Why not start with a basic income, say $25k? Let people choose it if they want, or they can enter the free market. The savings in administration of social security and medicare etc. would be substantial. Then encourage people to innovate with challenges and free education such as MOOCs are providing. Why wouldn't the pace of innovation increase? Hold competitions to gather the best ideas, then turn them over to biz so it can do what it does best, incrementally innovate disruptive ideas.
Inflation is psychological. Index everything to inflation, as Israel did, and nothing changes. Make the indexing seamless and automatic, and there wouldn't be the stress from manual adjustments that finally led Israel to stop the indexing method. Our technology is better now; we can automate the indexing so it fades into the background and we need not even be aware of it.
I think our problems are caused mostly by scarcity thinking and by artificial constraints on the money supply so that more debt exists than currency to pay it off.
The debt is a distraction. It doesn't matter. Banks create more debt and interest than money, thus creating an artificial scarcity of money such that for you to pay back your loans, someone else must default. The resulting culture of back-stabbing encourages and rewards hucksterism and lying is a purely psychological creation by bankers who deliberately impose scarcity to satisfy their sociopathic need for attention.
The US paid off almost all the national debt under Andrew Jackson; it was immediately followed by the Panic of 1837 which lasted so long Van Buren (following Jackson's economic policies) was not re-elected. The debt is not an issue. It doesn't impede economic growth.
Anyway we can ignore the banks and create debt-free money, as Lincoln did when he had over $400 million greenbacks printed to raise money without borrowing it or increasing taxes.
In conclusion, the debt causes corruption only in that Republicans use it cynically as a political ploy to gain power, when they proceed to run up the debt to unprecedented levels.
It's Ad Hominem if it's about the man, not about the argument. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, if it's about the man not the argument he's presenting, it's Ad Hominem.
3D print clothing. Design robots to mine. Very often the workers are the ones who know the most about the job, and with education can design the tools to automate their job.
So this isn't about the arguments and questions, but about the name? Isn't that Ad Hominem? You're not arguing with the reasoning but against the person that made the reasoning.
In other words if Galileo had called the character "His Holiness" would that have affected the reasoning presented?
Aristarchus of Samos in the third century BC presented a theory of heliocentrism.
Copernicus knew about Aristarchus: the first version of his manuscript ("De revolutionibus orbium coelestium") contained the lines
'Philolaus believed in the earth's motion for these and similar reasons. This is plausible because Aristarchus of Samos too held the same view according to some people, who were not motivated by the argumentation put forward by Aristotle and rejected by him.'
Note: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philolaus Philolaus's theory also had the sun revolving around a "central fire". Aristarchus's theory was the first known heliocentric theory.
Why did science ignore Aristarchus for almost two millenia? One reason the Greeks used: "If the earth revolves around the sun, we should see parallax motion of the stars. We don't see parallax motion of the stars. Therefore, the earth doesn't revolve around the sun." But instead of improving their technology so they could see parallax motion, they spent their scientific energies devising epicycles.
Why should the Pope being insulted have anything to do with whether the earth moves around the sun? Why are you making ad hominem attacks against Galileo, and throwing out your own "evidence-free" assertions that he made "evidence-free" assertions? What does someone thinking someone else is an asshole have anything to do with their actual science?
I forgot to close that link so it went to the end of the paragraph. But the point stands: we create money all the time, but give it to institutions like banks, instead of empowering individuals. We, the voters, should change that.
Give everyone a basic income. Stimulate their natural creative instincts and capacity for wonder with free education (MOOCs), challenges (Google bug bounties, Xprize, Netflix prize, challenge.gov), and open source collaborative efforts (wikipedia, linux, free open source languages like python, ruby, etc.).
The focus should be on innovation and the advance of technology, because knowledge is what is likely to raise survival fitness the most by better enabling us to predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic change.
As long as we keep advancing knowledge and technology, we can create as much money as we want.
Debt-free money is exactly what we need. As Lincoln realized, when he printed over $400 million greenbacks to raise money without increasing taxes or borrowing it.
The wiki article may not have captured McKinstry's full purpose, which was to ask questions of the type the article refers to, which any human knows the answer to, but computers may not have seen before. So the http://aiki-hal.wikispaces.com/file/detail/gac80k-06-july-2005.html (list of questions assembled by Chris) includes such questions as:
Is a car bigger than a breadbox? Are horses bigger that elves? Is an elephant bigger than a cat?
etc.
These sentences, transformed into declarative form, have probably not occurred on the web, which was the point of McKinstry's test.
Consider also the misspellings and grammatical mistakes in the questions, which humans are nonetheless able to answer, but which are unlikely to have been part of any web-gathered corpus...
McKinstry gathered approximately 80,000 propositions that could be answered yes or no, e.g.:
Is Earth a planet? Was Abraham Lincoln once President of the United States? Is the sun bigger than my foot? Do people sometimes lie? He called these propositions Mindpixels.
These questions test both specific knowledge of aspects of culture, and basic facts about the meaning of various words and concepts.
He didn't understand where money comes from, how it's created by banks that automatically attach debt to it when they don't have to and charge interest on top of that so there isn't enough money in existence to pay back all the debt plus interest. So the only way you can pay back a loan plus interest is to force someone else to default on their loan. Thus does the artificial scarcity of money create a needlessly ruthless and dog-eat-dog world.
Instead, the government should follow Lincoln and create debt-free money. Give everyone a basic income, and peg it to inflation. If the sociopaths that run corporations raise prices, the basic income goes up to match the prices; and it's all handled virtually so there is no need for wheelbarrows full of cash (it's all virtual cash). Inflation is psychological and can be dealt with by creating as much money as the business owners charge, forever.
So, with a basic income, and consequently no need to force others to default on their loans so you can pay back your own loans, individuals will be free to pursue their natural creative instincts. Give them challenges (like the Netflix prize, Google bug bounties, X Prize, etc.) to encourage them to use their time in working on things to help society. MOOCs provide free education already.
Freed from the chore of having to worry about economics, mankind will advance knowledge and technology faster than ever before, increasing standard of living and better enabling us to predict and survive sudden catastrophic events, thus improving our survival fitness.
Darn, I wonder if I could have given Martin Manley some hope if he would have read this!
It uses the link agent ( http://subbot.org/link/ ) to parse input into Subject, Verb, and Object, then moves the Object to the Subject position and adds YOU! at the end. It also tries to do some verb agreement.
It's about harm reduction. Eating an apple is less harmful than slaughtering a cow, because the plant's survival strategy is to spread its seeds through birds eating the fruit and carrying the seeds to far-off lands. But the cow doesn't want to be slaughtered.
Slashdot Mirror
Why not start with a basic income, say $25k? Let people choose it if they want, or they can enter the free market. The savings in administration of social security and medicare etc. would be substantial. Then encourage people to innovate with challenges and free education such as MOOCs are providing. Why wouldn't the pace of innovation increase? Hold competitions to gather the best ideas, then turn them over to biz so it can do what it does best, incrementally innovate disruptive ideas.
Inflation is psychological. Index everything to inflation, as Israel did, and nothing changes. Make the indexing seamless and automatic, and there wouldn't be the stress from manual adjustments that finally led Israel to stop the indexing method. Our technology is better now; we can automate the indexing so it fades into the background and we need not even be aware of it.
I think our problems are caused mostly by scarcity thinking and by artificial constraints on the money supply so that more debt exists than currency to pay it off.
The debt is a distraction. It doesn't matter. Banks create more debt and interest than money, thus creating an artificial scarcity of money such that for you to pay back your loans, someone else must default. The resulting culture of back-stabbing encourages and rewards hucksterism and lying is a purely psychological creation by bankers who deliberately impose scarcity to satisfy their sociopathic need for attention.
The US paid off almost all the national debt under Andrew Jackson; it was immediately followed by the Panic of 1837 which lasted so long Van Buren (following Jackson's economic policies) was not re-elected. The debt is not an issue. It doesn't impede economic growth.
Anyway we can ignore the banks and create debt-free money, as Lincoln did when he had over $400 million greenbacks printed to raise money without borrowing it or increasing taxes.
In conclusion, the debt causes corruption only in that Republicans use it cynically as a political ploy to gain power, when they proceed to run up the debt to unprecedented levels.
"The earth moves around the sun."
"Yeah but you're an asshole."
Bazinga!
It's Ad Hominem if it's about the man, not about the argument. Doesn't matter if it's true or not, if it's about the man not the argument he's presenting, it's Ad Hominem.
If you want fruit, you pick it. Or you work on a challenge to make a robotic picker. Already people are working on this: http://www.keprtv.com/news/local/Robots-replacing-fruit-pickers-Not-quite-but-a-new-machine-is-changing-the-industry-170891701.html
3D print clothing. Design robots to mine. Very often the workers are the ones who know the most about the job, and with education can design the tools to automate their job.
So Occam's Razor failed.
So you're making ad hominem attacks because it's fun? Okay, as long as we all realize that's what's going on :)
So this isn't about the arguments and questions, but about the name? Isn't that Ad Hominem? You're not arguing with the reasoning but against the person that made the reasoning.
In other words if Galileo had called the character "His Holiness" would that have affected the reasoning presented?
Aristarchus of Samos in the third century BC presented a theory of heliocentrism.
Copernicus knew about Aristarchus: the first version of his manuscript ("De revolutionibus orbium coelestium") contained the lines
Source: http://www.demokritos.org/Aristarchus%20and%20Copernicus-Petrakis.htm
Note: According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philolaus Philolaus's theory also had the sun revolving around a "central fire". Aristarchus's theory was the first known heliocentric theory.
Why did science ignore Aristarchus for almost two millenia? One reason the Greeks used: "If the earth revolves around the sun, we should see parallax motion of the stars. We don't see parallax motion of the stars. Therefore, the earth doesn't revolve around the sun." But instead of improving their technology so they could see parallax motion, they spent their scientific energies devising epicycles.
Why should the Pope being insulted have anything to do with whether the earth moves around the sun? Why are you making ad hominem attacks against Galileo, and throwing out your own "evidence-free" assertions that he made "evidence-free" assertions? What does someone thinking someone else is an asshole have anything to do with their actual science?
I forgot to close that link so it went to the end of the paragraph. But the point stands: we create money all the time, but give it to institutions like banks, instead of empowering individuals. We, the voters, should change that.
Give everyone a basic income. Stimulate their natural creative instincts and capacity for wonder with free education (MOOCs), challenges (Google bug bounties, Xprize, Netflix prize, challenge.gov), and open source collaborative efforts (wikipedia, linux, free open source languages like python, ruby, etc.).
The focus should be on innovation and the advance of technology, because knowledge is what is likely to raise survival fitness the most by better enabling us to predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic change.
As long as we keep advancing knowledge and technology, we can create as much money as we want.
Right now, banks create as much money as they want (see Q&A with Neil Barofsky, from about 50:35 to 51:13, where Kevin Puvalowski testifies that $23.7 trillion was created after the 2008 crash), but they automatically attach debt and interest to it. They've created a situation of artificial scarcity where, to pay back your loans, you have to make someone else default on theirs, because there isn't enough money in existence for everyone to pay back all their loans.
Debt-free money is exactly what we need. As Lincoln realized, when he printed over $400 million greenbacks to raise money without increasing taxes or borrowing it.
To fix the redundancy in your first sentence: s/ sadistic/n
The wiki article may not have captured McKinstry's full purpose, which was to ask questions of the type the article refers to, which any human knows the answer to, but computers may not have seen before. So the http://aiki-hal.wikispaces.com/file/detail/gac80k-06-july-2005.html (list of questions assembled by Chris) includes such questions as:
Is a car bigger than a breadbox?
Are horses bigger that elves?
Is an elephant bigger than a cat?
etc.
These sentences, transformed into declarative form, have probably not occurred on the web, which was the point of McKinstry's test.
Consider also the misspellings and grammatical mistakes in the questions, which humans are nonetheless able to answer, but which are unlikely to have been part of any web-gathered corpus...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_Intelligent_Signal_Test
He didn't understand where money comes from, how it's created by banks that automatically attach debt to it when they don't have to and charge interest on top of that so there isn't enough money in existence to pay back all the debt plus interest. So the only way you can pay back a loan plus interest is to force someone else to default on their loan. Thus does the artificial scarcity of money create a needlessly ruthless and dog-eat-dog world.
Instead, the government should follow Lincoln and create debt-free money. Give everyone a basic income, and peg it to inflation. If the sociopaths that run corporations raise prices, the basic income goes up to match the prices; and it's all handled virtually so there is no need for wheelbarrows full of cash (it's all virtual cash). Inflation is psychological and can be dealt with by creating as much money as the business owners charge, forever.
So, with a basic income, and consequently no need to force others to default on their loans so you can pay back your own loans, individuals will be free to pursue their natural creative instincts. Give them challenges (like the Netflix prize, Google bug bounties, X Prize, etc.) to encourage them to use their time in working on things to help society. MOOCs provide free education already.
Freed from the chore of having to worry about economics, mankind will advance knowledge and technology faster than ever before, increasing standard of living and better enabling us to predict and survive sudden catastrophic events, thus improving our survival fitness.
Darn, I wonder if I could have given Martin Manley some hope if he would have read this!
I think you mean noun, not adjective
Besides a lot of tension and drama?
I showed this a few years ago with an In Soviet Russia joke generator that required no semantic information to generate jokes.
I have an In Soviet Russia joke generator:
> In America, you laugh at jokes.
In Soviet Russia, jokes laugh at YOU!
http://subbot.org/isragent/isragent.txt
It uses the link agent ( http://subbot.org/link/ ) to parse input into Subject, Verb, and Object, then moves the Object to the Subject position and adds YOU! at the end. It also tries to do some verb agreement.
It's about harm reduction. Eating an apple is less harmful than slaughtering a cow, because the plant's survival strategy is to spread its seeds through birds eating the fruit and carrying the seeds to far-off lands. But the cow doesn't want to be slaughtered.
Knowledge enables us to predict and adapt to sudden catastrophic environmental change. Why should economics prevent us from pursuing that knowledge?
We have the tech, and the ppl willing to go. Only the political will and a culture of artificial scarcity is stopping us.
Why are you using ad homs instead of the scientific method?
Like Simon Newcombe and Lord Kelvin proving that heavier-than-air aircraft were impossible!