Not that feature of the U.S. If I could improve the U.S., we'd have less of the Tea Party, less of the Bible Belt, less money spent on wars, less Christianity, less rampant growth into wilderness, better education for math and science...

Godel's incompleteness theorem(s) is/are known as Godel's Theorem.

Not 7 to 10 years. Maybe 70 to 100 years.

It has it's disadvantages and advantages. Probably the best advantage is near complete elimination of wars. If it was like the U.S., with countries acting like states, it might work.

I speak from firsthand experience.


Sadly, I have not yet watched the video. Frustrating, isn't it? I mean, geez, it's just five minutes. And I love TED too! However, the image is somewhat helpful. So is he saying that stupid ringtones are where the financial losses are, and music piracy does not account for most of the losses?

If the digits on the LHS go on forever, is the above statement true or false?

Speaking of provocative, is Godel's Theorem provocative? I only wish I understood it enough to say yes or no.

Whenever I invite people into discussing a topic without throwing out some really provocative viewpoints to begin with, the thread ends up being a meta discussion about discussing the topic instead of discussing the topic.

Frustrating as hell.

Evolution seems solved. Maybe it's deserving of entry into the list within the context of human transcendence. I think to be a candidate for the list, it needs to be not entirely solved, with implications regarding the future of mankind.

Let's see:

- The Singularity: yes
- Immortality: yes
- Life in the Universe: yes
- The Hard Problem: yes
- The Easy Problem: yes
- Quantum entanglement: yes
- The Two Slit Experiment: yes
- Bell's Theorem: maybe
- Gödel's Theorem: maybe
- Relativity: yes
- Dark Energy: yes
- The human diaspora (prehistoric): maybe
- The human diaspora (in the future): yes
- The overkill hypothesis: yes
- Climate change: yes
- The human socio-economic-political complex: yes
- Steady state economics: yes

I'm still waiting for some pondering on these subjects - rather than pondering on what should be and not be on the list.

Yes, I know, I'm guilty too. That's because my responses are influenced by the existence of meta pondering rather than the pondering.

Your post has really bad timing. Try reading my last post. Oh, and Vernor Vinge is a Hugo winner. Read A Fire Upon the Deep and then get back to me.

I think another primary reason people like getting paid in cash is it is often paid at the end of the day for work rendered. It's often amazing how the incentive to work for less goes up when one knows payment is forthcoming immediately.

Let's begin with the Singularity. And no, we're not talking about black holes or a mathematical concept. It's something else.

Here's the paper by the science fiction author Vernor Vinge who coined the term and will allow you to familiarize yourself with the concept: http://www.forbiddengate.com/vinge-singularity.pdf

I have reason to believe the outcome is going to be bad, not good.

I had never heard of Quantum Suicide before. I googled it and it's interesting. Thanks. It also reminded me of Schrödinger's cat, which I am aware of. Should either of these be added to the list? I am not certain. We have three quantum mechanics topics in the list already which pretty much capture the gamut of quantum physics.

Maybe the Big Bang would be a candidate for the list though?

It has nothing to do with stamina or efficiency. The 70 hour workers (not managers) simply don't value any free time. Sticking Twinkies on a shelf is stimulating to them on some level beyond what others deem acceptable.

What about the average person who doesn't want to listen to the asshole manager tell them that he works 80 hours a week and if the employee can't do the same, well then he'll just have to take a hike. That's the way it would be.

There's a big difference in spending 80 hours managing and being managed for 80 hours a week. I'm sure the employees he scheduled just loved hearing him say "I work 80 hours every week."

You're not getting it. The other point is you said you have never worked 40 hour weeks. Try it for six months, and then report back with your new viewpoint on the matter.

That's my point. You're in competition with people who can outwork you like you can't believe. You probably can't keep up with them. They just work and sleep. If not for time and half, the business would fire you because you finally get tired of 70 hour weeks.

Speaking from inexperience, I see. You said it yourself - it's your first time entering the workforce. I guarantee you, one day you'll find that after you work 40 hours a week, and go to and from work, and eat, and sleep, that your personal times is not much, and then when your employer says, we need you for 48 hours this week, and so on, and it's damn inconvenient, and the employer starts to give you shit work because you're a complainer, and so on...

You'll be damn glad they have to pay you time and a half for overtime.

Be thankful that overtime is time and a half. You have no idea. The whole thing you're missing is without time and a half as a disincentive for the employer to work you more than 40 hours a week, they'd walk all over you if you didn't work 60 hours a week and fire your ass if it happened to be inconvenient for you because in this climate, they have a lot of people who will work 60 and 70 hours a week and they don't need an extra employee on the books if you don't want to do that for the next five years.

Get out there and work 40 hour weeks for six months straight and then report back here.

Obviously I'm going to have to start a thread on each one of these topics.

Incorrect. It's more like this:

1. Standard medical treatment for minor to moderate things which happen several times such as: sliced finger, concussion, broken arm, skin irritations, etc. Many people do nothing about these because they can't afford them. These things add up.

2. Expensive events which typically happen once or twice or three times in a lifetime and can extend life thirty years or more, such as: appendicitis, breast cancer and mastectomy, triple bypass surgery, skin cancer removal, etc.

3. End of life care. Very expensive.

Now, scenarios 1 and 2 are simply not affordable to a huge portion of the population, often with health insurance, and definitely without health insurance. In such situations, they don't get treatment and die. Those who do get treatment go on live life for twenty, thirty, or even forty or more years.