To take your joke too seriously -- I've been thinking about our perception of evolutionary advantage as it compares to reality. It is obvious to anyone that super hot, toned guys and gals get all the sex, right? So obviously that's a valuable evolutionary trait, right?
But in fact, most people are rather plain and (in the US anyway) flabby. Certainly not super hot. Maybe not even that warm. But every one of these people is the result of two people with similar genetic code fucking. So despite or perception that beauty and physical attractiveness begets sex, it seems that most sex is being had by average ugly people.
Okay -- I'll go out on a limb and say they'll be no smarter-than-human intelligence in, say, the next 1000 years.
Of course, a definition of intelligence would be helpful, and we don't have a very good one yet. The Turing test, which I like for recognizing intelligence, doesn't help much determining how intelligent something is.
I think we can all agree that number crunching isn't intelligence. I think of intelligence as the ability to find similarities between things that are different, and differences between things that are similary. Basically an ambiguity processing engine. Needs to be terribly adaptable, too.
Anyways, I think the human brain stopped developing a long time ago because it already contains all the processing power needed for such actions. In fact, it's overkill. The proof is that while our hardware is all very similar, our "intelligence" varies greatly. Our current limitations on intelligence are limitations on learning, not on processing. Even if we built a better brain, we wouldn't have any idea what to feed it. We don't have any idea how to feed ourselves. Most geniuses arise by chance.
Also, I think we strive for the elimination of all ambiguity, and concoct ideas of super-intelligence, or God, to represent this ideal. But I also think that we're fooling ourselves if we think there is a "right" answer to every question. If we were really intelligent we might realize the limits on intelligence are inherent, and not a lack of.
So I think people can be smarter than they are today, and that a super-brain could be built. But i think the technology would be in education and environment. And I think that it would still be confused most of the time, kind of like us.
Yeah -- I agree that the interaction between Kidman and Cruise at the beginning was dead real, at least by my experience. And that is one of the most criticized pieces of the film because it is so unlike what we've come to expect. We've come to expect sopa-opera level drama in our lovemaking and fighting. But the fact is it's much more subtle in real life.
I actually thought the ceremony was great, but maybe that's just because I've got prurient tendancies. There were a few moments where the film faltered, but overall I think it kept up a mood that isn't matched by anything else I've seen. Also, watching it while only half paying attention it doesn't work at all. You have to give yourself over or don't bother.
By the way, from everything I've read, Kubrick delivered the final cut as it is. In fact, he had a phone conversation with Cruise right after putting it in the can where he said he thought it was his best film yet. Agree with that or not, it seems this is the film that Kubrick wanted to deliver. Although he did have to cut up the ceremony scene for the American version. So any failings are his own, not some Hollywood standin.
If you didn't like the movie, fine. All I can say is that it cast a spell over me (and my wife). Somehow the movie felt like watching a dream. I don't know exactly why that was, but it totally sucked me in. Since I can't explain it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, but it's an experience I'm very glad I was open to and had the chance to experience.
I guess you can label me a moron, or a art-house junkie. If we met and had a chat I doubt you'd continue to label me as such. But I just liked the way it made me feel.
Oh, I had been married for many years when I saw it. And several people I know who did like it were older, or were experienced in traditional long-term relationships. I sometimes wonder if it just plays better to people who are older? There are certainly exceptions to that, but it seems to be correlated.
Hopefully it's crime wasn't being aimed at an older crowd. There's nothing wrong with that, as there isn't anything wrong with the normal set of films that play only to the young.
Anyways, just some non-flame thoughts from someone who feels almost the exact opposite way about the film as you.
We take these competitions too seriously. If we're talking about gene manipulation to create extra amounts of naturally occuring chemicals, then we're talking situations that can arise naturally. In fact there was a story not long ago about some baby born with super-muscles.
So what's the problem? Some people are born with genes that enable them to be better athletes. Now some people want to emulate that. Sure, it seems like cheating to me, but if someone has super muscles naturally that seems unfair as well. What the are we trying to test in the olympics anyways? Skill? Will? Natural genetic perfection? A combination of all three?
Seems to me that the focus on superlatives (as opposed to just excellence), combined with globalization, has forced us into a corner. What is the point of superlatives, anyways? What do we really want to know?
Also, I don't know if I think genetic manipulation is any less ethical than brainwashing children to devote their life to perfection in a single pursuit before they've had a chance to experience anything else.
As far as I'm concerned, the whole Olympic thing is just a big commercial opportunity. I'm all for individuals being their best, and competing. But it's just so dirty now and it doesn't seem to serve any meaningful purpose.
Just my take.
Cheers.
PS -- Speaking of testing will: I once broke my arm in an arm wrestling match. Seriously. This means I had the will and strength to torque my own humerus (with the help of an equally strong friend) until it spiral fractured. I don't know what it proved, but I would say it's the superlative of something;)
Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you actually think that we're better off trying to equalize votes so that all viewpoints are of equal power -- well, I think you're crazy. Or just overreaching to accomodate as a guilty white urban male.
Heh. I picture a world where we inversely factor the vote by the size of every group one is a part of. So black gay disabled people would have thousands of times the power of the average straight white person.
You realize the whole point of democracy is to find out which viewpoints outweigh others?
So you're saying California intrinsically knows better than Wyoming?
No, this was in reply to your comments on diversity, not "who knows better". Each individual only knows for themselves. I'm not saying Wyoming should decide for California or the other way around. I'm saying each person should decide for themselves and have an equal vote, no matter where they choose to live.
huh? it's not. pure democracy means giving each person one equal vote. your question doesn't compute.
Exactly! That's my point. My suggestion is to give each person one equal vote. And you implied that was "oppression of the rural by the urban". Well, that's democracy -- smaller groups always get opressed to some degree by the majority. That's why the constitution is so important.
I learned a lot about the problems they have in those towns thanks to the voting power of masses in the Willamette Valley who don't experience the consequences of those votes.
Oh boy, and let me tell you about the problems I have because of the voting power of the masses in Texas. I think my vote should count more than theirs to even it out. And I think that black votes should count more than white votes so they can't be opressed as easily. And women's votes too. And gays.
Since we've had such trouble communicating in this thread I'll point out that the above paragraph was sarcastic: I don't think you or anyone has the right to say one groups votes (racial, sexual, geographic, etc) should have a higher value than anyone elses. Yes, this means that some minority groups might have less say. This is true today for every minority group except for geographic minorities. Unless you agree with the previous sarcastic paragraph I don't see how your position is fair.
One person, one vote. That's all I'm saying. Why is this so complicated?
You only found out about the NY Times one years after the stories were published. Had the author had stopped before he was caught I am quite sure the story would not come to light.
How many writers have fabricated stories and never been caught? How many will be caught in the future that we don't know about now.
Here's the deal: if you can find it on multiple news sources from different angles (not just parroting each other, then it's probably legit.
You implied you were in favor of diversity. But you don't like the idea of voting equality. You realize that most racial minorities live in highly populated areas, right? These are the areas whos votes are most devalued.
For example, a Californian's vote counts one third as much as a vote from Wyoming. Now what is the justification for implying that valuing votes from Wyoming (92% white) over Californians (59% white) is somehow a diversifying process?
arbitrary (adjective): based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.
I don't see how geographic representation is anything but. One vote per person: individual humans is not an arbitrary distinction. Geographic boundaries are highly arbitrary.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see any reason that justifies messing with one person, one vote. Anything else would be claiming to know which views are important and/or underrepresented. And it implies that any underrepresented view deserves extra promotion. I don't think either of these is true.
Okay okay. I admit I'm just wallowing in frusteration. Kerry is probably a good bit better than Bush. But I've yet to decide how to voice my disapproval of the whole mess.
No, I'm saying that arbitrarily assigning higher power votes to people in remote areas doesn't have anything to do with actual diversity. That's affermitive action voting. I don't trust anyone to make those decisions correctly. I say everone gets an equal vote. That is actual diversity.
Thanks for the approval voting link. I had read about that and several other methods. They all seemed so much better than plurality that I kind of hopped on the bandwagon for IR, which seemed to have the most momentum.
But yeah, Approval voting does sound better. I'll still support _any_ voting reform where I see the opportunity, but I'll specify Approval if I have the option:)
You do realize that Kerry supports the war? I can't find a clear opinion on electronic voting for him, so I'm guessing he'd let it slide.
I guess I agree that we are running out of time before it all goes down the toilet here. But I'm starting to think that the "act now!" action is to vote third party, not vote for the lesser of two evils... again.
But I'll still be thinking about this some over the next few months.
I've read a lot on instant runoff voting (and borda count, and plurality, etc). Yes, instant runoff has flaws. In fact it has been proven that all voting systems can result in contradictory results in some cases. Howver, instant runoff brings about several orders of magnitude less contradictory results than plurality. Plurality is actually just about the most nonsensical voting system there is.
So without going through the examples, be assured that mathematically there are several hundred kooky examples of pluratly messing up for every one example of IR messing up.
If that were the case, you'd see Kerry moving to the left, instead of the center.
No, I think the dems, as any large corporate like structure would, is just going for the majority. They saw who won the last election and they are aiming there. They don't want to be like the losers, Gore and Nader. They're far more concerned with winning than with any paticular ideology.
The thing is it's not really a majority, it's a plurality. There are a small group of neo-conservatives that outweigh any one group of opposing viewpoints. But taken together, the opposing viewpoints outweigh them. This is why we need a different voting system, one that doesn't allow a cohesive bunch of nuts to control an election even if they aren't the majority.
Heh... yes! That was the whole point of this thread. Not to actually get a third party into power, but to spoil it enough for one of the two major parties that they reform voting. (Instant runoffs would eliminate the spoiler effect, for example, Gore would have won Florida by a wide margin)
I don't know if it's really possible to get voting reform, but I don't see another way than voting outside the two major parties. I'm starting now, despite my hatered for Bush.
You're right. But then if we don't get started on the long process it's never going to happen. And the long process begins with hurting one of the major parties enough that they embrace it. I think I'm going to start now. How do you propose we force electoral reform? It will have to be forced, you know.
And yes, the house is on fire. Bush and his administration are complete madmen. But the more I learn the more I think that Kerry is just as bad. Throwing more fuel on the fire isn't going to help either.
I just find it outragous that a news organization would falsly mislead/missinform it's veiwers in a way the grandparent sugested.
Are you serious? There are countless examples of this over our history. You're basically saying you can't believe that a huge corporation would ever lie? For heaven's sake, what about the completely fabricated stories in the New York Times just last year? No conspiracy is needed -- just someone acting inappropriately and others too busy to notice.
because the news girls on fox look better. some of them are dow right hot
Good lord. I like a hot chick as much as the next guy, but what the hell does that have to do with the news? In fact, if you choose your news source based on that I'm going to guess you're not paying much attention to the news anyways. Certainly not enough to notice the slant.
And the above poseter provided a detailed report on what was wrong with Fox News (or at least it's viewership). Your asking for elaboration indicates a serious lack of perceptive skills.
Are you claiming there is more diversity in rural areas than urban areas? I'm saying that every single person should have an equally powerful vote. If you say otherwise, let me know how you determine who gets the more powerful votes and why.
Also, instant runoff is _all_about_ diversity of candidates. Do you think that two candidates who are nearly identical on all the issues is somehow diverse?
Slashdot Mirror
genius is an evolutionary dead end
:)
To take your joke too seriously -- I've been thinking about our perception of evolutionary advantage as it compares to reality. It is obvious to anyone that super hot, toned guys and gals get all the sex, right? So obviously that's a valuable evolutionary trait, right?
But in fact, most people are rather plain and (in the US anyway) flabby. Certainly not super hot. Maybe not even that warm. But every one of these people is the result of two people with similar genetic code fucking. So despite or perception that beauty and physical attractiveness begets sex, it seems that most sex is being had by average ugly people.
Or something like that
Well, I'm a genius, and I got this ;)
Okay -- I'll go out on a limb and say they'll be no smarter-than-human intelligence in, say, the next 1000 years.
Of course, a definition of intelligence would be helpful, and we don't have a very good one yet. The Turing test, which I like for recognizing intelligence, doesn't help much determining how intelligent something is.
I think we can all agree that number crunching isn't intelligence. I think of intelligence as the ability to find similarities between things that are different, and differences between things that are similary. Basically an ambiguity processing engine. Needs to be terribly adaptable, too.
Anyways, I think the human brain stopped developing a long time ago because it already contains all the processing power needed for such actions. In fact, it's overkill. The proof is that while our hardware is all very similar, our "intelligence" varies greatly. Our current limitations on intelligence are limitations on learning, not on processing. Even if we built a better brain, we wouldn't have any idea what to feed it. We don't have any idea how to feed ourselves. Most geniuses arise by chance.
Also, I think we strive for the elimination of all ambiguity, and concoct ideas of super-intelligence, or God, to represent this ideal. But I also think that we're fooling ourselves if we think there is a "right" answer to every question. If we were really intelligent we might realize the limits on intelligence are inherent, and not a lack of.
So I think people can be smarter than they are today, and that a super-brain could be built. But i think the technology would be in education and environment. And I think that it would still be confused most of the time, kind of like us.
Cheers.
Yeah -- I agree that the interaction between Kidman and Cruise at the beginning was dead real, at least by my experience. And that is one of the most criticized pieces of the film because it is so unlike what we've come to expect. We've come to expect sopa-opera level drama in our lovemaking and fighting. But the fact is it's much more subtle in real life.
I actually thought the ceremony was great, but maybe that's just because I've got prurient tendancies. There were a few moments where the film faltered, but overall I think it kept up a mood that isn't matched by anything else I've seen. Also, watching it while only half paying attention it doesn't work at all. You have to give yourself over or don't bother.
By the way, from everything I've read, Kubrick delivered the final cut as it is. In fact, he had a phone conversation with Cruise right after putting it in the can where he said he thought it was his best film yet. Agree with that or not, it seems this is the film that Kubrick wanted to deliver. Although he did have to cut up the ceremony scene for the American version. So any failings are his own, not some Hollywood standin.
Cheers.
If you didn't like the movie, fine. All I can say is that it cast a spell over me (and my wife). Somehow the movie felt like watching a dream. I don't know exactly why that was, but it totally sucked me in. Since I can't explain it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else, but it's an experience I'm very glad I was open to and had the chance to experience.
I guess you can label me a moron, or a art-house junkie. If we met and had a chat I doubt you'd continue to label me as such. But I just liked the way it made me feel.
Oh, I had been married for many years when I saw it. And several people I know who did like it were older, or were experienced in traditional long-term relationships. I sometimes wonder if it just plays better to people who are older? There are certainly exceptions to that, but it seems to be correlated.
Hopefully it's crime wasn't being aimed at an older crowd. There's nothing wrong with that, as there isn't anything wrong with the normal set of films that play only to the young.
Anyways, just some non-flame thoughts from someone who feels almost the exact opposite way about the film as you.
Cheers.
We take these competitions too seriously. If we're talking about gene manipulation to create extra amounts of naturally occuring chemicals, then we're talking situations that can arise naturally. In fact there was a story not long ago about some baby born with super-muscles.
;)
So what's the problem? Some people are born with genes that enable them to be better athletes. Now some people want to emulate that. Sure, it seems like cheating to me, but if someone has super muscles naturally that seems unfair as well. What the are we trying to test in the olympics anyways? Skill? Will? Natural genetic perfection? A combination of all three?
Seems to me that the focus on superlatives (as opposed to just excellence), combined with globalization, has forced us into a corner. What is the point of superlatives, anyways? What do we really want to know?
Also, I don't know if I think genetic manipulation is any less ethical than brainwashing children to devote their life to perfection in a single pursuit before they've had a chance to experience anything else.
As far as I'm concerned, the whole Olympic thing is just a big commercial opportunity. I'm all for individuals being their best, and competing. But it's just so dirty now and it doesn't seem to serve any meaningful purpose.
Just my take.
Cheers.
PS -- Speaking of testing will: I once broke my arm in an arm wrestling match. Seriously. This means I had the will and strength to torque my own humerus (with the help of an equally strong friend) until it spiral fractured. I don't know what it proved, but I would say it's the superlative of something
ad hominem indeed.
Have a good one.
Okay, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you actually think that we're better off trying to equalize votes so that all viewpoints are of equal power -- well, I think you're crazy. Or just overreaching to accomodate as a guilty white urban male.
Heh. I picture a world where we inversely factor the vote by the size of every group one is a part of. So black gay disabled people would have thousands of times the power of the average straight white person.
You realize the whole point of democracy is to find out which viewpoints outweigh others?
Cheers.
So you're saying California intrinsically knows better than Wyoming?
No, this was in reply to your comments on diversity, not "who knows better". Each individual only knows for themselves. I'm not saying Wyoming should decide for California or the other way around. I'm saying each person should decide for themselves and have an equal vote, no matter where they choose to live.
huh? it's not. pure democracy means giving each person one equal vote. your question doesn't compute.
Exactly! That's my point. My suggestion is to give each person one equal vote. And you implied that was "oppression of the rural by the urban". Well, that's democracy -- smaller groups always get opressed to some degree by the majority. That's why the constitution is so important.
I learned a lot about the problems they have in those towns thanks to the voting power of masses in the Willamette Valley who don't experience the consequences of those votes.
Oh boy, and let me tell you about the problems I have because of the voting power of the masses in Texas. I think my vote should count more than theirs to even it out. And I think that black votes should count more than white votes so they can't be opressed as easily. And women's votes too. And gays.
Since we've had such trouble communicating in this thread I'll point out that the above paragraph was sarcastic: I don't think you or anyone has the right to say one groups votes (racial, sexual, geographic, etc) should have a higher value than anyone elses. Yes, this means that some minority groups might have less say. This is true today for every minority group except for geographic minorities. Unless you agree with the previous sarcastic paragraph I don't see how your position is fair.
One person, one vote. That's all I'm saying. Why is this so complicated?
Cheers.
You only found out about the NY Times one years after the stories were published. Had the author had stopped before he was caught I am quite sure the story would not come to light.
How many writers have fabricated stories and never been caught? How many will be caught in the future that we don't know about now.
Here's the deal: if you can find it on multiple news sources from different angles (not just parroting each other, then it's probably legit.
Cheers.
I have a feeling that California matches or surpasses Wyoming in any of the areas of diversity you mentioned. (note: I don't live in either state)
oppression of the rural by the urban
How is giving each person one equal vote any more oppressive than democracy itself?
And yes, I am aware of the problem with a complete "majority rules" system. Which is why we also have a constitution.
Cheers.
I was replying to an AC. Is that you? If so...
You implied you were in favor of diversity. But you don't like the idea of voting equality. You realize that most racial minorities live in highly populated areas, right? These are the areas whos votes are most devalued.
For example, a Californian's vote counts one third as much as a vote from Wyoming. Now what is the justification for implying that valuing votes from Wyoming (92% white) over Californians (59% white) is somehow a diversifying process?
Cheers.
Huh?
arbitrary (adjective): based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something.
I don't see how geographic representation is anything but. One vote per person: individual humans is not an arbitrary distinction. Geographic boundaries are highly arbitrary.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see any reason that justifies messing with one person, one vote. Anything else would be claiming to know which views are important and/or underrepresented. And it implies that any underrepresented view deserves extra promotion. I don't think either of these is true.
Cheers.
Okay okay. I admit I'm just wallowing in frusteration. Kerry is probably a good bit better than Bush. But I've yet to decide how to voice my disapproval of the whole mess.
I have been looking into which groups I can support or donate to to encourage voting reform. This seems to be a good starting point.
Cheers.
No, I'm saying that arbitrarily assigning higher power votes to people in remote areas doesn't have anything to do with actual diversity. That's affermitive action voting. I don't trust anyone to make those decisions correctly. I say everone gets an equal vote. That is actual diversity.
Cheers.
Thanks for the approval voting link. I had read about that and several other methods. They all seemed so much better than plurality that I kind of hopped on the bandwagon for IR, which seemed to have the most momentum.
:)
But yeah, Approval voting does sound better. I'll still support _any_ voting reform where I see the opportunity, but I'll specify Approval if I have the option
CHeers.
You do realize that Kerry supports the war? I can't find a clear opinion on electronic voting for him, so I'm guessing he'd let it slide.
I guess I agree that we are running out of time before it all goes down the toilet here. But I'm starting to think that the "act now!" action is to vote third party, not vote for the lesser of two evils... again.
But I'll still be thinking about this some over the next few months.
Cheers.
I've read a lot on instant runoff voting (and borda count, and plurality, etc). Yes, instant runoff has flaws. In fact it has been proven that all voting systems can result in contradictory results in some cases. Howver, instant runoff brings about several orders of magnitude less contradictory results than plurality. Plurality is actually just about the most nonsensical voting system there is.
So without going through the examples, be assured that mathematically there are several hundred kooky examples of pluratly messing up for every one example of IR messing up.
I'll still take that any day.
Cheers.
If that were the case, you'd see Kerry moving to the left, instead of the center.
No, I think the dems, as any large corporate like structure would, is just going for the majority. They saw who won the last election and they are aiming there. They don't want to be like the losers, Gore and Nader. They're far more concerned with winning than with any paticular ideology.
The thing is it's not really a majority, it's a plurality. There are a small group of neo-conservatives that outweigh any one group of opposing viewpoints. But taken together, the opposing viewpoints outweigh them. This is why we need a different voting system, one that doesn't allow a cohesive bunch of nuts to control an election even if they aren't the majority.
Cheers.
Imagine how much better off Iraq would have been
Good lord, if we have to compare ourselves to Iraq to appreciate our leaders then it's way past due for a revolution.
Yeah, lesser of two evils is better than a dictator. But we got past that a few centuries ago. Let's take the next step.
Cheers
Heh... yes! That was the whole point of this thread. Not to actually get a third party into power, but to spoil it enough for one of the two major parties that they reform voting. (Instant runoffs would eliminate the spoiler effect, for example, Gore would have won Florida by a wide margin)
I don't know if it's really possible to get voting reform, but I don't see another way than voting outside the two major parties. I'm starting now, despite my hatered for Bush.
Cheers.
it ain't gonna happen this election
You're right. But then if we don't get started on the long process it's never going to happen. And the long process begins with hurting one of the major parties enough that they embrace it. I think I'm going to start now. How do you propose we force electoral reform? It will have to be forced, you know.
And yes, the house is on fire. Bush and his administration are complete madmen. But the more I learn the more I think that Kerry is just as bad. Throwing more fuel on the fire isn't going to help either.
Cheers.
I just find it outragous that a news organization would falsly mislead/missinform it's veiwers in a way the grandparent sugested.
Are you serious? There are countless examples of this over our history. You're basically saying you can't believe that a huge corporation would ever lie? For heaven's sake, what about the completely fabricated stories in the New York Times just last year? No conspiracy is needed -- just someone acting inappropriately and others too busy to notice.
You are way way way too trusting.
Best of luck to you.
because the news girls on fox look better. some of them are dow right hot
Good lord. I like a hot chick as much as the next guy, but what the hell does that have to do with the news? In fact, if you choose your news source based on that I'm going to guess you're not paying much attention to the news anyways. Certainly not enough to notice the slant.
And the above poseter provided a detailed report on what was wrong with Fox News (or at least it's viewership). Your asking for elaboration indicates a serious lack of perceptive skills.
Cheers.
Are you claiming there is more diversity in rural areas than urban areas? I'm saying that every single person should have an equally powerful vote. If you say otherwise, let me know how you determine who gets the more powerful votes and why.
Also, instant runoff is _all_about_ diversity of candidates. Do you think that two candidates who are nearly identical on all the issues is somehow diverse?
Oh, wait. You're just a troll.
Cheers.