Stereotypes generally have a damned good reason to be stereotypes. Getting called misogynistic or not, if it's true of a significant enough subsample of the population, it can and should be used.
So, then, when you see a black person carrying a watermelon you assume they stole it? I guess you try to hire as many Asians for mathematical jobs as you can, right? And lordy lord, don't let none of those Native Americans near the firewater, since they stereotypically can't help but become alcoholics.
Stereotypes generally exist because marginalizing someone with a derogatory label makes it easier to do fucked up things to them.
But they say, "well, we think it's this way," and a lot of people take it for gospel. That is, until some other group of researchers does another flawed experiment that produces another incorrect, different result. Rinse, repeat.
If you want absolute certainty, you probably aren't interested in science.
I'm less interested in absolute certainty, and more interested in having research done correctly, not biased or influenced by personal philosophy. Opinion has no place in the laboratory, unless we're experimenting on opinions.
Indeed. Please also take some of your time to point out the sky is (usually) blue, dropped weights fall down, and the sun rises in the east. We will all appreciate the insight.
Judging from the conversation up to this point, seems to me you would rather argue about it.
My wife loves chocolate as well, but hates to eat it because she likes being skinny more than she likes eating chocolate (and if you ask any woman, the two are mutually exclusive).
Right: You're the one perpetuating misogynistic stereotypes, but I'm the guy who knows nothing about women...
My wife hates dark chocolate, but I prefer it, so if there's a bag of chocolate bars and dark chocolate, I'll dig into the milk chocolate first, knowing that my wife will actively consume those as well, then when they're gone, I still have the dark chocolate to enjoy afterwards, while she's without.
So, you purposefully over indulge, pigging out on the thing your wife likes to intentionally deprive here, meanwhile stashing back stuff you know she won't eat?
I do not expect your marriage is going to last all that long...
If capitalism requires us to have human labour do things rather than machines, then capitalism is a failure. Also nobody tried communism in a world where all menial labour was doable by machines, which is the premise of this...
Replacing human labour is the goal of technology. Tying human labour to consumption is a necessary evil, not a good thing.
We should probably start by replacing human government with one that's run by machines.
Seems to me the only way for communism to actually function is to not allow humans to have any say in how it works.
"Honestly, I've always been amazed at how the Copyright Gods balk at the mere idea of 3D printers, but don't seem to even notice 3D scanning, which is a much more important and useful tool to the everyday copyright violator."
Uh... well, I'd hardly call them "gods". Trolls, more like. Otherwise, I agree with you.
I was thinking that's more how they see themselves.
If I'd have known that pointing out the fact that bad people do bad things with stuff would generate so many stupidly butthurt, non-productive responses, I never would have said it.
Fuck but some of you guys latch on to and insist on arguing about the dumbest shit...
I was raised in "rural poverty," so pardon me if I know more about it than you give me credit for. And if you're going to insist that the majority of people would rather work in a factory than farm the land, you should provide some empirical data to back your assertion. Otherwise, I fear it's you who's expressing a particular romanticism.
Well, sure - if the US government instituted a 100% tax on any personal income over, say, $50 million/yr (and you could probably go higher than that), as well as taxing corporate profits at a similar rate (profits being all that extra money that never seems to go anywhere except Swiss and Cayman bank accounts), we, as a nation, would have no homeless, no poverty, no starving children. Hell, work it right and you could theoretically make every American citizen a millionaire, overnight.
But, to get there, we need that sea change I mentioned previously. Considering that we, as a species, can't even agree on seemingly simple matters like "what is a human right," I can't fathom what it would take for us to cross the valley from our current iteration to one in which no one actually needs to work for income.
Seriously, dude, go read a book about the Industrial Revolution. It was, by far, not even close to the utopia of equality you seem to think it was.
Uhh... I never said it was a utopia. I said it was an improvement. People left the farm and flocked to the festering polluted cities because, and only because, it was still a better life than rural poverty.
That is purely a matter of opinion, not fact. To me, a child working the family farm is a far more improved lifestyle than toiling in some factory for 80 hours a week, getting paid 25 cents for that 80 hours, sleeping 10 deep in some filthy, rat infested tenement, wondering if today is the day that industrial loom takes the rest of your hand. Because that scenario I just described? That is what the Industrial Revolution offered common people for the first couple decades.
The coming AI/robotic revolution will almost certainly increase inequality, but the people at the bottom will benefit too.
Perhaps, eventually. But at the start, there will be major upheaval, and no shortage of blood spilled. We should consider ourselves lucky if we don't live to see that day.
>Interesting idea, but from the sounds of it, we need to work on fixing the anti-Communism stigma that pervades the collective unconscious before we start replacing all the workers with robots.
What do you think I'm doing;-).
Well hey, no need to preach to this choir: I see the advantages of communism in general. But I also see the problems with letting humans take charge of the process - we're naturally greedy, tribal creatures. Somebody always insists on getting an advantage over everyone else.
It seems the robots are coming whether we like it or not, I certainly don't expect the capitalists to complain
Heh, just wait until it gets to the point where over 51% of available work is being done by machines. "Complain" doesn't seem to do justice to what would happen in that scenario.
"Widespread food riots" seems more accurate.
so now is the time to start getting society ready to embrace them in a productive manner
"I've been using David3DScanner since long before 3D printing was so much as a meme..."
I agree. It's not so much of a "next step" as it is a necessary beginning step. 3D printers will never see a huge part of their potential without first having devices that will do 3D modeling of existing items.
Honestly, I've always been amazed at how the Copyright Gods balk at the mere idea of 3D printers, but don't seem to even notice 3D scanning, which is a much more important and useful tool to the everyday copyright violator.
Sure, with a 3D printer I can make an unauthorized Darth Vader figurine; but with a 3D scanner, I can create a file that anyone can use to make said unauthorized figurine.
Change occurs because someone with power wishes it so.
Sometimes.
Other times, it occurs because the old way doesn't work anymore.
We didn't switch from brass tools to iron ones because "someone with power wish[ed] it so," we did it because we realized that iron tools are infinitely better than brass ones. The old way didn't work anymore, so it was changed.
Regarding the "millennia of decline" : Middle Ages, once called the Dark Ages
millennia == "several thousand years"
The time period you mention here lasted centuries, not millennia. And the word "decline" implies that we were somehow higher before that, then descended.
I would argue that your point was tangential from the start.
No need to argue that - I was pretty sure it was obvious.
That you continue to argue, even after accepting that my point was tangential, is what I'm having trouble understanding.
You took my point of wanting a less intrusive, more natural looking piece of kit straight to "ZOMG Think of the poor childrens! Perverts armed with google glass! News at eleven!"
not quite - I, rather subtly, pointed out a potential negative effect to the ubiquity of hard-to-notice, personal recording devices. Again, you're the one who decided to assume I was making a big deal out of it. FWIW, when I want to make a real stink about something, I do, in a most obvious way.
My follow on suggestions/desciptions were meant to be in the same absurd, vacuous realm.
There's nothing absurd of vacuous about the very real danger of being robbed because you're visibly flaunting expensive accessories, or pedophiles hanging out around playgrounds. Shame on you for trying to marginalize real risk.
I simply was trying to state that I would prefer it to not be horribly ugly and obviously intrusive to everyone around the people wearing these.
Then you probably should have said that, rather than resorting to a ridiculously circuitous method that does not allow the reader to infer your claimed intent. Because to someone who cannot read your mind, it sure reads like you're getting all butthurt over somebody pointing out that someone may, someday, use Glass to do something bad.
You didn't really suggest that Google glass has "nefarious uses".
Actually, I think "suggest" is the perfect word for what I did. "Implied" would work equally well.
Your suggested the reason that someone (me, in this case) might want a less intrusive device was to clandestinely film children at the playground. You then went on to say "well, I'm only half joking since I can't know for sure that you aren't a pervert".
I specifically disqualified you, although considering how adamantly you're pursuing the point (one you already admitted is not the point I was making), I feel now might be a good time to re-assess my previous conclusion. Liars get far more pissed when you call them one than an honest person ever would.
If you were only addressing a concern that Google glass can have bad uses, then all I can reply is that, sure, you are absolutely right.
Then why didn't you? Because before you got all stuck up your own ass about a perceived ill, that's really all I said (or rather, 'suggested').
You just have to ask yourself is it worth being constantly paranoid about?
Yes, inasmuch as it's worth being constantly paranoid about that cop that just busted a u-turn, swung in behind you, and is now riding your ass. Sure, he might decide to not fuck up your life today, but who knows what he might do tomorrow?
I guess you have to decide whether Google is the Devil incarnate
You should really stop guessing. You're not very good at it.
Try learning instead, so you can make informed decisions instead of taking shots in the dark.
I am not losing sleep over Google glass, at least not from the privacy concerns.
Not today. What about tomorrow?
What happens when you get called into your bosses office, to explain where this picture (posted from Google Glass) of you standing in front of a bong at some party came from? At least with the current iteration of technology, you can tell when someone's getting ready to snap a photo. Me, I personally do not look forward to the day that every single person around me becomes a paparazzi, willingly or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
Stereotypes generally have a damned good reason to be stereotypes. Getting called misogynistic or not, if it's true of a significant enough subsample of the population, it can and should be used.
So, then, when you see a black person carrying a watermelon you assume they stole it? I guess you try to hire as many Asians for mathematical jobs as you can, right? And lordy lord, don't let none of those Native Americans near the firewater, since they stereotypically can't help but become alcoholics.
Stereotypes generally exist because marginalizing someone with a derogatory label makes it easier to do fucked up things to them.
Whatever you've got to tell yourself to sleep at night, douche-nozzle.
FYI, trolls are normally the ones consistently re-engaging the conversation, because they can't handle letting it end. You know, like you keep doing.
Relating to my previous response:
http://books.google.com/books/about/Bad_Science.html?id=znCisNI4c8MC
I'm not sure what your point is.
That researchers get shit wrong. A lot.
But they say, "well, we think it's this way," and a lot of people take it for gospel. That is, until some other group of researchers does another flawed experiment that produces another incorrect, different result. Rinse, repeat.
If you want absolute certainty, you probably aren't interested in science.
I'm less interested in absolute certainty, and more interested in having research done correctly, not biased or influenced by personal philosophy. Opinion has no place in the laboratory, unless we're experimenting on opinions.
You ran out of rebuttals yesterday.
Piling on more nonsense and ad hominem attacks won't change that.
Indeed. Please also take some of your time to point out the sky is (usually) blue, dropped weights fall down, and the sun rises in the east. We will all appreciate the insight.
Judging from the conversation up to this point, seems to me you would rather argue about it.
You obviously know nothing about women.
My wife loves chocolate as well, but hates to eat it because she likes being skinny more than she likes eating chocolate (and if you ask any woman, the two are mutually exclusive).
Right: You're the one perpetuating misogynistic stereotypes, but I'm the guy who knows nothing about women...
So basically, they discovered that humans aren't the only animals that enjoy variety in their diet?
That, and/or they discovered that humans aren't the only ones who make decisions that seem unreasonable and arbitrary to a third party observer.
TL;DR version:
They discovered that humans are animals.
"Think they do" != "do"
So, no, not 'the opposite,' but 'precisely what OP said.'
My wife hates dark chocolate, but I prefer it, so if there's a bag of chocolate bars and dark chocolate, I'll dig into the milk chocolate first, knowing that my wife will actively consume those as well, then when they're gone, I still have the dark chocolate to enjoy afterwards, while she's without.
So, you purposefully over indulge, pigging out on the thing your wife likes to intentionally deprive here, meanwhile stashing back stuff you know she won't eat?
I do not expect your marriage is going to last all that long...
If capitalism requires us to have human labour do things rather than machines, then capitalism is a failure. Also nobody tried communism in a world where all menial labour was doable by machines, which is the premise of this...
Replacing human labour is the goal of technology. Tying human labour to consumption is a necessary evil, not a good thing.
We should probably start by replacing human government with one that's run by machines.
Seems to me the only way for communism to actually function is to not allow humans to have any say in how it works.
"Centuries" seems sufficient.
"Honestly, I've always been amazed at how the Copyright Gods balk at the mere idea of 3D printers, but don't seem to even notice 3D scanning, which is a much more important and useful tool to the everyday copyright violator."
Uh... well, I'd hardly call them "gods". Trolls, more like. Otherwise, I agree with you.
I was thinking that's more how they see themselves.
Jesus tap-dancing Christ.
If I'd have known that pointing out the fact that bad people do bad things with stuff would generate so many stupidly butthurt, non-productive responses, I never would have said it.
Fuck but some of you guys latch on to and insist on arguing about the dumbest shit...
What does something I wrote while in a particularly good mood have to do with this conversation?
Also... stalk much, bro?
I was raised in "rural poverty," so pardon me if I know more about it than you give me credit for. And if you're going to insist that the majority of people would rather work in a factory than farm the land, you should provide some empirical data to back your assertion. Otherwise, I fear it's you who's expressing a particular romanticism.
Translation: I ran out of rebuttals; so here's a ad hominem attack for your reading pleasure.
Thanks, but I have no need for someone of low intellect to be insulted by - I already have brothers.
I bet they never let you get the last word in either ;)
No, they're at least intelligent and humble enough to know when they should pull their feet from their mouths and shut up.
Unlike so many other people in this world. Natch.
snip
Holy crap. Did you seriously go line by line rebuttal?
Uh, well, you obviously read it, so...
You went full retard. Never go full retard.
Translation: I ran out of rebuttals; so here's a ad hominem attack for your reading pleasure.
Thanks, but I have no need for someone of low intellect to be insulted by - I already have brothers.
Well, sure - if the US government instituted a 100% tax on any personal income over, say, $50 million/yr (and you could probably go higher than that), as well as taxing corporate profits at a similar rate (profits being all that extra money that never seems to go anywhere except Swiss and Cayman bank accounts), we, as a nation, would have no homeless, no poverty, no starving children. Hell, work it right and you could theoretically make every American citizen a millionaire, overnight.
But, to get there, we need that sea change I mentioned previously. Considering that we, as a species, can't even agree on seemingly simple matters like "what is a human right," I can't fathom what it would take for us to cross the valley from our current iteration to one in which no one actually needs to work for income.
Seriously, dude, go read a book about the Industrial Revolution. It was, by far, not even close to the utopia of equality you seem to think it was.
Uhh ... I never said it was a utopia. I said it was an improvement. People left the farm and flocked to the festering polluted cities because, and only because, it was still a better life than rural poverty.
That is purely a matter of opinion, not fact. To me, a child working the family farm is a far more improved lifestyle than toiling in some factory for 80 hours a week, getting paid 25 cents for that 80 hours, sleeping 10 deep in some filthy, rat infested tenement, wondering if today is the day that industrial loom takes the rest of your hand. Because that scenario I just described? That is what the Industrial Revolution offered common people for the first couple decades.
The coming AI/robotic revolution will almost certainly increase inequality, but the people at the bottom will benefit too.
Perhaps, eventually. But at the start, there will be major upheaval, and no shortage of blood spilled. We should consider ourselves lucky if we don't live to see that day.
>Interesting idea, but from the sounds of it, we need to work on fixing the anti-Communism stigma that pervades the collective unconscious before we start replacing all the workers with robots.
What do you think I'm doing ;-).
Well hey, no need to preach to this choir: I see the advantages of communism in general. But I also see the problems with letting humans take charge of the process - we're naturally greedy, tribal creatures. Somebody always insists on getting an advantage over everyone else.
It seems the robots are coming whether we like it or not, I certainly don't expect the capitalists to complain
Heh, just wait until it gets to the point where over 51% of available work is being done by machines. "Complain" doesn't seem to do justice to what would happen in that scenario.
"Widespread food riots" seems more accurate.
so now is the time to start getting society ready to embrace them in a productive manner
Good luck with that, man.
And I mean that.
"I've been using David3DScanner since long before 3D printing was so much as a meme..."
I agree. It's not so much of a "next step" as it is a necessary beginning step. 3D printers will never see a huge part of their potential without first having devices that will do 3D modeling of existing items.
Honestly, I've always been amazed at how the Copyright Gods balk at the mere idea of 3D printers, but don't seem to even notice 3D scanning, which is a much more important and useful tool to the everyday copyright violator.
Sure, with a 3D printer I can make an unauthorized Darth Vader figurine; but with a 3D scanner, I can create a file that anyone can use to make said unauthorized figurine.
I've been using David3DScanner since long before 3D printing was so much as a meme...
Change occurs because someone with power wishes it so.
Sometimes.
Other times, it occurs because the old way doesn't work anymore.
We didn't switch from brass tools to iron ones because "someone with power wish[ed] it so," we did it because we realized that iron tools are infinitely better than brass ones. The old way didn't work anymore, so it was changed.
Regarding the "millennia of decline" : Middle Ages, once called the Dark Ages
millennia == "several thousand years"
The time period you mention here lasted centuries, not millennia. And the word "decline" implies that we were somehow higher before that, then descended.
I would argue that your point was tangential from the start.
No need to argue that - I was pretty sure it was obvious.
That you continue to argue, even after accepting that my point was tangential, is what I'm having trouble understanding.
You took my point of wanting a less intrusive, more natural looking piece of kit straight to "ZOMG Think of the poor childrens! Perverts armed with google glass! News at eleven!"
not quite - I, rather subtly, pointed out a potential negative effect to the ubiquity of hard-to-notice, personal recording devices. Again, you're the one who decided to assume I was making a big deal out of it. FWIW, when I want to make a real stink about something, I do, in a most obvious way.
My follow on suggestions/desciptions were meant to be in the same absurd, vacuous realm.
There's nothing absurd of vacuous about the very real danger of being robbed because you're visibly flaunting expensive accessories, or pedophiles hanging out around playgrounds. Shame on you for trying to marginalize real risk.
I simply was trying to state that I would prefer it to not be horribly ugly and obviously intrusive to everyone around the people wearing these.
Then you probably should have said that, rather than resorting to a ridiculously circuitous method that does not allow the reader to infer your claimed intent. Because to someone who cannot read your mind, it sure reads like you're getting all butthurt over somebody pointing out that someone may, someday, use Glass to do something bad.
You didn't really suggest that Google glass has "nefarious uses".
Actually, I think "suggest" is the perfect word for what I did. "Implied" would work equally well.
Your suggested the reason that someone (me, in this case) might want a less intrusive device was to clandestinely film children at the playground. You then went on to say "well, I'm only half joking since I can't know for sure that you aren't a pervert".
I specifically disqualified you, although considering how adamantly you're pursuing the point (one you already admitted is not the point I was making), I feel now might be a good time to re-assess my previous conclusion. Liars get far more pissed when you call them one than an honest person ever would.
If you were only addressing a concern that Google glass can have bad uses, then all I can reply is that, sure, you are absolutely right.
Then why didn't you? Because before you got all stuck up your own ass about a perceived ill, that's really all I said (or rather, 'suggested').
You just have to ask yourself is it worth being constantly paranoid about?
Yes, inasmuch as it's worth being constantly paranoid about that cop that just busted a u-turn, swung in behind you, and is now riding your ass. Sure, he might decide to not fuck up your life today, but who knows what he might do tomorrow?
I guess you have to decide whether Google is the Devil incarnate
You should really stop guessing. You're not very good at it.
Try learning instead, so you can make informed decisions instead of taking shots in the dark.
I am not losing sleep over Google glass, at least not from the privacy concerns.
Not today. What about tomorrow?
What happens when you get called into your bosses office, to explain where this picture (posted from Google Glass) of you standing in front of a bong at some party came from? At least with the current iteration of technology, you can tell when someone's getting ready to snap a photo. Me, I personally do not look forward to the day that every single person around me becomes a paparazzi, willingly or otherwise.