rosencrantz

Congrats on the truck (and the wife).

Not an argument. Also not an argument. How is your book project going?

You dont have positive obligations to somebody on your land. You can evict them when you want.

It's in the call in show for July 8th. Near the beginning of the discussion with the empiricism caller. Our senses are accurate in the sense that they enable us to survive. They adapted to an enviroment and to actions done by humans. Other animals, like predators have different and hence their senses adapted to that. Both humans and say cats see the world in a different way, as it is either processed by the eyes or interpreted by optical neurons. None of them can the see world as it really is (naive realism). Eyes that are based on lenses 'make up' stuff to cover the area that is blind or when in motion or when you wear glasses.

Why would you want to pay with gold that may get more valuable in the future instead with fiat currency? Do you physically own the gold? How do you know that they don't issue fiat gold?

Society is an emergent propery of IQ distribution, trust, guilt / shame, and mode of family relationships. You cannot tell how a person with a low IQ or high IQ will do in life. But you can predict how a low IQ society will look like.

In the last call in show Stef and a caller talked about the accuracy of the senses. Stef claims that the eyes give a correct interpretation of the world. However, neurology has shown that the regions in the brain that deal with optical information filter out and process a lot of information before that information reaches the mind. If you wear glasses for example, you will notice that the field of vision is not impeded by wearing glasses. You don't see the glasses you wear, instead you are presented a vision as if you had no glasses on. There is a simple experiment that shows that sense data is processed before reaching the mind. Go in front of a mirror and look into it. Then move your eyes sideways and up and down. While you can still see yourself you cannot see your eyes moving though you clearly did. That is because giving a true representation of focus would mean that you would become seasick everytime you moved your eyes somewhere else with a different point of focus.

How is your approach different from C++ templates?

I also dream about getting chased, but I rarely see the person who is following me.

It's called making an educated guess. People act in their self interest. Why should Farage and Johnson bind themselves to a sinking ship when they can get out before it goes under for real?

A good friend met his wife (they have a daughter) on a dating platform.

I also don't think that Britain will leave. It seems that the pro Brexit people have no plan what to do next now that they have won. This is why Johnson and Farage stepped back. They don't want to be connected with a possible failure of the negotatioans.

What is more likely: a) You descend from a jewish mother somewhere in your past b) The ten lost tribes somehow got to Denmark, without leaving any evidence. Decide for yourself. There were two events. Northern Israel got devasted by the Assyrians in 722. The elite was either killed or relocated. The common people stayed where they were. New people were settled in Northern Israel. The populations mixed. Their descendants are now either Palestinian or Samaritan. Jerusalm was conquered by the Babylonians. The elite was relocated to Babylon. After they returned from the exile, they made a purge to restore the 'Jewishness' and instituted strict marriage laws. No there's not. Stories aren't evidence. If you have evidence present it.

Jack Donovan Kevin MacDonald Brian Landry http://www.socialmatter.net/category/weimerica-weekly/

Tolkien's Silmarillion or the Upanishads are even more detailed, still they are made up. The tribes didn't leave, their land was conquered. A part of them was moved to another region of Assyria, new people came in and mixed with the remaining Northern Israelites.

Until the Assyrians show up, there is no evidence for any historical claim the Old Testament makes. The Assyrians conquer the Northern Part of Israel, where the 10 tribes supposedly live. These are still around. They are called Palestinians or Samaritans.

"Hello everybody, this is Stefan Molyneux. Winter is coming. Prepare yourself accordingly."

Culture of Critique is very instructive. Not only did the Jews benefit initially from the Soviet Union, but they were also amongst the Commisars who initiated terror against farmers, the middle class in Russia and today's Ukraine. Realizing that there is a demarkation in Europe with regards to how society is organized (Hajnal line) is instructive too https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/2014/03/10/big-summary-post-on-the-hajnal-line/ Most of European history (and that of the Jews too) happens on the fringes of that line.

According to the theory of comparative advantage, trade between two nations benefits both nations, when they specialize in what they are good at. Switzerland is good at making clocks, but not so good in growing wine. Italy cannot into precision mechanics but they are good at making wine. So trade between Switzerland and Italy in theory benefits both nations. However, the theory of comparative advantage is based on two key assumptions: - Workers can't move freely from one country to another - Capital can't move freely from one country to another Since the restrictions on capital movement have been reduced since the early 90s, the macro economy left the land of comparative advantages and moved to absolute advantage. With absolute advantage you don't have any guarantee that both sides of a trade will benefit from it. One example is the flight of the the American car manufacturing industry from places like Flint to the South and Mexico. The South benefitted because of cheaper labour law, whereas Michigan and Ohio got the cheap end of the stick. Within a nation, absolute advantage trading is the norm but it is balanced by the fact that workers within a country can move from one place to another. If absolute advantage between nations comes into play, the disadvantaged workers of one country don't have the option to move to the country that has the absolut advantage, causing internal problems. If capital can move freely, but workers can't you create a situation that is similar to the predicament the United States is in today. To fix it, you can either free up the movement for labourers or restrict the movement of capital. The former is illusory because the countries with an absolute advantage have no interest in immigration from competitors.

I wonder why scientists are hesitant to talk about their findings. Could it be that are repercussions to explain what they they think? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/dec/01/dna-james-watson-scientist-selling-nobel-prize-medal

There is ample evidence collected by Kevin MacDonald on the Jewish involvement in sociology, anthropology, and psychotherapy that validates this thesis.

Race is well supported by science. Via http://infoproc.blogspot.de/2008/01/no-scientific-basis-for-race.html

So you have those but you can't show how exactly they work in the brain or how they can be reduced to discrete functions that can't be simulated. That's like having a magic dragon in your garage that can't be studied or that nobody but you can see. Perhaps I wasn't clear. It's clear that the guy doesn't understand Chinese. But it doesn't follow that because of that the computer doesn't understand Chinese.

When you argue that the brain is not a computer, you run into a conceptual problem. In it's most simple form, the Turing machine, a computer simply means that you have a set of routines and simple actions. These are discrete and can be simulated. It doesn't matter if you simulate a turing machine using a modern personal computer or an ingenious set of valves and pipes. When you claim that the brain is not a computer you have to show that there is more to the brain than to a computer. Namely, that there functions that can't be broken down to simple functions that can be simulated. If you can show what those functions and or actions are, you have proven your point. Until then, the null hypothesis is that the brain is a computer. The Chinese Room argument uses a fallacious argumentation that is hard to see. In short, Searle argues that if you simulate something that has a certain property, you cannot conclude that the person or entity that does the simulation also has the property of the 'original'. However, the reverse is also true. If a person or an entity doesn't have a property, that doesn't entail that the entity that is simulated also doesn't have that property. Just because the guy who 'translates' Chinese doesn't understand Chinese doesn't mean that the AI also doesn't understand Chinese.

If you use a personal computer you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, If this decision is confirmed there will be massive implications. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/06/federal-court-fourth-amendment-does-not-protect-your-home-computer