He's fine with someone else trading their freedoms when it's convenient for HIM
They traded their freedoms at the time of buying the phone, activating mobile service on it, or putting it in their pockets while switched on while they were leaving their homes. They also kept trading it every moment they did not destroy / switch off / enclose in Faraday cage their phone. But they absolutely never traded any of their freedoms when it was convenient for RMS. Including the freedom to refuse to acquiesce to his request.
Actually, letting RMS make his call increases the anonymity and hence freedom a tiny bit. If you call the acquaintances of RMS instead of your own, the algorithms to figure out your social circle is a tiny bit more confused than if you were exclusively calling your own acquaintances.
I don't murder people so I'll hire this hit man to do it for me.
No, it is like I don't murder people but other people hire hit men anyway to murder yet other people. I can request the hit man to deliver a courier to the person being killed, or someone close to him. If the consignee is the one being murdered, I can further request the hit man to deliver it before the murder - but of course he may still choose to deliver after the murder or not deliver at all.
OK, are you better ? Here you provably deployed a logical fallacy : Ad Hominem. Topic was his treatment of the subject of manufacturing / manipulating dissent / consent. Without addressing his points, you made factuality incorrect arguments against the person. Factually incorrect because winning one academic battle means he was at least once not fake news.
Such factual incorrectness is easy to avoid too : one way is to not use the word "always" when talking about a long and successful life you don't have much clue about. But maybe this needs some knowledge of linguistics for this ?
At a very young age, Chomsky quite credibly refuted a towering figure of the field of psychology / cognitive science. So much for his being right - as much as one can be in the field of science - that too an evolving one.
About his being wrong - in the field of politics / international relations - where so much is wrapped under secrecy, it is easy to be wrong. And any analysis of rightness / wrongness will be colored by the heavy use of emotions that most such analysis ends up being - so it is even easier to be perceived to be wrong.
Among all this, your conclusion of his being always fake news is by far the wrongest.
So the people deciding your job / your tools, which could include you, have made peace with the fact that Microsoft will spy on you. Nothing wrong with making peace.
For most of your private uses, you could still switch to Linux - in a year if not a heartbeat. You have not mentioned any reasons why you can't - although you will be the only one to lose if you can't. If you do switch, Microsoft gets their grubby hands on your private data with much more difficulty. What's to not like about the plan ?
A couple of hours walking to begin with is extreme. Exercise lowers immunity for 1-3 hours after the exercise. Opportunistic infections in an already unhealthy body could do a damage lasting years. Excessive exercise also leads to depression - which the GP is already complaining about.
It is imperative to keep exercise very light to begin with - which might not even seem like exercise to fitter people. Of course it needs to be increased slowly as one feels better, or at least not worse.
All it's going to take is one major chain to roll it out, and then it's going to be cheaper and better than the average fast food burger. And healthier.
There is your mistake - expecting it to be better and healthier even after a major chain rolls it out;)
Just kidding - it may be good. I am just saying that generally that is not the direction major chains take food into.
No, it would have been a silly statement to make if biology were the only science. Since there are more, I made it clear that biology is the science in question. E.g. since science is always science, it is silly to say : Sex is a scientific (as in scientific) construct.
Other than that, I see nothing to reply in your post as I don't think you've understood the context of the post.
Gender is a grammatical construct. Sex is a scientific (as in biological) construct.
Grammar is fundamentally debatable and descriptions of it are mostly flawed - so if you find all definitions of gender flawed you are not saying anything new.
Yeah, I see that some environmentalists seem to go by the cuteness metric for "importance". We seem to more often find land animals cuter - probably because we are land animals too.
So? You are not educated enough to understand that ecosystems can be (and mostly are) non-living ?
Oceans don't need anything - even if you call them ecosystems. They don't care about their own pH, size, water content, salt content, living being content, health of those living beings, or even their own existence.
Almost invariably, there is some wild life and nature already at the place where this pumped storage creates artificial lakes. That wild life and nature gets bothered - and hence environmentalists get a reason to say no-no.
This is a fundamentally incomplete creativity. The motivation, direction, criticism, approval of the creative work is highly likely to come from someone other than the "creative worker".
Its power to shape society - the only real reason why society should worry about creative workers being empowered, is extremely limited. Otherwise there is nothing special in creative works - as you yourself say later in this post. Creative work as a "business model" does not by itself deserve a wholesale change in society like you propose - unless it be for the possibility of societal transformation.
So even if it can be said to be creative by some definitions - I would not take it seriously for 2 reasons : 1. Incomplete creativity 2. Uselessness
I seem to recall that hunter-gatherers actually have loads of leisure time
Today's hunter gatherers are protected by armies or navies from the unpleasant realities. Migration - which used to be a constant endeavour or threat is usually impossible due to adjacent human civilization powered by agriculture.
If you are using the first definition of "actual" from here for your "actually", and using present tense to talk about prehistory - you will have to provide a lot more evidence. And still come to nothing because in any case, you agree with the real point that idleness / free time / resources not devoted to absolute survival does promote creative works. This idleness needs money in today's world. Which is the point.
Well, there's no reason to treat creative workers specially. If you simply want more works and will pay, offer commissions.
Whom are you telling to offer commissions ? Me ?
If you want to let people live leisurely, offer that to everyone equally, and give everyone a chance to do productive things.
I have barely enough money to offer a leisurely life to myself - and sometimes not that. Not sure whom you have started to talk to.
Note however, that if you don't need money, you don't need copyrights, which are an economic incentive to create and publish works
Nobody in the whole conversation said that "you don't need money" , and I made multiple arguments as to why creative workers need money. Again not sure who your "you" is. So while it is a interesting aside as to what to do in the completely irrelevant scenario of "you" not needing money, I would refrain from going there.
There's a very low bar to what are considered creative works with regard to copyright
True. What I meant but could not express rightly was -
The 2 main financial statuses of creative workers are 1. Idle rich : unnecessarily limit the variety of creative workers. 2. Working non-creatively for money and producing creative works in spare time : limits the time creative workers have to unleash their talent. 3. Remain poor : limits the time and resources for creative workers to unleash their talent.
Wait - the 3 main financial statuses of creative workers are......
Monty Pythons apart, getting a reasonable amount money for creative workers is an imperative due to all the above financial statuses. Moreover, the forms of folk art that you list hugely exploded - to the extent that it may be said that they came about only due to - agriculture. Which created idleness which was difficult to afford during our hunter gatherer days. Which is another argument for getting some money for creative workers - money can enable idleness, which in case of creative workers can enable better creative works.
That stereotype still exists, and it's still grounded in reality
Yes, which is why I said that "There is a stereotype", not was. It is true in many ways. J K Rowling being richer than her queen does reduce it to merely a stereotype and not a universal truth applicable everywhere.
Why shouldn't we know if it's true?
I am expressing the pessimism that good policies are unlikely to be taken up. You yourself gave flight to imagination that sounds good but we don't see it enough in the real world for it to matter :
1.
each country treats foreigners the same as it treats its own nationals
The countries largely populated with recent immigrants - the US and Australia are also showing enough hatred for foreigners / newer immigrants. Such a constraint is very funny.
2.
We can also look to the past, when various countries had different (or no) copyright laws and how well that worked.
Again funny. We only look to the money flowing to the politicians - neither past nor future. And we vote for politicians only based on how they feel - not based on their copyright policies.
which means the work they produce is determined entirely by selfish goals
This statement is a bit stronger than your logic for it. Only basic income is "no matter what". For anything above that, the work produced by people will still be evaluated by other people. For some of the work, others would spend their own "basic" income.
You're right. But it is a problem if most retailers do this - so the store worker or the next customer does not have much use for the cash you give them - unless they do the hard work to get it deposited in banks. Plus they incur all the risk for fake cash, robbery etc. To top it, banks are making it less and less convenient to deposit cash too.
Of course, the robber is a highly motivated and adventure loving person. So the hard work / risk problem does not present itself when the robber is concerned.
Well, the argument from omnichad is crap for sure - but you'll have to agree that initially only the idle rich worked on "creative works" *
Some creative workers could enter the service of kings and this was the equivalent of "tenure" that we have today in professorship. Then there was a phase where some creative workers needed a day job. There is a stereotype in many cultures about creative workers remaining eternally poor **.
A much more limited copyright might be good compromise - though we will never know if it is true.
* This had the side effect that thought leaders were influenced more by idle rich and societies thus created served the advantaged, the aristocracy more than they served the poor.
** This had the side effect that societies created under this influence cared about the poor. Socialism / communism rose under this effect - with mixed results.
So you think the iPhone advertisements use real facial expressions of real people : who are not professional actors showing those expressions for a fee ? How about ads of Pfizer products ?
And if an actor in the ads is found " faking "the expressions : iPhone clearly doesn't work ? Or the drug ?
If he did and publicized it - the SJWs likely would find a reason to go after him for this. So his not publicizing does not mean he didn't develop and deploy such an AI.
Slashdot Mirror
You are wrong.
He's fine with someone else trading their freedoms when it's convenient for HIM
They traded their freedoms at the time of buying the phone, activating mobile service on it, or putting it in their pockets while switched on while they were leaving their homes. They also kept trading it every moment they did not destroy / switch off / enclose in Faraday cage their phone. But they absolutely never traded any of their freedoms when it was convenient for RMS. Including the freedom to refuse to acquiesce to his request.
Actually, letting RMS make his call increases the anonymity and hence freedom a tiny bit. If you call the acquaintances of RMS instead of your own, the algorithms to figure out your social circle is a tiny bit more confused than if you were exclusively calling your own acquaintances.
I don't murder people so I'll hire this hit man to do it for me.
No, it is like I don't murder people but other people hire hit men anyway to murder yet other people. I can request the hit man to deliver a courier to the person being killed, or someone close to him. If the consignee is the one being murdered, I can further request the hit man to deliver it before the murder - but of course he may still choose to deliver after the murder or not deliver at all.
OK, are you better ? Here you provably deployed a logical fallacy : Ad Hominem. Topic was his treatment of the subject of manufacturing / manipulating dissent / consent. Without addressing his points, you made factuality incorrect arguments against the person. Factually incorrect because winning one academic battle means he was at least once not fake news.
Such factual incorrectness is easy to avoid too : one way is to not use the word "always" when talking about a long and successful life you don't have much clue about. But maybe this needs some knowledge of linguistics for this ?
At a very young age, Chomsky quite credibly refuted a towering figure of the field of psychology / cognitive science. So much for his being right - as much as one can be in the field of science - that too an evolving one.
About his being wrong - in the field of politics / international relations - where so much is wrapped under secrecy, it is easy to be wrong. And any analysis of rightness / wrongness will be colored by the heavy use of emotions that most such analysis ends up being - so it is even easier to be perceived to be wrong.
Among all this, your conclusion of his being always fake news is by far the wrongest.
So the people deciding your job / your tools, which could include you, have made peace with the fact that Microsoft will spy on you. Nothing wrong with making peace.
For most of your private uses, you could still switch to Linux - in a year if not a heartbeat. You have not mentioned any reasons why you can't - although you will be the only one to lose if you can't. If you do switch, Microsoft gets their grubby hands on your private data with much more difficulty. What's to not like about the plan ?
A couple of hours walking to begin with is extreme. Exercise lowers immunity for 1-3 hours after the exercise. Opportunistic infections in an already unhealthy body could do a damage lasting years. Excessive exercise also leads to depression - which the GP is already complaining about.
It is imperative to keep exercise very light to begin with - which might not even seem like exercise to fitter people. Of course it needs to be increased slowly as one feels better, or at least not worse.
All it's going to take is one major chain to roll it out, and then it's going to be cheaper and better than the average fast food burger. And healthier.
There is your mistake - expecting it to be better and healthier even after a major chain rolls it out ;)
Just kidding - it may be good. I am just saying that generally that is not the direction major chains take food into.
No, it would have been a silly statement to make if biology were the only science. Since there are more, I made it clear that biology is the science in question. E.g. since science is always science, it is silly to say :
Sex is a scientific (as in scientific) construct.
Other than that, I see nothing to reply in your post as I don't think you've understood the context of the post.
Gender is a grammatical construct. Sex is a scientific (as in biological) construct.
Grammar is fundamentally debatable and descriptions of it are mostly flawed - so if you find all definitions of gender flawed you are not saying anything new.
Yeah, I see that some environmentalists seem to go by the cuteness metric for "importance". We seem to more often find land animals cuter - probably because we are land animals too.
So you are not educated enough to understand the difference between being a living organism, and containing living organisms.
So? You are not educated enough to understand that ecosystems can be (and mostly are) non-living ?
Oceans don't need anything - even if you call them ecosystems. They don't care about their own pH, size, water content, salt content, living being content, health of those living beings, or even their own existence.
Almost invariably, there is some wild life and nature already at the place where this pumped storage creates artificial lakes. That wild life and nature gets bothered - and hence environmentalists get a reason to say no-no.
The ocean is not a living thing - it needs nothing.
You forgot at least one: Selling creative labor.
This is a fundamentally incomplete creativity. The motivation, direction, criticism, approval of the creative work is highly likely to come from someone other than the "creative worker".
Its power to shape society - the only real reason why society should worry about creative workers being empowered, is extremely limited. Otherwise there is nothing special in creative works - as you yourself say later in this post. Creative work as a "business model" does not by itself deserve a wholesale change in society like you propose - unless it be for the possibility of societal transformation.
So even if it can be said to be creative by some definitions - I would not take it seriously for 2 reasons :
1. Incomplete creativity
2. Uselessness
I seem to recall that hunter-gatherers actually have loads of leisure time
Today's hunter gatherers are protected by armies or navies from the unpleasant realities. Migration - which used to be a constant endeavour or threat is usually impossible due to adjacent human civilization powered by agriculture.
If you are using the first definition of "actual" from here for your "actually", and using present tense to talk about prehistory - you will have to provide a lot more evidence. And still come to nothing because in any case, you agree with the real point that idleness / free time / resources not devoted to absolute survival does promote creative works. This idleness needs money in today's world. Which is the point.
Well, there's no reason to treat creative workers specially. If you simply want more works and will pay, offer commissions.
Whom are you telling to offer commissions ? Me ?
If you want to let people live leisurely, offer that to everyone equally, and give everyone a chance to do productive things.
I have barely enough money to offer a leisurely life to myself - and sometimes not that. Not sure whom you have started to talk to.
Note however, that if you don't need money, you don't need copyrights, which are an economic incentive to create and publish works
Nobody in the whole conversation said that "you don't need money" , and I made multiple arguments as to why creative workers need money. Again not sure who your "you" is. So while it is a interesting aside as to what to do in the completely irrelevant scenario of "you" not needing money, I would refrain from going there.
There's a very low bar to what are considered creative works with regard to copyright
True. What I meant but could not express rightly was -
The 2 main financial statuses of creative workers are
1. Idle rich : unnecessarily limit the variety of creative workers.
2. Working non-creatively for money and producing creative works in spare time : limits the time creative workers have to unleash their talent.
3. Remain poor : limits the time and resources for creative workers to unleash their talent.
Wait - the 3 main financial statuses of creative workers are ......
Monty Pythons apart, getting a reasonable amount money for creative workers is an imperative due to all the above financial statuses. Moreover, the forms of folk art that you list hugely exploded - to the extent that it may be said that they came about only due to - agriculture. Which created idleness which was difficult to afford during our hunter gatherer days. Which is another argument for getting some money for creative workers - money can enable idleness, which in case of creative workers can enable better creative works.
That stereotype still exists, and it's still grounded in reality
Yes, which is why I said that "There is a stereotype", not was. It is true in many ways. J K Rowling being richer than her queen does reduce it to merely a stereotype and not a universal truth applicable everywhere.
Why shouldn't we know if it's true?
I am expressing the pessimism that good policies are unlikely to be taken up. You yourself gave flight to imagination that sounds good but we don't see it enough in the real world for it to matter :
1.
each country treats foreigners the same as it treats its own nationals
The countries largely populated with recent immigrants - the US and Australia are also showing enough hatred for foreigners / newer immigrants. Such a constraint is very funny.
2.
We can also look to the past, when various countries had different (or no) copyright laws and how well that worked.
Again funny. We only look to the money flowing to the politicians - neither past nor future. And we vote for politicians only based on how they feel - not based on their copyright policies.
which means the work they produce is determined entirely by selfish goals
This statement is a bit stronger than your logic for it. Only basic income is "no matter what". For anything above that, the work produced by people will still be evaluated by other people. For some of the work, others would spend their own "basic" income.
So the word "entirely" is hugely misused here.
You're right. But it is a problem if most retailers do this - so the store worker or the next customer does not have much use for the cash you give them - unless they do the hard work to get it deposited in banks. Plus they incur all the risk for fake cash, robbery etc. To top it, banks are making it less and less convenient to deposit cash too.
Of course, the robber is a highly motivated and adventure loving person. So the hard work / risk problem does not present itself when the robber is concerned.
Well, the argument from omnichad is crap for sure - but you'll have to agree that initially only the idle rich worked on "creative works" *
Some creative workers could enter the service of kings and this was the equivalent of "tenure" that we have today in professorship. Then there was a phase where some creative workers needed a day job. There is a stereotype in many cultures about creative workers remaining eternally poor **.
A much more limited copyright might be good compromise - though we will never know if it is true.
* This had the side effect that thought leaders were influenced more by idle rich and societies thus created served the advantaged, the aristocracy more than they served the poor.
** This had the side effect that societies created under this influence cared about the poor. Socialism / communism rose under this effect - with mixed results.
People might already be working on manufacturing and selling very similar bottles for 9 cents.
Careful not to make it too "valuable", or people would manufacture plastic containers resembling the "valuable" plastics and sell it for profit.
Decide. You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
After going without a doctor visit for 3 decades, she might disagree with you a bit.
So you think the iPhone advertisements use real facial expressions of real people : who are not professional actors showing those expressions for a fee ? How about ads of Pfizer products ?
And if an actor in the ads is found " faking "the expressions : iPhone clearly doesn't work ? Or the drug ?
Many countries have a federal government, including Mexico.
If he did and publicized it - the SJWs likely would find a reason to go after him for this. So his not publicizing does not mean he didn't develop and deploy such an AI.