Mises is great, but he can be frustrating to read. Rothbard's always very lucid.

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal was a major book in my conversion to minarchism before going full fledged ancap. Her prose is weak, but that doesn't sink a book by itself. Her fiction is good enough.

If all those things actually happened, then I wouldn't really be upset at someone for voting for Obama. I'll sell out some moral principle for results which will save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

Kids are never told to be smart in school. They're told to memorize a bunch of facts or mechanical processes and reproduce them on tests which have been reduced to accounting for 50% of a student's grade in favor of measures of a student's ability to come and sit in a chair or raise their hand once a class to ask a trivial question.

I was the only professor I knew of at my institution (saying 'knew of' not saying that existed) who made it an express goal of the class to produce intelligent people rather than people who could memorize some trigonometric identities.

That's why you only take math and science classes.

I've very much lost interest. I still read economic publications frequently, but I'm just not that interested in revisiting the same arguments and proposed solutions every day. I don't quite see the purpose. I have a finite amount of time and more important areas in which my knowledge can furthered. The marginal amount of thought that reading a LRC article generates at this point just isn't worth the time.

You need a lot more than supply and demand to get to price. Supply and demand lets you know how the price level will fluctuate about a equilibrium point, but it does little to elucidate the value of the equilibrium itself.  I don't know if I could sum up one principle to make it into a linear causal chain.

Mises rejected subjective value? He pounds the thing over your head so many times that it's nearly unbearable in Theory of Money and Credit.

Also, as my dad who was in the IT business for 30 years said, when you get down to it, it's all 1s and 0s. If somebody has the time and resources, they can get in. The thing is quantum computers are suppose to be much, much more secure. In fact some say they're impossible to hack. If that's the case, doubt it, and quantum computers become a norm, governments will be in fear. I mean imagine knowing you can send stuff to Wikileaks knowing it can't be sabatoged.

Quantum decoherence effects certainly do give the possibility of complete safe encryption.

[Give me the issue information]

You seem to be unfamiliar with the quantum computer; because what I've stated about the quantum computer predicting all possible futures is one of the concepts behind it which made the government desire and fund the project even more.

I don't claim to be an expert

Now you state:

And I never claimed that I didn't study it. I actually said I'm pretty well studied in the subject.

Which is it?

So the false dichotomy you've set up for me to supposedly have to respond to is either I'm an expert or I haven't studied the subject at all? That's absurd. I'm not an expert, and I am well studied in the area. For example: I am pretty tall, and I am not seven foot five. The expert is a rarefied category. I know more about Inverse Galois Theory than 99.99999% of the human population, but I am still not an expert in the field.

You further state to my direct question as to if you can predict volcanoes, direction of hurricanes, and earthquakes:

We can.

  Interesting because I've never know a weather forecaster to be 100% correct; not even close to 50% correct.

Do you work for CNN? That's a nice cut job. You asked me a series of questions. I responded with we can and then elaborated. Specifically, I said we can predict things with science. I then explained to why even perfectly predictable systems cannot be completely predicted due to simple computing power and measurement errors. Get out of here with that.

The fact that I will consume liquid water of some form within the next two days really isn't close to predicting the outcome of millions of voters this November.

Yes. That was the point. Predicting a single uncontentious election isn't exactly novel either.

Actually the possible outcomes approach 1 as the number of analytic behavior data increases.  With no data the possibilities are infinite, but as data is compiled and correlated the number of possibilities shrinks -sometimes by a lot, sometime by a little- it is dependent upon the weight of the given variable and ones psychological makeup.

It's funny that you say as "number of analytic behavior data increases" because even in this pseudoscience you refuse to actually talk about you actually mean to say as the limit of this approaches infinity.

So now you're changing what the computer is doing? Where do these equations come from? Are they invariant across individuals? How do the inputs get calculated? What number of inputs do you need? A small number of inputs allows you to narrow from infinitely many world choices down to a manageable finite set?

That is not all it does;  now, I know you're just making stuff up.

No? You're right. Quantum entanglement lets the government control your mind. I lied to you.

You seem to know so well what it's not. Please tell me what quantum entanglement is and how a quantum computer utilizes it. Or check out a textbook and verify what I said.

Technology Review, isn't just a magazine; it is a magazine created by MIT itself.  Yes they did state that they were shocked that it registered more energy at the output then they applied at the input.  Maybe you should go and set those MIT guys straight.

Okay. But it is a magazine. I don't see how I was being duplicitous. Give me the issue information, and I will read the entry. I will then explain your error to you so that we can move on from this. They make have been surprised at their success, but that's not the same as saying "they stated that they didn't think it was possible" and "the same stuff professors and sciences have been saying was impossible for a very long time".

No.  I was asking you, what you thought of Maxwell's theory; discounting the Gibbs-Heviside theory which gets propagated though Universities as Maxwell's.  However, you did answer the question when you stated:

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

No you didn't ask me that. You asked me what I thought of the BS they teach in college. I was asking for clarification pretty clearly about exactly you meant. I'm still not sure what your point is. Lorentz, Heaviside, Gibbs, and other physicists developed Maxwell's work after he passed away. Just in the same way that Maxwell developed on the work of Faraday, Gauss, Ampere, and Biot among others. I'll admit that I haven't read Maxwell's original work directly. I've see the H notation forms. Is that what your issue is?

I find it interesting that you say that Heim's work has been discredited by the LHC, when their neutrino experiment actually was predictable by Heim's work.  Yes, I know they said that there was a cable problem, but in their explanation they stated that they found a second problem that when fixed would register the speed of the neutrino as being faster than it was originally measured.

Where did this second problem get cited? I've never heard of it. Also, the LHC neutrino data is less conclusively in any case than the neutrino data measured from SN 1987A. There's no evidence for faster than light neutrinos that I'm aware of (so please cite some if you know of it), and the burden certainly hasn't been met to overturn the accepted evidence for their speeds.

I also find it interesting that NASA, and the USAF are spending million if not more trying to produce  a hyper-drive engine by using Heim's work and his former assistant, and Heim's former assistant's assistant.   I suppose that either those NASA and USAF scientists -which you lout as examples due to space exploration and such- are just idiots and they should really consult you before they do anything, or they know something which you do not.

You do realize that a physicist can be wrong in some areas and correct in others? Or that his ideas can be misguided yet still touching on something promising? I'm not saying that the guy is a hack, but most of his ideas just aren't well verified or are contradicted.

As did Bernays; once he seen how easy people were influence by the word Democracy in WWI.

Oh yes? What was his experiment exactly. I'd love to hear how he designed it.

I have been researching the quantum computer ever since I first heard of it in 1994.  The claims don't change.  However, there are multiple teams working on different models.  I admit; I never got into cryptography -it was on of those things which I'm always meaning to start learning, but something always gets me side-tract.

I have studied Physics and Mathematics at multiple universities in my past.  It was one of my physics professors who introduced me to Godel's Incompleteness theorem, which I find to this day to be absolutely fascinating; it got me questioning everything found in science and math.

I would like you to reproduce some of these claims from your sources in that case.

I also find Godel's incompleteness theorems fascinating. However, they only apply to some rather specific axiomatic structures so that they hardly call into question results in science and math. In fact, if we have a result, then Godel's theorem can't even be made to apply.





[/quote]

Freud's psychology lead to propaganda -which is the manipulation of behavior for a specific outcome.    

Oh come on, that has been going on forever.  Maybe it just didn't have that name until then. 

It wasn't actually a science until Bernays.  But my point was that what they are trying to do is similar to an inverse of Propaganda.  Instead of the government manipulating people for a desired outcome, they want to use the social interactions of crowds to 'know' what the outcome will be.

Bernays didn't make it a science either. There's nothing scientific about his work at all.

He might not have laid it out in mathematics, but that doesn't mean that he didn't make it a science.  It was his groundbreaking work which lead to the current science of propaganda.
 
Was Faraday a scientist?  He couldn't even do mathematics.

Well he certainly knew arithmetic, algebra, and trigonometry. So I wouldn't say he "couldn't even do mathematics", but Faraday formulated hypothesizes and verified them in a systematic way with repeatable experiments. That's science.

The federal government "perfect" something? Please.

The government wouldn't even know what to make it into. Look what it did with the internet. It had "invented" the most powerful tool in the history of mankind, but it sat stagnate and essentially useless until private enterprise was able to develop it.

I'm sorry, but the first inclination of the internet was many years before the government ever got involved.  It was, what is called the first email, and it was done by universities.  Afterwards the government stepped in with ARPA and began working on ARPAnet.  Berkley was tasked with creating what became the TCP/IP stack on the UNIX System.  By this time I think it was officially DARPAnet.  It was the UC Berkley students who later putout the TCP/IP stack for all to have.  Then they created the first version of BSD which stands for Berkley Software Distribution because they were not permitted to use the UNIX name.

However, unlike students releasing the TCP/IP stack; the leaking of quantum computing would do no good anyway except for other governments.  If you knew how the processor and computer were to be made, then you would know that nobody is going to be making it.

I suggest you do a search on the quantum computer.

Notice the word invent in quotes.

I suggest you do a search on the quantum computer, as well as learning some basic cryptography and physics.

I can tell you.  It's because you are arguing against something which you claimed earlier that you didn't study.  If you bother to do a little research on what the physicists have been saying for the past twenty years then you would be able to ague for or against it.  But since you need hand holding to find the sources, when a simple google, duckduckgo, or startpage search will find you the information.

You're making a positive claim. You have to support it. That's how science works. I did do a simple google, I found nothing of what you're talking about. And I never claimed that I didn't study it. I actually said I'm pretty well studied in the subject.

I take it that you've never read any of their work.  While the bulk is about what you said; however, they do raise the topic of being able to predict future behavior by understanding past and current behavior patterns.  This is basically where Behavior Analysis comes in.

You take it incorrectly. See. You can't even predict my behavior. 

We're unable to predict weather...

and then:

We understand natural phenomenon.

Can you predict earthquakes?  What about the direction of hurricanes?  What about volcanic eruptions?  What I've listed are all Natural Phenomenon; if you understand Natural Phenomenon then shouldn't you be able to predict something?  Oh ya, I forgot; you can predict that what goes up must come down.

We can. How do you think your cell phone works if we can't? How do we have a space station orbiting 200 miles above the earth? You're combining two separate points I made. The point being that for even completely deterministic system which we understand, like fluid interactions in the atmosphere, the sheer number of variables involved makes the prediction process fall from deterministic to statistical to be able to handle the information. The fact that many processes are chaotic systems exacerbates this issue.

I imagine you meant 'can't' predict... But that is not true.  Barak Obama will win the 2012 Presidential Race if he is facing Mitt Romney.  This is not a guess.  Everybody who knows anything about psychology and/or Group Dynamics could tell that this will be the outcome.

That's one election (even if I take it to be a certainty, which I won't). I can predict that you'll consume liquid water in some form over the next 2 days. That's not exactly a cogent point. Or are you trying to say that you can predict every presidential election?

I do not believe I ever said infinite; I said every possible outcome.  The physicists working on this project are basing their assertions off of String Theory which determined that there are -at most- 26 parallel Universes; not infinite.  If you do not like String Theory -which is a mathematical theory not a scientific theory- then, take that up with them.

String theory says nothing of the sort. You're confusing outcomes, spatial dimensions, and multiverses. The possible outcomes you speak of would be infinite.

Quantum entanglement is the process by which they claim to be able to accomplish what they claim the quantum computer will do.  Quantum entanglement doesn't require infinite energy.

Yes, but what they claim isn't what you're claiming. You're pulling these claims from nowhere. Quantum entanglement is used in quantum computing in the measurement of qubits and protecting data encryption. It has nothing to do with predicting the future.

That's interesting, because in Technology Review, they stated that they didn't think it was possible.  They stated that they were trying to approach unity, but what they created appeared to be over-unity, until they found out where the extra energy was coming from.  Wouldn't physicists from MIT know what you claim to be true?

You're not understanding what occurred. The LED light produced a higher than unity efficiency as measured by the ratio of electrical energy input to optical energy output. This is certainly an accomplishment, but it does not do anything mysterious nor does it violate any physical principles (such as the second law of thermal dynamics). The process itself does not have an efficient above or equal to 1 when measured as an entire ratio of energy input to energy output. Missing energy so to speak comes from its semiconductor properties and heat drawn from the environment. Not only is this not mysterious, but it's also a well known effect of LED lights which emit optical energy even when the electrical energy input is zero due to thermodynamic vibrational effects. If you really read this in a magazine, though I suspect you just misunderstood what you read, then the magazine committed a silly error and should be reprimanded. 

Really?  So what is your impression of the work of Burkhard Heim?  What is your understanding of Maxwell's actual theory of electrodynamics -not the BS they teach in college, which isn't his?  What is your understanding of Hyper-dimentional travel?  What about time-travel?

  the bs theory of electrodynamics that they teach? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean to say we don't know a lot by mentioning a few things which are still unsolved? That's just not a logically valid way to approach the issue. Heim's work has never been serious, and it has been explicitly discredited because of LHC findings. Your last two questions are loaded, but I would say above that of a layman and below that of a working theoretical physicist.

Actually I'm not turning your point back against you.  The 256 bit and the 512 bit cyphers are currently uncrackable due to there not being enough time to crack them on our current machines.  The physicists working on the quantum computer claim that those cyphers could be cracked in -at most- a few days.  Logic would tell us that if the quantum computer can crack a code in a few days which our current tech cannot crack in the total time of the current age of the universe, then any code which the quantum computer does create, will be uncrackable by our current tech.

Any code can theoretically be cracked in about a nanosecond through sheer luck. Do you even remember what you're arguing about. I'm telling you that we have encryptions that a QC cannot crack in the present. You seem to think that's not true.

I saw the Wall live a few (3? is it now) years ago when Waters did his first revival tour with it.

But Tom Morello does not like Paul Ryan:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/entertainment/post/2012/08/tom-morello-rages-against-paul-ryan/1#.UC__8_F5mSM

I like Rage, but Tom Morello probably wouldn't like my politics either. Although I assume we'd get along better than he and Paul Ryan.