I think you've watched too much sci-fi. Also, there is more to life than safety. Having control over one's transport is a core component of liberal (as in liberty) society.
that's why the railroads so popular in medieval society wasted away during the 19th century.
No, because everyone knows what the Holocaust was. Name some other example, and a big part of the world will not have any idea what you are talking about.
and because Germany was arguably one of the most civilized and advanced countries in the world, and their going insane and murdering a large proportion of their most productive and patriotic citizens strikes the residents of the First World more strongly than the concept that some backwards Asian country will mistreat their peasantry.
Because the "communist" (actually socialist) massive PR machine managed to disassociate the German National Socialist Party from other socialism related political factions in the minds of the general American populace.
Now that that specific branch of socialist theory has been severed from the greater socialist efforts, and crushed to truly insignificant membership, it can be acceptably labelled the greatest evil ever.
In defense of the other socialists (that's something I'm surprised to type), the Nazis did take a really sick angle to the concept of redistributing wealth. "Jewish bankers have too much money, kill all Jews." "Romanian nomadic families are stealing money from hard-working Germans, kill all Gypsies." "Homosexual behavior wastes energy that could be spent breeding more Germans or at least building weapons for other Germans, kill all homosexuals." I'm sure there were more victim demographics, but those are the big three that people talk about. Most other violent socialist factions "just" slaughter people who disagree with the new government.
Geez, this again. The whole platform of the Nazis, domestic and international was "we will save you from socialists"; Jews were targeted as the agents of international socialism destroying the German Volk.
Not counting ordinary casualties of war, the Soviet Union under Stalin murdered many times over the number who were murdered by Nazi Germany.
There were somewhere between 1 and 10 million indigenes living in what is now the US at the time of Columbus, depending on who makes the estimates. There were 273,000 in 1900 according to a pretty good census. Of course, that doesn't mean that 1-10 million were killed. It means more than that had to be killed, because each generation had to keep being killed as they reproduced over the years in order to make the numbers drop.
As far as I've been able to figure, Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan murdered at a much greater rate than Communist China and the Soviet Union, but were stopped sooner. I'm not going to try to pick one out as better than the others, because they're all farther in the moral abyss than I'm willing to reach.
As far I've been able to figure, all European countries murdered at a much greater rate, during their colonial period, that Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. I'm not going to try to pick one out as better than the others, because they're all farther in the moral abyss than I'm willing to reach.
And by European countries during their colonial period, let's include the US' Manifest Destiny, near genocide of the entire Native American population, and actual genocide of many of their nations.
You know full well the consequences of sex. You chose to do it anyway. Do not punish the innocent human that results from your poor self control.
Babies are the punishment for sex, and everybody should know that. "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
How is killing unborn babies not considered the ultimate hate?
Why would that be the case? Is it better to wait until they are born and kill them them? Or when they are six? or sixteen? or sixty? You figure, they have to earn the right to get killed, so we'll give them a free pass before they develop a nervous system?
You cannot raise the economic standard of living by taxing everyone into oblivion. Taxes, all of them, are regressive. They are an assault (albeit necessary) on everyone.
I don't think "regressive" means what you think it means. I.e.. " (of a tax or tax system) levied or graduated so that the rate decreases as the amount taxed increases"
Nothing else I've heard has been able to explain their kind.
Well, yeah. Republicans are currently really heavily hierarchical authoritarian in cognitive style. And this paper shows how that shuts down the neurological pathways which would otherwise lead to feelings of personal responsibility for the decisions made and the consequences that come from it.
Try this simple experiment: ask a sample of Republicans if they are happy with the presidency of Bush Jr., and when they say no (as most of them will do), ask them if that has made them rethink in any fashion the axioms and beliefs that made them vote for Bush in the first place? Nope, their votes just were in no way responsible for the things that happened later.
Larry and Sergey run their company like two kids on Christmas morning. They're initially enthused, open package after package, play with their new toys for a while, then lose interest and move on. Let's hope they don't decide to arbitrarily pull the plug one afternoon on driver-less cars while millions of them are on the road.
Going to be bad enough when they upload that buggy upgrade that makes the vehicle hesitate for a few seconds after random control entries, and the battery die mysteriously in half the time it should.
oh wait, that was just android.
..in general: Any application which you rely on may disappear or change significantly at any time and there's not much you can do about it.
I'm not sure how this became acceptable.
Google, where our motto is, "Everything is Always in Beta!"
Speculating on the ground-breaking physical laws of the universe has to be fraught with doubt and self-reversal.
It's much worse than that. Mere doubt doesn't even come close.
Don't forget that the term "Laws of Physics" is just a pop-sci term to simplify the topic for the layman. In fact there are no such laws or if they exist then they are unknowable to us. The things which we loosely call "Laws of Physics" are actually "Laws of Physicists", in other words merely mental abstractions conjured up by human minds. Reality may not even understand or obey mathematics for all we know, and it certainly doesn't take the slightest bit of notice of any "laws" which we conjure up. All we're doing is expressing (roughly) how reality is seen to behave, and we're happy when we find a good mental proxy for that behaviour within a limited range of conditions. We make only very narrow claims, and they're infinitely distant from being actual "Laws of Physics".
The role of the scientist is to dream up mathematical theories which accurately model the observed behaviour of reality, without having any idea of what's really behind the behavioral facade. And that's really mind blowing, because it's turtles invented by humans all the way down, yet it approximates to what we observe fairly well in most areas.
To make matters worse, remember that the physicist doesn't have "root access to reality", to use a Unix metaphor. When we run experiments, we are using one behavioral abstraction of reality (a "user-mode API") to probe another behavioral abstraction of reality, as we totally lack any ability to see inside that "kernel". All we can see and touch and use is reality's behaviour and we can't see how that behaviour is actually implemented. For all we know it's all implemented by incredibly fast gerbils scurrying around behind the behavioral veil. We will never know --- we don't have root. All we can do is theorize what causes certain behaviours, and these theories are created entirely out of human-invented abstractions.
And so, when we oh-so-confidently talk about (say) an electron, we know very well that what we are talking about is our model of a particular behaviour, without having any idea whatsoever what actually exists at that spot. All we know (with incredible precision) is how the thing at that spot behaves, and we can rely totally on that behaviour despite "electron" being only a human abstraction.
It really is a major accomplishment, a triumph of the mind.
Unfortunately there is a underlying problem with this scenario. Man seems to have an infinite capacity for creating bureaucratic work in compensation for any real work that no longer needs to be done.
To quote a 1990 era Dilbert I just saw,
"Alice, I notice you're putting in 18 hour days, so I've decided to increase our staffing. This is Ed, my new assistant manager, he'll assist me in going over your progress reports."
Most Americans will happily allow everyone around them, including themselves, to starve rather than have their tax money (which they are no longer meaningfully producing) to be used to give people free shit. This nation will devolve into civil war before functional socialist support is created. The best we'll ever have is broken corporate welfare like Obamacare to placate the few people who actually admit to wanting social programs.
More than that. Most people would rather pay more tax money, than pay less with some of it going directly to other people. We're already there, what with paying more for incarceration than we would pay to send the same people to college, paying more for sporadic disorganized health care than anybody else pays for universal health care, etc. etc.etc.
Slashdot Mirror
then what are all these people doing, who stand at the counter in dunkin donuts, trying to optimize what they can buy with a $5 bill?
I think you've watched too much sci-fi. Also, there is more to life than safety. Having control over one's transport is a core component of liberal (as in liberty) society.
that's why the railroads so popular in medieval society wasted away during the 19th century.
artificial intelligences wouldn't feel safe driving with 75% of human drivers. me neither.
No, because everyone knows what the Holocaust was. Name some other example, and a big part of the world will not have any idea what you are talking about.
and because Germany was arguably one of the most civilized and advanced countries in the world, and their going insane and murdering a large proportion of their most productive and patriotic citizens strikes the residents of the First World more strongly than the concept that some backwards Asian country will mistreat their peasantry.
Because the "communist" (actually socialist) massive PR machine managed to disassociate the German National Socialist Party from other socialism related political factions in the minds of the general American populace.
Now that that specific branch of socialist theory has been severed from the greater socialist efforts, and crushed to truly insignificant membership, it can be acceptably labelled the greatest evil ever.
In defense of the other socialists (that's something I'm surprised to type), the Nazis did take a really sick angle to the concept of redistributing wealth. "Jewish bankers have too much money, kill all Jews." "Romanian nomadic families are stealing money from hard-working Germans, kill all Gypsies." "Homosexual behavior wastes energy that could be spent breeding more Germans or at least building weapons for other Germans, kill all homosexuals." I'm sure there were more victim demographics, but those are the big three that people talk about. Most other violent socialist factions "just" slaughter people who disagree with the new government.
Geez, this again. The whole platform of the Nazis, domestic and international was "we will save you from socialists"; Jews were targeted as the agents of international socialism destroying the German Volk.
Not counting ordinary casualties of war, the Soviet Union under Stalin murdered many times over the number who were murdered by Nazi Germany.
There were somewhere between 1 and 10 million indigenes living in what is now the US at the time of Columbus, depending on who makes the estimates. There were 273,000 in 1900 according to a pretty good census.
Of course, that doesn't mean that 1-10 million were killed. It means more than that had to be killed, because each generation had to keep being killed as they reproduced over the years in order to make the numbers drop.
As far as I've been able to figure, Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan murdered at a much greater rate than Communist China and the Soviet Union, but were stopped sooner. I'm not going to try to pick one out as better than the others, because they're all farther in the moral abyss than I'm willing to reach.
As far I've been able to figure, all European countries murdered at a much greater rate, during their colonial period, that Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan. I'm not going to try to pick one out as better than the others, because they're all farther in the moral abyss than I'm willing to reach.
And by European countries during their colonial period, let's include the US' Manifest Destiny, near genocide of the entire Native American population, and actual genocide of many of their nations.
I don't think you know what cajoled means. Figures.
Sure I do. The Boss says to you, "I got you by the cajoles"
You know full well the consequences of sex. You chose to do it anyway. Do not punish the innocent human that results from your poor self control.
Babies are the punishment for sex, and everybody should know that.
"I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you."
How is killing unborn babies not considered the ultimate hate?
Why would that be the case? Is it better to wait until they are born and kill them them? Or when they are six? or sixteen? or sixty? You figure, they have to earn the right to get killed, so we'll give them a free pass before they develop a nervous system?
You cannot raise the economic standard of living by taxing everyone into oblivion. Taxes, all of them, are regressive. They are an assault (albeit necessary) on everyone.
I don't think "regressive" means what you think it means. I.e.. " (of a tax or tax system) levied or graduated so that the rate decreases as the amount taxed increases"
Nothing else I've heard has been able to explain their kind.
Well, yeah. Republicans are currently really heavily hierarchical authoritarian in cognitive style. And this paper shows how that shuts down the neurological pathways which would otherwise lead to feelings of personal responsibility for the decisions made and the consequences that come from it.
Try this simple experiment: ask a sample of Republicans if they are happy with the presidency of Bush Jr., and when they say no (as most of them will do), ask them if that has made them rethink in any fashion the axioms and beliefs that made them vote for Bush in the first place? Nope, their votes just were in no way responsible for the things that happened later.
.. we have the same stuff going on.
Like what Israeli soldiers and settlers are doing to Palestinians?
And we have a winner in our "The record on the turntable in my brain is skipping again" contest. No more entries, please!
Bad pun, or funny coincidence?
You can't even brag, "Now with 80% less sewage".
Google Is Shutting Down Picasa In Favor of Photos
Capitalising words at random (why "in" and "is" but not "of"?) makes this close to meaningless.
Google is shutting down Picasa in favor of Photos
This way at least you have a hint that "Photos" is actually the name of something.
Title case makes even less sense for headlines than it does for titles.
WhaT AbOut CaMel CaSe?
Larry and Sergey run their company like two kids on Christmas morning. They're initially enthused, open package after package, play with their new toys for a while, then lose interest and move on. Let's hope they don't decide to arbitrarily pull the plug one afternoon on driver-less cars while millions of them are on the road.
Going to be bad enough when they upload that buggy upgrade that makes the vehicle hesitate for a few seconds after random control entries, and the battery die mysteriously in half the time it should.
oh wait, that was just android.
Google, where our motto is, "Everything is Always in Beta!"
i move all my important files to the cloud, where they will be permanently available to me.
It's much worse than that. Mere doubt doesn't even come close.
Don't forget that the term "Laws of Physics" is just a pop-sci term to simplify the topic for the layman. In fact there are no such laws or if they exist then they are unknowable to us. The things which we loosely call "Laws of Physics" are actually "Laws of Physicists", in other words merely mental abstractions conjured up by human minds. Reality may not even understand or obey mathematics for all we know, and it certainly doesn't take the slightest bit of notice of any "laws" which we conjure up. All we're doing is expressing (roughly) how reality is seen to behave, and we're happy when we find a good mental proxy for that behaviour within a limited range of conditions. We make only very narrow claims, and they're infinitely distant from being actual "Laws of Physics".
The role of the scientist is to dream up mathematical theories which accurately model the observed behaviour of reality, without having any idea of what's really behind the behavioral facade. And that's really mind blowing, because it's turtles invented by humans all the way down, yet it approximates to what we observe fairly well in most areas.
To make matters worse, remember that the physicist doesn't have "root access to reality", to use a Unix metaphor. When we run experiments, we are using one behavioral abstraction of reality (a "user-mode API") to probe another behavioral abstraction of reality, as we totally lack any ability to see inside that "kernel". All we can see and touch and use is reality's behaviour and we can't see how that behaviour is actually implemented. For all we know it's all implemented by incredibly fast gerbils scurrying around behind the behavioral veil. We will never know --- we don't have root. All we can do is theorize what causes certain behaviours, and these theories are created entirely out of human-invented abstractions.
And so, when we oh-so-confidently talk about (say) an electron, we know very well that what we are talking about is our model of a particular behaviour, without having any idea whatsoever what actually exists at that spot. All we know (with incredible precision) is how the thing at that spot behaves, and we can rely totally on that behaviour despite "electron" being only a human abstraction.
It really is a major accomplishment, a triumph of the mind.
standing ovation!
whole groups of people ( say it specialists or collectivists) can hypnotize themselves into believing their erroneous ideas.
from my experience it is futile and expensive to try to rescue them from their hypnotic state.
let's not bring republicans into this.
Too bad Edward Snowden and Julian Assange don't have the balls to follow his fine example.
Why would they want to kill Aron Swarz?
Unfortunately there is a underlying problem with this scenario. Man seems to have an infinite capacity for creating bureaucratic work in compensation for any real work that no longer needs to be done.
To quote a 1990 era Dilbert I just saw,
"Alice, I notice you're putting in 18 hour days, so I've decided to increase our staffing. This is Ed, my new assistant manager, he'll assist me in going over your progress reports."
Just from my experiences in life, I suspect that Modern day sex negative feminists will get what they want. No men.
There are some aspects to sex robots that are interesting:
No Sexually transmitted diseases
No child support because you don't have children.
No splitting your wealth upon divorce or a vindictive ex coming after you.
Now of course, the human race might disappear.
Yeah it's all fine and dandy until it locks up and needs to go back to the factory to get you loose.
Most Americans will happily allow everyone around them, including themselves, to starve rather than have their tax money (which they are no longer meaningfully producing) to be used to give people free shit. This nation will devolve into civil war before functional socialist support is created. The best we'll ever have is broken corporate welfare like Obamacare to placate the few people who actually admit to wanting social programs.
More than that. Most people would rather pay more tax money, than pay less with some of it going directly to other people. We're already there, what with paying more for incarceration than we would pay to send the same people to college, paying more for sporadic disorganized health care than anybody else pays for universal health care, etc. etc.etc.