples go to waste, this does demonstrably harm you. Locke weasels out of this by saying you can go to America and get all the free land you want. This loophole no longer exists.

So, to that end of a materially wealthy, happy populuation, markets are an indispensable tool. However, to the extent that markets do not achieve these ends, we should choose different policies. Due to the freerider problem, aka the tragedy of the commons (closely related to externalities), these alternate policies must be government regulation.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793219]

>>3793214
Part 2 of 2

So, now that we've established that government regulation is morally justifiable if markets do not achieve our desired ends, let's ask questions of material fact as to when markets would not achieve our desired ends.

Externalities. The best example is vaccines.

People have differing time horizons. Combined with the freerider problem aka tragedy of the commons, closely related to externalities, this can cause undesired outcomes. Examples may include pollution, global warming, peak oil, and so on. Less extreme examples also exist.

Acquiring freely available information is not free. Ex: This is why I support a limited FDA and various other consumer protections. This is also why I support rules against abusive contracts, and I support the first sale doctrine.

People are not fully rational agents. Usually this isn't an issue, but it occasionally pops up.

Cost barriers to entry in some markets are usually not insignificant.

The math to free markets works well with a large number of buyers and sellers. With low numbers of buyers and sellers, the basic econ 101 goodness is no longer applicable.

Extreme wealth disparities allow the rich to disproportionally affect government, which is a threat to the continued existence of a free state.

Unlimited inheritance also moves markets away from the desired ends of a materially wealth happy population. I support very large inheritance taxes on the very rich.

Large research projects. This is merely a combination of above factors, but I want to call it out. We don't have LFTRs today because of the ridiculously large pricetag puts it out of the reach of all but the richest governments. (There's more reasons, but that's an important one.)

[Anonymous No.3793224]

>>3793088

>2011
>still accepting the concept that constitutions can't be changed

You are no better than religious zealots, the difference is that you worship a constitution instead of the bible

[Anonymous No.3793225]

>>3793190

He makes it vert clear in "Liberty Defined" that he accepts God-guided evolution. An important part of his political views is that either way he shouldn't enforce his personal beliefs through State coercion, and even if he was a creationist he wouldn't support the teaching of creationism in schools.

Direct quote from liberty defined:

>My personal view is that recognizing the validity of the evolutionary process does not support atheism nor should it diminish one's view about God and the universe.

>This is a debate about science and religion...and should not involve politicians at all.

See this last phrase? Can you tell me A SINGLE politician with a view more rational than this one, that science is done by scientists and not politicians?

[Anonymous No.3793235]

>>3793144

I think political discourse would be improved if people weren't like this. If everyone didn't view the opposite ideology as a caricature of what it actually is, or if they didn't insist on generalizing every member of an ideology as worst of it, then we might get somewhere.

As it is, conservatives are bible-thumping, mouth breathing, evolution-denying, climate-change denying, racist, retarded, assholes who engage in class warfare with the intent of demolishing the middle class. They refuse to listen to liberal ideas and insist on destroying our social safety net and endanger American interests abroad by engaging in unilateral military actions and insulting foreign cultures and religions. Fuck 'em.

[Anonymous No.3793236]

>>3793066
Okay, now I'm intrigued.

I haven't heard of it, which means it's unknown among the general populace. If I did know what it was, however, I would know who you were and you would know me, so the community is very small, but connected. That suggests a very esoteric field. Furthermore, neither of us would want the other to know we're here, which means it's a field in which reputation is vital. Finally, you're on /sci/, which might indicate a technical field. Not a whole lot to go on, but still I'm going to guess you're some kind of defense subcontractor subcontractor.

[Anonymous No.3793240]

>>3793165
absolutely.

my greatest disappointment in making my first million was the realization that it didn't change my life at all. It didn't make me special, it didn't prevent me from having to work, it didn't buy me everything I ever wanted- it changed almost nothing. I tell someone on here that I'm a multimillionaire and they undoubtedly get grand thoughts of yachts and jets in their heads. I'm a semi-retired redneck with a middle-class lifestyle.

people don't understand how fucking poor they are. A million dollars won't buy what the Brady Bunch had, it won't buy what our parents and grandparents had as a normal standard of living for a single-income family back in the day.

People don't want to be rich, they think they do, but all they want is what everyone used to have when unions held sway and we understood who was on our side. I understand why people are pissed and selfish, looking at how much ground we've lost to our employers.

[fizx !d75etXAowg No.3793242]

>>3793157
And do you bash liberals as much as you bash conservatives on the respective topics you disagree with? The fact that you call yourself liberal would lead me to believe you'd sooner let a liberal get away with an anti-gun remark than you would a conservative with some other remark you disagree with.

More power to you if you are able to n large part resist. All I'm saying is that if one doesn't openly reject partisanism then one is often pulled deeper into it.

[Anonymous No.3793243]

>>3793225

>He makes it vert clear in "Liberty Defined" that he accepts God-guided evolution.

No he doesn't. He says only that evolution does not prove atheism. He has said explicitly that he, personally, DOES NOT ACCEPT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY. He's on video saying this. He went on to say that he believes God created everything in its current form, that we are specially created. That is not evolution.

You're really struggling with this aren't you? You love Paul but you hate creationism. Yet Paul is a creationist. It must really tear you up inside.

[Anonymous No.3793244]

>>3793102
Would you like to qualify that statement with some examples? I agree that there are some things which machines can't do YET but to flat out say they can't be done <at all> seems fallacious.

We have the technology to at the minimum double the unemployment rate already and world unemployment would skyrocket if the developing world implemented even a tiny part of the developed world's automation.

[Anonymous No.3793264]

>>3793225
liberals want science to be done by politicians, the politicians they favor. thats why they claim to like freedom and 'rights'... until its the rights and freedoms they dont like and often times the 'freedom and rights' they want are really just laws against others that benefit them

when will everyone get it through their heads? liberals are marxists who disguise their actions with feel good words like "rational" or "equality"

[Anonymous No.3793275]

>>3793244
if you invent a machine for every single task then yep, machines can replace people.

currently machines designed for one task have to be redesigned to do a different task. Humans have the ability to do many tasks without redesign and loss of functionality on other jobs.

also ergonomics, as long as people work in an area, the site will be designed for people to work in. A people place is rarely optimized for machines and vice versa.

currently people are far more common and generally cheaper than machines for many things as well.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793278]

>>3793264
So, our founding fathers are marxists? Gotcha.

[Anonymous No.3793279]

The equations still work fine inside the proper reference frame. Buildings will not abruptly collapse, bullets will still impart the same energy, cars will still exert normal force on the road etc etc, just because a few particles appear travelling faster than a known universal constant.

Stop trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, that's as fallacious as Fox news assessment of your local internet hate machine.

[Anonymous No.3793280]

>>3793264
>liberals want science to be done by politicians

No one wants science done by politicians, that's the most retarded statement I've heard

>liberals are marxists who disguise their actions with feel good words like "rational" or "equality"

oh wait, second most retarded

[Anonymous No.3793287]

>>3793243
last week you would have criticized anyone that questioned e=mc2 as an anti-science nut job, ridiculous outrageous, irrational, etc etc. and yet look at us now.

lol when will liberal atheist fags learn that everyone else finds them irrational and childish, in addition to unintelligent and hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.3793292]

I have asperger and can't get a job

It IS goverments job to feed me

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793297]

>>3793287
Anyone who questioned relativity a week ago would not be doing it based on evidence. Now they are. You are an asshat.

[Anonymous No.3793302]

>>3793195

No party is for the free market, then.

Ron Paul /b/ does seem to be earnestly for it, an oddity on the political scene, but how much can he do? I'm not trying to be cynical here, I'm just genuinely concerned. If he's elected, it will be better than the alternatives, sure. But after four years of getting little done, due to uncooperative legislature, he'll be voted out and libertarianism may be discredited for another generation.

[Anonymous No.3793310]

>>3793278
oh hey whats up liberal atheist fag, no one is falling for your "hurr modern liberalism is the same as classical liberalism" shtick, might wana to try that trick on college freshmen or something

[Anonymous No.3793311]

It hasn't been proven false. Yet.

And if it turns out that the experiment's results are right, then this doesn't even mean e=mc²is wrong, it just means it doesn't describe all of reality, kind of like Newton's laws.

[Anonymous No.3793312]

>>3793287

>lol when will liberal atheist fags learn that everyone else finds them irrational and childish, in addition to unintelligent and hypocritical.

This implies that the majority is conservative. It is a relatively even split with a slight majority being liberal in recent years. It also implies that liberals are commonly and credibly regarded as of inferior intellect when a study posted earlier in the thread proved this claim to be untrue.

[Anonymous No.3793317]

>>3793292

It is societies obligation to take care of it's own.

It is not the governments job to feed you, though.

[Anonymous No.3793319]

relativity is the most successful theory in physics, yes it falls down on the quantum levels and with singularities but it can predict the decay of binary neutron stars to parts per billion. its massively successful and has been confirmed a huge number of times. whatever this is it isn't just a case of relativity being wrong this wound contradict a century of measurements, something else is happening maybe extra dimensions maybe something stranger. Einstein wasn't wrong he just only had part of the picture. this result is a long way from confirmed and even longer from being understood until then relativity stands.

[Anonymous No.3793322]

>>3792828
>>3792789
>implying political standpoint dictates technological progress

>I'm so liberal I can invent anything

[Anonymous No.3793327]

>>3793199
>I do not accept evolution
>Reads it as EVOLUTION IS BAD WRONG DEVIL I AM ANTI-SCIENCE I WILL DESTROY ALL ATHEISTS BAN SCIENCE!!!!


Like I said, Ron Paul himself said that his personal beliefs do not reflect his policies. He is pro-gay marriage, pro-drugs and pro-stem cells!

I also find it funny how the media is trying to throw as much hatespeech to Ron Paul as possible while trying not to report on him as much as possible. I wonder why? WHY ARE BIG CORPORATIONS HATING AND FLAMING RON PAUL IF LIBERTARIANISM SUPPOSEDLY HELPS THEM!? Hah, Liberals.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793328]

>>3793310
I mean, you're saying well accepted practices during the founding fathers's era is marxist? That is what you're saying.

[Anonymous No.3793335]

>>3793312
actually the study proves that whites are intelligent not that liberals are intelligent. try digging a little bit past the headlines of the candy coated liberal links you post

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793338]

>>3793327
>pro-gay marriage
Nope.

>pro-stem cells
Nope.

[Anonymous No.3793341]

>actually read thread
>people associating scientific discovery with political values

[Anonymous No.3793342]

>>3793322
>implying a significant number of scientists are conservative

show us your conservative innovators, let's see them.

[Anonymous No.3793356]

>>3793338

To be fair, he merely dodges the question of gay marriage by devolving it to the states.

Not pro- but not con- either.

[Anonymous No.3793357]

>>3793342
>implying that scientists are authoritarian

Scientists believe in their natural rights for the most part. Which is very conservative.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793365]

>>3793341
Last I checked, the number of Muslim science Nobel prize winners was about 1, maybe 2. Both were western educated. 1/4 of all Nobel prize winners are Jewish (IIRC). The world population of Jews is amazingly small, like 20 million or something at best. There's a couple billion Muslims. Do the math. There is something wrong with the Islamic culture that shits on science. That is political.

[Anonymous No.3793366]

>>3793066

Holy shit. What a bro.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793369]

>>3793356
I've seen him quoted in some news site somewhere that he believes the fourteenth amendment of equal protections and such extends to straight marriages, but not gay marriages.

Sorry. He is an asshat.

[Anonymous No.3793378]

>>3793214
>>3793219

This text is well written but full of fallacies, and a lot of basic criticisms that Libertarians have already answered.

In the real world, apples are being created, wealth is created in real time. The competitive market has incentives to make you take care of your apples, the public sector does not.

The tragedy of the commons is increased tenfold in the lack of private property: People do not care for what doesn't belong to them (distorted incentives) and Governments cannot create rational prices to compare factors of production the same way the market can (economic calculation problem), which leads to higher resource depletion and tragedy of the commons when any property belongs to the State.

Vaccines, quarantines and etc can be created voluntarily in a market, if not by people taking care of themselves, by insurance companies trying to lower risk through contractual ways.
Other problems can also be solved in a voluntary way and much more efficiently than by the State.

People cooperate voluntarily. There is no need for the State to impose what it thinks it's best for you on you.

The enforcement of property rights - including property over your body - and private certification companies "Regulate" the market much better than what Governmental agencies like the FDA do. Monopolized agencies suffer regulatory capture and become counter-productive. The Underwriters Laboratories have a much better record than the FDA for sure.

>>3793243

A heavily edited and taken out of context video.

And fuck, let's say for the sake of the argument that he is a creationist. At least he is the only politician in the whole Federal Government that doesn't want to enforce his views through the State and wants to make politicians get out of the Science vs. Religion debate altogether, that is already a gigantic achievement for science, regardless of his personal views.

[Anonymous No.3793384]

>>3793155
I have to say that if I'm not being trolled then I am impressed. Though I wonder why you've chosen to give some of the profits to charity rather than lower the price of your service by the equivalent amount. Would the latter not encourage competitors to take similar action and result in a wider benefit to the consumer (likely lower middle class)?

[Anonymous No.3793389]

>>3793365

1. Culture and politics are two different things.
2. People are talking about conservative and liberal ideologies here.

Stop this "debate", it isn't one. Picture related.

[Anonymous No.3793391]

I'll just leave this here.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793399]

>>3793378
You reject all notions of the freerider problem? I suppose our conversation is over.

[Anonymous No.3793401]

>>3793369

Really? That does change it a bit.

But if he's willing to stand by his conviction and let the states make up whatever marriage laws they like, then he's still ahead in my book.

At the very least we should hope he wins the Republican nomination, right?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793406]

>>3793389
Culture and politics are not two entirely divorced things. They are heavily related. The politics of the Muslim world are demonstrably anti-science. Unless, of course, you want to say that the Muslim people are stupider, which I am not claiming.

[Anonymous No.3793409]

>>3793399

I didn't say i did. I just said that the problem is much worse under the Governmental "solutions" - due to the distorted incentives of a monopolized entity and due to the Economic Calculation Problem - and argued we can have voluntary solutions outside of the State.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793412]

>>3793401
I'd want him in office as a good foil to current politicians, but I would never want him to actually get half the shit he wants passed.

[Anonymous No.3793421]

>>3793391
what does this prove? ill tell you:

"scientists" actually includes professors. you can bet that the 54% are the ones in class telling freshmen college students that gays are normal and blacks who majored in afro feminine studies, and that the "neither" column are the ones doing real science like math and chemistry.

[Anonymous No.3793422]

>>3792730
>op's pic
>conservative = progressive

what the fuck am I reading?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793423]

>>3793409
The idea of a voluntary solution to the freerider problem is a complete dismissal of the freerider problem.

[Anonymous No.3793428]

>>3793422
todays conservative is yesterdays progressive. todays progressives are pro gay marxists. sociology 101, little guy. think about what progressive and conservative means in and of itself.

[Anonymous No.3793437]

>Physics thread.
>Thread instantly turns to politics shit because of picture.
This is why I come to /sci/.

[Anonymous No.3793438]

>>3793406

They are not two entirely divorced thing, and the fact that repressive, fundamentalist totalitarian governments hinder scientific research is not even up for question.

However, the people in this thread are debating over liberals and conservatives, which is just plain old bullshit.

[Anonymous No.3793441]

>>3793384

>I have to say that if I'm not being trolled then I am impressed. Though I wonder why you've chosen to give some of the profits to charity rather than lower the price of your service by the equivalent amount. Would the latter not encourage competitors to take similar action and result in a wider benefit to the consumer (likely lower middle class)?

For two reasons. First, we need to get money to people so that they can spend it, not just reduce prices. It doesn't matter how low prices are if nobody has money to spend.

Secondly, pricing is artificial and carefully considered. It is not merely whatever the product costs to produce plus an extra amount which pays the salaries of workers, covers overhead expenses and whatnot. There is a psychological factor involved. Price your product low enough and mysteriously it reduces demand as it harms the perceived worth. Prices are dictated to us by the supplier and change periodically to reflect what consumers expect to pay and think is a reasonable price for the quality of the product we provide them. This shit's more complex than it might initially seem, it's as much sociology (boo hiss, I know) as it is mathematics.

[Anonymous No.3793447]

The best thing is that the right pic in op's image is from Fallout, a world where conservative minds caused the nuclear war

[Anonymous No.3793450]

>>3793421

So you want to adjust to only include those scientists that are more likely to be conservative?

To me, that graph just shows how useless single term labels are to describe a persons political position. And how useless the two parties are at actually representing anyone.

[Anonymous No.3793456]

e=mc^2 is just plain wrong, and Tesla knew this. The speed of light is NOT a constant, and it is NOT the cosmic speed limit. For all we know there is no cosmic speed limit.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793463]

>>3793438
>However, the people in this thread are debating over liberals and conservatives, which is just plain old bullshit.
Let's see, one side wants laissez faire, and one side wants government funded research. One side has all 8 candidates denying human evolution and most of them wanting creationism in some form taught in schools, and the other side abhors creationism - well, at least relatively. One side is against globing warming.

Really, Republicans are much more anti-reality than Democrats.

[Anonymous No.3793465]

>>3793456

>speed of light
>not a constant
>implying light can go faster

[Anonymous No.3793467]

>>3793243
>It must really tear you up inside.

No, no, it isn't. The thing you liberals are unable to understand is that personal religious views do not sway anyone else except your own views when it comes to political policy. You are all little children who do not understand that our country was founded on the principle of religious freedom. If you do not like the principles our founding fathers built this country on then you can leave.

LIBERTY > SECURITY

[Anonymous No.3793469]

>nothing can go faster than the speed of light
>RAISE THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Futurama was right.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793493]

>>3793467
So, you're for removing all restrictions to abortions in the first few months? You're for gay marriage? You don't mind if we have good sex ed in schools that teach proper condom use? Just checking.

[Anonymous No.3793501]

>>3792819
Up to a certain point. I think I can give liberals credit for starting government programs with good intentions but did not consider the consequences of implementing those kinds of programs. Kind of like that one quote that goes: you can ignore reality, but you can't ignore its consequences.

[Anonymous No.3793510]

>>3793501

>not consider the consequences

That's humanity for you, we have to learn those things the hard way, and even then we don't always care

[Anonymous No.3793516]

>>3793467
>If you do not like the principles our founding fathers built this country on then you can leave.

or we can vote to change them and watch you cry and threaten violence. Then you can leave.

[Anonymous No.3793519]

>>3793463

>Conservatives and Republicans
>Wanting Laissez-Faire

The Republican party has never been for Laissez-Faire or Classical Liberalism in all of it's history, and the only thing it ever did in a Libertarian direction was the abolishing of slavery (though at a huge cost, the Civil War was serious business). It is a NeoConservative party that does nothing but expand the State in all fronts. How the fuck could a "Laissez-Faire" party want to ENFORCE CREATIONISM in schools? That's a self-contradiction right there.

And hell, i'd say there is no such thing as "Laissez-Faire" in itself but different degrees of Laissez-Faire, and not even most Libertarians support it absolutely. The only political group that can be said to support absolute Laissez-Faire are the Anarcho-Capitalists, but they have nothing to do with this discussion and they work under a framework of contractually-enforced polycentric law that i doubt anyone here has ever even heard of nevermind study so it would be useless to argue about them.

[Anonymous No.3793523]

>>3793467

>LIBERTY > SECURITY

Where? Democrats want to snatch our liberty to provide a security net for the poor people. Republicans want to snatch our liberty to try and destroy people who don't like us.

[Anonymous No.3793526]

>>3793275
Then explain if I go to factory A I can see (for example) a robot painting parts but if I go to factory B I see a person painting the same parts. Don't believe me? Go marathon how it's made.

Explain why I can order a pizza online or walk into the local gas station and punch in my order on a screen. Yet when I ask McD's what their future automation plans are I get the run around.

The greatest restriction on automation currently is not technological. This has nothing to do with general purpose robots, human labor is specialized all the time.

[Anonymous No.3793535]

>>3793523

And Libertarians want neither of those.

They want you to use your damn liberty to help poor people rather than get the State to force everyone else to do it and they don't want to destroy people who don't like us.

[Anonymous No.3793540]

Why the fuck are you guys talking about politics? This thread could've been cool.

[Anonymous No.3793546]

>>3793526
I admit the argument really doesn't interest me.

they haven't invented a robot to do what I do, and if they ever do invent one I'm sure I can find work maintaining robots or something.

it's not something I stay up late at night thinking about though. We outsource far more often than we automate.

[Anonymous No.3793556]

does any of dis neutrino shit help me fap better??

[Anonymous No.3793569]

>>3793535

And the only thing close to a libertarian on the cards is Ron Paul.

And if he was President, the Republicans and Democrats who would still control the Congress and Senate would simply cockblock everything he tries to do, until he has four years of treading water and then Republicrat presidents again for the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous No.3793576]

>>3793546

>and if they ever do invent one I'm sure I can find work maintaining robots or something.

This is true, but you cannot have a functioning capitalist economy where 100% of people work in robot maintinence. That many are not needed and in the transitional period you will have millions displaced from work who are not intelligent enough or who are too old to retrain in robotics maintinence. You wind up with the same basic problem, our current economic system won't work if too many jobs are automated and there's nothing to prevent companies from automating to that extent, while they have ever-increasing financial motivation to do so as robots drop in price and increase in capability.

[Anonymous No.3793586]

>>3793576
except people are getting cheaper every day as well.

[Anonymous No.3793587]

How was e=mc^2 even remotely proven wrong to a large degree?

[Anonymous No.3793590]

>>3793493
>You're for gay marriage?


Woah, woah, woah, are we talking about STATE-CONTROLLED marriage in general? No, I am against that, the government should not interfere in our personal lives, gay or not.

>you're for removing all restrictions to abortions in the first few months?

Abortion should be a thing based on morals NOT government control, there should not be restrictions in the first place.

>You don't mind if we have good sex ed in schools that teach proper condom use?

What does freedom mean to you? That the teachers should have freedom and the student should not? Sex education should not even be in schools in the first place, something mandatory and without choice. The student can approach his teacher to learn these things or his parents, liberty means EVERYONE gets a choice, not whoever you like, you fucking crazy ass liberal douche.

Let me ask you something, are you pro-gun bans? pro-multiculturalism? want to ban drugs? pro state control?

Might I remind you Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate that wants to end the fed?

[Anonymous No.3793593]

Neutrinos are tachyons. nothing changes

[Anonymous No.3793601]

>>3793586

>except people are getting cheaper every day as well.

How so? Minimum wage has steadily increased, not decreased over the past several decades.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793609]

>>3793590
>Let me ask you something, are you pro-gun bans?
I against the crazy gun control we have in the US. I am for individual private gun ownership with some reasonable restrictions, which include no felonies, 3 day waiting period, but does not include some more asinine rules such as "lol assault weapon" bans.

>pro-multiculturalism?
I'm not sure what it means to be on either side of this issue.

>want to ban drugs?
Drug bans are stupid.

>pro state control?
Largely a red herring IMHO. Irrelevant. I care only because it's the current law of the land and I dislike when rule of law does not win. Otherwise, I don't see anything eminently wrong with the federal government dictating some education standards.

>Abortion should be a thing based on morals NOT government control, there should not be restrictions in the first place.
So, just to be clear, abortion should be legal, and murder should be illegal, right?

[Anonymous No.3793612]

>>3793465
the speed of light in a vacuum is constant (as far as we know) but the speed of light in general is not. light travels at different speeds through different mediums.

[Anonymous No.3793623]

>>3793601
money illusion.

it doesn't matter, automation over the next few decades could become a problem. Peak fossil fuels, peak phosphorus, climate change and depletion of aquifers are each much larger problems.

it's highly unlikely our civilization and infrastructure is going to last the rest of your life, robots taking jobs are the least of your worries.

[Anonymous No.3793630]

>People believing the old Broken Window Fallacy and thinking automation increases net unemployment
>People judging the rising average price of labor based on the minimum wage rather than the average real wages

Jesus fucking Christ does anyone here even know what he's talking about?

[Anonymous No.3793649]

>>3793441
>... This shit's more complex than it might initially seem, it's as much sociology (boo hiss, I know) as it is mathematics.

So basically cheaper implies lower quality because of the value system instilled in people and is completely detached from any actual assessment of quality.

That certainly explains why rationality doesn't work when discussing economics.

[Anonymous No.3793651]

>>3793630
Incompetent people WILL be forced out of a job. They lack education to do things that machines cannot.

[Anonymous No.3793656]

>>3793630

>>People believing the old Broken Window Fallacy and thinking automation increases net unemployment

It does, provably. It differs from the industrial revolution in that the mere application of engines to labor still required people to operate the machines. Robots are different. There is no form of labor which cannot in principle be performed by a robot, including robot construction and maintinence. Brains were still needed in the post-industrial revolution world. But we have now built those brains into our machines.

While the industrial revolution created more new jobs than it destroyed, every job created by robotic automation can, itself, be automated. Even design jobs can be largely automated by the use of evolutionary algorithms.

[Anonymous No.3793663]

>>3793609
>So, just to be clear, abortion should be legal, and murder should be illegal, right?

Abortion like murder SHOULD be based around the morals of the people, that is an actual free society. However such a society will not exist for a long time. That is where libertarianism comes in, it is not for the complete abolition of the government it is just for minimization of power. I personally believe someone who gets pregnant SHOULD take responsibility for their actions, after all reproduction requires 2 people. However a woman who was impregnated through criminal means, should be allowed to abort the baby, it is her choice.

>reasonable restrictions

The government shouldn't be able to tell us what is right or wrong we should be able to make the moral decision ourselves. To want restrictions on guns and no bans on drugs is entirely hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.3793670]

>>3793649
veblen good.

sums it up nicely. I'm not that business owner, I'm the other one... but I don't sell to people who can't afford to pay more than the going rate. I don't want customers that want cheap things. Not only do I make less money off them, but I have to spend more time trying to meet their needs since they're used to buying crap and expect to be ripped off.

80/20 rule in full effect.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793678]

>>3793663
So, would you support the legitimacy of a government which allows for slavery if the majority of the people want it? Presumably, you would say that's wrong, despite that most people were for it.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793699]

>>3793663
>The government shouldn't be able to tell us what is right or wrong we should be able to make the moral decision ourselves. To want restrictions on guns and no bans on drugs is entirely hypocritical.
You're making a lot of leaps here. Let me spell out where you're wrong.

I am for allowing people to hurt themselves if they so choose. I am against allow people to hurt others. I am for the complete regulation and control of nuclear weapons. It shall never be legal for a civilian to have nuclear grade material without government oversight.

[Anonymous No.3793737]

>>3793651

And into nothingness?

Look, let's say automation now allows one man to do the work of ten. So ten times the stuff is made, or one tenth the effort is required. The people who aren't making this stuff can provide other products and services to the stuff-producers get the essentials, and the overall cost of actually getting the essentials would drop. This is nowadays.

If one man could do the work of a thousand, and if the means of production are open-source, things get different. Now, it would be ridiculous to charge anybody for the essentials. Since some small effort on any one persons part could produce enough stuff for them to live on, they could easily trade their days on for hundreds of days off. And besides, they'd still be designing products, creating content, and offering services, which would still provide a free market for people to excel, while at the same time nobody would be at risk of becoming so poor they would starve.

Automation on that scale is only a problem if some authority decides to limit it's availability, create a false scarcity in order to maintain the relative wealth of a small group at the expense of a massive increase in general wealth.

[Anonymous No.3793770]

>>3793463

"liberals and conservatives" does not translate into "democrats and republicans" anywhere but in the USA. Please don't confuse your political parties with political ideologies.

[Anonymous No.3793774]

>>3792770

I lol'd

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3793776]

>>3793770
The rest of the discussion was US centric. I was replying in kind.

[Anonymous No.3793793]

>>3793737

>Now, it would be ridiculous to charge anybody for the essentials.

And yet, they will, because they have no reason to give it away. Will they do so out of the goodness of their hearts?

>Automation on that scale is only a problem if some authority decides to limit it's availability, create a false scarcity in order to maintain the relative wealth of a small group at the expense of a massive increase in general wealth.

This is already what's happening. It is in any corporation's best interests to automate aggressively, eliminating jobs without passing the savings on to consumers. It simply translates into rapidly increasing profits, although it won't last; Eventually they'll have eliminated the middle class and nobody will be left to buy their goods.

At that point they can simply suckle from their own teat; The robots will provide for them, as the poor starve in ghettos policed by robots or are exterminated by them.

[Anonymous No.3793884]

>>3793793

That's the danger of automation and technology in general, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion.

My point in the 1000x automation section was that it wouldn't need to be out of the kindness of a persons heart. If one days work is worth a thousand, then you only need to work one day every three years to get enough credit to live. Who would begrudge their family a few extra hours a month?

No, at sufficient levels of automation, it becomes perverse to actually do anything so crass as CHARGE for the essentials. By that stage, the damage to your reputation for the Ebeneezrian levels of greed would be more compelling to you than trying to avoid the few hours a month you might need to put in the public pot.

[Anonymous No.3793919]

>>3793884

>If one days work is worth a thousand, then you only need to work one day every three years to get enough credit to live.

It doesn't work this way. Automation devalues human labor. It doesn't mean we get paid enough to live on by working one day in a thousand. It means no human workers are needed, or if some are they are paid just enough to survive and there aren't enough of these jobs to sustain an economy.

>No, at sufficient levels of automation, it becomes perverse to actually do anything so crass as CHARGE for the essentials.

Yes, and corporations will do it anyway as they are beyond concepts like perversity. With nothing to prevent them from maximizing profits at our expense, they will do so.

>By that stage, the damage to your reputation for the Ebeneezrian levels of greed would be more compelling to you than trying to avoid the few hours a month you might need to put in the public pot.

When they no longer need us to work for them or buy their products, they will not care what their reputation is. They are nearly to that point right now for similar reasons; They provide the work, and we need the work to live, which puts them beyond most forms of control we could otherwise exert against them.

[Marion Bartoli is my Waifu No.3793933]

>>3793884
> scrooge
> greedy
nah bro

[Anonymous No.3793972]

>>3793919

That is only so long as the means of production and automation are able to be centrally controlled. For now, it is by technological necessity.

If people can make laws that effectively place the means under central control, they can cause this situation to persist for longer, promoting relatively greater wealth for a limited class at the expense of greater overall wealth for everyone. I don't doubt that this may be tried. But if even one place in the world doesn't do this, well, they'll just compete the authoritarian powers out of relevance.


I assume you are also against the move away from agriculture, right? If we no longer need 95% of people working on the farm, but only 1%, that devalues their labor, and makes for 94% unemployment. Or perhaps there is some sweet spot in between maximum work multipliers and minimum work multipliers that we have already passed? One that most empowers the individual, the common man?

[Anonymous No.3794010]

oh boy, a /new/ thread. i'm getting giddy!

[Anonymous No.3794036]

Here is what I think OP, the usa and all of the west will look like that, but not because of socialism but rather because the Chinese will have too much buying power and people.

[Anonymous No.3794050]

>>3793972

>I assume you are also against the move away from agriculture, right?

I am for automation, however dismal I might make it sound. But I insist that without a new economic system that compels those who own the robots to provide the displaced human workers with an equivalent of their former wage in the form of some cut of the goods produced by the robots, we will wind up with an intolerably enormous gap between the rich and the poor, to the point where the wealthy have absolute control and live like gods while 90% of the population lives in nearly post-apocalyptic squalor.

[Anonymous No.3794107]

>>3794050

Well, then. It appears we agree, sir.

I have to go; good thread guys. Could have been lame, but was actually good. 8/10.

[Anonymous No.3794221]

>>3792730
>>feed those who don't
replace that with feed those who are destitute.
also, what the fuck is up with the image? you trying to say something? because no one pictures the future looking like that and also believes in all the fancy words under it.

[Anonymous No.3794241]

In conclusion, you're all asshats with clown suits on stilts juggling pies.

Shit, /sci/ really sucks at economics. A lot of you jump to some erroneous conclusions, as if PEOPLE allowed each other to die before a big welfare government bureaucracy was created. The absence of government does not mean the absence of morality and ethics. This is the same argument most religious people make against atheist. This is something everyone should consider about having a stateless society.

[Anonymous No.3794266]

Fuck this board.

Every potentially interesting discussion turns into either religion or politics.

I hope moot fucking kills this board.

[Anonymous No.3794275]

Libfag reporting in, believing in taxing the rich, and giving money to job training or family planning to the poor, and all that good stuff. However, out of the all those schmucks running for president, I hope Ron Paul wins. Obama can't win, and if he did the republicans would still refuse to vote for anything that isn't up to their standards. Bachmann is a Sarah Palin 2.0. Romney is not good. Perry is okay. Paul, on the other hand would let the states run themselves. I live in a liberal state, under paul, we can continue to be liberal. Ron will fix the executive's branches power, and stop American imperialism.

I really hope the media stops ignoring him.

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3794278]

>>3794266
Protip: Nothing interesting can come from the FTL neutrino discussion. If something interesting does happen, it very well may win a Nobel prize.

Instead, we should be fapping over LFTR, discussing whether we want graphite moderation, and if we can sell protactinium extraction or whether we need to keep the uranium denatured for profileration concerns.

[Anonymous No.3794282]

>>3794241
>The absence of government does not mean the absence of morality and ethics
Who's gonna enforce the rules?

[Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH No.3794293]

>>3794241
No, you are simply wrong.

In small hunter gatherer groups, people have an interest and a "instinct" to take care of each other. This works well for a few hundred people or so. Once you get above that, the freerider problem kicks in, and you need a government.

[Anonymous No.3794294]

>>3794275
youre retarded, ron paul personaly believes the fucking founding fathers intended america to have christianity as a state religion. hes a fucking WACKO. if you want to do something productive, VOTE SOMEONE ELSE IN.

why are people so stupid they cant see the long term benefits of voting for someone whos good that will probably lose? pushing someone whos competant in the office wont happen until people realize their failures and near successes can have an affect on the voting public.

[Anonymous No.3794297]

"Yeah time dilation. Read up on the wiki.
As you approach the speed of light, time approaches 0.
If you pass it, theoretically, you are going back in time."

...

if you're imagining time as being a number line with negative numbers on it, sure; but time itself is only a mental construct... moments pass one AFTER another... causing a perfectly unique moment (a universe-wide instant in space-time) that's already happened to happen again, and then the one preceding it, etc. is an impossibility of reality (though of course theoretically possible... all this backwards time travel theory stuff is just cop-out always-gonna-be theory bullshit to me anyway... i mean, past events don't exist anymore, they aren't saved somewhere, able to be accessed later by whatever 25 year-old power lifter wizard that builds the first time machine).

but given your explanation of time dilation, in theory if neutrinos are moving faster than light then shouldn't we consider them as having come from the future, traveling constantly backwards in time?

[Anonymous No.3794336]

>>3794297

Good luck getting a spacecraft that can hold a human being into FTL orbit around Earth in order to travel back in time.

[Anonymous No.3794340]

>>3793447
>from fallout
Holy carp, youre right
Brix were shat

[Anonymous No.3794377]

>>3793119
>liberals
>white

Lol no. Over 90% of blacks, and similar numbers for other minorities, vote for Democrats and identify as liberal.

Are you implying there are more nonwhites with conservative or Republican leanings? Have you seen Tea Parties?

[Anonymous No.3794400]

>>3793601
Not adjusted for inflation, standard of living in US has been long in decline, multimillionaire anon was right in that a million dollars today does not amount to that much that most middle class struggle to achieve what was standard in their parents and grandparents time

[Anonymous No.3794409]

>>3794400
Err i meant to say inflation and cost of living
no point getting a 20% pay rise if everything costs 50% more, arbritrary example but you get the point

[Anonymous No.3794427]

Holy shit mods, kill this thread already.

[Anonymous No.3794871]

>>3794377
lolno

blacks are counted as conservatives, they vote democrat though

conservative/liberal = values

republican/democrat = parties

niggers always vote democrat despite their values being conservative because free stuff from the government is always #1 for them and liberal democrat shitfucks love giving it to them for votes

[Anonymous No.3794893]

>physics
>hard science

[Anonymous No.3794894]

>>3792730
I thought only a part of Einstein's theory was disproved, not the entirety of it?

[Anonymous No.3794904]

>>3794894
Technically, the theory still stands. It just needs to be modified to fit the new evidence.

[Anonymous No.3794929]

>>3793195
Doesn't he support prayers in schools and thinks the churches shouldn't be taxed? I heard that from Penn Jillette, a libertarian.

[Anonymous No.3794946]

>>3792730
>Megaton
>believes the government should feed them

what?