Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 02 February 2010 06:59:38PM 2 points [-]

Singapore isin't a Western nation or a fully developed on, and they have extremely high economic growth (around 10%), so that's not comparable to stable Westerne economies.

Whether Singapore is considered "Western" or not is irrelevant. The disagreement was over whether the "economic crisis" forced the current US Government to run up large amount of debt. Singapore shows that not only is it possible to face a global economic crisis without running up large amounts of debt, but that doing so can leave you better off in terms of unemployment. And to claim that Singapore isn't a "developed" nation is quite strange. Singapore has a per capita GDP of $50,300, while the US only has a per capita GDP of $46,400, Germany has a per capita GDP of $34,200, and France has a per capita GDP of $32,800. Are you going to argue that the US, Germany, and France aren't fully developed?

Furthermore, economic crisis did indeed cause large debts, because it caused the tax income for the state to drop, and the rest was loaned because Western nations do not wan't to reduce spending.

The economic crisis only caused large debt increases if going out to eat everyday causes me to take on debt (because I refuse to cut back elsewhere in my budget). The fact remains that there were viable alternatives to multiplying the debt (alternatives that actually worked better in the case of Singapore).

Although nothing seems to have consensus in economics, many economists made the decision not to cut spending, which can make the economic crisis even worse. I think that was even a common agreement amongst most Western nations.

The fact that Western nations listened to the economists that told them that current events justifies them increasing their own discretionary power and ability to give handouts to their allies instead of listening to economists that told them otherwise doesn't surprise me one bit.

Comment author: nawitus 02 February 2010 08:29:26PM *  -1 points [-]

I posted a link that showed Singapore had a budget deficit the very second their economy shrinked, in fact, the same thing happened in Western nations. Singapore didn't have to take a loan because thay had a national reserve.

So in fact the policy Singapore has is the same as Western nations, with the only difference that Singapore happened to have money saved. Singapore didn't want to cut spending to they used their savings. There's no real difference in policy, they even have a stimulus package.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 01 February 2010 06:32:55PM 1 point [-]

You can compare those, because the large debts weren't caused by the "economic crisis". The fact that most Western nations also ran up debt doesn't mean the economic crisis caused the debt increase, only that they chose the same response to the economic crisis (which probably has more to do with increasing their own discretionary power than with lowering unemployment).

Singapore didn't run up huge levels of debt and has a much lower unemployment level than the countries that did run up debt. They could have chosen otherwise, but didn't.

Comment author: nawitus 02 February 2010 06:37:07PM *  -1 points [-]

Singapore isin't a Western nation or a fully developed on, and they have extremely high economic growth (around 10%), so that's not comparable to stable Westerne economies. Singapore had economic growth of 1.1% during 2008, so they didn't have to loan anything in that year.

In fact, a quick search showed that Singapore had significant budget deficit for 2009: "-- 2009/2010 budget deficit to be 6 pct of GDP, before accounting for transfers. " So it seems Singapore has used their national reserves immediately after their economy fell, just like all the other Western nations. They don't have to take a loan because they have significant national reserves.

Although it's true that Obama has increased spending more than Bush, even if he didn't increase it (inflation adjusted) at all, the U.S. would have taken a significant loan, just like all the other Western nations, as tax income dropped for probably all of them.

Furthermore, economic crisis did indeed cause large debts, because it caused the tax income for the state to drop, and the rest was loaned because Western nations do not wan't to reduce spending. Although nothing seems to have consensus in economics, many economists made the decision not to cut spending, which can make the economic crisis even worse. I think that was even a common agreement amongst most Western nations.

Summing up, your claim that large debts are a bad thing in this situation has not been proved at all. Although I'm not an expert in economics, there's no consensus for that claim in science.

http://www.economywatch.com/economy-business-and-finance-news/singapore-budget-2009-resilience-package-is-economic-stimulus.html

Singapore, 22 Jan. S$20.5b (US$15b) might not sound like a lot of money in these days of trillion dollar collapses, but when it represents 6% of GDP (estimated at US$227b in 2007), then it becomes one of the most aggressive stimulus plans on a per capita basis in the planet.

Comment author: SilasBarta 01 February 2010 03:45:51PM *  7 points [-]

operate solely on a substrate of neurons in the physical brain.

As opposed to ...? Ion channels? Quantum phenomena? Multiple interacting brains? Non-neuronal tissue? Neuronal-but-extracranial cells? Soul? Beings outside the observable universe, running the simulator?

What is this belief supposed to be distinguished from?

Comment author: nawitus 01 February 2010 06:23:35PM 2 points [-]

Well, hormones, and chemicals such as DMT or endocannabinoids etc surely affect the thinking progress. But the phrasing of the question is not really clear to say if you can count these.

Comment author: Jayson_Virissimo 01 February 2010 05:46:38PM 0 points [-]

He didn't increase the projected level of debt for the US as much as the current president.

Comment author: nawitus 01 February 2010 06:13:24PM -1 points [-]

You can't compare those, because the economic crisis happened mostly after Bush. Large debts have been taken by pretty much all Western nations.

In response to comment by jhuffman on Normal Cryonics
Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 28 January 2010 02:10:33PM *  2 points [-]

Yes, well, I think it's safe to say that quite a few cryonics patients and orgs are concerned about that. There are complex technologies to prevent it, but also a simple one, widely available if you have any local cryonics group. It's called crushed ice, and a lot of stores will sell it to you.

Comment author: nawitus 28 January 2010 02:26:21PM 2 points [-]

What we need are studies of damage from vitrification when the operation was not done immediately after death, but after few hours as it usually happens.

In response to Welcome to Heaven
Comment author: nawitus 26 January 2010 08:04:56AM 6 points [-]

I think people shy away from wireheading because a future full of wireheads would be very boring indeed. People like to think there's more to existence than that. They wan't to experience something more interesting than eternal pleasure. And that's exactly what an FAI should allow.

In response to Easy Predictor Tests
Comment author: nawitus 21 January 2010 11:18:14PM 3 points [-]

Somewhat offtopic, but I'd like to see someone writing a GreaseMonkey script which hides the name of the commenter and the current score level on all comments, so you're not being influenced by the status of the commenter and/or the current score level on that comment. The commenter name could be seen with a mouseover so you can reply to it though.

In response to That Magical Click
Comment author: nawitus 20 January 2010 05:21:52PM 3 points [-]

Isin't it more sane to donate money to organizations fighting against existential risks rather than spending money on cryonics?

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 24 December 2009 12:15:00AM *  1 point [-]

Oops, sorry, I wrote an incorrect explanation, having relied on confabulation of fading memories too much. Here is a reworked one:

In the simplest case, air pushes the propeller forwards, but it doesn't significantly rotate it. The propeller is a sail. If it were a normal cart moving faster than wind with propeller not attached to anything, it would be the same direction of the rotation (but our propeller rotates faster). At the same time, the propeller is rigidly connected to the wheels, which allows it to rotate faster than the headwind would make it. As a result, it is pushed by the wind from behind rather than resisted, which accelerates the cart, which lends power to the propeller to keep on rotating faster than it otherwise would.

It is a bad intuition to see propeller as throwing the air backwards at speed higher than the difference of cart's speed and the speed of the wind, as the cart is essentially fueled by the resulting hind-wind, not the other way around. Also, the propeller only needs to go a little bit faster than it would because of the headwind.

Comment author: nawitus 24 December 2009 01:49:06PM 0 points [-]

That's a pretty good explanation. Another way to look at it is to think what would happen if the propeller was not connected to the wheels. In that situation, the cart would travel as fast as the wind, but the propeller would spin at high speed. If you connect the propeller to the wheels that energy is used to further increase velocity.

In fact, it would work if you place a radio controlled clutch between the propeller and the wheels. First wait for the cart to accelerate to wind speed, and the propeller to rotate faster than the wheels (if it's 1:1 ratio without gears), then engage the clutch. The end result would be that the wheels would rotate at a higher speed and thus the cart would travel faster than the wind.

Comment author: PlaidX 23 December 2009 11:50:28AM 5 points [-]

When an airplane crashes, the wreckage is preserved in painstaking detail, often re-assembled in warehouses in exactly the configuration it was found at the crash site, in order to determine exactly what went wrong.

You would think that when a 47 story skyscraper spontaneously collapses, a wholly unprecedented event, that this engineering failure would be investigated even MORE thoroughly. But instead, it's simply melted down in blast furnaces, over the objections of the victims' families and, among others, fire engineering magazine, which said something like "this destruction of evidence must stop immediately".

Comment author: nawitus 24 December 2009 12:35:14PM 0 points [-]

If you're referring to WTC 7, it didn't spontaneously collapse, it collapsed because of a fire. There was 91 000 liters of diesel fuel stored in that building for generators. Anyway, a few years ago a similar university building collapsed in Netherlands I believe. Even if it didn't, just because something happens the first time, doesn't mean the official report is wrong. A lot of things happen the first time, like a nuclear plant has exploded only once in history.

View more: Prev | Next