You are correct, organized religions and dogmatic though is a serious problem for the human race.
But, as much as I do not like saying this, it is more of a problem for the uneducated & poor, who are more easily duped into committing atrocities. It's not their fault, they just never had a proper education and given the required skills to be able to avoid extremism. It's also a lot easier to blow yourself up when you have 0 hope of ever earning a decent living and getting married (you would be shocked how important this factor is actually).
This is also the outcome of when you go in and destroy the legitimate governments of other countries and leave a power vacuum. Local warlords fight, and sometimes these fights spill over to other nations.
Saddam Hussein, for example, was no angel, not by ANY stretch of the imagination. However he had succeed in creating a relatively safe and peaceful state in the middle east, mostly secular (at least at the central government level) and women enjoying unusual amounts of freedom (compared to it's neighboring states). Is the world a better place, overall, now that the west violently removed him? I personally do not think so (although I am sure a lot of people who suffered at his hands might think so).
Same with what happened in Iran in the 1950's....And so on and so forth....
Umm...you realize that the Nazis where mostly Christians that tried to exterminate the Jews....Although it was never referred to as a jihad......And if you look in Africa I am pretty sure there are more recent atrocities committed by Christians towards others.
Also we should not forget the irrational hate & fear Christians have towards homosexuals (mostly in the US though)....
If I where in charge there, it's what I would have done. Ask every form of media in the nation (print, paper, radio, tv, etc) to show the MOST controversial cartoons Charlie Hebdo printed for a 24-hour period in honor of those that died.
Fuck this 1 min of silence bullshit.
Make it clear to all that VIOLENCE will NEVER WORK TO SILENCE PEOPLE USING FEAR.
....you do not want to print the pictures because you are afraid for your own life, those of your staff or relatives, well I am sorry to say that the extremists have WON.
No to mention if it gives the slightest hint that it worked, would invite others to act like that to silence further opposition with those with dissenting views.
...how big of an issue we will have.
There is an excellent video on youtube that explains the problem in greater detail, called Humans need not apply:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Take the time to watch it, it is very informative.
The gist of it is basically with automation and AI put together, we are basically building human machines. If you think your white collar job is safe and secure, think again. Will they replace 100% of all humans? No, and not because any one human has abilities/skills that are so special that they cannot be artificially recreated. Humans will be supervising (most likely be the owners of the business/capital). But you will definitely not need as many humans as we do now.
And those of you who think that creativity is beyond AI, think again. Right now there are computers composing music, making paintings, writing articles etc....And they will only get better/cheaper with time.
There will be a transitional period (we are likely in it right now) where there will be a surge of jobs to get the required infrastructure into place (like for example programmers to program AI that is capable of programming), but once we get the ball rolling there will be no stopping it.
IMHO, the long term solution is basically people need to give up their ability to reproduce. If we willing slow down the human population growth rate (and most first world countries have already achieved this, having negative growth before immigration is taken into account) each individuals situation vastly improves.
....terrorists?
Air.
Therefore we should ban air, and anybody caught breathing air will be jailed under suspicion of being a terrorist.
A study conducted from whatever think tank you like showed that all terrorists have this 1 common feature; they breathe air.
Intelligence agencies have suggested that by targeting air, we can help reduce the threat of terrorism and are calling for close cooperation with trees and plants to help weed out the problem.
I think that is people start realizing the dangers of closed-source software and no legislation to protect privacy, it is conceivable that Linux could, given the right circumstances, capture the home desktop market. However for that to happen it needs more ease of use...Yes I know they have many strides in the past decade but it is not quite there yet..... Revealing your source code is great but it's not enough (for now)
However, the corporate desktop market is quite simply a lost cause for the time being. As long as there are legacy apps that are used for business purposes that require Windows, it will not be going anywhere anytime soon. Apple can try all it wants but it has failed to penetrate in any significant way simply due to cost....When you have 30,000+ employees that Apple tax is quite prohibitive. Add to that you often times you still need to buy a Windows license to run in vmware or parallels to be able to do your work....
The day will come, where all applications (of significance) will adopt the Software as a Service model.....that is likely when we will finally be able to free ourselves from the stranglehold M$ has had on us for the past few decades...
I think what it will take for governments to take privacy seriously is for a bunch of political leaders all around the world to be brought down via hacking/spying/big brother and letting the public know about their skeletons.
But alas even that will not be sufficient IMHO, the genie has been let out of the bottle, there is no way to put it back. Privacy is dead, it has been since about the year 2000. Once the technology is invented, it is impossible to uninvent unfortunately.
Actual data would not fall under the definition of metadata. It would be actual data. And I believe at the moment, with the current hard drive storage tech available to enterprises and consumers, is impossible. For now.
Stuff like IP address, URLs visited, emails sent and received from (not the entire email, just who you messaged and who messaged you), location data etc. can certainly be stored. Most logs will be in text which is highly compressible (I know from my systems gigs and gigs of logs generated daily compresses often to less than 100MB).
Try to live without some sort of privacy...just try...
Want to changes jobs. for a better position, more money etc. Bam your boss instantly knows and fires your ass.
Thinking about starting up your own business? Say a franchise? Bam your neighbor who already has one outbids you on your location...
Have a kid with a chronic disease? All your potential bosses know this and refuse to hire you because they do not want to pay for your expensive medical insurance and missed work days.
Without privacy, it would be even harder for people to better their situation and elevate themselves from poverty than it already is.
And before you say the door swings both ways, remember those with $$$ can hire people to sift through the mountains of data to find relevant information, where as you will be too busy just meeting your basic needs.
Nobody is asking for a handout.....people just want to start at the same line in this rat race, and privacy is a big factor in this.
So why do we pay any more attention to the Pope than any other Bible thumper out there?
He is as you say, human. And as far as I know does not have a direct line of communication with God, so how is he any more special than anybody else on the planet? Because of divine intervention? Funny how God would intervene to make sure he gets his nonsensical book but won't intervene when the evil Popes where starting wars or murdering political opponents? Or at the very least clean up what he fucks up, as a human!
Again it makes no sense whatsoever.
That reasoning makes not sense, and again you are back to cherry picking the parts of the Bible you like and don't like (ex God is angry and kills people indiscriminately not liked thus ignored, God will send us a savior liked thus not ignored)
Besides the New Testament is also loaded with inconsistencies and erroneous scientific information.
http://infidels.org/library/mo...
Yes but he also makes the claim that he Bible is full of scientific knowledge and a good historical document therefore we should not be quick to dismiss it.
That is obviously and demonstrably false.
http://skepticsannotatedbible....
There is only 1 real use for the bible, unfortunately I think the paper would be a little rough on my skin.....
Even the majority of Earth is lethal to us. We can't live in oceans, can't live where it's too cold or to hot....Basically without technology we can pretty much only survive sub-Saharah Africa and other similar locations.
Also if you created the universe and want to fine tune it for life, why set the laws in such a way that you need to make a lot of void to allow for space travel.....in fact why not make it 1 gigantic garden of Eden that stretches for billions and billions of light years?
Are you trying to argue that my statement of the majority of the universe being lethal to life is not true?
Because I already conceded that the numbers I pulled out of my ass where just to drive the point home, not the actual real values.
Are you sure 4.6 billion ly? Or did you mean 46 billion ly? And as far as I can tell there does not see seem to be any consensus on it's size. or even shape (you assumed it being a sphere).
In any case my numbers where chosen for effect rather than their accuracy. The point is the vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of our universe is lethal to us, so this idea that it was fine tuned for us is illogical.
Being Catholic (or any religion) while making a discovery says nothing about the truth value of what the person making the discovery believes in.
Darwin was a christian. He is acknowledged as the first person to come up with the theory of evolution. Just because he did does not make his belief in christianity any more valid.
It is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.
10^82 is the upper limit estimate on the number of atoms in the observable universe.
Who knows what the real figure is for the entire universe.
Also I think you are thinking about it in terms of planets, asteroids, moons etc. which require atoms to exist....While I was talking about the volume of the universe as a whole, which includes spacetime, which is devoid of atoms.
Basically they are trying to diversify into everything in order to survive and (hopefully) increase their market cap.
For example WD is best known for their line of hard disks for consumers (not sure how much, if any, of the server market they have, don't recall seeing a wd logo in a looong time). Cloud storage risks to make the concept of a local hard disk obsolete almost overnight (Microsoft already announced unlimited storage with One drive).
Bla bla bla......the fine tuned hypothesis which has been disproved over and over and over.
He is basically saying that a creator is required because how else would you get the exact exact exact conditions required in the universe to support life.
Never mind that basically 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%+ (the actual number would consume all the storage available on the Earth to write down and then some) of the universe is INSTANTLY lethal to life as we know it. But it's sooo perfectly fine tune for life looool
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct, organized religions and dogmatic though is a serious problem for the human race.
But, as much as I do not like saying this, it is more of a problem for the uneducated & poor, who are more easily duped into committing atrocities. It's not their fault, they just never had a proper education and given the required skills to be able to avoid extremism. It's also a lot easier to blow yourself up when you have 0 hope of ever earning a decent living and getting married (you would be shocked how important this factor is actually).
This is also the outcome of when you go in and destroy the legitimate governments of other countries and leave a power vacuum. Local warlords fight, and sometimes these fights spill over to other nations.
Saddam Hussein, for example, was no angel, not by ANY stretch of the imagination. However he had succeed in creating a relatively safe and peaceful state in the middle east, mostly secular (at least at the central government level) and women enjoying unusual amounts of freedom (compared to it's neighboring states). Is the world a better place, overall, now that the west violently removed him? I personally do not think so (although I am sure a lot of people who suffered at his hands might think so).
Same with what happened in Iran in the 1950's....And so on and so forth....
Umm...you realize that the Nazis where mostly Christians that tried to exterminate the Jews....Although it was never referred to as a jihad......And if you look in Africa I am pretty sure there are more recent atrocities committed by Christians towards others.
Also we should not forget the irrational hate & fear Christians have towards homosexuals (mostly in the US though)....
Christianity is not that far ahead my friend.
If I where in charge there, it's what I would have done. Ask every form of media in the nation (print, paper, radio, tv, etc) to show the MOST controversial cartoons Charlie Hebdo printed for a 24-hour period in honor of those that died.
Fuck this 1 min of silence bullshit.
Make it clear to all that VIOLENCE will NEVER WORK TO SILENCE PEOPLE USING FEAR.
....you do not want to print the pictures because you are afraid for your own life, those of your staff or relatives, well I am sorry to say that the extremists have WON.
No to mention if it gives the slightest hint that it worked, would invite others to act like that to silence further opposition with those with dissenting views.
...how big of an issue we will have. There is an excellent video on youtube that explains the problem in greater detail, called Humans need not apply: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Take the time to watch it, it is very informative. The gist of it is basically with automation and AI put together, we are basically building human machines. If you think your white collar job is safe and secure, think again. Will they replace 100% of all humans? No, and not because any one human has abilities/skills that are so special that they cannot be artificially recreated. Humans will be supervising (most likely be the owners of the business/capital). But you will definitely not need as many humans as we do now. And those of you who think that creativity is beyond AI, think again. Right now there are computers composing music, making paintings, writing articles etc....And they will only get better/cheaper with time. There will be a transitional period (we are likely in it right now) where there will be a surge of jobs to get the required infrastructure into place (like for example programmers to program AI that is capable of programming), but once we get the ball rolling there will be no stopping it. IMHO, the long term solution is basically people need to give up their ability to reproduce. If we willing slow down the human population growth rate (and most first world countries have already achieved this, having negative growth before immigration is taken into account) each individuals situation vastly improves.
Ah crap realized that somebody posted the same thing earlier.
....terrorists? Air. Therefore we should ban air, and anybody caught breathing air will be jailed under suspicion of being a terrorist. A study conducted from whatever think tank you like showed that all terrorists have this 1 common feature; they breathe air. Intelligence agencies have suggested that by targeting air, we can help reduce the threat of terrorism and are calling for close cooperation with trees and plants to help weed out the problem.
I think that is people start realizing the dangers of closed-source software and no legislation to protect privacy, it is conceivable that Linux could, given the right circumstances, capture the home desktop market. However for that to happen it needs more ease of use...Yes I know they have many strides in the past decade but it is not quite there yet..... Revealing your source code is great but it's not enough (for now) However, the corporate desktop market is quite simply a lost cause for the time being. As long as there are legacy apps that are used for business purposes that require Windows, it will not be going anywhere anytime soon. Apple can try all it wants but it has failed to penetrate in any significant way simply due to cost....When you have 30,000+ employees that Apple tax is quite prohibitive. Add to that you often times you still need to buy a Windows license to run in vmware or parallels to be able to do your work.... The day will come, where all applications (of significance) will adopt the Software as a Service model.....that is likely when we will finally be able to free ourselves from the stranglehold M$ has had on us for the past few decades...
Good point.
Do none of the other smart watches require to be charged? How is this a problem restricted to Apple?
I think what it will take for governments to take privacy seriously is for a bunch of political leaders all around the world to be brought down via hacking/spying/big brother and letting the public know about their skeletons. But alas even that will not be sufficient IMHO, the genie has been let out of the bottle, there is no way to put it back. Privacy is dead, it has been since about the year 2000. Once the technology is invented, it is impossible to uninvent unfortunately.
No point in singling out Ausies, the majority if not all Western governments are logging this. Makes 1984 look like the bastion of the free world....
Actual data would not fall under the definition of metadata. It would be actual data. And I believe at the moment, with the current hard drive storage tech available to enterprises and consumers, is impossible. For now. Stuff like IP address, URLs visited, emails sent and received from (not the entire email, just who you messaged and who messaged you), location data etc. can certainly be stored. Most logs will be in text which is highly compressible (I know from my systems gigs and gigs of logs generated daily compresses often to less than 100MB).
Try to live without some sort of privacy...just try... Want to changes jobs. for a better position, more money etc. Bam your boss instantly knows and fires your ass. Thinking about starting up your own business? Say a franchise? Bam your neighbor who already has one outbids you on your location... Have a kid with a chronic disease? All your potential bosses know this and refuse to hire you because they do not want to pay for your expensive medical insurance and missed work days. Without privacy, it would be even harder for people to better their situation and elevate themselves from poverty than it already is. And before you say the door swings both ways, remember those with $$$ can hire people to sift through the mountains of data to find relevant information, where as you will be too busy just meeting your basic needs. Nobody is asking for a handout.....people just want to start at the same line in this rat race, and privacy is a big factor in this.
So why do we pay any more attention to the Pope than any other Bible thumper out there? He is as you say, human. And as far as I know does not have a direct line of communication with God, so how is he any more special than anybody else on the planet? Because of divine intervention? Funny how God would intervene to make sure he gets his nonsensical book but won't intervene when the evil Popes where starting wars or murdering political opponents? Or at the very least clean up what he fucks up, as a human! Again it makes no sense whatsoever.
That reasoning makes not sense, and again you are back to cherry picking the parts of the Bible you like and don't like (ex God is angry and kills people indiscriminately not liked thus ignored, God will send us a savior liked thus not ignored) Besides the New Testament is also loaded with inconsistencies and erroneous scientific information. http://infidels.org/library/mo...
Yes but he also makes the claim that he Bible is full of scientific knowledge and a good historical document therefore we should not be quick to dismiss it. That is obviously and demonstrably false. http://skepticsannotatedbible.... There is only 1 real use for the bible, unfortunately I think the paper would be a little rough on my skin.....
Well I do admit it was a little over the top lol
Even the majority of Earth is lethal to us. We can't live in oceans, can't live where it's too cold or to hot....Basically without technology we can pretty much only survive sub-Saharah Africa and other similar locations. Also if you created the universe and want to fine tune it for life, why set the laws in such a way that you need to make a lot of void to allow for space travel.....in fact why not make it 1 gigantic garden of Eden that stretches for billions and billions of light years?
Are you trying to argue that my statement of the majority of the universe being lethal to life is not true? Because I already conceded that the numbers I pulled out of my ass where just to drive the point home, not the actual real values.
Are you sure 4.6 billion ly? Or did you mean 46 billion ly? And as far as I can tell there does not see seem to be any consensus on it's size. or even shape (you assumed it being a sphere). In any case my numbers where chosen for effect rather than their accuracy. The point is the vast vast vast vast vast vast majority of our universe is lethal to us, so this idea that it was fine tuned for us is illogical.
Being Catholic (or any religion) while making a discovery says nothing about the truth value of what the person making the discovery believes in. Darwin was a christian. He is acknowledged as the first person to come up with the theory of evolution. Just because he did does not make his belief in christianity any more valid. It is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority.
10^82 is the upper limit estimate on the number of atoms in the observable universe. Who knows what the real figure is for the entire universe. Also I think you are thinking about it in terms of planets, asteroids, moons etc. which require atoms to exist....While I was talking about the volume of the universe as a whole, which includes spacetime, which is devoid of atoms.
Basically they are trying to diversify into everything in order to survive and (hopefully) increase their market cap. For example WD is best known for their line of hard disks for consumers (not sure how much, if any, of the server market they have, don't recall seeing a wd logo in a looong time). Cloud storage risks to make the concept of a local hard disk obsolete almost overnight (Microsoft already announced unlimited storage with One drive).
Bla bla bla......the fine tuned hypothesis which has been disproved over and over and over. He is basically saying that a creator is required because how else would you get the exact exact exact conditions required in the universe to support life. Never mind that basically 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%+ (the actual number would consume all the storage available on the Earth to write down and then some) of the universe is INSTANTLY lethal to life as we know it. But it's sooo perfectly fine tune for life looool