Sal9000

The infinity of rational numbers and of natural numbers is the same. See my post above The distinction here is irrational and transcendental irrational. Any irrational number cannot be written as a fraction, like the squareroot of 2. Transcendental irrational numbers cannot be written in a finite polynomial form, like pi. Squareroot of Pi is irrational, because it has a finite polynomial form: x^2 = 2. You can't do that for Pi, e, or many other important numbers, hence they are transcendental irrational. I hope that helps

The first effects of St. John's Worth usually occur after two weeks. I had as a tea and it helped me some. There are a few supplements that you can take without any risk and that can change your mood for the better: high doses of B12, Magnesium, Omega acids, and vitamin D. I found the advice that Rhonda Patrick gave to be very helpful. She has a blog and appeared two times at Rogan's podcast.

Because numbers and sets are constructed using sets. If a set has the same number of elements like another one, it has the same cardinality. Lets say you want to find out if there are more natural numbers than uneven numbers. How do you go about that? You look at the sets and compare the sets. Then you will see that for every natural numbers there is an uneven number: 1 --> 1 2 --> 3 3 --> 5 4 --> 7 ... So there are as much uneven numbers as natural numbers. You can show just as easily that there are just as many rational numbers like there are natural numbers: 1 --> 1/1 2 --> 1/2 3 --> 2/1 4 --> 1/3 5 --> 3/1 ... If you can show that there is a set that is bigger than all natural numbers, this set is bigger. The set of real numbers is one of those, thus, there are more real numbers than natural numbers. For more see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

In a call in show Stef responds to a listener question (http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/2897/hogwarts-wizards-of-human-manipulation-wednesday-call-in-show-january-28th-2015 around 1:25 in) on the effects of laws that prohibit attacking your kids physically. He presented a theory that the state did not need any more aggresive people since the need for soldiers shrank. However, upon reading on the topic I found that these laws were instituted by Sweden and Finland in the late 70s / early 80s, other Western European countries instituted them much later (late 80s to late 90s) if at all (UK or France). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment_in_the_home#Table_notes Doesn't this invalidate both the listener's question and Stef's answer?

Yes, there is. Start with Thus Spake Zarathustra, a novel in which he presents his ideas. Not only is it an easy read it the style is also enjoyable. The groundworks of his ethics can be found in 'On the genealogy of morality' and 'The birth of tragedy'. These are more technical and dry but systematic. The rest can be read with no specific order.

http://obs-itconsulting.com/pendel.gif

Clouds tend to be static in relation to a nuclear explosion.

Don't take my word for the fact that praxeology is different from the scientific method, let's hear what Rothbard has to say on it: Taken from http://mises.org/sites/default/files/Defense%20of%20Extreme%20Apriorism%2C%20In_6.pdf Rothbard distinguishes between positivist procedures on the one hand and praxeology. Just what I said. Also, the next time you discuss philosophy with somebody, make sure you know what you talk about.

Just because some people say something is fabricated does not make it so. I rather believe in experts on a given subject than some quacks on the internet. I taught maths for physicists. One of the topics was Nuclear Physics. Study Physics and do some research.

The evidence is found in the existence of fission material in the atmosphere.

Of course it is, since this claim is wrong. Thermonuclear weapons work like that: You create an implosions around a sphere of Fission Material. This causes a chain reaction in which the atomic cores are split up. The new atomic cores that come into existence weigh less than the previous core. The difference is emitted in energy. This triggers a fusion, that causes Deuterium and Tritiums atoms to form a Helium atom. Same play again, the difference in mass is equivalent in energy. You can observe all this phenomena either in nature or in nuclear powerplants (Uranium emits Neutrons, a nuclear power plant uses a controlled chain reaction, the Sun uses fusion). Also, next time before you criticize a theory make sure you understand it. If not, you appear like an utter fool.

Atomic bombs don't produce smoke. What happens is fairly simple. Put a very hot spot close to the earth and it heats up dust and soil. This in turn gets up high in the atmosphere and cools off during the process. When it has gotten as cold as the surrounding atmosphere it won't climb up anymore and will be pushed to the side. This produces the mushroom shape. The stem of the mushroom is the particles getting up, the head of the mushroom are the particles being pushed around in Brownian motion while cooling off. Meterological conditions may change a perfect symmetrical mushroom head to a distorted one. Again, Nuclear Physics is an established science. You say that it does not work according to the theory. I say excellent, show me the mistakes in the theory of fission and fusion. If you can't, your claim can be dismissed instantly.

You are making an extraordinary claim and you have to show where the flaw in nuclear physics is. What specifically is wrong? Experimental data is confirmed by tests with nuclear weapons. They work as they should. There is plenty of evidence that CO2 has an effect on climate. Also, have a look at this

I am still waiting for arguments which part of nuclear physics is wrong.

Peter Schiff is the Charlie Brown of Economics and his stance of inflation is the football. Gold is the redheaded girl.

Use http://iss.astroviewer.net/observation.php to find the ISS. Also, please explain how the modern physics is wrong with regard to thermonuclear weapons.

Not a video, but a solid introduction to modern logic: http://mally.stanford.edu/notes.pdf

Bitcoin has certain properties, like speed of transaction, difficulty of mining new ones and so on (lets assume for the sake of the argument that the description the btc supporters give are true; i doubt that). These properties are valued differently by different people and compared to other means of exchange. Since there is competition of different methods of exchange, people will chose the exchange that offers them the most bang for the buck. In addition to these properties there is another factor at play and that is the specific relation of this medium in regards to the network it is in. You can have a medium of exchange with perfect properties that everyone agrees on are the best, but it's of no use as long as there is no network in which to trade with this medium. Lets imagine you are a genius coder in the 50s and you come up with the concept of e-mail. What is this worth? Not a lot, since the whole infrastructure is missing. There are few servers, no personal computers and so on. As long as there is no big network, the properties of btc are not valued as much as they would be if there was one. There is an evolution going on and we are at the start. It is likely that btc will provide lessons on what to improve both to the properties of a btc and to the network in general.

I strongly doubt that. It was a propaganda event. See https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B7GnzaFIcAAh9ca.jpg:orig and https://storify.com/tometty/staunch-defenders-of-free-press-attend-solidarity for details

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ

I would argue that the state applied more force to Garner than to the shopkeepers. Afterall, he was arrested several times for selling loosies. I don't think that Garner's business model was thriving. You are pretty low on the ladder if you have to sell 'illegal' stuff on the streets. The problem arises when you have a mixed economy, a somewhat free market and state force.

Lets have a look at the situation from an Ancap point of view. Where Garner's actions wrong? No, he did not violate the NAP. He did not force his customers to buy loosies. The transactions were done voluntarily, hence they are neither good nor bad. Where the shopkeepers wrong in calling the police? Yes. They called the police and invoked the gun in the room. They used state force to get rid off competition. The fact that they own shops and that they work hard in their shops does not add legitimacy to their action. If it did, you would have to accept the labour theory of value. Lets have a look at another scenario. There is a small town with mom and pop shops. Suddenly, Walmart buys a lot and starts building a store. The small shop owners are afraid that their businesses will go bankrupt and thus they use political pull to prevent Walmart from opening the store. In both cases state power was used for beneficial reasons, violating the NAP.

Near the end, Stef mentions declining Japanese work ethics and the role of the Japanese government as one of the reasons behind the ease of the attack. However, Sony pictures is an American subsidiary and the senior management team is also non Japanese. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Pictures_Entertainment Another reason behind the lack of security may be security reasons. Protecting your company's network may be too expensive compared to other methods of dealing with the problems. Source: http://www.cio.com/article/2439324/risk-management/your-guide-to-good-enough-compliance.html Source: http://fusion.net/story/31469/sony-pictures-hack-was-a-long-time-coming-say-former-employees/ Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-14948701 Security is also based on monetary decisions. If a workaround is cheaper, chances are high it will be chosen insteaf od doing the right thing.

I strongly recommend watching Sapolsky's lecture on youtube. He makes a pretty good point that genes, RNA, enzymes and the enviroment interact. There is not a single gene that makes you smart or tall, but transcription factors that influence the way the DNA gets copied (think of DNA as a blueprint and of transcription factors as craftsmen). Another important lesson that is less known outside of biology is that hereditary traits don't give you absolute values but relative ones. This means that gene b makes you 10% taller than gene a, and gene c makes you 10% taller than gene b. How tall you really become (say 193 cm) is entirely dependent on the enviroment. Another factoid that I was not aware of is the small sample size of monozygotal twins that grew up at different parents (around 30 twins). Enjoy.

All hail Eris.