The Bear's Key

I could say "prove it"... ...yet again. But I'll refrain Instead, let's extrapolate a bit on my interests following the "logical" premise of your claim. My self-interests... Able to encounter plenty of intelligent and knowledgeable people who display critical thinking skills....the more the better -- at least 20% of society. Content knowing that my friends/family or I are unlikely to be robbed because only very few in society would be desperately in need of food and/or shelter. Increasing my chances of success from working hard and of not falling prey to anti-competitive measures used by greedies who'd destroy not only all competition but the health of unfortunates living in or near the collected resources and/or headquaters...with nary a thought. By protecting everyone (people and businesses) I'm also including me, no? Yay selfishness!? ? Breathing gloriously refreshing, healthy air. Easily -- within practical distance (80 km/h speed) of most anywhere -- basking in the wonders of untouched nature and still being able to catch elsewhere the wondrous designs of crafted architecture both modern and ancient/historical....partly due to excellent government planning. Witnessing new frontiers that began as scientifically important yet highly unprofitable, but nonetheless were given high priority and state-of-the-art treatment, i.e. moon landing, Hubble telescope, and various expeditions spanning all corners of the globe. Option of less expensive healthcare purchased by government in bulk, same quality as private or at least the advantages outweigh the disadvantages -- without the hidden-from-view sway of business interfering with the plan, or sabotage by their bribed politicians. Greatly fertile environment for business and innovation where a few spoiled apples don't rot the bunch and the sack it was carried in by. A government that represents me not following the commands of a loaded ($$) business over my interests. Ensuring that my own business system of goods delivery has a public infrastructure readied for max efficiency to both delivery and marketing, which of course includes paying my fair share of taxes as productive investments in my employees', networks', distributors', and customers' ability to maneuver safest in the least traffic for quicker and more solid earnings at every level (for my business). To help guarantee that..... ...the infrastructure system must benefit all players including those who labor to conserve nature, so my tax investments are least wasted on projects doomed for redesign or scrapping. ...the taxed must really pay a fair share. 1) any company likely to use more public resources and infrastructure should be taxed accordingly, much like private enterprise where cost totals increase for higher use. 2) a company likely to cause system-wide market distress and/or crashes upon failure should be taxed accordingly, as insurance policy for society so we can let the company fail without need for bailouts, the Federal Reserve, or panic. My tax $$'s saved, flow of goods consistent, and my bottom line's healthier. ...protecting my investment of taxes. I want to monitor ALL of that $$ every step of the way -- how it's used, by whom and how smartly, and in real time. So the first project I'd need my investment spent towards is to organize the already existent (and bargain price) technology for designing of a government-funds monitoring system which'll track every single penny in collected taxes available now and to whom each penny goes. The system would be developed openly under our careful watch, knowing exactly how it's planned, by whom, and recording everything that's said at all the meetings and by everyone involved. Now back to leisurely stuff and the enjoyment of life. On my travels to various pseudo-developing nations, I'd like to experience their real culture, not the skeletal wisp of former richness that's left by a few of the multinationals who exploit their natural resources to the bone, leaving an impoversihed people in their wake. My interests are the continued existence of such different cultures, including any (mostly) harmless ancient traditions, which should change only naturally or voluntarily...rather than involuntarily by the external forces of business giants. And my interest is seeing others be able to experience and study those cultures as well. ...conclusion = business enterprise + a free citizenry + open scrutiny of all business meetings with government + a healthy combination of socialism designed and maintained by the right people + natural conservation. Thus my business and personal interests demand the existence of a socialist framework, at least partially...with the inclusion of responsible government spending/activites -- not to mention industry oversight. With utter laissez-faire my choices are seriously narrowed, the available options limited, investment risks (unecessarily) increased.

But anthing that's not a good reason is just a poor excuse then, not a vaild reason. JillSwift's correct, I erred in post #132 that she quoted. The error we've made so far is point-of-view (or at least I did). Seems it has to be relevant to "us" and the discussion, not to the person who mistakenly thinks it relevant. Huge difference. And if now I'm under the correct assumption, it'd help explain why iNow seemed to keep dismissing the reasons as not good enough -- because they actually weren't, for purposes of this discussion. You see, we're not concerned if the "anti" person is deluded (or secular in a mistaken way), just if their reason is valid. In fact, we don't even need the opposing person in the discussion, just the reason itself...were it vaild.

We know that, but let's clarify it exceedingly for others who might not. Could be the goalposts are in high weeds and need to be moved to a clearing

Better check again. I got slapped by reality being unaware of the extent of religious political influence here (in the U.S.) Learn from our errors mate In your linked article, its very title says... More than one-fifth prefer creationism or intelligent design, while many others are confused about Darwin's theory Its opening paragraph... Half of British adults do not believe in evolution, with at least 22% preferring the theories of creationism or intelligent design to explain how the world came about, according to a survey. And more from the UK... http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/Politicians_Talk_God_Because_Faith_Works.aspx?ArticleID=2478&PageID=96&RefPageID=96 Politicians Talk God Because Faith Works ..... New research published by Theos reveals a growing use of religious rhetoric by party leaders in their conference speeches. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/features/3631819/Believers-are-away-with-the-fairies.html Believers are away with the fairies ........ But all the major religions have become more assertive, more vocal, more demanding and therefore more salient in the public domain.

What??? You're ruining the institution of bananas.

The thread's question needs a partial addendum: "Are there any relevant secular reasons to oppose gay marriage in a person's mind, and would their reason change once it were proven to be flawed and not secular or relevant?" Perhaps that's what Mr Skeptic's attempting to get at? That in an opposing person's mind, they have a "legitimately" secular reason but don't know it's flawed -- so they're not really bigots if the premise is flawed because the reason is still inwardly valid. However, someone (mooey?) correctly pointed out their actions are still bigoted (even if the person themselves aren't).

I have an opposing view of sorts. It's essential for our representatives to call out a *real* lie in public, even in Congress against the President. He's not some kind of idol, and certainly not beyond disrespect when he's not being respectful in kind. Just imagine if a Democaratic representative had balls enough to similarly call out Bush or Cheney (especially the latter). Yeah, keep imagining Thus if Joe Wilson had been frank rather than a weasel, I'd applaud him.

Corrected I'm sure everyone's familiar with the supplied link by now. There are problems with deriving your info all from one source (or a group of "varied" sources with collaborated talking points). Fairly easy. It's the same intent as painting the opposition "extreme" while at the same time portraying your own extremism as normal and middle-ground. If they succeed in driving back socialism towards a new middle ground, soon they'd be attacking the new middle ground as extreme and driving it towards yet a lower middle ground. Until all that's left is a sliver of what existed -- and they'll likely blame all of society's ills (created by the unregulated markets) on that remaining sliver. ...and if you prefer Laissez-faire capitalism why not move to Austria? Oh, wait! They don't even support the crap embrace their "own" (supposed) philosophy, what by having a government of elected Social Democrats with its general dose of social programs. Heck, you can't move anywhere to find it. Just doesn't exist. I suggest trying to force an unproven, observed-nowhere philosophy on the rest of us as if it were absolute truth....by means of repeating verbatim after politicians and their media outlets. Most realistically (for now)? It's a threat to a power structure's dependants: the thieves and greedies who demand no interference by authorities or public leveraging of fairness onto their schemes. Find us one that is an entirely private system. ...with another quality in common: the most richest (by GDP and per capita) nations in the world are mixed systems. Hmmm, mises.org again. Why don't you ask them to explain how the above is possible? Your doubt has been noted, in the section labeled "unsubstantiated beliefs contradicted by reality...including previous actual cases". A final thought.....didn't the public services get installed for the precise reasons of the free market having insufficiently covered the population's needs?

I'll have to disagree. If you're filthy rich and didn't get a prenup from your spouse but then want a divorce, you'll know what I mean See above. Don't forget too, marriage had once primarily been a tool for business arrangements, at least in Europe. Not between just a man and a woman, but their families who likely benefitted the most. Tradition kept the concept from dying, until widespread it evolved into a contract between lovers forever.

It's not just commentary shows, it's political gimmicks (intended to mislead) embedded in anywhere from the side-scrolling text banners, to labels of politically opposed congressmen or ideologies, to even the regular "news" dialogue. Here's an example: Fox Taboids has mislabeled a Republican who's in scandalous hot water as being a Democrat enough times to signal purposefulness. The YouTube vid below reveals an instance of that (first couple seconds). mn7qCzV5sNM

A person who does what's moral isn't sneaky about it -- with a good dose of secret retaliation vs anyone who dares contradict their (fragile) justifications with (stone cold) reality. Well here's something easy to ask yourself...does Kohlberg's theories mention a long habit of lies, denials, and changing the official stories (each time they were caught)....as part of this highly advanced "morality"? I'm sure a lot of history's quests for people butchering used very similar types of reasoning excuses. A "logically" derived course of (highly questionable) action based on false premises doesn't show a high level of morality, but rather a high level of delusion -- towards yourself and/or to other people. Has that kind of logical fallacy been identified, defined, or categorized yet? If not, I propose...."Illogical Fallacy": hinging on supposed logic that isn't in any way (shape, or form) logical.

Ha, great way to teach newspapers to verify Another good one... http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/articles/2009/05/11/20090511ODDireland-wikipedia0511-ON.html Student hoaxes world's media with fake quote ........ When Dublin university student Shane Fitzgerald posted a poetic but phony quote on Wikipedia, he was testing how our globalized, increasingly Internet-dependent media was upholding accuracy and accountability in an age of instant news. His report card: Wikipedia passed. Journalism flunked. The sociology major's obituary-friendly quote - which he added to the Wikipedia page of Maurice Jarre hours after the French composer's death March 28 - flew straight on to dozens of U.S. blogs and newspaper Web sites in Britain, Australia and India. They used the fabricated material, Fitzgerald said, even though administrators at the free online encyclopedia twice caught the quote's lack of attribution and removed it. A full month went by and nobody noticed the editorial fraud. So Fitzgerald told several media outlets they'd swallowed his baloney whole. "I was really shocked at the results from the experiment," Fitzgerald, 22, said Monday in an interview a week after one newspaper at fault, The Guardian of Britain, became the first to admit its obituarist lifted material straight from Wikipedia. "I am 100 percent convinced that if I hadn't come forward, that quote would have gone down in history as something Maurice Jarre said, instead of something I made up," he said. "It would have become another example where, once anything is printed enough times in the media without challenge, it becomes fact." Emphasis mine. Wikipedians caught and removed the false entry twice, nice

Yeah I didn't really enjoy his approaches until this video. Hopefully it's a permanent change, no act. He does seem candid, but then so do actors. I didn't say that My description's of neocons steadily generating anger build-up till the 2000 elections, afterwards going full-on lockstep and terror boogeyman-ing, and now the modern equivalent of the Red Scare propaganda -- except today it's not China, but Obama. Agreed.

Awesome freakin pic :D

Nobody yelled. Or even raised their voice obnoxiously loud. At several town halls it's certainly occurred, but in your vid they seemed fairly calm. (After looking on YouTube directly, I see the vid's poster claims it started out loud but Franken quickly calmed them....)* Plus we're just assuming everyone in the crowd is a teabagger, when only the lady's got the shirt on. (...and the poster did claim the group was all teabaggers)* In any case, I think Al Franken seems a person able to take level-headed and firm control of a situation before it can escalate. *corrections, after seeing the vid directly on YouTube (the vid's title can be seen as misleading if someone didn't read its poster's notes) Definitely. But they do have coherent questions, such as how it's going to be paid for. Of course, much of their anger has to do with misinformation they hear about costs, while not being informed about the savings -- or playing deaf to any mention of that due to heated emotions. If they only knew how much of a hand the usual promisers of "lower taxes" have in the whole problem. A bit of research there could be insightful and eye-opening. It started way before Obama. We just noticed it more during Bush and now its surge after Obama -- as pundits went into hysteria overdrive, because their system's possibly never been so threatened. What's sucky is having to count on Dems to finally stand up, and who, as the majority power, are still tiptoeing around the politicians of the Right...almost seemingly with fear. Is there any reason for this? What does the Right have in their arsenal that has Dems so cautious?

Yeah, don't forget however the length of time needed to regroup without a functional government center, and the warning for the Japan leaders if they dared attack once more. Spot on. It doesn't matter to me they were spared. I was only calling a spade just that. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged Also one more thing I'd like to say. My argument has least to do with saving lives -- it's more against the justification for using something you don't want anyone to use....ever again

Your response is much improved. Still needs a bit of work though Or it could be that I'm just not buying what you're selling Although, you're partly correct....English is my native language, but only 50% -- as I grew up bilingual. However that's besides the point Nope. You didn't mention any of that, and supplied no link in the proper context. The unrelated link you posted... Do you think that the propect of the Army ending the war and stealing their thunder might have had something to do with their attitudes? You might be interested in reading this page; http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/downfall.html Also no link here... And of course, if those of that opinion were wrong and Downfall went ahead, then wholesale slaughter would have been the result. US dogfaces didn't sign up to shoot Japanese grannies with pointed sticks, but they would have had to. And none in your clarification... Allied troops would have been faced with a simple choice, shoot the kids and grannies charging at them or die. This was not a new tactic for the Japanese. During the fighting in New Guinea it was quite common for the Japanese to round up natives and use them as human shields in front of their charges. The defending troops were faced with a choice, machine gun unarmed women and children or die. It's not a pleasant choice and there is only one way to choose. They did it, and they hated the Japanese for making them do it. The bolded red contradicts what you just said a little further up: "They were not going to be human shields, they were to be active combattants. I thought that was clear." So, JohnB...should I wonder if [english] memory isn't your first [language] priority? Way before a combat's start, preparations are made (especially vs an old and known tactic) which affect what the choice is likely to be. 1. Kill everthing and spare no one that gets in the way. 2. Be killed. 3. Go by a carefully hatched strategy route which nails the most enemies, for the least casualties to yourselves and forced villagers. I'll leave you to guess how they prioritized it for the body shields... Drawing upon civilization's outstanding advancements But....if I were a nation looking to model its warfare on battles fought with astounding quality, I'd steer clear of any that "had to" butcher through innocents to reach the enemy just because such innocents were placed in front. As much ingenuity and technological excellence recent warfare might have, ironically the concept seems quite backwards in the problem-solving arena. My opinion is that certain variables in a person's mind affects how useful warfare seems to them. One is point-of-view. For example... If you believe humanity's inclined towards "good" (utility for a better approximation), your goals can be engineered towards having a society with the most cleverly advanced system of protections and exposing those who seek conquering by force and destructive harm. The world's more inclined to respond cutting off all non-edible supplies to them, but only if you've earned such trust by not meddling in world affairs, including by targeted killings as secretive as your foreign policy. Then round it all out with superior military capabilities for defense and swift responses. But if one views humanity as inclined towards "bad" (utter selfisness with power-hungry motives), certain goals will likely be engineerd towards having a society armed to the teeth and continually seeking out enemies where there are none. Plus the concept of the world acting to your beneift is laughable. Alternative for Hiroshima/Nagasaki How else could've Japan been dealt with? Obliterate the most critically important of government headquarters and deactivate the central or major nerves of their communications sytem. Then just leave. What's the nation going to do? It takes a vast amount of effort to coordinate industry, and run the nation properly -- especially with insufficient communications. And leave a warning that Japan owes the U.S. for reparations and if they ever attacked us a second time...it'd be a most henious price for Japan's leaders. Especially as... The USSR's joining in would've made continuing the war immensely daunting for Japan. (and yes I read your warbirdforum link) How possible are chances that the reason our militaries didn't wait for Russia to join in less than 10 days was because they'd have to share credit for total victory with a rival superpower? Zero chance? I'd give it a feasibility of 20% for a good arbitrary number. More than slight, but certainly not definite. However, it's also not (blind-foldedly) out of the question. Just re-examine your comments below on the Navy's interservice rivalry with the Army; now, imagine that on a grander scale by replacing the bolded with U.S. and USSR. Both Leahy and Nimitz believed the invasion unneccessary because the Navy could defeat Japan from the sea. Do not underestimate interservice rivalry. Do you think that the propect of the Army ending the war and stealing their thunder might have had something to do with their attitudes? So JohnB, how do you reconcile the supposed view that Japan would fight until everyone was dead -- over 70,000,000 million people -- with the view that Japan would give up only if atom bombs killed less than 1% of its people? Contrast that with the number of Japanese soldiers killed in actual warfare: nearly 3% of population (over 2.9% to be exact). It didn't stop Japan. And ironically, even though your argument partly hinges on the firebombing raids being worse than the atom bombs, you still view the atom bombs as more surefire than the firebombing raids in ending the war. So the crazy Japanese would risk 100% of lives for victory or defeat, but not less than 1% from atomic weaponry? Japan had lost 2.9% of their population (not even counting civilians). The U.S. with almost double Japan's population lost 8 times fewer: 0.32%. My argument is that the price of going in with Russia against Japan, and only crippling the government, would've been acceptable compared to the nuclear world's destructive potential the atom bomb droppings created. Far more lives now at stake than in WW2. And a little perpective... Hiroshima had the most deaths: 140,000. Even if you dropped 15 bombs of equal nukage for death-count, you'd only just almost reach the number of Japanese soldiers killed so far. That doesn't sound like a great motivator. (especially against insane war leaders bent on facing total annihilation/destruction rather than surrendering) Clear. Sounds to me like they could look forward to a life of peaceful pursuits in their homeland. Clear...but later foggy with rain (see google books further down), and not the sole option (reread my "Alternative for Hiroshima/Nagasaki" further up). NOT. The Emperor and princes were spared, at much insistence too. Not quite. Lots of censorship went on. Video had to be edited out if they even hinted at the presence of Allied soldiers in Japan. http://www.columbia.edu/~hds2/BIB95/02occupation_augustine.htm#04 Consisting of nearly 100 cubic feet of files containing periodical articles and book-length manuscripts submitted for pre-publication censorship, these are items that SCAP disapproved of in their original form. Certain books and articles were suppressed entirely or had extensive passages deleted from them because they extolled militaristic, ultranationalistic, or rightist views. Others were censored because they advocated radical Communism, failed to support programs and policies of SCAP, or were critical in some direct or indirect way of the Allies. The documents have been completely processed and are arranged alphabetically by title of periodical or book. http://books.google.com/books?id=Ba5hXsfeyhMC&pg=PA67&dq=severely+gis+censorship&sig=ACfU3U3_7MFOnBKgutBavggHUGIPQw9Vrg Japanese attempts at self-defense were punished severly. ........ Such behavior was commonplace, but news of criminal activity by Occupation forces was quickly suppressed. On 10 September 1945, SCAP issued press and pre-censorship codes outlawing the publication of all reports and statistics.... (They cite for reference at the end of the book) http://books.google.com/books?id=iIeyCNiD43sC&pg=PA86&dq=criticism+censorship+Germany+allied+occupation&lr=&as_brr=3&sig=ACfU3U3ht1X9rb44TcaJIy7_PKv0Eff4yw Not only did Occupation censorship forbid criticsim of the United States and othe Allied nations, but the mention of censorship itself was forbidden. (Bibliography on last page) Sounds nice and beautiful. Yet with all the censorship (mentioned previosly), how's a freely expressed will possible? Did the Allies take a survey of Japanese citizens? You do realize, talent can be hired to write poetic-sounding versions of reality, topped off with a looming darkness gnawing at the edges waiting to flood us. (Important to bear in mind when making a reality check) So how do you like being an unpaid poem waver for re-editors of history? A direct appeal to the people of Japan. Oh, I'm sure() everyone in Japan caught that broadcast, or were delivered a pamphlet (by horse....and samurai riders). So the atom bomb tests on videos were perfect for that. The Japanese wouldn't have known it to be the first tests ever, and so could've been told it was arranged specifically for their viewing pleasure. Yeah, like scientists would've been at the military operational plans Doubtful they were continually updated. flashback... Szilárd became increasingly dismayed that scientists were losing control over their research to the military In any case, were the relevant scientists invited to military planning of specific targets, or restricted to just attending the development stages of the weapons? No idea why you're addressing the *revisionist* stuff to me, as I didn't even present it. Failure in two ways. 1. no warning of the target city is required in order to make a threat of nuking a city. 2. move hundreds of thousands of people from a city and what -- hide them a little down the road? How to feed, clothe, and water them? Any jobs away from the city for that many people? Sounds like fantasy. Note: you're a fair challenge. Don't take it to heart if anything sounds condescending or mocking, those parts are in jest (as humor injections). Which you surely already know You debate well enough given the setting, and so know that I respect the depth in what you say -- obvious as you've drawn the largest reply I've ever given online

The biased (or anti) part is obvious. What caught me off guard is that severe implication's appearance in a considerably mainstream print, without the journalist even assigning its origin to some unknown Joe as back-up. You know, to fend off trouble down the road. Just surprising is all.

Sure, but a limit exists. Along the way somewhere you're gonna have to divvy up for efficiency.

@dr.syntax also... I take it you mean either Grey goo or unlimited self-replicating nanobiology that consumes all matter in the world? The problem with such easy assumptions is they usually either leave out the mechanisms for how it's possible -- or impossible, due to other variables related or unrelated. For example, if we'd created nanobots, and a few went haywire, then the mechanism for stopping them already exists: the other nanobots we possess, which are probably in much larger quantity than the startout rogue ones. Also, the nanos require energy -- no different than our biological needs, really. It's what everything operates on, so they've no advantage over us. Eating and traveling both need work and energy supply in order to happen. Communication does too, which brings up... How do they know not to eat one another? Now if do they communicate, it's possible to avoid that, but now another problem crops up -- how would one distant part of a swarm know which sections of Earth the others have already consumed? They're unlikely to survive intense conditions like magma and extreme weather. Any new method they develop for protection and coordination results in more software baggage, which means they're no longer very "nano" after a while. Especially -- if they learn how to build new models on-the-fly in response to unforeseen challenges, that's more like super-computer power we're talking about. In every nano-bot? Plus if mutations are the reason they exist: what's to stop another mutation from changing them back to normal or even self-destructive? Heh, if we could do all tasks by ourselves, would schools and the internet exist? Or these very forums?

Just like us, the robots would need to find and mine raw materials to build new robots/AIs. They'd have to construct worker robots, soldier robots, and engineering robots. While attempting to collect raw materials, they'd be vulnerable to attack from humans. Whatever the robots build is vulnerable to attack, as well. There is no free lunch for anything, robotics included. Better strategy for AI is to take over a small yet powerful government department, impersonate the personnel, and use that department's influence and command structure to eventually get the humans of that nation to unwittingly do much of their needed work, as preparation for expanding globally. Still I really have doubts about whether they'd succeed 100%.

Obviously someone in the media thinks so. Wow. Just read paragraph 8, beginning with "A far darker explanation..." It's a Time article written by Michael Duffy. I'd like to know exactly what motivated him to insert that little piece of "what if". Although I'd hardly be surprised if that were Cheney's goal.

Nothing groundbreaking there, it's the way stocks work. People either invest for long-term quality, or fast returns. History shows us that people have consistently jumped on a quickly rising market until the bubble popped, which then results in a sell-off panic. The idea is that if a plot of the logarithm of the market's value over time deviates upwards from a straight line, it's a clear warning that people are investing simply because the market is rising rather than paying heed to the intrinsic worth of companies. They're just calculating about when the panic (i.e. climax or reversal) will hit, based on numbers, patterns, and foreseeable reactions. That's more like statistics -- which actually is math, not a science. "A clear warning" also doesn't qualify as science. Their model, which employs concepts from the physics of complex atomic systems... Does it employ 1) mathematical, or 2) scientific, concepts from the physics of atomic systems? Important distinction there. Below are excerpts from the arxiv paper... It must be noted that a good fit of the model to the data series is not a 100% certainty for a crash, but it clearly points at a bubble formation. A critical point leads to a change in dynamics. Here the crash is most likely, but there exist a small yet finite possibility that the bubble will deflate more gently. ........ By the very nature of the model, this result gives us two conclusions. Firstly, there exists a bubble in the Shanghai Composite Index. Secondly, it will reach a critical level around July 17-27, 2009. This will lead to a change in regime which may be a crash or a more gently bubble deflation. From what I can see they've got nothing definite -- although with time, improvements to the calculated forecasts are possible. But what's easy to notice, is that if by law the relevant stocks were frozen in response to a detected panic selling....a good number of these critical market plunges, and its resulting dominoes effect, might be avoidable. It'd give investors a chance to relax with a deep breath, and for the market to stabilize from its hysteria. Influencing the results, aren't you?

Actually, for the housing crisis it wouldn't be surprising. It's not as much Austrian but common-sense economics. What goes up quickly, usually comes down quickly. I'm not economist, but I had detected some fairly obvious patterns (and its connection to stock patterns) when a guy teaching me about Futures revealed some pretty impressive tendencies which you could use to increase your "betting" chances by laying aside emotions and remembering a few simple but critical rule-of-thumbs while maintaining vigilance. He'd printed out the last few weeks of the graphed market, then the last few years, and then the last 50 years. The principles worked regardless the scale you looked at it (on the web you can pick out any group of years). Of course I didn't pursue it, he just liked teaching me a potential for cash that was still fairly risky but minimized it in some areas if you were extremely careful. He probably hadn't intended for me to draw a larger lesson (including about stocks in general). It's amazing how the market behaves, and I almost could visualize it as a live beast -- one that you have little chance of knowing exactly what it's going to do, but still you can make fairly educated assumptions -- just never 100%, and rarely even close to that. In an economics class later I gained more knowledge and deduced further things. But in the end, it's all probabilites mixed in with behavioral tendencies and periodically snap judgements, nothing but a fancy betting scheme. It most certainly isn't science.

I'll add a flat-out no as well Wouldn't that mean poker is science too? I hear so much on the Austrian economics school of thought. And it has me wondering. Do the Austrian economists match up with the Austrian economy? It has strong labor unions, who help ensure a healthy wage nationally. The government also is measurably Social Democratic (politically centre-left), and it's forbidden nuclear power in favor of hydropower and other renewables (at least 60% of total electricity, the rest gas and oil). Would you mind verifying those?