Common knowledge? For that to be true, there would have to be proof.
As for me, I think that 'piracy' has increased. I don't have any proof of this, though. It's near impossible to prove. I'd have to (if we're talking about the internet here) magically locate every single instance of 'piracy' on the internet and then just hope that there weren't people who previously downloaded the file and then left (if we are speaking of torrents). You would have also had to done this previously to know if it increased or not.
DRM likely just angers the customers (depending on who they are). You provided only a single example. For all you know, more people simply could have decided to buy the software. In other words, correlation does not equal causation (especially in the case of a single example, but I'm sure there's a few more).
The "I'd buy it if it were reasonably priced" meme is in reality largely a rationalization to justify current piracy. Only a few would follow through and go legit.
I keep seeing people making such absolute claims, but they seemingly always fail to provide any evidence. If that's your opinion, that is one thing. But you stated that as a fact. So, I'll ask you: how do you know that "only a few would follow through and go legit"? Do you know every 'pirate' in existence? Do you know how many exist? To the developers, they are nothing more than someone who didn't give them money (indistinguishable from someone who simply didn't buy their product).
More like people thought it was worth their money but thought free was even better.
Which people? Do you mean a few people? The purpose of this lowering prices isn't to make sure that all people buy the product. No, it's to try to get more people to buy the product. In fact, we don't even know how many 'pirates' there are (such a thing would be nearly impossible to track). All he mentioned was that there was "still people" 'pirating' his game, not how many, how much fewer than there was before, or how he can even accurately guess the amount of 'pirates'.
That puts the lie to the notion that it is overpriced.
Not to mention how stubborn and illogical they seemingly are. Nearly everything is about profit. How much damage is causes is irrelevant to them. If it helps the imaginary economy and keeps it on life support for a bit longer, go for it!
Most of the pollution wouldn't even exist if they put more effort into finding other solutions (oh, wait, that again requires money, which is the most important object in existence).
That depends on the species. Factors could include things such as how much harm they do to the planet or how ignorant, stubborn, or irrational many of them are (regardless of their degree of intelligence in other areas).
The fact remains that the first one to break is going to make a killing
Not really. The others would likely do the same almost instantaneously to prevent such a thing from happening. I mean, sure, your scenario could happen if the other ISPs had no business sense. But it likely wouldn't, and all of them probably know that (which is why they likely wouldn't even bother).
but there surely must be some competition in the ISP arena?
No. I have a single ISP (Comcast) in my area. There are many people who are in the same situation as I. Some areas do have a few, but most of them generally have the same policies.
I don't know much about the UK, but that's great if there is.
1) In many places, there is no competition. 2) Even if there was, what would stop the ISPs from 'cooperating' (even if they didn't consult one another)? They likely know that if they followed net neutrality, the rest of them would quickly do so as well to prevent a loss of their customer base (their educated customer base, that is), and then they'd just be back to the way things were before only with no way to maximize their profit.
Math relies less on memorization than any other topic (that I've had to study, at least). If you know mostly know what's going on, but you just forgot one detail, you can figure it out based on the stuff you do remember---because everything in math is there because it has to be there, and any other way just wouldn't work.
The thing is, if you don't use something, many people forget it rather quickly. Entirely.
What should they rely on? Marketing?
Nothing. They shouldn't care about such trivial things. Anyway, allowing some more choice isn't going to hurt their reputation (it might in the eyes of what I perceive as irrational idiots, but that doesn't matter).
Did someone hold a gun to your head and make you sign up for that degree at that school?
The "get out if you don't like it" argument isn't a very good one. It can be used in almost any situation. There is no reason not to implement these changes (that I currently see).
Math is not anything more nor less than reasoning correctly about that which can be made precise. It's not unreasonable for any school interested in maintaining its reputation to require its science graduates to be able to demonstrate some ability there.
It's unreasonable if they're forcing everyone to memorize unnecessary information. It's necessary to some, but then those specific people can just take the courses.
Also, another problem with many schools is that they care and rely far too much on arbitrary "reputations."
- that's all we have here, small amount of information. You said you want capitalism stopped, so you don't want people to have machines that will do all their work for them? Why not? That's the goal.
You misinterpreted me. I only said I wanted capitalism 'stopped'. I never said that I didn't wish to utilize technology to its fullest potential.
Capitalism does not 'encourage' greed, it feeds off of greed.
Exactly. The greedier and harsher you are in this system, the better off you will be.
Because if you are against actual greed, you'd be surprised to find out that greed exists whether capitalism exists or not.
I believe that greed exists much more in a capitalistic society. It has become a form of social conditioning.
What about their greedy dictator and his son?
Power corrupts. Also, they still live in a capitalistic world.
- oh yeah? It's not capitalism that causes gov't corruption.
I believe you're mistaken. It is money. The more money you have, the more influence over people you have. The attitudes typically present in a capitalistic society only magnifies this problem.
Do you think in non-capitalist North Korea or USSR there is/was no gov't corruption? Venezuela? Cuba?
Let me ask you this: how many of those were genuine friendly societies that didn't utilize currency?
Everything people do results in destruction. Do you think USSR and North Korea did LESS destruction than sort of "capitalist" USA?:)))
Capitalism just makes the desire worse. Besides, using that same logic, you could justify anything ("people will due eventually, so it's okay to kill them").
Also, you keep pointing to dictatorships and societies which still utilize currency to try to prove your point.
- utopian BS, and I wouldn't strand for it. I am for free market, against any type of dictatorship. For you to impose your Utopian ideas on me you'd have to physically fight me and kill me. That's what I mean when I say dictatorial.
You dismissed it so quickly without giving any other reason beyond an ad hominem. It doesn't claim to be perfect, it doesn't need to be perfect, it isn't "utopian," it certainly isn't a dictatorship, and it isn't trying to impose anything upon you. You could choose to not be a part of it while others choose to do so. It seems to me that you just took a quick look at it and dismissed it immediately and resorted to ad hominem attacks that didn't even fit the situation.
Besides that, I'm surprised that you'd dismiss something like that so quickly when we're talking about a situation where most people have lost their jobs, the cost of labor is essentially zero, and most people aren't working. What good is capitalism at that point? It causes even more destruction than it does now.
Why are total energy expenditures so important for you regardless of where they are made? This is silly. Do you know what the Universe is doing every day? Spending energy into nothing. You know what your 'savings' really mean? Nothing.
Ah, I see. So because the situation is bad, we should make it worse? It does not amount to "nothing." It amounts to a small amount of savings that build up as more and more people follow the same routine. It builds up on this planet, specifically. So, according to you, because energy is being spent into nothing in the universe and many things in the universe are being constantly destroyed, dumping harmful toxins into our oceans constantly wouldn't affect future generations at all?
- because you are anti-capitalist, while capitalism is the system that is most likely to take people there.
Or so you say. I see situations where capitalism holds back innovation constantly. Do you have a great idea? Can this i
My point is that they *already can* decide for themselves by choosing the right college and/or degree program.
My point is that the choice should be available wherever they decide to go.
Watering down these more advanced programs to only satisfy the more typical jobs does not make sense, it is redundant.
Watering them down? Not really. The choice will still be there. People who feel it is "watered down" could just take everything that you could previously.
No, but when I do wish to get one, I'm forced to take pointless classes. No one is forced to do much of anything. That, however, does not mean the situation should not be improved.
A degree shows that you met the requirements of the school to receive the degree.
A degree could also show what you did and how well you did it in a more specific sense.
You made assumptions based only on a small amount of information.
1. Why do you want to stop capitalism?
Simple.
It encourages greed. Leech off of your own subordinates to make a profit. If that includes profiting heavily even though they worked much harder than you, getting rid of them, or tricking them, then so be it. People that don't have money are oftentimes overlooked by society (even when that is not their fault). People that have more almost always have more power. It also encourages wars for resources deemed 'valuable' (ones that will turn a profit).
It causes much corruption among government, among other things. The rich can lobby to get what they want, and due to this society encouraging greed, it is likely that they will succeed. This happens constantly.
It often results in destruction. Destroy unreasonable amounts of the environment to get what you want, destroy other people who stand in the way of you making money (sometimes), utilize inefficient and destructive techniques to save money (such as chemical dumping or not recycling).
Basically, I advocate systems which I think are better.
2. Why do you want people to work where machines can clearly outperform them and provide them with the outcome of that work with 0 human energy expended?
I don't.
3. Aren't you admitting that if resource/energy depletion is a problem in a capitalist system, which produces everything that's needed, then there ARE problems that machines are not solving that need solutions? Soylent Green perhaps?
No. I said that everyone having their own machines that do everything for them is a waste of resources (which, as most know, may be abundant, but are not infinite). Really, if it came down to that, there should only exist a few of them that make goods for the general populace.
4. If you care about future generations, wouldn't you wish them to achieve this point in time, where all of their needs are taken care of by machines?
Of course. I don't know why you started thinking that I don't.
Here is the actual problem: what's the point of future generations?
What's the point of existing right now? There is none, no matter what society tells you. The "point" of your existence is what you make of it.
If people decide that they have nothing to do, they may end up committing mass suicide somehow from complete boredom OR they will find things to do.
It's called entertainment (hobbies). Or, if they really want to, they can do things that a machine could do (even if it's pointless).
Do you even understand that people are pushed forward by a desire to show off to their peers
Do I understand that people have egos? Yes, but I don't care about such trivial things.
People are CONSTANTLY 'wasting' energy and resources on discretionary stuff, that is really not needed for their survival.
Of course. But if they're going to 'waste' it, they shouldn't do it to such a severe degree that it drastically endangers future generations, I think.
"The future generations" you care so much about will have exactly the same problem, they will have to solve theirs, I don't give a shit, I have mine to solve.
And? I'd prefer their environment to at least be livable. If you don't care, then perhaps you shouldn't be a part of society.
What am I, a mushroom, just to sit there, wallowing happy in some moisture and some sun light? Fucking bullshit.
The degree is irrelevant. I was speaking of degrees in general. Why force people to take things that they will not need based on the assumptions that they may need it? They should decide that for themselves.
Whether you are doing it efficiently or not, who gives a shit?
I do. I actually care about the planet and the well being of future generations. If I can reasonably extent the amount of time it takes for a resource to be depleted, I will attempt to do so.
Do you really think people will have a point in time when they will just not want anything more than they have at a point right before that one?
In a society that doesn't advocate greed and corruption, perhaps that would be the case with a majority of the population.
Can it simulate human thoughts with all the needs and wants?
Perhaps. But, really, I was thinking more along the lines of AI that could do advanced work more efficiently than humans can, thereby removing the need for humans to do it. They wouldn't need to sleep or rest. They would be accurate and efficient.
How is it different from humans then, if it can?
It wouldn't need to sleep or rest and wouldn't have any desire to do so (depending on how it was made, of course, since I'm not talking about lifelike AI).
Hookers - there will always be need for hookers
I don't think that a majority of the population wishes to become hookers.
Fighting wars based on hate - how about this useful purely human endeavor?
Why couldn't an AI do this (and, more importantly, how is this a job, and why do we need this)?
Politics - unless they invent an AI system that can be as slimy as human politicians, I doubt that's going to happen.
Inventing such a thing would be useless. There should be less corruptions and slimy politicians, not more.
In any case, there will be new ideas that I can't even come up with because I have never seen it
There may be some, but most likely not enough if this scenario becomes reality.
If you don't use it, it isn't useful. If it doesn't help you, it isn't useful. I don't see how a "decent education" means to force useless knowledge upon everyone. It's inefficient and it's a waste of time. If there are people who do not take courses that they need, then that is (again) their own fault.
What's the point of that? That just sounds like an inefficient waste of resources to me. It sounds like, at this point, capitalism is pointless and shouldn't even exist (not that I think that it is good now).
I know of plenty of professions that will not disappear just because machines can do them too.
Really? In the presence of true artificial intelligence, which ones are those?
And some other grad from your class will tell a completely different story.
Then they can take it of their own volition. They should not force random knowledge upon people because they might need it. If people make a mistake and fail to take needed courses, then too bad for them. Let me decide what opportunities I wish to have.
Slashdot Mirror
I feel it is a shame that so many people believe that their opinion is an absolute fact.
It's disturbingly common how many intelligent but partisan people
It's not just those people, but likely a majority of the population ( from what I've seen).
Common knowledge? For that to be true, there would have to be proof.
As for me, I think that 'piracy' has increased. I don't have any proof of this, though. It's near impossible to prove. I'd have to (if we're talking about the internet here) magically locate every single instance of 'piracy' on the internet and then just hope that there weren't people who previously downloaded the file and then left (if we are speaking of torrents). You would have also had to done this previously to know if it increased or not.
It's not only the price, but the ease of use. If it is easier to buy something at a relatively cheap price (to most people), then they will do that.
The fact piracy levels have risen
I'm not saying it isn't true (I don't know), but how do you know this?
Price does not really reduce piracy, DRM does.
DRM likely just angers the customers (depending on who they are). You provided only a single example. For all you know, more people simply could have decided to buy the software. In other words, correlation does not equal causation (especially in the case of a single example, but I'm sure there's a few more).
The "I'd buy it if it were reasonably priced" meme is in reality largely a rationalization to justify current piracy. Only a few would follow through and go legit.
I keep seeing people making such absolute claims, but they seemingly always fail to provide any evidence. If that's your opinion, that is one thing. But you stated that as a fact. So, I'll ask you: how do you know that "only a few would follow through and go legit"? Do you know every 'pirate' in existence? Do you know how many exist? To the developers, they are nothing more than someone who didn't give them money (indistinguishable from someone who simply didn't buy their product).
More like people thought it was worth their money but thought free was even better.
Which people? Do you mean a few people? The purpose of this lowering prices isn't to make sure that all people buy the product. No, it's to try to get more people to buy the product. In fact, we don't even know how many 'pirates' there are (such a thing would be nearly impossible to track). All he mentioned was that there was "still people" 'pirating' his game, not how many, how much fewer than there was before, or how he can even accurately guess the amount of 'pirates'.
That puts the lie to the notion that it is overpriced.
"Overpriced" is subjective.
I don't know much about the game, but the phrase "it's not very good" is subjective.
And what of geothermal energy?
Not to mention how stubborn and illogical they seemingly are. Nearly everything is about profit. How much damage is causes is irrelevant to them. If it helps the imaginary economy and keeps it on life support for a bit longer, go for it!
Most of the pollution wouldn't even exist if they put more effort into finding other solutions (oh, wait, that again requires money, which is the most important object in existence).
Do you consider extinction as "better"?
That depends on the species. Factors could include things such as how much harm they do to the planet or how ignorant, stubborn, or irrational many of them are (regardless of their degree of intelligence in other areas).
The fact remains that the first one to break is going to make a killing
Not really. The others would likely do the same almost instantaneously to prevent such a thing from happening. I mean, sure, your scenario could happen if the other ISPs had no business sense. But it likely wouldn't, and all of them probably know that (which is why they likely wouldn't even bother).
but there surely must be some competition in the ISP arena?
No. I have a single ISP (Comcast) in my area. There are many people who are in the same situation as I. Some areas do have a few, but most of them generally have the same policies.
I don't know much about the UK, but that's great if there is.
1) In many places, there is no competition.
2) Even if there was, what would stop the ISPs from 'cooperating' (even if they didn't consult one another)? They likely know that if they followed net neutrality, the rest of them would quickly do so as well to prevent a loss of their customer base (their educated customer base, that is), and then they'd just be back to the way things were before only with no way to maximize their profit.
Math relies less on memorization than any other topic (that I've had to study, at least). If you know mostly know what's going on, but you just forgot one detail, you can figure it out based on the stuff you do remember---because everything in math is there because it has to be there, and any other way just wouldn't work.
The thing is, if you don't use something, many people forget it rather quickly. Entirely.
What should they rely on? Marketing?
Nothing. They shouldn't care about such trivial things. Anyway, allowing some more choice isn't going to hurt their reputation (it might in the eyes of what I perceive as irrational idiots, but that doesn't matter).
Did someone hold a gun to your head and make you sign up for that degree at that school?
The "get out if you don't like it" argument isn't a very good one. It can be used in almost any situation. There is no reason not to implement these changes (that I currently see).
Math is not anything more nor less than reasoning correctly about that which can be made precise. It's not unreasonable for any school interested in maintaining its reputation to require its science graduates to be able to demonstrate some ability there.
It's unreasonable if they're forcing everyone to memorize unnecessary information. It's necessary to some, but then those specific people can just take the courses.
Also, another problem with many schools is that they care and rely far too much on arbitrary "reputations."
And such people likely don't agree with that, either.
- that's all we have here, small amount of information. You said you want capitalism stopped, so you don't want people to have machines that will do all their work for them? Why not? That's the goal.
You misinterpreted me. I only said I wanted capitalism 'stopped'. I never said that I didn't wish to utilize technology to its fullest potential.
Capitalism does not 'encourage' greed, it feeds off of greed.
Exactly. The greedier and harsher you are in this system, the better off you will be.
Because if you are against actual greed, you'd be surprised to find out that greed exists whether capitalism exists or not.
I believe that greed exists much more in a capitalistic society. It has become a form of social conditioning.
What about their greedy dictator and his son?
Power corrupts. Also, they still live in a capitalistic world.
- oh yeah? It's not capitalism that causes gov't corruption.
I believe you're mistaken. It is money. The more money you have, the more influence over people you have. The attitudes typically present in a capitalistic society only magnifies this problem.
Do you think in non-capitalist North Korea or USSR there is/was no gov't corruption? Venezuela? Cuba?
Let me ask you this: how many of those were genuine friendly societies that didn't utilize currency?
Everything people do results in destruction. Do you think USSR and North Korea did LESS destruction than sort of "capitalist" USA? :)))
Capitalism just makes the desire worse. Besides, using that same logic, you could justify anything ("people will due eventually, so it's okay to kill them").
Also, you keep pointing to dictatorships and societies which still utilize currency to try to prove your point.
- utopian BS, and I wouldn't strand for it. I am for free market, against any type of dictatorship. For you to impose your Utopian ideas on me you'd have to physically fight me and kill me. That's what I mean when I say dictatorial.
You dismissed it so quickly without giving any other reason beyond an ad hominem. It doesn't claim to be perfect, it doesn't need to be perfect, it isn't "utopian," it certainly isn't a dictatorship, and it isn't trying to impose anything upon you. You could choose to not be a part of it while others choose to do so. It seems to me that you just took a quick look at it and dismissed it immediately and resorted to ad hominem attacks that didn't even fit the situation.
Besides that, I'm surprised that you'd dismiss something like that so quickly when we're talking about a situation where most people have lost their jobs, the cost of labor is essentially zero, and most people aren't working. What good is capitalism at that point? It causes even more destruction than it does now.
Why are total energy expenditures so important for you regardless of where they are made? This is silly. Do you know what the Universe is doing every day? Spending energy into nothing. You know what your 'savings' really mean? Nothing.
Ah, I see. So because the situation is bad, we should make it worse? It does not amount to "nothing." It amounts to a small amount of savings that build up as more and more people follow the same routine. It builds up on this planet, specifically. So, according to you, because energy is being spent into nothing in the universe and many things in the universe are being constantly destroyed, dumping harmful toxins into our oceans constantly wouldn't affect future generations at all?
- because you are anti-capitalist, while capitalism is the system that is most likely to take people there.
Or so you say. I see situations where capitalism holds back innovation constantly. Do you have a great idea? Can this i
- poor attention to detail
- unwilling or unable to learn
In that specific area. You don't know their reasons.
These are ALL strong indicators that the same person is weak in other areas.
It only indicates that they are weak in that specific area (until you can prove otherwise).
My point is that they *already can* decide for themselves by choosing the right college and/or degree program.
My point is that the choice should be available wherever they decide to go.
Watering down these more advanced programs to only satisfy the more typical jobs does not make sense, it is redundant.
Watering them down? Not really. The choice will still be there. People who feel it is "watered down" could just take everything that you could previously.
No one's forcing you to get a degree
No, but when I do wish to get one, I'm forced to take pointless classes. No one is forced to do much of anything. That, however, does not mean the situation should not be improved.
A degree shows that you met the requirements of the school to receive the degree.
A degree could also show what you did and how well you did it in a more specific sense.
- clearly you do not.
You made assumptions based only on a small amount of information.
1. Why do you want to stop capitalism?
Simple.
It encourages greed. Leech off of your own subordinates to make a profit. If that includes profiting heavily even though they worked much harder than you, getting rid of them, or tricking them, then so be it. People that don't have money are oftentimes overlooked by society (even when that is not their fault). People that have more almost always have more power. It also encourages wars for resources deemed 'valuable' (ones that will turn a profit).
It causes much corruption among government, among other things. The rich can lobby to get what they want, and due to this society encouraging greed, it is likely that they will succeed. This happens constantly.
It often results in destruction. Destroy unreasonable amounts of the environment to get what you want, destroy other people who stand in the way of you making money (sometimes), utilize inefficient and destructive techniques to save money (such as chemical dumping or not recycling).
Basically, I advocate systems which I think are better.
2. Why do you want people to work where machines can clearly outperform them and provide them with the outcome of that work with 0 human energy expended?
I don't.
3. Aren't you admitting that if resource/energy depletion is a problem in a capitalist system, which produces everything that's needed, then there ARE problems that machines are not solving that need solutions? Soylent Green perhaps?
No. I said that everyone having their own machines that do everything for them is a waste of resources (which, as most know, may be abundant, but are not infinite). Really, if it came down to that, there should only exist a few of them that make goods for the general populace.
4. If you care about future generations, wouldn't you wish them to achieve this point in time, where all of their needs are taken care of by machines?
Of course. I don't know why you started thinking that I don't.
Here is the actual problem: what's the point of future generations?
What's the point of existing right now? There is none, no matter what society tells you. The "point" of your existence is what you make of it.
If people decide that they have nothing to do, they may end up committing mass suicide somehow from complete boredom OR they will find things to do.
It's called entertainment (hobbies). Or, if they really want to, they can do things that a machine could do (even if it's pointless).
Do you even understand that people are pushed forward by a desire to show off to their peers
Do I understand that people have egos? Yes, but I don't care about such trivial things.
People are CONSTANTLY 'wasting' energy and resources on discretionary stuff, that is really not needed for their survival.
Of course. But if they're going to 'waste' it, they shouldn't do it to such a severe degree that it drastically endangers future generations, I think.
"The future generations" you care so much about will have exactly the same problem, they will have to solve theirs, I don't give a shit, I have mine to solve.
And? I'd prefer their environment to at least be livable. If you don't care, then perhaps you shouldn't be a part of society.
What am I, a mushroom, just to sit there, wallowing happy in some moisture and some sun light? Fucking bullshit.
Essentially, yes.
The degree is irrelevant. I was speaking of degrees in general. Why force people to take things that they will not need based on the assumptions that they may need it? They should decide that for themselves.
Whether you are doing it efficiently or not, who gives a shit?
I do. I actually care about the planet and the well being of future generations. If I can reasonably extent the amount of time it takes for a resource to be depleted, I will attempt to do so.
Do you really think people will have a point in time when they will just not want anything more than they have at a point right before that one?
In a society that doesn't advocate greed and corruption, perhaps that would be the case with a majority of the population.
Can it simulate human thoughts with all the needs and wants?
Perhaps. But, really, I was thinking more along the lines of AI that could do advanced work more efficiently than humans can, thereby removing the need for humans to do it. They wouldn't need to sleep or rest. They would be accurate and efficient.
How is it different from humans then, if it can?
It wouldn't need to sleep or rest and wouldn't have any desire to do so (depending on how it was made, of course, since I'm not talking about lifelike AI).
Hookers - there will always be need for hookers
I don't think that a majority of the population wishes to become hookers.
Fighting wars based on hate - how about this useful purely human endeavor?
Why couldn't an AI do this (and, more importantly, how is this a job, and why do we need this)?
Politics - unless they invent an AI system that can be as slimy as human politicians, I doubt that's going to happen.
Inventing such a thing would be useless. There should be less corruptions and slimy politicians, not more.
In any case, there will be new ideas that I can't even come up with because I have never seen it
There may be some, but most likely not enough if this scenario becomes reality.
but if that's your sole measure of useful
If you don't use it, it isn't useful. If it doesn't help you, it isn't useful. I don't see how a "decent education" means to force useless knowledge upon everyone. It's inefficient and it's a waste of time. If there are people who do not take courses that they need, then that is (again) their own fault.
THEN you end up with a replicator per person.
What's the point of that? That just sounds like an inefficient waste of resources to me. It sounds like, at this point, capitalism is pointless and shouldn't even exist (not that I think that it is good now).
I know of plenty of professions that will not disappear just because machines can do them too.
Really? In the presence of true artificial intelligence, which ones are those?
And some other grad from your class will tell a completely different story.
Then they can take it of their own volition. They should not force random knowledge upon people because they might need it. If people make a mistake and fail to take needed courses, then too bad for them. Let me decide what opportunities I wish to have.