While they might be able to compute all the possible moves, computers don't "play" chess.
And what make you think that a human "play" chess? (Of course I don't know what I'm talking about since you didn't defined what "play" means)
What you obviously don't understand is that our consciousness is not the same thing as our thought process. Our consciousness is only a 2nd level thought process, a kind of by-product of our thought process. When someone play chess he is not conscious of how and why he concentrate his "conscious thought" on a particular move. When I'm writing this post I don't know how and why I think of the word I'm writing.
Computers do not have intuition. They cannot form an hypothesis. They have no imagination. They cannot do research or construct an argument.
It's easy to program a computer to form an hypothesis, to do research and to construct an argument (in fact the program I used in my philo 101 class was a lot faster than me to construct a logical proof). Imagination is also very easy to program. As for intuition, it's simply "unaware" thinking mostly based on memory.
The problem we have is that right now those easy to implement abilities are useless because there are no concept to manipulate. If you can give me a list of all concepts and all their relations between each other (good luck) I think I'll be able to create something interesting.
i personally don't think AI will ever be more intelligent than humans. there's a limiting factor in building AI and that's the human brain
It's true we could never teach an AI something we don't understand but AI is not only about retrieving informations stored by a programmer. An AI would be able to learn, understand and create new ideas all by itself.
The only thing we need to create is a mechanism able to "understand" simple things. The only thing we need to create is a machine with the ability of a new born baby. After that it will learn by itself and the human brain won't be a factor at all.
the courts will never protect AI under the law and give them the rights of humans since they are not human
And who would thought that one day laws would make no distinction between a black man and a white men. Laws are not something absolute. They are made and changed by people like me. And the fact is I would certainly grant an AI the same rights as a human.
there is usually someplace that is an incremental improvement
Obviously, you believe the world is your oyster. When I was 20, I would have agreed with you but not anymore. You may say I'm pessimistic and cynical but I believe the pearl was taken a long time ago. I believe proponents of this oyster thing are either people who need a excuse for their dream or people who have a part of the pearl and who are trying to protect it by making you search elsewhere (even if they perfectly know you won't find anything).
Of course I don't mean you can't do anything to improve your life. You can always take the oyster's shell and give it to your hen so it produce better eggs. In other words, you can still have a "good" life if you work hard. But no matter how "good" your life is, you'll still be powerless in society, you'll still be only a slave and it will still be an empty life.
I think what many people are fearing is a global centralized government
What people fear is not having power. In a "democracy", government is far from being the only enemy.
If all these markets eventually merged and controlled prices across the board then people would be forced to resort to their own resources
Yeah, that's why everybody is buying electric cars. That's why people still buy a $500 software instead of a almost free one.
it forces people who want to run a small store to seek out new markets.
What new markets? Markets are not some magical infinite resources. Tell me, If YOU wanted to run a small store what would be your magical market? As soon as a market is profitable, you can be sure a big player will come and force you to close your store.
we are already overtaxed via the IRS and it's not suprising why it's hard to start a business.
If you think taxes make it hard to start a business then it's because you don't know how to run a business in the first place. If tomorrow the government decided to double the tax rate it wouldn't affect my business one bit : I'll simply sell my services at a higher price.
You may say that higher prices means consummers have less purchasing power and so will buy less... but you have to realize that money taken from taxes does not disappear into thin air. It's just given to somebody else who now has more purchasing power and so will buy more. In the end the total purchasing power is not affected by taxes and my sales will stay the same whatever the tax rate is.
If it was a trademark, and the cows were similar enough, then perhaps Parmalat had a real case.
No, they didn't. Parmalat and Agrinove went to arbitration. I don't know what was exactly the result of this (guess there was a NDA somewhere) but since Agrinove's packaging didn't change a bit I guess Parmalat lost their claim. But of course, because of those six months when Agrinove had to withdraw its products, my local food store has now replaced Agrinove's product with the one from Parmalat. You don't have to have a better product to win a market if you can simply use your money to control it (and so make even more money).
The corruption you probably saw was with respect to contractors. Who can blame them, when they've got Congress as their golden goose?
What do you think of a purchaser who secretly receives gifts? What do you think of a union leader who accept to close his eyes in exchange for a better position? What do you think of an accountant who sells the financial result of a company to someone else? (actually it's true I have no proof of the last one but when someone secretly print a lot documents when no one is around and then, a few days later, say she didn't print anything is at least... strange).
People lie, cheat, corrupt... The idea of governemnts has nothing to do with this and I believe a free for all market would be the most corrupt system you could ever think of.
I'm really tired of those "weapons of mass destruction".
Chemicals are not weapons of mass destruction. Remember the tokyo metro? Remember those anthrax letters? In both case a regular bomb would have been far more effective.
What about biological then? Well, mother nature is far more effective for this than any terrorist could ever be.
Ok this leave us with nuclear weapons... but the fact is right now only a few coutries are able to make those and a guy in a cave is in no position to build a nuclear weapon. The best they can do is put some radioactive materiel in a regular bomb which will force decontamination but won't kill more people than a regular bomb.
I'm beginning to think that weapons of mass destruction is a tool used by governments to frighten people so they don't question their politics.
Sometimes giving up on a city and going elsewhere for the sake of moving on with one's life is necessary
And where is the el dorado? If you live in a small town, going to a big city may change something... But if you already live in Los Angeles do you really think going to New York will change anything? Do you think companies in NY won't ask for your DNA? We're slowly going to a system with only one global economy. I agree we're not there yet (thankfully) but for how long?
[about unfair competition when starting a business] If there is a monopoly on steel, sell wood
And what do you do if there is a monopoly on steel AND wood? There are mergers everywhere. Corporations are getting bigger while small mom and pop business are slowly disappearing. Yes you can always find a niche market if you're really good but an ordinary not-a-genius-but-still-intelligent citizen can't. Because big corporations can control some large part of the market it's obvious we don't live in a free market anymore.
I cannot think of a product that people cannot live without or where there is no alternative possible.
And why would people want to buy a product from a small business they never heard of before instead of a big corporation buying ads everywhere? The problem is not consumers but unfair competition because your competitor has more money than you do. The problem is that with enough money you can kill a free market.
OpenOffice.org, for example, really will make MS Office obselete
Hard to say. I hope so but up to now only one of my client decided to make the switch (the amusing part is it's a semi-government office - so much for the mythical private sector efficiency).
[about not being able to start a company in 20 years from now] Only if corruption in the government is left to run out of control
I'm not following you on this one. Are you saying Walmart exists because of corruption in governments?
A person who wants to earn money towards starting a business...
must first have a job! We're back to square one : he won't have a choice but to accept the DNA test.
yet goes around and ends up with three children from various women
I'm not talking about the moron who's too stupid to think ahead. I believe in justice but not in "equality".
A free market rewards responsibility, forward thinking, and knowing when to seek stability.
Unfortunately a free market rewards power first. Responsability, forward thinking and knowing when to seek stability can give you some power but nothing compares to money. As I said being able to advertize more, sell below cost, sue or hire 35 engineers to copy a new product from an innovating small business in a few months is better than any forward thinking. A free market is a place where a rich multinational company (Parmalat) can sue a small local company (Agrinove) because their package had a drawing of a cow on it (Parmalat also has a drawing of a cow on their product... btw the product is milk) with the result of forcing the small company to destroy their stock, wait for about 6 months before being able to market their product and spend a quarter million dollars in legal fees. They survived but most normal small companies would simply die because of an action like this. This is what free market is all about.
Making corruption illegal in the private sector is much easier
I did two years of military service and I can assure you there's a lot more corruption in the private sector then in a big we-answer-to-no-one government organization. And although I know you won't believe me, I can also assure you the army is the most efficient organization I ever saw.
Free market is great when there is competition and, most importantly, no "superpower". Unfortunately the goal of every business is to become a superpower. This is why the US is slowly becoming a corporate republic and will finally become a communist country (as in USSR communism, not real communism) unless something is done to stop big corporation from becoming too powerful. So how do we make sure our future is not controlled by a few extremely powerful super-corporations?
I know this thread is getting long but I'm not working today (hello influenza) and I love to talk about politics.
Yes, testing someone's DNA against their "official" will is against the law. But what happens when you're in an inferior position and unable to negociate? Imagine someone unemployed who is about to lose his house... Do you think he will refuse to sign a contract allowing his (possible) future boss to take a look at his DNA?
You may say that someone who seeks to be an employee lose his freedom and in a way I would agree. But the problem is that starting a company requires lots of money (BTW I'm my own boss) or you'll be crushed by your competitors as they'll be able to use their money to advertize more than you do, to temporally lower the price of their products below cost, to sue you for some stupid reasons and all this until you run out of money de declare bankruptcy (and since the difference between rich and poor people is getting bigger you can be sure that in 20 years from now starting a small business from nothing will be close to impossible).
So on one hand most people can't start a company because they don't have the money (and so are forced to be an employee), and on the other by being an employee you put yourself in a position of weakness where someone can legally use indirect violence ("accept my offer or you'll lose your house" is violence) to legally force you to agree to whatever he wishes.
I know what you meant and I know what anarcho-capitalism is. It's just that I think someone in power must not be allowed to use power from society to protect his own power.
As soon as there is a system to protect the people who are powerful enough to influence the system, you end up with a system where you can't change the people who are in power and where an ordinary citizen is either a slave who accept the rules of society (made by a few powerful people) or is a criminal.
Of course as soon as someone is powerful enough to influence the system you can be sure the first thing he'll do is bend the system to make sure society protects him and his power.
The only way we can prevent this kind of abuse is if a constitution specifically say that society will not intervene in any way in personnal conflicts (which means allowing violence).
I agree a law forbidding DNA testing will undoubtly become complex and generally unfair. I hate it but this will happen in any kind of society. Trying to bend the rules and giving favors to someone redeemable is human nature.
What I don't know is if you are against this kind of law because you think anyone who is in a position of strength should be allowed to DNA test anyone he wishes or simply because you think we should live in a system without law.
In every contract there are power-plays. This is what negotiation is all about. So do you mean every contract are invalid?
I'm an anarchist (sort of) and I'm all for contract. But to be fair either you forbid any kind of power-plays (meaning it's an independant third party - like a government - who decide the terms and condition of a contract) or you allow all form of power in a contract negotiation, and that include physical violence.
Do you find it fair that some people get good grades at school while others who work a lot harder fail? Do you think it's fair when a co-worker get a promotion while you don't simply because he makes less mistakes than you do? Do you think it's fair when a professional athlete makes more money only because he scores more points?
A genetic test is a tool the same way an IQ test is.
If you have no way of knowing if the other party has breached the contract then your contract is completely useless. Also, contracts as a basis for privacy may work between to parties of equal strength but as soon as one party has more power than the other you need a law to limit abuses. If you believe we should not limit strong people from using their power against weaker people in negociating a contract, you can be sure next time I'm searching for a job I will bring a gun with me and say to my future boss hire me or I'll shoot you.
Why are you picking on the muslims and not the jews?
Because I forgot about the fact that jews don't eat pork either. Because I know several muslims who don't eat pork and this cause problems when we order a pizza. Because I already had this kind of arguments with muslims before but never with a jew. Because I don't believe for one second that the reason the poster don't eat pork is only because he thinks pigs are intelligent. It's an excuse. (ok I agree it may be because he had a pet pig but the chances are slim)
What does this suggest about my own perceptions? Well I guess it suggest I think about people I know and who are close to me first. Sorry next time I'll try to be fair and pick on everybody;-)
I live in Quebec (Canada). I watch on TV my local news, CNN and news from France (and sometimes news from Belgium and Switzerland too). I also read Le Monde, Aljazeera and The Pravda websites (and when there is important news also ABC news and the BBC).
I agree there's a lot of different publications in the US but no one read them. What is important is mainstream media. And I'm sorry to say this but US mainstream media suck big time. As they don't want to upset their viewer/reader they clearly hide and manipulate informations.
During the war in Irak I read a lot of news from a lot of sources and the poor quality of US news was appalling. Censorship and manipulation was so obvious it was laughable. It was about the same level as The Pravda. Now I watch US news not because I want to be informed about what is really happening but because I want to know what the average American hear.
You say there are more opinions in the US than anywhere in the world... that's so much bullshit. Look for example at France's last election. The range of political opinions was from communism (about 10%) to fascism (about 20%). You will never see so much diversity in the US.
American culture is not about diversity and freedom of thought. It's about thinking the right way or being un-american. That's the strenght of America.
Last winter (I live in Canada), I found a sick pigeon in my backyard. It was unable to fly so I decided to put it in a box in my home. I was thinking it will probably die in a few hours so why not let it die peacefully in a warm environment.
The pigeon didn't die and I kept it for about three months (until it was strong enough to fly). During these three months I "studied" it and I realized it was far more intelligent than I ever thought. After I released it, I continued to put some food in my backyard and pay more attention to these birds. I now know these birds are really intelligent and each one has it's own "personality".
I don't know about cows, buffalo or other animals as I never studied them but I guess you don't have any clue either. In fact by your comments about pigs I guess you're a muslim trying hard to justify the rules imposed by your culture and your religion. I'm sorry but if you believe something simply because everyone else around you does, then you are stupid.
Mandrake linux 9.2 is a distribution made for people who as to obtain toward the high of buttocks of strange losers. It takes 20 minutes for that to copy a 17 MB folder. Almost as bad as the OS of the raincoat (1). If the "youre" (2) searching a decent distro, please try (3) the red edition of the hat's "moron" (4).
(1) "imper" is a colloquial abbreviation for "impermeable" which means raincoat.
(2) the translation program wasn't able to translate this typo (youre instead of you're)
(3) There was a mistake here that cannot be translated in english. "Essayent" means try as in "they try". If the meaning is "you try" then the word should be "essayez".
(4) in french the word moron doesn't exist and should have been translated with "cretin".
Sorry but you are the freakin zealot. My productivity has nothing to do with the OS running on my computer. I don't use an OS, I use applications. As long as the computer/OS works, the only thing which matters to me is the cost.
Personally using MS Office over OpenOffice won't improve my productivity one bit. IE won't make my google search faster and I have been burnt by Outlook so don't talk to me about it. The only problems I have is with some specialized windows only softwares because my clients are small business and they don't have enough purchase power to ask for a linux version... but for a government (who buy softwares with MY money) linux is perfect!
If you knew that your boss could look at all transactions made with your credit card would you use it? I guess not and that's why transactions with credit card are still private. As long as you have a choice there won't be too much abuse. That's why a system with two dictators (i.e. a democracy) is so much better than a system with only one. That's why paper money must not disappear.
Unfortunately governments want paper money to disappear as it would mean a lot less criminal activities (the underground economy will become unsignificant, prostitution nearly impossible...). So when electronic transactions become the norm, having paper money will make you look suspicious. When electronic transactions become the norm, you can be sure the government will do everything he can to kill paper money.
The question is : once all transactions are recorded, what's the next step? I never saw a governement who didn't want more knowledge or more control... At first the governement may only require you to indicate what kind of the transaction it is (personnal, commercial, salary...). But after that, what's the next step? You may think I'm pessimistic but I believe the total information awareness project will, sooner or later, become a reality. It's just a question of getting used to the idea. There's a few people who will feel they are only slaves but the majority will only feel safer.
And once the government has the information, there's a lot of people who will want to have access to it. Of course your privacy will be protected by law so your future boss won't be able to look at your "debit record" without your authorization... but do you want the job? And if you're a good person what do you have to hide? The future is probably a brave new world.
BTW, I never saw anyone who can swip, PIN and have payment authorized in about 5 seconds. I would say people using a debit card take about the same amount of time as people reaching for change in their purse or their pocket to give the exact amount. It's true some people are fast but this is not the majority. Last saturday, a guy in front of me had to enter his PIN three times before having it right and each time he looks like facing a logic problem only a genius could solve. And yes, it really happened.
Electronic money is simply the end of privacy and a big chunk of the little freedom we have will be gone.
Right now a lot of people can look into your credit record... and you can be sure that in the future a lot of people will be able to look into your debit record. Your boss will be able to know how and when you spend your money (so forget about the idea of buying some porn or you may look bad and you won't have your promotion). You buy a lot of beer? Then your car insurance will be higher. Your a teenager? Well life will be hell because your over protecting mother will know everything about what you do (why did you buy condom?).
I didn't know Tim Hortons refuses debit card but they are certainly right. I hate selfish people who think it's ok to make 10 person wait longer in line because they don't want to take 2 minutes to go to the ATM.
And why should we punish those who commited a crime? What is the goal of punishment? If someone burn down my house, putting the guy in jail won't give me a new house... so what's the point? To satisfy my stupid desire for revenge? Unfortunately I know that's an illusion, I know my desire for revenge will never be satisfied. So what's the point of punishment?
Look at it this way : if there was no punishment, there would be a lot mor crimes. So punishment is a deterant and that's why we punish criminal (at least that's what most people believe).
(Ok having said that I must admit I also believe the main reason for punishment is not to discourage criminal... punishment is about control and power, it's about instinctive social hierarchy.)
English is not my native language. Sorry and thanks for showing me this mistake.
Their only responsibility is to their publisher & stockholders.
This is true for the people in charge of a newspaper or a TV channel but most journalists don't care about stockholders. Most "true" journalists care only about their own work and if a newspaper won't publish their paper, another one will. I remember when NBC fired one of their top journalist because of what he said during the war... two days later he found another job.
The fantasy that journalists are objective should have been dismissed by The New Yor Times & Fox News by now.
And CNN, and The Washington Post, and... about every news service on earth! I regularly read the headlines from CNN, Le Monde, Aljazeera and, when there's an important story, the Pravda and BBC News... and the differences between all these sources are impressive.
I agree that no journalists are truly objective... But for each one who has a bias toward A there will be another one with a bias towerd B. So as long as each side has its newspaper / TV / Web site you can always find the truth somewhere if you search long enough. If there's a problem it's not biased journalists it's media concentration and government control.
To get back to the original point, personally I'd rather live in a world where a criminal can sometimes get away his crime than a world where journalists (whatever their bias) can't do their work correctly because they're forced to give away their sources to the police.
Even in the worse dictatorship you are always free to say whatever you want as long as there is no one to listen to you.
You may think I'm cynical but I believe the US can have freedom of speech simply because no one cares about what other people say or think; because most Americans are so sure they live in the best country in the world that they refuse to reconsider any US institution or moral value (even when they must rely on food stamps).
Slashdot Mirror
While they might be able to compute all the possible moves, computers don't "play" chess.
And what make you think that a human "play" chess? (Of course I don't know what I'm talking about since you didn't defined what "play" means)
What you obviously don't understand is that our consciousness is not the same thing as our thought process. Our consciousness is only a 2nd level thought process, a kind of by-product of our thought process. When someone play chess he is not conscious of how and why he concentrate his "conscious thought" on a particular move. When I'm writing this post I don't know how and why I think of the word I'm writing.
Computers do not have intuition. They cannot form an hypothesis. They have no imagination. They cannot do research or construct an argument.
It's easy to program a computer to form an hypothesis, to do research and to construct an argument (in fact the program I used in my philo 101 class was a lot faster than me to construct a logical proof). Imagination is also very easy to program. As for intuition, it's simply "unaware" thinking mostly based on memory.
The problem we have is that right now those easy to implement abilities are useless because there are no concept to manipulate. If you can give me a list of all concepts and all their relations between each other (good luck) I think I'll be able to create something interesting.
i personally don't think AI will ever be more intelligent than humans. there's a limiting factor in building AI and that's the human brain
It's true we could never teach an AI something we don't understand but AI is not only about retrieving informations stored by a programmer. An AI would be able to learn, understand and create new ideas all by itself.
The only thing we need to create is a mechanism able to "understand" simple things. The only thing we need to create is a machine with the ability of a new born baby. After that it will learn by itself and the human brain won't be a factor at all.
the courts will never protect AI under the law and give them the rights of humans since they are not human
And who would thought that one day laws would make no distinction between a black man and a white men. Laws are not something absolute. They are made and changed by people like me. And the fact is I would certainly grant an AI the same rights as a human.
there is usually someplace that is an incremental improvement
Obviously, you believe the world is your oyster. When I was 20, I would have agreed with you but not anymore. You may say I'm pessimistic and cynical but I believe the pearl was taken a long time ago. I believe proponents of this oyster thing are either people who need a excuse for their dream or people who have a part of the pearl and who are trying to protect it by making you search elsewhere (even if they perfectly know you won't find anything).
Of course I don't mean you can't do anything to improve your life. You can always take the oyster's shell and give it to your hen so it produce better eggs. In other words, you can still have a "good" life if you work hard. But no matter how "good" your life is, you'll still be powerless in society, you'll still be only a slave and it will still be an empty life.
I think what many people are fearing is a global centralized government
What people fear is not having power. In a "democracy", government is far from being the only enemy.
If all these markets eventually merged and controlled prices across the board then people would be forced to resort to their own resources
Yeah, that's why everybody is buying electric cars. That's why people still buy a $500 software instead of a almost free one.
it forces people who want to run a small store to seek out new markets.
What new markets? Markets are not some magical infinite resources. Tell me, If YOU wanted to run a small store what would be your magical market? As soon as a market is profitable, you can be sure a big player will come and force you to close your store.
we are already overtaxed via the IRS and it's not suprising why it's hard to start a business.
If you think taxes make it hard to start a business then it's because you don't know how to run a business in the first place. If tomorrow the government decided to double the tax rate it wouldn't affect my business one bit : I'll simply sell my services at a higher price.
You may say that higher prices means consummers have less purchasing power and so will buy less... but you have to realize that money taken from taxes does not disappear into thin air. It's just given to somebody else who now has more purchasing power and so will buy more. In the end the total purchasing power is not affected by taxes and my sales will stay the same whatever the tax rate is.
If it was a trademark, and the cows were similar enough, then perhaps Parmalat had a real case.
No, they didn't. Parmalat and Agrinove went to arbitration. I don't know what was exactly the result of this (guess there was a NDA somewhere) but since Agrinove's packaging didn't change a bit I guess Parmalat lost their claim. But of course, because of those six months when Agrinove had to withdraw its products, my local food store has now replaced Agrinove's product with the one from Parmalat. You don't have to have a better product to win a market if you can simply use your money to control it (and so make even more money).
The corruption you probably saw was with respect to contractors. Who can blame them, when they've got Congress as their golden goose?
What do you think of a purchaser who secretly receives gifts? What do you think of a union leader who accept to close his eyes in exchange for a better position? What do you think of an accountant who sells the financial result of a company to someone else? (actually it's true I have no proof of the last one but when someone secretly print a lot documents when no one is around and then, a few days later, say she didn't print anything is at least... strange).
People lie, cheat, corrupt... The idea of governemnts has nothing to do with this and I believe a free for all market would be the most corrupt system you could ever think of.
I'm really tired of those "weapons of mass destruction".
Chemicals are not weapons of mass destruction. Remember the tokyo metro? Remember those anthrax letters? In both case a regular bomb would have been far more effective.
What about biological then? Well, mother nature is far more effective for this than any terrorist could ever be.
Ok this leave us with nuclear weapons... but the fact is right now only a few coutries are able to make those and a guy in a cave is in no position to build a nuclear weapon. The best they can do is put some radioactive materiel in a regular bomb which will force decontamination but won't kill more people than a regular bomb.
I'm beginning to think that weapons of mass destruction is a tool used by governments to frighten people so they don't question their politics.
Sometimes giving up on a city and going elsewhere for the sake of moving on with one's life is necessary
And where is the el dorado? If you live in a small town, going to a big city may change something... But if you already live in Los Angeles do you really think going to New York will change anything? Do you think companies in NY won't ask for your DNA? We're slowly going to a system with only one global economy. I agree we're not there yet (thankfully) but for how long?
[about unfair competition when starting a business] If there is a monopoly on steel, sell wood
And what do you do if there is a monopoly on steel AND wood? There are mergers everywhere. Corporations are getting bigger while small mom and pop business are slowly disappearing. Yes you can always find a niche market if you're really good but an ordinary not-a-genius-but-still-intelligent citizen can't. Because big corporations can control some large part of the market it's obvious we don't live in a free market anymore.
I cannot think of a product that people cannot live without or where there is no alternative possible.
And why would people want to buy a product from a small business they never heard of before instead of a big corporation buying ads everywhere? The problem is not consumers but unfair competition because your competitor has more money than you do. The problem is that with enough money you can kill a free market.
OpenOffice.org, for example, really will make MS Office obselete
Hard to say. I hope so but up to now only one of my client decided to make the switch (the amusing part is it's a semi-government office - so much for the mythical private sector efficiency).
[about not being able to start a company in 20 years from now] Only if corruption in the government is left to run out of control
I'm not following you on this one. Are you saying Walmart exists because of corruption in governments?
A person who wants to earn money towards starting a business...
must first have a job! We're back to square one : he won't have a choice but to accept the DNA test.
yet goes around and ends up with three children from various women
I'm not talking about the moron who's too stupid to think ahead. I believe in justice but not in "equality".
A free market rewards responsibility, forward thinking, and knowing when to seek stability.
Unfortunately a free market rewards power first. Responsability, forward thinking and knowing when to seek stability can give you some power but nothing compares to money. As I said being able to advertize more, sell below cost, sue or hire 35 engineers to copy a new product from an innovating small business in a few months is better than any forward thinking. A free market is a place where a rich multinational company (Parmalat) can sue a small local company (Agrinove) because their package had a drawing of a cow on it (Parmalat also has a drawing of a cow on their product... btw the product is milk) with the result of forcing the small company to destroy their stock, wait for about 6 months before being able to market their product and spend a quarter million dollars in legal fees. They survived but most normal small companies would simply die because of an action like this. This is what free market is all about.
Making corruption illegal in the private sector is much easier
I did two years of military service and I can assure you there's a lot more corruption in the private sector then in a big we-answer-to-no-one government organization. And although I know you won't believe me, I can also assure you the army is the most efficient organization I ever saw.
Free market is great when there is competition and, most importantly, no "superpower". Unfortunately the goal of every business is to become a superpower. This is why the US is slowly becoming a corporate republic and will finally become a communist country (as in USSR communism, not real communism) unless something is done to stop big corporation from becoming too powerful. So how do we make sure our future is not controlled by a few extremely powerful super-corporations?
I know this thread is getting long but I'm not working today (hello influenza) and I love to talk about politics.
Yes, testing someone's DNA against their "official" will is against the law. But what happens when you're in an inferior position and unable to negociate? Imagine someone unemployed who is about to lose his house... Do you think he will refuse to sign a contract allowing his (possible) future boss to take a look at his DNA?
You may say that someone who seeks to be an employee lose his freedom and in a way I would agree. But the problem is that starting a company requires lots of money (BTW I'm my own boss) or you'll be crushed by your competitors as they'll be able to use their money to advertize more than you do, to temporally lower the price of their products below cost, to sue you for some stupid reasons and all this until you run out of money de declare bankruptcy (and since the difference between rich and poor people is getting bigger you can be sure that in 20 years from now starting a small business from nothing will be close to impossible).
So on one hand most people can't start a company because they don't have the money (and so are forced to be an employee), and on the other by being an employee you put yourself in a position of weakness where someone can legally use indirect violence ("accept my offer or you'll lose your house" is violence) to legally force you to agree to whatever he wishes.
Is there a law to adequately deal with this?
I know what you meant and I know what anarcho-capitalism is. It's just that I think someone in power must not be allowed to use power from society to protect his own power.
As soon as there is a system to protect the people who are powerful enough to influence the system, you end up with a system where you can't change the people who are in power and where an ordinary citizen is either a slave who accept the rules of society (made by a few powerful people) or is a criminal.
Of course as soon as someone is powerful enough to influence the system you can be sure the first thing he'll do is bend the system to make sure society protects him and his power.
The only way we can prevent this kind of abuse is if a constitution specifically say that society will not intervene in any way in personnal conflicts (which means allowing violence).
I'm not sure I understand your point of view.
I agree a law forbidding DNA testing will undoubtly become complex and generally unfair. I hate it but this will happen in any kind of society. Trying to bend the rules and giving favors to someone redeemable is human nature.
What I don't know is if you are against this kind of law because you think anyone who is in a position of strength should be allowed to DNA test anyone he wishes or simply because you think we should live in a system without law.
Creating a law for every abuse would create an absurd cobweb of legislation
Can I remind you the subject was about DNA testing and privacy? Forbidding DNA testing is not "an absurd cobweb of legislation"!
In every contract there are power-plays. This is what negotiation is all about. So do you mean every contract are invalid?
I'm an anarchist (sort of) and I'm all for contract. But to be fair either you forbid any kind of power-plays (meaning it's an independant third party - like a government - who decide the terms and condition of a contract) or you allow all form of power in a contract negotiation, and that include physical violence.
Do you find it fair that some people get good grades at school while others who work a lot harder fail? Do you think it's fair when a co-worker get a promotion while you don't simply because he makes less mistakes than you do? Do you think it's fair when a professional athlete makes more money only because he scores more points?
A genetic test is a tool the same way an IQ test is.
Genes are not unfair, life is. Get over it.
If you have no way of knowing if the other party has breached the contract then your contract is completely useless. Also, contracts as a basis for privacy may work between to parties of equal strength but as soon as one party has more power than the other you need a law to limit abuses. If you believe we should not limit strong people from using their power against weaker people in negociating a contract, you can be sure next time I'm searching for a job I will bring a gun with me and say to my future boss hire me or I'll shoot you.
Yeah, christian are hypocritical... that's why every muslims I know drink alcohol! (sorry, but you asked for it)
:-)
BTW before this turn to a religious crusade, I'm an atheist who never drink alcohol
Why are you picking on the muslims and not the jews?
;-)
Because I forgot about the fact that jews don't eat pork either. Because I know several muslims who don't eat pork and this cause problems when we order a pizza. Because I already had this kind of arguments with muslims before but never with a jew. Because I don't believe for one second that the reason the poster don't eat pork is only because he thinks pigs are intelligent. It's an excuse. (ok I agree it may be because he had a pet pig but the chances are slim)
What does this suggest about my own perceptions? Well I guess it suggest I think about people I know and who are close to me first. Sorry next time I'll try to be fair and pick on everybody
I live in Quebec (Canada). I watch on TV my local news, CNN and news from France (and sometimes news from Belgium and Switzerland too). I also read Le Monde, Aljazeera and The Pravda websites (and when there is important news also ABC news and the BBC).
I agree there's a lot of different publications in the US but no one read them. What is important is mainstream media. And I'm sorry to say this but US mainstream media suck big time. As they don't want to upset their viewer/reader they clearly hide and manipulate informations.
During the war in Irak I read a lot of news from a lot of sources and the poor quality of US news was appalling. Censorship and manipulation was so obvious it was laughable. It was about the same level as The Pravda. Now I watch US news not because I want to be informed about what is really happening but because I want to know what the average American hear.
You say there are more opinions in the US than anywhere in the world... that's so much bullshit. Look for example at France's last election. The range of political opinions was from communism (about 10%) to fascism (about 20%). You will never see so much diversity in the US.
American culture is not about diversity and freedom of thought. It's about thinking the right way or being un-american. That's the strenght of America.
Last winter (I live in Canada), I found a sick pigeon in my backyard. It was unable to fly so I decided to put it in a box in my home. I was thinking it will probably die in a few hours so why not let it die peacefully in a warm environment.
The pigeon didn't die and I kept it for about three months (until it was strong enough to fly). During these three months I "studied" it and I realized it was far more intelligent than I ever thought. After I released it, I continued to put some food in my backyard and pay more attention to these birds. I now know these birds are really intelligent and each one has it's own "personality".
I don't know about cows, buffalo or other animals as I never studied them but I guess you don't have any clue either. In fact by your comments about pigs I guess you're a muslim trying hard to justify the rules imposed by your culture and your religion. I'm sorry but if you believe something simply because everyone else around you does, then you are stupid.
No it means :
Mandrake linux 9.2 is a distribution made for people who as to obtain toward the high of buttocks of strange losers. It takes 20 minutes for that to copy a 17 MB folder. Almost as bad as the OS of the raincoat (1). If the "youre" (2) searching a decent distro, please try (3) the red edition of the hat's "moron" (4).
(1) "imper" is a colloquial abbreviation for "impermeable" which means raincoat.
(2) the translation program wasn't able to translate this typo (youre instead of you're)
(3) There was a mistake here that cannot be translated in english. "Essayent" means try as in "they try". If the meaning is "you try" then the word should be "essayez".
(4) in french the word moron doesn't exist and should have been translated with "cretin".
You may think you're cool for posting in french but what you wrote don't make much sense. The translation program you used is really fucked up.
Sorry but you are the freakin zealot. My productivity has nothing to do with the OS running on my computer. I don't use an OS, I use applications. As long as the computer/OS works, the only thing which matters to me is the cost.
Personally using MS Office over OpenOffice won't improve my productivity one bit. IE won't make my google search faster and I have been burnt by Outlook so don't talk to me about it. The only problems I have is with some specialized windows only softwares because my clients are small business and they don't have enough purchase power to ask for a linux version... but for a government (who buy softwares with MY money) linux is perfect!
If you knew that your boss could look at all transactions made with your credit card would you use it? I guess not and that's why transactions with credit card are still private. As long as you have a choice there won't be too much abuse. That's why a system with two dictators (i.e. a democracy) is so much better than a system with only one. That's why paper money must not disappear.
Unfortunately governments want paper money to disappear as it would mean a lot less criminal activities (the underground economy will become unsignificant, prostitution nearly impossible...). So when electronic transactions become the norm, having paper money will make you look suspicious. When electronic transactions become the norm, you can be sure the government will do everything he can to kill paper money.
The question is : once all transactions are recorded, what's the next step? I never saw a governement who didn't want more knowledge or more control... At first the governement may only require you to indicate what kind of the transaction it is (personnal, commercial, salary...). But after that, what's the next step? You may think I'm pessimistic but I believe the total information awareness project will, sooner or later, become a reality. It's just a question of getting used to the idea. There's a few people who will feel they are only slaves but the majority will only feel safer.
And once the government has the information, there's a lot of people who will want to have access to it. Of course your privacy will be protected by law so your future boss won't be able to look at your "debit record" without your authorization... but do you want the job? And if you're a good person what do you have to hide? The future is probably a brave new world.
BTW, I never saw anyone who can swip, PIN and have payment authorized in about 5 seconds. I would say people using a debit card take about the same amount of time as people reaching for change in their purse or their pocket to give the exact amount. It's true some people are fast but this is not the majority. Last saturday, a guy in front of me had to enter his PIN three times before having it right and each time he looks like facing a logic problem only a genius could solve. And yes, it really happened.
At least color syntaxing for money!
Electronic money is simply the end of privacy and a big chunk of the little freedom we have will be gone.
Right now a lot of people can look into your credit record... and you can be sure that in the future a lot of people will be able to look into your debit record. Your boss will be able to know how and when you spend your money (so forget about the idea of buying some porn or you may look bad and you won't have your promotion). You buy a lot of beer? Then your car insurance will be higher. Your a teenager? Well life will be hell because your over protecting mother will know everything about what you do (why did you buy condom?).
I didn't know Tim Hortons refuses debit card but they are certainly right. I hate selfish people who think it's ok to make 10 person wait longer in line because they don't want to take 2 minutes to go to the ATM.
No, its to punish those that commited a crime
And why should we punish those who commited a crime? What is the goal of punishment? If someone burn down my house, putting the guy in jail won't give me a new house... so what's the point? To satisfy my stupid desire for revenge? Unfortunately I know that's an illusion, I know my desire for revenge will never be satisfied. So what's the point of punishment?
Look at it this way : if there was no punishment, there would be a lot mor crimes. So punishment is a deterant and that's why we punish criminal (at least that's what most people believe).
(Ok having said that I must admit I also believe the main reason for punishment is not to discourage criminal... punishment is about control and power, it's about instinctive social hierarchy.)
...their responsability [sic] is
English is not my native language. Sorry and thanks for showing me this mistake.
Their only responsibility is to their publisher & stockholders.
This is true for the people in charge of a newspaper or a TV channel but most journalists don't care about stockholders. Most "true" journalists care only about their own work and if a newspaper won't publish their paper, another one will. I remember when NBC fired one of their top journalist because of what he said during the war... two days later he found another job.
The fantasy that journalists are objective should have been dismissed by The New Yor Times & Fox News by now.
And CNN, and The Washington Post, and... about every news service on earth! I regularly read the headlines from CNN, Le Monde, Aljazeera and, when there's an important story, the Pravda and BBC News... and the differences between all these sources are impressive.
I agree that no journalists are truly objective... But for each one who has a bias toward A there will be another one with a bias towerd B. So as long as each side has its newspaper / TV / Web site you can always find the truth somewhere if you search long enough. If there's a problem it's not biased journalists it's media concentration and government control.
To get back to the original point, personally I'd rather live in a world where a criminal can sometimes get away his crime than a world where journalists (whatever their bias) can't do their work correctly because they're forced to give away their sources to the police.
Even in the worse dictatorship you are always free to say whatever you want as long as there is no one to listen to you.
You may think I'm cynical but I believe the US can have freedom of speech simply because no one cares about what other people say or think; because most Americans are so sure they live in the best country in the world that they refuse to reconsider any US institution or moral value (even when they must rely on food stamps).