I'm watching the pea moving under the thimble. You've switched out social democracy for socialism. Needless to say, socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried. Social democracy has capitalist economics at its heart. It's somewhat more successful. Stop confusing the two.
The pea move under the thimble? No, I'm doing nothing of the kind. I have only quoted other definitions of social democracy, and I have been very gracious about accommodating your demands. You, on the other hand, have tortured the context of my citations. From the beginning of this conversation, it is you -- not me -- who has confused social democracy and capitalism. Over and out.
What a stupid way to compare the two. Your definition of "social democracy" says nothing about economics. It should.
The definitions are not mine. They are from Google's dictionary search. If you have a beef, then take it up with them.
But perhaps you have a point. Other definitions (in links from the same search) do provide definitions that mention capitalism, either as a predecessor of a peaceful transition to socialism, or as something that co-exists with it.
Every social democratic country in the world has a capitalist economic system. You can't have social democracy without one. At the very least, you won't have any money for social programmes without one.
Capitalism has nothing to do with whether money exists or not. Rather, as the definition says, it is about private ownership of the economy's means of production of wealth. A government funds social programs with revenues, gathered either via state-run businesses or from taxes gathered from private businesses and individuals.
A social democratic government could (and almost certainly would) coexist with capitalism, but this is not essential. And in any case, a social democratic government would seek renewed mandates via elections, and therefore could be replaced with a non-social democratic government. This is how many western democracies function.
My point is that you claimed "Social Democracy" = "Capitalism" and that is simply not true.
Well, the currently still (or rather getting even more) relevant book on manipulating thoughts with language is "1984" by Orwell.
This. I was wondering when someone would get around to the best fictional example of managed language being used to maintain a dystopia.
The best way to change how a person thinks is to change the way s/he talks. Big Brother has increased the chocolate ration from 15 grams to 10 grams! Hooray for Big Brother! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!
so-cial de-moc-ra-cy noun a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.
cap-i-tal-ism noun an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Which seems rather Odd. Because Sears origin was with Mail to Order Catalog shopping. Online shopping really isn't that much different then from that model.
Indeed. Other posters have pointed that out. Sears didn't even drop the ball -- they joined the game too late.
Hit enter too soon. More correctly, they left a game they were once the masters of, and then re-joined it too late, after the game had changed.
Further extensions of the metaphor are left as an exercise.
Which seems rather Odd. Because Sears origin was with Mail to Order Catalog shopping. Online shopping really isn't that much different then from that model.
Indeed. Other posters have pointed that out. Sears didn't even drop the ball -- they joined the game too late.
Yup, one day we will see Amazon end the same fate.
Quite possibly, but it's hard to see how right now. Amazon's business model essentially is to provide things efficiently. Things that include merchandise, computation, cloud storage, and more recently, entertainment. They work constantly on improving their infrastructure to this end. The risks to their business might include becoming frumpy (like Sears), over-diversifying (like General Electric), running into legal problems (like [insert-your-favorite-example-here]), and others. I can imagine Amazon being humbled because of missteps or regulatory actions, but not because of complacency.
Wow, I didn't know that Sears used Linux; else why would this article be posted here?
The downfall of Sears is a consequence of the migration of commerce from brick-and-mortar to online. Like many other retailers, they were Amazonized, despite their own online presence. So this story is in the ethos of "news for nerds, stuff that matters".
I'm curious. Name one thing at this level of complexity that was developed w/o definition.
Human beings create life -- in the form of other human beings. And they have done so since long before anyone even tried to define life, in fact long before humans even had a language to define anything with.
We've stumbled onto discoveries but rarely when we build something do we create something desired by accident.
Rarely? Yes I suppose. But many scientific and technical discoveries have occurred by accident -- some of them far from trivial. A brief list of some of the more important ones:
microwaves (as a source of energy for cooking); quinine; x-rays; radioactivity; pacemaker; LSD; penicillin; insulin; vulcanized rubber; super glue; safety glass; teflon; matches; gunpowder; dynamite; nuclear fission; nitrous oxide (as an anaesthetic); evidence for the big bang; protozoa and bacteria; vaccination; anticoagulants; intraocular lenses; tranquilizers; pulsars; atomic nucleus...
The level of complexity [in the case of AI] ensure [sic] it will need to be an extremely complex network before there is even the possibility of creating a general intelligence.
I don't doubt this. You do have a point: computer science, like mathematics, tends to have the end in mind and rarely makes serendipitous discoveries the way observational sciences do. However, complex systems, whether natural or computational, can yield unexpected results. I remain open to the possibility that something we recognize as AI could arise from future computational technologies in a manner that we can't predict or define.
Frankly, I'm not certain you an intelligence of your own so please take your bullshit and leave.
I can recognize that both of us are intelligent. I also recognize that only one of us appears to have manners. Slashdot is as much mine as it is yours. I'm staying, thankyouverymuch. Over and out.
The primary problem is that we are unable to define what general intelligence is and therefore are unable to create it. We know it when we recognize it but we still can't define it.
Is there a need to define it? We can recognize intelligence in fellow humans. How? Well, we're intelligent. If a machine intelligence resembles it, then we may need to conclude it is intelligent as well.
I would argue that motivation is a trait that arises from natural selection. A phenotype that displays a motivation to survive will have a higher chance of propagating its genotype. A phenotype that doesn't care about surviving will be selected out of the environment. There can be more to this (for example, altruism may benefit a collective genotype) but the basic argument stands.
First, Moon density is established firmly by the geological study of moon rock samples, and not by estimates of it's mass, so it is a truly independent measurement. This is an important part of the argument above, which you and the illiterate idiot you "shout out" to fail to see.
The rest of my argument refutes the idiot above by separating the factors that determine the gravity into two truly independent variables, and showing the fallacy of the original argument by explaining why there is no need for the Moon to be "six times larger".
You're a bit of an idiot like him - you don't understand the fallacy, and you don't understand what is an effective refutation. In your final calculation, you have a hidden dependency on the volume in your mass guesstimate, so someone who understands basic physics can still point to it and ask the same question, "why isn't it 6 times bigger". Not possible with the argument I make.
Go back to school.
"Go back to school?" No thanks. I have a PhD in physics already.
You can determine a planetary object's mass from its orbital motion with other massive bodies. And there is no need for density or volume at all in the calculation of the force of gravity from a given distance away from a planetary body -- even if that distance is the object's radius, i.e., you are on its surface. You can treat the entire mass of the spherical object as though it was concentrated at the center. That was the point that "hey!" and I made.
A planetary object's density changes as you go deeper into it, due to the pressure of material above. Inferring its entire density from surface samples alone is just wrong. Your argument assumed a constant average density -- in effect you simply disguised the planetary mass as a "constant" average density multiplied by the planet's volume, and came up with an answer that still works (as I showed) if you (wrongly) assume a constant average density of M/V. But again, you don't need either the density of the volume. You just need the mass and radius of the object.
You might want to consider going back to school yourself. Charm school.
"Futures contracts" is the biggest fucking scam I've ever fucking heard of.
Futures contracts help to provide stability, which is something that cryptocurrencies desperately need if they are ever going to be used as money rather than as modern day tulip bulbs.
This. ShanghaiBill, once again I am in the rare position of agreeing with you. Peace out.
Your argument assumes constant average densities for each body. Not true in general, but letting that go...
To finish your argument, ge/gl = (rho_e/rho_l) * (R_e/R_l). Now R_e/R_l = 3.67 and rho_e / rho_l = 5.51 g/cm^3 / 3.34 g/cm^3 = 1.65 So g_e/g_l ~= 3.67 * 1.65 = 6.06.
Not bad, but the fact is that the average densities rho_e and rho_l are determined from the observed mass of the body divided by its observed volume. The better approach is to use the masses of the bodies, and the fact that an inverse-square force acts as though a spherical body's mass is concentrated at its center. Then (G*M_e/R_e^2) / (G*M_l/R_l^2) = (M_e/M_l) / (R_e/R_l)^2 = 81.3 / 3.67^2 = 6.04.
A nod to "hey!" below, who already posted a similar argument.
We've had that functionally since the 90s. It's called the web, and it was more accurate because it uses a non-fuzzy interface. Mobile and now voice are such a massive back-slides for technology.
Alexa seems kind of useful when your hands are busy doing something else. I'll just leave it at that.
It sounds like you're saying we don't need to worry about our current CO2 outputs because technology will just come along that solves the problem effortlessly.
If only. Managing CO2 atmospheric levels is a difficult problem whose solution spans geography, cultures, economies, political systems... it's not just about technology. Leaving it all up to The Invisible Hand of technological progress is wishful thinking that we just can't afford. We need to make plans and set goals.
Scientists and engineers have been trying to get a fusion reactor to work for decades. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a working fusion reactor in our lifetimes. But it's a mistake to depend on a technology that is, however worthy, still not viable yet. Wind, solar, tide, geothermal -- and yes, nuclear fission -- are all proven technologies that are not perfect but are viable now.
You haven't been keeping track of how the average Canadian feels about America since Trump and us being a national security threat. Though we do feel sympathy for the average American. For example, https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/...
Fair point. Most of the world (including Canada) aren't too fond of the Trump administration. And yet the darker side of populism has made inroads elsewhere, including Canada (e.g., see Ford brothers.)
Slashdot Mirror
I'm watching the pea moving under the thimble. You've switched out social democracy for socialism. Needless to say, socialism has failed everywhere it's been tried. Social democracy has capitalist economics at its heart. It's somewhat more successful. Stop confusing the two.
The pea move under the thimble? No, I'm doing nothing of the kind. I have only quoted other definitions of social democracy, and I have been very gracious about accommodating your demands. You, on the other hand, have tortured the context of my citations. From the beginning of this conversation, it is you -- not me -- who has confused social democracy and capitalism. Over and out.
My favourite is the "Climax" at $3.95 per hundred rolls. Sounds like it was marketed for more than one use in the bathroom. ;-)
What a stupid way to compare the two. Your definition of "social democracy" says nothing about economics. It should.
The definitions are not mine. They are from Google's dictionary search. If you have a beef, then take it up with them.
But perhaps you have a point. Other definitions (in links from the same search) do provide definitions that mention capitalism, either as a predecessor of a peaceful transition to socialism, or as something that co-exists with it.
Every social democratic country in the world has a capitalist economic system. You can't have social democracy without one. At the very least, you won't have any money for social programmes without one.
Capitalism has nothing to do with whether money exists or not. Rather, as the definition says, it is about private ownership of the economy's means of production of wealth. A government funds social programs with revenues, gathered either via state-run businesses or from taxes gathered from private businesses and individuals.
A social democratic government could (and almost certainly would) coexist with capitalism, but this is not essential. And in any case, a social democratic government would seek renewed mandates via elections, and therefore could be replaced with a non-social democratic government. This is how many western democracies function.
My point is that you claimed "Social Democracy" = "Capitalism" and that is simply not true.
The best way to change how a person thinks is to change the way s/he talks.
Oops, sorry. I should not have said it was the "best" way. That was double-plus ungood. More like it's one of the most pernicious ways.
The best way to change how a person thinks is with rational persuasive arguments.
Well, the currently still (or rather getting even more) relevant book on manipulating thoughts with language is "1984" by Orwell.
This. I was wondering when someone would get around to the best fictional example of managed language being used to maintain a dystopia.
The best way to change how a person thinks is to change the way s/he talks. Big Brother has increased the chocolate ration from 15 grams to 10 grams! Hooray for Big Brother! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! Ignorance is strength!
Social Democracy is Capitalism.
[*facepalm*]
so-cial de-moc-ra-cy
noun
a socialist system of government achieved by democratic means.
cap-i-tal-ism
noun
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
Which seems rather Odd. Because Sears origin was with Mail to Order Catalog shopping. Online shopping really isn't that much different then from that model.
Indeed. Other posters have pointed that out. Sears didn't even drop the ball -- they joined the game too late.
Hit enter too soon. More correctly, they left a game they were once the masters of, and then re-joined it too late, after the game had changed.
Further extensions of the metaphor are left as an exercise.
Which seems rather Odd. Because Sears origin was with Mail to Order Catalog shopping. Online shopping really isn't that much different then from that model.
Indeed. Other posters have pointed that out. Sears didn't even drop the ball -- they joined the game too late.
Everything dies in time.
Yup, one day we will see Amazon end the same fate.
Quite possibly, but it's hard to see how right now. Amazon's business model essentially is to provide things efficiently. Things that include merchandise, computation, cloud storage, and more recently, entertainment. They work constantly on improving their infrastructure to this end. The risks to their business might include becoming frumpy (like Sears), over-diversifying (like General Electric), running into legal problems (like [insert-your-favorite-example-here]), and others. I can imagine Amazon being humbled because of missteps or regulatory actions, but not because of complacency.
Wow, I didn't know that Sears used Linux; else why would this article be posted here?
The downfall of Sears is a consequence of the migration of commerce from brick-and-mortar to online. Like many other retailers, they were Amazonized, despite their own online presence. So this story is in the ethos of "news for nerds, stuff that matters".
I'm curious. Name one thing at this level of complexity that was developed w/o definition.
Human beings create life -- in the form of other human beings. And they have done so since long before anyone even tried to define life, in fact long before humans even had a language to define anything with.
We've stumbled onto discoveries but rarely when we build something do we create something desired by accident.
Rarely? Yes I suppose. But many scientific and technical discoveries have occurred by accident -- some of them far from trivial. A brief list of some of the more important ones:
microwaves (as a source of energy for cooking); quinine; x-rays; radioactivity; pacemaker; LSD; penicillin; insulin; vulcanized rubber; super glue; safety glass; teflon; matches; gunpowder; dynamite; nuclear fission; nitrous oxide (as an anaesthetic); evidence for the big bang; protozoa and bacteria; vaccination; anticoagulants; intraocular lenses; tranquilizers; pulsars; atomic nucleus...
The level of complexity [in the case of AI] ensure [sic] it will need to be an extremely complex network before there is even the possibility of creating a general intelligence.
I don't doubt this. You do have a point: computer science, like mathematics, tends to have the end in mind and rarely makes serendipitous discoveries the way observational sciences do. However, complex systems, whether natural or computational, can yield unexpected results. I remain open to the possibility that something we recognize as AI could arise from future computational technologies in a manner that we can't predict or define.
Frankly, I'm not certain you an intelligence of your own so please take your bullshit and leave.
I can recognize that both of us are intelligent. I also recognize that only one of us appears to have manners. Slashdot is as much mine as it is yours. I'm staying, thankyouverymuch. Over and out.
Humanity has created many things without defining them first.
And I'm being more polite than you. We both deserve it.
The primary problem is that we are unable to define what general intelligence is and therefore are unable to create it. We know it when we recognize it but we still can't define it.
Is there a need to define it? We can recognize intelligence in fellow humans. How? Well, we're intelligent. If a machine intelligence resembles it, then we may need to conclude it is intelligent as well.
This is a relevant quote.
I would argue that motivation is a trait that arises from natural selection. A phenotype that displays a motivation to survive will have a higher chance of propagating its genotype. A phenotype that doesn't care about surviving will be selected out of the environment. There can be more to this (for example, altruism may benefit a collective genotype) but the basic argument stands.
Citing your source for you.
First, Moon density is established firmly by the geological study of moon rock samples, and not by estimates of it's mass, so it is a truly independent measurement. This is an important part of the argument above, which you and the illiterate idiot you "shout out" to fail to see.
The rest of my argument refutes the idiot above by separating the factors that determine the gravity into two truly independent variables, and showing the fallacy of the original argument by explaining why there is no need for the Moon to be "six times larger".
You're a bit of an idiot like him - you don't understand the fallacy, and you don't understand what is an effective refutation. In your final calculation, you have a hidden dependency on the volume in your mass guesstimate, so someone who understands basic physics can still point to it and ask the same question, "why isn't it 6 times bigger". Not possible with the argument I make.
Go back to school.
"Go back to school?" No thanks. I have a PhD in physics already.
You can determine a planetary object's mass from its orbital motion with other massive bodies. And there is no need for density or volume at all in the calculation of the force of gravity from a given distance away from a planetary body -- even if that distance is the object's radius, i.e., you are on its surface. You can treat the entire mass of the spherical object as though it was concentrated at the center. That was the point that "hey!" and I made.
A planetary object's density changes as you go deeper into it, due to the pressure of material above. Inferring its entire density from surface samples alone is just wrong. Your argument assumed a constant average density -- in effect you simply disguised the planetary mass as a "constant" average density multiplied by the planet's volume, and came up with an answer that still works (as I showed) if you (wrongly) assume a constant average density of M/V. But again, you don't need either the density of the volume. You just need the mass and radius of the object.
You might want to consider going back to school yourself. Charm school.
"Futures contracts" is the biggest fucking scam I've ever fucking heard of.
Futures contracts help to provide stability, which is something that cryptocurrencies desperately need if they are ever going to be used as money rather than as modern day tulip bulbs.
This. ShanghaiBill, once again I am in the rare position of agreeing with you. Peace out.
Your argument assumes constant average densities for each body. Not true in general, but letting that go...
To finish your argument, ge/gl = (rho_e/rho_l) * (R_e/R_l). Now R_e/R_l = 3.67 and rho_e / rho_l = 5.51 g/cm^3 / 3.34 g/cm^3 = 1.65 So g_e/g_l ~= 3.67 * 1.65 = 6.06.
Not bad, but the fact is that the average densities rho_e and rho_l are determined from the observed mass of the body divided by its observed volume. The better approach is to use the masses of the bodies, and the fact that an inverse-square force acts as though a spherical body's mass is concentrated at its center. Then (G*M_e/R_e^2) / (G*M_l/R_l^2) = (M_e/M_l) / (R_e/R_l)^2 = 81.3 / 3.67^2 = 6.04.
A nod to "hey!" below, who already posted a similar argument.
I'll just leave this right here.
We've had that functionally since the 90s. It's called the web, and it was more accurate because it uses a non-fuzzy interface.
Mobile and now voice are such a massive back-slides for technology.
Alexa seems kind of useful when your hands are busy doing something else. I'll just leave it at that.
Worldwide funding for fusion research has already exceeded $50 billion with no meaningful result. Time to move on.
That's a tiny sliver of capital compared to other human endeavours, many of far more questionable merit.
Fusion research is important, but not urgent. Let its development continue. In the meantime, embrace other viable renewable and low-CO2 alternatives.
It sounds like you're saying we don't need to worry about our current CO2 outputs because technology will just come along that solves the problem effortlessly.
If only. Managing CO2 atmospheric levels is a difficult problem whose solution spans geography, cultures, economies, political systems ... it's not just about technology. Leaving it all up to The Invisible Hand of technological progress is wishful thinking that we just can't afford. We need to make plans and set goals.
Scientists and engineers have been trying to get a fusion reactor to work for decades. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see a working fusion reactor in our lifetimes. But it's a mistake to depend on a technology that is, however worthy, still not viable yet. Wind, solar, tide, geothermal -- and yes, nuclear fission -- are all proven technologies that are not perfect but are viable now.
Sir Richard is in a race with Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos to send the first fee-paying passengers into space.
And it's a race they have lost already. Russia sent the first tourist into space, and it was an orbital flight at that.
You haven't been keeping track of how the average Canadian feels about America since Trump and us being a national security threat. Though we do feel sympathy for the average American. For example, https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/...
Fair point. Most of the world (including Canada) aren't too fond of the Trump administration. And yet the darker side of populism has made inroads elsewhere, including Canada (e.g., see Ford brothers.)