I call bullshit on your artificial separation of exploration and investigation for space travel.
Who do you think controls those machines? "Self-aware" beings like us. Even programs are just well planned lists of actions that a human would do, if he were there. This is not that far away from a delayed control.
It's a sad day when even people here on Slashdot use "but, the computer did it" arguments. You're supposed to know this better. Or you must be new here.;)
Oh, and by the way: Self-awareness is no feature that some creatures have, and some don't. Like with the question if something is alive, there are infinite steps in between. And maybe it's even just an artefact of how we see ourselves and justify free will.
"fragments can be found..." is an irrelevant strawman argument, with no relation to the terms "investigate" and "explore".
Your real point is, that we should spread our DNA. Well... on that I agree... it's the point of our existence. But don't forget the second level of procreation: The spreading of philosophies, world views, thoughts and knowledge. I argue, that if we once create a robot civilization on another planet, that lives like we do, and loves what we love, then our fleshy bodies could die, and we would still have survived. (Of course, by then, we could be able to read the content of brains and transfer it to that planet via some radio system, to embed it into androids.)
Wrong. It was no oil. It was some predecessor material. Something that could be made into oil, but that it worthless. Unfortunately trough a sensationalist headline people thought it's oil.
And I am implying that MS Access "is a piece of shit, and so is your face!"(TM).:D Same thing for SQLite, because it is no real database.
And he said "editor", not "developer". That description fits someone who inputs data to Access tables / form fields.
[You think it was meant to be funny because you wrongly assumed he meant it to be funny. And you imply that what is true for you must be true for others. Well. It's not.]
You know... the sound when someone thinks someone other intended something to be funny, because he can't believe the other one could be *that* stupid.;)
Hint: It was not intended to be funny. You misunderstood it to be funny.
But who wants to go to a terrorist nation anyway? Or would you go to Iran, because they say you need no visa?
In both cases there is a high probability that you lose your laptop and maybe not even come back at all.
There, I did it. I compared the USA to Iran. Beautiful countries with good people, but evil extremistic governments that brainwash them for their own power.
Oh, and we in Europe will join you soon. By then I'll be gone to one of the new growing independend nations...
The problem with this system is classification. What category of life does a particular proposal effect. And local people should probably have more of a say in local matters. There are different hierarchies and graphs interacting here. I think there are good natrual rules to model this.
That's why I propose a decade (!) of usage of those rules in large online games. This will definitely give us all the answers to those questions. I'm sure there is a simple fractal cascading model for this. I have most of it, but I can't completely put it together yet.
Hmm, the point with these difficult but not popular decisions is, that some people are not informed and do not ask more informed people too. So their decisions will hurt them. But then another, wiser nation can gain that part that they lost. A evil man might say: "Why keep the idiots alive? Remove the protections, and let the problem solve itself"
I think (I'm sorry, it's 04:40 AM, and I'm very tired.), that even badly informed people can strengthen a nation, if you use them for what they're good in (maybe a manual labor that they like), and override them for their own good in other things. But then again, by doing that, you take away their freedom for your own benefit. I don't think that this is the best way. Especially in the - so often ignored - long term.
Sadly, you posted as an AC, so I can not befriend you. But maybe you could go to metagovernment.org, and let your thoughts flow in. They seem to already have such a system in the working.
LOL. I really had to laugh. Not because you're wrong, but because you are so right.:D
Don't worry, because I've already though about these two problems.
Of course we are just expanding biomass, so we live for power over resources (including other humans). But first we would test it in online communities and games. For at least a decade. See how it works with large groups. If you go in the millions (think WoW), you can assume that not much will change with even larger groups.
But my method would not disallow power. It would support it very well trough the cascades. But you could change your leader(s) at any minute. Your old leader would have a hard time taking you back from your new, also powerful leaders. And your new leader would care very much, that his people don't run away at the next minute.:) Of course, because of the limited resources, there would always be fights for those resources. That's a basic part of evolution. The best one wins. (Even if he uses tricks, which is also a way of being better.) I do not think that we should "fix" that. It would be unfair.
Now with the computers: They would give nothing to a computer. They would use a tool to calculate their rules/beliefs as a group, from their own rulesets. It's not much more giving away your power, than you give away your power by using a simple calculator that has a completely open source.:) It's certainly better than our books of law today.;)
Maybe it did not come trough, but that was already included exactly like you said. It was even a very basic point.:) Nice that you came up with it too.
By the way: My method looks more technical than is is. As i said above:
Only very simple rules to enable humans to do those things in large groups, that worked so well in small groups for ten thousands of years. That's the basic point of it all. In small groups you deal with the others. In large groups (like nations), there are too many conflicts and the communication does work too much different for it so still work. We as humans have grown so fast that not even our own nature could cope. It's time to fix this, and now with computers and the Internet, we finally can.
:D I appreciate your critique, but tell me why you think that a nation with humans in it ultimately has to fail? Because the only humans in that nation would be "voters" (meaning: people that aren't the government).
I do not plan them to agree. I plan them to accept compromises as they emerge from the votes they take, and from the choice with the most votes winning. I plan them to accept the compromise, because they have no choice. Not because someone or some program is enforcing in on them, but because the resources available will make it the natural choice. If you have 3 people in your group, and you chose this group because they have things in common with you (which they have to by the laws of nature), and you rely on them to keep the group alive, you better share your resources. Because if you take it away from them, you will be thrown out of the group, and not get any resources at all in the future. This is how humans work instinctively, and this is why we exist and are that successful at all. So i think we can rely on it.:)
No technology here. Only very simple rules to enable humans to do those things in large groups, that worked so well in small groups for ten thousands of years. That's the basic point of it all. In small groups you deal with the others. In large groups (like nations), there are too many conflicts and the communication does work too much different for it so still work. We as humans have grown so fast that not even our own nature could cope. It's time to fix this, and now with computers and the Internet, we finally can.
That's exactly its job. And even its whole purpose. Of course the definition of happy does have to include having a good life, how ever that is defined for the people of that nation.
Plenty of examples of working governments.
You should notice, that outside of bars and trailer parks, statements do not have much weight without any examples or bases. Maybe you should fix your definition of "working".;)
About how good Democracy works: Yeah. Look how great it works.... Just look. Basically every government out there is a set of the most corrupt and greedy people, specifically selected by that attributes, trough that great system we call "democracy". Fact is: Democracy is just one model of many. (In Iraq, for example, because of the social structures, a simple hierarchy of trust, would work better.) All those models have the basic flaw of having the conflict of interest that i described. And those who want power the most, will have the biggest conflict of interest, because the would not want to be the leader, if they can't ultimately decide.
About the "holes": Of course the system is not perfect. It is a theory. That's why I'm talking about it instead of realizing it. But then again, you seem to not be able to imagine how those beliefs* can result in actions. I know that my instinctive talent lies in imagining such complex systems, and that I often forget that others often have problems with it. I should have explained it better: The end result of your descisions is of coures a list of (your) rules/beliefs. Now we agree - as a paradigm - that every human has equal rights? I hope so. But we are in groups. And for a group, only one final descision on one rule/beliefe can be defined. So it's a vote for that rule/belief, and everyone votes with his ruleset. The descision that's in the majority is taken for every rule. And the resulting set of rules are the laws of that group. Now there is only one last problem to solve: Conflicts between groups. Well, that one is simple. They're called "nations". For specific things (like horseback riding in the Andes), there can be specific groups that are related to the resources of that group (in that case: horses in the Andes, the Andes, and things you need for riding [like saddles in the Andes]). But those specific groups will be totally optional and be more like lobbies / interest groups.
This should also answer your questions about who decides (everybody in the group for the resources that the decision is about), and what their scope is (the group).
Additionally I have to wonder why I answer you, when you even ignored the basic definition I gave of the software system. As I said, everybody can determine that, because the code is very, very, simple, and completely open to everyone. Think about how many people in a nation can understand some basic rules like "law for subject X for the group = the choice with the most votes, from the rule on subject X from the ruleset of all people in that group". If that percentage is too high for it to work, every other government would already be up in flames.;)
Maybe the problem are people who do think understanding and thinking is something bad and uncool, and choose, not to care if it is compromised, or not to understand their laws, no matter how simple they are. And maybe if you learned from this, that your lack of understanding does not mean that the other one has holes in his arguments, but only that he thought you'd be a wise man who understands complex things, so you better wisen up, you'd live a happier and more successful life.
___ *...which in my opinion is a word, to strongly related to religious diseases.
I'm sorry, I do not think you think that. I think you're just trolling. Especially because you ignored the whole point: No possibility for absolute leaders = no possibility for dictators. Please add something meaningful to the conversation, or keep quiet, watch, and learn until you can. I'd still welcome your input.:)
Well, my experience was, that most drones (which includes judges and senators/ministers), like most humans, tend to forget the original spirit over time. It's not deliberate. It's just how the brain works.
Of course you raise a very nice and good point: That gaming the system works both ways. So a agree: Maybe it's better to always accept it being gamed. Especially because the possibility of completely eliminating it is nearly zero.
The point of my system would be, that we all can intervene all the time, without the system crashing. Think of a single code file, about as big as a small contract, that has to be read and understood so many citizens, that you can't modify anything without thousands of others resetting it in no time. These rules in that code should be very *very* simple, but very powerful. And indeed, they would only have to be an example of simplicity, because the concept is very simple too.:)
And it would never be one computer system. More like a distributed p2p net, that you could input and read data from its interface at any place.
Additionally, of course the fist step would be to study its workings in virtual worlds first. This would add years of beta-tests and debugging, tuning the algorithm, until we can say that it runs stable for at least 1-3 centuries. My opinion is, that some principal rules of governing would have to be re-written from scratch, especially to fix the factor of forcing groups together that have conflicts of interest, and to keep them apart, so all of them can live a happy life. This is a fragment of one of my other - more advanced - theories, that would eliminate prisons for all time (I call it "the australia model";).
No. The whole government would be one open source software, so simple, everybody could check its validity. That's the point. A perfectly transparent government, technically unable to not obey the will of the people.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, I do. And I've seen worse. Much worse...
Never underestimate retards. :P
I call bullshit on your artificial separation of exploration and investigation for space travel.
Who do you think controls those machines? "Self-aware" beings like us. Even programs are just well planned lists of actions that a human would do, if he were there. This is not that far away from a delayed control.
It's a sad day when even people here on Slashdot use "but, the computer did it" arguments. You're supposed to know this better. Or you must be new here. ;)
Oh, and by the way: Self-awareness is no feature that some creatures have, and some don't. Like with the question if something is alive, there are infinite steps in between. And maybe it's even just an artefact of how we see ourselves and justify free will.
"fragments can be found..." is an irrelevant strawman argument, with no relation to the terms "investigate" and "explore".
Your real point is, that we should spread our DNA.
Well... on that I agree... it's the point of our existence.
But don't forget the second level of procreation: The spreading of philosophies, world views, thoughts and knowledge.
I argue, that if we once create a robot civilization on another planet, that lives like we do, and loves what we love,
then our fleshy bodies could die, and we would still have survived.
(Of course, by then, we could be able to read the content of brains and transfer it to that planet via some radio system, to embed it into androids.)
First the outsource to india, and now robots??
The take our jooobs!
Dey dak err jaaabs!!
Dek uuur dewwww!!!
Why not? They're not retarded or something...
I second that. But I think it would be better to stop fucking your kids at all and such... you know...
Why? I thought there were in "-ing" word for everything.
Reing, slighting, conflicting, visioning, stating, bying, YourExperimenting, onning, eviling, assing (mmm, i like that one), aing, verbing, nexting, youing, willing, being, claiming, thering, issing, suching, wording, failing, hiding, replying, toing, thissing, slashdotting, newsing, foring, nerding, stuffing, thatting, mattering, searching,.... I could go on all day long... ;)
Wrong. It was no oil. It was some predecessor material. Something that could be made into oil, but that it worthless. Unfortunately trough a sensationalist headline people thought it's oil.
And I am implying that MS Access "is a piece of shit, and so is your face!"(TM). :D
Same thing for SQLite, because it is no real database.
And he said "editor", not "developer". That description fits someone who inputs data to Access tables / form fields.
Sense of humor and arrogance FAIL
[You think it was meant to be funny because you wrongly assumed he meant it to be funny. And you imply that what is true for you must be true for others.
Well. It's not.]
Unwoosh...
You know... the sound when someone thinks someone other intended something to be funny, because he can't believe the other one could be *that* stupid. ;)
Hint: It was not intended to be funny. You misunderstood it to be funny.
But who wants to go to a terrorist nation anyway? Or would you go to Iran, because they say you need no visa?
In both cases there is a high probability that you lose your laptop and maybe not even come back at all.
There, I did it. I compared the USA to Iran. Beautiful countries with good people, but evil extremistic governments that brainwash them for their own power.
Oh, and we in Europe will join you soon. By then I'll be gone to one of the new growing independend nations...
Lol, I realized my mistake. What the hell. I have enough karma to burn.
[...] my vaccuum is way too small [...] all the dust inside it [...]
Vacuum physics knowledge FAIL.
What do you expect? Have you read his sig?
Justin Dearing http://plane-disaster.sf.net/ MS Access and SQLite database editor.
;)
Why not replace the port? ;)
I even fixed a edge that broke of of a multilayer mainboard. (Yes, it had circuits on it!
So it is possible.
I heard, that some transistors die at that temperature.
100 degrees celsius? are you sure?
The problem with this system is classification. What category of life does a particular proposal effect. And local people should probably have more of a say in local matters. There are different hierarchies and graphs interacting here. I think there are good natrual rules to model this.
That's why I propose a decade (!) of usage of those rules in large online games. This will definitely give us all the answers to those questions. I'm sure there is a simple fractal cascading model for this. I have most of it, but I can't completely put it together yet.
Hmm, the point with these difficult but not popular decisions is, that some people are not informed and do not ask more informed people too. So their decisions will hurt them. But then another, wiser nation can gain that part that they lost. A evil man might say: "Why keep the idiots alive? Remove the protections, and let the problem solve itself"
I think (I'm sorry, it's 04:40 AM, and I'm very tired.), that even badly informed people can strengthen a nation, if you use them for what they're good in (maybe a manual labor that they like), and override them for their own good in other things. But then again, by doing that, you take away their freedom for your own benefit. I don't think that this is the best way. Especially in the - so often ignored - long term.
Sadly, you posted as an AC, so I can not befriend you. But maybe you could go to metagovernment.org, and let your thoughts flow in. They seem to already have such a system in the working.
LOL. I really had to laugh. Not because you're wrong, but because you are so right. :D
Don't worry, because I've already though about these two problems.
Of course we are just expanding biomass, so we live for power over resources (including other humans). But first we would test it in online communities and games. For at least a decade. See how it works with large groups. If you go in the millions (think WoW), you can assume that not much will change with even larger groups.
But my method would not disallow power. It would support it very well trough the cascades. But you could change your leader(s) at any minute. Your old leader would have a hard time taking you back from your new, also powerful leaders. And your new leader would care very much, that his people don't run away at the next minute. :)
Of course, because of the limited resources, there would always be fights for those resources. That's a basic part of evolution. The best one wins. (Even if he uses tricks, which is also a way of being better.) I do not think that we should "fix" that. It would be unfair.
Now with the computers: They would give nothing to a computer. They would use a tool to calculate their rules/beliefs as a group, from their own :) ;)
rulesets. It's not much more giving away your power, than you give away your power by using a simple calculator that has a completely open source.
It's certainly better than our books of law today.
Maybe it did not come trough, but that was already included exactly like you said. It was even a very basic point. :)
Nice that you came up with it too.
By the way: My method looks more technical than is is. As i said above:
Only very simple rules to enable humans to do those things in large groups, that worked so well in small groups for ten thousands of years. That's the basic point of it all. In small groups you deal with the others. In large groups (like nations), there are too many conflicts and the communication does work too much different for it so still work. We as humans have grown so fast that not even our own nature could cope. It's time to fix this, and now with computers and the Internet, we finally can.
:D I appreciate your critique, but tell me why you think that a nation with humans in it ultimately has to fail? Because the only humans in that nation would be "voters" (meaning: people that aren't the government).
I do not plan them to agree. I plan them to accept compromises as they emerge from the votes they take, and from the choice with the most votes winning. I plan them to accept the compromise, because they have no choice. Not because someone or some program is enforcing in on them, but because the resources available will make it the natural choice. If you have 3 people in your group, and you chose this group because they have things in common with you (which they have to by the laws of nature), and you rely on them to keep the group alive, you better share your resources. Because if you take it away from them, you will be thrown out of the group, and not get any resources at all in the future. This is how humans work instinctively, and this is why we exist and are that successful at all. So i think we can rely on it. :)
No technology here. Only very simple rules to enable humans to do those things in large groups, that worked so well in small groups for ten thousands of years. That's the basic point of it all. In small groups you deal with the others. In large groups (like nations), there are too many conflicts and the communication does work too much different for it so still work. We as humans have grown so fast that not even our own nature could cope. It's time to fix this, and now with computers and the Internet, we finally can.
This is, because you're still anonymous. Wait until you realize you aren't. ;)
It isn't government's job to make people happy.
That's exactly its job. And even its whole purpose. Of course the definition of happy does have to include having a good life, how ever that is defined for the people of that nation.
Plenty of examples of working governments.
You should notice, that outside of bars and trailer parks, statements do not have much weight without any examples or bases. ;)
Maybe you should fix your definition of "working".
About how good Democracy works:
Yeah. Look how great it works.... Just look.
Basically every government out there is a set of the most corrupt and greedy people, specifically selected by that attributes, trough that great system we call "democracy".
Fact is: Democracy is just one model of many. (In Iraq, for example, because of the social structures, a simple hierarchy of trust, would work better.)
All those models have the basic flaw of having the conflict of interest that i described. And those who want power the most, will have the biggest conflict of interest, because the would not want to be the leader, if they can't ultimately decide.
About the "holes":
Of course the system is not perfect. It is a theory. That's why I'm talking about it instead of realizing it.
But then again, you seem to not be able to imagine how those beliefs* can result in actions. I know that my instinctive talent lies in imagining such complex systems, and that I often forget that others often have problems with it. I should have explained it better:
The end result of your descisions is of coures a list of (your) rules/beliefs. Now we agree - as a paradigm - that every human has equal rights? I hope so. But we are in groups. And for a group, only one final descision on one rule/beliefe can be defined. So it's a vote for that rule/belief, and everyone votes with his ruleset. The descision that's in the majority is taken for every rule. And the resulting set of rules are the laws of that group.
Now there is only one last problem to solve: Conflicts between groups. Well, that one is simple. They're called "nations".
For specific things (like horseback riding in the Andes), there can be specific groups that are related to the resources of that group (in that case: horses in the Andes, the Andes, and things you need for riding [like saddles in the Andes]). But those specific groups will be totally optional and be more like lobbies / interest groups.
This should also answer your questions about who decides (everybody in the group for the resources that the decision is about), and what their scope is (the group).
Additionally I have to wonder why I answer you, when you even ignored the basic definition I gave of the software system. As I said, everybody can determine that, because the code is very, very, simple, and completely open to everyone. Think about how many people in a nation can understand some basic rules like "law for subject X for the group = the choice with the most votes, from the rule on subject X from the ruleset of all people in that group". If that percentage is too high for it to work, every other government would already be up in flames. ;)
Maybe the problem are people who do think understanding and thinking is something bad and uncool, and choose, not to care if it is compromised, or not to understand their laws, no matter how simple they are. And maybe if you learned from this, that your lack of understanding does not mean that the other one has holes in his arguments, but only that he thought you'd be a wise man who understands complex things, so you better wisen up, you'd live a happier and more successful life.
___ ...which in my opinion is a word, to strongly related to religious diseases.
*
I'm sorry, I do not think you think that. I think you're just trolling. Especially because you ignored the whole point: No possibility for absolute leaders = no possibility for dictators. Please add something meaningful to the conversation, or keep quiet, watch, and learn until you can. I'd still welcome your input. :)
Well, my experience was, that most drones (which includes judges and senators/ministers), like most humans, tend to forget the original spirit over time. It's not deliberate. It's just how the brain works.
Of course you raise a very nice and good point: That gaming the system works both ways. So a agree: Maybe it's better to always accept it being gamed. Especially because the possibility of completely eliminating it is nearly zero.
The point of my system would be, that we all can intervene all the time, without the system crashing. Think of a single code file, about as big as a small contract, that has to be read and understood so many citizens, that you can't modify anything without thousands of others resetting it in no time. :)
These rules in that code should be very *very* simple, but very powerful. And indeed, they would only have to be an example of simplicity, because the concept is very simple too.
And it would never be one computer system. More like a distributed p2p net, that you could input and read data from its interface at any place.
Additionally, of course the fist step would be to study its workings in virtual worlds first. This would add years of beta-tests and debugging, tuning the algorithm, until we can say that it runs stable for at least 1-3 centuries. My opinion is, that some principal rules of governing would have to be re-written from scratch, especially to fix the factor of forcing groups together that have conflicts of interest, and to keep them apart, so all of them can live a happy life. This is a fragment of one of my other - more advanced - theories, that would eliminate prisons for all time (I call it "the australia model" ;).
No. The whole government would be one open source software, so simple, everybody could check its validity. That's the point. A perfectly transparent government, technically unable to not obey the will of the people.