It's perfectly reasonable to call someone's ideas a fairy tale and a pipe dream based on a completely flawed understanding of the physical world and human consciousness? You have a very different definition of 'reasonable' than most. If not for the reasons I assumed, why DO you have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea of reproducing human consciousness in another media? Barring a decent explanation from you, I'm going to stick with my assumptions, arrogant though they may be. I've talked with many people who have the same kind of emotional "Oh my GOD! That can't POSSIBLY work! Why, that would mean we're nothing more than ROBOTS!!!" reaction that you have, and the reason has always boiled down to one of the three reasons I've given. If you have a different reason for feeling threatened enough by this idea to attack people for even having it, please enlighten me. But don't cast aspersions of knee-jerk reactions when your own knee is jerking so uncontrollably.
What do you have against Soros? The fact that he was a vicious anti-communist, the fact that he supports the decriminalization of most drugs, or the fact that is rich and yet not a conservative (except for the whole 'viciously anti-communist' thing)?
It will get hot. It uses lots of power. It only comes in SCSI. It is for small form factor servers like blades with well engineered cooling systems. These are latop drives in size only.
I've also seen these 2.5" server drives used in cluster heads and RAID/SAN/NAS boxes as the OS boot disk. You can easily fit 16 regular 3.5 disks plus one of these, a slimline CD/DVD and floppy in a 4U case.
WTF? We've observed speciation in the laboratory. It's a dead horse, my friend. Been dead so long it's starting to stink. Stop beating it. This, like most other issues raised by creationists/IDers, has been answered over and over again.
Prove that human brain activity is non-deterministic. I have a good friend who is getting his PhD in neuroscience, and from conversations I've had with him, I'd say it's pretty damn deterministic. Human consciousness does not exist outside the laws of nature. It is not a special type of process, unlike any other. It is as amenable to simulation as any other process in the universe, and like any other process, it can be modelled to any arbitrary level of versimilitude by throwing more computational power at it. With quantum computing on the horizon, we could be looking at modelling the quantum state of every atom in your brain.
Sorry if this threatens your ego-image of what consciousness is, conflicts with what your spirit guides, shamans, or priests have told you, or makes you feel in any way less special. Your ego-self can no more know itself than a knife can cut itself. Your spirit guides, shamans and priests are wrong. You aren't any more or less special than any other piece of matter in the universe. Have a nice day.
Oh, there's no doubt we can move some icebergs around. I think you are failing to properly estimate the size of the problem. Moving a few icebergs isn't going to cut it. Cubic miles. I don't think you grasp what the phrase "thousands of cubic miles" really means. It's like thinking that just because we've managed to cut off a few mountain tops in West Virginia that we could pick up the entire Rocky mountain chain and drop it down in Europe.
The whole icebergs for fresh water thing might be a good idea by itself, without regards to global warming, but I think other methods of obtaining fresh water are actually cheaper, which is why you don't see it being done. I just don't think any amount of ice we could reasonably haul around would amount to more than a fart in hurricane as far as global waqrming is concerned.
A lovely idea, but we don't really have the technology to haul around thousands of cubic miles of ice, nor anywhere to put them. Think about it. Cubic miles. Thousands of them. More fresh water than all the lakes and rivers put together. Nothing we can do in the hauling department is going to make a dent in this problem.
Again, those graphs don't show any clear trend at all. I'm guessing you must be a liberal arts major. Take some remedial statistics and learn to read graphs.
Let's debunk these idiotic myths one by one: n the real world people can't print up money and loan it out whenever they need it without causing disaster. We've been doing it for years without disaster. Keep on predicting the same bullshit, Nostradamus.
In the real world, people are employed by rich people, not poor slobs on welfare. Duh. That is the most asinine statement I've heard in a long time. Educate yourself on the absics of economics and the concept of opportunity cost. If the poor slobs had the moeny, they'd be the ones handing out the jobs. If the money were controlled democratically, the people would be handing out the jobs. Just ebcause we do something one way doesn't mean it's the only way.
In the real world, social security is a bankrupt ponzi scheme. Hardly. It has problems, mostly due to the government using it like a piggy bank.
In the real world, public ecducation sucks and the overfunded US system is the worst in the western world. Dumb, dumb, dumb. Don't try to make a point and then, in the very same sentence, bring up evidence to contradict it! Ask yourself this: does the rest of the western world have privatized education?
In the real world, medicare subsidized medical costs are skyrocketing and Canadians have waiting lists a mile long for simple procedures. This old canard again? Canadians don't have waiting lists, where do you people even get these lies? Do you have a lie factory that just prints them up on demand?
In the real world, government is 30% as efficient at allocating resources and money as the private sector. Wow, that lie factory does a great job. Back those figures up or shut up.
Stop drinking the libertarian cool-aid. It's anarchism for idiots. I'm a real anarchist, not a fricken happy-meal anarchist. Real anarchists think for themselves, they don't just parrot back bullshit they heard from a large, organized group of cranks. Libertarians don't want to do away with the state, they just want to do away with anyone telling them what to do, which is egotistical anti-social behavior at its worst, not anarchism.
Income equality has been falling drastically in the period from 81 to the present. Those graphs show no clear trends at all. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you haven't done a very good job. I'm sure in your revenge fantasy driven world view, capital punishment and prison with no parole are great ideas, but reality and scientific research do not support your preposterous hypothesis. But you really don't care, do you? I know your type. It's all about making reality fit your little mental model of how it should be rather than the other way around, so you really don't care what I or anyone else say, you are simply to closed minded to even look at facts that might change your world-view. In fact, changing your world-view feels like dying, doesn't it? When something challenges your point of view, you get a tight, constricted feeling in your chest. Your heart rate increases and you feel angry, lashing out at the perceived cause of your pain. Well, the cause of your pain is inside your own head and you will never get away from it unless you change your point of view. I'm sure glad I'm not you. I did my time in hell, but I'm free now.
I can't even comprehend the level of mental confusion that would lead a person to make the assumptions you have made about my post. Nowhere do I claim it is possible to do away with all crime. Nowhere do I say that everyone should be equal. I said things should be fair. Inequality is fair, and most people, even substandard people, perceive it that way. Why else all the celebrity worship? People like it when excellence is rewarded, even if they themselves are not excellent. People like it when unfairness is punished, when non-cooperators and those who do not give back are shunned. That is perfectly fair. What is unfair is disproportional reward. No one person is worth millions of times what any other person is worth. That is what people consider to be unfair.
Haves and have nots are fine. Have millions and have nots, not so much. This level of unfairness is not an incentive for most people to work harder. It is an incentive for most people to cheat and be lazy, because they do not feel their hard work will be rewarded equitably, and others will profit unfairly from them.
The research I've seen (google 'equity reciprocity competition') shows that people are not motivated purely by self interest. They are more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity, and will even do things against their self interest to acheive these ideals. The experiments dealt with sums of money that were on the order of 2-3 months salary for the participants. In situations where free riders can escape punishment, people start by acting fairly, see themselves being taken advantage of, and become free riders as a defense. When free riders can be punished, everyone acts fairly.
An economic system based on the falsehood that people always act selfishly is doomed to fail. It will be intrinsically biased against fairness, in fact encouraging laziness and selfishness. We need a system that recognizes the realities of human motivation and rewards fairness and reciprocity, as this will bring out the best in nmost people.
I really flubbed it trying to get my point across. I meant, when there is less perception of unfair inequality in a society, there will be less theft. In the places you describe, everyone is poor, but they exist in a society where not everyone is poor, and they perceive unfairness in that inequality. When people perceive unfairness, they are less likely to act in a fair and equitable manner themselves, in order to protect themselves from eloitation. When they perceive fairness, most peolpe will act fairly and cooperatively.
If poor areas are in the midst of rich areas, there will be property crime. The problem is the perception of unfairness. When people believe their society to be unfair, they act unfairly towards others so as not to be taken advantage of. In poor areas, other poor are the most likely target. When people believe their society to be fair, they act fairly towards others. I should have been more clear, when I said everyone, I meant EVERYONE. Think isolated rain forest tribes. No property crime there.
That seems logical, but oftentimes what seems logical is wrong. Can you back up that theory with anything besides personal anecdotes? I've seen some interesting research in economics that shows that fixing poverty isn't the answer, fixing unfairness is. When people perceive their society to be unfair, they themselves will operate unfairly so they aren't taken advantage of. When they perceive their society as operating fairly, they will cooperate because that is the most efficient, genetically speaking.
Blaming people for their poor choices does no good. We must examine why people make poor choices and address that. It does nothing to simply say, "They are bad, lazy people." That is not a theory. It is not falsifiable and it makes no useful predictions. It is an expression of emotion and in no way helps fix the problem.
Greed and envy are societal traits. People are natural cooperators, as this is genetically most effient. When people perceive their society to be fair, most people will play by the rules because their genes tell them too. When people perceive their society to be unfir, they will cheat so as not to be taken advantage of themselves. This too is genetic. Your model of the problem is too simple by far.
People naturally want to contribute to society because they desire the respect of their peers. This is a basic drive, nearly as important as food and water. Research shows that a small minority of people will always cooperate and play fair. An even smaller monprity will always cheat. The vast majority of people will play fair in a fair system, because that is most efficient. They will cheat in an unfair system because they don't want to be taken advantage of themselves.
Nice theory, but it isn't backed up by research. Research shows that inequality drives crime. Given the perception of a fair system, most people will play fair because our genes tell us that is the most efficient strategy. Unfortunately, while we are predisposed towards cooperation, it is a poor strategy when the system isn't fair. The cooperators get taken advantage of. Therefore, in an unfair system, people will play unfairly. Change the system, change the people.
Never, ever suggest that I or anyone else 'educate' ourselves by going to the libertarian propaganda site mises.org. It is full of the worst kind of sloppy reasoning, fringe economics, weird conspiracy theories and outright bullshit I have ever seen. The research shows that income inequality produces crime. I'm sorry that that contradicts your cult's teachings. You can deny reality all you like in order to go on believing in your illogical ideology, but than won't change reality one bit.
You think 'manly men' don't care about their appearance? Why do you think they look so manly? That 'I'm a manly man who doesn't care about his appearance' look is deliberate. Men have always cared just as much as women about advertising their suitability as a mate. It's just the style that's changed.
Adult crime started to fall 18 years after the introduction of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps not having so many people who grew up as unwanted children had something to do with that. But the data seems to show that the 'evil people' hypothesis is simply incorrect. Only a small percentage of the population has any tendency towards evil. Crime comes from societal causes, mostly income inequality. That is what the research shows, but you are free to believe any hypothesis you like.
Did you even read my post. I said, "When EVERYONE is poor." Not "When everyone in a certain ghetto is poor." Obviously it was a generalization that doesn't apply in all situations, but the example you give doesn't contradict what I said because Brazil has a huge income inequality.
This kind of attitude only helps you feel better about yourself, it doesn't help to understand and address the root causes of crime. There is inequality built into the system, and not everyone has had the opportunities you have. You may have been poor, but the very fact that the system worked for you proves that you did have more opportunity. You are probably a member of the dominant culture, and completely unaware of the perks and benefits you have that others don't. You assume that everyone is like you, but unfortunately, they aren't.
Not everyone can be a CEO, we need workers too. Every shitty job out there needs to get done by someone in order for the whole system to work. Some people accrue far more benefit from the system we all work to build than others do. This is unfair.
Most people want to contribute. Having respect from one's peers is a basic need, almost as important as food or shelter. Nearly everyone resents those who don't contribute. Almost no one likes being resented. Many people feel like they do not have an opportunity to contribute, and income inequality feeds this feeling.
Whining about the poor choices of others is unproductive. Better to look at society as a system, and address systemic problems. People's poor choices are a systemic problem, as most people can only make the decisions that are expected of them. The person who can do more than expected is rare indeed. The person who will not rise to meet society's expectations of them is nearly as rare.
Slashdot Mirror
It's perfectly reasonable to call someone's ideas a fairy tale and a pipe dream based on a completely flawed understanding of the physical world and human consciousness? You have a very different definition of 'reasonable' than most. If not for the reasons I assumed, why DO you have such a strong emotional reaction to the idea of reproducing human consciousness in another media? Barring a decent explanation from you, I'm going to stick with my assumptions, arrogant though they may be. I've talked with many people who have the same kind of emotional "Oh my GOD! That can't POSSIBLY work! Why, that would mean we're nothing more than ROBOTS!!!" reaction that you have, and the reason has always boiled down to one of the three reasons I've given. If you have a different reason for feeling threatened enough by this idea to attack people for even having it, please enlighten me. But don't cast aspersions of knee-jerk reactions when your own knee is jerking so uncontrollably.
What do you have against Soros? The fact that he was a vicious anti-communist, the fact that he supports the decriminalization of most drugs, or the fact that is rich and yet not a conservative (except for the whole 'viciously anti-communist' thing)?
It will get hot. It uses lots of power. It only comes in SCSI. It is for small form factor servers like blades with well engineered cooling systems. These are latop drives in size only.
I've also seen these 2.5" server drives used in cluster heads and RAID/SAN/NAS boxes as the OS boot disk. You can easily fit 16 regular 3.5 disks plus one of these, a slimline CD/DVD and floppy in a 4U case.
WTF? We've observed speciation in the laboratory. It's a dead horse, my friend. Been dead so long it's starting to stink. Stop beating it. This, like most other issues raised by creationists/IDers, has been answered over and over again.
Prove that human brain activity is non-deterministic. I have a good friend who is getting his PhD in neuroscience, and from conversations I've had with him, I'd say it's pretty damn deterministic. Human consciousness does not exist outside the laws of nature. It is not a special type of process, unlike any other. It is as amenable to simulation as any other process in the universe, and like any other process, it can be modelled to any arbitrary level of versimilitude by throwing more computational power at it. With quantum computing on the horizon, we could be looking at modelling the quantum state of every atom in your brain.
Sorry if this threatens your ego-image of what consciousness is, conflicts with what your spirit guides, shamans, or priests have told you, or makes you feel in any way less special. Your ego-self can no more know itself than a knife can cut itself. Your spirit guides, shamans and priests are wrong. You aren't any more or less special than any other piece of matter in the universe. Have a nice day.
Oh, there's no doubt we can move some icebergs around. I think you are failing to properly estimate the size of the problem. Moving a few icebergs isn't going to cut it. Cubic miles. I don't think you grasp what the phrase "thousands of cubic miles" really means. It's like thinking that just because we've managed to cut off a few mountain tops in West Virginia that we could pick up the entire Rocky mountain chain and drop it down in Europe.
The whole icebergs for fresh water thing might be a good idea by itself, without regards to global warming, but I think other methods of obtaining fresh water are actually cheaper, which is why you don't see it being done. I just don't think any amount of ice we could reasonably haul around would amount to more than a fart in hurricane as far as global waqrming is concerned.
A lovely idea, but we don't really have the technology to haul around thousands of cubic miles of ice, nor anywhere to put them. Think about it. Cubic miles. Thousands of them. More fresh water than all the lakes and rivers put together. Nothing we can do in the hauling department is going to make a dent in this problem.
Again, those graphs don't show any clear trend at all. I'm guessing you must be a liberal arts major. Take some remedial statistics and learn to read graphs.
Let's debunk these idiotic myths one by one:
n the real world people can't print up money and loan it out whenever they need it without causing disaster.
We've been doing it for years without disaster. Keep on predicting the same bullshit, Nostradamus.
In the real world, people are employed by rich people, not poor slobs on welfare.
Duh. That is the most asinine statement I've heard in a long time. Educate yourself on the absics of economics and the concept of opportunity cost. If the poor slobs had the moeny, they'd be the ones handing out the jobs. If the money were controlled democratically, the people would be handing out the jobs. Just ebcause we do something one way doesn't mean it's the only way.
In the real world, social security is a bankrupt ponzi scheme.
Hardly. It has problems, mostly due to the government using it like a piggy bank.
In the real world, public ecducation sucks and the overfunded US system is the worst in the western world.
Dumb, dumb, dumb. Don't try to make a point and then, in the very same sentence, bring up evidence to contradict it! Ask yourself this: does the rest of the western world have privatized education?
In the real world, medicare subsidized medical costs are skyrocketing and Canadians have waiting lists a mile long for simple procedures.
This old canard again? Canadians don't have waiting lists, where do you people even get these lies? Do you have a lie factory that just prints them up on demand?
In the real world, government is 30% as efficient at allocating resources and money as the private sector.
Wow, that lie factory does a great job. Back those figures up or shut up.
Stop drinking the libertarian cool-aid. It's anarchism for idiots. I'm a real anarchist, not a fricken happy-meal anarchist. Real anarchists think for themselves, they don't just parrot back bullshit they heard from a large, organized group of cranks. Libertarians don't want to do away with the state, they just want to do away with anyone telling them what to do, which is egotistical anti-social behavior at its worst, not anarchism.
Income equality has been falling drastically in the period from 81 to the present. Those graphs show no clear trends at all. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, but you haven't done a very good job. I'm sure in your revenge fantasy driven world view, capital punishment and prison with no parole are great ideas, but reality and scientific research do not support your preposterous hypothesis. But you really don't care, do you? I know your type. It's all about making reality fit your little mental model of how it should be rather than the other way around, so you really don't care what I or anyone else say, you are simply to closed minded to even look at facts that might change your world-view. In fact, changing your world-view feels like dying, doesn't it? When something challenges your point of view, you get a tight, constricted feeling in your chest. Your heart rate increases and you feel angry, lashing out at the perceived cause of your pain. Well, the cause of your pain is inside your own head and you will never get away from it unless you change your point of view. I'm sure glad I'm not you. I did my time in hell, but I'm free now.
I can't even comprehend the level of mental confusion that would lead a person to make the assumptions you have made about my post. Nowhere do I claim it is possible to do away with all crime. Nowhere do I say that everyone should be equal. I said things should be fair. Inequality is fair, and most people, even substandard people, perceive it that way. Why else all the celebrity worship? People like it when excellence is rewarded, even if they themselves are not excellent. People like it when unfairness is punished, when non-cooperators and those who do not give back are shunned. That is perfectly fair. What is unfair is disproportional reward. No one person is worth millions of times what any other person is worth. That is what people consider to be unfair.
Haves and have nots are fine. Have millions and have nots, not so much. This level of unfairness is not an incentive for most people to work harder. It is an incentive for most people to cheat and be lazy, because they do not feel their hard work will be rewarded equitably, and others will profit unfairly from them.
The research I've seen (google 'equity reciprocity competition') shows that people are not motivated purely by self interest. They are more motivated by notions of fairness and reciprocity, and will even do things against their self interest to acheive these ideals. The experiments dealt with sums of money that were on the order of 2-3 months salary for the participants. In situations where free riders can escape punishment, people start by acting fairly, see themselves being taken advantage of, and become free riders as a defense. When free riders can be punished, everyone acts fairly.
An economic system based on the falsehood that people always act selfishly is doomed to fail. It will be intrinsically biased against fairness, in fact encouraging laziness and selfishness. We need a system that recognizes the realities of human motivation and rewards fairness and reciprocity, as this will bring out the best in nmost people.
I really flubbed it trying to get my point across. I meant, when there is less perception of unfair inequality in a society, there will be less theft. In the places you describe, everyone is poor, but they exist in a society where not everyone is poor, and they perceive unfairness in that inequality. When people perceive unfairness, they are less likely to act in a fair and equitable manner themselves, in order to protect themselves from eloitation. When they perceive fairness, most peolpe will act fairly and cooperatively.
If poor areas are in the midst of rich areas, there will be property crime. The problem is the perception of unfairness. When people believe their society to be unfair, they act unfairly towards others so as not to be taken advantage of. In poor areas, other poor are the most likely target. When people believe their society to be fair, they act fairly towards others. I should have been more clear, when I said everyone, I meant EVERYONE. Think isolated rain forest tribes. No property crime there.
That seems logical, but oftentimes what seems logical is wrong. Can you back up that theory with anything besides personal anecdotes? I've seen some interesting research in economics that shows that fixing poverty isn't the answer, fixing unfairness is. When people perceive their society to be unfair, they themselves will operate unfairly so they aren't taken advantage of. When they perceive their society as operating fairly, they will cooperate because that is the most efficient, genetically speaking.
People suck. Persons, taken as individuals, are sometimes really, really awesome. That gives me hope.
These slashdotters are corrupting my precious bodily fluids!
Blaming people for their poor choices does no good. We must examine why people make poor choices and address that. It does nothing to simply say, "They are bad, lazy people." That is not a theory. It is not falsifiable and it makes no useful predictions. It is an expression of emotion and in no way helps fix the problem.
Greed and envy are societal traits. People are natural cooperators, as this is genetically most effient. When people perceive their society to be fair, most people will play by the rules because their genes tell them too. When people perceive their society to be unfir, they will cheat so as not to be taken advantage of themselves. This too is genetic. Your model of the problem is too simple by far.
People naturally want to contribute to society because they desire the respect of their peers. This is a basic drive, nearly as important as food and water. Research shows that a small minority of people will always cooperate and play fair. An even smaller monprity will always cheat. The vast majority of people will play fair in a fair system, because that is most efficient. They will cheat in an unfair system because they don't want to be taken advantage of themselves.
Nice theory, but it isn't backed up by research. Research shows that inequality drives crime. Given the perception of a fair system, most people will play fair because our genes tell us that is the most efficient strategy. Unfortunately, while we are predisposed towards cooperation, it is a poor strategy when the system isn't fair. The cooperators get taken advantage of. Therefore, in an unfair system, people will play unfairly. Change the system, change the people.
Never, ever suggest that I or anyone else 'educate' ourselves by going to the libertarian propaganda site mises.org. It is full of the worst kind of sloppy reasoning, fringe economics, weird conspiracy theories and outright bullshit I have ever seen. The research shows that income inequality produces crime. I'm sorry that that contradicts your cult's teachings. You can deny reality all you like in order to go on believing in your illogical ideology, but than won't change reality one bit.
You think 'manly men' don't care about their appearance? Why do you think they look so manly? That 'I'm a manly man who doesn't care about his appearance' look is deliberate. Men have always cared just as much as women about advertising their suitability as a mate. It's just the style that's changed.
Adult crime started to fall 18 years after the introduction of Roe v. Wade. Perhaps not having so many people who grew up as unwanted children had something to do with that. But the data seems to show that the 'evil people' hypothesis is simply incorrect. Only a small percentage of the population has any tendency towards evil. Crime comes from societal causes, mostly income inequality. That is what the research shows, but you are free to believe any hypothesis you like.
Did you even read my post. I said, "When EVERYONE is poor." Not "When everyone in a certain ghetto is poor." Obviously it was a generalization that doesn't apply in all situations, but the example you give doesn't contradict what I said because Brazil has a huge income inequality.
This kind of attitude only helps you feel better about yourself, it doesn't help to understand and address the root causes of crime. There is inequality built into the system, and not everyone has had the opportunities you have. You may have been poor, but the very fact that the system worked for you proves that you did have more opportunity. You are probably a member of the dominant culture, and completely unaware of the perks and benefits you have that others don't. You assume that everyone is like you, but unfortunately, they aren't.
Not everyone can be a CEO, we need workers too. Every shitty job out there needs to get done by someone in order for the whole system to work. Some people accrue far more benefit from the system we all work to build than others do. This is unfair.
Most people want to contribute. Having respect from one's peers is a basic need, almost as important as food or shelter. Nearly everyone resents those who don't contribute. Almost no one likes being resented. Many people feel like they do not have an opportunity to contribute, and income inequality feeds this feeling.
Whining about the poor choices of others is unproductive. Better to look at society as a system, and address systemic problems. People's poor choices are a systemic problem, as most people can only make the decisions that are expected of them. The person who can do more than expected is rare indeed. The person who will not rise to meet society's expectations of them is nearly as rare.