I don't HOW many corporate changes that product has been through. For the ignorant, SQR is a report/programming language used by PeopleSoft and others to write programs and generate reports from databases. I got some experience using it at City College of San Francisco with Oracle databases and the SCT Banner college information system.
It's a niche product and basically an obsolete language, having not really been significantly enhanced in some time on Hyperion's watch.
It's been around for years and been through probably a half dozen or more corporate sales and acquisitions. Keeping the name straight of whatever company currently owns it is not easy.
SQ Software created SQR in the mid 1980s. It had a marketing agreement with D & N Systems, which changed its name to SQL Solutions and was later acquired by Sybase Inc. Sybase purchased SQ Software in the early 1990s. To avoid competing directly with Oracle Corporation, Sybase had a marketing and development agreement with MITI for the Oracle database versions of SQR. MITI acquired the full rights to SQR in the mid 1990s. MITI changed its name to SQRiBE Technologies in 1997. Brio Technology acquired SQRiBE in August, 1999. Brio Technology later changed its name to Brio Software. Brio licensed the compiler source code to PeopleSoft Inc. sometime around 2000. Hyperion Solutions Corporation acquired Brio Software in October, 2003. Oracle Corporation acquired PeopleSoft in December, 2004.
And now Oracle has acquired Hyperion, thus reuniting SQR with Peoplesoft.
The reports of the two Sub-Committees were presented to the Ad Hoc Committee on 24 November 1947 in a highly charged atmosphere. The report of Sub-Committee 2 (voted on before the report of Sub-Committee 1) detailed the arguments for a unified Palestine, addressing the legal question of the competence of the United Nations to partition the country:
"A study of Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter leaves no room for doubt that... neither the General Assembly nor any other organ of the United Nations is competent to entertain, still less to recommend or enforce, any solution with regard to a mandated territory...
"... the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine...
"To sum up, the dissolution of the League of Nations, and the consequent removal of the legal basis for the Mandate, and the more recent declarations by the Mandatory of its intention to withdraw from Palestine, open the way for the establishment of an independent government in Palestine by the people of the country, without the intervention either of the United Nations or of any other party...
"The above conclusion is by no means vitiated by the provisions for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. It was not, and could not have been the intention of the framers of the Mandate that the Jewish immigration to Palestine should result in breaking up the political, geographic, and administrative economy of the country. Any other interpretation would amount to a violation of the principles of the Covenant and would nullify one of the main objectives of the Mandate...
"Moreover, partition involves the alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine. The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country..." 51/
The report's first resolution, questioning the legal power of the General Assembly to partition Palestine was rejected. The second, recommending international co-operation to deal with the Jewish refugee problem was rejected too, but the Ad Hoc Committee decided to include the recommendation in its report to the General Assembly. The third, calling for the establishment of an independent unified Palestine was also rejected.
And this is direct from the UN. The overall Web site is UNISPAL - the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. Overall, the Web site has a pretty complete history of the whole Palestinian question going way back.
The problem with your point one is that while it may be true that the neocons believe Iraq is unwinnable, most people assessing them believe that the neocons believe that actually EXPANDING the war would enable them to RECOVER from the disaster in Iraq.
In other words, the neocons want to "double down" their bet. And since they believe that Iran was the primary target all along, significantly more important than Iraq was, I'd say this assessment makes sense.
The neocons are ideologists first and war profiteers second. They don't care how much damage occurs to the US economically, geopolitically or militarily as long as they don't have to acknowledge that their ideology is wrong. Look at how they've reacted to the disaster in Iraq. Look at any of Cheney's comments. These people are both deluded and greedy and they DON'T CARE.
As for point 2, of course Israel doesn't want to strike first. They want the US to strike first. They want the US to bear the brunt of the war. Israel will take a few Iranian conventional missile hits. So what? That is no threat to Israel's existence. The only problem Israel might have is Hizballah in Lebanon and possibly Syria. Israel believes it can handle those threats militarily - although such belief was severely shaken last summer when Hizballah handed the Israelis their heads in southern Lebanon. Israel believes that as long as Iran is taken out, they can deal with Lebanon and Hizballah and Syria.
I read an article yesterday that says basically the plan appears to be to break up all the countries around Israel into ethnically and religiously partitioned states that are thus so weakened they cannot threaten Israel hegemony in the Middle East and thus allow it to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians. This theory makes sense - except of course that such partitioned states will become breeding grounds for Muslim extremists which will massively increase terrorism. But the Zionists appear to buy into this concept.
As for point 3, while you might have enough protests over time to impeach Bush - or even more likely reduce the changes of a Republican win in 2008 - remember that the damage will have been done by then. Also keep in mind that Bush can hide behind the idea of being a "War President" and that anybody asking to impeach him is a "traitor" - they've already tried those memes and they play well with the morons supporting Bush. Also, an impeachment would need absolute legal grounds with evidence. Look how long the relatively stupid impeachment of Clinton took to execute. It could be a year or two to get Bush and by then it would be irrelevant (except to the next Republican Presidential hopeful.)
Most of the leading Democrats are too timid to oppose a Bush invasion of Iran. Hillary Clinton in particular is in AIPAC's pocket and considers Iran to be a threat and that military options must remain open. Barak is not far behind.
Ad for point 4, while there is a report the other day that some generals will quit if Bush attacks Iran, the military is not in the habit of refusing orders from the President. Many top generals - who are at no threat from ANY war personally - will go along in order to get rank. The rest of the military will "follow orders" - that's the nature of most militaries. Only when the situation has become SO dire - as in Iraq today - will the military begin to rebel.
I do expect the war with Iran, which will begin as an air and naval war, will eventually develop into a ground war. And I expect that ground war to develop similarly to the way this summer's Lebanon war went. Thousands of US troops will die and the war will drag on for years, like Vietnam - except twice as bad. At some point, the military will begin to at least verbally rebel - and the US public will also rebel.
But if Iran sponsors terrorism inside the United States as a retaliatory measure for the US war on Iran, the US public is likely to be splintered into factions, making a full-fledged peace movement impossible.
The whole situation looks like it will easily become the worst strategic decision in US history. The US-Iran war will bleed the US economically, militarily and geopolitically in a way that Vietnam or Iraq could never do.
There was an Israeli comment made recently to the effect that the "Iran problem" HAD to be "solved" this year because otherwise in their view Iran would be past the Israeli "red line" as to nuclear technology.
By the way, current reports are that Israel has asked several Gulf states for IAF overflight permissions in preparation for an attack on Iran. And because the Gulf states are beholden to the US, apparently they agreed, despite being very likely targets for Iranian missiles if the US attacks since they host US forces in their countries that will be taking part in any attack on Iran.
There are also rumors - and I emphasize that these are RUMORS - that Israeli fighter bombers have ALREADY been turned back once by the US Air Force which refused to give them permission to cross into Iran. I doubt these rumors are true.
As for securing oil for its own use, Bush has increased the National Strategic Stockpile - that is one of the red flags people mention when they assess the likelihood of war with Iran.
The main thing is that the US is definitely deploying forces to the Gulf which would be the most useful for an initial attack on Iran - aircraft carrier battle groups, strike groups, Marines, and fighter jets at bases within range. ALL the signs are an impending attack - just as before the Iraq war, Bush claimed the decision hadn't been made to attack Iraq, when in fact it HAD been made and Bush was merely seeking to go through the diplomatic "motions" before attacking to mollify the UN and European community.
Not only was it a huge mistake to establish Israel back in 1948 - it was illegal.
The UN itself set up a commission to determine whether it had the legal authority to modify the Palestinian Mandate from the league of Nations to enable it to partition Palestine - and the commission concluded it did NOT.
But the Security Council ignored that and went ahead anyway - because the British had decided to wash their hands of the whole thing - because the Zionists were using terrorism to kill British troops and civilians and the UN thought that by partitioning the country, further warfare between the Zionists and the Palestinians and the Arab countries could be avoided.
Didn't work because the Zionists had no intention of limiting themselves to the land the UN allotted them. And the Zionists publicly said so in numerous documents issued by Zionist leaders over the years. It was ALWAYS the intention of the Zionist movement to displace the Palestinians - initially by purchasing land and when that was resisted by the Palestinians resulting in the Zionists owning only 7% of the land by the late 1940's, by terrorism and war.
What people forget is that there is no practical difference in attitude or actions between Al Qaeda today and the Palmach, Haganah and Irgun back in the 1940's. They were "terrorist" groups engaged in "terrorist" actions by any of today's definitions. They killed British soldiers and civilians by bombings and assassinations.
In fact, in 1947, the UN set up a commission to determine whether the UN had the authority to partition the PALESTINIAN MANDATE (which is what you appear to be referring to) - and concluded that it was illegal for the UN to partition PALESTINE into a Palestinian state and an Israeli state.
Which the UN Security Council then ignored and went ahead and did it anyway because the British basically said, "We wash our hands of the whole thing" - because the Zionists were killing British soldiers and civilians by TERRORISM.
Whereupon the Zionists provoked a war with the Arab countries, and proceeded to drive out 700,000 Palestinians and seize their lands - which have never been returned, nor have the Palestinians driven out been allowed to return.
Not to mention that Israel has IGNORED all but one of the NUMEROUS subsequent UN resolutions requiring Israel to return lands captured in the 1967 war - and numerous other aggressions against the Palestinians.
The UN should revisit its 1947 partitioning plan, and require the original PALESTINIAN MANDATE to be enforced. "Israel" should be renamed "Palestine", all Palestinian lands should be returned to the Palestinians (where legally feasible and records exist proving ownership), and the Israeli state should be dissolved. All Israeli nuclear weapons should be eliminated, the Israeli military disarmed, and anybody who wants to leave the now-Palestinian-majority country should be allowed to leave with compensation for personal and business expense.
The binational (single) state solution is the only workable solution to the Middle East problem. And if that results is mass emigration of Israelis to other countries - well, if they hadn't been aggressively trying to expand two thousand years ago - until they ran into the Romans who were really GOOD at that sort of thing - they wouldn't have been driven out in the first place. And BEING driven out was the best thing that ever happened to Judaism, since it meant it would never die out and is now worldwide.
Judaism's worst defeat was in fact Zionism's best goal - the safety of Jews. And the Holocaust doesn't change that historical fact.
And in any event, Christianity was responsible for the persecution of Jews in the first place - based on the nonsense that Jesus Christ was anything other than a good Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion - let alone one that would persecute his own people for his death for two thousand years after...
On the other hand, in the US, if you are a Muslim - or even a black musician who converts to Islam - and you travel outside the country, you just might not be allowed back in again - especially if you criticize Israel.
IIRC, there are more Jews inside Iran than anywhere else in the Middle East except Israel.
Which is one reason Israel doesn't like Iran. Israel wants all the Jews in the world inside Israel - where they can be "safe" - while Israel threatens every one of two hundred million Muslims for two thousand miles with nuclear weapons.
Sounds like a rational plan, eh? One that can really work in the modern world, you think?
Zionism. You gotta wonder why it was thought up in the late 1800's when everybody was planning on taking over the world in the next century...and then after WWII, they still believe in it.
Zionism - one of the most fanatical, racist, imperialist, and fascist ideologies ever invented - on a par in many conceptual points with National Socialism - and predates National Socialism (although not German imperialism).
Of course, pointing this out immediately labels one an "Anti-Semite"...
Meanwhile, guys like the OP are running the US government - so we WILL have a war with Iran this year most likely.
Iran has NOT stated ANY intention to "wipe Israel off the map."
That was a complete and deliberate mistranslation of what the President of Iran said.
And the "President" of Iran does not control Iran's military whatsoever - so there really isn't anything he can do about it anyway.
And the notion that ANY state would hand their prized technological possession - a nuke - to ANY terrorist group is absolutely ridiculous.
The worst threat Israel faces is that a terrorist group will steal one of ISRAEL'S OWN nuclear weapons and use it against Israel.
THIS is WHY Israel should have been prevented from being allowed to develop nuclear weapons in the first place.
The ONLY "destabilization" of the Middle East was and is caused by Israel's nuclear weapons program - and its policies of "regime change" throughout the Middle East in its pursuit of the domination of the Middle East.
Iran cannot even BEGIN to threaten Israel with a nuclear weapons program - even if it HAD one, which there is absolutely ZERO evidence that they do.
As for Hizballah, it is not a "terrorist" organization. Neither is Hamas. They are national resistance organizations for Lebanon and the Palestinians respectively. They engage in "terrorist actions" because that is the only way they can oppose Israeli military adventurism.
Stop reading the headlines under the news shows on Fox News and get a clue.
You needn't be "torn" with regard to Iran's nuclear program.
As Scott Ritter pointed out recently in an interview, whose statements are more likely to be true?
That of George Bush and Dick Cheney, who demonstratively LIED about EVERYTHING connected to Irag and are continuing to do so with respect to Iran.
Or that of Ayatollah Khamenei who has issued a direct Islamic fatwa proclaiming that nuclear weapons are not consistent with the Muslim religion.
As Ritter pointed out, Khamenei is not a "mad mullah" nmeaning that Khamenei does take his religion seriously. For him to issue a fatwa like that while knowingly pursuing a nuclear weapons program would be LESS likely than the opposite situation.
This is not to say, of course, that religious leaders don't delude themselves or others. I don't trust anything a religious leader - or ANY religious person - says. However, Ritter does have a point.
More importantly, we don't HAVE to rely on Khamenei. The IAEA has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely NO evidence that Iran has ANY nuclear weapons program. The ONLY thing the IAEA is concerned about are some questions about what was done in Iran in the PAST - certain documents that apparently were received by Iran from the A Q Khan network in Pakistan, and certain projects that might have been conducted by the Iranian military - all in the PAST.
I repeat - there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran HAS or HAD a nuclear weapons program.
None.
Nada.
EVERYTHING the IAEA has actually seen in Iran is legal and permitted under the NPT.
EVERYTHING that Iran IS doing with their civilian nuclear program is under the eyes of the IAEA inspectors.
Furthermore, the notion that even IF Iran HAD a nuclear weapons program - which by the way if they started TODAY, would not be for another ten years - since, as Ritter points out, that's about how long it takes to GET a nuclear weapon - that they could threaten Israel, whhich has an estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on submarines - let alone anyone else - is laughable.
No, there is absolutely no doubt in this situation as to what is going on. The US government intends to widen the war in the Middle East by starting one with Iran - as a result of neocon ideology and war profiteering goals.
There are TWO aircraft carrier battle groups and two other Naval strike groups in or near the Gulf now. The USS Reagan is reportedly on its way to join them. The Enterprise could be returned there in a matter of weeks. That makes FOUR aircraft carrier battle groups and two strike groups - plus mine-clearing ships plus thousands of Marines plus newly distributed strike aircraft in the region. An additional "surge" of three additional aircraft carrier battle groups could be performed within a month or so if ordered.
Bush intends to start a war with Iran, most likely in the next ninety days, although of course one can't be sure of the timing. What is nearly certain is that he will start one before he leaves office - and that means probably before the election campaign actually begins in 2008 - which means he will do it this year. And if HE doesn't, the Israelis have basically said they WILL in 2007.
The result will be thousands or even tens of thousands of US soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Iraqi and Iranian civilians killed, a ballooning war cost into the trillions, the destruction of the US economy via $150-250/barrel oil and possibly the dumping of the dollar by the Chinese (who will be seriously pissed if they can't get oil from Iran due to the war), massive terrorism against the US and Israel throughout the world - including inside the US (which is MADE for car bombs and suicide bombs) - the complete destabilization of the Middle East, and conceivably the destruction of a major Israeli city by one of ITS OWN nuclear weapons (obviously the best tactic any terrorist could use.)
And your Congress is not prepared to stop it. Without the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney - which simply is not possible given a reasonable time frame - it can't be stopped.
"If I, as a post-biological entity, choose to modify myself in such a way that I reproduce myself less frequently than other post-biological entities, then I guarantee that the future will contain fewer post-biological entities like myself."
And what relevance is that? That is the case NOW for practically every entity in existence on this planet! You will ALWAYS have more entities than yourself - unless you can out-reproduce ALL other entities - and there is no evidence from evolution per se that that is even possible!
And since we are talking about post-bio entities, while it is POSSIBLE that one entity could reproduce itself more than all others - assuming NO other entity does this AND that the one entity CAN out-reproduce ALL other entities combined no matter how reproductive THEY are - that is STILL (probably) irrelevant to any other entity's survival vis-a-vis it's position in the universe. The mere existence of greater numbers of other entities does no necessarily compromise the survival of any other entity. It is the actions of those entities that are relevant - whether they are aggressive, or consumptive, actions.
Natural selection does NOT operate on post-bio entities. Reproduction is entirely under the control of postbio entities, because it is not biological. Not only that, but mutation per se can be totally controlled or eliminated, if desired. What you are calling "natural selection" is simply the rate of reproduction. The rate of reproduction is not the definition of natural selection. Natural selection involves mutation and adaptation to the environment as well - both of which are totally controllable (with the possible exception of overall universal entropy) by postbio entities - and both of which control the rate of reproduction of biological entities. "Rate of reproduction" for biological entities is not under their control but is itself the product of mutation and adaptation to the environment. Otherwise bunny rabbits (or some other high-reproduction-rate animal) would be the dominant species!
"Rationality doesn't set your objectives, it just tells you how best to go about achieving them."
Wrong again. For a postbio entity, rationality WILL set ALL goals. It's possible to consider a postbio entity with emotions or even emotional goals, but if such goals are significant in controlling the entity's behavior, it may or will be at a disadvantage compared to more rational entities. Over long periods of time, if such goals are influential, the odds for error increase considerably. While this might impair survival probability for any given entity, it doesn't establish any reason for assuming that is increases survival probability.
You postulate this as a means of suggesting that there may be at least one postbio entity that will reproduce exponentially.
I'm not saying that unlimited reproduction is an error, or even that no entity may attempt it.
I'm saying that there is no evidence or logical reason why postbio entities would NECESSARILY attempt it. The mere conception of a result in which most entities are copies of one entity is insufficient. No one has established that the mere presence of greater numbers of a given entity or species is an essential goal of survival, as opposed to merely being able to EXIST in the universe indefinitely without threat of discorporation.
The presupposition is always that these entities are 1) biological; 2) consumptive of exponential resources; 3) aggressively competitive. There is nothing to support any of that for postbio entities. It's pure speculation from a biological basis.
Not to mention the metaphysical problem! Which is that COPIES of one entity are COPIES - they are NOT the entity itself. Reproducing yourself is the central "myth" of humans. Every human thinks their children will BE them, subconciously, and that children give them some form of "immortality". That is totally an illusion, and one that is quickly shattered when the children hit their teens and suddenly "rebel".
Hyperintelligent entities AREN'T known to man. Human behavior in the general sense doesn't apply.
As for hyperintelligent entities being "outnumbered" by "aggressive types" - well, the point is that hyperintelligent entities aren't likely to be threatened - or allow themselves to be threatened - by "aggressive types". That would seem obvious. If you're "aggressive", you're unlikely to be hyperintelligent - and therefore unable to compete with hyperintelligence.
If you threaten them, they either turn you into a non-aggressive type - or you go away, permanently.
That also counters your last suggestion. Hyperintelligence isn't threatened by a bunch of chimpanzees on one planet, so we're quite safe - until we try to be aggressive against them. But by that time, we'll be Transhuman and therefore not aggressive and not a threat.
Either that or the few Transhumans who develop here will have eliminated the rest of humanity in the process. I suspect this is why you don't see such civilizations. Once they develop hyperintelligent entities, they either all convert to such entities - or they are eliminated by such entities - who then go on to behave in a "non-civilization" context.
In other words, biological-based effects like evolution cease to operate on an interstellar scale. Hyperintelligence doesn't behave like biological species. Which is my point - the entire concept of "galactic colonization" is meaningless if you assume that evolution and technological advancedment leads to hyperintelligence - at which point you have a (to use a common term) "Singularity", a change in context that renders the previous context irrelevant.
Your concept presumes "evolution", which presupposes a biological basis.
Once a species reaches a level where they are not biological, evolution becomes irrelevant. The species - in fact, even the term "species" really isn't appropriate - controls its own development consciously.
In the same manner, Transhumans don't have "urges". "Urges" are biological requirements. A fully rational hyperintelligence doesn't run on "urges."
This is not to say that there might not be species out there that develop sufficient technology to be able to colonize a galaxy or greater space. But if they are still driven by biology, they are unlikely to be able to compete with or pose a threat to hyperintelligent entities that aren't biologically based.
That may be WHY you don't see any such species.
They TRIED taking out hyperintelligent entities - and lost.
I fully expect the same phenomena to take place here in this century. Transhumans will develop, the rest of the world will try to put them down - and the rest of the world goes away - assuming the rest of the world is even considered a threat by such Transhumans.
In other words, I suspect that once a species moves into hyperintelligence, they cease being a "species" and become something that doesn't behave at all like biological species. Therefore any speculation BY biological species about hyperintelligent entities requirements BASED on biological requirements becomes irrelevant and incorrect.
Look at the comments. Everything said is based on human behavior and the evolution of life on this planet alone.
Transhumans aren't human. Human behavior doesn't apply. It's that simple.
Chimpanzees imagining what a higher intelligence would do.
It's laughable.
First of all, "civilization" is a meaningless term derived strictly from human behavior. It might be possible to imagine a collection of technologically advanced entities who do not exist in anything we would term a "civilization" or "society". In fact, I suspect truly advanced entities do not operate in "societies" at all, but are more like the fictional representation of "dragons" in fantasy literature - more or less independent entities who only interact with others of their kind for specific reasons.
Second, "colonization" might be utterly irrelevant to an advanced intelligence for any number of reasons, especially reasons we haven't thought of based on the nature of that intelligence.
Third, the concepts require the notion of biological reproduction. What about a sentient entity which is not based on biology? Such an entity has no need to reproduce. While it can and may reproduce, there is no evidence that it or any particular population of it would see any need to reproduce to the level of "colonization" or even "civilization" in the human sense.
If my prediction is correct that a Transhuman requires nothing but energy, materials, nanomass, computing power and knowledgebases to exist, what need does a Transhuman have to reproduce or "colonize"?
All the Fermi Paradox demonstrates is the lack of imagination on the part of so-called "scientists".
Your example fails when it hits "click on a torrent with some seeds".
Most of the torrent search results WILL show seeds. Only when you try to actually GET one is when you see the seeds are actually zero.
I've DONE Bittorrent stuff, my friend. Nine out of ten times I can't get the file I want. And that's even when the torrent was allegedly active as little as 24 hours ago or even "currently active".
Not to mention that you can then wait for HOURS or DAYS to get the entire file - that's if the last little part is actually available. I've NEVER understood that stupid problem. If you can get parts of the file from most of the seeders, how is it that the download holds up on the last part? Doesn't everybody HAVE the last part if they have the complete file at all? Yet I've constantly had a large file come down 99% - and hang on the last 1%!
Wait for nanotech to enable Transhuman technology and thus Transhumans by end of this century.
Transhumans don't NEED to go anywhere in any given time frame. They don't age, they don't need food and water, and they don't breed (although they might reproduce themselves.) They can live anywhere as long as they have five things: energy, materials, nanomass, knowledgebases and computing power.
And if they DO want to go out there, they can do it with technology developed by brains which think a million times faster than human brains, using "virtual science and engineering" simulations that develop technology a million times faster than humans can. Which means if it's physically possible in this universe to get there in five minutes, five minutes later they'll figure out how to do that.
Issue is now irrelevant. Problem solved.
People need to stop speculating about this sort of crap and get on with the main issue - developing nanotech.
You're absolutely correct except for equating "capitalism" with "the free market".
I'm not sure entirely sure that's correct. I prefer the term "free market" which explicitly states the word "free" as in "freedom".
"Capitalism" as a term and phenomena appears to co-exist nicely with state-sponsored monopoly and oligarchies.
In that sense, capitalism is not in a decline in the US - and a "free market" almost never existed here at all.
The only way to have a "free market" is to eliminate the state and any social concept of a "corporation" (as opposed to a "company" which is merely a group of people who have no special "rights".)
Also, monopolies cannot exist in a truly "free market". Even "natural monopolies" that have "natural" control over a resource will in most instances be competed against by competing resources or technologies that provide the same functionality. The only real way to have a monopoly is via legal means - which implies state sponsorship.
As I've said here repeatedly, nobody pays or has ever paid for music.
They pay for ACCESS to music - whether that is going to a club and paying for access to a band, or buying a phonograph record when there were no cassette radio recorders, or buying CDs when there were no P2P systems or legal downloads.
That's exactly why Apple's iTunes took off. It's a hell of a lot easier than:
1) Install P2P software (assuming the user even has a clue about what it is and where to get it.) 2) Read ridiculously bad documentation on how to use it - assuming said documentation even exists. 3) Search for content. 4) Out of a thousand search results, find one that actually currently exists and can be accessed. 5) Get in queue behind 300 other people for the file. 6) Wait six days to become number 1 in queue. 7) Discover all sources of the file have shut off their machines or stopped providing the file. Bittorrent is notorious for this! Just try to find a seeder 24 hours after a file has been posted! It's over - you're late - you lose! 8) OR discover file is a virus-ridden phoney that hoses your machine. I've had two clients with this problem from Limewire - somebody via Limewire took over their machine, loaded it up with crap files full of trojans, and now their machine is moving like molasses because they're serving these files up to everyone else on the Limewire network. 8) Go back to step 1 or 3, depending on whether your machine still works. 9) Rinse and repeat with some other P2P system.
I've used them, don't get me wrong, but compared to legal downloads, they are a frikkin' nightmare designed by "frikkin idiots" (to use Dr. Evil's term).
It's no surprise that, according to most studies, P2P has little effect on CD sales, because the only people who would use those things are people who simply can't or wouldn't buy CDs anyway.
Worked for a small company of about 11 people - an IBM Series 1 VAR and PC VAD.
CEO brought in a new guy. Held a party. Told us everything was great - company profitable. The new guy was going to be CEO, the old CEO was going to be Chairman of the Board.
A week later, they fired six of the 11 people (not including me - they sent me home that afternoon to avoid the bloodshed).
Week later, the new CEO moved on to Honeywell.
A couple months later, I moved on, having seen the writing on the wall. And that was after he'd sent me back to Atlanta to go through IBM PC tech school. I came back, new job waiting for me, I reported on my experience at the IBM school - and then, "Oh, by the way, I'm quitting!"
He offered me a significant raise to stay on.
Yeah, right, asshole CEO. Sayonara!
Anybody who believes anything a manager says is seriously naive.
The icing on the cake is that this guy got his MBA on a thesis about "employee relations" - and he was one of the biggest assholes I ever worked for in any company. I mean, not just because he fired everybody. I mean, he was a SERIOUS asshole in normal conversation. Everybody at the company couldn't stand him.
That would be better than SELLING the mental illness that is the result of using Windows.
Here's another nice one:
Global Health Chief to Leave Gates Foundation
By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Page A02
Richard D. Klausner, global health director for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and former chief of the National Cancer Institute, said yesterday that he will leave the Seattle foundation Dec. 31 to start a new venture.
Klausner said his decision to resign has "absolutely" nothing to do with revelations on Friday that congressional investigators looking into possible financial improprieties during his tenure at the NCI have asked the Government Accountability Office to expand that inquiry...
Klausner has for "several months" been talking to the foundation's president, Patty Stonesifer, about moving on to something new, Cerrell said. Those discussions culminated in a "mutual decision" that Klausner would leave his $442,000-a-year job at the foundation, Cerrell said, which donates billions of dollars to the battle against global health scourges such as tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS.
FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR JOB?
Slashdot Mirror
It was such a scathing article that it destroyed itself - "no input file specified" when I go to the site.
NeoSmart must not be smart enough to deal with a
I don't HOW many corporate changes that product has been through. For the ignorant, SQR is a report/programming language used by PeopleSoft and others to write programs and generate reports from databases. I got some experience using it at City College of San Francisco with Oracle databases and the SCT Banner college information system.
It's a niche product and basically an obsolete language, having not really been significantly enhanced in some time on Hyperion's watch.
It's been around for years and been through probably a half dozen or more corporate sales and acquisitions. Keeping the name straight of whatever company currently owns it is not easy.
Here's the Wikipedia entry.
And here's the history:
History
SQ Software created SQR in the mid 1980s. It had a marketing agreement with D & N Systems, which changed its name to SQL Solutions and was later acquired by Sybase Inc. Sybase purchased SQ Software in the early 1990s. To avoid competing directly with Oracle Corporation, Sybase had a marketing and development agreement with MITI for the Oracle database versions of SQR. MITI acquired the full rights to SQR in the mid 1990s. MITI changed its name to SQRiBE Technologies in 1997. Brio Technology acquired SQRiBE in August, 1999. Brio Technology later changed its name to Brio Software. Brio licensed the compiler source code to PeopleSoft Inc. sometime around 2000. Hyperion Solutions Corporation acquired Brio Software in October, 2003. Oracle Corporation acquired PeopleSoft in December, 2004.
And now Oracle has acquired Hyperion, thus reuniting SQR with Peoplesoft.
It took me a while to find it again: here is the link
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/561c6ee353d740fb
A quote from the article:
The reports of the two Sub-Committees were presented to the Ad Hoc Committee on 24 November 1947 in a highly charged atmosphere. The report of Sub-Committee 2 (voted on before the report of Sub-Committee 1) detailed the arguments for a unified Palestine, addressing the legal question of the competence of the United Nations to partition the country:
"A study of Chapter XII of the United Nations Charter leaves no room for doubt that
"... the General Assembly is not competent to recommend, still less to enforce any solution other than the recognition of the independence of Palestine, and that the settlement of the future government of Palestine is a matter solely for the people of Palestine
"To sum up, the dissolution of the League of Nations, and the consequent removal of the legal basis for the Mandate, and the more recent declarations by the Mandatory of its intention to withdraw from Palestine, open the way for the establishment of an independent government in Palestine by the people of the country, without the intervention either of the United Nations or of any other party
"The above conclusion is by no means vitiated by the provisions for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. It was not, and could not have been the intention of the framers of the Mandate that the Jewish immigration to Palestine should result in breaking up the political, geographic, and administrative economy of the country. Any other interpretation would amount to a violation of the principles of the Covenant and would nullify one of the main objectives of the Mandate
"Moreover, partition involves the alienation of territory and the destruction of the integrity of the State of Palestine. The United Nations cannot make a disposition or alienation of territory, nor can it deprive the majority of the people of Palestine of their territory and transfer it to the exclusive use of a minority in the country
The report's first resolution, questioning the legal power of the General Assembly to partition Palestine was rejected. The second, recommending international co-operation to deal with the Jewish refugee problem was rejected too, but the Ad Hoc Committee decided to include the recommendation in its report to the General Assembly. The third, calling for the establishment of an independent unified Palestine was also rejected.
And this is direct from the UN. The overall Web site is UNISPAL - the United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine. Overall, the Web site has a pretty complete history of the whole Palestinian question going way back.
The problem with your point one is that while it may be true that the neocons believe Iraq is unwinnable, most people assessing them believe that the neocons believe that actually EXPANDING the war would enable them to RECOVER from the disaster in Iraq.
In other words, the neocons want to "double down" their bet. And since they believe that Iran was the primary target all along, significantly more important than Iraq was, I'd say this assessment makes sense.
The neocons are ideologists first and war profiteers second. They don't care how much damage occurs to the US economically, geopolitically or militarily as long as they don't have to acknowledge that their ideology is wrong. Look at how they've reacted to the disaster in Iraq. Look at any of Cheney's comments. These people are both deluded and greedy and they DON'T CARE.
As for point 2, of course Israel doesn't want to strike first. They want the US to strike first. They want the US to bear the brunt of the war. Israel will take a few Iranian conventional missile hits. So what? That is no threat to Israel's existence. The only problem Israel might have is Hizballah in Lebanon and possibly Syria. Israel believes it can handle those threats militarily - although such belief was severely shaken last summer when Hizballah handed the Israelis their heads in southern Lebanon. Israel believes that as long as Iran is taken out, they can deal with Lebanon and Hizballah and Syria.
I read an article yesterday that says basically the plan appears to be to break up all the countries around Israel into ethnically and religiously partitioned states that are thus so weakened they cannot threaten Israel hegemony in the Middle East and thus allow it to do whatever it wants to the Palestinians. This theory makes sense - except of course that such partitioned states will become breeding grounds for Muslim extremists which will massively increase terrorism. But the Zionists appear to buy into this concept.
As for point 3, while you might have enough protests over time to impeach Bush - or even more likely reduce the changes of a Republican win in 2008 - remember that the damage will have been done by then. Also keep in mind that Bush can hide behind the idea of being a "War President" and that anybody asking to impeach him is a "traitor" - they've already tried those memes and they play well with the morons supporting Bush. Also, an impeachment would need absolute legal grounds with evidence. Look how long the relatively stupid impeachment of Clinton took to execute. It could be a year or two to get Bush and by then it would be irrelevant (except to the next Republican Presidential hopeful.)
Most of the leading Democrats are too timid to oppose a Bush invasion of Iran. Hillary Clinton in particular is in AIPAC's pocket and considers Iran to be a threat and that military options must remain open. Barak is not far behind.
Ad for point 4, while there is a report the other day that some generals will quit if Bush attacks Iran, the military is not in the habit of refusing orders from the President. Many top generals - who are at no threat from ANY war personally - will go along in order to get rank. The rest of the military will "follow orders" - that's the nature of most militaries. Only when the situation has become SO dire - as in Iraq today - will the military begin to rebel.
I do expect the war with Iran, which will begin as an air and naval war, will eventually develop into a ground war. And I expect that ground war to develop similarly to the way this summer's Lebanon war went. Thousands of US troops will die and the war will drag on for years, like Vietnam - except twice as bad. At some point, the military will begin to at least verbally rebel - and the US public will also rebel.
But if Iran sponsors terrorism inside the United States as a retaliatory measure for the US war on Iran, the US public is likely to be splintered into factions, making a full-fledged peace movement impossible.
The whole situation looks like it will easily become the worst strategic decision in US history. The US-Iran war will bleed the US economically, militarily and geopolitically in a way that Vietnam or Iraq could never do.
There was an Israeli comment made recently to the effect that the "Iran problem" HAD to be "solved" this year because otherwise in their view Iran would be past the Israeli "red line" as to nuclear technology.
By the way, current reports are that Israel has asked several Gulf states for IAF overflight permissions in preparation for an attack on Iran. And because the Gulf states are beholden to the US, apparently they agreed, despite being very likely targets for Iranian missiles if the US attacks since they host US forces in their countries that will be taking part in any attack on Iran.
There are also rumors - and I emphasize that these are RUMORS - that Israeli fighter bombers have ALREADY been turned back once by the US Air Force which refused to give them permission to cross into Iran. I doubt these rumors are true.
As for securing oil for its own use, Bush has increased the National Strategic Stockpile - that is one of the red flags people mention when they assess the likelihood of war with Iran.
The main thing is that the US is definitely deploying forces to the Gulf which would be the most useful for an initial attack on Iran - aircraft carrier battle groups, strike groups, Marines, and fighter jets at bases within range. ALL the signs are an impending attack - just as before the Iraq war, Bush claimed the decision hadn't been made to attack Iraq, when in fact it HAD been made and Bush was merely seeking to go through the diplomatic "motions" before attacking to mollify the UN and European community.
Gee, Jews got expelled from Muslim countries in 1948?
I wonder what happened in 1948?
Like maybe the expulsion of the Palestinians?
Moron.
Not only was it a huge mistake to establish Israel back in 1948 - it was illegal.
The UN itself set up a commission to determine whether it had the legal authority to modify the Palestinian Mandate from the league of Nations to enable it to partition Palestine - and the commission concluded it did NOT.
But the Security Council ignored that and went ahead anyway - because the British had decided to wash their hands of the whole thing - because the Zionists were using terrorism to kill British troops and civilians and the UN thought that by partitioning the country, further warfare between the Zionists and the Palestinians and the Arab countries could be avoided.
Didn't work because the Zionists had no intention of limiting themselves to the land the UN allotted them. And the Zionists publicly said so in numerous documents issued by Zionist leaders over the years. It was ALWAYS the intention of the Zionist movement to displace the Palestinians - initially by purchasing land and when that was resisted by the Palestinians resulting in the Zionists owning only 7% of the land by the late 1940's, by terrorism and war.
What people forget is that there is no practical difference in attitude or actions between Al Qaeda today and the Palmach, Haganah and Irgun back in the 1940's. They were "terrorist" groups engaged in "terrorist" actions by any of today's definitions. They killed British soldiers and civilians by bombings and assassinations.
Uhm, Israel does NOT have a "UN Mandate."
In fact, in 1947, the UN set up a commission to determine whether the UN had the authority to partition the PALESTINIAN MANDATE (which is what you appear to be referring to) - and concluded that it was illegal for the UN to partition PALESTINE into a Palestinian state and an Israeli state.
Which the UN Security Council then ignored and went ahead and did it anyway because the British basically said, "We wash our hands of the whole thing" - because the Zionists were killing British soldiers and civilians by TERRORISM.
Whereupon the Zionists provoked a war with the Arab countries, and proceeded to drive out 700,000 Palestinians and seize their lands - which have never been returned, nor have the Palestinians driven out been allowed to return.
Not to mention that Israel has IGNORED all but one of the NUMEROUS subsequent UN resolutions requiring Israel to return lands captured in the 1967 war - and numerous other aggressions against the Palestinians.
The UN should revisit its 1947 partitioning plan, and require the original PALESTINIAN MANDATE to be enforced. "Israel" should be renamed "Palestine", all Palestinian lands should be returned to the Palestinians (where legally feasible and records exist proving ownership), and the Israeli state should be dissolved. All Israeli nuclear weapons should be eliminated, the Israeli military disarmed, and anybody who wants to leave the now-Palestinian-majority country should be allowed to leave with compensation for personal and business expense.
The binational (single) state solution is the only workable solution to the Middle East problem. And if that results is mass emigration of Israelis to other countries - well, if they hadn't been aggressively trying to expand two thousand years ago - until they ran into the Romans who were really GOOD at that sort of thing - they wouldn't have been driven out in the first place. And BEING driven out was the best thing that ever happened to Judaism, since it meant it would never die out and is now worldwide.
Judaism's worst defeat was in fact Zionism's best goal - the safety of Jews. And the Holocaust doesn't change that historical fact.
And in any event, Christianity was responsible for the persecution of Jews in the first place - based on the nonsense that Jesus Christ was anything other than a good Jew who had no intention of founding a new religion - let alone one that would persecute his own people for his death for two thousand years after...
Chimpanzees.
Ignoramus.
Get it through your thick, ignorant skull.
IRAN HAS NEVER SAID "WIPE ISRAEL OFF THE MAP"!
NEVER!
That was a mistranslation of a quote which had nothing to do with war, weapons, or anything else but history.
Moron...
Excellent point.
On the other hand, in the US, if you are a Muslim - or even a black musician who converts to Islam - and you travel outside the country, you just might not be allowed back in again - especially if you criticize Israel.
IIRC, there are more Jews inside Iran than anywhere else in the Middle East except Israel.
Which is one reason Israel doesn't like Iran. Israel wants all the Jews in the world inside Israel - where they can be "safe" - while Israel threatens every one of two hundred million Muslims for two thousand miles with nuclear weapons.
Sounds like a rational plan, eh? One that can really work in the modern world, you think?
Zionism. You gotta wonder why it was thought up in the late 1800's when everybody was planning on taking over the world in the next century...and then after WWII, they still believe in it.
Zionism - one of the most fanatical, racist, imperialist, and fascist ideologies ever invented - on a par in many conceptual points with National Socialism - and predates National Socialism (although not German imperialism).
Of course, pointing this out immediately labels one an "Anti-Semite"...
Meanwhile, guys like the OP are running the US government - so we WILL have a war with Iran this year most likely.
Hey, Benjamin Netanyahu, nice to see you here on Slashdot!
Moron...
Talk about fucking ignorance...
Iran has NOT stated ANY intention to "wipe Israel off the map."
That was a complete and deliberate mistranslation of what the President of Iran said.
And the "President" of Iran does not control Iran's military whatsoever - so there really isn't anything he can do about it anyway.
And the notion that ANY state would hand their prized technological possession - a nuke - to ANY terrorist group is absolutely ridiculous.
The worst threat Israel faces is that a terrorist group will steal one of ISRAEL'S OWN nuclear weapons and use it against Israel.
THIS is WHY Israel should have been prevented from being allowed to develop nuclear weapons in the first place.
The ONLY "destabilization" of the Middle East was and is caused by Israel's nuclear weapons program - and its policies of "regime change" throughout the Middle East in its pursuit of the domination of the Middle East.
Iran cannot even BEGIN to threaten Israel with a nuclear weapons program - even if it HAD one, which there is absolutely ZERO evidence that they do.
As for Hizballah, it is not a "terrorist" organization. Neither is Hamas. They are national resistance organizations for Lebanon and the Palestinians respectively. They engage in "terrorist actions" because that is the only way they can oppose Israeli military adventurism.
Stop reading the headlines under the news shows on Fox News and get a clue.
You needn't be "torn" with regard to Iran's nuclear program.
As Scott Ritter pointed out recently in an interview, whose statements are more likely to be true?
That of George Bush and Dick Cheney, who demonstratively LIED about EVERYTHING connected to Irag and are continuing to do so with respect to Iran.
Or that of Ayatollah Khamenei who has issued a direct Islamic fatwa proclaiming that nuclear weapons are not consistent with the Muslim religion.
As Ritter pointed out, Khamenei is not a "mad mullah" nmeaning that Khamenei does take his religion seriously. For him to issue a fatwa like that while knowingly pursuing a nuclear weapons program would be LESS likely than the opposite situation.
This is not to say, of course, that religious leaders don't delude themselves or others. I don't trust anything a religious leader - or ANY religious person - says. However, Ritter does have a point.
More importantly, we don't HAVE to rely on Khamenei. The IAEA has repeatedly stated that there is absolutely NO evidence that Iran has ANY nuclear weapons program. The ONLY thing the IAEA is concerned about are some questions about what was done in Iran in the PAST - certain documents that apparently were received by Iran from the A Q Khan network in Pakistan, and certain projects that might have been conducted by the Iranian military - all in the PAST.
I repeat - there is NO evidence WHATSOEVER that Iran HAS or HAD a nuclear weapons program.
None.
Nada.
EVERYTHING the IAEA has actually seen in Iran is legal and permitted under the NPT.
EVERYTHING that Iran IS doing with their civilian nuclear program is under the eyes of the IAEA inspectors.
Furthermore, the notion that even IF Iran HAD a nuclear weapons program - which by the way if they started TODAY, would not be for another ten years - since, as Ritter points out, that's about how long it takes to GET a nuclear weapon - that they could threaten Israel, whhich has an estimated 100-400 nuclear weapons, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles on submarines - let alone anyone else - is laughable.
No, there is absolutely no doubt in this situation as to what is going on. The US government intends to widen the war in the Middle East by starting one with Iran - as a result of neocon ideology and war profiteering goals.
There are TWO aircraft carrier battle groups and two other Naval strike groups in or near the Gulf now. The USS Reagan is reportedly on its way to join them. The Enterprise could be returned there in a matter of weeks. That makes FOUR aircraft carrier battle groups and two strike groups - plus mine-clearing ships plus thousands of Marines plus newly distributed strike aircraft in the region. An additional "surge" of three additional aircraft carrier battle groups could be performed within a month or so if ordered.
Bush intends to start a war with Iran, most likely in the next ninety days, although of course one can't be sure of the timing. What is nearly certain is that he will start one before he leaves office - and that means probably before the election campaign actually begins in 2008 - which means he will do it this year. And if HE doesn't, the Israelis have basically said they WILL in 2007.
The result will be thousands or even tens of thousands of US soldiers killed, hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of Iraqi and Iranian civilians killed, a ballooning war cost into the trillions, the destruction of the US economy via $150-250/barrel oil and possibly the dumping of the dollar by the Chinese (who will be seriously pissed if they can't get oil from Iran due to the war), massive terrorism against the US and Israel throughout the world - including inside the US (which is MADE for car bombs and suicide bombs) - the complete destabilization of the Middle East, and conceivably the destruction of a major Israeli city by one of ITS OWN nuclear weapons (obviously the best tactic any terrorist could use.)
And your Congress is not prepared to stop it. Without the immediate impeachment of Bush and Cheney - which simply is not possible given a reasonable time frame - it can't be stopped.
"If I, as a post-biological entity, choose to modify myself in such a way that I reproduce myself less frequently than other post-biological entities, then I guarantee that the future will contain fewer post-biological entities like myself."
And what relevance is that? That is the case NOW for practically every entity in existence on this planet! You will ALWAYS have more entities than yourself - unless you can out-reproduce ALL other entities - and there is no evidence from evolution per se that that is even possible!
And since we are talking about post-bio entities, while it is POSSIBLE that one entity could reproduce itself more than all others - assuming NO other entity does this AND that the one entity CAN out-reproduce ALL other entities combined no matter how reproductive THEY are - that is STILL (probably) irrelevant to any other entity's survival vis-a-vis it's position in the universe. The mere existence of greater numbers of other entities does no necessarily compromise the survival of any other entity. It is the actions of those entities that are relevant - whether they are aggressive, or consumptive, actions.
Natural selection does NOT operate on post-bio entities. Reproduction is entirely under the control of postbio entities, because it is not biological. Not only that, but mutation per se can be totally controlled or eliminated, if desired. What you are calling "natural selection" is simply the rate of reproduction. The rate of reproduction is not the definition of natural selection. Natural selection involves mutation and adaptation to the environment as well - both of which are totally controllable (with the possible exception of overall universal entropy) by postbio entities - and both of which control the rate of reproduction of biological entities. "Rate of reproduction" for biological entities is not under their control but is itself the product of mutation and adaptation to the environment. Otherwise bunny rabbits (or some other high-reproduction-rate animal) would be the dominant species!
"Rationality doesn't set your objectives, it just tells you how best to go about achieving them."
Wrong again. For a postbio entity, rationality WILL set ALL goals. It's possible to consider a postbio entity with emotions or even emotional goals, but if such goals are significant in controlling the entity's behavior, it may or will be at a disadvantage compared to more rational entities. Over long periods of time, if such goals are influential, the odds for error increase considerably. While this might impair survival probability for any given entity, it doesn't establish any reason for assuming that is increases survival probability.
You postulate this as a means of suggesting that there may be at least one postbio entity that will reproduce exponentially.
I'm not saying that unlimited reproduction is an error, or even that no entity may attempt it.
I'm saying that there is no evidence or logical reason why postbio entities would NECESSARILY attempt it. The mere conception of a result in which most entities are copies of one entity is insufficient. No one has established that the mere presence of greater numbers of a given entity or species is an essential goal of survival, as opposed to merely being able to EXIST in the universe indefinitely without threat of discorporation.
The presupposition is always that these entities are 1) biological; 2) consumptive of exponential resources; 3) aggressively competitive. There is nothing to support any of that for postbio entities. It's pure speculation from a biological basis.
Not to mention the metaphysical problem! Which is that COPIES of one entity are COPIES - they are NOT the entity itself. Reproducing yourself is the central "myth" of humans. Every human thinks their children will BE them, subconciously, and that children give them some form of "immortality". That is totally an illusion, and one that is quickly shattered when the children hit their teens and suddenly "rebel".
The function
"I cant think of any type of being known to man"
Exactly my point.
Hyperintelligent entities AREN'T known to man. Human behavior in the general sense doesn't apply.
As for hyperintelligent entities being "outnumbered" by "aggressive types" - well, the point is that hyperintelligent entities aren't likely to be threatened - or allow themselves to be threatened - by "aggressive types". That would seem obvious. If you're "aggressive", you're unlikely to be hyperintelligent - and therefore unable to compete with hyperintelligence.
If you threaten them, they either turn you into a non-aggressive type - or you go away, permanently.
That also counters your last suggestion. Hyperintelligence isn't threatened by a bunch of chimpanzees on one planet, so we're quite safe - until we try to be aggressive against them. But by that time, we'll be Transhuman and therefore not aggressive and not a threat.
Either that or the few Transhumans who develop here will have eliminated the rest of humanity in the process. I suspect this is why you don't see such civilizations. Once they develop hyperintelligent entities, they either all convert to such entities - or they are eliminated by such entities - who then go on to behave in a "non-civilization" context.
In other words, biological-based effects like evolution cease to operate on an interstellar scale. Hyperintelligence doesn't behave like biological species. Which is my point - the entire concept of "galactic colonization" is meaningless if you assume that evolution and technological advancedment leads to hyperintelligence - at which point you have a (to use a common term) "Singularity", a change in context that renders the previous context irrelevant.
Your concept presumes "evolution", which presupposes a biological basis.
Once a species reaches a level where they are not biological, evolution becomes irrelevant. The species - in fact, even the term "species" really isn't appropriate - controls its own development consciously.
In the same manner, Transhumans don't have "urges". "Urges" are biological requirements. A fully rational hyperintelligence doesn't run on "urges."
This is not to say that there might not be species out there that develop sufficient technology to be able to colonize a galaxy or greater space. But if they are still driven by biology, they are unlikely to be able to compete with or pose a threat to hyperintelligent entities that aren't biologically based.
That may be WHY you don't see any such species.
They TRIED taking out hyperintelligent entities - and lost.
I fully expect the same phenomena to take place here in this century. Transhumans will develop, the rest of the world will try to put them down - and the rest of the world goes away - assuming the rest of the world is even considered a threat by such Transhumans.
In other words, I suspect that once a species moves into hyperintelligence, they cease being a "species" and become something that doesn't behave at all like biological species. Therefore any speculation BY biological species about hyperintelligent entities requirements BASED on biological requirements becomes irrelevant and incorrect.
Look at the comments. Everything said is based on human behavior and the evolution of life on this planet alone.
Transhumans aren't human. Human behavior doesn't apply. It's that simple.
Chimpanzees imagining what a higher intelligence would do.
It's laughable.
First of all, "civilization" is a meaningless term derived strictly from human behavior. It might be possible to imagine a collection of technologically advanced entities who do not exist in anything we would term a "civilization" or "society". In fact, I suspect truly advanced entities do not operate in "societies" at all, but are more like the fictional representation of "dragons" in fantasy literature - more or less independent entities who only interact with others of their kind for specific reasons.
Second, "colonization" might be utterly irrelevant to an advanced intelligence for any number of reasons, especially reasons we haven't thought of based on the nature of that intelligence.
Third, the concepts require the notion of biological reproduction. What about a sentient entity which is not based on biology? Such an entity has no need to reproduce. While it can and may reproduce, there is no evidence that it or any particular population of it would see any need to reproduce to the level of "colonization" or even "civilization" in the human sense.
If my prediction is correct that a Transhuman requires nothing but energy, materials, nanomass, computing power and knowledgebases to exist, what need does a Transhuman have to reproduce or "colonize"?
All the Fermi Paradox demonstrates is the lack of imagination on the part of so-called "scientists".
Your example fails when it hits "click on a torrent with some seeds".
Most of the torrent search results WILL show seeds. Only when you try to actually GET one is when you see the seeds are actually zero.
I've DONE Bittorrent stuff, my friend. Nine out of ten times I can't get the file I want. And that's even when the torrent was allegedly active as little as 24 hours ago or even "currently active".
Not to mention that you can then wait for HOURS or DAYS to get the entire file - that's if the last little part is actually available. I've NEVER understood that stupid problem. If you can get parts of the file from most of the seeders, how is it that the download holds up on the last part? Doesn't everybody HAVE the last part if they have the complete file at all? Yet I've constantly had a large file come down 99% - and hang on the last 1%!
It's ridiculous.
That's a fact.
Wait for nanotech to enable Transhuman technology and thus Transhumans by end of this century.
Transhumans don't NEED to go anywhere in any given time frame. They don't age, they don't need food and water, and they don't breed (although they might reproduce themselves.) They can live anywhere as long as they have five things: energy, materials, nanomass, knowledgebases and computing power.
And if they DO want to go out there, they can do it with technology developed by brains which think a million times faster than human brains, using "virtual science and engineering" simulations that develop technology a million times faster than humans can. Which means if it's physically possible in this universe to get there in five minutes, five minutes later they'll figure out how to do that.
Issue is now irrelevant. Problem solved.
People need to stop speculating about this sort of crap and get on with the main issue - developing nanotech.
You're absolutely correct except for equating "capitalism" with "the free market".
I'm not sure entirely sure that's correct. I prefer the term "free market" which explicitly states the word "free" as in "freedom".
"Capitalism" as a term and phenomena appears to co-exist nicely with state-sponsored monopoly and oligarchies.
In that sense, capitalism is not in a decline in the US - and a "free market" almost never existed here at all.
The only way to have a "free market" is to eliminate the state and any social concept of a "corporation" (as opposed to a "company" which is merely a group of people who have no special "rights".)
Also, monopolies cannot exist in a truly "free market". Even "natural monopolies" that have "natural" control over a resource will in most instances be competed against by competing resources or technologies that provide the same functionality. The only real way to have a monopoly is via legal means - which implies state sponsorship.
Get rid of the state, you get rid of monopolies.
Got that right.
Chimpanzees ain't gonna last out this century. That's the next big change.
Which means their economics is going to go by the wayside as well.
Economics is basically human behavior.
When you're not human anymore, you don't need it.
Just use a Bork translator - the result makes about the same sense as any corporate speak.
Remember when Opera make a special edition of the browser that translated the Microsoft MSN pages into Bork-speak?
That was so brilliant.
As I've said here repeatedly, nobody pays or has ever paid for music.
They pay for ACCESS to music - whether that is going to a club and paying for access to a band, or buying a phonograph record when there were no cassette radio recorders, or buying CDs when there were no P2P systems or legal downloads.
That's exactly why Apple's iTunes took off. It's a hell of a lot easier than:
1) Install P2P software (assuming the user even has a clue about what it is and where to get it.)
2) Read ridiculously bad documentation on how to use it - assuming said documentation even exists.
3) Search for content.
4) Out of a thousand search results, find one that actually currently exists and can be accessed.
5) Get in queue behind 300 other people for the file.
6) Wait six days to become number 1 in queue.
7) Discover all sources of the file have shut off their machines or stopped providing the file. Bittorrent is notorious for this! Just try to find a seeder 24 hours after a file has been posted! It's over - you're late - you lose!
8) OR discover file is a virus-ridden phoney that hoses your machine. I've had two clients with this problem from Limewire - somebody via Limewire took over their machine, loaded it up with crap files full of trojans, and now their machine is moving like molasses because they're serving these files up to everyone else on the Limewire network.
8) Go back to step 1 or 3, depending on whether your machine still works.
9) Rinse and repeat with some other P2P system.
I've used them, don't get me wrong, but compared to legal downloads, they are a frikkin' nightmare designed by "frikkin idiots" (to use Dr. Evil's term).
It's no surprise that, according to most studies, P2P has little effect on CD sales, because the only people who would use those things are people who simply can't or wouldn't buy CDs anyway.
Yup. Been there, done that.
Worked for a small company of about 11 people - an IBM Series 1 VAR and PC VAD.
CEO brought in a new guy. Held a party. Told us everything was great - company profitable. The new guy was going to be CEO, the old CEO was going to be Chairman of the Board.
A week later, they fired six of the 11 people (not including me - they sent me home that afternoon to avoid the bloodshed).
Week later, the new CEO moved on to Honeywell.
A couple months later, I moved on, having seen the writing on the wall. And that was after he'd sent me back to Atlanta to go through IBM PC tech school. I came back, new job waiting for me, I reported on my experience at the IBM school - and then, "Oh, by the way, I'm quitting!"
He offered me a significant raise to stay on.
Yeah, right, asshole CEO. Sayonara!
Anybody who believes anything a manager says is seriously naive.
The icing on the cake is that this guy got his MBA on a thesis about "employee relations" - and he was one of the biggest assholes I ever worked for in any company. I mean, not just because he fired everybody. I mean, he was a SERIOUS asshole in normal conversation. Everybody at the company couldn't stand him.
That would be better than SELLING the mental illness that is the result of using Windows.
Here's another nice one:
Global Health Chief to Leave Gates Foundation
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 14, 2005; Page A02
Richard D. Klausner, global health director for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and former chief of the National Cancer Institute, said yesterday that he will leave the Seattle foundation Dec. 31 to start a new venture.
Klausner said his decision to resign has "absolutely" nothing to do with revelations on Friday that congressional investigators looking into possible financial improprieties during his tenure at the NCI have asked the Government Accountability Office to expand that inquiry...
Klausner has for "several months" been talking to the foundation's president, Patty Stonesifer, about moving on to something new, Cerrell said. Those discussions culminated in a "mutual decision" that Klausner would leave his $442,000-a-year job at the foundation, Cerrell said, which donates billions of dollars to the battle against global health scourges such as tuberculosis, malaria and AIDS.
FOUR HUNDRED AND FORTY TWO THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR JOB?
Yeah, "charity begins at home"...