I don't know how much longer it's going to last (exponential growth) but if it lasts for another 30 years at this pace then computers will be 1,000,000 times more powerful than they are now - with incredible ramifications for every field. Again, I'm not claiming true AI here but... something. And it's something I can't imagine - cellular repair; gene therapy; VR learning tools, a dystopian all-powerful, nanny-state brooking no dissention; the end of scarcity;... I don't know.
But I credit Kurzweil for bringing up the topic and evangelizing. There may be a lot of hyperbole there but I guess I have more tolerance for it than you. I don't see it simply as self-aggrandizing bullsh!t. I see it as bringing the potential into view. The same as Gibson's Neuromancer: I don't see that dystopian future as particularly relevant but it was an interesting read.
Exponential growth has stopped? Perhaps, if you're talking about Moore's law. CPU speed hasn't increased much for about 10 yrs. But there are multi-core processors now. Take a look at the list of the fastest computers. (see below) What would you call a chart plotting it's performance? I see something approximating exponential growth. (7 doubles in 10 years)
The key concept to grasp is not the Kurzweilian AI and human/robot mind melds. The key concept is that exponential growth is a hard thing to grasp. Our mental models are linear .
Kurzweil is and others of the ilk (I'm one of them) is trying to get people to realize that exponential growth is non-intuitive. If growth continues at the much the present pace then in 15-20 years computers will be 1000 times as powerful as they are today. What can be done with that which is close to unimaginable today.
Think of computers and the internet 20 years ago: Pentium 133s and 28.8 modems. In 2000 T1 connections (1.54 MB) cost $1000.00/mth and who knows how much to install. Now I got a better computer in my pocket, plus a camera, plus a calculator plus a movie camera and other things.
We don't need quantum computing to get near the Kurzweilian future. (I'm not talking about true AI here - just the realization that exponential growth is taking place.
Actually it's the English which are the "natural" enemy of the French. Germany and France had wars in 1870, WWI and WWII. But France and England have a history going back close to a 1000 years.
My gut reaction is to agree with you. But this is a constitutional issue, a legal issue. This may not be the incident to build a case on. Although - if we win on a case like this - where there is no doubt about the guilt and that the individuals are dead; then it would be close to an iron-clad precedent.
I can see the point he's making - that this particular case is not the best one put all your chips on.
I agree that there is much interpretation - and you bring up an interesting point of altered records.
But if words don't have meaning then of what use are they? Does it mean whatever the majority thinks it means? "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech..." Are there any exceptions there? No. The words have meaning.
And context matters. All the Bill of Rights constrain the federal government. Why would anyone think that the 2nd A constrains individual ownership of weapons when context of the Bill of Rights (plus numerous other documents) clearly shows how to interpret the 2nd A clause "A well regulated militia... "
I have a graduate degree in history (medieval and early modern, in case it matters).
It's done all the time. As a matter of fact it's being done to the point of ridiculousness. It's called giving "voice to the voiceless."
I approach history as a case of evidence, especially while analyzing text. We have the historical record. We KNOW they were talking about newly freed slaves.
We have tons of records:
From the Congressional Record:
mr. doolittle. That does not meet the case at all. If my friend maintains that at this moment the Constitution of the United States, without amendment, gives all the power you ask, why do you put this new amendment into it on that subject?
mr. howard. If the Senator from Wisconsin wishes an answer, I will give him one such as I am able to give.
mr. doolittle. I was asking the Senator from Maine.
mr. howard. I was a member of the same committee, and the Senator's observations apply to me equally with the Senator from Maine. We desired to put this question of citizenship and the right of citizens and freedmen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of such gentlemen as the Senator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.
"no expectation of privacy" and "no expectation of not having your every movement and statement recorded and kept for eternity" are two different things.
I don't think it's "impossible" to get right. Let's read the debates over the 14thA.
Was all the discussion surrounding ex-slaves or did it include immigrants and indians. If the discussion was focused upon the newly freed slaves and their legal status then there it is: the 14th A refers to ex-slaves who were freed by the emancipation proclamation and the 13th A.
But the 14th A does apply to migrants who drop a kid and say that the child is an American citizen. Did the 14th A apply to this situation or only to whether or not ex-slaves were to be considered citizens? Notice the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
" the average person seems to be wired for one or the other, few can do both well."
True. I, by nature, am more into philosophy than math. Interesting I loved logic; and from logic I got into programming; and from programming I picked up math.
Re rights: how about passing a new law versus trying to twist an old one to fit one's needs?
Re 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Did that apply to native americans who were at war with the US. In other words were the Apaches and Sioux American citizens who were in rebellion? Obviously not. If not - to whom did "persons" apply to. AND, if it did not apply to native americans in the 1860s why are we expanding the definition today?
What is speech? Is burning a building speech? How about a flag? What does speech mean?
These discussions are not silly. It is part of what needs to be done at all times. Sometimes, for instance, words have a specific meaning to a specific time. Example: "cruel and unusual punishment" - This applies, not to the punishment itself (hanging, electrocution, imprisonment, fines, corporal punishment) but that the punishment to said individual is consistent with punishments handed out in other similar cases. For instance if the punishment for peeing on the sidewalk, is normally, a fine of $100.00 then placing someone in jail for 10 years would be cruel and unusual punishment. It is not the jail term that is "cruel and unusual" only that the punishment was "cruel and unusual" in comparison with other similar crimes.
"Interstate commerce clearly indicates any and all actual commercial transactions which actually involve parties in different states."
Unfortunately that is not the case. There have been cases where the Supreme Court, in the most blatantly disgusting way, has held that the interstate commerce clause applied.
"The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA) set quotas on the amount of wheat put into interstate commerce and established penalties for overproduction. The goal of the Act was to stabilize the market price of wheat by preventing shortages or surpluses. Filburn (P) sold part of his wheat crop and used the rest for his own consumption. The amount of wheat Filburn produced for his own consumption combined with the amount he sold exceeded the amount he was permitted to produce.
Secretary of Agriculture Wickard (D) assessed a penalty against him. Filburn refused to pay, contending that the Act sought to limit local commercial activity and therefore was unconstitutional because it exceeded the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause."
http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wi...
Originalism refers to the fact that words have meaning within context. Imagine you hear of a person who tied up two gay men to poles and burned them alive. And his defense for his action was a law written in 1870 (and had never been repealed) which stated that, within this jurisdiction "... it was prohibited to burn more than three f@gg0ts at one time."
And his defense was that he had burned only two f@gg0ts so he was clearly within the boundaries set by the law.
Would you agree with his reasoning (even though you would be appalled by his actions), let him go and vow to review all laws with the word f@gg0t?
Or, would you argue that the word f@gg0t refers to bundles of sticks and not to homosexuals and therefore the person is guilty of murder?
TL/DR - the meanings of words change over time. (Pick up any play by Shakespeare) It's the concept, and often the context, that counts.
I don't remember that distinction but I will take a look.
This clearly shows the ambiguity of language.
Let me rephrase, if you will: "neither the US Constitution nor the Federalist Papers limit or prohibit a state from providing health care to it's residents."
Key points - the phrase "general welfare" does not mean "welfare" in a 20th C sense, as a handout from government. Government's role is to protect your enumerated rights (see Bill of Rights). There were some who opposed including the Bill of Rights as they argued that the Federal Government -- congress -- only had the power to pass laws as listed in Article I Section VIII (if I remember correctly).
As Congress was not granted the power to pass a law regarding speech or religion then the first Amendment was superfluous.
What Europe does or does not do is immaterial to this conversation. The question at hand is - does the Federal Government have the power. I say no. You say yes. I point to the Constitution and say "it's not here". You point to the constitution and say "interstate commerce" applies to everything and even if I grow wheat in my own backyard the fact that I didn't have to buy wheat from someone else means that my growing wheat is part of "interstate commerce".
That, along with the interpretation of "general welfare" is one of our many points of disagreement.
Elaborate on that please. How did/does the US Constitution, or the arguments put forth in the Federalist Papers, limit or prohibit a state from providing universal health care to its residents?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know how much longer it's going to last (exponential growth) but if it lasts for another 30 years at this pace then computers will be 1,000,000 times more powerful than they are now - with incredible ramifications for every field. Again, I'm not claiming true AI here but ... something. And it's something I can't imagine - cellular repair; gene therapy; VR learning tools, a dystopian all-powerful, nanny-state brooking no dissention; the end of scarcity; ... I don't know.
But I credit Kurzweil for bringing up the topic and evangelizing. There may be a lot of hyperbole there but I guess I have more tolerance for it than you. I don't see it simply as self-aggrandizing bullsh!t. I see it as bringing the potential into view. The same as Gibson's Neuromancer: I don't see that dystopian future as particularly relevant but it was an interesting read.
LOL
...
...
That was good!
I have to work on that. Here's a start:
Let see now. We have a change in internal energy which is equal to heat added to the system minus work done by the system.
Therefore:
Knowledge requires the input of (axioms | theorems | facts) as well as work done to understand these (axioms | theorems | facts)
Therefore the change (read increase) in knowledge = input of facts - minus the work needed to understand these facts.
Let s=friction caused by ignorance
Knowledge /= Power
:-)
Knowledge = PE (Potential Energy)
How silly do you have to be to comment on a sig?
Exponential growth has stopped? Perhaps, if you're talking about Moore's law. CPU speed hasn't increased much for about 10 yrs. But there are multi-core processors now. Take a look at the list of the fastest computers. (see below) What would you call a chart plotting it's performance? I see something approximating exponential growth. (7 doubles in 10 years)
The key concept to grasp is not the Kurzweilian AI and human/robot mind melds. The key concept is that exponential growth is a hard thing to grasp. Our mental models are linear .
2015 - FASTEST (RMAX) 33,862.70
2005 - FASTEST 280.6
http://www.top500.org/lists/
Kurzweil is and others of the ilk (I'm one of them) is trying to get people to realize that exponential growth is non-intuitive. If growth continues at the much the present pace then in 15-20 years computers will be 1000 times as powerful as they are today. What can be done with that which is close to unimaginable today.
Think of computers and the internet 20 years ago: Pentium 133s and 28.8 modems. In 2000 T1 connections (1.54 MB) cost $1000.00/mth and who knows how much to install. Now I got a better computer in my pocket, plus a camera, plus a calculator plus a movie camera and other things.
We don't need quantum computing to get near the Kurzweilian future. (I'm not talking about true AI here - just the realization that exponential growth is taking place.
I think he forgot the /sarc at the end of his post.
Actually it's the English which are the "natural" enemy of the French. Germany and France had wars in 1870, WWI and WWII. But France and England have a history going back close to a 1000 years.
My gut reaction is to agree with you. But this is a constitutional issue, a legal issue. This may not be the incident to build a case on. Although - if we win on a case like this - where there is no doubt about the guilt and that the individuals are dead; then it would be close to an iron-clad precedent.
I can see the point he's making - that this particular case is not the best one put all your chips on.
Yes it does. As as stores begin to scan bills (checking for counterfeits) then there is the potential to know some mid-points as well.
I agree that there is much interpretation - and you bring up an interesting point of altered records.
... abridging the freedom of speech ..." Are there any exceptions there? No. The words have meaning.
... "
But if words don't have meaning then of what use are they? Does it mean whatever the majority thinks it means? "Congress shall make no law
And context matters. All the Bill of Rights constrain the federal government. Why would anyone think that the 2nd A constrains individual ownership of weapons when context of the Bill of Rights (plus numerous other documents) clearly shows how to interpret the 2nd A clause "A well regulated militia
Amen brother. Couldn't agree with you more.
I have a graduate degree in history (medieval and early modern, in case it matters).
It's done all the time. As a matter of fact it's being done to the point of ridiculousness. It's called giving "voice to the voiceless."
I approach history as a case of evidence, especially while analyzing text. We have the historical record. We KNOW they were talking about newly freed slaves. We have tons of records:
From the Congressional Record:
mr. doolittle. That does not meet the case at all. If my friend maintains that at this moment the Constitution of the United States, without amendment, gives all the power you ask, why do you put this new amendment into it on that subject?
mr. howard. If the Senator from Wisconsin wishes an answer, I will give him one such as I am able to give.
mr. doolittle. I was asking the Senator from Maine.
mr. howard. I was a member of the same committee, and the Senator's observations apply to me equally with the Senator from Maine. We desired to put this question of citizenship and the right of citizens and freedmen under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power of such gentlemen as the Senator from Wisconsin, who would pull the whole system up by the roots and destroy it, and expose the freedmen again to the oppressions of their old masters.
"no expectation of privacy" and "no expectation of not having your every movement and statement recorded and kept for eternity" are two different things.
I don't think it's "impossible" to get right. Let's read the debates over the 14thA.
Was all the discussion surrounding ex-slaves or did it include immigrants and indians. If the discussion was focused upon the newly freed slaves and their legal status then there it is: the 14th A refers to ex-slaves who were freed by the emancipation proclamation and the 13th A.
Did the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" explicitly exclude anyone?
I think it did.
If no. Were the Sioux at Little Big Horn American citizens?
But the 14th A does apply to migrants who drop a kid and say that the child is an American citizen. Did the 14th A apply to this situation or only to whether or not ex-slaves were to be considered citizens? Notice the clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
yes. Dice buying slashdot.
As does cash.
However, unlike cash, bitcoin is traceable.
" the average person seems to be wired for one or the other, few can do both well."
True. I, by nature, am more into philosophy than math. Interesting I loved logic; and from logic I got into programming; and from programming I picked up math.
Re rights: how about passing a new law versus trying to twist an old one to fit one's needs?
Re 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Did that apply to native americans who were at war with the US. In other words were the Apaches and Sioux American citizens who were in rebellion? Obviously not. If not - to whom did "persons" apply to. AND, if it did not apply to native americans in the 1860s why are we expanding the definition today?
What is speech? Is burning a building speech? How about a flag? What does speech mean?
These discussions are not silly. It is part of what needs to be done at all times. Sometimes, for instance, words have a specific meaning to a specific time. Example: "cruel and unusual punishment" - This applies, not to the punishment itself (hanging, electrocution, imprisonment, fines, corporal punishment) but that the punishment to said individual is consistent with punishments handed out in other similar cases. For instance if the punishment for peeing on the sidewalk, is normally, a fine of $100.00 then placing someone in jail for 10 years would be cruel and unusual punishment. It is not the jail term that is "cruel and unusual" only that the punishment was "cruel and unusual" in comparison with other similar crimes.
"Interstate commerce clearly indicates any and all actual commercial transactions which actually involve parties in different states."
Unfortunately that is not the case. There have been cases where the Supreme Court, in the most blatantly disgusting way, has held that the interstate commerce clause applied.
"The Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 (AAA) set quotas on the amount of wheat put into interstate commerce and established penalties for overproduction. The goal of the Act was to stabilize the market price of wheat by preventing shortages or surpluses. Filburn (P) sold part of his wheat crop and used the rest for his own consumption. The amount of wheat Filburn produced for his own consumption combined with the amount he sold exceeded the amount he was permitted to produce.
Secretary of Agriculture Wickard (D) assessed a penalty against him. Filburn refused to pay, contending that the Act sought to limit local commercial activity and therefore was unconstitutional because it exceeded the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause." http://www.lawnix.com/cases/wi...
Originalism refers to the fact that words have meaning within context. Imagine you hear of a person who tied up two gay men to poles and burned them alive. And his defense for his action was a law written in 1870 (and had never been repealed) which stated that, within this jurisdiction "... it was prohibited to burn more than three f@gg0ts at one time."
And his defense was that he had burned only two f@gg0ts so he was clearly within the boundaries set by the law.
Would you agree with his reasoning (even though you would be appalled by his actions), let him go and vow to review all laws with the word f@gg0t?
Or, would you argue that the word f@gg0t refers to bundles of sticks and not to homosexuals and therefore the person is guilty of murder?
TL/DR - the meanings of words change over time. (Pick up any play by Shakespeare) It's the concept, and often the context, that counts.
LOL!!!
Well put.
I don't remember that distinction but I will take a look.
This clearly shows the ambiguity of language.
Let me rephrase, if you will: "neither the US Constitution nor the Federalist Papers limit or prohibit a state from providing health care to it's residents."
Nice comment.
Key points - the phrase "general welfare" does not mean "welfare" in a 20th C sense, as a handout from government. Government's role is to protect your enumerated rights (see Bill of Rights). There were some who opposed including the Bill of Rights as they argued that the Federal Government -- congress -- only had the power to pass laws as listed in Article I Section VIII (if I remember correctly).
As Congress was not granted the power to pass a law regarding speech or religion then the first Amendment was superfluous.
What Europe does or does not do is immaterial to this conversation. The question at hand is - does the Federal Government have the power. I say no. You say yes. I point to the Constitution and say "it's not here". You point to the constitution and say "interstate commerce" applies to everything and even if I grow wheat in my own backyard the fact that I didn't have to buy wheat from someone else means that my growing wheat is part of "interstate commerce".
That, along with the interpretation of "general welfare" is one of our many points of disagreement.
Elaborate on that please. How did/does the US Constitution, or the arguments put forth in the Federalist Papers, limit or prohibit a state from providing universal health care to its residents?