I am aware that I am breaking the simplistic beauty of your comment. . .
Nasty habit I have. Gets me into a lot of trouble. At least you recognize it; and from the content of your reply apprehend my meaning.
Even today violence would not help win the heart of many woman in civilized countries.
In the human world violence rarely occurs in the quest portion of the equation, but rather in the aftermath, once fair heart is won (And in my experience men and women are nearly as likely to be the progenitor). Should fair heart have the misfortune to be won twice the resulting violence is classically known to have the ability to engulf nations.
In any case, "Her" stands in for a whole class of scarcities that cannot be resolved by the mere presence of an nominal replacment.
My grandmother's grandfather clock (I'll have to think about that phrase) is unique. My android surrugate love object is unique in the same manner. It doesn't really matter that there's another one "just like it" somewhere else, because their isn't. All forms of sentimentality would have to be erased from human nature to eliminate that particular brand of scarcity.
(By the way, have you read David Brin's "Glory Season"? It touches on a lot of these ideas)
Then there is the practical sort of scarcity. The land my home rests on creates a scarcity no matter how much else land might be available for the taking. It is the only land (or spaceship I suppose) which comprises my home. As an analog of the spaceship when I am bluewater sailing my boat (built with my own hands, and my time and labor are irreplacably scarce), sitting in the middle of the Atlantic somewhere, is an unbelievably dear commodity. It matters not how many other boats might be available to me elswhere. There will be a tendency to defend my boat with my life, since boat and life are often one; and my life I hold to be a scarcity.
Nor have I even noticed any real relationship between scarcity and violence, per se. If anything it is those who do not lack who are most often prone to violence over "scarcity." If it comes to that I have no idea what real scarcity there is now other than in the mind (although there is an overabundence of people). There are other factors at play.
Perhaps your reengineered human will not fall prey to some of these. I rather doubt that all will be eliminated. Even in the "Perfect Society of Insects" (and the people who use that phrase really mean the society of ants and bees. When confronted with such I volunteer to be the praying mantis)there is violence and intertribal warfare even in the absence of scarcity (in terms of the needs of the colony).
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept your basic premise though. I still have one sticking point. I do not see the lack of scarcity predating interplanetary war. In fact I see nothing to disuade me from the conclusion that it's going to be the perception of material scarcity itself that drives us to the planets, and perhaps the stars. If social issues were solved there would be no scarcity and no reason to go in the first place.
The wars will be fought first. Then, perhaps, the eugenecists may have their day, after the bounderies have already been formed in lines of blood. It is far from the future I would wish; and I note that the "winner" of a war often comes off worse than they would have by surrendering unconditionally at the outset, but it is, nonetheless, the one I forsee.
(Addendum. I might note that as I suffer from two fatal genetic diseases (Yay! I won the "Who wants to be a gimp?" lottery!) the concepts of eugenics and genetic engineering don't hold quite the same emotional loading for me that they might for the average bear, despite one entire branch of my family being untracable forever due to certain events in the middlish portion of the last century. If I do not relish your vision of the future it is not due to any emotional reaction to the field, only its direction)
No, there are computer scientists and there computer engineers, just as there are physicists and civil engineers. Theory and research. Practical application. A practitioner in either field is enhanced (although less employable. Go figure) by having knowledge of the other, but can operate in his own field completely ingnorant of the other if need be.
I can't say I've ever been entirely happy with calling most computer types "engineers" either. I believe DEC might have been the first to do this with their code monkeys. It's the same sort of "fake promotion" that occurs when you call a garbageman a "sanitary engineer," or a minimum wage counter clerk a business "Associate."
That such doublespeak titles have made their way into the academic halls speaks ill of our culture.
This isn't to say that there aren't people who legitimately deserve the title "Computer Engineer," but there are perhaps some thosands of them, compared to the millions who bear the nominal title.
A tech friend of mine has it right. "Really, I'm just a janitor. A well payed, nicely dressed janitor, but just a janitor. Someone makes a mess of a computer. I clean it up. Physical plant stuff, like fixing a leaky faucet. The engineer is the guy who designed the faucet."
As for computer scientists I dare say there are no more than a few handfuls who truly work in the field of computer science.
Turing, Von Neumann, Dijkstra, Codd, Knuth. These are examples of computer scientists. Even Feynman, when he was working out the best way for a room full of secretaries "armed" with old fashioned crank adding machines to work more productively, was a true computer scientist while so employed.
Some guy at Oracle trying to figure out how to cram Java and XML down SQL's throat no matter how badly it gags on it is not.
He isn't even an engineer or a hacker. He's just a common hack.
I specifically have a mine involved. That's what the man with the gun is protecting.
Long before a colony declares independence America/China/France will build a mine.
And if you think the Americans/Chinese/French will consider that mine to be a public property you're nuts.
Then some time after that, yes, it seems likely that America will repeat its own history and have colonies under its thumb that don't particularly like being there anymore.
Yes, that's all well and good, up until the point someone is actually standing on the celestial body -- with a gun.
Have you noticed, per chance, that virtually all earthly nations were formed by some sort of violent appropriation and/or occupation?
Well, how on, ummmmmm, earth, do you think the future nations of the solar system are going to be formed?
Or do you expect that in all the human universe only the earth will have nations and conflict and all the rest of it will be one, big, happy, rainbow coalition commune?
Don't have any Gershwin. I've got Luiz Bonfa though, Vince Guarldi, Henry Mancini, Herbie Hancock, Cole Porter, Alan Arkin (yes, that Alan Arkin), Dave Brubeck, Benny Goodman and even some barrelhouse and stride piano stuff that's still under copyright.
And technically, yes these are all pirate recordings. The only ones on my box.
Parent poster made a funny, but it was a funny with a cutting edge to it.
Personally I'm saving my pennies for a Yamaha CP-80 if I can find a nice one. I just want a piano, not a space shuttle control panel.
And yes, my prime complaint about the Yamaha is the lack of a full 88 keys. I play ragtime and would like to pick up some stride and barrelhouse. If the keys are there, I'll use 'em.
Oh sure, if it's a flannel shirt he'll use it as an oil rag (unless he just wraps a strip of duct tape around his chest to keep it closed), but not a dress shirt, or even an Oxford.
They make really lousy oil rags. Trust me. I know. I've. ..
Ummmmm, ok, maybe he would try to use it as an oil rag the, first time.
. ..the first amendment is specifically directed to the national legislature. . .
Explicit in my selected quote.
State and local governments were fully intended to retain their sovereignty.
Fully intended, yes. Intended fully, no.
The resistence to the ratification of the Constitution was based on the fact that it required states to give up some of their sovereignty, its whole intent being to create a national government "with more enlarged powers" (Hamiltion- Report on the Annapolis Conference)over what the Articles of Confederation allowed.
Put to the test almost immediately in the Whiskey Rebellion.
Had there been no reduction in the sovereignity of state and local governments there would have been no incentive for a Bill of Rights in the first place.
Well, in point of fact you couldn't then, and you can't now.
The Mac development kit consisted in large part of a command line interface.
You can point and click to tell a computer to do certain mechanical functions of a predetermined nature, but the person who did the predetermination couldn't tell the computer what was expected of it entirely by pointing and clicking; and if you ever want to step off that predetermined path neither can you.
Simple signs with pictures on them work well enough when pointing at one and grunting is sufficient communication for the task at hand. In fact in times gone by it wasn't uncommon for travelers to carry a deck of cards with pictograms on them conveying certain ideas like "Where the hell is the bathroom," or " That's too much money. Your camel smells like a toilet."
For more complex ideas linguistic language is still needed. As evidence I point to the fact that you haven't abandoned speech yet and seriously doubt you have any intention of doing so in the future in favor of a deck of cards.
As a general rule I define "innovative" as something that hasn't been done before. Ideally this innovation should also advance the state of the art.
Apple has done a modicum of technical innovating in it's day, but far less than it's generally given credit for, and virtually all of Microsoft's innovations have been in commercial terms, not technical ones.
If I build a car with tiller steering and a year later install a steering wheel I may well have improved my car design, but only insofar as I have finally brought it up to existing standards of interface and performance.
And the louder I trumpet my "innovation" the more I look the fool.
The First Ammendment does not give you freedom of speech. . .
This is absolutely correct, although I find it distressing that so few Americans these understand why it so.
A clue can be found in the Ninth Ammendment. A fuller explanation can be found in Hamilton's arguement about why the Bill of Rights is a bad idea, since it may give the impression that rights are a priviledge granted by the government and opens the danger of interpreting away rights that have no legitimate framework for being questioned.
The Bill of Rights is not a grant to the people. It is a straightjacket placed upon the government by the people, who are the only source of legimate power in the United States of America.
Aware? Certainly. No question. I apparently once held an entire conversation completely in my sleep. I certainly know the difference between someone within hearing mentioning my name and actually talking to me.
I'll wake up for the person talking to me.
No one has ever shown any validity to sleep learning though, the sort that you can buy tapes purporting to teach you French while you sleep.
As it turns out people have been making commercial claims of this sort since the dawn of recording. Pscyhologists have studied the hell out of it.
Sorry, but it don't work.
On the other hand there's this guy that taught himself German through the simple expediant of taping index cards with German words on them to his shaving mirror and I first learned Morse Code by writing it all large on my bedroom wall.
The concept of osmosis works, but you have to be concious and aware.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll be seeing you in court!
Relax dude. What makes you think I'm out to get you?
KFG
I am aware that I am breaking the simplistic beauty of your comment. . .
Nasty habit I have. Gets me into a lot of trouble. At least you recognize it; and from the content of your reply apprehend my meaning.
Even today violence would not help win the heart of many woman in civilized countries.
In the human world violence rarely occurs in the quest portion of the equation, but rather in the aftermath, once fair heart is won (And in my experience men and women are nearly as likely to be the progenitor). Should fair heart have the misfortune to be won twice the resulting violence is classically known to have the ability to engulf nations.
In any case, "Her" stands in for a whole class of scarcities that cannot be resolved by the mere presence of an nominal replacment.
My grandmother's grandfather clock (I'll have to think about that phrase) is unique. My android surrugate love object is unique in the same manner. It doesn't really matter that there's another one "just like it" somewhere else, because their isn't. All forms of sentimentality would have to be erased from human nature to eliminate that particular brand of scarcity.
(By the way, have you read David Brin's "Glory Season"? It touches on a lot of these ideas)
Then there is the practical sort of scarcity. The land my home rests on creates a scarcity no matter how much else land might be available for the taking. It is the only land (or spaceship I suppose) which comprises my home. As an analog of the spaceship when I am bluewater sailing my boat (built with my own hands, and my time and labor are irreplacably scarce), sitting in the middle of the Atlantic somewhere, is an unbelievably dear commodity. It matters not how many other boats might be available to me elswhere. There will be a tendency to defend my boat with my life, since boat and life are often one; and my life I hold to be a scarcity.
Nor have I even noticed any real relationship between scarcity and violence, per se. If anything it is those who do not lack who are most often prone to violence over "scarcity." If it comes to that I have no idea what real scarcity there is now other than in the mind (although there is an overabundence of people). There are other factors at play.
Perhaps your reengineered human will not fall prey to some of these. I rather doubt that all will be eliminated. Even in the "Perfect Society of Insects" (and the people who use that phrase really mean the society of ants and bees. When confronted with such I volunteer to be the praying mantis)there is violence and intertribal warfare even in the absence of scarcity (in terms of the needs of the colony).
Let us, for the sake of argument, accept your basic premise though. I still have one sticking point. I do not see the lack of scarcity predating interplanetary war. In fact I see nothing to disuade me from the conclusion that it's going to be the perception of material scarcity itself that drives us to the planets, and perhaps the stars. If social issues were solved there would be no scarcity and no reason to go in the first place.
The wars will be fought first. Then, perhaps, the eugenecists may have their day, after the bounderies have already been formed in lines of blood. It is far from the future I would wish; and I note that the "winner" of a war often comes off worse than they would have by surrendering unconditionally at the outset, but it is, nonetheless, the one I forsee.
(Addendum. I might note that as I suffer from two fatal genetic diseases (Yay! I won the "Who wants to be a gimp?" lottery!) the concepts of eugenics and genetic engineering don't hold quite the same emotional loading for me that they might for the average bear, despite one entire branch of my family being untracable forever due to certain events in the middlish portion of the last century. If I do not relish your vision of the future it is not due to any emotional reaction to the field, only its direction)
KFG
No, there are computer scientists and there computer engineers, just as there are physicists and civil engineers. Theory and research. Practical application. A practitioner in either field is enhanced (although less employable. Go figure) by having knowledge of the other, but can operate in his own field completely ingnorant of the other if need be.
I can't say I've ever been entirely happy with calling most computer types "engineers" either. I believe DEC might have been the first to do this with their code monkeys. It's the same sort of "fake promotion" that occurs when you call a garbageman a "sanitary engineer," or a minimum wage counter clerk a business "Associate."
That such doublespeak titles have made their way into the academic halls speaks ill of our culture.
This isn't to say that there aren't people who legitimately deserve the title "Computer Engineer," but there are perhaps some thosands of them, compared to the millions who bear the nominal title.
A tech friend of mine has it right. "Really, I'm just a janitor. A well payed, nicely dressed janitor, but just a janitor. Someone makes a mess of a computer. I clean it up. Physical plant stuff, like fixing a leaky faucet. The engineer is the guy who designed the faucet."
As for computer scientists I dare say there are no more than a few handfuls who truly work in the field of computer science.
Turing, Von Neumann, Dijkstra, Codd, Knuth. These are examples of computer scientists. Even Feynman, when he was working out the best way for a room full of secretaries "armed" with old fashioned crank adding machines to work more productively, was a true computer scientist while so employed.
Some guy at Oracle trying to figure out how to cram Java and XML down SQL's throat no matter how badly it gags on it is not.
He isn't even an engineer or a hacker. He's just a common hack.
KFG
In the land of the blind the one eyed man is a paranoid schizophreniac.
.
GUIs are excellent for launching games though, and if that's your major computer usage. .
I'm constantly amazed at how few computer professionals have ever even taken the trouble to learn how to type properly.
KFG
When you can have pretty much everything that you want, what would be the reasons for you to act violently towards others?
Her.
KFG
I specifically have a mine involved. That's what the man with the gun is protecting.
Long before a colony declares independence America/China/France will build a mine.
And if you think the Americans/Chinese/French will consider that mine to be a public property you're nuts.
Then some time after that, yes, it seems likely that America will repeat its own history and have colonies under its thumb that don't particularly like being there anymore.
KFG
Yes, that's all well and good, up until the point someone is actually standing on the celestial body -- with a gun.
Have you noticed, per chance, that virtually all earthly nations were formed by some sort of violent appropriation and/or occupation?
Well, how on, ummmmmm, earth, do you think the future nations of the solar system are going to be formed?
Or do you expect that in all the human universe only the earth will have nations and conflict and all the rest of it will be one, big, happy, rainbow coalition commune?
KFG
Don't have any Gershwin. I've got Luiz Bonfa though, Vince Guarldi, Henry Mancini, Herbie Hancock, Cole Porter, Alan Arkin (yes, that Alan Arkin), Dave Brubeck, Benny Goodman and even some barrelhouse and stride piano stuff that's still under copyright.
And technically, yes these are all pirate recordings. The only ones on my box.
Parent poster made a funny, but it was a funny with a cutting edge to it.
KFG
From Bach, Mozart and Sor.
KFG
Personally I'm saving my pennies for a Yamaha CP-80 if I can find a nice one. I just want a piano, not a space shuttle control panel.
And yes, my prime complaint about the Yamaha is the lack of a full 88 keys. I play ragtime and would like to pick up some stride and barrelhouse. If the keys are there, I'll use 'em.
KFG
. . . big bond fire...
Ah, you bought some of those too?
KFG
Oh sure, if it's a flannel shirt he'll use it as an oil rag (unless he just wraps a strip of duct tape around his chest to keep it closed), but not a dress shirt, or even an Oxford.
.
They make really lousy oil rags. Trust me. I know. I've. .
Ummmmm, ok, maybe he would try to use it as an oil rag the, first time.
KFG
Real life experience:
"Honey, you're going to the mall? Yeah, will you stop at Radio Shack and pick me up one of those Cue Cat thingies? Thanks."
My kneejerk response to the article was, "Well duh! It's virtually a trusism that men hate going into stores and women shop as a hobby."
Thus many of the things purchased by women are, indirectly, being purchased by men.
KFG
On the other hand men will throw out a brand new shirt because "it broke."
i.e., a button fell off.
KFG
. . .the first amendment is specifically directed to the national legislature. . .
Explicit in my selected quote.
State and local governments were fully intended to retain their sovereignty.
Fully intended, yes. Intended fully, no.
The resistence to the ratification of the Constitution was based on the fact that it required states to give up some of their sovereignty, its whole intent being to create a national government "with more enlarged powers" (Hamiltion- Report on the Annapolis Conference)over what the Articles of Confederation allowed.
Put to the test almost immediately in the Whiskey Rebellion.
Had there been no reduction in the sovereignity of state and local governments there would have been no incentive for a Bill of Rights in the first place.
KFG
Touche, mon frere.
KFG
Well, in point of fact you couldn't then, and you can't now.
The Mac development kit consisted in large part of a command line interface.
You can point and click to tell a computer to do certain mechanical functions of a predetermined nature, but the person who did the predetermination couldn't tell the computer what was expected of it entirely by pointing and clicking; and if you ever want to step off that predetermined path neither can you.
Simple signs with pictures on them work well enough when pointing at one and grunting is sufficient communication for the task at hand. In fact in times gone by it wasn't uncommon for travelers to carry a deck of cards with pictograms on them conveying certain ideas like "Where the hell is the bathroom," or " That's too much money. Your camel smells like a toilet."
For more complex ideas linguistic language is still needed. As evidence I point to the fact that you haven't abandoned speech yet and seriously doubt you have any intention of doing so in the future in favor of a deck of cards.
KFG
As a general rule I define "innovative" as something that hasn't been done before. Ideally this innovation should also advance the state of the art.
Apple has done a modicum of technical innovating in it's day, but far less than it's generally given credit for, and virtually all of Microsoft's innovations have been in commercial terms, not technical ones.
If I build a car with tiller steering and a year later install a steering wheel I may well have improved my car design, but only insofar as I have finally brought it up to existing standards of interface and performance.
And the louder I trumpet my "innovation" the more I look the fool.
KFG
. . .my favorite airline is Amtrack these days, for shorter journeys.
Did you hear about the guy who was afraid of being hijacked so he took the train?
Terrorists flew a plane into it.
KFG
I think you'll find that driving into buildings, even ones filled with thousands of innocent people, is perfectly normal behaviour for a train.
They're called terminals.
For goodness' sake, go rent Silver Streak or something.
KFG
If all it involved was proper management of rights, no problem.
Oddly enough we've been managing on this front for centuries already.
I intend to maintain Managment Ability of Systems Security Administered and Generated by End user.
It's a cure for CRAMP.
KFG
Usually I only agree with myself by degree.
I've found the universe to be a place swarming with conditionals.
KFG
The First Ammendment does not give you freedom of speech. . .
This is absolutely correct, although I find it distressing that so few Americans these understand why it so.
A clue can be found in the Ninth Ammendment. A fuller explanation can be found in Hamilton's arguement about why the Bill of Rights is a bad idea, since it may give the impression that rights are a priviledge granted by the government and opens the danger of interpreting away rights that have no legitimate framework for being questioned.
The Bill of Rights is not a grant to the people. It is a straightjacket placed upon the government by the people, who are the only source of legimate power in the United States of America.
I quote:
"Congress shall make no law. . . "
KFG
Aware? Certainly. No question. I apparently once held an entire conversation completely in my sleep. I certainly know the difference between someone within hearing mentioning my name and actually talking to me.
I'll wake up for the person talking to me.
No one has ever shown any validity to sleep learning though, the sort that you can buy tapes purporting to teach you French while you sleep.
KFG
As it turns out people have been making commercial claims of this sort since the dawn of recording. Pscyhologists have studied the hell out of it.
Sorry, but it don't work.
On the other hand there's this guy that taught himself German through the simple expediant of taping index cards with German words on them to his shaving mirror and I first learned Morse Code by writing it all large on my bedroom wall.
The concept of osmosis works, but you have to be concious and aware.
Sucks, don't it?
KFG