Watch the video. Everyone knows that Mario games move too fast to be fun. Here you can relish every glorious, floaty leap as Mario carves a slow, graceful arc through the air. Those pesky Goombas are easier to visually track now that they're moving at about 3 pixels per hour--just remember that Mario is slower too!
Maybe this emulator will be worth looking at in the future, but the video I saw showed a game that is quick and snappy on the Wii running slow and with buggy sound. But it's 1080p! Yawn.
When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses. These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing. That's it. Everything is a subset of those Big Five.
Hmm, I don't know about that. I do a lot of audio manipulation on my computer. Shouldn't that warrant its own category if image manipulation does? If so, then there's a sixth category you missed, and it came later than image manipulation. If not, why not? Either way, is it so inconceivable that there will be other uses as computers continue to get faster, smaller, and cheaper? I doubt many people thought they'd ever be used for entertainment when ENIAC went online...
Also, aren't those categories kind of arbitrary? After all, looking at it from a very low-level point of view, the only thing the computer is good for is calculations. Everything else you do with it boils down to that.
I agree with your statement that most of the "advances" being touted today are really just rebranding; but real, usually incremental advances do take place and shouldn't be discounted. In my own favored area, audio manipulation, the past few years have seen lots of expansion in both what can be done and how easy it is to do it, in commercial products like Propellerhead Reason or Ableton Live and in weird, ungainly yet powerful beasts like PureData or SuperCollider. I think we are also only beginning to see the implications of multi-touch screens, motion capture like Project Natal and other interface technologies that could free us from the constraints of keyboard-based interaction.
I don't subscribe to the Singularity, a deus ex machina if ever there was one, but it's a few decades too early to claim the industry is eating itself. It's a little stagnant right now, but give bandwidth another decade to grow and interconnectivity some more time to become normal, and I think we'll see more original uses start to appear again as the industry is forced to find some new area to focus on.
Nine different computer-generated faces that roughly fit the description are generated, and the witness identifies the best and worst matches. The software uses the best fit as a template to automatically generate nine new faces with slightly tweaked features, based on what it learned from the rejected faces.
I immediately thought of the Mii Channel on Wii when I read this. One of the ways to create a Mii is to start with a bunch of randomized faces and pick the one that looks the most like you (or whoever you're modeling). From there, it generates 9 variations of that face for you to choose from. This system is obviously more advanced, but the basic idea is the same.
Sure the helicopter support might arrive in time and kill all the pirates, but at that point why not just kill the pirates from the boat int he first place?
Well the whole idea is to avoid having the crew be lethally armed and to avoid any kind of close confrontation with the pirates. The biggest issue with firearms is that every port of call has different rules concerning them and who can carry them. It's an extra hassle, and it costs money in training, upkeep and presumably in hazard pay to arm a crew.
I sympathize with the use of lethal force in this case, and I think that any shipping company who decides to arm their crews should be allowed to do so. Even with that option, this looks like another good tool to have.
You can't kill ghost bats with explosives. Although, perhaps if they were blessed...
I found a reference (PDF link) to the incident in some file from the Environmental Defender's Office, and it didn't go down quite like that according to them.
The Mount Etna limestone caves near Rockhampton provided habitat for endangered ghost bats. Conservationists commenced a court challenge of the decision to destroy the habitat. To [keep] them from proceeding, the cement company [claimed] security for costs and undertakings as to damages. The conservationists duly raised $30,000. However the Queensland Supreme Court made a further order that $45,000 additional security be provided prior to allowing the conservationists' case to be heard. They could not raise the money in the time available, and the Mount Etna caves were blasted for limestone as a result.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Queensland Supreme Court ordered the additional security at the behest of the cement company, but that's where the tactical maneuvering would have taken place, not in a pre-emptive strike against the ghost bats (which I suppose are truly ghost bats now, God bless their little bat-souls).
I'm not out to disprove your point--I find it plausible. I only looked into it in the first place because I like caves. I would however be surprised if a company could get away without punishment if they pulled something like your version of the tale, unless they already owned the land perhaps.
Now, you may or may not care that someone is benefiting from the collection of your personal data, personally I don't, but to go and say Google is out to improve the quality of life for people and other BS like they are some non-profit charity is just naive.
They're out to make a profit by improving the quality of life so that people use their products...isn't that what most companies do? Aside from the few real necessities we purchase, everything else is optional. We buy a lot of things because they make life easier or more enjoyable. If something isn't a necessity and it doesn't improve your quality of life in some way, why would you buy it?
Google has an interesting model, for sure. Instead of paying a lot of money (or any, for most of their services), we let them learn about our habits. They use that data in turn to sell advertisements which fund the services we are using. I'm still not sure how I feel about that, but it is very interesting that they've built a thriving business on exchanging attractive services for information, removing money from the equation for the general public.
You are trying to argue against maths by quoting scripture.
Not my intention. I only meant to clarify that once you're aware you're being cheated, you're not going to allow it to continue. Does that count as "switching away from the golden rule?" It does, if the golden rule exists in a vacuum, but it doesn't if other guiding principles exist, and they do.
Both your scripture and your example require on the person being deceiving knowing that they are deceived. This is not true in general
[citation needed]
Reputation tracking might be better than the assumption of altruism, but reputation tracking isn't practical for average Joes yet, so it isn't a real alternative, is it?
The "known experimental results" was in the context of a debate about physics, and yet you've just inserted a huge bunch of unrelated waffle about how nice Jesus was, and how much he worked hard to make everyone happy.
I perceived the thread as being diverted when Mister Stoopid responded with what looked to me like a very open question regarding...some testable hypothesis proposed by Jesus, I guess. Reading it again, I see that the context may have remained intact. If so, it was an absurd question and didn't warrant its +5 rating, and neither does my response as it is then off-topic--of course Jesus has nothing to do with physics. But the fact that they are both highly rated leads me to believe that most mods here are okay with such diversions; after all, it's not as if we're crowding out other, more topical discussion. There's plenty of room.
A simpler (and more scientific) way of analysing it would be in terms of game theory. Let's consider a world where everyone follows this [golden rule] advice: if I decide to act like a complete tool then nobody is going to change their behaviour towards me, so I can get all of the advantages without suffering any of the consequences. By symmetry this argument applies to anyone else. So everybody derives an advantage by switching away from the golden rule. Hence it is a weak equilibrium strongly dominated by (almost) any other strategy.
The golden rule does not exist in a vacuum. Jesus also said, "If no one welcomes you or listens to your words, as you leave that house or town, shake its dust off your feet." You could act like a tool, and you would in short order have a very small amount of company.
Society relies on cooperation. Your argument has been realized time and time again, and a good recent example is the poisoned milk in China. The milk companies acted like tools, gaining the advantage of profit at the cost of sickening children. That was an act with consequences.
More complete work has been published on the game theoretic analysis of truth-telling/lying and altruism. So your imaginary friend not only lacks accurate predictions of known experimental results, but when you try and twist his alleged words into such proofs you run up into the problem that he was wrong.
If you're going to say I'm reaching and then offer a counter-claim, you ought to back it up. I found an interesting article that shows how the golden rule is beneficial, though not under all circumstances. One game theory staple where it is beneficial is in repeated play of the Prisoner's Dilemma, where first assuming altruism pays off, on the condition that there are enough other players in the population also first assuming altruism. This strikes me as a pretty decent (though limited) description of a society. But there is another game, the snowdrift game, which also mirrors aspects of society, in which it doesn't pay off to assume altruism. Which stripped-down scientific study more accurately mirrors reality? I can't say. I will however continue to treat others with fairness and respect unless they give me a reason to do otherwise. It may not get me the most cash or the shiniest toys, but it feels a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
To not have faith is to not believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Which isn't always a bad thing, as it is painted nowadays. People tend to forget that the idiom "leap of faith" comes from the fact that one is more likely to successfully leap over a gap if one believes in one's ability to do so, despite never having encountered a gap quite so wide before. To "not have faith" under those circumstances leads to unsure footing and hesitation, which could very well cause the leap to fail.
I'm keeping my mouth shut (for now) on the topic of faith in science, but faith is present in far more than only spiritual pursuits. Faith in oneself enables one to do more than a lack of it, and faith in others is what fuels every society. How is a university or a company built if not by the faith of its founders and investors, who would otherwise never put up their money in its pursuit?
It's not a dirty word, and it shouldn't be treated as such.
The government should get down on its knees and Thank the People for allowing it to exist, rather than abolishing it completely.
In theory. But that requires that the people assert their authority, which ain't happening so often these days. And I don't mean with guns either, not unless or until they're needed. Four boxes and all that.
Can you send me an example where Jesus accurately predicts known experimental results?
(I'm not sure if your stay on rejection was genuine or troll-bait, but it's caught momentum and I thought I'd provide an honest response rather than leave the question hanging.)
There's the golden rule, for starters. He didn't invent it, but he was instrumental in the widespread use of its positive statement ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as opposed to "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him"). And the result of following that rule, the rule of initiating kindness, you are statistically more likely to be treated kindly in return. Common sense and anecdotal evidence bear this out as well.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff he said, including things about the Kingdom of Heaven being here and now, forgiveness, faith, and love, that has unfortunately been so steadily downplayed and cloaked in tradition and dogma that it gets lost in the "war" to "win souls" for God. I think the historical Jesus would get along just fine with good-hearted atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Krishnas, Christians, Buddhists, and followers of most any other creed that you can imagine--and he probably had more in common with the Buddhists than we tend to think. He might not agree with all of the beliefs in those various systems, but he was more interested in disciples, people who would emulate his way of living, than converts to his religion, which didn't even exist during his lifetime. In other words, I think he'd be an excellent person to discuss philosophy and religion with, and he'd probably be the first to quell any budding flame wars.
This is of course only my understanding of Jesus. I've put a lot of thought and a decent amount of study into it, so I have a nuanced view not shared by most Christians, but I prefer to simply act in a manner I think he would approve of than to talk about it. It's more challenging and more effective to act, and I lack the agenda to convert people so dislike being perceived as having it. It is still disheartening to see his teachings rejected out-of-hand because of the centuries of stupid, un-Christlike actions of his followers, not to mention the (in my opinion) corruption of his words within the Bible. I hope to change that by trying to live up to the way I think he did. Even if most people who learn from me never find out my source, it is a good way to live.
This is a subtle quibble with wording, but not necessarily a minor one. I think "a more useful model" is better and more accurate than either of the previously suggested adjectives.;)
"Better" is indeed a nebulous term, but "more accurate" is quite similar to "more in line with our preconceived notions." We have had theories that made predictions that matched experimental outcomes, but for what turned out to be very wrong reasons. Such theories did not accurately represent reality, but nonetheless proved useful in their application. It is a theory's usefulness that matters, because the only test we have for coherence with reality is the results of applying a theory in experimentation and in general practice.
A good example is Ptolemy's epicycles: they more accurately represented the movements of the planets as viewed from Earth because they accounted for retrograde motion, and were thus more useful than the ancient understanding that the planets followed circular paths around Earth. Yet the ancients' circular planetary paths, sans epicycles, more accurately described the reality of elliptical orbits. Ptolemy's theory had more mistakes (geocentrism, circular orbits, epicycles) than the older model (geocentrism and circular orbits) and was therefore a less accurate model of reality, but it was more useful because it better fit the data given his preconceived notions about reality, that is, a geocentric solar system.
All this to say that one theory could be proven wrong before the other, true, yet it could be that when the second theory is proven wrong, it turns out to be a worse description of reality than the first: even more off-base, yet refined enough to fit the existing data better than the first.
It is a subtle distinction, but it has implications in how one deals with new theories. If it better fits all the data we have access to, then use it. But calling it "more accurate" without limiting its scope is a leap of faith--one that I take daily along with everybody else, but it's good to keep that distinction in mind.
Did you read the newspaper's privacy policy? The privacy policy states that they can break anonymity if you break their terms of use, which includes posting profanity or vulgarity. It's posted further up.
I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a "real libertarian"
I know, right? "I prepared the soapbox for the libertarians, and all I got was this lousy mcgrew.";)
I think all libertarians (including the big-Ls) would agree that everything you wrote about should be legalized, so it looks like where you differ from the hardcore people is in the regulation. But that's such a central piece of the traditional platform of many libertarians that I'm surprised nobody has had a go at explaining how it would work in this case or others.
It's interesting to me that you used the police and the FDA as two examples, because the libertarians I know, the ones who like the idea of a limited constitutional government, see the former as necessary and the latter as an obstacle. They certainly wouldn't say they want to be allowed to sell contaminated drugs; they would say that the sale of contaminated drugs falls under fraud laws and there doesn't need to be another government agency (unelected bureaucrats, no less) to stifle potential innovation. But the way you frame it makes sense too: the police and the FDA both protect us from direct, physical harm.
I won't say I'm convinced that such regulations are necessary, but it is a point in their favor that no one has stepped up to attack them. I will definitely be raising this issue in my local Campaign for Liberty mailing list.
Thanks for responding and giving me something to think about.
It is an easy thing to say, yes. It's also what I usually tell people who complain and complain about the way things are going but can't be bothered to vote, let alone call or write their congesscritter or representative to voice their complaints.
It's good to call people out on their inaction. I find that you (or at least I) have to do more in order to get people to be receptive to what you're saying. If they say "we can't change anything" and you say "yes we can," and you're not Barack Obama, you have to give some specific, concrete examples of things to do.
DownsizeDC is often good in this respect because it really is easy and it really does work. Public pressure is the best tool we have--better even than voting--and that organization has found a good way to facilitate it. You really can (after creating an account; i know, i know, but it's necessary to link you with your particular congresscritters) just receive an email regarding a particular piece of legislation, click a link, add some personalized text (or not), and click a button to send your two senators and your rep the message. There's almost 29,000 members right now, so a campaign run by them generates a significant amount of pressure per congressman. I sound like a salesman, but it's because I believe this could be an important vehicle for change over the next few years. It's just much more practical than individual efforts.
I've found over the years that by bringing up the next election and the prospect of campaign donations makes it more likely that I'll get more than a canned reply when I do try to get in touch with them about something. Work all the angles you can.
Thanks for the tip! I brought that up once or twice on the phone, but never thought to drive at that point while using email. I'll be interested to try it out.
No organization will support everything that everyone wants or believes in. The only thing we can do is support those that seem to back most of them and speak out on the specifics.
I am in turn glad to read this. It seems that real pragmatism is in danger of becoming fashionable again. God knows we could use it.
The Write the Laws Act would put an end to bureaucrats essentially writing legislation by forcing Congress to fill in all the details. I think this one is a tough sell, but it can't hurt to try. See my other post for the whole spiel on why DownsizeDC might be the best avenue for taking back our power.
That's an easy thing to say. Coming up with a set of changes to push for is a little more difficult, and actually getting enough people to push in order to make a difference is harder still. What do you suggest are some good first steps?
Someone mentioned instant runoff voting, but I think that's jumping the gun--it (along with any other alternative to the current system) gives third parties a stronger voice, so you'll have a hard time convincing current politicians to back it.
In my opinion, the best way to foster change is to spread the word about a few bills being sponsored by Downsize DC. They are a non-partisan organization which is (obviously) committed to shrinking government. Now, you may not think that government needs shrinking, only fixing, but within their agenda are some proposals that would do just that. Here are two that I think are particularly needed:
The Read the Bills Act would ensure that every bill and every amendment must be read aloud in its entirety before a quorum in both houses, and every member who plans to vote "yes" must sign a sworn affidavit that he has read the complete bill. Additionally, every bill in its final form must be published to the Internet at least 7 days before a vote to let the public see the final bill. Personally, I think the reading aloud bit is kind of obnoxious, but I like the rest of it. We've seen that Obama's promise to put bills up online before a vote has not been carried out because it had no teeth. This would re-fang and improve it (that is, make it actually happen).
The One Subject at a Time Act requires that each bill that comes to a vote is about one subject, and one subject only. No more unpopular riders such as REAL ID hiding in bills named "Emergency, Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief." If something can't stand on its own merit, it shouldn't be passed. A bill's title is also required to be descriptive of the legislation it would enact.
Either one of these two measures by itself would do a lot to improve the quality of legislation coming out of Washington. DownsizeDC has a decent system for sending messages to all your congressmen. Their newsletter often has interesting (read: maddening) tidbits about what's going on in Washington, too, though the rhetoric can be juvenile at times.
If you want to make a difference, start pushing for these bills. They have a lot of support already, and every new call for them makes it more likely that they'll actually be passed. Don't be put off because the organization doesn't support something that you do (the health care bill, for instance)--just make use of their system to keep increasing pressure on Congress to pass important legislation like the proposals listed above.
The parent post is quite incendiary, but makes very good points.
One of particular interest to me is the issue of the aforementioned companies using these chemicals and continuing to claim that they are not dangerous. A libertarian idealist would say that the information will get out (as it is, slowly) and if it concerns people (as it should) they will find somewhere else to buy sippy cups. But this seems inefficient to me, and it seems like in the meantime there is widespread, preventable harm being done.
Now, I think the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations on the books do more harm than good, because 1) they tend to be so burdensome that small and innovative businesses are squeezed out by multinationals, who 2) have regulations written in their favor (someone else mentioned regulatory capture), and 3) we already have laws to punish fraud (such as marketing an unsafe item as safe). Yet I don't see a good answer to a problem like this one without regulation.
First, it is my understanding that no single product is solely responsible; it is due to the chemicals' presence in lots and lots of things, so wouldn't any single company's statement that their product is safe be kind of true, invalidating claims of fraud? Second, presumably a lot of harm is being done due to the widespread use of these chemicals, and the companies' reporting record is abysmal, so I find it unsatisfying to just say "you need to be aware of what you are purchasing." That's good in theory and probably worked well when goods were mostly made from natural items, but when everything is made out of 900 different kinds of plastic, organic compounds, synthetic materials, and who knows what else, you could spend eight hours a day trying to trace everything you use and still come up short.
So how would a real libertarian respond? To be clear, I like a lot of libertarian ideals, but there are instances where I don't see it working well. The common thread I see among them is "trouble caused by many people doing little things in aggregate."
Airport security has the added advantage of getting people used to waiting in lines and invasions of privacy. Those in power don't want people like those on Flight 93, they want people like those in line for the Tilt-A-Whirl.
Slashdot Mirror
Watch the video. Everyone knows that Mario games move too fast to be fun. Here you can relish every glorious, floaty leap as Mario carves a slow, graceful arc through the air. Those pesky Goombas are easier to visually track now that they're moving at about 3 pixels per hour--just remember that Mario is slower too!
Maybe this emulator will be worth looking at in the future, but the video I saw showed a game that is quick and snappy on the Wii running slow and with buggy sound. But it's 1080p! Yawn.
It's cool, it's cool...just play it in reverse.
Yeah, his last twelve books.
dash dash dash, dot dot dot dot
dash dot dash dash, dot, dot dash, dot dot dot dot
dot dot dash dash dot dot
When all is said and done, the computer is good for a limited number of uses. These include calculations, entertainment, information retrieval, image manipulation, and word processing. That's it. Everything is a subset of those Big Five.
Hmm, I don't know about that. I do a lot of audio manipulation on my computer. Shouldn't that warrant its own category if image manipulation does? If so, then there's a sixth category you missed, and it came later than image manipulation. If not, why not? Either way, is it so inconceivable that there will be other uses as computers continue to get faster, smaller, and cheaper? I doubt many people thought they'd ever be used for entertainment when ENIAC went online...
Also, aren't those categories kind of arbitrary? After all, looking at it from a very low-level point of view, the only thing the computer is good for is calculations. Everything else you do with it boils down to that.
I agree with your statement that most of the "advances" being touted today are really just rebranding; but real, usually incremental advances do take place and shouldn't be discounted. In my own favored area, audio manipulation, the past few years have seen lots of expansion in both what can be done and how easy it is to do it, in commercial products like Propellerhead Reason or Ableton Live and in weird, ungainly yet powerful beasts like PureData or SuperCollider. I think we are also only beginning to see the implications of multi-touch screens, motion capture like Project Natal and other interface technologies that could free us from the constraints of keyboard-based interaction.
I don't subscribe to the Singularity, a deus ex machina if ever there was one, but it's a few decades too early to claim the industry is eating itself. It's a little stagnant right now, but give bandwidth another decade to grow and interconnectivity some more time to become normal, and I think we'll see more original uses start to appear again as the industry is forced to find some new area to focus on.
Looking forward to sampling artificial meat jerky and Slim Jims
There hasn't been real meat in Slim Jims since before Randy Savage was their spokesman. ;)
Nine different computer-generated faces that roughly fit the description are generated, and the witness identifies the best and worst matches. The software uses the best fit as a template to automatically generate nine new faces with slightly tweaked features, based on what it learned from the rejected faces.
I immediately thought of the Mii Channel on Wii when I read this. One of the ways to create a Mii is to start with a bunch of randomized faces and pick the one that looks the most like you (or whoever you're modeling). From there, it generates 9 variations of that face for you to choose from. This system is obviously more advanced, but the basic idea is the same.
Sure the helicopter support might arrive in time and kill all the pirates, but at that point why not just kill the pirates from the boat int he first place?
Well the whole idea is to avoid having the crew be lethally armed and to avoid any kind of close confrontation with the pirates. The biggest issue with firearms is that every port of call has different rules concerning them and who can carry them. It's an extra hassle, and it costs money in training, upkeep and presumably in hazard pay to arm a crew.
I sympathize with the use of lethal force in this case, and I think that any shipping company who decides to arm their crews should be allowed to do so. Even with that option, this looks like another good tool to have.
That story smells fishy to me, friend.
You can't kill ghost bats with explosives. Although, perhaps if they were blessed...
I found a reference (PDF link) to the incident in some file from the Environmental Defender's Office, and it didn't go down quite like that according to them.
The Mount Etna limestone caves
near Rockhampton provided habitat for endangered
ghost bats. Conservationists commenced a court
challenge of the decision to destroy the habitat. To
[keep] them from proceeding, the cement company
[claimed] security for costs and undertakings as to
damages. The conservationists duly raised $30,000.
However the Queensland Supreme Court made a
further order that $45,000 additional security be
provided prior to allowing the conservationists' case
to be heard. They could not raise the money in the
time available, and the Mount Etna caves were blasted
for limestone as a result.
It wouldn't surprise me if the Queensland Supreme Court ordered the additional security at the behest of the cement company, but that's where the tactical maneuvering would have taken place, not in a pre-emptive strike against the ghost bats (which I suppose are truly ghost bats now, God bless their little bat-souls).
I'm not out to disprove your point--I find it plausible. I only looked into it in the first place because I like caves. I would however be surprised if a company could get away without punishment if they pulled something like your version of the tale, unless they already owned the land perhaps.
Now, you may or may not care that someone is benefiting from the collection of your personal data, personally I don't, but to go and say Google is out to improve the quality of life for people and other BS like they are some non-profit charity is just naive.
They're out to make a profit by improving the quality of life so that people use their products...isn't that what most companies do? Aside from the few real necessities we purchase, everything else is optional. We buy a lot of things because they make life easier or more enjoyable. If something isn't a necessity and it doesn't improve your quality of life in some way, why would you buy it?
Google has an interesting model, for sure. Instead of paying a lot of money (or any, for most of their services), we let them learn about our habits. They use that data in turn to sell advertisements which fund the services we are using. I'm still not sure how I feel about that, but it is very interesting that they've built a thriving business on exchanging attractive services for information, removing money from the equation for the general public.
You are trying to argue against maths by quoting scripture.
Not my intention. I only meant to clarify that once you're aware you're being cheated, you're not going to allow it to continue. Does that count as "switching away from the golden rule?" It does, if the golden rule exists in a vacuum, but it doesn't if other guiding principles exist, and they do.
Both your scripture and your example require on the person being deceiving knowing that they are deceived. This is not true in general
[citation needed]
Reputation tracking might be better than the assumption of altruism, but reputation tracking isn't practical for average Joes yet, so it isn't a real alternative, is it?
The "known experimental results" was in the context of a debate about physics, and yet you've just inserted a huge bunch of unrelated waffle about how nice Jesus was, and how much he worked hard to make everyone happy.
I perceived the thread as being diverted when Mister Stoopid responded with what looked to me like a very open question regarding...some testable hypothesis proposed by Jesus, I guess. Reading it again, I see that the context may have remained intact. If so, it was an absurd question and didn't warrant its +5 rating, and neither does my response as it is then off-topic--of course Jesus has nothing to do with physics. But the fact that they are both highly rated leads me to believe that most mods here are okay with such diversions; after all, it's not as if we're crowding out other, more topical discussion. There's plenty of room.
A simpler (and more scientific) way of analysing it would be in terms of game theory. Let's consider a world where everyone follows this [golden rule] advice: if I decide to act like a complete tool then nobody is going to change their behaviour towards me, so I can get all of the advantages without suffering any of the consequences. By symmetry this argument applies to anyone else. So everybody derives an advantage by switching away from the golden rule. Hence it is a weak equilibrium strongly dominated by (almost) any other strategy.
The golden rule does not exist in a vacuum. Jesus also said, "If no one welcomes you or listens to your words, as you leave that house or town, shake its dust off your feet." You could act like a tool, and you would in short order have a very small amount of company.
Society relies on cooperation. Your argument has been realized time and time again, and a good recent example is the poisoned milk in China. The milk companies acted like tools, gaining the advantage of profit at the cost of sickening children. That was an act with consequences.
More complete work has been published on the game theoretic analysis of truth-telling/lying and altruism. So your imaginary friend not only lacks accurate predictions of known experimental results, but when you try and twist his alleged words into such proofs you run up into the problem that he was wrong.
If you're going to say I'm reaching and then offer a counter-claim, you ought to back it up. I found an interesting article that shows how the golden rule is beneficial, though not under all circumstances. One game theory staple where it is beneficial is in repeated play of the Prisoner's Dilemma, where first assuming altruism pays off, on the condition that there are enough other players in the population also first assuming altruism. This strikes me as a pretty decent (though limited) description of a society. But there is another game, the snowdrift game, which also mirrors aspects of society, in which it doesn't pay off to assume altruism. Which stripped-down scientific study more accurately mirrors reality? I can't say. I will however continue to treat others with fairness and respect unless they give me a reason to do otherwise. It may not get me the most cash or the shiniest toys, but it feels a hell of a lot better than the alternative.
To not have faith is to not believe in something for which there is no evidence.
Which isn't always a bad thing, as it is painted nowadays. People tend to forget that the idiom "leap of faith" comes from the fact that one is more likely to successfully leap over a gap if one believes in one's ability to do so, despite never having encountered a gap quite so wide before. To "not have faith" under those circumstances leads to unsure footing and hesitation, which could very well cause the leap to fail.
I'm keeping my mouth shut (for now) on the topic of faith in science, but faith is present in far more than only spiritual pursuits. Faith in oneself enables one to do more than a lack of it, and faith in others is what fuels every society. How is a university or a company built if not by the faith of its founders and investors, who would otherwise never put up their money in its pursuit?
It's not a dirty word, and it shouldn't be treated as such.
The government should get down on its knees and Thank the People for allowing it to exist, rather than abolishing it completely.
In theory. But that requires that the people assert their authority, which ain't happening so often these days. And I don't mean with guns either, not unless or until they're needed. Four boxes and all that.
Ah, thanks, I was looking for another roll of TP.
Can you send me an example where Jesus accurately predicts known experimental results?
(I'm not sure if your stay on rejection was genuine or troll-bait, but it's caught momentum and I thought I'd provide an honest response rather than leave the question hanging.)
There's the golden rule, for starters. He didn't invent it, but he was instrumental in the widespread use of its positive statement ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as opposed to "Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him"). And the result of following that rule, the rule of initiating kindness, you are statistically more likely to be treated kindly in return. Common sense and anecdotal evidence bear this out as well.
Then there's a bunch of other stuff he said, including things about the Kingdom of Heaven being here and now, forgiveness, faith, and love, that has unfortunately been so steadily downplayed and cloaked in tradition and dogma that it gets lost in the "war" to "win souls" for God. I think the historical Jesus would get along just fine with good-hearted atheists, Muslims, Hindus, Krishnas, Christians, Buddhists, and followers of most any other creed that you can imagine--and he probably had more in common with the Buddhists than we tend to think. He might not agree with all of the beliefs in those various systems, but he was more interested in disciples, people who would emulate his way of living, than converts to his religion, which didn't even exist during his lifetime. In other words, I think he'd be an excellent person to discuss philosophy and religion with, and he'd probably be the first to quell any budding flame wars.
This is of course only my understanding of Jesus. I've put a lot of thought and a decent amount of study into it, so I have a nuanced view not shared by most Christians, but I prefer to simply act in a manner I think he would approve of than to talk about it. It's more challenging and more effective to act, and I lack the agenda to convert people so dislike being perceived as having it. It is still disheartening to see his teachings rejected out-of-hand because of the centuries of stupid, un-Christlike actions of his followers, not to mention the (in my opinion) corruption of his words within the Bible. I hope to change that by trying to live up to the way I think he did. Even if most people who learn from me never find out my source, it is a good way to live.
This is a subtle quibble with wording, but not necessarily a minor one. I think "a more useful model" is better and more accurate than either of the previously suggested adjectives. ;)
"Better" is indeed a nebulous term, but "more accurate" is quite similar to "more in line with our preconceived notions." We have had theories that made predictions that matched experimental outcomes, but for what turned out to be very wrong reasons. Such theories did not accurately represent reality, but nonetheless proved useful in their application. It is a theory's usefulness that matters, because the only test we have for coherence with reality is the results of applying a theory in experimentation and in general practice.
A good example is Ptolemy's epicycles: they more accurately represented the movements of the planets as viewed from Earth because they accounted for retrograde motion, and were thus more useful than the ancient understanding that the planets followed circular paths around Earth. Yet the ancients' circular planetary paths, sans epicycles, more accurately described the reality of elliptical orbits. Ptolemy's theory had more mistakes (geocentrism, circular orbits, epicycles) than the older model (geocentrism and circular orbits) and was therefore a less accurate model of reality, but it was more useful because it better fit the data given his preconceived notions about reality, that is, a geocentric solar system.
All this to say that one theory could be proven wrong before the other, true, yet it could be that when the second theory is proven wrong, it turns out to be a worse description of reality than the first: even more off-base, yet refined enough to fit the existing data better than the first.
It is a subtle distinction, but it has implications in how one deals with new theories. If it better fits all the data we have access to, then use it. But calling it "more accurate" without limiting its scope is a leap of faith--one that I take daily along with everybody else, but it's good to keep that distinction in mind.
Did you read the newspaper's privacy policy? The privacy policy states that they can break anonymity if you break their terms of use, which includes posting profanity or vulgarity. It's posted further up.
"The accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality."
They said the same thing about Faster Than Light travel, and look where we are today!
I'm not sure if there is such a thing as a "real libertarian"
I know, right? "I prepared the soapbox for the libertarians, and all I got was this lousy mcgrew." ;)
I think all libertarians (including the big-Ls) would agree that everything you wrote about should be legalized, so it looks like where you differ from the hardcore people is in the regulation. But that's such a central piece of the traditional platform of many libertarians that I'm surprised nobody has had a go at explaining how it would work in this case or others.
It's interesting to me that you used the police and the FDA as two examples, because the libertarians I know, the ones who like the idea of a limited constitutional government, see the former as necessary and the latter as an obstacle. They certainly wouldn't say they want to be allowed to sell contaminated drugs; they would say that the sale of contaminated drugs falls under fraud laws and there doesn't need to be another government agency (unelected bureaucrats, no less) to stifle potential innovation. But the way you frame it makes sense too: the police and the FDA both protect us from direct, physical harm.
I won't say I'm convinced that such regulations are necessary, but it is a point in their favor that no one has stepped up to attack them. I will definitely be raising this issue in my local Campaign for Liberty mailing list.
Thanks for responding and giving me something to think about.
It is an easy thing to say, yes. It's also what I usually tell people who complain and complain about the way things are going but can't be bothered to vote, let alone call or write their congesscritter or representative to voice their complaints.
It's good to call people out on their inaction. I find that you (or at least I) have to do more in order to get people to be receptive to what you're saying. If they say "we can't change anything" and you say "yes we can," and you're not Barack Obama, you have to give some specific, concrete examples of things to do.
DownsizeDC is often good in this respect because it really is easy and it really does work. Public pressure is the best tool we have--better even than voting--and that organization has found a good way to facilitate it. You really can (after creating an account; i know, i know, but it's necessary to link you with your particular congresscritters) just receive an email regarding a particular piece of legislation, click a link, add some personalized text (or not), and click a button to send your two senators and your rep the message. There's almost 29,000 members right now, so a campaign run by them generates a significant amount of pressure per congressman. I sound like a salesman, but it's because I believe this could be an important vehicle for change over the next few years. It's just much more practical than individual efforts.
I've found over the years that by bringing up the next election and the prospect of campaign donations makes it more likely that I'll get more than a canned reply when I do try to get in touch with them about something. Work all the angles you can.
Thanks for the tip! I brought that up once or twice on the phone, but never thought to drive at that point while using email. I'll be interested to try it out.
No organization will support everything that everyone wants or believes in. The only thing we can do is support those that seem to back most of them and speak out on the specifics.
I am in turn glad to read this. It seems that real pragmatism is in danger of becoming fashionable again. God knows we could use it.
The Write the Laws Act would put an end to bureaucrats essentially writing legislation by forcing Congress to fill in all the details. I think this one is a tough sell, but it can't hurt to try. See my other post for the whole spiel on why DownsizeDC might be the best avenue for taking back our power.
That's an easy thing to say. Coming up with a set of changes to push for is a little more difficult, and actually getting enough people to push in order to make a difference is harder still. What do you suggest are some good first steps?
Someone mentioned instant runoff voting, but I think that's jumping the gun--it (along with any other alternative to the current system) gives third parties a stronger voice, so you'll have a hard time convincing current politicians to back it.
In my opinion, the best way to foster change is to spread the word about a few bills being sponsored by Downsize DC. They are a non-partisan organization which is (obviously) committed to shrinking government. Now, you may not think that government needs shrinking, only fixing, but within their agenda are some proposals that would do just that. Here are two that I think are particularly needed:
Either one of these two measures by itself would do a lot to improve the quality of legislation coming out of Washington. DownsizeDC has a decent system for sending messages to all your congressmen. Their newsletter often has interesting (read: maddening) tidbits about what's going on in Washington, too, though the rhetoric can be juvenile at times.
If you want to make a difference, start pushing for these bills. They have a lot of support already, and every new call for them makes it more likely that they'll actually be passed. Don't be put off because the organization doesn't support something that you do (the health care bill, for instance)--just make use of their system to keep increasing pressure on Congress to pass important legislation like the proposals listed above.
The parent post is quite incendiary, but makes very good points.
One of particular interest to me is the issue of the aforementioned companies using these chemicals and continuing to claim that they are not dangerous. A libertarian idealist would say that the information will get out (as it is, slowly) and if it concerns people (as it should) they will find somewhere else to buy sippy cups. But this seems inefficient to me, and it seems like in the meantime there is widespread, preventable harm being done.
Now, I think the hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations on the books do more harm than good, because 1) they tend to be so burdensome that small and innovative businesses are squeezed out by multinationals, who 2) have regulations written in their favor (someone else mentioned regulatory capture), and 3) we already have laws to punish fraud (such as marketing an unsafe item as safe). Yet I don't see a good answer to a problem like this one without regulation.
First, it is my understanding that no single product is solely responsible; it is due to the chemicals' presence in lots and lots of things, so wouldn't any single company's statement that their product is safe be kind of true, invalidating claims of fraud? Second, presumably a lot of harm is being done due to the widespread use of these chemicals, and the companies' reporting record is abysmal, so I find it unsatisfying to just say "you need to be aware of what you are purchasing." That's good in theory and probably worked well when goods were mostly made from natural items, but when everything is made out of 900 different kinds of plastic, organic compounds, synthetic materials, and who knows what else, you could spend eight hours a day trying to trace everything you use and still come up short.
So how would a real libertarian respond? To be clear, I like a lot of libertarian ideals, but there are instances where I don't see it working well. The common thread I see among them is "trouble caused by many people doing little things in aggregate."
Airport security has the added advantage of getting people used to waiting in lines and invasions of privacy. Those in power don't want people like those on Flight 93, they want people like those in line for the Tilt-A-Whirl.