...to me it all translates into:
Atoms in living cells are magic: there is no arrangement of atoms not in living cells can duplicate some things they can do.
Intellectual 'property', like almost all property, can be a very useful and beneficial technology---but it is a technology, human-created, and like all technologies can have down-side and will have a limited domain of beneficial usefulness---for most purposes, a laser pointer that can burn a hole in a wall is a bad idea, and twenty aspirin* are not ten times as useful as two.
.
.
*a.k.a. 'A.S.A.' some places, due to intellectual property rules.
I don't follow: why does living off a Universal Luxurious Income (my preference to U.B.I.) funded by machine labour not allow for self-respect?---that would be true only if 'having a job' were the only possible source of self-respect. Being a good dancer, a sincere and hard-working follower of a martial art, a student of the Talmud or the Confucian Analects or the Eddas or mathematics, someone who grows great pot or knows the finicky way you have to prepare opium for smoking--- I have great respect for all of these, and respect myself for the extent I've done any of these (even as I admit to not having done all of them).
.
To use language that might draw the ire of some but which I think accurate, it is mostly the 19th-21st Century construction of masculinity in some places that equated earning your own living with self-respect---before that, what most people admired were aristos or gentlemen who by definition didn't. I mean, being self-supporting was considered desirable and worthy of respect, but it wasn't the sine qua non for self-respect. Making self-respect dependent on a job was in some way an opiate for the men who had to do them to live, and though I think opiates can be fun when not necessary, they should be treated with care.
.
The only shame I can see in being supported is in the pain of those doing the supporting....
I've done that work, and didn't like that one bit, and so since I don't think I'm fundamentally better than anyone else (note: this is different to being better at some things, at least at some times) I don't want anyone else to be forced by fear of hunger and exposure to do them when an alternative exists.
Some ancient philosophers argued that slavery were necessary in order for others to have the leisure and energy to be, among other things, philosophers. They had something of a point, although full-on chattel slavery seems a bit much. Similar arguments used to be made for serfdom---how could enough food be grown without people figuratively chained to the land and their boring-awful farming jobs?
I'd suggest that at least at the start, nations or large co-operatives own the machines that do the work and that make the machines to do the work; eventually when labour becomes too cheap to meter.... Of course, that would reduce the level of hierarchy in society, and some people seem to love that, and not just the ones at the top; it could eliminate poverty, and some people love having someone below them, especially if such 'deserve' it....
Plan 9 was approved by our Great Ruler! Sure, resurrection of the recently dead Earthlings didn't seem to pan-out well, but that was due to their stupid,stupid, minds.
...a crime lasting less than one second---it legally won't exist.
(Note: this is not at all true.)
(It's based on a short New Zealand film I saw decades back in which a man is released because it turned out that when a relevant law were changed there were a gap between the new and old laws' domains, and his offence was in the gap. He and a mate went on to hijack a bus and charge people extra to take them exactly where they went, which proceeds they wanted to use to start a mushroom farm.)
...given the long history (centuries' worth) of bad science done in the service of confirming racialist biases, that 'race' seems to be defined so variably (an "Encyclopædia Britannica" c.1914 in my student house's library defined, I believe twenty of them), and given that wherever humans go we are our own worst Malthusian enemies (so there is no paradaisical grove where Eloi could devolve in comfort), I think rough equality were the best initial assumption, and that variations from this, apart from small, isolated, subgroups, merit scepticism as extraordinary claims. And it is exactly the right sort of élitism to say that I trust a bunch of population geneticists more than a science writer.
Of course there have been and will be attacks on this book done out of sheer 'political correctness' by those whose prejudices it rankles---but there have been similarly headless defences of it by those whose biases it pleasantly tickles. Some of these population geneticists might some be writing in fear of having their funding cut, but the better-known and -trusted the scientist, the lower the chance of it. some of them might in fact be depending on biassed [sic] summaries of the book, as Wade claims, but he uses this and the charge of political motivation as a way of dodging the actual issues raised. (In addition, a researcher might only read the sections of the book in which their [sic] work were cited and then weigh in fairly on the particular issues so involved.)
Very insightful, using that term in the usual sense of 'I was going to say that, damn your eyes.'
I would point out as well that regardless of how good home printers get, commercial centres such as supermarkets will always be able to afford better, or at least more full-featured, ones---it's quite possible that few households will need the ability to print high-quality aluminium things (e.g., jaw-bones or derailleurs) on a regular basis.
My local photo shop still does better than any colour printer we could well afford can do. (It looks like a photo shop---I can tell by some of the sales-people and customers, and having see quite a few shops in my time.)
No, I'm pretty sure that food has been printed---maybe not that interesting in texture, yet, but (by an amazing coincidence) anything capable of printing replacements for living tissue should be capable of printing food.
I think the point was not that it should actually run at those speeds, but rather that of bloat avoidance, that it should be well- (and sparely-) enough coded that it could do so, and so run superbly well with more modern data rates.
Since topology and differential geometry work entirely well within an N-D 'surface' without recourse to embedding in and {N+1}-D space, I don't see why we have to believe in a notional 4-D space in which the 3-D spatial universe were embedded, and it multiplies actors....
Yes, roughly one-half the population will make worse-than-average decisions...more, I think, because I think the distribution is skewed toward worse, markets being smarter than people.
> If it really bothers you that much to pay that small social security amount each
> month, then stop whining and get a raise. That's the entrepreneurial spirit, or whatever.
Brilliant...except that you forget that the sort of man who tells the poor to have more entrepreneurial spirit is a member of the Elect, and as such must already have it in spades---if he's not wealthy already, it's because the communists above him at work and in the Evil Gummint have it in for decent people like him. (Decent people, not like the folks to whom he gives advice.)
(Masculine pronouns used above because 0.) I like women a lot, generally, and 1.) it usually [though not always] is a man bloviating so [a reason to like women a lot].)
No, they were too weak to form gangs...but my mother knew in her neighbourhood there were a lot of old women in attic apartments with barely enough food to get by, and sometimes not quite enough. There was enormous suffering, it was only when middle-class people also started to fear winding up the same way and had the political power to make their opinions matter that things changed---they changed because the system weren't working and people wanted Social Security or something like it---F.D.R.'s proposals were actually much less radical than some others gaining currency at the time.
The welfare state was not dropped on us by hook-nosed Space Masons.
Taxation is not theft, in exactly the same way that arrest is not kidnapping, and government's not letting you use violence (your own or the State's) to seize the private assets of the people actually running the corporation in which you invested once it fails is not theft, either.
Look at which nations do better than we academically, and tell me whether their educational system were more centralised and universal than ours, or less so.
Uhhh...no. The D. of E. does very little---as opposed to the equivalents in countries that regularly kick our figurative academic arse. (E.g.: the same lesson is taught on the same day in Martinique as in Paris, and you do not send your kid to private school---though, admittedly, there is jockeying-around for the best private schools.)
Slashdot Mirror
Did the second sentence make the difference? If so, that were inept on my part as I was trying for self-mockery.
...and you oughtn't be anywhere near the top. Just my absolutely accurate and precise opinion.
...to me it all translates into: Atoms in living cells are magic: there is no arrangement of atoms not in living cells can duplicate some things they can do.
Not O.P.ing in this thread, it seems, for one....
.
*a.k.a. 'A.S.A.' some places, due to intellectual property rules.
.
To use language that might draw the ire of some but which I think accurate, it is mostly the 19th-21st Century construction of masculinity in some places that equated earning your own living with self-respect---before that, what most people admired were aristos or gentlemen who by definition didn't. I mean, being self-supporting was considered desirable and worthy of respect, but it wasn't the sine qua non for self-respect. Making self-respect dependent on a job was in some way an opiate for the men who had to do them to live, and though I think opiates can be fun when not necessary, they should be treated with care.
.
The only shame I can see in being supported is in the pain of those doing the supporting....
s/do them/do those jobs/1
Some ancient philosophers argued that slavery were necessary in order for others to have the leisure and energy to be, among other things, philosophers. They had something of a point, although full-on chattel slavery seems a bit much. Similar arguments used to be made for serfdom---how could enough food be grown without people figuratively chained to the land and their boring-awful farming jobs?
I'd suggest that at least at the start, nations or large co-operatives own the machines that do the work and that make the machines to do the work; eventually when labour becomes too cheap to meter.... Of course, that would reduce the level of hierarchy in society, and some people seem to love that, and not just the ones at the top; it could eliminate poverty, and some people love having someone below them, especially if such 'deserve' it....
`That's my Retirement Grease!’
...to call us 'sheeple'.
Plan 9 was approved by our Great Ruler! Sure, resurrection of the recently dead Earthlings didn't seem to pan-out well, but that was due to their stupid,stupid, minds.
...a crime lasting less than one second---it legally won't exist. (Note: this is not at all true.) (It's based on a short New Zealand film I saw decades back in which a man is released because it turned out that when a relevant law were changed there were a gap between the new and old laws' domains, and his offence was in the gap. He and a mate went on to hijack a bus and charge people extra to take them exactly where they went, which proceeds they wanted to use to start a mushroom farm.)
Of course there have been and will be attacks on this book done out of sheer 'political correctness' by those whose prejudices it rankles---but there have been similarly headless defences of it by those whose biases it pleasantly tickles. Some of these population geneticists might some be writing in fear of having their funding cut, but the better-known and -trusted the scientist, the lower the chance of it. some of them might in fact be depending on biassed [sic] summaries of the book, as Wade claims, but he uses this and the charge of political motivation as a way of dodging the actual issues raised. (In addition, a researcher might only read the sections of the book in which their [sic] work were cited and then weigh in fairly on the particular issues so involved.)
It was participated-in solely by True Scotsmen, True Christians, and New Socialist Man.
Very insightful, using that term in the usual sense of 'I was going to say that, damn your eyes.'
I would point out as well that regardless of how good home printers get, commercial centres such as supermarkets will always be able to afford better, or at least more full-featured, ones---it's quite possible that few households will need the ability to print high-quality aluminium things (e.g., jaw-bones or derailleurs) on a regular basis.
My local photo shop still does better than any colour printer we could well afford can do. (It looks like a photo shop---I can tell by some of the sales-people and customers, and having see quite a few shops in my time.)
No, I'm pretty sure that food has been printed---maybe not that interesting in texture, yet, but (by an amazing coincidence) anything capable of printing replacements for living tissue should be capable of printing food.
I think the point was not that it should actually run at those speeds, but rather that of bloat avoidance, that it should be well- (and sparely-) enough coded that it could do so, and so run superbly well with more modern data rates.
Since topology and differential geometry work entirely well within an N-D 'surface' without recourse to embedding in and {N+1}-D space, I don't see why we have to believe in a notional 4-D space in which the 3-D spatial universe were embedded, and it multiplies actors....
Yes, roughly one-half the population will make worse-than-average decisions...more, I think, because I think the distribution is skewed toward worse, markets being smarter than people.
> If it really bothers you that much to pay that small social security amount each
> month, then stop whining and get a raise. That's the entrepreneurial spirit, or whatever.
Brilliant...except that you forget that the sort of man who tells the poor to have more entrepreneurial spirit is a member of the Elect, and as such must already have it in spades---if he's not wealthy already, it's because the communists above him at work and in the Evil Gummint have it in for decent people like him. (Decent people, not like the folks to whom he gives advice.)
(Masculine pronouns used above because 0.) I like women a lot, generally, and 1.) it usually [though not always] is a man bloviating so [a reason to like women a lot].)
No, they were too weak to form gangs...but my mother knew in her neighbourhood there were a lot of old women in attic apartments with barely enough food to get by, and sometimes not quite enough. There was enormous suffering, it was only when middle-class people also started to fear winding up the same way and had the political power to make their opinions matter that things changed---they changed because the system weren't working and people wanted Social Security or something like it---F.D.R.'s proposals were actually much less radical than some others gaining currency at the time. The welfare state was not dropped on us by hook-nosed Space Masons.
Taxation is not theft, in exactly the same way that arrest is not kidnapping, and government's not letting you use violence (your own or the State's) to seize the private assets of the people actually running the corporation in which you invested once it fails is not theft, either.
Someone once put it as: 'Programmes only for poor people end up themselves impoverished.'
Look at which nations do better than we academically, and tell me whether their educational system were more centralised and universal than ours, or less so.
Uhhh...no. The D. of E. does very little---as opposed to the equivalents in countries that regularly kick our figurative academic arse. (E.g.: the same lesson is taught on the same day in Martinique as in Paris, and you do not send your kid to private school---though, admittedly, there is jockeying-around for the best private schools.)