I am not denying that the term ‘terraforming’ can have various, graduated connotations. If you wish to argue that farming is a form of terraforming or that human driven climate change is a form of terraforming, I can see the point. That is not the connotation of terraforming I am using though, and that should be clear.
I think that you may also be arguing that because we have altered Earth’s biosphere it strengthens the case that we can do so elsewhere through a mix of technology and biological processes. I don’t believe I argued otherwise. There is, however, a very large difference between altering a biosphere already capable of supporting intricately complex biomes and ecologies and transforming a planet like Mars into a planet that into one that can support similar biodiversity and complexity.
Would it be impossible to terraform Mars in this grand sense? I’m certainly not qualified to say, but my guess would be that it is possible. My point, to state it again, is that I don’t think that’s the direction humanity will go in. I think that the path of least resistance, so to speak, is the virtualization of human society and mind in general. That path is woven of many unrelated trajectories that are all being followed of their own accord. Just to give a few examples I would offer the building more realistic games and VR media, medical treatments (amputees, neurology, etc.), social networking, AI research, and so on. There is a confluence of myriad smaller paths that are leading toward the virtualization of human society; it will develop organically and without any single entity (i.e. a government or corporation) having to engage in a focused and extensive engineering project. It is simply a direction that humanity is already going in. I think that once we begin to expand into virtual space in earnest, the impetus for things like terraforming will lessen. I’m not implying that it will dissipate entirely, but it will cease to be a necessity for the long term (and we are talking crazy long term here) survival of mind. It will become a luxury that may or may not be realized. You simply don’t need to create planetary biospheres to maintain virtual environments.
I hate to sound like some supplicant to the cult of transhumanism, because I’m not. I’m very far from that, but I can’t see any empirical reason why it won’t happen eventually. It is simply my guess that it will happen before we start terraforming planets or building Dyson Spheres.”
If you're trying to make a nice environment for people to go from Earth, it's a problem. If you're merely trying to get life to thrive on Mars, then it's not a serious issue.The moderately high radioactive environment of Mars just isn't that big an issue (especially compared to the UV enivornment!). The low gravity of Mars does more to strip Mars of atmosphere than the lack of a magnetosphere.
I alluded to this point when I said “assuming we are terraforming for us.”
Indeed, Mars’ lower mass/gravitational field strength is a major factor in atmospheric degradation, but Mars has enough mass that it could hold onto an atmosphere should it have a stronger magnetosphere. Of course it could hold on to a more substantial atmosphere with more mass, but the radiation would still be a factor if you wanted Mars to be Earth like. Neither is likely to happen, but I suppose it would be easier to generate a surrogate magnetosphere than increase the mass of the planet. Moreover, creating a magnetosphere or similar shield would kill two birds with one stone. Again, I'm not suggesting this will happen any time soon or at all for that matter.
We already terraformed Earth. Agriculture and urbanization both make huge swathes of Earth more habitable for humans (which really should be the definition of terraforming not making something more like arbitrary Earth environments which in themselves need not be particularly nice environments. Nor is there a reason to expect that that the process can't be largely automated (to avoid the need for billions of human laborers making things happen).
That’s a matter of semantics I suppose. We have certainly altered the biosphere of Earth, intentionally and unintentionally, but I personally wouldn’t count that as terraforming in the most colloquial connotation. I get your point, but it’s really usurping my comment to make a separate point. My point is that it is more likely that technology will go in the direction of virtualization of mind than immense scale engineering projects like making a planet like Mars, which cannot support an Earth like biosphere, into a planet that can.
One of the problems with terraforming Mars (and potentially lots of other rocky, goldilocks zone planets) is the lack of a substantial magnetosphere. Earth’s magnetosphere greatly mitigates solar wind and radiation. Solar wind can strip a planet of its atmosphere and solar radiation isn’t good news for ‘earth like’ life.
The conditions for life might be quite common in the universe, but the conditions for complex Earth like life are much, much more rare (but perhaps still substantial given the numbers). We have a lot going for us here. We are part of a solar system in a ‘quiet’ part of the galaxy. The vast majority of stars in our galaxy, and most others, are in areas of great cosmic violence. They are too close to the galactic core, or too close to a star that goes supernova or hypernova during the evolutionary process. There are planets that don’t have a moon or nearby supergiant plants (like Jupiter, Saturn, etc.) to protect them from comets and asteroids, and they don’t have strong magnetospheres. Of course a planet like Mars does have a lot of these things going for it, it doesn’t have a strong magnetosphere which is a sizable technological hurtle to terraforming (assuming we are terraforming for us).
Most likely humans will become largely virtual data based organisms long before we develop the technology or focused the resources on things like terraforming planets. If this happens, the need to do things like terraforming other planets kind of goes away.
Though it’s a long way from being an interstellar probe; Deep Space 1 used ion drives (inadequate but new), self-repairing mission AI, and self-navigation.
What you are observing is natural human egos. People tend to place unreasonable value in the things they know/are good at. So athletes over emphasize physical prowess, singers/actors claim a unique grasp of 'creativity', cs/math folks value their type of intellect. Everybody does it. Don't beat yourself up, this is just you maturing as an adult. Dependency -> independence -> inter-dependency. Appreciate the value of those that think differently than you, together you can move mountains.
This comment is a good synopsis, but of course there is a matrix of factors in any group’s collective behavior pattern, and plenty of nuance for any given individual. I think Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ‘family resemblance’ concept is apropos here (no time to really explain that). In short, individuals draw from a larger pool of contributing traits common to the group. When you look at the group as a whole you see the commonality, even though any two individuals in the group may share very few traits if any.
In the case of nerds and geeks there are some common factors that contribute to their particular brand of arrogance (IMO):
Nerds’ particular utility to society is in ascendance.
Nerd knowledge is arcane and esoteric.
Nerds are generally more intelligent and educated; they are therefore particularly adept and perceiving and articulating the ways in which they differ from 'others.'
Nerds are typically focused of mind, and therefore less likely to appreciate alternate worldviews and forms of competence and intelligence.
Nerds tend to be socially challenged at a biological or genetic level. There is a lot of research that links aptitude in math and science with mild autism (where autism is seen more asymptotically).
Many nerds are compensating for being picked on. They were at the wrong end of a lot of power dynamics most of their lives and are now indulging in new found power.
Conversely, being a nerd is becoming cool.
Nerd communities tend to be insular and create self-reinforcing feedback loops.
Etc.
All that and, as has been said, you are in a giant hormonal pool of young adults who are all trying to assert themselves and adjust to a broader more cosmopolitan social milieu than most of you are used to experiencing.
I did read the article, but it doesn't give me a real feel for the issue from a legal perspective. In any case, this is like a lame plot detail from a bad dystopian si-fi story; it’s absurd.
Good luck enforcing this broadly. The logistics, should it become law, would be daunting. This isn't to say there might not be some enforcement for bigger ticket items or ramifications like ebay and craigslist, but I find it hard to believe there would be wide spread enforcement of this law for small scale deals, even things like car sales. Then again, if there is profit to be made if the law is enforced, I could be wrong.
And people talk to no end about how government is the enemy; corporations, at least what they are becoming, are the enemy...seriously.
A Dyson Sphere is a largely ludicrous concept, and it did not anticipate virtual reality. By the time a civilization has the wide array of capabilities required to create anything approaching a Dyson Sphere, such a construct would long since be superfluous. I won’t go into all the reasons a Dyson Sphere is logistically unrealistic, other have already done this.
The most realistic trajectory for any species is to eventual stop expanding into real space and transition to virtual space. Most advanced species will eventually evolve from biological organisms into technological organisms. Computational capability does require a high power density, but the power efficiency gains realized by the transition from real space to virtual space are staggering. In other words, the amount of raw power needed to sustain a highly advanced virtual civilization, with relatively limitless ‘space’ to expand is minuscule compared to the raw power needs of a civilization that needs lots of physical space, atmosphere, food, clothing, houses, leisure space, large scale transportation, etc, etc., etc. etc.
Any truly advanced civ will have a very limited physical footprint because they will be largely virtual. Even if a virtual civ wishes to continue exploring the 'real' world, the amount of power needed to move a computational system and some robotic or android 'physical avatars' around and sustain them is, again, minuscule compared to sustaining biological bodies and moving them around. Power needs will still be high, due to the power density of computation, but it will be very manageable. Couple these lower power needs with advances in efficacy (which have generally followed Moore’s Law) and you simply do not need to expend the tremendous effort required to construct a monstrosity like a Dyson Sphere.
Sure, there may be something that prevents civs from going virtual (like the soul), but as yet there is no empirical reason to believe this is the case.
From the perspective of civil law, abortion should be legal for a host of pragmatic and moral reasons. To put it dangerously concisely, there are many situations where choosing to abort is a morally defensible option, and, more pragmatically important, attempting to monitor pregnancies, prevent women from terminating pregnancy, and punish those who who do attempt/succeed is a daunting logistical task due to the biological realities of the gestation process. Moreover, such action is an overreach of power by any social body.
That being said, we must also face the fact that in many cases, perhaps even most cases, abortion is tantamount to murder. Again, this does not mean abortion should be illegal; abortion is simply a case where there are no easy, clean solutions. The fact that abortion should be legal does not minimize the fact that abortions often terminate a healthy life trajectory, and speaking about abortion as an act of privacy or simply a medical procedure is morally disingenuous. To put it bluntly, sometimes life sucks, and sometimes we are given horrible choices between undesirable alternatives. I am certainly not saying that abortion is always wrong, or that it is easy to know when it is or isn’t. I am arguing that in the effort to defend the right to abortion, we tend to minimize and mask the fact that abortion is the termination of a life trajectory that will, with luck and nurturing, lead to a first smile, a first word, a first kiss, and all the wonders we hold dear and hope for in human life. Terminating life is not always wrong (in abortion as well as other situations), but it should never be easy. I know that sounds like some tough love non-sense or an attempt to shame people, but it is real...taking life should never be easy. The fact is that some choices have more gravity than others, and the choice to abort or not is one of the most weighty, unfair, and cruel burdens to place on a human being. I bear no ill will to anyone who is forced to make it, due to their own actions or the actions of others.
The argument for why abortion is tantamount to murder is too large to give in full, even if I were capable, but here are some points to consider.
Once the paternal and maternal gametes genetically combine in/into a zygote, a distinct and novel genetic organism has gained a purchase on life. That distinct organism is on a trajectory that will end in its biological death, and the trajectory itself, however long or short, is the life of that organism. Many things can end this trajectory, but intentionally and actively ending this trajectory, in the case of humans, is often murder (but certainly not always murder). Trying to impose some arbitrary bifurcation point that divides the trajectory of life into a person that can be murdered and a sack of cells that cannot be murdered is disingenuous because life is a process not a specific form (e.g. zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, or what have you). With nurture and luck, a zygote will move along all the stages of human development remaining to him or her in a trajectory no less real than that of an infant. Put simply, terminating that trajectory at any point is terminating a distinct life, and you would have a hard time convincing me that such an interpretation is a matter of opinion.
While we are on the subject, I find the argument that goes something like “I can do whatever I want with my own body,” particularly misinformed and alarmingly overused. Arguments that a zygote, or developmental stage thereafter, is part of the mother’s body are factually incorrect. The zygote and onward has a distinct genetic footprint, and the mother’s immune system would identify the child’s genetic code as an external threat and kill it were it not for the placenta. I won’t tarry on this point, but I do hear the “It’s my body” argument all the time. The fact that a fetus is in your body, doesn’t make it part of your body.
Comcast wants to be able to claim internet customers as cable TV subscribers. Sure they would like you to buy everything they have, but at the very least they want you as a statistic. I haven’t checked pricing recently, but in the past the discount for bundling basic cable (local channels + a few others) made the bundle a few dollars less than the stand alone offering of equal throughput. In this way Comcast can count internet customers as cable TV subscribers and bolster their marketing numbers. Perhaps this is no longer true.
To comment on the capitalism side bar going on here I’ll say the following. A free market is a market in which prices are set by supply and demand; it would be awesome if we actually had that. In any case, a free market can and must be regulated. ‘Regulation’ is a multivalent term that generally means several things, two in particular: 1) rules for fair competition (i.e. policing and fraud protection); 2) manipulation of market prices by non-market forces (i.e. a managed economy). Unfortunately these two most common connotations of regulation are often conflated.
A market can still be free while subject to the former form of regulation. History seems to indicate that a market cannot be free unless subject to the former form (i.e. regulations that mandate transparency and prevent fraud and collusion). A market cannot be free if subject to the latter (i.e. attempts to manage the economy by artificially altering the value of goods and services). You might call one’ good’ regulation and the other ‘bad’ regulation. Corporations and powerful players try to manipulate the price of goods and services far more often than the government, via the bad kind regulation, because there isn’t enough of or enough enforcement of the good kind of regulation.
A simple way to say this is people will cheat if there is no referee. The more complex the market, the easier it is to hide cheating in general. The more powerful and wealthy the player, the easier it is for that player to cheat. The most common ideological position of market champions is that consumers must regulate markets, and larger market players, via their purchasing power: the invisible hand as it were. The invisible hand was a pipe dream back in Adam Smith’s day, and global markets and titanic corporations make the idea of the invisible hand a ludicrous, blindly ideological stance in our era.
The massive complexity and thick opacity of most markets makes it unreasonable to expect that the average consumer can make consistently informed purchasing decisions. There may be some miniscule percentage of exceptional consumers that have the time, skill and fortitude to navigate the labyrinth of necessary data to make truly informed purchasing decisions, FOR EVERY SINGLE THING THEY PURCHASE AND ALL OF TH PRODUCTION CHAINS CONNECTED THERETO, but their purchasing power, if such people indeed exist, would be statistically insignificant. Moreover, even if every consumer were such a person, there would be a huge amount of duplicated effort. Fruther, there would be nothing to provident power players from colluding to manipulate prices. The only real solution is to have a social entity that is focused on the wellbeing and prosperity of all citizens to advocate on behalf of all citizens as well as all market players. That entity already exists; it is called government. Regulating markets is not the only role of government, but it is a key role. Government, as poorly run as it has become, is still the only advocate of the public good of its kind and magnitude. Government is the only viable referee.
You want a nation without big or potent government? Take your pick; there are plenty in the world, and they are hellholes like Somalia and Afghanistan. The nations with the most prosperous markets and expansive civil liberty all have huge, powerful governments. That’s a fact. If you think government is the problem, you aren’t looking at th
Seriously...Particularly in circumstances like this, it is pure greed. At the level of billions you are not talking about something that makes a big difference in quality of life....Bar him entry. Maybe it won't matter, but I'm betting some day he'll want to visit for some reason.
Right on! It is a soulless maneuver to take advantage of the civil society of the Unites States and its citizens, that is in no small part maintained by taxes, and then bow out on that society for greed and ego. This is a kind of treason IMO (assuming these facts are correct, I have not RTFA). I doubt there is a legal way to deny him reentry, but it would serve him right for what little difference it would make.
Interestingly, what little plot there is in the reboot is strikingly close to Nemesis...Romulan underclass in big scary ship are heading to earth to destroy it.
I didn’t really address your points, which are reasonable, in my other reply. I simply elucidated mine. I'll try to do so quickly (I should be working).
I do get what you are saying, but I think a well-crafted film can both appeal to the masses and be more than a series of scenes and character introductions grafted onto an anemic plot. Doing so, however, simply takes a lot more effort and incurs a bit more risk. I think I would have been happy with something between the extremes erudite and vapid; and I doubt such a film would have alienated the masses. The masses have responded quite well to movies that are multifaceted and simultaneously appeal to multiple markets, but again, such a film is simply a much harder to craft.
I suppose I simply have a general problem with pandering to the lowest common denominator. I think it’s destructive to society in general, but that’s a tangent we don’t need to get into. I realize my disappointment is largely personal, but I feel I have sound reasons. I also realize there were sound reasons to choose the easy path. This isn’t a war of facts, but difference of opinions.
Few of my problems with the film are Trek specific. I’m not hot and bothered that this was changed or that wasn’t addressed from a ‘cannon’ perspective. Most of my issues are centered on the general style of the movie and the lack of core film elements like a plot, an antagonist of any worth (ok must regain will and not list issues). This was a movie crafted on easy mode and designed to be a light, accessible, and profitable summer blockbuster (or if you prefer vapid). That’s not a crime in and of itself; that’s a viable style for a film in the abstract, even if it’s not really my cup of tea.
My point intersects with the fact that the film is a Trek reboot in that the style is a cop out. When something reboots, you expect it take the best of what the original had to offer, expand and improve on the franchise, and maintain, and this is a pretty abstract concept, the spirit of the original.
I guess I feel like the reboot failed to improve and build on the best parts of Trek. As has been mentioned, one of Trek’s most captivating aspects was its ability to be imaginative, substantive and thought provoking. It tackled moral and philosophical issues, and it did so presented in a wrapper of action and humor. This reboot has very little if any substantive or thought provoking material. In fact it more often offends the intellect. In this way it was decidedly not in the spirit of Trek, at least as I see it.
Who knows; future films may capitalize on that deeper side of Trek now that the characters and framework have been established. There may have been a long term plan for a span of films. I’m simply dubious at this point.
To be fair, I feel it was one of the better Trek films even if it was vapid. Trek films don’t really have a great track record. I’m still putting Wrath of Kahn on top (even with its pacing issues); followed by First Contact. The reboot probably vies for third with some others, and it probably wins despite its problems. I hope that clarifies my position. I’m not saying the movie was an abject failure as a film; it was simply a HUGE disappointment in the face of its potential. I simply wish the film makers had tried to do more given the golden gift and considerably responsibility they were handed. Instead, I feel they decided to risk as little as possible and take the easy path.
I must admit I enjoyed the Star Trek reboot, if judged simply as a film. For me, it had it had just enough going for it to overcome the very, very long list of problems I had with it (and I am using all of my will not to share my list in great detail). This is all abstracted, however, from the fact that it was a Star Trek reboot.
Ultimately the film is a failure, in my eyes, because it squandered it’s incredible potential. You are given a chance to reboot one of the most beloved and fertile fictional universes in the history of the world--and this is not hyperbole--and the best you can do is a marginally enjoyable summer blockbuster. I think Abrams and company took the easy path; instead of risking a grasp at the brass ring, they slid under a lower bar and made a mint. Of course profit is the industry's prime directive; no one is obligated to make a masterpiece. It’s still disappointing.
Take nearly any action that is not confined the quantum realm (and many of those) and I can demonstration how it is actually a process comprised of sub-actions or sub-processes.
We have reached the point where I conclude you are either a troll or obtuse; I apologize if it is the latter. This tangent has dragged out long enough; I have demonstrated that the terms 'action' and 'process' are indeed synonyms via a direct appeal to an outside authority. I am moving on; you should too.
Denotatively a process and an action are largely the same. They have different connotations: for example ‘process’ specifically carries the connotation of a series of actions. In reality though, there are very few actions that are not themselves processes (i.e. that cannot be broken up into sub actions at some level).
I think you missed my point. That’s partially my fault as I didn’t proof-read that comment.
One easy way to make a democratic society undemocratic is to create laws that, just based on the thoughts of free men, turn them into criminals, such as the hate crime laws do.
This is the kind of non-sense I’m talking about. You can’t make the democratic process undemocratic by the very use of the democratic process. If the majority of people in a democratic society, or in the case of the US the majority of legislators, want to make certain thoughts criminal they can. Enforcement may be problem, but that’s neither here nor there.
My point is that people are conflating the concept of democracy with other concepts like liberty or their own personal definition of fairness and morality. Democracy can be both wrong and tyrannical (to the minority). Being a democratic society simply means there are democratic rules in play.
Simply put, if laws that were democratically enacted make ‘hate crimes’ punishable, it is non-sense to say that laws that make ‘hate crimes’ punishable are undemocratic.
What part of the 14th amendment and "equal protection" do people not understand?
Special protections means unequal protection.
Caveat: I’m not making a judgment here about the value of a concept like ‘hate crimes’ one way or the other, but rather an observation that people are far too eager to render judgment on a complex concept using simple thought.
For example:
Equal protection assumes an equal playing field. Another way to look at this is that protection from ‘hate crimes’ is a form of special protection intended to a counter a special threat; and these two special conditions cancel out and yield equal protection. That is a super simplified and actually pretty bad way to break it down, but it hints at underlying problem of social power dynamics and how they alter the equality of the playing field.
Take the example of racism in first half of the 1900s (and beyond really). Though both blacks and whites could be said to be prejudice, only whites were technically able to be racist using a technical definition of institutional racism. This is because the power dynamics did not create an equal playing filed. Whites had immense institutional and social power to bring to bear in service of their prejudices. Blacks generally did not have this power at their disposal. The imbalance in the power dynamic creates a state which is not equal, and in which equal protection is impossible through the enforcement of ‘blind’ laws.
Power dynamics is just one small wrinkle in a concept like ‘hate crimes.’ It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the concept in the end; it’s just not a simple concept and can’t be summed up with a statement like ‘equal protection’ abstracted from the larger milieu.
There is a general problem here when it comes to things like philosophy, social theory, the legal system, etc. People often forget that they have limited education and training in these subjects and haven’t really spent significant time thinking about the concepts in question. A lack of formal education doesn’t ensure one’s propositions will be wrong, or even that they will be ‘blunt’ so to speak. My point is that all too often people are oblivious to the tremendous underpinning of knowledge and hours of thought others have devoted to a topic at hand. In the case of ‘hate crimes,’ we aren’t talking about a concept people just whipped up to stick it to the white man. It is an attempted solution to a larger problem, and unless you have spent a lot of time thinking about the subject, there is probably a lot of factors you haven’t considered.
I am concerned that Ravi was tried on various "hate crime" related charges. There really isn't a place for these in a democratic society. The social or physical characteristics of the victim shouldn't matter for the most part.
This is a none-sense statement. Don’t conflate democracy with 'morality' or your own personal point of view. A democratic society is one in which decisions are made through one of many possible democratic processes (yes that is tautological, but I’m trying to be brief). The process of how a society comes its decisions determines whether or not that society is democratic, not the result of their deliberations. Technically a democratic society could decide that blue eyed people should be put to death.
By that token, a democratic society can indeed decide that the social or physical characteristics of the victim should matter. Moreover, you might argue that in microcosm a democratic body indeed deliberated on this very point in the form of the jury.
This is not a simple situation. IMO, the sentence was extreme, but I am a fan of nicomachean, or one might say situational, ethics. Utilitarian ethics, however, does not balk at sacrificing individuals to alter the larger social dynamic if that sacrifice is effective.
A democratic society determines what kind of ethics should be applied and where (well ideally), but there is no guarantee that those decisions will be fair or rational.
Well I’ll comment more on the TV as a multi-purpose viewing device, and less on the larger context of Television programing in the traditional sense. There will be some overlap of course.
Content Organization: Content itself is pretty subjective, but I’ll go out on a limb and argue that most people want to watch programs on their own schedule. HBO GO is a great example of how traditional content providers are moving in this direction. As TVs integrate with internet connectivity, it will no longer be necessary to have a PC/Tablet bridge something like HBO GO to your TV.
Form Factor - Though TVs are pretty sleek now, there is a lot of upside in the actual chassis of a TV. Fictional depictions of futuristic viewing devices generally make the ‘screen’ entirely integrated into the surrounding environment. ‘Screens’ are built into a window or wall panel, or simply projected into the air.
Control – I feel lazy and fat just saying this, but who wants to deal with a remote? I’m not sure I’d want to rely solely on voice controls, as they would often clash with the media itself, but there is lots of room to improve the basic remote. Using a high dollar integrated controller or tablet is nice, but it’s the same basic technology as a remote. I suspect a combination of control strategies could improve the TV experience (voice, touch screen, spatial recognition, more tablet like remotes, etc.).
Immersion - As mentioned, the current limitations to 3D TV are harsh. This will undoubtedly improve as time goes on. This really overlaps with Form Factor, as one annoyance is the need to arrange a room around the TV. As technologies improve both the immersion and Form Factor issues could be solved by something like holographic projections, glasses with built in displays, etc. Of course you can push immersion down the slow road toward VR.
Interactivity – This is a pretty huge content and technology hurdle, but could ‘Television shows' have interactive plots? I think this already exists in the game world and could really be exploited by coupling an MMO and a TV series. I’m not sure if interactive stories could ever really supplant scripted programing for a variety of reason (not all of which are technological), but there is room for improvement here.
That’s ludicrous. You actually expect legislators have the time to personally attend to every facet of governance? Even if they randomly voted devoid of any knowledge or research on the subjects they would never have the time. Regulatory bodies are extensions of the representative process. In other words, elect competent and ethical politicians, and ideally they appoint competent officials to aid them in the process of maintaining a stable society.
People need to remove their fantastical ideological blinders and take a good look at the real world. As I’ve probably said on/. before, the nations with potent governments and strong regulatory infrastructures are the nations that have the most prosperous markets and offer the most personal liberty. Nations that have impotent and ‘small’ governments (e.g. Afghanistan, Hattie, Somalia, etc.) are not gardens of personal liberty and commerce.
The government may be flawed, but it is, regulatory bodies included, pretty much your only advocate against amalgamated, self-interested power. The invisible hand is a fantasy and it will not save us. When you take the referee out of the game, people and corporations cheat. Competition alone, even where it actually exists, is insufficient to keep massively powerful entities honest. We aren’t talking about two ice cream venders on either side of the street in a small town. We are talking about titanic multinational conglomerates enmeshed in a complex global economy and enshrouded in a labyrinth externalities. In this kind of global economic environment it’s pretty unrealistic to place the burden of regulating markets solely on the back of consumers. Consumers certainly have power, but not nearly enough, and this doesn’t even broach the issue of visibility into a staggeringly complex marketplace.
I'm not implying that markets don't do long term planning; I'm suggesting that profit is the end of said planning. My point is that many public goods are inherently unprofitable in any sense that is salient to the operation of markets. As such, markets are not interested in perusing those public goods.
Markets didn't commission the Washington Monument; markets didn't create the park system; markets did not make it a priority to explore space. On the other hand, markets are highly invested in making sure public recourses aren't 'squandered' on such endeavors. Markets, via lobbies, are laying siege upon governments, which only compounds the problem already inherent in government.
The ideological stance that society only needs markets is exactly what I am talking about. Markets and systems of governance are equal partners in a functioning society. You don't think so? Take a look at countries that have weak systems of governance. Look at Hattie, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. These places are not bastions of liberty with powerful and prosperous markets. Conversely it is the courtiers with the strongest governments that have the strongest markets and grant their citizens the most personal liberty. That is reality. Not inconsequentially, those are the nations that have engaged in the largest scale and most innovative projects in history.
It is no coincidence that as our government is starved of resources, it not only ceases to engage in new grand projects, it is discontinuing those traditionally perused.
I don’t think it is as much an issue of innovation as resource outlay. We live in a world where profit is the prime motive, and thus the prime value. This is fine for markets, but this mindset has overreached markets themselves and become the default value system for societies as a whole.
In the past societies invested in large scale visions for reasons that aren’t always easy to articulate, but that were certainly not limited to economic gain. Whether it’s space exploration or building cathedrals and monuments, large scale projects require massive resources and corporate (as in group) commitment. Our epoch is dominated by self-interest (some might argue enlightened self-interest), market forces and market mentalities. Obviously, there is no incentive for corporations to outlay massive resources for projects that are either risky and/or that offer limited or negative ROI. But that’s not really the issue; I wouldn’t expect them to do so. The problem is that the market mentality has so thoroughly usurped dominance across all facets of society, the common opinion is that everything should be run like a business.
If you run government like a business, or put differently if you govern your society as though it was a giant company, society has no place for grand vision. We are constantly told that only markets know what society needs and are best equipped to efficiently provide those needs. Of course it isn’t profitable to engage in these kind of projects (or not obviously profitable), so markets will not engage in them. Moreover, if government engages in them, it will require resources, i.e. taxes revenues, and we are constantly told that taxes destroy markets (though the actual data doesn’t bear this out). Anyway, I could follow this tangent into a political debate, but salient point for this thread is that we have become a market society and a market only values grand vision if it leads to obvious monetary profit. If the same resources can be spent toward a greater profit elsewhere it would ‘be foolish’ not to spent to spend it elsewhere.
I wrote the “Kernel of Truth” comment, but I didn’t realize I wasn’t logged in. In any case, I think I can make my point more concisely after a few moments of thought.
I’m not sure Gabler is saying that we live in a time where there are no big ideas. I think he is saying that big ideas are increasingly irrelevant in the public consciousness. The general populace is no longer ‘fed’ big ideas and as a result the category of thought is easily drowned out in a deluge of small ideas, gossip, and conspicuous consumption. Big ideas may still be happening, but they are no longer of any importance to the average citizen the way the Apollo program was important to its epoch. New inventions may become the next iPad, but they don’t spark the imagination the way the ‘home of the future’ did.
There are a lot of implications to this kind of change, not the least of which are political, but that’s a whole other topic. To reiterate, I think Gabler has a point, but it’s a very easy to misinterpret his point to mean that big ideas are themselves becoming scarce.
PS The Slashdot community is not a good measuring stick of the public consciousness. Just because you and your peeps still like and know about big ideas, doesn’t mean that is statistically typical.
This is another example of how markets are usurping all facets of society. Though I’m sure there are logically valid (but not sound) arguments to be made for skipping college from a market perspective, higher education is about a lot more than technical or job training, or at least it should be. Higher education is about becoming a better-rounded human being, not about being an entrepreneur, tycoon, cog, or what have you.
I know that’s overbearing of me to say, and I don’t really mean to dictate why people should or shouldn’t seek a higher degree, but this kind of thing just smacks of a direct assault by the ‘market mentality’ on competing bastions of social structure. This is a good springboard into a much wider discussion about how we are becoming a market dominated society, but I don’t have the time (my market duties call).
Slashdot Mirror
I’m not sure what your point is exactly.
I am not denying that the term ‘terraforming’ can have various, graduated connotations. If you wish to argue that farming is a form of terraforming or that human driven climate change is a form of terraforming, I can see the point. That is not the connotation of terraforming I am using though, and that should be clear.
I think that you may also be arguing that because we have altered Earth’s biosphere it strengthens the case that we can do so elsewhere through a mix of technology and biological processes. I don’t believe I argued otherwise. There is, however, a very large difference between altering a biosphere already capable of supporting intricately complex biomes and ecologies and transforming a planet like Mars into a planet that into one that can support similar biodiversity and complexity.
Would it be impossible to terraform Mars in this grand sense? I’m certainly not qualified to say, but my guess would be that it is possible. My point, to state it again, is that I don’t think that’s the direction humanity will go in. I think that the path of least resistance, so to speak, is the virtualization of human society and mind in general. That path is woven of many unrelated trajectories that are all being followed of their own accord. Just to give a few examples I would offer the building more realistic games and VR media, medical treatments (amputees, neurology, etc.), social networking, AI research, and so on. There is a confluence of myriad smaller paths that are leading toward the virtualization of human society; it will develop organically and without any single entity (i.e. a government or corporation) having to engage in a focused and extensive engineering project. It is simply a direction that humanity is already going in. I think that once we begin to expand into virtual space in earnest, the impetus for things like terraforming will lessen. I’m not implying that it will dissipate entirely, but it will cease to be a necessity for the long term (and we are talking crazy long term here) survival of mind. It will become a luxury that may or may not be realized. You simply don’t need to create planetary biospheres to maintain virtual environments.
I hate to sound like some supplicant to the cult of transhumanism, because I’m not. I’m very far from that, but I can’t see any empirical reason why it won’t happen eventually. It is simply my guess that it will happen before we start terraforming planets or building Dyson Spheres.”
If you're trying to make a nice environment for people to go from Earth, it's a problem. If you're merely trying to get life to thrive on Mars, then it's not a serious issue.The moderately high radioactive environment of Mars just isn't that big an issue (especially compared to the UV enivornment!). The low gravity of Mars does more to strip Mars of atmosphere than the lack of a magnetosphere.
I alluded to this point when I said “assuming we are terraforming for us.”
Indeed, Mars’ lower mass/gravitational field strength is a major factor in atmospheric degradation, but Mars has enough mass that it could hold onto an atmosphere should it have a stronger magnetosphere. Of course it could hold on to a more substantial atmosphere with more mass, but the radiation would still be a factor if you wanted Mars to be Earth like. Neither is likely to happen, but I suppose it would be easier to generate a surrogate magnetosphere than increase the mass of the planet. Moreover, creating a magnetosphere or similar shield would kill two birds with one stone. Again, I'm not suggesting this will happen any time soon or at all for that matter.
We already terraformed Earth. Agriculture and urbanization both make huge swathes of Earth more habitable for humans (which really should be the definition of terraforming not making something more like arbitrary Earth environments which in themselves need not be particularly nice environments. Nor is there a reason to expect that that the process can't be largely automated (to avoid the need for billions of human laborers making things happen).
That’s a matter of semantics I suppose. We have certainly altered the biosphere of Earth, intentionally and unintentionally, but I personally wouldn’t count that as terraforming in the most colloquial connotation. I get your point, but it’s really usurping my comment to make a separate point. My point is that it is more likely that technology will go in the direction of virtualization of mind than immense scale engineering projects like making a planet like Mars, which cannot support an Earth like biosphere, into a planet that can.
One of the problems with terraforming Mars (and potentially lots of other rocky, goldilocks zone planets) is the lack of a substantial magnetosphere. Earth’s magnetosphere greatly mitigates solar wind and radiation. Solar wind can strip a planet of its atmosphere and solar radiation isn’t good news for ‘earth like’ life.
The conditions for life might be quite common in the universe, but the conditions for complex Earth like life are much, much more rare (but perhaps still substantial given the numbers). We have a lot going for us here. We are part of a solar system in a ‘quiet’ part of the galaxy. The vast majority of stars in our galaxy, and most others, are in areas of great cosmic violence. They are too close to the galactic core, or too close to a star that goes supernova or hypernova during the evolutionary process. There are planets that don’t have a moon or nearby supergiant plants (like Jupiter, Saturn, etc.) to protect them from comets and asteroids, and they don’t have strong magnetospheres. Of course a planet like Mars does have a lot of these things going for it, it doesn’t have a strong magnetosphere which is a sizable technological hurtle to terraforming (assuming we are terraforming for us).
Most likely humans will become largely virtual data based organisms long before we develop the technology or focused the resources on things like terraforming planets. If this happens, the need to do things like terraforming other planets kind of goes away.
Though it’s a long way from being an interstellar probe; Deep Space 1 used ion drives (inadequate but new), self-repairing mission AI, and self-navigation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_1
Also, NASA is working on a warp drive.
http://io9.com/5963263/how-nasa-will-build-its-very-first-warp-drive
What you are observing is natural human egos. People tend to place unreasonable value in the things they know/are good at. So athletes over emphasize physical prowess, singers/actors claim a unique grasp of 'creativity', cs/math folks value their type of intellect. Everybody does it. Don't beat yourself up, this is just you maturing as an adult. Dependency -> independence -> inter-dependency. Appreciate the value of those that think differently than you, together you can move mountains.
This comment is a good synopsis, but of course there is a matrix of factors in any group’s collective behavior pattern, and plenty of nuance for any given individual. I think Ludwig Wittgenstein’s ‘family resemblance’ concept is apropos here (no time to really explain that). In short, individuals draw from a larger pool of contributing traits common to the group. When you look at the group as a whole you see the commonality, even though any two individuals in the group may share very few traits if any. In the case of nerds and geeks there are some common factors that contribute to their particular brand of arrogance (IMO):
Nerds’ particular utility to society is in ascendance.
Nerd knowledge is arcane and esoteric.
Nerds are generally more intelligent and educated; they are therefore particularly adept and perceiving and articulating the ways in which they differ from 'others.'
Nerds are typically focused of mind, and therefore less likely to appreciate alternate worldviews and forms of competence and intelligence.
Nerds tend to be socially challenged at a biological or genetic level. There is a lot of research that links aptitude in math and science with mild autism (where autism is seen more asymptotically).
Many nerds are compensating for being picked on. They were at the wrong end of a lot of power dynamics most of their lives and are now indulging in new found power.
Conversely, being a nerd is becoming cool.
Nerd communities tend to be insular and create self-reinforcing feedback loops.
Etc.
All that and, as has been said, you are in a giant hormonal pool of young adults who are all trying to assert themselves and adjust to a broader more cosmopolitan social milieu than most of you are used to experiencing.
I did read the article, but it doesn't give me a real feel for the issue from a legal perspective. In any case, this is like a lame plot detail from a bad dystopian si-fi story; it’s absurd.
Good luck enforcing this broadly. The logistics, should it become law, would be daunting. This isn't to say there might not be some enforcement for bigger ticket items or ramifications like ebay and craigslist, but I find it hard to believe there would be wide spread enforcement of this law for small scale deals, even things like car sales. Then again, if there is profit to be made if the law is enforced, I could be wrong.
And people talk to no end about how government is the enemy; corporations, at least what they are becoming, are the enemy...seriously.
A Dyson Sphere is a largely ludicrous concept, and it did not anticipate virtual reality. By the time a civilization has the wide array of capabilities required to create anything approaching a Dyson Sphere, such a construct would long since be superfluous. I won’t go into all the reasons a Dyson Sphere is logistically unrealistic, other have already done this.
The most realistic trajectory for any species is to eventual stop expanding into real space and transition to virtual space. Most advanced species will eventually evolve from biological organisms into technological organisms. Computational capability does require a high power density, but the power efficiency gains realized by the transition from real space to virtual space are staggering. In other words, the amount of raw power needed to sustain a highly advanced virtual civilization, with relatively limitless ‘space’ to expand is minuscule compared to the raw power needs of a civilization that needs lots of physical space, atmosphere, food, clothing, houses, leisure space, large scale transportation, etc, etc., etc. etc.
Any truly advanced civ will have a very limited physical footprint because they will be largely virtual. Even if a virtual civ wishes to continue exploring the 'real' world, the amount of power needed to move a computational system and some robotic or android 'physical avatars' around and sustain them is, again, minuscule compared to sustaining biological bodies and moving them around. Power needs will still be high, due to the power density of computation, but it will be very manageable. Couple these lower power needs with advances in efficacy (which have generally followed Moore’s Law) and you simply do not need to expend the tremendous effort required to construct a monstrosity like a Dyson Sphere.
Sure, there may be something that prevents civs from going virtual (like the soul), but as yet there is no empirical reason to believe this is the case.
From the perspective of civil law, abortion should be legal for a host of pragmatic and moral reasons. To put it dangerously concisely, there are many situations where choosing to abort is a morally defensible option, and, more pragmatically important, attempting to monitor pregnancies, prevent women from terminating pregnancy, and punish those who who do attempt/succeed is a daunting logistical task due to the biological realities of the gestation process. Moreover, such action is an overreach of power by any social body.
That being said, we must also face the fact that in many cases, perhaps even most cases, abortion is tantamount to murder. Again, this does not mean abortion should be illegal; abortion is simply a case where there are no easy, clean solutions. The fact that abortion should be legal does not minimize the fact that abortions often terminate a healthy life trajectory, and speaking about abortion as an act of privacy or simply a medical procedure is morally disingenuous. To put it bluntly, sometimes life sucks, and sometimes we are given horrible choices between undesirable alternatives. I am certainly not saying that abortion is always wrong, or that it is easy to know when it is or isn’t. I am arguing that in the effort to defend the right to abortion, we tend to minimize and mask the fact that abortion is the termination of a life trajectory that will, with luck and nurturing, lead to a first smile, a first word, a first kiss, and all the wonders we hold dear and hope for in human life. Terminating life is not always wrong (in abortion as well as other situations), but it should never be easy. I know that sounds like some tough love non-sense or an attempt to shame people, but it is real...taking life should never be easy. The fact is that some choices have more gravity than others, and the choice to abort or not is one of the most weighty, unfair, and cruel burdens to place on a human being. I bear no ill will to anyone who is forced to make it, due to their own actions or the actions of others.
The argument for why abortion is tantamount to murder is too large to give in full, even if I were capable, but here are some points to consider.
Once the paternal and maternal gametes genetically combine in/into a zygote, a distinct and novel genetic organism has gained a purchase on life. That distinct organism is on a trajectory that will end in its biological death, and the trajectory itself, however long or short, is the life of that organism. Many things can end this trajectory, but intentionally and actively ending this trajectory, in the case of humans, is often murder (but certainly not always murder). Trying to impose some arbitrary bifurcation point that divides the trajectory of life into a person that can be murdered and a sack of cells that cannot be murdered is disingenuous because life is a process not a specific form (e.g. zygote, embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, teenager, or what have you). With nurture and luck, a zygote will move along all the stages of human development remaining to him or her in a trajectory no less real than that of an infant. Put simply, terminating that trajectory at any point is terminating a distinct life, and you would have a hard time convincing me that such an interpretation is a matter of opinion.
While we are on the subject, I find the argument that goes something like “I can do whatever I want with my own body,” particularly misinformed and alarmingly overused. Arguments that a zygote, or developmental stage thereafter, is part of the mother’s body are factually incorrect. The zygote and onward has a distinct genetic footprint, and the mother’s immune system would identify the child’s genetic code as an external threat and kill it were it not for the placenta. I won’t tarry on this point, but I do hear the “It’s my body” argument all the time. The fact that a fetus is in your body, doesn’t make it part of your body.
This subject is comp
Comcast wants to be able to claim internet customers as cable TV subscribers. Sure they would like you to buy everything they have, but at the very least they want you as a statistic. I haven’t checked pricing recently, but in the past the discount for bundling basic cable (local channels + a few others) made the bundle a few dollars less than the stand alone offering of equal throughput. In this way Comcast can count internet customers as cable TV subscribers and bolster their marketing numbers. Perhaps this is no longer true.
To comment on the capitalism side bar going on here I’ll say the following. A free market is a market in which prices are set by supply and demand; it would be awesome if we actually had that. In any case, a free market can and must be regulated. ‘Regulation’ is a multivalent term that generally means several things, two in particular: 1) rules for fair competition (i.e. policing and fraud protection); 2) manipulation of market prices by non-market forces (i.e. a managed economy). Unfortunately these two most common connotations of regulation are often conflated.
A market can still be free while subject to the former form of regulation. History seems to indicate that a market cannot be free unless subject to the former form (i.e. regulations that mandate transparency and prevent fraud and collusion). A market cannot be free if subject to the latter (i.e. attempts to manage the economy by artificially altering the value of goods and services). You might call one’ good’ regulation and the other ‘bad’ regulation. Corporations and powerful players try to manipulate the price of goods and services far more often than the government, via the bad kind regulation, because there isn’t enough of or enough enforcement of the good kind of regulation.
A simple way to say this is people will cheat if there is no referee. The more complex the market, the easier it is to hide cheating in general. The more powerful and wealthy the player, the easier it is for that player to cheat. The most common ideological position of market champions is that consumers must regulate markets, and larger market players, via their purchasing power: the invisible hand as it were. The invisible hand was a pipe dream back in Adam Smith’s day, and global markets and titanic corporations make the idea of the invisible hand a ludicrous, blindly ideological stance in our era.
The massive complexity and thick opacity of most markets makes it unreasonable to expect that the average consumer can make consistently informed purchasing decisions. There may be some miniscule percentage of exceptional consumers that have the time, skill and fortitude to navigate the labyrinth of necessary data to make truly informed purchasing decisions, FOR EVERY SINGLE THING THEY PURCHASE AND ALL OF TH PRODUCTION CHAINS CONNECTED THERETO, but their purchasing power, if such people indeed exist, would be statistically insignificant. Moreover, even if every consumer were such a person, there would be a huge amount of duplicated effort. Fruther, there would be nothing to provident power players from colluding to manipulate prices. The only real solution is to have a social entity that is focused on the wellbeing and prosperity of all citizens to advocate on behalf of all citizens as well as all market players. That entity already exists; it is called government. Regulating markets is not the only role of government, but it is a key role. Government, as poorly run as it has become, is still the only advocate of the public good of its kind and magnitude. Government is the only viable referee.
You want a nation without big or potent government? Take your pick; there are plenty in the world, and they are hellholes like Somalia and Afghanistan. The nations with the most prosperous markets and expansive civil liberty all have huge, powerful governments. That’s a fact. If you think government is the problem, you aren’t looking at th
Seriously...Particularly in circumstances like this, it is pure greed. At the level of billions you are not talking about something that makes a big difference in quality of life....Bar him entry. Maybe it won't matter, but I'm betting some day he'll want to visit for some reason.
Right on! It is a soulless maneuver to take advantage of the civil society of the Unites States and its citizens, that is in no small part maintained by taxes, and then bow out on that society for greed and ego. This is a kind of treason IMO (assuming these facts are correct, I have not RTFA). I doubt there is a legal way to deny him reentry, but it would serve him right for what little difference it would make.
Interestingly, what little plot there is in the reboot is strikingly close to Nemesis...Romulan underclass in big scary ship are heading to earth to destroy it.
I didn’t really address your points, which are reasonable, in my other reply. I simply elucidated mine. I'll try to do so quickly (I should be working).
I do get what you are saying, but I think a well-crafted film can both appeal to the masses and be more than a series of scenes and character introductions grafted onto an anemic plot. Doing so, however, simply takes a lot more effort and incurs a bit more risk. I think I would have been happy with something between the extremes erudite and vapid; and I doubt such a film would have alienated the masses. The masses have responded quite well to movies that are multifaceted and simultaneously appeal to multiple markets, but again, such a film is simply a much harder to craft.
I suppose I simply have a general problem with pandering to the lowest common denominator. I think it’s destructive to society in general, but that’s a tangent we don’t need to get into. I realize my disappointment is largely personal, but I feel I have sound reasons. I also realize there were sound reasons to choose the easy path. This isn’t a war of facts, but difference of opinions.
Few of my problems with the film are Trek specific. I’m not hot and bothered that this was changed or that wasn’t addressed from a ‘cannon’ perspective. Most of my issues are centered on the general style of the movie and the lack of core film elements like a plot, an antagonist of any worth (ok must regain will and not list issues). This was a movie crafted on easy mode and designed to be a light, accessible, and profitable summer blockbuster (or if you prefer vapid). That’s not a crime in and of itself; that’s a viable style for a film in the abstract, even if it’s not really my cup of tea.
My point intersects with the fact that the film is a Trek reboot in that the style is a cop out. When something reboots, you expect it take the best of what the original had to offer, expand and improve on the franchise, and maintain, and this is a pretty abstract concept, the spirit of the original.
I guess I feel like the reboot failed to improve and build on the best parts of Trek. As has been mentioned, one of Trek’s most captivating aspects was its ability to be imaginative, substantive and thought provoking. It tackled moral and philosophical issues, and it did so presented in a wrapper of action and humor. This reboot has very little if any substantive or thought provoking material. In fact it more often offends the intellect. In this way it was decidedly not in the spirit of Trek, at least as I see it.
Who knows; future films may capitalize on that deeper side of Trek now that the characters and framework have been established. There may have been a long term plan for a span of films. I’m simply dubious at this point.
To be fair, I feel it was one of the better Trek films even if it was vapid. Trek films don’t really have a great track record. I’m still putting Wrath of Kahn on top (even with its pacing issues); followed by First Contact. The reboot probably vies for third with some others, and it probably wins despite its problems. I hope that clarifies my position. I’m not saying the movie was an abject failure as a film; it was simply a HUGE disappointment in the face of its potential. I simply wish the film makers had tried to do more given the golden gift and considerably responsibility they were handed. Instead, I feel they decided to risk as little as possible and take the easy path.
I must admit I enjoyed the Star Trek reboot, if judged simply as a film. For me, it had it had just enough going for it to overcome the very, very long list of problems I had with it (and I am using all of my will not to share my list in great detail). This is all abstracted, however, from the fact that it was a Star Trek reboot.
Ultimately the film is a failure, in my eyes, because it squandered it’s incredible potential. You are given a chance to reboot one of the most beloved and fertile fictional universes in the history of the world--and this is not hyperbole--and the best you can do is a marginally enjoyable summer blockbuster. I think Abrams and company took the easy path; instead of risking a grasp at the brass ring, they slid under a lower bar and made a mint. Of course profit is the industry's prime directive; no one is obligated to make a masterpiece. It’s still disappointing.
Take nearly any action that is not confined the quantum realm (and many of those) and I can demonstration how it is actually a process comprised of sub-actions or sub-processes.
We have reached the point where I conclude you are either a troll or obtuse; I apologize if it is the latter. This tangent has dragged out long enough; I have demonstrated that the terms 'action' and 'process' are indeed synonyms via a direct appeal to an outside authority. I am moving on; you should too.
I think you misspelled action as outcome in that last reply.
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/process
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/action
http://thesaurus.com/browse/process
Denotatively a process and an action are largely the same. They have different connotations: for example ‘process’ specifically carries the connotation of a series of actions. In reality though, there are very few actions that are not themselves processes (i.e. that cannot be broken up into sub actions at some level).
I think you missed my point. That’s partially my fault as I didn’t proof-read that comment.
One easy way to make a democratic society undemocratic is to create laws that, just based on the thoughts of free men, turn them into criminals, such as the hate crime laws do.
This is the kind of non-sense I’m talking about. You can’t make the democratic process undemocratic by the very use of the democratic process. If the majority of people in a democratic society, or in the case of the US the majority of legislators, want to make certain thoughts criminal they can. Enforcement may be problem, but that’s neither here nor there.
My point is that people are conflating the concept of democracy with other concepts like liberty or their own personal definition of fairness and morality. Democracy can be both wrong and tyrannical (to the minority). Being a democratic society simply means there are democratic rules in play.
Simply put, if laws that were democratically enacted make ‘hate crimes’ punishable, it is non-sense to say that laws that make ‘hate crimes’ punishable are undemocratic.
What part of the 14th amendment and "equal protection" do people not understand?
Special protections means unequal protection.
Caveat: I’m not making a judgment here about the value of a concept like ‘hate crimes’ one way or the other, but rather an observation that people are far too eager to render judgment on a complex concept using simple thought.
For example: Equal protection assumes an equal playing field. Another way to look at this is that protection from ‘hate crimes’ is a form of special protection intended to a counter a special threat; and these two special conditions cancel out and yield equal protection. That is a super simplified and actually pretty bad way to break it down, but it hints at underlying problem of social power dynamics and how they alter the equality of the playing field.
Take the example of racism in first half of the 1900s (and beyond really). Though both blacks and whites could be said to be prejudice, only whites were technically able to be racist using a technical definition of institutional racism. This is because the power dynamics did not create an equal playing filed. Whites had immense institutional and social power to bring to bear in service of their prejudices. Blacks generally did not have this power at their disposal. The imbalance in the power dynamic creates a state which is not equal, and in which equal protection is impossible through the enforcement of ‘blind’ laws.
Power dynamics is just one small wrinkle in a concept like ‘hate crimes.’ It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the concept in the end; it’s just not a simple concept and can’t be summed up with a statement like ‘equal protection’ abstracted from the larger milieu.
There is a general problem here when it comes to things like philosophy, social theory, the legal system, etc. People often forget that they have limited education and training in these subjects and haven’t really spent significant time thinking about the concepts in question. A lack of formal education doesn’t ensure one’s propositions will be wrong, or even that they will be ‘blunt’ so to speak. My point is that all too often people are oblivious to the tremendous underpinning of knowledge and hours of thought others have devoted to a topic at hand. In the case of ‘hate crimes,’ we aren’t talking about a concept people just whipped up to stick it to the white man. It is an attempted solution to a larger problem, and unless you have spent a lot of time thinking about the subject, there is probably a lot of factors you haven’t considered.
I am concerned that Ravi was tried on various "hate crime" related charges. There really isn't a place for these in a democratic society. The social or physical characteristics of the victim shouldn't matter for the most part.
This is a none-sense statement. Don’t conflate democracy with 'morality' or your own personal point of view. A democratic society is one in which decisions are made through one of many possible democratic processes (yes that is tautological, but I’m trying to be brief). The process of how a society comes its decisions determines whether or not that society is democratic, not the result of their deliberations. Technically a democratic society could decide that blue eyed people should be put to death.
By that token, a democratic society can indeed decide that the social or physical characteristics of the victim should matter. Moreover, you might argue that in microcosm a democratic body indeed deliberated on this very point in the form of the jury.
This is not a simple situation. IMO, the sentence was extreme, but I am a fan of nicomachean, or one might say situational, ethics. Utilitarian ethics, however, does not balk at sacrificing individuals to alter the larger social dynamic if that sacrifice is effective.
A democratic society determines what kind of ethics should be applied and where (well ideally), but there is no guarantee that those decisions will be fair or rational.
Well I’ll comment more on the TV as a multi-purpose viewing device, and less on the larger context of Television programing in the traditional sense. There will be some overlap of course.
Content Organization: Content itself is pretty subjective, but I’ll go out on a limb and argue that most people want to watch programs on their own schedule. HBO GO is a great example of how traditional content providers are moving in this direction. As TVs integrate with internet connectivity, it will no longer be necessary to have a PC/Tablet bridge something like HBO GO to your TV.
Form Factor - Though TVs are pretty sleek now, there is a lot of upside in the actual chassis of a TV. Fictional depictions of futuristic viewing devices generally make the ‘screen’ entirely integrated into the surrounding environment. ‘Screens’ are built into a window or wall panel, or simply projected into the air.
Control – I feel lazy and fat just saying this, but who wants to deal with a remote? I’m not sure I’d want to rely solely on voice controls, as they would often clash with the media itself, but there is lots of room to improve the basic remote. Using a high dollar integrated controller or tablet is nice, but it’s the same basic technology as a remote. I suspect a combination of control strategies could improve the TV experience (voice, touch screen, spatial recognition, more tablet like remotes, etc.).
Immersion - As mentioned, the current limitations to 3D TV are harsh. This will undoubtedly improve as time goes on. This really overlaps with Form Factor, as one annoyance is the need to arrange a room around the TV. As technologies improve both the immersion and Form Factor issues could be solved by something like holographic projections, glasses with built in displays, etc. Of course you can push immersion down the slow road toward VR.
Interactivity – This is a pretty huge content and technology hurdle, but could ‘Television shows' have interactive plots? I think this already exists in the game world and could really be exploited by coupling an MMO and a TV series. I’m not sure if interactive stories could ever really supplant scripted programing for a variety of reason (not all of which are technological), but there is room for improvement here.
That’s ludicrous. You actually expect legislators have the time to personally attend to every facet of governance? Even if they randomly voted devoid of any knowledge or research on the subjects they would never have the time. Regulatory bodies are extensions of the representative process. In other words, elect competent and ethical politicians, and ideally they appoint competent officials to aid them in the process of maintaining a stable society.
People need to remove their fantastical ideological blinders and take a good look at the real world. As I’ve probably said on /. before, the nations with potent governments and strong regulatory infrastructures are the nations that have the most prosperous markets and offer the most personal liberty. Nations that have impotent and ‘small’ governments (e.g. Afghanistan, Hattie, Somalia, etc.) are not gardens of personal liberty and commerce.
The government may be flawed, but it is, regulatory bodies included, pretty much your only advocate against amalgamated, self-interested power. The invisible hand is a fantasy and it will not save us. When you take the referee out of the game, people and corporations cheat. Competition alone, even where it actually exists, is insufficient to keep massively powerful entities honest. We aren’t talking about two ice cream venders on either side of the street in a small town. We are talking about titanic multinational conglomerates enmeshed in a complex global economy and enshrouded in a labyrinth externalities. In this kind of global economic environment it’s pretty unrealistic to place the burden of regulating markets solely on the back of consumers. Consumers certainly have power, but not nearly enough, and this doesn’t even broach the issue of visibility into a staggeringly complex marketplace.
I'm not implying that markets don't do long term planning; I'm suggesting that profit is the end of said planning. My point is that many public goods are inherently unprofitable in any sense that is salient to the operation of markets. As such, markets are not interested in perusing those public goods.
Markets didn't commission the Washington Monument; markets didn't create the park system; markets did not make it a priority to explore space. On the other hand, markets are highly invested in making sure public recourses aren't 'squandered' on such endeavors. Markets, via lobbies, are laying siege upon governments, which only compounds the problem already inherent in government.
The ideological stance that society only needs markets is exactly what I am talking about. Markets and systems of governance are equal partners in a functioning society. You don't think so? Take a look at countries that have weak systems of governance. Look at Hattie, Somalia, Afghanistan, etc. These places are not bastions of liberty with powerful and prosperous markets. Conversely it is the courtiers with the strongest governments that have the strongest markets and grant their citizens the most personal liberty. That is reality. Not inconsequentially, those are the nations that have engaged in the largest scale and most innovative projects in history.
It is no coincidence that as our government is starved of resources, it not only ceases to engage in new grand projects, it is discontinuing those traditionally perused.
I don’t think it is as much an issue of innovation as resource outlay. We live in a world where profit is the prime motive, and thus the prime value. This is fine for markets, but this mindset has overreached markets themselves and become the default value system for societies as a whole.
In the past societies invested in large scale visions for reasons that aren’t always easy to articulate, but that were certainly not limited to economic gain. Whether it’s space exploration or building cathedrals and monuments, large scale projects require massive resources and corporate (as in group) commitment. Our epoch is dominated by self-interest (some might argue enlightened self-interest), market forces and market mentalities. Obviously, there is no incentive for corporations to outlay massive resources for projects that are either risky and/or that offer limited or negative ROI. But that’s not really the issue; I wouldn’t expect them to do so. The problem is that the market mentality has so thoroughly usurped dominance across all facets of society, the common opinion is that everything should be run like a business.
If you run government like a business, or put differently if you govern your society as though it was a giant company, society has no place for grand vision. We are constantly told that only markets know what society needs and are best equipped to efficiently provide those needs. Of course it isn’t profitable to engage in these kind of projects (or not obviously profitable), so markets will not engage in them. Moreover, if government engages in them, it will require resources, i.e. taxes revenues, and we are constantly told that taxes destroy markets (though the actual data doesn’t bear this out). Anyway, I could follow this tangent into a political debate, but salient point for this thread is that we have become a market society and a market only values grand vision if it leads to obvious monetary profit. If the same resources can be spent toward a greater profit elsewhere it would ‘be foolish’ not to spent to spend it elsewhere.
I wrote the “Kernel of Truth” comment, but I didn’t realize I wasn’t logged in. In any case, I think I can make my point more concisely after a few moments of thought.
I’m not sure Gabler is saying that we live in a time where there are no big ideas. I think he is saying that big ideas are increasingly irrelevant in the public consciousness. The general populace is no longer ‘fed’ big ideas and as a result the category of thought is easily drowned out in a deluge of small ideas, gossip, and conspicuous consumption. Big ideas may still be happening, but they are no longer of any importance to the average citizen the way the Apollo program was important to its epoch. New inventions may become the next iPad, but they don’t spark the imagination the way the ‘home of the future’ did.
There are a lot of implications to this kind of change, not the least of which are political, but that’s a whole other topic. To reiterate, I think Gabler has a point, but it’s a very easy to misinterpret his point to mean that big ideas are themselves becoming scarce.
PS The Slashdot community is not a good measuring stick of the public consciousness. Just because you and your peeps still like and know about big ideas, doesn’t mean that is statistically typical.
This is another example of how markets are usurping all facets of society. Though I’m sure there are logically valid (but not sound) arguments to be made for skipping college from a market perspective, higher education is about a lot more than technical or job training, or at least it should be. Higher education is about becoming a better-rounded human being, not about being an entrepreneur, tycoon, cog, or what have you.
I know that’s overbearing of me to say, and I don’t really mean to dictate why people should or shouldn’t seek a higher degree, but this kind of thing just smacks of a direct assault by the ‘market mentality’ on competing bastions of social structure. This is a good springboard into a much wider discussion about how we are becoming a market dominated society, but I don’t have the time (my market duties call).