they can criticise you for all those things and it's not racist or sexist, purely because the minorities are incapable of being so.
Yup, that is how political correctness is used to create bigoted taboos, and they are a bane to positive devopment of any society (democratic or otherwise).
Misogeny and misandry are not two unrelated problems - they are two sides of the same coin. Studying only part of the problem means that we miss out on properly understanding the problem as a whole. And without properly understanding the problem, how are we going to find a proper solution?
Reminds me of Ericssons mobile phones back in 2000. They won the race against Nokia to make them the smallest in the world, but they lost to Nokia in usability. Wasn't that partly why Ericsson died?
...and perhaps they could start paying all that tax that they've been dodging for so long the world over (once governments have worked out new watertight tax laws). I sounds like it might be enough to affect a few economies.
Nonsense, the voting record of people indicates that they do not give a damn.
I disagree. One can only vote for alternatives when alternatives are available. When all parties stand on the smae side on this topic, then there are no alterantives to vote for.
I predict...
0. Self driving buses might work well. But I think the breakthough will begin with...
1. Taxi companies will run fleets of self-driving taxis: alledgedly safer driving, less risk of driver/passenger abuse, cheaper.
(Initially the public sector would not do that because of "joblosses". The private sector has no such qualms.)
2. Once the risk of joblosses is past, then taxis would evolve into public transport, because...
3. Private car ownership would decrease, due to:
- convenience (available upon demand, hands free, no licence needed, passenger safety, no parking issues, etc.)
- price (no inital outlay for a vehicle, electricity cheaper than fuel, no insurance, etc.)
- safety (allegedly safer drivers, road rage not aimed at other people, etc.)
4. Less car ownership leads to fewer cars overall because, unlike privately owned cars, taxis don't spend most of their time idly parked.
That might reduce public spending overall due to less congestion, less road maintenance, less accident costs, fewer traffic crimes, etc. On the other hand, some of those are revenue earners, such as parking and speeding tickets, so I don't know.
So certainly, self driving could reduce congestion, but I think it'll happen best starting with taxis and of course... it will take time.
If a society also moved to basic income, then I would imagine public transport taxis becoming part of the overall basic income system.
Sounds a bit like communism or socialism to me, but perhaps an aspect of such that might actually work.
I think the reason for that is that when someone has spent much time/energy (preaching, praying, being constantly mindful of following rules, etc.) on something that they believe is worth while, they don't want to be shown to have wasted all that effort in something futile.
It's easier, more comfortable, to find like minded people who justify all that effort. Thus begins the positive feedback loop that leads to unreasonably strong opinions (extremism).
And if too many people still keep undermining those opinions, then the unreasonably strong opinions lead to unreasonably strong frustration that leads to unreasonably strong anger, which leads to the dark side, so to speak.
I don't think that VR will take off as hoped... because of motion sickness. Impatient business critics might even claim it an expensive flop. (Pity, 'cos my experiences of VR have mostly been quite fun, when I don't feel ill.)
I have not tried AR, but I expect much less motion sickness with AR. Also, I can think of more uses for AR than VR.
- Cats land on their feet.
- Buttered toast lands with the buttered side down.
- Which way does a cat+buttered toast land when the toast is strapped with the buttered side facing away from the cats back?
A simplistic dream would be a power grid:
- that anyone can buy power from at a "retail" price
- that anyone can sell power to at a "wholesale" price
- where the difference is used only to maintain the grid (ie. non-profit)
- where prices may fluctuate hourly to reflect supply/demand
- that has no other rules, to keep it simple.
I say a "simplistic dream" because, as I understand it, there is no simple way of actually doing that given how our power grids currently work. Plus there are the politics.
The goals of such a setup are to promote market forces on a level playing field for anything from small homes to large power companies to encourage more efficient management of the energy that is produced.
If we don't have enough power, then a new power station would become profitable.
If day/night supply fluctuates too much, then a new large battery bank would become profitable.
If enough individual homes build their own systems, then that would reduce the need for power stations.
To reduce the risk of carbon fueled power stations, tax the carbon fuel... by a lot.
Point taken - we should diversify our efforts. But I don't think we should put tasks aside until we get to them in some sort of sequential queue. We should deal with them all at the same time.
Yes: For any society to survive and improve, anyone and everyone must be able to voice their concerns, any concerns. And anyone should be able to voice any angle for everyone to get a more complete view of the problem. Because the more complete our understanding is of a problem, the better our solution will be.
No: Offensiveness for the sake of being offensive, will alienate people. This causes communication breakdown, and so people will cease to communicate constructively. I'm not talking about offensiveness due to ignorance or oversensitivity of the reciever. I'm talking about malicious offensiveness.
As to political correctness, I see three groups:
1. The PC crowd. They fully embrace the No argument above, and use that to impose bigoted taboos. eg. In the US, black people can call each other nigga in mass media, but others can't even mention the word for fear of being branded racist. And don't call someone fat, unless you're even fatter. If those aren't bigoted taboos, then I'm the son af a llama.
2. The "offensive" crowd. They fully embrace the Yes argument above, and in doing so inadvertently justify the PC crowd. Saying something that is clearly intended to upset someone and then saying "You have the right to not be offended" is a good way recieve a well-earned fist in the face. But, again, I'm not talking about inadvertently offending someone. Shit happens, cope with it.
3. The "respectful" crowd. They understand both arguments, and insist that everyone should be allowed to say anything (Yes) but... without intentional malice (No). Malice of any kind is anti-social, and anti-social behaviour breaks down society. What the other two crowds need to understand is that it's not the choice of words that matter, it's the intent that matters. Once people begin to get used to the idea that hurtful things are seldom said or done maliciously, then they can get used to coping with that. Not that's not so easy when one is under actual attack. Please don't confuse this with PC.
Ideas and opinions are not your enemy, even, and especially, if you disagree with them.
Indeed. For example, last night my tenant was watching a documentary about homophobes in Russia, and I end up almost defending them even though I disagree with homophobia, because by actually listening to all angles I seem to have a better understanding and empathy. But being PC, he hasn't developed that ability.
How can we possibly approach social issues contructively when people ridicule what is politically incorrect?
It's true that our modern life styles are better now than ever before, in countless ways. But they still suck in some ways too, so there's still room for improvement.
It's easier to adapt our societies to work with our bodies' needs, than it is to force or evolve our bodies to conform to current social expectations.
Understanding the environments in which our bodies evolved, including paleo lifestyles, helps us better understand some of our bodies' needs.
But I do agree with you that mimicking is probably counterproductive. Our bodies weren't designed, but evolved, for paleo lifestyles, so the fit is by no means perfect (which is why we're able to be healthier in modern societies). Trying to retrofit our modern lifestyles to become more paleo-like seems to me rather simplistic.
For point 3, there are apps to help with that. Personally, I use this one. I also have an Android app that also records how much sound one makes (eg. snoring, which can be bad).
It can definately help, for the rest of the day, to wake up when sleep is the shallowest.
How about gene sampling foetuses? If done early enough, then expectant mothers can choose whether to abort. That way we can start filtering out known genetic diseases.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't live in the US and don't know how the US system works...
If I understand correctly, then even though Trump won the people's election, he won't be president unless the Electoral College elect him?
If so, then...
- What's the point of a people's election?
- What happens if they vote against Trump?
Could Google be trying to preempt Tizen?
they can criticise you for all those things and it's not racist or sexist, purely because the minorities are incapable of being so.
Yup, that is how political correctness is used to create bigoted taboos, and they are a bane to positive devopment of any society (democratic or otherwise).
Misogeny and misandry are not two unrelated problems - they are two sides of the same coin. Studying only part of the problem means that we miss out on properly understanding the problem as a whole. And without properly understanding the problem, how are we going to find a proper solution?
Reminds me of Ericssons mobile phones back in 2000. They won the race against Nokia to make them the smallest in the world, but they lost to Nokia in usability. Wasn't that partly why Ericsson died?
...and perhaps they could start paying all that tax that they've been dodging for so long the world over (once governments have worked out new watertight tax laws). I sounds like it might be enough to affect a few economies.
Nonsense, the voting record of people indicates that they do not give a damn.
I disagree. One can only vote for alternatives when alternatives are available. When all parties stand on the smae side on this topic, then there are no alterantives to vote for.
Interesting variant/alternative to steam punk.
I find that changes are disruptive only when they happen suddenly. But introduce them slowly, and systems have time to adapt.
So, start with a tiny BI, and apply minor increments each year for 20 years.
I predict...
0. Self driving buses might work well. But I think the breakthough will begin with...
1. Taxi companies will run fleets of self-driving taxis: alledgedly safer driving, less risk of driver/passenger abuse, cheaper.
(Initially the public sector would not do that because of "joblosses". The private sector has no such qualms.)
2. Once the risk of joblosses is past, then taxis would evolve into public transport, because...
3. Private car ownership would decrease, due to:
- convenience (available upon demand, hands free, no licence needed, passenger safety, no parking issues, etc.)
- price (no inital outlay for a vehicle, electricity cheaper than fuel, no insurance, etc.)
- safety (allegedly safer drivers, road rage not aimed at other people, etc.)
4. Less car ownership leads to fewer cars overall because, unlike privately owned cars, taxis don't spend most of their time idly parked. That might reduce public spending overall due to less congestion, less road maintenance, less accident costs, fewer traffic crimes, etc. On the other hand, some of those are revenue earners, such as parking and speeding tickets, so I don't know.
So certainly, self driving could reduce congestion, but I think it'll happen best starting with taxis and of course... it will take time.
If a society also moved to basic income, then I would imagine public transport taxis becoming part of the overall basic income system.
Sounds a bit like communism or socialism to me, but perhaps an aspect of such that might actually work.
I think the reason for that is that when someone has spent much time/energy (preaching, praying, being constantly mindful of following rules, etc.) on something that they believe is worth while, they don't want to be shown to have wasted all that effort in something futile.
It's easier, more comfortable, to find like minded people who justify all that effort. Thus begins the positive feedback loop that leads to unreasonably strong opinions (extremism).
And if too many people still keep undermining those opinions, then the unreasonably strong opinions lead to unreasonably strong frustration that leads to unreasonably strong anger, which leads to the dark side, so to speak.
Have I got that right?
I don't think that VR will take off as hoped... because of motion sickness. Impatient business critics might even claim it an expensive flop. (Pity, 'cos my experiences of VR have mostly been quite fun, when I don't feel ill.)
I have not tried AR, but I expect much less motion sickness with AR. Also, I can think of more uses for AR than VR.
Perhaps that's why he doesn't think logically about the topic.
In your view, who/what would pay for a society's infrastructure?
cats with buttered toast strapped to their backs
- Cats land on their feet.
- Buttered toast lands with the buttered side down.
- Which way does a cat+buttered toast land when the toast is strapped with the buttered side facing away from the cats back?
Is Earth's magnetic field caused by the moon?
Ah, yes...I enjoyed Pacific Rim because it was so bad in so many ways. =)
A simplistic dream would be a power grid:
- that anyone can buy power from at a "retail" price
- that anyone can sell power to at a "wholesale" price
- where the difference is used only to maintain the grid (ie. non-profit)
- where prices may fluctuate hourly to reflect supply/demand
- that has no other rules, to keep it simple.
I say a "simplistic dream" because, as I understand it, there is no simple way of actually doing that given how our power grids currently work. Plus there are the politics.
The goals of such a setup are to promote market forces on a level playing field for anything from small homes to large power companies to encourage more efficient management of the energy that is produced.
If we don't have enough power, then a new power station would become profitable.
If day/night supply fluctuates too much, then a new large battery bank would become profitable.
If enough individual homes build their own systems, then that would reduce the need for power stations.
To reduce the risk of carbon fueled power stations, tax the carbon fuel... by a lot.
Point taken - we should diversify our efforts. But I don't think we should put tasks aside until we get to them in some sort of sequential queue. We should deal with them all at the same time.
We know from the efforts of the many Bothans who died to obtain the plans.
Yes and no.
Yes: For any society to survive and improve, anyone and everyone must be able to voice their concerns, any concerns. And anyone should be able to voice any angle for everyone to get a more complete view of the problem. Because the more complete our understanding is of a problem, the better our solution will be.
No: Offensiveness for the sake of being offensive, will alienate people. This causes communication breakdown, and so people will cease to communicate constructively. I'm not talking about offensiveness due to ignorance or oversensitivity of the reciever. I'm talking about malicious offensiveness.
As to political correctness, I see three groups:
1. The PC crowd. They fully embrace the No argument above, and use that to impose bigoted taboos. eg. In the US, black people can call each other nigga in mass media, but others can't even mention the word for fear of being branded racist. And don't call someone fat, unless you're even fatter. If those aren't bigoted taboos, then I'm the son af a llama.
2. The "offensive" crowd. They fully embrace the Yes argument above, and in doing so inadvertently justify the PC crowd. Saying something that is clearly intended to upset someone and then saying "You have the right to not be offended" is a good way recieve a well-earned fist in the face. But, again, I'm not talking about inadvertently offending someone. Shit happens, cope with it.
3. The "respectful" crowd. They understand both arguments, and insist that everyone should be allowed to say anything (Yes) but... without intentional malice (No). Malice of any kind is anti-social, and anti-social behaviour breaks down society. What the other two crowds need to understand is that it's not the choice of words that matter, it's the intent that matters. Once people begin to get used to the idea that hurtful things are seldom said or done maliciously, then they can get used to coping with that. Not that's not so easy when one is under actual attack. Please don't confuse this with PC.
Ideas and opinions are not your enemy, even, and especially, if you disagree with them.
Indeed. For example, last night my tenant was watching a documentary about homophobes in Russia, and I end up almost defending them even though I disagree with homophobia, because by actually listening to all angles I seem to have a better understanding and empathy. But being PC, he hasn't developed that ability.
How can we possibly approach social issues contructively when people ridicule what is politically incorrect?
It's true that our modern life styles are better now than ever before, in countless ways. But they still suck in some ways too, so there's still room for improvement.
It's easier to adapt our societies to work with our bodies' needs, than it is to force or evolve our bodies to conform to current social expectations.
Understanding the environments in which our bodies evolved, including paleo lifestyles, helps us better understand some of our bodies' needs.
But I do agree with you that mimicking is probably counterproductive. Our bodies weren't designed, but evolved, for paleo lifestyles, so the fit is by no means perfect (which is why we're able to be healthier in modern societies). Trying to retrofit our modern lifestyles to become more paleo-like seems to me rather simplistic.
It's easier to adapt our societies to work with our bodies' needs, than it is to force or evolve our bodies to conform to current social expectations.
This is about further modernising our societies, not moving backwards.
For point 3, there are apps to help with that. Personally, I use this one. I also have an Android app that also records how much sound one makes (eg. snoring, which can be bad).
It can definately help, for the rest of the day, to wake up when sleep is the shallowest.
How about gene sampling foetuses? If done early enough, then expectant mothers can choose whether to abort. That way we can start filtering out known genetic diseases.