No. They weren't. I speak as somebody who's had a go with Eliza and you could spot that it was a computer program in a couple of minutes if you wanted to. It's more likely that people were suspending their disbelief than really fooled.
The fact that YOU weren't fooled is not evidence that PEOPLE weren't fooled. They were, in droves, and it has been documented in peer-reviewed papers of the day.
I appreciate your anecdote, and I flatter myself that it would not have fooled me, either, but our anecdotes do not negate the scientific literature.
What has been conducted precisely matches Turing's proposed immitation game.
NO, it DEFINITELY does NOT. For just one example, it tries to get around the "natural language" stipulation by pretending to be someone who doesn't fully know that language, and uses a simplified version instead.
That is a very clear attempt to subvert the rules.
I could go on, but it isn't necessary. It wasn't a real Turing test. We can leave aside the other nuances because the first criterion wasn't met.
If I recall my chemistry correctly, there's two factors that determine the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid: The solubility, and the partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere. So, if solubility decreases less than partial pressure increases, the total amount of dissolved CO2 will increase.
I understand this quite well, thank you, which was why I stated that I would need to get some formulas together and make some calculations before I made up my mind about the issue.
Do not expect me to take your word for it. There have been so many distortions of science made in the name of AGW that I don't take anyone's word for it, I would have to see the data.
I expect that you understand. At least, unlike the other responder, you didn't just distort my comments and cast personal aspersions. Sometimes, even assuming I am an ignorant layperson is better than the responses other climate alarmists give.
They do work against each other, but our CO2 emissions are so rapid that they overwhelm the solubility effect. Once again [slashdot.org], what you're dismissing as "alarmism" is actually mainstream science. Temperatures are going up, and dissolved CO2 is also going up.
And once again, you are distorting my comment, which was an admission that I did not know the answer, and characterizing it instead as some kind of denial.
You have deserved this at least a hundred times: fuck off, until you figure out how to actually have a discussion with someone rather than insulting them and claiming they said something they didn't.
You sorely lack social skills, man. I mean the minimum kind needed to have a rational debate.
Also, in a period of 10,000 years starting 18,000 years ago sea levels rose 400 feet, with commensurate changes in temperature, salinity and acidity. Somehow the corals survived.
Here is something -- slightly off-topic but still peripheral to the subject -- that I admit puzzles me: the solubility issue.
I would have to collect some formulas together and actually do some math... but in general, as temperature goes up, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases. So I am curious how alarmists are claiming both that the temperature will go up, and the amount of dissolved CO2 will also go up. Those two things would seem to work against each other.
But the average over the entire day has been significantly increased.
Please define "significantly". The amount of "significance" depends on natural variability. As already mentioned, any differences that can be honestly attributed to CO2 don't seem to be "significant" in that context. Further, you seemed to miss the point that coral evolved in conditions of MUCH higher CO2 concentrations, not just a little or even double or triple, but far more than even an order of magnitude. Whether they did it quickly or slowly has little bearing on the fact that they did it.
Much like how air temperatures may vary by 20-30 degrees F from night to day but a change in the average daily temperatures of just a couple of degrees has a major effect on growing seasons, insect viability, etc.
I know how it works. And that's correct: historically, and in general, a degree or two warmer on average has lengthened growing seasons, making them more productive. And higher CO2 concentrations generally helps plant growth (which is why some greenhouse operations add CO2 to their greenhouse air).
For a geek you suuuuuuck at math.
This would seem to be a rather large leap to conclusion, since no actual "math" has appeared here.
Giving 12 days to perhaps save a tiny bit of biodiversity and learn something about doomed nature
The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable.
I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today.
Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2.
Less sensation of control loss is not a good thing. If the road was built badly (ie. opposite banking) then the driver should be aware of that, instead of thinking that he has control while in fact he doesn't.
This.
This is for comfort in passenger cars. In a performance situation, "feeling of control" when it isn't really there creates very serious problems.
Note, however: leaning into a corner in a performance situation actually does serve a purpose. Strong sideways G-forces can interfere with actual control of your vehicle.
You may consider it verified... subjectively, by a panel of judges, under very narrowly defined circumstances.
In more seriousness, GP makes a very important point. Not only was this nothing like a real Turing test (a computer would have to fool the average person in more generalized and everyday circumstances for that to happen), the real point here is that we have learned since the days of Turing that even the full-blown Turing test doesn't really indicate much of anything.
People were fooled (really, really fooled) by Eliza way back in the day. It doesn't mean squat.
How can the water level on earth rise faster in some places than in others? I would expect water to rise uniformly on the surface of a sphere (egg).
The same way the Atlantic Ocean on one side of the Panama Canal is a different height than the Pacific Ocean on the other side.
And the amount it has actually risen in the Marshalls is roughly about 3". Even then, attributing this to "Climate Change" is a bit of a leap. Even though water has risen there "more than the global average", that's really not saying much since the global average is something like 1/4" over the last century. (Roughly... I don't remember the exact figure.) It is actually lower in some places, too.
So might benefit? May be people like me, doing finite element analysis, mesh generation or other such physics simulations.
Actually, finite element analysis is one of the fields that stands to benefit most from the use of GPUs. Although it does depend on just what it is you are doing.
I remember back in the early 90s when our office got a brand-new 25MHz 486. We had great expectations for it. We set up a groundwater flow model (I forget how many cells it was) on the Friday it came in, after I got it all set up. The simulation ran the rest of Friday... we went home. Monday when we came back it was still running...
I know socialists and they don't believe what you insist they do. I know communists and they are mostly good, altruistic people. But I know what would happen should they get real power.
I don't give a damn what they believe. I wasn't talking about their beliefs. I was talking about the theory of government. I repeat: if you're talking about something else, then fine, but you aren't talking about what I was talking about. So what's the point of arguing?
And no, you don't know communists, because I repeat: there has never been a Communist government in the history of the world. You can use your own definition if you like, but again: if you are, then we aren't talking about the same things. So what's the point of arguing?
You are the one who declares everything different from the US system is shit.
Look, asshole. You can argue with me all you want, but you don't get to put words in my mouth. That isn't what I wrote, that isn't what I meant, and that's not acceptable behavior.
First world problem. I came to this country from the second poorest country in the world, and my wife is from Japan which has the 3rd largest nominal GDP. The opportunities we have had here to pursue our dreams are great. For me specifically.
That's all great. And don't misunderstand me, I mean that's great. Sincerely. But the fact that it is better than something else does not mean it doesn't have real problems. It is far worse today than it was 30 years ago.
Saying "You have it good because other people have it worse" is like saying "Why did you complain when I broke your arm? Look, that other guy has a broken leg!" It's just not a valid argument.
I *DO* know how good it is here. I *ALSO* know that it can be better... because it has been.
You don't get to count the Clipper Chip as something bad the government did.
YOU don't get to count that as something I wrote. What I wrote was "tried to". Look again.
I can attest that AM and FM radio didn't stop being a vital part of our communication system in 1960.
Can you explain again please how it was "vital"? Somehow I missed that part.
Now here's the part that's going to be astonishing for someone whose concept of what the House of Representatives can accomplish is shaped by the last four or five Congresses.
I am not one of those youngsters you seem to be lecturing here.
Despite its accessibility, many doctors say the medication wasn't a good option for patients.
Although the CFC ban is what eventually drove Primatene Mist from the market, Pulmonologist have argued for years that it was at the very least, not the best medication for asthma control, and at worst, dangerous. The active ingredient in Primatene Mist is Epinephrine (also known as adrenaline, adrenalin), which can cause a dangerous increase in heart rate.
You miss the point.
Pulmonologists, in general, aren't struggling for their next breath, and have ready access to prescription medicine. Not everybody else is in the same boat.
IT DOESN'T MATTER if abuse of epinephrine will cause a heart attack IF YOU CAN'T BREATHE ANYWAY!!! You will be dead before you ever need to worry about it.
I have been there. I was being completely serious: the fact that I could not get Primatene from the store damned near killed me. It was a weekend night, the pharmacies were not open, and I was had a very severe attack. If Primatene had been available in the store, I would have been FINE. But it wasn't. The result: a 911 call and a stint in the hospital. It was that or DIE. That is no exaggeration.
And what did they give me in the hospital? SURPRISE! Epinephrine. (Among other things, but that abated the immediate breathing problem.)
For that reason, the goal of asthma care isn't to react just to attacks -- it's to prevent attacks in the first place.
No shit, Sherlock! BUT the fact that this is the goal is very different from "the goal has been achieved"!!! In the meantime, emergencies do happen. And removing the only effective emergency medicine from the shelves is STUPID and kills people!
As far as I can tell, the test where specifically using people, who knew they were inflicting harm onto someone else - to the point of making it look like the learner had suffered a heart attack, and they knew why.
They knew they were in a Pych experiment. They did not know, though (because it was not the case) that their chosen career was to enforce the law fairly and equally. There is a bit of a difference.
In the latter case, the authors argue that the people involved are, in fact, making a moral judgment about what they are doing and consciously deciding to do it anyway. Which means they ARE acting on their own, though they might refuse to take responsibility for it later. Claiming "I was just taking orders," for example.
There is no free speech "right" for companies. Companies don't have rights.
When SCOTUS recently ruled, in effect, that corporations have a right to free speech, it seemingly (and very bizarrely) seemed to ignore the fact that government already regulates corporate speech about 100 different ways.
It also meant, in effect, that money = speech. An obvious corollary to that is: some people are more "equal" than others.
In my opinion this was the worst Supreme Court decision in living memory, and a future court or administration will inevitably overturn it.
A classic case of corporate interests spending lavishly to buy influence on issues where their interests run counter to those of the public at large. Who was the tool here last week who insisted that this was not a problem?
But who (other than Congress) would actually believe such a thing is "public sentiment"? The very idea is ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind (that is to say, nobody but Congress) would believe this garbage.
Marx isn't Mohammed. He doesn't define "socialism" for everyone now, if he ever did, and certainly few if any socialists I know would defer to his definition. Any Marxists still around hate socialists more than anyone else for not being pure enough.
If you're talking about the theory of government, then you either accept the "official" definition, or you're talking about something else.
Historically, Marx defined Socialism in much the same way Smith defined Capitalism. Each described his theory in great detail and had a huge influence on the world in subsequent decades.
I understand that different definitions do exist. But if you're talking about them, then you're talking about something other than what I was talking about. So then what's the point?
That was the final stage, which of course was never attained. Many though did have quite idyllic "all for one and one for all" periods of altruistic government for a short time after the revolution, until the assholes started manoeuvring for power.
Which is what Marx defined as "Socialism": a necessary step on the way to Communism, in which the means of production are owned and controlled by a strong central authority.
And I agree: the problem with it is simply that once you get to that stage, the assholes never want to give up power. Which is precisely (in my opinion and the opinion of some theorists) why Communism never actually came to pass.
Anyway, I wouldn't care about your silly word games except you are using them to say every form of government except your own is shit. A sadly common insular American attitude.
You can call them "shit" if you want, but then you would have to acknowledge that the theory and history of economics is shit, because that's what I'm referring to. I studied this "shit", dude, in pretty exhausting detail.
And you can listen to your favorite radio station only because the Federal Communications Commission brings organization and coherence to our vast telecommunications system.
Time standards that were adequate to their day were around before NIST. NIST has done an awful lot of bad things, too. (Or tried to... remember the Clipper Chip?... oh, and there was that recent thing about encryption standards...)
AM and FM radio haven't been a significant part of our actual "telecommunication system" since maybe 1960. Other than the occasional storm warning.
Like 17 million other Americans, you have asthma. But as you get out of bed you notice that you are breathing freely this morning. This is thanks in part to government clean air laws that reduce the air pollution that would otherwise greatly worsen your condition.
Clean air laws DID clean up our air. Great. But now they ARE much cleaner than before, yet EPA tries to tell us there are "increasing health problems" due to the ever-cleaner air. (That is, of course, because EPA is a huge government bureaucracy that is really only interested in making itself bigger, and really doesn't give a damn about your health. But they pretend well.)
And by the way: the EPA was instrumental in getting Primatene Mist banned last year because it used CFCs as a propellant. There is, as yet, no adequate substitute on the market. There is something called "Asthmanefrin" which is a sorry substitute, and which uses an expensive electric atomizer that is rather prone to clogging when it is needed most.
Because Primatene Mist was the ONLY effective, portable, affordable over-the-counter medicine that could stop asthma in its tracks, the government has probably killed more asthmatics now than it has saved. It damned near killed ME. So pardon me if I don't buy your glowing recommendation here.
You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why? Because when your house was being built, the electrical system had to be inspected to make sure it was properly installed as a service provided by your local government. And it was installed by an electrician who was licensed by your state government to ensure his competence and your safety.
I am pretty sure GP was referring to the Federal government. The Feds don't inspect your electrical system. That's state and sometimes just local.
Your greatest dreams are in the hands of the government everyday.
Bullshit. The government has done more in my lifetime in the way of killing my dreams than any other single entity.
Presumably this is some weird American definition, not used by anyone who actually is a socialist.
I was using Marx's definition of Socialism.
Parliamentary democracy has lasted well over a millennium (e.g. Iceland continuously since the 10th C) and is doing fine, thanks.
Not under one Constitution, which is what I referred to.
Well, there have, but within a decade of attaining power they all become juntas or oligarchies or even monarchies (North Korea again). Sadly communism is too idealistic about human nature and doesn't have the checks and balances to stop power crazy psychopaths from taking control. Your constitution was written to prevent excessive concentration of power, and is fairly effective at that, frustrating as it is for zealots on either side. But it's not the only workable way to do it.
No, there haven't. Again, using Marx's definition. The closest anybody ever came was a bad form of Socialism.
Communism -- true Communism, by the very definition of what Communism is -- has no government. Name me one country in written history that qualifies.
Slashdot Mirror
No. They weren't. I speak as somebody who's had a go with Eliza and you could spot that it was a computer program in a couple of minutes if you wanted to. It's more likely that people were suspending their disbelief than really fooled.
The fact that YOU weren't fooled is not evidence that PEOPLE weren't fooled. They were, in droves, and it has been documented in peer-reviewed papers of the day.
I appreciate your anecdote, and I flatter myself that it would not have fooled me, either, but our anecdotes do not negate the scientific literature.
What has been conducted precisely matches Turing's proposed immitation game.
NO, it DEFINITELY does NOT. For just one example, it tries to get around the "natural language" stipulation by pretending to be someone who doesn't fully know that language, and uses a simplified version instead.
That is a very clear attempt to subvert the rules.
I could go on, but it isn't necessary. It wasn't a real Turing test. We can leave aside the other nuances because the first criterion wasn't met.
If I recall my chemistry correctly, there's two factors that determine the amount of gas dissolved in a liquid: The solubility, and the partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere. So, if solubility decreases less than partial pressure increases, the total amount of dissolved CO2 will increase.
I understand this quite well, thank you, which was why I stated that I would need to get some formulas together and make some calculations before I made up my mind about the issue.
Do not expect me to take your word for it. There have been so many distortions of science made in the name of AGW that I don't take anyone's word for it, I would have to see the data.
I expect that you understand. At least, unlike the other responder, you didn't just distort my comments and cast personal aspersions. Sometimes, even assuming I am an ignorant layperson is better than the responses other climate alarmists give.
They do work against each other, but our CO2 emissions are so rapid that they overwhelm the solubility effect. Once again [slashdot.org], what you're dismissing as "alarmism" is actually mainstream science. Temperatures are going up, and dissolved CO2 is also going up.
And once again, you are distorting my comment, which was an admission that I did not know the answer, and characterizing it instead as some kind of denial.
You have deserved this at least a hundred times: fuck off, until you figure out how to actually have a discussion with someone rather than insulting them and claiming they said something they didn't.
You sorely lack social skills, man. I mean the minimum kind needed to have a rational debate.
I know them very well.
If they want to salve their consciences, all they have to do is pay up.
Also, in a period of 10,000 years starting 18,000 years ago sea levels rose 400 feet, with commensurate changes in temperature, salinity and acidity. Somehow the corals survived.
Here is something -- slightly off-topic but still peripheral to the subject -- that I admit puzzles me: the solubility issue.
I would have to collect some formulas together and actually do some math... but in general, as temperature goes up, the solubility of CO2 in water decreases. So I am curious how alarmists are claiming both that the temperature will go up, and the amount of dissolved CO2 will also go up. Those two things would seem to work against each other.
But the average over the entire day has been significantly increased.
Please define "significantly". The amount of "significance" depends on natural variability. As already mentioned, any differences that can be honestly attributed to CO2 don't seem to be "significant" in that context. Further, you seemed to miss the point that coral evolved in conditions of MUCH higher CO2 concentrations, not just a little or even double or triple, but far more than even an order of magnitude. Whether they did it quickly or slowly has little bearing on the fact that they did it.
Much like how air temperatures may vary by 20-30 degrees F from night to day but a change in the average daily temperatures of just a couple of degrees has a major effect on growing seasons, insect viability, etc.
I know how it works. And that's correct: historically, and in general, a degree or two warmer on average has lengthened growing seasons, making them more productive. And higher CO2 concentrations generally helps plant growth (which is why some greenhouse operations add CO2 to their greenhouse air).
For a geek you suuuuuuck at math.
This would seem to be a rather large leap to conclusion, since no actual "math" has appeared here.
Giving 12 days to perhaps save a tiny bit of biodiversity and learn something about doomed nature
The degree of "doomedness" is highly questionable.
I don't dispute that human activities have harmed coral in many cases. But coral evolved when it was both warmer than it is now, AND the concentration of CO2 was many times what it is today.
Also, studies have shown that the pH in a given location of the ocean typically varies every day far more than any amount that can be attributed to CO2.
Less sensation of control loss is not a good thing. If the road was built badly (ie. opposite banking) then the driver should be aware of that, instead of thinking that he has control while in fact he doesn't.
This.
This is for comfort in passenger cars. In a performance situation, "feeling of control" when it isn't really there creates very serious problems.
Note, however: leaning into a corner in a performance situation actually does serve a purpose. Strong sideways G-forces can interfere with actual control of your vehicle.
You may consider it verified... subjectively, by a panel of judges, under very narrowly defined circumstances.
In more seriousness, GP makes a very important point. Not only was this nothing like a real Turing test (a computer would have to fool the average person in more generalized and everyday circumstances for that to happen), the real point here is that we have learned since the days of Turing that even the full-blown Turing test doesn't really indicate much of anything.
People were fooled (really, really fooled) by Eliza way back in the day. It doesn't mean squat.
They did this. The transmission was stopped after 3.5 seconds because they used up their monthly data cap.
Isn't it amazing? We can send broadband transmissions via light to the moon, but we haven't been getting it at home via Comcast.
How can the water level on earth rise faster in some places than in others? I would expect water to rise uniformly on the surface of a sphere (egg).
The same way the Atlantic Ocean on one side of the Panama Canal is a different height than the Pacific Ocean on the other side.
And the amount it has actually risen in the Marshalls is roughly about 3". Even then, attributing this to "Climate Change" is a bit of a leap. Even though water has risen there "more than the global average", that's really not saying much since the global average is something like 1/4" over the last century. (Roughly... I don't remember the exact figure.) It is actually lower in some places, too.
So might benefit? May be people like me, doing finite element analysis, mesh generation or other such physics simulations.
Actually, finite element analysis is one of the fields that stands to benefit most from the use of GPUs. Although it does depend on just what it is you are doing.
I remember back in the early 90s when our office got a brand-new 25MHz 486. We had great expectations for it. We set up a groundwater flow model (I forget how many cells it was) on the Friday it came in, after I got it all set up. The simulation ran the rest of Friday... we went home. Monday when we came back it was still running...
I know socialists and they don't believe what you insist they do. I know communists and they are mostly good, altruistic people. But I know what would happen should they get real power.
I don't give a damn what they believe. I wasn't talking about their beliefs. I was talking about the theory of government. I repeat: if you're talking about something else, then fine, but you aren't talking about what I was talking about. So what's the point of arguing?
And no, you don't know communists, because I repeat: there has never been a Communist government in the history of the world. You can use your own definition if you like, but again: if you are, then we aren't talking about the same things. So what's the point of arguing?
You are the one who declares everything different from the US system is shit.
Look, asshole. You can argue with me all you want, but you don't get to put words in my mouth. That isn't what I wrote, that isn't what I meant, and that's not acceptable behavior.
So get stuffed. We're done here.
First world problem. I came to this country from the second poorest country in the world, and my wife is from Japan which has the 3rd largest nominal GDP. The opportunities we have had here to pursue our dreams are great. For me specifically.
That's all great. And don't misunderstand me, I mean that's great. Sincerely. But the fact that it is better than something else does not mean it doesn't have real problems. It is far worse today than it was 30 years ago.
Saying "You have it good because other people have it worse" is like saying "Why did you complain when I broke your arm? Look, that other guy has a broken leg!" It's just not a valid argument.
I *DO* know how good it is here. I *ALSO* know that it can be better... because it has been.
You don't get to count the Clipper Chip as something bad the government did.
YOU don't get to count that as something I wrote. What I wrote was "tried to". Look again.
I can attest that AM and FM radio didn't stop being a vital part of our communication system in 1960.
Can you explain again please how it was "vital"? Somehow I missed that part.
Now here's the part that's going to be astonishing for someone whose concept of what the House of Representatives can accomplish is shaped by the last four or five Congresses.
I am not one of those youngsters you seem to be lecturing here.
Despite its accessibility, many doctors say the medication wasn't a good option for patients.
Although the CFC ban is what eventually drove Primatene Mist from the market, Pulmonologist have argued for years that it was at the very least, not the best medication for asthma control, and at worst, dangerous. The active ingredient in Primatene Mist is Epinephrine (also known as adrenaline, adrenalin), which can cause a dangerous increase in heart rate.
You miss the point.
Pulmonologists, in general, aren't struggling for their next breath, and have ready access to prescription medicine. Not everybody else is in the same boat.
IT DOESN'T MATTER if abuse of epinephrine will cause a heart attack IF YOU CAN'T BREATHE ANYWAY!!! You will be dead before you ever need to worry about it.
I have been there. I was being completely serious: the fact that I could not get Primatene from the store damned near killed me. It was a weekend night, the pharmacies were not open, and I was had a very severe attack. If Primatene had been available in the store, I would have been FINE. But it wasn't. The result: a 911 call and a stint in the hospital. It was that or DIE. That is no exaggeration.
And what did they give me in the hospital? SURPRISE! Epinephrine. (Among other things, but that abated the immediate breathing problem.)
For that reason, the goal of asthma care isn't to react just to attacks -- it's to prevent attacks in the first place.
No shit, Sherlock! BUT the fact that this is the goal is very different from "the goal has been achieved"!!! In the meantime, emergencies do happen. And removing the only effective emergency medicine from the shelves is STUPID and kills people!
As far as I can tell, the test where specifically using people, who knew they were inflicting harm onto someone else - to the point of making it look like the learner had suffered a heart attack, and they knew why.
They knew they were in a Pych experiment. They did not know, though (because it was not the case) that their chosen career was to enforce the law fairly and equally. There is a bit of a difference.
And then there's THIS. And THIS.
In the latter case, the authors argue that the people involved are, in fact, making a moral judgment about what they are doing and consciously deciding to do it anyway. Which means they ARE acting on their own, though they might refuse to take responsibility for it later. Claiming "I was just taking orders," for example.
There should be no free speech for companies.
There is no free speech "right" for companies. Companies don't have rights.
When SCOTUS recently ruled, in effect, that corporations have a right to free speech, it seemingly (and very bizarrely) seemed to ignore the fact that government already regulates corporate speech about 100 different ways.
It also meant, in effect, that money = speech. An obvious corollary to that is: some people are more "equal" than others.
In my opinion this was the worst Supreme Court decision in living memory, and a future court or administration will inevitably overturn it.
A classic case of corporate interests spending lavishly to buy influence on issues where their interests run counter to those of the public at large. Who was the tool here last week who insisted that this was not a problem?
But who (other than Congress) would actually believe such a thing is "public sentiment"? The very idea is ridiculous. Nobody in their right mind (that is to say, nobody but Congress) would believe this garbage.
Not anymore. The pirates have been running the ship since Nixon.
It's far past time we turned that around.
Marx isn't Mohammed. He doesn't define "socialism" for everyone now, if he ever did, and certainly few if any socialists I know would defer to his definition. Any Marxists still around hate socialists more than anyone else for not being pure enough.
If you're talking about the theory of government, then you either accept the "official" definition, or you're talking about something else.
Historically, Marx defined Socialism in much the same way Smith defined Capitalism. Each described his theory in great detail and had a huge influence on the world in subsequent decades.
I understand that different definitions do exist. But if you're talking about them, then you're talking about something other than what I was talking about. So then what's the point?
That was the final stage, which of course was never attained. Many though did have quite idyllic "all for one and one for all" periods of altruistic government for a short time after the revolution, until the assholes started manoeuvring for power.
Which is what Marx defined as "Socialism": a necessary step on the way to Communism, in which the means of production are owned and controlled by a strong central authority.
And I agree: the problem with it is simply that once you get to that stage, the assholes never want to give up power. Which is precisely (in my opinion and the opinion of some theorists) why Communism never actually came to pass.
Anyway, I wouldn't care about your silly word games except you are using them to say every form of government except your own is shit. A sadly common insular American attitude.
You can call them "shit" if you want, but then you would have to acknowledge that the theory and history of economics is shit, because that's what I'm referring to. I studied this "shit", dude, in pretty exhausting detail.
I learned about in in Psych over 20 years ago.
But it's really not that relevant. We're talking here about things people know they're doing, and even why they're doing it.
Nobody is saying it's never an excuse. But there are some pretty clear lines.
And you can listen to your favorite radio station only because the Federal Communications Commission brings organization and coherence to our vast telecommunications system.
Time standards that were adequate to their day were around before NIST. NIST has done an awful lot of bad things, too. (Or tried to... remember the Clipper Chip?... oh, and there was that recent thing about encryption standards...)
AM and FM radio haven't been a significant part of our actual "telecommunication system" since maybe 1960. Other than the occasional storm warning.
Like 17 million other Americans, you have asthma. But as you get out of bed you notice that you are breathing freely this morning. This is thanks in part to government clean air laws that reduce the air pollution that would otherwise greatly worsen your condition.
Clean air laws DID clean up our air. Great. But now they ARE much cleaner than before, yet EPA tries to tell us there are "increasing health problems" due to the ever-cleaner air. (That is, of course, because EPA is a huge government bureaucracy that is really only interested in making itself bigger, and really doesn't give a damn about your health. But they pretend well.)
And by the way: the EPA was instrumental in getting Primatene Mist banned last year because it used CFCs as a propellant. There is, as yet, no adequate substitute on the market. There is something called "Asthmanefrin" which is a sorry substitute, and which uses an expensive electric atomizer that is rather prone to clogging when it is needed most.
Because Primatene Mist was the ONLY effective, portable, affordable over-the-counter medicine that could stop asthma in its tracks, the government has probably killed more asthmatics now than it has saved. It damned near killed ME. So pardon me if I don't buy your glowing recommendation here.
You flip the switch on the coffee maker. There is no short in the outlet or in the electrical line and there is no resulting fire in your house. Why? Because when your house was being built, the electrical system had to be inspected to make sure it was properly installed as a service provided by your local government. And it was installed by an electrician who was licensed by your state government to ensure his competence and your safety.
I am pretty sure GP was referring to the Federal government. The Feds don't inspect your electrical system. That's state and sometimes just local.
Your greatest dreams are in the hands of the government everyday.
Bullshit. The government has done more in my lifetime in the way of killing my dreams than any other single entity.
Presumably this is some weird American definition, not used by anyone who actually is a socialist.
I was using Marx's definition of Socialism.
Parliamentary democracy has lasted well over a millennium (e.g. Iceland continuously since the 10th C) and is doing fine, thanks.
Not under one Constitution, which is what I referred to.
Well, there have, but within a decade of attaining power they all become juntas or oligarchies or even monarchies (North Korea again). Sadly communism is too idealistic about human nature and doesn't have the checks and balances to stop power crazy psychopaths from taking control. Your constitution was written to prevent excessive concentration of power, and is fairly effective at that, frustrating as it is for zealots on either side. But it's not the only workable way to do it.
No, there haven't. Again, using Marx's definition. The closest anybody ever came was a bad form of Socialism.
Communism -- true Communism, by the very definition of what Communism is -- has no government. Name me one country in written history that qualifies.