rkbabang

I introduced no straw into the argument. What you said was ridiculous and indefensible. Which is why your only defense was an ad hominem. OK, show some data or evidence that demonstrates the economic impact of the printing press since its invention in 1454 and let's say 1700. I've been alone here putting evidence on the table, while most dismisse it with a sleight of hand. My only defense is that evidence: * Agriculture was 99.9% of the world output until the industrial revolution * The printing press does not show in the slow advances of agriculture, detailed in 1493. * There is no evidence in output per capita growth in history until the industrial revolution. * The gap of the richest countries compared the poorest countries until the industrial revolution were minor compared to today's standards. * Check the graph of historic GDP per capita. You can't see the printing press, you can see the steam engine. Now, if you think that the printing press was an enabling technology for the industrial revolution 300 years later, that only reinforces the point of that post: a technology is a tool, and its worth only depends on its use. You use it for art you get Gutenberg's bible, you use it for science you get Principia Mathematica, you use it for political theory you get The Prince, you use it for religion you get Luther and the King James' bible. Why wasn't it used for agricultural innovation? The industrial revolution is one of the most mysterious events in human history. What was stopping the invention of the steam engine or the cotton gin for centuries? The technologies are not that complicated. I doubt that it was the printing press but I concede that an argument can be made on it importance disseminating the steam experiments in France from the late 1600s … but letters worked well for Kepler and Brahe. I was reading today about the semaphore, the predecessor of the telegraph, that was introduced during the French Revolution and latter perfected by Napoleon. The technology is so ridiculously simple that it is not easy to understand why it wasn't introduced thousands of years before. No need of a printing press for that. The industrial revolution origins are not that clear even today after dozens of books and hundreds of years of accumulated investigation. Almost every year there is a new book (irony) that fails to solve that puzzle. Economic output was handicapped by the church and the feudal system. These were systematic, crippling handicaps which needed to be broken and it took centuries. The printing press is what got the ball rolling and enabled these systems to be eventually destroyed. Look at the computer. You don't see an immediate impact in 1946 after the first computer. You don't see a major economic impact for another 40 years, at least. Tt is safe to say that innovation makes an impact 10 times quicker now than it did in the 15th century, so 40 years now = 400 years then. Not to mention the computer didn't have to re-organize the way society worked before making an impact, the printing press did. The internet is a better analogy to the printing press, in that it will eventually completely change the way society works. Destroying old systems, building new ones, destroying them and building still newer systems. This will be a process that will take a long time. You can see the realization beginning to dawn on some people already that business can be done between any two people on Earth as easily as it can be done locally, but all of these physical political boundaries unnecessarily complicate things and get in the way. Look at Apple trying to figure out what to do with its cash. Where the most difficult part wasn't how to create excellent devices or how to best benefit shareholders, but rather how to make sure the parasites don't steal an excessive amount of it. People have a resistance to changing how they view the world. Things will stay the same until the cognitive dissonance required to fool oneself becomes unbearable. That is when (like serfdom, slavery, women's rights, or gay rights) the generally accepted way that things "have always been done", becomes generally accepted to be immoral and is changed.

A dangerous market to be in, because it is ripe for nationalization. The currently accepted theory is that people have a right to free healthcare and most pet owners I know think that pets are people too.

I introduced no straw into the argument. What you said was ridiculous and indefensible. Which is why your only defense was an ad hominem. Yes the printing press caused wars, but it didn't just cause wars. And saying it had no effect on the economy is completely false. Almost all of the growth in the worlds economy since its invention is directly attributable to it. Every improvement in your life over that of a medieval serf is directly attributable to it. It is like saying "the invention of fire added nothing to the economy it just caused a lot of burns". Asinine. Also I am not a "confessed" anarchist. You only need to confess something for which you are not proud of, like the commission or support of a crime. With all of the murder (hundreds of millions in the 20th century alone) committed by governments, wars, massive theft from almost everyone on the planet (anyone with anything to steal anyway), I can see why someone would be a "confessed statist", but there is no need to confess to being apposed to the legitimization of violence on a massive scale. You smell logical fallacies where there are none, yet are quite proficient in their application.

I disagree, they are probably both right, but they just have their time scales all wrong. Peter Thiel is more correct the shorter the timescale you look at (for instance, nothing life changing has happened this week as far as I know), he's just wrong saying that it has been 30 years. Where Kurzweil probably will be right eventually, he just may be off by a hundred years or three.

No argument there, knowledge and technology can be beautiful and so can be art. But technology can also have bad effects. For example, the invention of the printing press had no economic impact at all, and instead was a trigger of religious wars. Yes we should never have allowed the serfs to read the Bible, the church should have retained all of its power and we'd still be living peaceably in the dark ages. Wow. The internet is going to cause more war, death and destruction than the printing press did as people eventually realize that government itself is no more necessary than religion was (this will take centuries, just as it has taken centuries for religion to fall, a still on-going process in itself), but it is a necessary step in the evolution of our society, just as the printing press was. Just because it subjects us to the death throes of a dieing beast losing its grip on its power, doesn't mean that it wasn't a good thing. The beast was the problem to begin with, not the process of ridding society of its control.

moon landing: 1969 the first flight: 1903 the creation of the internal combustion engine: early to mid 19th century. the development of the first electronic computers: 1946 (ENIAC) with the first microprosesors not arriving until the early 1970s. It doesn't seem like major completely new innovations happened all that frequently in the past either. The thing is none of the above happened out of the blue. The internal combustion engine was built up from innovations starting as far back as the Romans in the 3rd century using crankshafts and connecting rods in saw mills. (Hierapolis_sawmill) The digital computer was built on mathmatics done in previous centuries. And the hardware itself is simply built upon the same principles of mechanical computing machines, which have been envisioned as far back as Liebniz. Vacuum tubes (and later transistors) serve as the valves in the machine. Nothing ever springs forth from nowhere. Technology builds upon itself in small steps (and sometimes leaps or bounds), but always built upon what comes before. Sometimes a purely theoretical idea can sit around for centuries before we are ready to put it to practical use. Right now we are in the process of connecting everyone and everything together. This will lead to things we can't yet imagine when the process is finished. Thiel is a smart guy, but that is an asinine statement if I ever heard one.

Glad to hear that you are OK. I had a similar accident when I was a teenager in the 80's. I was on a moped in a school parking lot and I had it going as fast as it could go (maybe 30mph) and I went around the corner of the building head on into a Mazda RX7 that was being driven by a guy in his 20's also faster than he should have been going around the corner. I flew over the car, bounced once on his roof (my body made a dent in it) and landed on the pavement behind the car getting some minor road rash on my arms and legs. The moped was completely totaled and the front end of his new RX-7 was a mess. It's a scary feeling in that fraction of a second when you first realize the collision is going to happen.

You said yourself that these things can't be answered with precision and I agree. Any answer is nothing but fortune telling and/or opinionated guess work. But I will make my guess. 85%: This isn't a high-hyper-inflation scenario and with all the money printing going on I think it is safe to assume that 5% is likely to be reached in at least one year out of the next 20. 50%: 20 years is a long time and the rate of change is picking up. I think we are likely to see more change in the next 20 years to our society and our way of life than we've had in the last 60. I'd say it is as likely as not that the position of the US, in general, and the US dollar, specifically, in the world will be one of those major changes.

It's "Sell in May and buy a Tesla".

I don't see anyone here saying that they are trying to time the market. The message I get from this thread is that people are feeling a little uneasy, because finding something to invest in is getting harder and harder with this rally. I have a watch list of about 50 stocks and it has just been a sea of green lately. I've never been one to hold cash, I've been fully invested (or nearly so) for the last 12 years or so and I have only about 7% cash right now which isn't that far from typical for me, if anything a little more than usual. But I am getting that uneasy feeling that I always feel when things go too good for too long. I think that is all anyone is saying. I don't see anyone trying to predict a date for a crash.

OK now I'm getting scared. This is a quote from a Facebook post from an acquaintance of mine who has never posted anything about investing or finance before (usually posts about 80s rap music and being an unemployed DJ) and is now apparently trying to run an investment advice newsletter on the internet. He's got a 5 week record to brag about. Hell my portfolio is up by 30% in the last 5 weeks and I am not even in short term options.

Oh its a hockey thing. I've never in my life lived more than 60miles from Boston, yet I had to Google "leafs Boston" to find out what you were talking about.

Sugar isn't poison the way arsenic is, it is more poison the way smoking tobacco is. Anything that doesn't kill many of the people that ingest it, and takes decades to kill even the people it does take out isn't really a poison. It just isn't very good for you. Take notice of the one lady that lived into her 120s who didn't give up smoking until she was 117. This does not mean that the anti smoking propaganda is full of crap, it just means that smoking will not kill everyone. Sugar consumption is the same.

+1 for: "I love bacon and I eat it everyday. I don't feel as old as I am, that's all I can say."

I'm no fan of the Koch's, they have a long history of trying to take over the libertarian movement and its institutions and push it to the right. But I'm also no fan of the current left-wing owners of most newspapers either, so I don't see much of difference who owns them. I don't view the world as left-vs-right, I view it as statism vs. freedom. Both the left and the right are together, equal, and entirely encompassed in the statism category. Whether the media is controlled by the Koch's, Rupert Murdoch, or Ted Turner it makes no discernible difference to me.

Where did you get that Model X was supposed to be sub 40k? The Model X is built on the Model S platform and should have similar pricing. It's the next platform - still under development - that should be less expensive and built in higher volumes. I had that understanding too. I thought I read somewhere that the Model X was going to be aimed at the <$40K market. Maybe I misunderstood and it was the next model after the model X that was being referenced. That would make more sense since the Model X looks like it will be similar in specs and quality to the Model S on Tesla's website.

"Caution: To avoid whiplash make sure your head is already on the headrest before punching the accelerator." Don't look down at the radio while taking off. :)

I forgot about the regenerative braking. That does seem like it would put less strain on the brake pads and rotors. A/C being electric would put a big strain on the batteries I think. Picture what kind of battery pack it would take to run an A/C unit. I wonder if the range takes a big hit when using A/C. I could see the resale value taking a big hit as the batteries loose their capacity. Someone buying a 12 year old car would need to either live with reduced range, which gets lower every year, or the prospect of spending a large amount on an old car. This probably doesn't matter to the Model S market (buyers of new luxury cars don't care if the car lasts 10 years, because they won't own them that long anyway), but potential Model X buyers are going to think about these things. From what I gather the maintenance costs are much less for the first 10 years, but you might not be able to get much for it after 10-12 years or so. Good for the person who buys the car new, compared with buying a conventional car, but not good for the person who wants to buy a used one.

+10 Yes. If you want to see an example of both just flip between MSNBC and FOXNEWS. They are equally sickening.

I’m wondering about their next model the Model X, which will be marketed to Average Jane (or at least upper middle class Jane). This market requires consideration of price, resale value, maintenance costs, and total cost of ownership. Does anyone know what the maintenance requirements of one of Tesla’s vehicles are and what the costs are compared to a gas vehicle which needs (off the top of my head): 1) Oil Change every 3-10K 2) Timing Belt/Chain replacement every 60-100K 3) Antifreeze 4) Spark plugs 5) PCV valve 6) Transmission fluid 7) A/C refrigerant 8 ) Fan belts 9) Alternator which will go eventually 10) Water pump which will go eventually 11) Temperature sensors and other sensors which go 12) Battery 13) Exhaust system (pipes, muffler, catalytic converter) 13) Breaks (fluid, master cylinder, rotors/drums, pads) 14) Tires 15) Etc….? I’m assuming that A/C, Breaks, and Tires are all the same in the Tesla as any normal vehicle and most of the other systems listed above are non-existent on the Tesla, but what about the other systems (motors, belts, chains, sensors, fluids, batteries, etc) , which are not the same as a normal car? What are the maintenance requirements? How long does the massive battery pack last and how much is it to replace? If it only lasts a certain number of years, and costs a lot to replace, this could kill resale value for instance, even if other maintenance is much less. EDIT: When I say resale value, I'm not talking about after 3 years as much as I'm talking after 10. I'm the type of person that buys a 2 year old car and drives it for 10 years. When I do this with a Toyota SUV I still get something for it when it is time for a new one.

Sweet! A guy I work with has a new Model S so I've been able to see it in person, it is a beautiful car both inside and out. Congratulations. Speaking of Tesla, besides my co-worker's Model S, I've seen 3 others locally in the last few weeks (2 on the highway and one at my son's school). This is in southern NH and Northern MA, far away from the prospect of using the free charging stations in CA. I wonder how many of these things they are selling?

Of course. We do what we need to do at each stage in our development. Technology is all about bootstrapping from one level to another. Hydrocarbons are dirty, but burning them is certainly better than hunting whales for their blubber and having city streets covered in horse dung.

The article is poorly titled. By "oil" I think he means "hydrocarbons". Its an excellent article otherwise. I don't believe we ever have to worry about running out of hydrocarbons, by the time we do we will either be able to get as much as we want from space or, more likely, we will be using some other form of energy. I predict that by the end of this century the problem all the doomsayers will have their panties in a bunch about will be all the co2 we are pulling out of the atmosphere to build things out of carbon nanotubes, graphene, or eventually even diamond, with our nanotechnologies. Some time in the next 85 years the demagogues will switch from too much co2 causing global warming to too little co2 bringing about "the next ice age". Either way we'll be told it requires more government regulations and control, but of course if scientist really believe the planet is in danger work will be done to counter it. As I said I'm not worried about global warming only because I know that we will soon have the opposite problem. Some related links: "The quantity of hydrocarbons in asteroids in the inner solar system exceeds all of the known petroleum and coal sources on Earth." New discovery may allow scientists to make fuel from CO2 in the atmosphere

Excellent and thought provoking article. The next 4-5 decades should prove to be quite interesting as power shifts around. Thanks.

Actually the 20th century wasn't bloody only because of war, more than 6 times more people were murdered in the 20th century outside of both internal and foreign wars by their own governments. See: 20th century democide. This is the type of thing that Sanjeev was referring to that would be hard for any country to get away with today and it was far and away the most deadly plague of the 20th century.