mob rule: noun.
Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation.
Control or government by a gang, often of violent criminals; also called ochlocracy
It is difficult to answer this question, as it doesn't seem to really coincide with any coherent argument for or against direct democracy. I guess we could explore the current system's approach to dealing with mob rule, ie. passing legislation against violence, intimidation and participation in criminal conspiracies. Perhaps you could explain exactly how you think direct democracy is more prone to mob rule than our current systems? Whats that? It was a rhetorical question designed to use irrelevant buzz words to incite fear and direct the debate towards emotional knee jerk reactions and away from rational discourse? Oh, sorry. My mistake.
So your argument against exploring the possibility of direct democracy is that the naive direct democracy model that you built in your head in the minute before you wrote the response is flawed? It seems to me that is an argument for further exploration. Explain to me the downside of exploring new ideas.
As far as your specific objection about experts, you are ignoring the factor of public debate. Direct democracy would cause an increase in public debate as everyone would feel invested in their position and the outcomes. In a public debate an expert is able to sway thousands or millions of votes by putting forward a coherent, well reasoned and evidence based argument in favour of their position. If you have envisioned a form of direct democracy in which public debate is somehow stifled or prevented, I submit that your vision for direct democracy is flawed. The obvious solution to this is to explore other systems and find one without this flaw, for example a direct democracy system that doesn't stifle or prevent public debate.
Every economics expert under the sun, from all political spectrums, argued that the new tax was better for the economy.
Right because the news media equally represented the opinions of every economics expert under the sun, and they all agreed...
Firstly, there is no policy upon which all economists agree. If the news gave you the impression that there was, then you are guillible. Especially in the case of consumption tax, there are many experts who view it as an unfair tax as it is a (relatively) flat tax meaning that the wealthier pay comparatively less of their income than lower income citizens, and corporations pay almost nothing. Consumption taxes can be fair, if they apply only to luxury goods and are excluded from necessities like food etc. But regulating things that can be both (e.g. clothing) is a nightmare. In general income tax is much better for the majority than consumption tax.
Your example, intended to show people's stupidity, shows in this case that their intelligence was underestimated. You show only your own (understandable) shortcomings when you are barraged by 'expert' opinions in the media and believe what they say without doing your own independent inquiry.
This goes for the general opinion here in this thread that "it wouldn't work because people are stupid". People invented the jet engine and the microchip. People discovered the theories of relativity and the many fields of mathematics that help us understand the world. I am sure the slashdot community understands how long those lists could be if I were to complete them. There is of course a lot of stupidity around, much of it due to lack of education. But in general people are quite intelligent. Sure any direct democracy solution would have to have checks and balances in place to account for the imperfect nature of human thought, but that does not make them impossible. Any argument against crowd sourced democracy also goes for the current form of democracy: politicians are people, people currently vote and have a voice in government, etc. The naive assumption that we are just going to mock up a simple solution over beers in the local pub and then assume that it will work fine is false, and such a plan would not work for any other form of government either. What the direct democracy discussion is (should be) about is not why it won't/will work, but how we could make it work and what kind of system would need to be designed to make it effective. The idea of representation for example does not need to be left out, as mentioned above the system could be constructed using a tree system where people can find someone who's views represent their own and allow that person to be their representative. The knowledge of experts does not need to be neglected. Expert studies and reports could be supplied through the same channels that facilitate voting.
If humans are too stupid to make collective decisions, what government type would work? Can someone explain a system of government to me that can be used to govern a totally stupid population effectively? Bear in mind we don't have AI or ET to do the governing for us. If you really believe the human race is too stupid to function, the only logical recourse is the VHEMT. But those of us who hold hope for the survival of the human race would like the opportunity to discuss options without input from those who aren't interested in trying.
As it is a early human migration map, the dot in the US refers to native Amercans, who as far as I know are not known for there obesity. The modern obese US is mostly of European descent. Further study is of course warranted into modern migration patterns but these are not shown on the map here.
While I agree with the spirit of your post and what you say is clearly true in this case, I think it is worth noting that police communities are often quite split on this issue. While they rarely speak out for fear of career repercussions, many police see busting potheads as an insulting waste of their time and resources. Many of them would much rather be chasing murderers and rapists and resent being required by law to arrest and process random students.
Well as far as the theoretical chemical addiction properties of THC, I believe there is still some debate, although most scientists believe it to be non addictive. The reason there is doubt is because THC does not metabolise very fast and clings to fat cells in the body. What this means is that if you smoke marijuana, you get high, and have high blood THC levels. A few minutes after smoking, these levels start to drop off, but they drop off slower and slower, kind of like a half life. While the half life is only about an hour or two, after a week there are still trace amounts of the substance. This means that even if THC does have similar addiction properties to caffeine for example, you will never feel withdrawals as your body is able to adjust to the chemical change faster than it happens. To be addictive in a practical sense (cravings etc.) the drug needs to be metabolised faster than your body can adjust to it no longer being there. What this means is that even if THC has minor addictive properties, they are never experienced by the user as such. This makes the addictiveness a straw man argument, which although not scientifically disproven, has no real bearing of the reality of the use of the drug.
It is also important to note that the cognitive impairment and respiratory arguments are also straw man arguments. Marijuana smoke contains CO and CO2 as well as other normal smoke particles. All of which have been shown to be in some way harmful on their own. However there are other factors to consider, firstly the degree to which it is dangerous. Smoking recreationally on the weekends or even every day, is still a fairly low smoke intake. Nowhere near comparable to heavy cigarette smokers and also not comparable to simply breathing the air in a modern city all day. Secondly some studies have shown that cigarette smokers that also smoke marijuana have better lung health than cigarette smokers that don't, suggesting that some of the other chemicals present have a positive effect. This has also been my personal experience (for what it is worth), marijuana smokers seem to be able to hold their breath for longer, and also to take deeper breaths. More study is needed before I will concede that marijuana is a real health risk. Thirdly, you don't have to smoke marijuana to get THC into your bloodstream. Smoking sugar is also bad for your health but we aren't banning sugar (yet).
As to cognitive impairment, I have seen no study that shows that there is any cognitive impairment after the drug has left ones system. Sure there is some impairment while under the influence but (please correct me anyone that has new data I am unaware of) there are no permanent cognitive effects.
Please note that it is not even about these arguments, alcohol for example does have proven health effects, permanent cognitive impairment and and a significant risk of addiction. Cigarettes cause respiratory problems and are highly addictive. Opiates (also known as narcotics) are freely available to doctors to prescribe any time they want and are among the most addictive substances known to man, as well as being harmful to ones health and causing cognitive impairment. Automobiles cause respiratory problems and many other health problems.
Anyone who has studied the war on drugs knows what it is really about: money and power. If you don't believe me, get reading about the history of drug prohibition and the effects of drug prohibition. The legislators are not doing this to promote public health or any other public good, these are just politically expedient justifications for the media to chant at us.
In many cases science is moved forward by accident, and in many other cases science is moved forward by thousands of hours of grunt work. While what you say is true for certain areas of science and certain discoveries in history, there are countless counter examples where sheer numbers would have made the discovery faster. We will always need gifted scientists, but having a billion non-gifted ones will advance science and saying that it wont is obviously wrong
Here is a more complete list. I have left out entries like bozo the clown where the material has yet to be recognised as having any scientific merit by anyone, I also realise that many of these are still not the accepted scientific position.
Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
Baird, John L. (television camera)
Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
Bardeen & Brattain (transistor)
Bretz J Harlen (ice age geology)
Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
Crick & Watson (DNA)
Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
Galvani (bioelectricity)
Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
Goethe (Land color theory)
Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
Lister, J (sterilizing)
T Maiman (Laser)
Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
Steen-McIntyre, Virginia (southwest US indians villiage , 300,000BC)
Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
Zweig, George (quark theory)
What this guy claims isn't unlikely, it's impossible.
If you are saying that cold fusion is impossible, and implying that is a scientific fact, then your post qualifies perfectly under the standard definition of pseudo science. Congratulations.
the article suggests that our financial woes are caused by miscalibration of bank and stockmarket software models. I submit that the system itself is flawed. You can't make a working model of a broken system. The idea that if we could find a better software solution for banks all our financial problems would end is absurd.
...I don't mind taking one for the team, as long as the robot taxpayer gives me food and shelter, medical care and clean water, I will be prepared to give up my precious job to a robot. We need to move away from a system where one needs work to survive, as it is unlikely we will ever again have enough jobs for everyone.
No one has ever been able to successfully clarify for my how right wing groups in the US can oppose government mandated injection of vaccines as being "government interference in private affairs", and yet be 100% in favour of government mandated injections of a lethal potassium solution. I know which one I would rather have.
Great, so rather than studying whether its feasible, they are asking joe bloggs if he is in favour of it. Great. Well studies show that a large percentage of the public support everyone being filthy rich and not having to work anymore, and also never being sick anymore. So while we are engineering away our environmental problems I propose we also cure all known diseases and print out a huge bundle of cash for every man woman and child.
Seconded. Most first world nations have negative population growth. Most of the fastest growing nations are impoverished. A study of the statistics makes the correlation between poverty and population growth undeniable. So all we need to do is stop raping third world nations with the big black dildo known as the international financial market, and instead help them out a bit, and voila - stable population.
Seems like we have come a long way. The nazis had the same issue with their soldiers being traumatised by their actions. Not having digital technology they tried to mitigate the amount of trauma experienced by the soldiers. This lead to mechanisation of the killing process, for example the use of gas chambers instead of firing squads. They tried to get other prisoners to bury the dead as well, or to shovel them into cremation ovens. This way those traumatised were in the next batch to be killed and the soldiers were spared. There may be a point where we want to say that the trauma is a sign that the soldiers are being pushed too far, and rather than seeking medicinal or mechanical solutions to the problem, perhaps we should look at wars we are engaged in and what our soldiers are being ordered to do.
And your dream is worth pissing hundreds of billions of dollars down the shitter for?
You seem to be forgetting that money is imaginary. When talking about the future of the human race in general, which space exploration is certainly about, money is moot. The reality is about manpower and raw materials. While the cost of space exploration is high in both categories, the raw materials are an investment, as we are guaranteed to run out on earth (as long as we don't die out) and space promises vast untapped sources. In terms of manpower, we have a manpower surplus at the moment, the only sustainable labour sinks we have are war and space exploration. I stipulate that manned space exploration is rarely worthwhile, specifically it is only worthwhile in cases where humans are superior to machines at doing the required work. In 99% of space exploration the machines are far better. There are exceptions however, the ISS being a big one, I am fairly sure we cant fully automate all 0g research. The fact that there are exceptions also means that missions where humans aren't absolutely necessary are nevertheless useful as they pioneer techniques for the ones where humans are necessary. It also seems to me that one day machines will surpass humans in all remaining areas of space exploration, but when we get to that stage we should have various refueling stations around the solar system and the added cost of a bit of tourism is unlikely to be a major factor. Money is irrelevant and this world wide obsession with it we are currently experiencing is absurd and counter productive. I will pay you a billion monopoly dollars (digital images, you will have to print them off yourself) to allow us to continue the relevant parts of the discussion.
The paradigm of work needs to change. With mechanisation/robotics, and the modern population growth, we are now facing a situation where there is not enough work for everyone. If the retirement age is set to 120 that would only get much worse. The reason there is not enough work is because there is no need for everyone to work to produce the necessities, so instead we try to make busy work to waste people's time and prop up the economy. The solution is quite obvious, just allow more people to not work. Make sure they have food, housing, education and healthcare, and then just let them do art or smoke pot something. It is either that or build an economy based on people moving heavy objects back and forth from one pile to another. People complain a lot about others not doing their fair share, but a fair share of the required work for necessities per person is currently about 4 hours a week,. the people working 40 hours a week are actually stealing work from those who are unemployed. Naturally I am talking about a future system we should head towards, there is actually heaps of work to be done building infrastructure in the third world at the moment, but once we have upgraded the poor countries there will be work shortages all over, and the obvious solution to not enough work: work less, or work on something you love.
You are ignoring the colossal gap between what people vote for and what people want. Take some examples of what the protesters want:
Financial transaction tax
accountability for financial executives
closing of corporate tax loopholes
To name just a few, now tell me who I should vote for that will pass these measures...
On the other hand, mass protests send a clear message about what people want, and pressures individual congressional and senatorial candidates to address those concerns while on the campaign trail. Either they will lie, or they will support such measures. Claiming that voting is the only democratic duty of the citizen, and/or the only way he/she can cause change, is dead wrong, you have to shift the debate towards the questions that matter to you, you have to make it clear that the candidate who promises the most things you want will get your vote. The fact that the US has a 2 (1.2) party system makes this especially difficult as the democrats can easily say "well the republicans are going to make more tax loopholes, so you have no choice but to vote for us and we don't promise to close any". In countries with a parliamentary system however, protesting and demonstrating is a clear civic duty and has a significant effect on politics.
Me too, this would actually result in advertising being a good thing. I also add to the suggestion my idea of moving all television advertising to a dedicated channel, where ads are scheduled into half hourly slots for different product categories. That way if you wanted to buy a new fridge for example you could turn on the the tv at the fridge/whiteware timeslot and get all the pertinent information about all the possible purchases you could make. Some people say no one would ever watch this channel but if the truth were enforced and you knew you were going to see ads for a product you wanted to buy, I would bet that people would in fact watch.
I have always supported the idea of perjury for politicians. Make everything they say during campaign advertising and debate under oath. It won't mean that they actually do the things that they are claiming they will do now, it means they will tone down their claims. That is still a plus though, legally mandating a bit of honesty would go a long way.
Don't forget, hard disk density is inversely proportional to reliability and life expectancy. I still use 40-80 gig drives that are over 10 years old for all my os drives and you know what? I never suffer data loss. This is because on a low density drive you have a significant amount of redundancy in the wear and tear of moving parts before the errors become unrecoverable. The drives basically get slower and slower as errors increase read time, but they don't fail. This leaves plenty of time to replace the drive and back up all the data when it gets too worn. Not to mention 10 year old hard disks are free. I also know many people who bought 1TB+ drives within the last year or two that have failed already, suddenly and without warning, losing all their data. I sometimes wonder what it would be like if all the modern techniques that have been discovered were put to use making reliable 200gb drives that can run constantly for decades. surely there would be a market for that among people with precious data, sure raid is a better solution but sometimes you want a double layer of reliability. One thing is for sure, will not be buying any 3.3Tb/i disks any time soon.
Seconding this, the education system is so messed up it is likely ruining prospective geniuses. It needs the attentions of a brilliant mind, together with the experience and knowledge of all the facts and statistics available to the current administrators. If he is willing to do it reforming the education system would be a huge favour to all future children and the world at large. If he has other plans, well it sounds like he knows best.
I would like to add one more goal. I can think of many worthy goals that would improve the world, but this is one of the core ones that is always present in any kind of democratic popular action: Shifting the debate. Getting people like us to have conversations like this one on message boards like slashdot, and on other message boards, newspapers, tv, in bars and living rooms, and not only people like us. Even the conversations that billionaire hedge fund managers are having in their ornate dining rooms are affected in some small way by actions like this. All social change is driven by constant pressures from all directions, even if these protests end with no tangible results, there will be intangible results in the global understanding and the global conversation about these issues which will ultimately have small but cumulative effects on world society and government.
The issue here as far as I am concerned is that the article supposes a values system based on money and profit. The phrase "the rise of amateurs and enthusiasts means that few are actually making a living. " is a good example. Personally as someone who's values are based on quality of life and advancement of the human race's knowledge and experience, I would say the creative class is booming and the amateurs and enthusiasts are the main engine for that. I personally am an amateur and an enthusiast in the area of game development, and although my own offerings are minimal as yet, it seems that the majority of innovation in the field and also the majority of value added (my values, not money) are coming from the independents, amateurs and enthusiasts. If major game studios were bringing out anything that broke new ground it would be a different story but they seem to be operating on the premise that you make more money from a tried and true formula, than from trying new things. They may even be right about this. This is why I believe that a system of values based on money is flawed. All in all, I hear only good news from the creative sector recently (apart from copyright lawsuits), and the fact that people aren't making a living is more of the same. The less money there is in it, the more the people involved will be working towards other goals, goals like "because I love my art". This increases the quality of the products and decreases the cost to society for enjoying them. I realise it sucks for people who live in countries without a real social welfare system, starving to death for your art, while a time honoured tradition, is not a lot of fun.
Slashdot Mirror
How is the issue of mob rule addressed?
mob rule: noun.
Control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation. Control or government by a gang, often of violent criminals; also called ochlocracy
It is difficult to answer this question, as it doesn't seem to really coincide with any coherent argument for or against direct democracy. I guess we could explore the current system's approach to dealing with mob rule, ie. passing legislation against violence, intimidation and participation in criminal conspiracies. Perhaps you could explain exactly how you think direct democracy is more prone to mob rule than our current systems? Whats that? It was a rhetorical question designed to use irrelevant buzz words to incite fear and direct the debate towards emotional knee jerk reactions and away from rational discourse? Oh, sorry. My mistake.
So your argument against exploring the possibility of direct democracy is that the naive direct democracy model that you built in your head in the minute before you wrote the response is flawed? It seems to me that is an argument for further exploration. Explain to me the downside of exploring new ideas.
As far as your specific objection about experts, you are ignoring the factor of public debate. Direct democracy would cause an increase in public debate as everyone would feel invested in their position and the outcomes. In a public debate an expert is able to sway thousands or millions of votes by putting forward a coherent, well reasoned and evidence based argument in favour of their position. If you have envisioned a form of direct democracy in which public debate is somehow stifled or prevented, I submit that your vision for direct democracy is flawed. The obvious solution to this is to explore other systems and find one without this flaw, for example a direct democracy system that doesn't stifle or prevent public debate.
Every economics expert under the sun, from all political spectrums, argued that the new tax was better for the economy.
Right because the news media equally represented the opinions of every economics expert under the sun, and they all agreed...
Firstly, there is no policy upon which all economists agree. If the news gave you the impression that there was, then you are guillible. Especially in the case of consumption tax, there are many experts who view it as an unfair tax as it is a (relatively) flat tax meaning that the wealthier pay comparatively less of their income than lower income citizens, and corporations pay almost nothing. Consumption taxes can be fair, if they apply only to luxury goods and are excluded from necessities like food etc. But regulating things that can be both (e.g. clothing) is a nightmare. In general income tax is much better for the majority than consumption tax.
Your example, intended to show people's stupidity, shows in this case that their intelligence was underestimated. You show only your own (understandable) shortcomings when you are barraged by 'expert' opinions in the media and believe what they say without doing your own independent inquiry.
This goes for the general opinion here in this thread that "it wouldn't work because people are stupid". People invented the jet engine and the microchip. People discovered the theories of relativity and the many fields of mathematics that help us understand the world. I am sure the slashdot community understands how long those lists could be if I were to complete them. There is of course a lot of stupidity around, much of it due to lack of education. But in general people are quite intelligent. Sure any direct democracy solution would have to have checks and balances in place to account for the imperfect nature of human thought, but that does not make them impossible. Any argument against crowd sourced democracy also goes for the current form of democracy: politicians are people, people currently vote and have a voice in government, etc. The naive assumption that we are just going to mock up a simple solution over beers in the local pub and then assume that it will work fine is false, and such a plan would not work for any other form of government either. What the direct democracy discussion is (should be) about is not why it won't/will work, but how we could make it work and what kind of system would need to be designed to make it effective. The idea of representation for example does not need to be left out, as mentioned above the system could be constructed using a tree system where people can find someone who's views represent their own and allow that person to be their representative. The knowledge of experts does not need to be neglected. Expert studies and reports could be supplied through the same channels that facilitate voting.
If humans are too stupid to make collective decisions, what government type would work? Can someone explain a system of government to me that can be used to govern a totally stupid population effectively? Bear in mind we don't have AI or ET to do the governing for us. If you really believe the human race is too stupid to function, the only logical recourse is the VHEMT. But those of us who hold hope for the survival of the human race would like the opportunity to discuss options without input from those who aren't interested in trying.
As it is a early human migration map, the dot in the US refers to native Amercans, who as far as I know are not known for there obesity. The modern obese US is mostly of European descent. Further study is of course warranted into modern migration patterns but these are not shown on the map here.
"Quotation confesses inferiority"
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
While I agree with the spirit of your post and what you say is clearly true in this case, I think it is worth noting that police communities are often quite split on this issue. While they rarely speak out for fear of career repercussions, many police see busting potheads as an insulting waste of their time and resources. Many of them would much rather be chasing murderers and rapists and resent being required by law to arrest and process random students.
Well as far as the theoretical chemical addiction properties of THC, I believe there is still some debate, although most scientists believe it to be non addictive. The reason there is doubt is because THC does not metabolise very fast and clings to fat cells in the body. What this means is that if you smoke marijuana, you get high, and have high blood THC levels. A few minutes after smoking, these levels start to drop off, but they drop off slower and slower, kind of like a half life. While the half life is only about an hour or two, after a week there are still trace amounts of the substance. This means that even if THC does have similar addiction properties to caffeine for example, you will never feel withdrawals as your body is able to adjust to the chemical change faster than it happens. To be addictive in a practical sense (cravings etc.) the drug needs to be metabolised faster than your body can adjust to it no longer being there. What this means is that even if THC has minor addictive properties, they are never experienced by the user as such. This makes the addictiveness a straw man argument, which although not scientifically disproven, has no real bearing of the reality of the use of the drug.
It is also important to note that the cognitive impairment and respiratory arguments are also straw man arguments. Marijuana smoke contains CO and CO2 as well as other normal smoke particles. All of which have been shown to be in some way harmful on their own. However there are other factors to consider, firstly the degree to which it is dangerous. Smoking recreationally on the weekends or even every day, is still a fairly low smoke intake. Nowhere near comparable to heavy cigarette smokers and also not comparable to simply breathing the air in a modern city all day. Secondly some studies have shown that cigarette smokers that also smoke marijuana have better lung health than cigarette smokers that don't, suggesting that some of the other chemicals present have a positive effect. This has also been my personal experience (for what it is worth), marijuana smokers seem to be able to hold their breath for longer, and also to take deeper breaths. More study is needed before I will concede that marijuana is a real health risk. Thirdly, you don't have to smoke marijuana to get THC into your bloodstream. Smoking sugar is also bad for your health but we aren't banning sugar (yet).
As to cognitive impairment, I have seen no study that shows that there is any cognitive impairment after the drug has left ones system. Sure there is some impairment while under the influence but (please correct me anyone that has new data I am unaware of) there are no permanent cognitive effects.
Please note that it is not even about these arguments, alcohol for example does have proven health effects, permanent cognitive impairment and and a significant risk of addiction. Cigarettes cause respiratory problems and are highly addictive. Opiates (also known as narcotics) are freely available to doctors to prescribe any time they want and are among the most addictive substances known to man, as well as being harmful to ones health and causing cognitive impairment. Automobiles cause respiratory problems and many other health problems.
Anyone who has studied the war on drugs knows what it is really about: money and power. If you don't believe me, get reading about the history of drug prohibition and the effects of drug prohibition. The legislators are not doing this to promote public health or any other public good, these are just politically expedient justifications for the media to chant at us.
In many cases science is moved forward by accident, and in many other cases science is moved forward by thousands of hours of grunt work. While what you say is true for certain areas of science and certain discoveries in history, there are countless counter examples where sheer numbers would have made the discovery faster. We will always need gifted scientists, but having a billion non-gifted ones will advance science and saying that it wont is obviously wrong
Here is a more complete list. I have left out entries like bozo the clown where the material has yet to be recognised as having any scientific merit by anyone, I also realise that many of these are still not the accepted scientific position.
Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
Alfven, Hans (galaxy-scale plasma dynamics)
Baird, John L. (television camera)
Bakker, Robert (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
Bardeen & Brattain (transistor)
Bretz J Harlen (ice age geology)
Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (black holes in 1930)
Chladni, Ernst (meteorites in 1800)
Crick & Watson (DNA)
Doppler (optical Doppler effect)
Folk, Robert L. (existence and importance of nanobacteria)
Galvani (bioelectricity)
Harvey, William (circulation of blood, 1628)
Krebs (ATP energy, Krebs cycle)
Galileo (supported the Copernican viewpoint)
Gauss, Karl F. (nonEuclidean geometery)
Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
Goddard, Robert (rocket-powered space ships)
Goethe (Land color theory)
Gold, Thomas (deep non-biological petroleum deposits)
Gold, Thomas (deep mine bacteria)
Lister, J (sterilizing)
T Maiman (Laser)
Margulis, Lynn (endosymbiotic organelles)
Mayer, Julius R. (The Law of Conservation of Energy)
Marshall, B (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori)
McClintlock, Barbara (mobile genetic elements, "jumping genes", transposons)
Newlands, J. (pre-Mendeleev periodic table)
Nottebohm, F. (neurogenesis: brains can grow neurons)
Ohm, George S. (Ohm's Law)
Ovshinsky, Stanford R. (amorphous semiconductor devices)
Pasteur, Louis (germ theory of disease)
Prusiner, Stanley (existence of prions, 1982)
Rous, Peyton (viruses cause cancer)
Semmelweis, I. (surgeons wash hands, puerperal fever )
Steen-McIntyre, Virginia (southwest US indians villiage , 300,000BC)
Tesla, Nikola (Earth electrical resonance, "Schumann" resonance)
Tesla, Nikola (brushless AC motor)
J H van't Hoff (molecules are 3D)
Warren, Warren S (flaw in MRI theory)
Wegener, Alfred (continental drift)
Wright, Wilbur & Orville (flying machines)
Zwicky, Fritz (existence of dark matter, 1933)
Zweig, George (quark theory)
What this guy claims isn't unlikely, it's impossible.
If you are saying that cold fusion is impossible, and implying that is a scientific fact, then your post qualifies perfectly under the standard definition of pseudo science. Congratulations.
the article suggests that our financial woes are caused by miscalibration of bank and stockmarket software models. I submit that the system itself is flawed. You can't make a working model of a broken system. The idea that if we could find a better software solution for banks all our financial problems would end is absurd.
...I don't mind taking one for the team, as long as the robot taxpayer gives me food and shelter, medical care and clean water, I will be prepared to give up my precious job to a robot. We need to move away from a system where one needs work to survive, as it is unlikely we will ever again have enough jobs for everyone.
No one has ever been able to successfully clarify for my how right wing groups in the US can oppose government mandated injection of vaccines as being "government interference in private affairs", and yet be 100% in favour of government mandated injections of a lethal potassium solution. I know which one I would rather have.
Great, so rather than studying whether its feasible, they are asking joe bloggs if he is in favour of it. Great. Well studies show that a large percentage of the public support everyone being filthy rich and not having to work anymore, and also never being sick anymore. So while we are engineering away our environmental problems I propose we also cure all known diseases and print out a huge bundle of cash for every man woman and child.
Seconded. Most first world nations have negative population growth. Most of the fastest growing nations are impoverished. A study of the statistics makes the correlation between poverty and population growth undeniable. So all we need to do is stop raping third world nations with the big black dildo known as the international financial market, and instead help them out a bit, and voila - stable population.
Seems like we have come a long way. The nazis had the same issue with their soldiers being traumatised by their actions. Not having digital technology they tried to mitigate the amount of trauma experienced by the soldiers. This lead to mechanisation of the killing process, for example the use of gas chambers instead of firing squads. They tried to get other prisoners to bury the dead as well, or to shovel them into cremation ovens. This way those traumatised were in the next batch to be killed and the soldiers were spared. There may be a point where we want to say that the trauma is a sign that the soldiers are being pushed too far, and rather than seeking medicinal or mechanical solutions to the problem, perhaps we should look at wars we are engaged in and what our soldiers are being ordered to do.
And your dream is worth pissing hundreds of billions of dollars down the shitter for?
You seem to be forgetting that money is imaginary. When talking about the future of the human race in general, which space exploration is certainly about, money is moot. The reality is about manpower and raw materials. While the cost of space exploration is high in both categories, the raw materials are an investment, as we are guaranteed to run out on earth (as long as we don't die out) and space promises vast untapped sources. In terms of manpower, we have a manpower surplus at the moment, the only sustainable labour sinks we have are war and space exploration. I stipulate that manned space exploration is rarely worthwhile, specifically it is only worthwhile in cases where humans are superior to machines at doing the required work. In 99% of space exploration the machines are far better. There are exceptions however, the ISS being a big one, I am fairly sure we cant fully automate all 0g research. The fact that there are exceptions also means that missions where humans aren't absolutely necessary are nevertheless useful as they pioneer techniques for the ones where humans are necessary. It also seems to me that one day machines will surpass humans in all remaining areas of space exploration, but when we get to that stage we should have various refueling stations around the solar system and the added cost of a bit of tourism is unlikely to be a major factor. Money is irrelevant and this world wide obsession with it we are currently experiencing is absurd and counter productive. I will pay you a billion monopoly dollars (digital images, you will have to print them off yourself) to allow us to continue the relevant parts of the discussion.
The paradigm of work needs to change. With mechanisation/robotics, and the modern population growth, we are now facing a situation where there is not enough work for everyone. If the retirement age is set to 120 that would only get much worse. The reason there is not enough work is because there is no need for everyone to work to produce the necessities, so instead we try to make busy work to waste people's time and prop up the economy. The solution is quite obvious, just allow more people to not work. Make sure they have food, housing, education and healthcare, and then just let them do art or smoke pot something. It is either that or build an economy based on people moving heavy objects back and forth from one pile to another. People complain a lot about others not doing their fair share, but a fair share of the required work for necessities per person is currently about 4 hours a week,. the people working 40 hours a week are actually stealing work from those who are unemployed. Naturally I am talking about a future system we should head towards, there is actually heaps of work to be done building infrastructure in the third world at the moment, but once we have upgraded the poor countries there will be work shortages all over, and the obvious solution to not enough work: work less, or work on something you love.
You are ignoring the colossal gap between what people vote for and what people want. Take some examples of what the protesters want:
Financial transaction tax
accountability for financial executives
closing of corporate tax loopholes
To name just a few, now tell me who I should vote for that will pass these measures...
On the other hand, mass protests send a clear message about what people want, and pressures individual congressional and senatorial candidates to address those concerns while on the campaign trail. Either they will lie, or they will support such measures. Claiming that voting is the only democratic duty of the citizen, and/or the only way he/she can cause change, is dead wrong, you have to shift the debate towards the questions that matter to you, you have to make it clear that the candidate who promises the most things you want will get your vote. The fact that the US has a 2 (1.2) party system makes this especially difficult as the democrats can easily say "well the republicans are going to make more tax loopholes, so you have no choice but to vote for us and we don't promise to close any". In countries with a parliamentary system however, protesting and demonstrating is a clear civic duty and has a significant effect on politics.
Me too, this would actually result in advertising being a good thing. I also add to the suggestion my idea of moving all television advertising to a dedicated channel, where ads are scheduled into half hourly slots for different product categories. That way if you wanted to buy a new fridge for example you could turn on the the tv at the fridge/whiteware timeslot and get all the pertinent information about all the possible purchases you could make. Some people say no one would ever watch this channel but if the truth were enforced and you knew you were going to see ads for a product you wanted to buy, I would bet that people would in fact watch.
I have always supported the idea of perjury for politicians. Make everything they say during campaign advertising and debate under oath. It won't mean that they actually do the things that they are claiming they will do now, it means they will tone down their claims. That is still a plus though, legally mandating a bit of honesty would go a long way.
Don't forget, hard disk density is inversely proportional to reliability and life expectancy. I still use 40-80 gig drives that are over 10 years old for all my os drives and you know what? I never suffer data loss. This is because on a low density drive you have a significant amount of redundancy in the wear and tear of moving parts before the errors become unrecoverable. The drives basically get slower and slower as errors increase read time, but they don't fail. This leaves plenty of time to replace the drive and back up all the data when it gets too worn. Not to mention 10 year old hard disks are free. I also know many people who bought 1TB+ drives within the last year or two that have failed already, suddenly and without warning, losing all their data. I sometimes wonder what it would be like if all the modern techniques that have been discovered were put to use making reliable 200gb drives that can run constantly for decades. surely there would be a market for that among people with precious data, sure raid is a better solution but sometimes you want a double layer of reliability. One thing is for sure, will not be buying any 3.3Tb/i disks any time soon.
Seconding this, the education system is so messed up it is likely ruining prospective geniuses. It needs the attentions of a brilliant mind, together with the experience and knowledge of all the facts and statistics available to the current administrators. If he is willing to do it reforming the education system would be a huge favour to all future children and the world at large. If he has other plans, well it sounds like he knows best.
I would like to add one more goal. I can think of many worthy goals that would improve the world, but this is one of the core ones that is always present in any kind of democratic popular action: Shifting the debate. Getting people like us to have conversations like this one on message boards like slashdot, and on other message boards, newspapers, tv, in bars and living rooms, and not only people like us. Even the conversations that billionaire hedge fund managers are having in their ornate dining rooms are affected in some small way by actions like this. All social change is driven by constant pressures from all directions, even if these protests end with no tangible results, there will be intangible results in the global understanding and the global conversation about these issues which will ultimately have small but cumulative effects on world society and government.
The issue here as far as I am concerned is that the article supposes a values system based on money and profit. The phrase "the rise of amateurs and enthusiasts means that few are actually making a living. " is a good example. Personally as someone who's values are based on quality of life and advancement of the human race's knowledge and experience, I would say the creative class is booming and the amateurs and enthusiasts are the main engine for that. I personally am an amateur and an enthusiast in the area of game development, and although my own offerings are minimal as yet, it seems that the majority of innovation in the field and also the majority of value added (my values, not money) are coming from the independents, amateurs and enthusiasts. If major game studios were bringing out anything that broke new ground it would be a different story but they seem to be operating on the premise that you make more money from a tried and true formula, than from trying new things. They may even be right about this. This is why I believe that a system of values based on money is flawed. All in all, I hear only good news from the creative sector recently (apart from copyright lawsuits), and the fact that people aren't making a living is more of the same. The less money there is in it, the more the people involved will be working towards other goals, goals like "because I love my art". This increases the quality of the products and decreases the cost to society for enjoying them. I realise it sucks for people who live in countries without a real social welfare system, starving to death for your art, while a time honoured tradition, is not a lot of fun.