Hmm... perhaps a better way to say this is that I do not define myself as a bag of mostly water - I define myself by how and what I think. If a copy of me was made, I would still consider that to be "me," even if I was still alive. We would probably diverge, but I would still consider such a copy to be "almost me" in that case.
Do you really think that you are a being of flesh?
The funny thing is that the fact that he could make such an illogical and emotional decision proves that he WAS really just as human as ever!
Re:No such thing as "geostationary orbit over the
on
No Billboards in Space
·
· Score: 1
Well, I am making no assumptions on technology - but if you would like to see how that could be possible:
Using materials only launched from the Earth, build a very large parabolic mirror. At the focal point put a relatively normal heat engine (though lighter than normal).
100 GW Heat engine: 10,000 Tons - $20B maximum launch cost Very large mirror 100 km x 100 km (but only 1 micrometer thick): 30,000 Tons - $60B maximum launch cost $20B on R&D
This assumes a $10,000/lb launch cost (or approximately twice the current market rate).
Of course, if you use near Earth asteroids, or moon launch, etc, it is even cheaper. My numbers are realistic - but the project is currently too high risk. That risk is coming down, though!
Re:No such thing as "geostationary orbit over the
on
No Billboards in Space
·
· Score: 1
I think you do not understnad big business - for example, here is a simple business plan:
1. Build a 100GW solar power array ($100B) 2. Transmit power to Earth ($$profit$$) 3. Realize that for the cost of semi-transparent paint you can make an extra $100M per year. 4. More $$profit$$
It is better to have these limitations in place early, if we have them at all. I'm curious what the limits are, though. You can see current sattellites in orbit, and as they get bigger they will become more obvious.
Have we just limitted ourselves to staying here on Earth? (Remember, a US citizen is unlikely to live in space unless at least 1 million other US citizens are there - and that's if you consider yourself to be in the top 1% of the US! Can you imagine a home for 1 million people that you cannot see from Earth?)
I know that one of the cities in California recently sued, saying that a geosync satellite "over California" had to pay California taxes because it was in the state. (I think it was thrown out because geo satellites are equatorial, but I'm not sure...)
I think this kind of comment is just silly. Why do you care that someone is amazingly better off than you, if you are better off than before? In other words, ignore the gap - the lower class is constantly getting better stuff, the upper class is also constantly getting better stuff. Why do you feel bad if someone else has one hundred cars, while you have one? Aren't you happier having the one than the none that you would have without capitalism?
In other words, why does someone else achieving more than you hurt you? You are better off than before, why do you deny your neighbor his riches?
Interesting - I wish I still kept in touch with her so I could ask her about this. It was a long time ago, and she was very little - but she certainly seemed convinced. I really think she beleived that this happened to her.
I guess memory can play strange tricks on you when you are very young and being fed propaganda.
Hm... I've always thought that "fairness and reciprocity" were emergent behaviors of the "selfish actor" theories, in that it is in the individual's self interest to be fair and reciprocate?
I've always liked Maslow's hierarchy, but I think it may be a little flawed - I think "needs" are the stuff I don't have - and therefore ones needs cannot really be met, we would just generate new ones. Companies discovering this is what I believe drives the consumption cycle here in the US.
As for the Mondragon society, that is very interesting. They seem to have traded growth rate for stability, niceness, etc. I believe that to be a fair trade, and a logicial lifestyle choice - but not one I would be interested in. I'm more of a "capitalistic pig," even when it oppresses me - but there is a continuum of social structures and this seems a lot closer to capitalism than to Utopian. Looks like a good mix though!
Thanks for your thoughts, I have learned some interesting things!
So the primary problem seems to have been the government collusion. The land argument is there - and I'm sure it upset people (except the people that sold the land, anyway) - but that same argument can be made whereever land is valuable, like Hawaii (and for some unknown reason, Arizona?).
Back in those days, businesses really had a lot to do with the way government was run - and I can see that causing lots of problems. In modern times, I think the companies have more competition for the government ear (partially because there are more companies), so the abuses don't seem as bad (at least, to me).
Well, my made up statistic is better than your made up statistic lie, so there!;-}
Really, though - think about what would happen in the government of any nation if it had the US's power. Which one do you think would do better?
The only ones I can think of that might come close would be countries like Autralia, Sweden, etc. But how much of what goes right in those countries is related to the people of those countries - especially that those people did not grow up in the most powerful nation on Earth?
The US has problems that need solving - but I have not been shown a system of government that would work better. We're only human, after all.
I fear you may have missed the real truth, though: Idealistic societies do not survive, because they attract non-idealistic people to them. Marxism would probably be a great way to live if everyone was the same. Because we are all different (different things drive us), we have different requirements - and some people have drives that are incompatible with Idealism in general (typically those that are driven to be better than others, rather than finding happiness within themselves).
The problem with Marxism cannot be ignored by stating that the Soviet Union only followed it for a few years - the basic problem with Marxism is that it is unstable, and quickly falls to another form of government - such as what happened in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and countless other places. The instability appears to be inherent, and not fixable (there have been many attempts at this - other places to research are the early "Utopiain societies.")
What you say is interesting - that Amercian investors came in and made slaves of the Cubans. Why did we make slaves of the cubans growing crops, and yet we are not making slaves of the Indians writing software? (I'm not saying there isn't a difference, I'm asking what you see the difference to be?) How does one invest assets (farming equipment, computers, etc.) in a foriegn "deal" without creating a slave situation?
I fear the answer may just be polictics and propaganda - giving Cubans work is "bad" because someone in power says so, while giving Indians work is "good" because their government is capitalist.
I imagine their were even people in the US who were upset that Cubans were stealing a US farmer's job...
Why do you take the statement of "but Cuba cannot claim the moral high ground either" to conclude that I believe the US is perfect?
What a strange point of view you msut have. The US has problems. Cuba has different problems. I prefer the US problems to the Cuba problems. If you think it would be progress to go from where the US is to where Cuba is, please explain. I believe it is better to try to fix what we have - because it is better than 99% of what is out there.
To try to better explain what I am saying - what do you think would happen to (insert favorite country here, France for example) if Castro ran the US government. If you believe the world would be better, you'll have to explain that one to me!
That said, I think multiple personality disorder is a great way to characterize governments and businesses. How many times have you heard "the government never makes morallity based decisions," or "companies always maximze profit, period!"
These simplistic appraisals ignore that decisions for companies and governments are made by multiple people, sometimes with opposing viewpoints. On a daily basis, the power flows to different people - causing multiple personality disorder.
For many reasons, I think this is a good thing for government and ptoentially disasterous for businesses - but it can be predicted to a limitted extent, so you can work the system to get things done!
In a previous life, my girlfriend (who escaped Cuba) told me of the following story that happened to her:
She went to school one day, and the class was told to bow their heads and pray to God for some candy. After they did that, they waited for a while - no candy. Then the class was told to bow their heads and pray to Castro for candy - then a government worker handed each of them a piece of candy. Brainwashing starts in kindergarden in Cuba - she was in that class.
Perhaps what the US is doing is also bad (though I personally beleive that placating evil is to become evil yourself), but Cuba cannot claim the moral high ground either.
The problem with the system described is that it moves power from "elected representitives" (at least a little accountability) to the "national media" (absolutely no accountability whatsoever).
For example, the last "bad bill" was when they attached RealID to the Iraq funding bill. If the media predominately talked about the Iraq war, the bill would pass. If the media predominately talked about RealID, the bill would fail. (I'm not discussing the merits of either position, I'm just showing that which side is chosen by the public depends on how they are informed.)
Members of the public will not read the bills, and will vote however their favorite news star tells them to. This would not be a good thing...
That is an interesting technique, but it leaves a log on the server - a server that the "evil government" knows that you accessed. By port forwarding to an anonymous proxy, you put another link in the chain - and one that you know will not keep records.
All true - but the situation is the same for the environmental scientists as well, if not more so. They are so firmly entrenched in parroting whatever the government wants them to say that you cannot tell what is even real science any more.
I agree that a new power source would be nice (I like solar, myself), but an economy will always chose the long-term cheapest option acording to the consumers definitions of long-term and cheapest. If you want to affect change, change the consumers definition of long-term and cheapest - and we are seeing progress there, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem here is that you are trying to tell me what I think - the best you can really hope for is to tell me what you think!
It is interesting how we can have such different ideas about what makes us "us."
Hmm... perhaps a better way to say this is that I do not define myself as a bag of mostly water - I define myself by how and what I think. If a copy of me was made, I would still consider that to be "me," even if I was still alive. We would probably diverge, but I would still consider such a copy to be "almost me" in that case.
Do you really think that you are a being of flesh?
That depends on your definition of "you." I would be quite happy with this, given the alternative - it might let me finish some of my projects...
The funny thing is that the fact that he could make such an illogical and emotional decision proves that he WAS really just as human as ever!
Well, I am making no assumptions on technology - but if you would like to see how that could be possible:
Using materials only launched from the Earth, build a very large parabolic mirror. At the focal point put a relatively normal heat engine (though lighter than normal).
100 GW Heat engine: 10,000 Tons - $20B maximum launch cost
Very large mirror 100 km x 100 km (but only 1 micrometer thick): 30,000 Tons - $60B maximum launch cost
$20B on R&D
This assumes a $10,000/lb launch cost (or approximately twice the current market rate).
Of course, if you use near Earth asteroids, or moon launch, etc, it is even cheaper. My numbers are realistic - but the project is currently too high risk. That risk is coming down, though!
I think you do not understnad big business - for example, here is a simple business plan:
1. Build a 100GW solar power array ($100B)
2. Transmit power to Earth ($$profit$$)
3. Realize that for the cost of semi-transparent paint you can make an extra $100M per year.
4. More $$profit$$
It is better to have these limitations in place early, if we have them at all. I'm curious what the limits are, though. You can see current sattellites in orbit, and as they get bigger they will become more obvious.
Have we just limitted ourselves to staying here on Earth? (Remember, a US citizen is unlikely to live in space unless at least 1 million other US citizens are there - and that's if you consider yourself to be in the top 1% of the US! Can you imagine a home for 1 million people that you cannot see from Earth?)
I know that one of the cities in California recently sued, saying that a geosync satellite "over California" had to pay California taxes because it was in the state. (I think it was thrown out because geo satellites are equatorial, but I'm not sure...)
Are you kidding? That's why I'm wearing a suit!
I think this kind of comment is just silly. Why do you care that someone is amazingly better off than you, if you are better off than before? In other words, ignore the gap - the lower class is constantly getting better stuff, the upper class is also constantly getting better stuff. Why do you feel bad if someone else has one hundred cars, while you have one? Aren't you happier having the one than the none that you would have without capitalism?
In other words, why does someone else achieving more than you hurt you? You are better off than before, why do you deny your neighbor his riches?
Interesting - I wish I still kept in touch with her so I could ask her about this. It was a long time ago, and she was very little - but she certainly seemed convinced. I really think she beleived that this happened to her.
I guess memory can play strange tricks on you when you are very young and being fed propaganda.
Hm... I've always thought that "fairness and reciprocity" were emergent behaviors of the "selfish actor" theories, in that it is in the individual's self interest to be fair and reciprocate?
I've always liked Maslow's hierarchy, but I think it may be a little flawed - I think "needs" are the stuff I don't have - and therefore ones needs cannot really be met, we would just generate new ones. Companies discovering this is what I believe drives the consumption cycle here in the US.
As for the Mondragon society, that is very interesting. They seem to have traded growth rate for stability, niceness, etc. I believe that to be a fair trade, and a logicial lifestyle choice - but not one I would be interested in. I'm more of a "capitalistic pig," even when it oppresses me - but there is a continuum of social structures and this seems a lot closer to capitalism than to Utopian. Looks like a good mix though!
Thanks for your thoughts, I have learned some interesting things!
So the primary problem seems to have been the government collusion. The land argument is there - and I'm sure it upset people (except the people that sold the land, anyway) - but that same argument can be made whereever land is valuable, like Hawaii (and for some unknown reason, Arizona?).
Back in those days, businesses really had a lot to do with the way government was run - and I can see that causing lots of problems. In modern times, I think the companies have more competition for the government ear (partially because there are more companies), so the abuses don't seem as bad (at least, to me).
Thanks for sharing your perspective!
Well, my made up statistic is better than your made up statistic lie, so there! ;-}
Really, though - think about what would happen in the government of any nation if it had the US's power. Which one do you think would do better?
The only ones I can think of that might come close would be countries like Autralia, Sweden, etc. But how much of what goes right in those countries is related to the people of those countries - especially that those people did not grow up in the most powerful nation on Earth?
The US has problems that need solving - but I have not been shown a system of government that would work better. We're only human, after all.
I fear you may have missed the real truth, though: Idealistic societies do not survive, because they attract non-idealistic people to them. Marxism would probably be a great way to live if everyone was the same. Because we are all different (different things drive us), we have different requirements - and some people have drives that are incompatible with Idealism in general (typically those that are driven to be better than others, rather than finding happiness within themselves).
The problem with Marxism cannot be ignored by stating that the Soviet Union only followed it for a few years - the basic problem with Marxism is that it is unstable, and quickly falls to another form of government - such as what happened in the Soviet Union, Cuba, and countless other places. The instability appears to be inherent, and not fixable (there have been many attempts at this - other places to research are the early "Utopiain societies.")
What you say is interesting - that Amercian investors came in and made slaves of the Cubans. Why did we make slaves of the cubans growing crops, and yet we are not making slaves of the Indians writing software? (I'm not saying there isn't a difference, I'm asking what you see the difference to be?) How does one invest assets (farming equipment, computers, etc.) in a foriegn "deal" without creating a slave situation?
I fear the answer may just be polictics and propaganda - giving Cubans work is "bad" because someone in power says so, while giving Indians work is "good" because their government is capitalist.
I imagine their were even people in the US who were upset that Cubans were stealing a US farmer's job...
Why do you take the statement of "but Cuba cannot claim the moral high ground either" to conclude that I believe the US is perfect?
What a strange point of view you msut have. The US has problems. Cuba has different problems. I prefer the US problems to the Cuba problems. If you think it would be progress to go from where the US is to where Cuba is, please explain. I believe it is better to try to fix what we have - because it is better than 99% of what is out there.
To try to better explain what I am saying - what do you think would happen to (insert favorite country here, France for example) if Castro ran the US government. If you believe the world would be better, you'll have to explain that one to me!
That said, I think multiple personality disorder is a great way to characterize governments and businesses. How many times have you heard "the government never makes morallity based decisions," or "companies always maximze profit, period!"
These simplistic appraisals ignore that decisions for companies and governments are made by multiple people, sometimes with opposing viewpoints. On a daily basis, the power flows to different people - causing multiple personality disorder.
For many reasons, I think this is a good thing for government and ptoentially disasterous for businesses - but it can be predicted to a limitted extent, so you can work the system to get things done!
In a previous life, my girlfriend (who escaped Cuba) told me of the following story that happened to her:
She went to school one day, and the class was told to bow their heads and pray to God for some candy. After they did that, they waited for a while - no candy. Then the class was told to bow their heads and pray to Castro for candy - then a government worker handed each of them a piece of candy. Brainwashing starts in kindergarden in Cuba - she was in that class.
Perhaps what the US is doing is also bad (though I personally beleive that placating evil is to become evil yourself), but Cuba cannot claim the moral high ground either.
My only point to add to this mess is: Why does it matter which one is chosen, if the split really is within the margin of error?
If the vote falls within the margin of error, it must not really matter which one gets elected anyway...
What is amazing is that this is 5% of the registered voters in that area! Or was that only the dead ones?
The problem with the system described is that it moves power from "elected representitives" (at least a little accountability) to the "national media" (absolutely no accountability whatsoever).
For example, the last "bad bill" was when they attached RealID to the Iraq funding bill. If the media predominately talked about the Iraq war, the bill would pass. If the media predominately talked about RealID, the bill would fail. (I'm not discussing the merits of either position, I'm just showing that which side is chosen by the public depends on how they are informed.)
Members of the public will not read the bills, and will vote however their favorite news star tells them to. This would not be a good thing...
No system is perfect, what we need is not a perfect system, but a thorough series of audits.
Please never work for the IRS. Please?
Which is really embarrassing, considering that dead people successfully voted in the last election!
That is an interesting technique, but it leaves a log on the server - a server that the "evil government" knows that you accessed. By port forwarding to an anonymous proxy, you put another link in the chain - and one that you know will not keep records.
All true - but the situation is the same for the environmental scientists as well, if not more so. They are so firmly entrenched in parroting whatever the government wants them to say that you cannot tell what is even real science any more.
I agree that a new power source would be nice (I like solar, myself), but an economy will always chose the long-term cheapest option acording to the consumers definitions of long-term and cheapest. If you want to affect change, change the consumers definition of long-term and cheapest - and we are seeing progress there, I think.