You are right, this is not about the war itself, it is about the Govs acting as our Big Brother deciding in his infinite wiseness what is "best for us".
Generally, you should learn one new language every year. This is not too much work, but it helps you to diversify. If you pick up a language that happens to be the Next Big Thing, then you hit the jackpot.
"And there are some groups of people that have learned to not only actualize that potential, but train others in how to occupy the leadership positions."
Again, you must not believe what you see. Sociologists recognized long ago, that we tend to downplay the effect of randomness and luck.
Small children say after seeing a child being unlucky that he or she is a bad person. Lucky children are recognized as "good".
The modern globalized world is able to produce lots of self-reinforcing bubbles. Many people gain their wealth by luck. After you have wealth, it is much easier to stay on top. Therefore, among the wealthy the lucky ones are overrepresented.
But our nature is denial about randomness, and we tend to associate talent, cunning and intelligence with success. This is very similar to how we tend to believe that we are able to control our destiny, or nations control their destiny. In fact it is almost impossible to weed out randomness from signal (in the short term of course).
This is much more complex than that. Game theory is too simplistic to give answers.
Some problems with game theory
- Nash equilibria are not evolutionally stable
- They are also exponential to calculate
- Evolutionally Stable Strategies may not exist
- They are also exponential to calculate
- Evolutionally Stable Strategies could be solved only for very simplistic scenarios
- Evolutionary game theory (currently) deals with simplistic, pairwise, independent games
- Correlated equilibria are polynomially computable and more realistic (it also nicely explains many cooperation phenomenon) -- but still far from reality
Altruism and cooperation are great miracles of nature that we do not understand fully. Just take your time and dedicate a day to observe all the cooperation that you can find.
"I'm sorry to reduce human behavior to such a depressing and simple model, but you can't deny thousands of years of human evolution, which show that in almost every society wealth is concentrated amongst a small number of people."
And you deny hundred thousands of years of human evolution, when this was not true.
Also, proving my point, we have a trained eye for injustice and we tendentiously overreact any cheating in society while we do not recognize the unsurmountable amount of evidence of everyday cooperation.
Even the most psychopathic ones of us cooperate. Even using money is cooperation. In fact it is completely impossible to live in a human society without huge amount of cooperation.
Your opinion is formed by this strange sampling bias that makes us more aware about cheating.
.. and poor people reproduce more than wealthy. So what?
Also, I see that many of us underestimate cooperation. If pure selfishness would be the true way, then there would be no multicellular species -- like us. The fact that we have an imprinted idea of "justice" and we are disturbed by acts of sociopathy shows how deeply imprinted is social behavior.
Well, my problem is not with science as an idea, but how people usually implement it. You are right that I way not clear enough.
In other words, people are people and science will not change this, but science is the only discipline that I know that keeps human deficiencies under the strongest control.
but I still maintain that it is the best way for pursuing knowledge. In fact, science is all about renewing itself, reviewing itself and progress. Yes, I know that there are a lot of horseshit out there masquerading as science. There are authoritative pricks, there are oppressive fuckers, braindead platonicists, opportunistic paper-pumpers. Still. It. Is. The. Way.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course. They do not believe in state secrets but states do. So states will try to silence them.
You are right, this is not about the war itself, it is about the Govs acting as our Big Brother deciding in his infinite wiseness what is "best for us".
For the greater good.
Assange's answer to this is that they (WikiLeaks) are super-national, so the concept of national security or state secret is irrelevant for them.
Generally, you should learn one new language every year. This is not too much work, but it helps you to diversify. If you pick up a language that happens to be the Next Big Thing, then you hit the jackpot.
To summarize:
Old people are no more lazy than young ones, but much less naive.
Another one:
http://www.phrack.org/
"And there are some groups of people that have learned to not only actualize that potential, but train others in how to occupy the leadership positions."
Again, you must not believe what you see. Sociologists recognized long ago, that we tend to downplay the effect of randomness and luck.
Small children say after seeing a child being unlucky that he or she is a bad person. Lucky children are recognized as "good".
The modern globalized world is able to produce lots of self-reinforcing bubbles. Many people gain their wealth by luck. After you have wealth, it is much easier to stay on top. Therefore, among the wealthy the lucky ones are overrepresented.
But our nature is denial about randomness, and we tend to associate talent, cunning and intelligence with success. This is very similar to how we tend to believe that we are able to control our destiny, or nations control their destiny. In fact it is almost impossible to weed out randomness from signal (in the short term of course).
This is much more complex than that. Game theory is too simplistic to give answers.
Some problems with game theory
- Nash equilibria are not evolutionally stable
- They are also exponential to calculate
- Evolutionally Stable Strategies may not exist
- They are also exponential to calculate
- Evolutionally Stable Strategies could be solved only for very simplistic scenarios
- Evolutionary game theory (currently) deals with simplistic, pairwise, independent games
- Correlated equilibria are polynomially computable and more realistic (it also nicely explains many cooperation phenomenon) -- but still far from reality
Altruism and cooperation are great miracles of nature that we do not understand fully. Just take your time and dedicate a day to observe all the cooperation that you can find.
"I'm sorry to reduce human behavior to such a depressing and simple model, but you can't deny thousands of years of human evolution, which show that in almost every society wealth is concentrated amongst a small number of people."
And you deny hundred thousands of years of human evolution, when this was not true.
Also, proving my point, we have a trained eye for injustice and we tendentiously overreact any cheating in society while we do not recognize the unsurmountable amount of evidence of everyday cooperation.
Even the most psychopathic ones of us cooperate. Even using money is cooperation. In fact it is completely impossible to live in a human society without huge amount of cooperation.
Your opinion is formed by this strange sampling bias that makes us more aware about cheating.
.. and poor people reproduce more than wealthy. So what?
Also, I see that many of us underestimate cooperation. If pure selfishness would be the true way, then there would be no multicellular species -- like us. The fact that we have an imprinted idea of "justice" and we are disturbed by acts of sociopathy shows how deeply imprinted is social behavior.
No, that would be Epic Fail.
What would Dr. House do?
"You are right that I way not clear enough."
I wrote this sentence, but I am not sure what it's supposed to mean :)
Well, my problem is not with science as an idea, but how people usually implement it. You are right that I way not clear enough.
In other words, people are people and science will not change this, but science is the only discipline that I know that keeps human deficiencies under the strongest control.
but I still maintain that it is the best way for pursuing knowledge. In fact, science is all about renewing itself, reviewing itself and progress. Yes, I know that there are a lot of horseshit out there masquerading as science. There are authoritative pricks, there are oppressive fuckers, braindead platonicists, opportunistic paper-pumpers. Still. It. Is. The. Way.
Well, we have seen PhDs and Nobel laureates busting their funds (some even twice), so I am not amused. We should be more humble about our "knowledge".
Who is Viola?
No, we will form a patent pool. We call it F.A.M.I.L.I.
Sorry, but you missed my most recent post, that I started to mutate -- your patent claims are invalid now.
Then it's time to mutate!
BRAAAIINS!
For this insult, I patent YOU as well. That will teach you a lesson.
And at the same time, I may pantent you as well.
.. and patent myself before it is too late!
Try Lojban instead
You are so uncool