oldtobor

I live in the US. I make only 1,200 dollars a month (I work in a small company) no health insurance but I own a small 2 bedroom house where I live. I get sick and have to stay 2 weeks in a hospital, then after I get home they charge me 100,000 dollars. I can't pay, can they take my home away from me ? 3 possibilites: 1) I go to jail, but I think US laws says I can't for debt 2) I can make a deal with the hospital and only pay back 2 or 3 thousand dollars by a small monthly sum. 3) they take my house , get posession of my home What do you all think happens ? This has always been a vague situation, does anyone know exactly what happens in these cases ? Thanks for any input. Would I have to pay back the entire 100,000 dollars ? even with a 30 year loan that would be 300 dollars a month, I couldn't afford it at all, I am only making 1,200 dollars a month.

MATTER - MATHEMATICS = QUANTUM UNCERTAINTY So quantum fluctuation and uncertainty is what prevents matter/physics/universe from being a completely mathematical entity. But this uncertainty is defined mathematically. Planck's constant is a number and so is velocity of light... maybe there is a mathematical relationship between these 2 constants.

Are any 2 electrons exactly equal in all possible mathematical sense ? Is this really conceivable and possible ? I find it hard to imagine 2 electrons that are exactly equal as if they were 2 exactly equal numbers. So electrons would end up being pure mathematical entities-abstractions. Maybe quantum indetermination and virtual particles and feynman diagrams of electrons self interacting make it so that NO TWO ELECTRONS ARE REALLY EVER EXACTLY EQUAL.... to any decimal place. No 2 electrons are exactly equal because they have different positions in space and undergo slightly different influences by their surrounding environment. So they have slightly different coordinates, speed, direction etc. Also they are surrounded by a unique and ever changing cloud of virtual particles popping up out of nowhere and disappearing constantly changing the energy configuration surrounding the electron as compared to another. If you could see these on a graph they would be very different. A better question is if the law of conservation of Energy is an approximation or exact to an infinte degree (or infinite number of decimal points). Quantum principles say that : (E1-E0)X(T1-T0)=h (planck) means that any energy even extremely high can pop up out of nowhere as long as it is for a short enough time. I wonder if some energy can simply disappear and appear meaning that Energy conservation is not an exact absolute law. Some particle reactions may simply loose some energy or gain some without any reason at all because the law of conservation of energy is just an approximation. This would solve the riddle of dark matter and dark energy. If the law of conservation of Energy was exact to any decimal number and absolutely true, this would mean that physics-matter and the universe are truly a mathematical abstraction, a pure mathematical / conceptual object. This would be very strange indeed. The law of conservation of energy must break down somewhere in some way, it can't be infinitely precise. In the macroscopic world it is impossible to find any 2 objects that are exactly the same as are elementary particles. I think this is the aspect that is being addressed. You may have any 2 objects, 2 pentiums or 2 car tires or even 2 bacteria and they will be different in the sense that there are some imperfections or details that make them different. It seems natural that it be so. But when you go down to the "microscopic" level say already at molecules, things become exactly the same. You can find 2 molecules that are exactly the same, the individual imperfections of the macroscopic world that identify macroscopic objects uniquely disappear. In this somewhat "aesthetic-metaphysical" sense, elementary particles seem to coincide with pure mathematical entities. Actually come to think about it, particles such as an electrons or even more so photons have alot of metaphysical properties in common with numbers. They are both universal, they are interchangeable, they are indistinguishable, they are everywhere. So maybe we should add some physical properties to numbers and devise a new corresponding mathematics, like a number shall also have coordinates, a spin, an angular momentum etc. That would be an interesting metaphysical theory. And adding properties to numbers, you could add an infinite amount of new properties and devise a mathematics with all kinds of new constraints and results (maybe call it psychedelic math). Anyways the bottom line is that if elementary particles are pure "mathematical entities", than the REAL ELEMENTARY PARTICLES ARE NUMBERS. So a virtual reality designed on a computer would be EVEN MORE REAL THAN OUR PHYSICAL REALITY because it is based on the manipulation of numbers which are even MORE FUNDAMENTAL THAN ELEMENTARY PARTICLES.

GDP is a big fat lie. Why do economists still use such a FALSE measure of wealth such as GDP ? A real measure would be simply the ratio between minimum pay and minimum amount of money needed to rent a one bedroom home. If you plot this ratio wage/rent from 1970 to now you will see that it was once (in the USA) maybe 400/100 dollars and now is 800/400. So it went from 4 to 2 in 30 years, about 2% less each year. The real growth of our wealth is MINUS 2% each year. In Europe and Japan it is way worse maybe MINUS 3%. So the real wealth is constantly DECREASING with no end in sight! Reasons are : 1) constant population increase looking for homes (people from poor nations getting in USA and Europe) 2) Capitalism getting harsher, companies squeeze all the profits they can from real estate , by renting ever higher and opening and closing offices to squeeze profit from poor people that have to rent or buy homes to work in central cities like chicago tokyo. 3) Gas and other resources costs always more. We are all getting poorer and there is no end and sight, it is a race to the bottom.

Are theses the random details you are talking about ? http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14652 http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13902 Quantum Probability is a measure of our ignorance of all the quirk details of matter-mathematics which is one and the same and actually does not EXIST at all!

In the long term, 2 problems seem to emerge: 1) programming is mostly for the young, so in the long term it seems that a programmer will slowly move out of programming altogether and get into management or sales. 2) Many programming positions require a never ending list of skills a person should have, which I believe is not at all really possible. For example they list java,c++, php etc. Now who really knows those 3 languages so well to say you have the skills ? I think that it isn't really possible. By the time you did learn them, then you have to learn C#, .NET etc. It doesn't seem reasonable.

Would it be a good job searching strategy to learn languages which are becoming obsolete ? Three big examples are RPG, ADA and PL/1 but there are still job offerings for these languages. Since fewer and fewer programmers are available in these languages, would it be a good idea to learn one of them (RPG is the simplest) and then apply for these jobs ? Do you really need at least 2 years hands on experience to apply to these jobs or could you fake your way through by just learning the theory ? I imagine a person who already knows other languages well like PERL and VB but there are too many programmers going for those jobs compared to RPG. Any ideas ?

So no one knows what to think about learninig RPG ? Companies are still looking for it and since there are fewer and fewer programmers, you could pull it off and gain. Any opinions ?

Is HTML programming language ? look it doesn't matter since it along with the dynamic part (HTML+Javascript) or (HTML+PHP) or HTML + visual basic etc. is probably the most popular programming environment ever. I just consider it one language more or less... So you don't think it is worth it to learn RPG and grab some of those jobs that are still asking for it ?

HTML is in there because it is always used together with some Javascript, even if it only contains a few lines of it. HTML all by itself may also be considered a programming language, even though very limited, since you can hyperlink to other pages and sooner or later some pages will have some minimum Javascript. People just don't like the fact that it has become the most popular language after assembler.

RPG is an IBM AS/400 programming language. Diffused means popular. I would consider popular as meaning 2 different things: 1) popular as : number of lines of code of a given language times the number of machines running it. So Assembler may have 1,000 lines for a simple controller application (like cell phone) time number of machines containing the controller. So for assembler 10^3 X 10^10 machines (phones, cars, TVs etc.) 2) popular as number of programmers, so in this case HTML-Javascript is probably the most popular.

Is assembler the most diffused programming language ? Thinking of all the billion of controller chips in the world, all programmed in assembler, then this must by large be the most diffused language even though it isn't the most popular. The most diffused would be in order of importance: 1) Assembler 2) C (only because MS Word and windows is written in it) 3) HTML-Javascript (millions of web pages) 4) COBOL 5) RPG 6) Fortran This is the list, so then it is best to learn these languages! Any ideas ? Also I heard that it is hard to find RPG programmers, would this be a good language to learn to land jobs ?

Or you can have the case where one discovery may inhibit another discovery. If ICs weren't discovered maybe we would be much further in our expertise in mechanical computers and maybe there are discoveries in mechanical computer problems that we may never discover. Or if nuclear fission wasn't discovered maybe humanity would have more time available for investigating science before it destroys itself in Mutual Assured Destruction. The actual path science follows may really be very arbitrary and there could be discoveries that block other discoveries and other kinds of discoveries that enable other discoveries. Well this is now pure "philosophy of science".

No. The dimensions in QM refer to something else. As far as I know N9s idea is new, I have never thought of it before. This may be a revolution......

I think the difference is between technology understood as manipulation of matter and science understood as the "deep why questions". Science will evolve up to the point of it's practical "technological" usefullness. It doesn't matter what models or equations or theory there is in the end. If it predicts and allows us to manipulate matter up to the point that any conceivable PRACTICAL problem can be solved and allows us complete control, then that will be the "end of the line." Is matter=math ? who cares, the end result may be a supercomputer with a few trillion equations programs etc. that lets us enter any problem and get any result. What I mean is that we may never have the "equation of a bacteria", let alone the "equation of the brain", but we may have all the equations and solutions of any practical interest inside a supercomputer that allows us to manipulate a bacteria to let it do anything we want. Of course this topic is not easy but the distinction between science and technology should be made. Very interesting is the idea that simplicity hides complexity. The solar system is mathematically simple but the planets upon closer observation are very complex. Are virtual particles made up of complex fine structures and laws ? we may never know and care if we can't get beyond 10^-20 mm, and then if it doesn't have any practical - technological consequence then we may never investigate this further.

The description in the case of QED coincides with the object being described. What is a description ? The limits of a description of an object that describe that object will tend towards being identical to that object for the description that tends to maximum completeness. In the theory of details from simple to complex etc. then maybe the metaphysical item of matter-physics is all the random, chaotic details you can see in anything. Look at any object close enough (a chair, a table a cloth) or even a street or tree and you will find alot of random, chaotic details. Well that is the metaphysical aspect of matter-physics. The beauty is in the details.

A non mathematical phenomena would have to be described. The description would be first in a natural language, which implies some kind of logic, some relationship, some cause and effect, some kind of comparison to something etc. A more precise description would be made through a mathematical model and even if there where almost no laws, you could always use random number generators or probability etc. Bottom line MATH IS MATTER-PHYSICS (or the description of it). NATURAL LANGUAGE IS A SUPERSET OF MATH GREATLY MORE POWERFUL since we can conceive of non mathematical entities with natural language. ART would probably be the most powerful language we have since anything goes.

Simply stated THIS THREAD IS PRESENTING A FALSE PROBLEM. Mathematics is matter-physics and matter-physics is mathematics. Our senses don't do anything but measurements, everything we see is a measurement, a mathematical operation etc. An object occupies space, has coordinates is present at a time t0 etc. We percieve proportions and geometrical relations and logical cause and effect. Natural language expresses these things in a more vague and abstract way, math is the precision language. We just zero in on some phenomena and apply a precision language to describe it. Everything has some regularity, order and math expresses this. There is no way to perceive matter or physics without somehow putting it in some reference system of time,space weight etc, hence math and logic. When physicists say that math seems miraculous in that it can explain things, they have it all wrong. We can ONLY EXPLAIN THINGS WITH MATH AND LOGIC, indeed only with some language that divides things into interacting items. Actually NATURAL LANGUAGE IS WAY MORE MIRACULOUS THAN MATH!. It is just that we split the object of observation from the language observing it and call the language a miracle. This is false, there is no miracle, even the ancients thought it was a miracle to dance and provoke rain. They where fooling themselves. Also math needs a material substrate to be written on and matter follows the mathematical laws. Which came first ? both because they are the same thing.

Minimum in UK is double, but rest of europe is like US, 800 Euros... And what is really important is NOT wage but "system", wage compared to how much rent and all else costs, and in this case you cannot pull it off anywhere in europe.

I really think of going to suburban areas like suburb NJ or even non-flashy states like oklahoma or tennesse because the housing costs are lower. Any kind of job in a mall would do. I imagine finding a better job in better companies or offices is probably very hard given all the competition, am I right ? Anyways I have the impression that NY or CA have the same "european" problems, always low pay but sky high housing so you can't really pull it off. Thanks for any information.

US is big. I prefer far from big cities, because housing costs too much. Maybe some american who knows some subrubs can tell me if I could pull it off. I just want to make enough to live. 1000 dollars pay, 400 dollar rent , the rest to live. Is this possible in the US ?

I have US citizenship. 50 years old. Some IT work like programming. I think the suburbs far from big cities should be better because housing is alot cheaper. A job like in a mall. Do you think I could pull it off?

I would like to live for a few months in the US. Is it easy to find even a small job like at a mall or whatever where I can make about 800 dollars a month, pay rent for 400 dollars a month and live with the reamining 400 dollars? Could I pull it off ? I also know some IT, could I easily find a small job as consulting IT, programming always for a minimal, but enough to get by amount of money ? Any state would do, just to have an idea. Thanks for any information.

If anything they could have kept the successive languages simple. Why do you need to learn an entire object architecture to program in Java ? They could have extended BASIC in a slight way to include GUI builders etc. Like when you click a button on a form it could have been written as : if button1 = clicked then print "I am stupid basic" end if and similar things. I just think there is way too much fluff in modern OO. Anyways new languages will come out constantly and it is also good to some extent, maybe the best deal is to create alot of very simple domain specific languages, so you program fast and well in given domains with very simple languages (like games or modeling software etc.).

Thinking about various threads here and there talking about inefficient modern software, has anyone ever though about hardwiring large chunks of software directly onto the CPU chips ? After all chips today contain millions of transistors, why not hardwire a linux kernel and a office word and internet explorer directly into hardware ? Would it be so difficult ? after all these chunks of programs are quite standard and stable, maybe introducing 5 or 6 megachips that have a large piece of standard software all hardware made could really improve things! Does anyone think there are real technical limitations to what I imagine ? What I was thinking about is the basic-fundamental parts of code that don't change. The basic Unix/linux kernel has remained the same for years as has the basic perl/intepreter-compiler or Word/excel, at least the most common and standard things. Why not just hard code those parts ? Actually I'm starting to be convinced that it is a good idea! Take the awk95 programming language. It is only 200K in size which would mean 1,600,000 bits or considering all the overhead maybe 20 million transistors. Pentiums can have 100 million transistors so even a hardwired awk on chip would only occupy 20% of the chip. But then after, all the software could be directly coded in awk completely bypassing assembly language! Now that would be interesting. In the early 80s they had BASIC in ROMs of only 4k or 8K so it is conceivable to just hardwire the whole language and directly program the CPU in a high level language and build up all the complex applications starting from a higher level! If a language is hardwired, the architecture of the CPU could be optimized for the language. I would hardwire the following languages: 1) C 2) C++ 3) FORTRAN 4) COBOL 5) BASIC/VISUAL BASIC so you don't have to rewrite all the code of these languages. Actually Gates was quite clever when he squeezed a BASIC interpeter in 4K ROM. Those are the kind of things that they should try to do today only directly implementing it in hardware! There are ALOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS to "hardwire" a language. What I thought was a completely NEW CPU design that completely does away with the assembler language op-code design and just implements all the language constructs directly in the chip. Therefore NO COMPILER, NO INTERPRETER, NO OP CODES only a pure ideas machine. Like a register would have the FOR function control another would have the NEXT etc. The best way to start is to implement a small BASIC language CPU. An ASIC design could be fine. Anyone who has some time and has a copy of some small tiny basic or 8k basic and knows VHDL can try to do it for fun. Must be very inventive and creative. It is more a RESEARCH idea than anything. After all in 1975 who would have ever thought of implementing bill gates BASIC interpreter in 4K ROM ? I think that we MAY not be using the millions of transistor on CPUs in the best possible way. Alot of research probably has been done towards studying alternative CPU designs. It is really just intruiging that 30 years ago we could put an interpreter in 4K, so maybe with a few million transistors we could possible organize chips to directly understand even a simple Basic like language. The goal is not speed but simplifying software. A CPU that can only be programmed directly in a BASIC variant simplifies everything, there are no longer compilers, and it is easy to debug. I would add all those funky features of PERL like associative arrays, regular expressions etc. In our CPU there are no longer opcodes but direct high level instructions. The logic circuits take care of understanding them and activating registers and counters etc. It is a true IDEAS machine that bypasses all we have always taken for granted in CPU design. With millions of transistors available I think it is feasable. Then we only have ONE FUNKY HIGH LEVEL LANGUAGE that takes care of all, all software is built up starting from a higher level. You have a register group that takes care of the FOR instruction, another for the NEXT another for the GOTO etc. You just write the program, the chip reads it from RAM and immediately executes it. No more debugging nightmares or incompatible software. Of course industry and academia may not really want to simplify software for "cultural - economical" reasons.... I think I would approach the problem in a much simpler way by simply implementing a high level instruction set for the CPU. So as you have a typical subtract instruction that is composed of an opcode and 2 operands, you could have a FOR NEXT instruction that is made up of an opcode and 2 operands saying the start (I=0) and end (TO 50) (and maybe a 3rd saying the step). Or you can have a string accumulator like PERL $_ and regular expression instructions, and maybe SQR and RND assembler level instructions etc. You could end up having an almost 1 to 1 correspondence between a high level language and it's underlying assembler translation. Anyways in this research I would start out simple, implementing an equivalent 4K ROM BASIC like instruction set for the CPU and then extend it. Start with VHDL and ASICs. You might want to also look up to see if a SOFTWARE TO HARDWARE CONVERTER exists or could be designed. Take any small program and the converter could convert the entire program into a bunch of combinational circuits.