The essence if stupidity is this - the more we "compete" with third world countries, the more we as a nation are going to lose. Third world countries don't have our living standards, our infrastructure, or many other opportunities we have worked for for so many years. They don't require benefits, which thanks to our broken healthcare industry (read insurance racket) eat up huge portions of company dollars. They don't require fair living wages, benefits, any kind of job security. So how do we compete globally? Do we push our standards into the toilet in order to accomodate corporate greed and government corruption?
We have two options - force our standard of living down to the early 1900s level in order to "compete" (what we are doing now), or have a US-based revolution that redefines America as a self-sustaining entity - reliance on our own farmers, manufacturing industry, service sectors, etc. In this mode, we refuse to give up the quality of life we have built for ourselves, and start requiring other countries to come to our level playing field if they wish to participate.
There is one other alternative - the most practical one - make best use of our position as leader of the first world to innovate and bring new industries into existance (such as biotech, nanotech, advanced computer technologies [ AI, etc.. ], space tech, etc..) and allow the third world to commoditize the jobs that we cannot compete for anyhow. Allow them to take the jobs so that we can focus on doing what needs to be done anyway.
I tried to make my assumptions explicit. I am not leaping to a conclusion, I am suggesting a plausible hypothesis.
Ok, if you say so.
I believe the usual sci-fi scenario of a hodgepodge of spacefaring races in a single galaxy is, on the other hand, totally implausible, based on pretty basic considerations of the evolution of ecosystems.
such as?
The only hope for SETI, in my opinion, is that deep space travel is totally uneconomical for any civilization, no matter how long-lived and advanced.
I'm not sure I understand this one. Are you saying that SETI will only find something if civilizations have trouble colonizing other systems? Because if civilizations can spread they will absolutely spread geometrically without bounds? You know, I have serious trouble with this concept. Preemption requires very specific civilization characteristics such as hostile colonization, faster than light communication (to keep the civilization one civilization), sparse intelligent life in the galaxy, disrespect for existing living planets, etc.. etc..
Look around you. Earth is a nice simple model of what the galaxy probably looks like. It's almost certain to have a fractal resemblence - millions of ecosystems contributing to meta-systems, each maintaining a balance of many species that specialize in some fashion.
If the rate of formation of stable technological civilizations is sufficiently low, and the rate of interstellar spread of such civilizations is sufficiently high, there will only be time for one such civilization to emerge per galaxy. By the time the second one could emerge, the first one would have filled the entire niche.
In this scenario, by virtue of the fact that we have emerged, we can conclude that no stable competitors have emerged yet.
There are quite a few assumptions that have to be taken for granted to leap to that conclusion. For instance, in making the assertion "we are here, therefore we are the only ones", we implicitly disregard the possibility that we are being allowed to evolve [semi-] autonomously... After all, there does seem to exist some evidence that we have some anthropologists (or maybe just grad students) watching us...
All kidding aside, it seems much more likely to me that the galaxy is so teeming with life that it would evolve a complex ecology of spacefaring species. Some hostile, some not, some predatory, some not, etc... The complex pressures of such an ecology would place severe limits on the rate of expansion of any one species. Such an ecology would also evolve strong ethics of behavior, punishable in the harshest of ways - these ethics (or laws) would emerge naturally from survival pressures as species work together to fend off predatory species, handle catastrophe and whatnot. It seems quite likely that Terra is known, but the various critters around have better things to do than (and perhaps even laws against) messing with another upstart species of anthropods sitting on their heals and playing with atoms for the first time.
As for radio waves? Sure they would still be used in other civilizations. We still use the wheel and fire right? Civilizations evolve like organisms; everything that your chain of evolution made use of (up to and including the salt water that still chugs through your body in the form of plasma in your blood) is still in use in your body today.
However, it seems to me that our current utilization of EM spectrum is poor - over time I suspect two things will happen to how we use EM: (1) We will encrypt everything for a wide variety of reasons and (2) We will likely use much more complex time and frequency spanning encoding techniques to make better use of spectrum. Both of these techniques lead to the appearance of white noise (or random signals). What SETI should be looking for, besides patterned signals, is even distribution of white noise across a broad spectrum - I suspect that will be a much likelier beacon from civilizations more advanced than ours.
The US government pays businesses a ton of money to write software. I currently work with such a company. If the US government decided to use all Open Source a lot of people would be out of work.
Commoditization of operating systems and other common software is inevitable. It is neccessary. Consider it infrastructure - in order for the really fun stuff to ever happen, we have to stop re-inventing and charging for the basic stuff.
Let's let the industries based on re-coding the same old proprietary systems die so that new industries that can push the frontiers of computer science may be born. So long as the majority of the competent computer scientists and engineers in the world are working on new versions of Oracle, Windows, Solaris, Office, proprietary government procurement software, etc.., those new frontiers are just a dream!
The quickest and easiest way to keep your spying WMD researching evil enemies at bay is to ensure that from time to time they get weapons and research data that is entirely fake and will result in billions of dollars and many years of fruitless research and development on the part of your enemy.
To ensure that they believe that what they have is real, it is quite important to ocassionally make a big stink about the faked data that was lost. However, if you loose real data, it is better to keep it quiet and even produce lots of alternative data sets (a form of data denial of service attack) that pop up around the acquirer...
Don't you guys know anything about information warfare?
I am currently in a bad situation. It has been revealed to me that my fiancee has been part of an extortion type scam - and has been for 2 1/2 years. She battered me and was arrested for it once (In Anchorage) - I got her off.
She tried to commit suicide the other day when I didn't come home after a bad fight. I called an ambulance.
I am not sure what is in store for me - but I saw the DVD that is supposed to scare me. I have not played it yet.
I fear that no one is going to believe me - that my fiancee has been doing this for so long. That so many people would be complicit. It sounds impossible. But it is happening and I don't know what to do.
Re:Occam's Razor and the "simpler theory"
on
Testing Relativity
·
· Score: 1
However there is abundant evidence that awareness, personality and the "self" are physical.
Hmmm... Let me ask you a question: In the absence of interaction with other people, do you believe that your "awareness", "personality" and "self" continue to exist? For how long? In what way? Do you really believe it (self) is physical, as you put it, as you reflect on your answers?
In a bid to "prove" the existence of the soul, someone once tried the "damaged car" argument on me; the idea that the body is just a vehicle the soul controls.
:-) Don't make the mistake of assuming that I intend to prove that a soul is a static thing. In fact, before I say more, you should probably tell me what you think a soul is. I find that most people get so caught up in assumed mythology that they can't see the forest for the trees.
I'll warn you now that I'm an empiricist and won't be swayed by ethereal or philosophical notions. I'm not one of those "agnostic" sorts who grants that "god may or may not exist" just to be "fair." I expect compelling evidence.
I can not only prove the existance of soul, but the existance of god, alien intelligences and a few other pretty profound things. I'm sure you are skeptical, and you should be. But it turns out that if you look directly at the problem in a particular way, the proof becomes so obvious as to be undeniable. But I warn you, it requires a highly logical mind with education / familiarity with topics ranging from modern physics, artificial intelligence and advanced mathematics, to biology and psychology.
Heh - My first thought was suspenders for the robot and high heels, skirt, etc.. for the robot bimbos that have to run from it... ergo chainsaw masacre...
Robotic chainsaw masacre? That is weird, huh... I think I need a shrink...
Re:Occam's Razor and the "simpler theory"
on
Testing Relativity
·
· Score: 1
The point is, the mechanistic understanding of awareness explains it without recourse to a soul.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but without some proof, I think your statement should include something like, "should be able to explain it" rather than "explains it". We don't really know for sure that emergence of awareness and intelligence may be understood or deriven from our models. We only suspect that it can.
Personally, I believe that there is no mechanistic understanding of awareness, as you put it. In all mechanistic systems, the whole is exactly equal to the sum of it's parts. All components add together in mathematically understood ways to create a fully understandable and predictable system. All intelligent systems require a quite different approach; They require the invocation of emergence. In emergent systems, components do not add linearly to create the whole. The whole is not understandable by examining the components or through any mathematical decomposition, as much as we would like it to be. Unfortunately, there is not yet a mathematics of emergence. I can give you a hint about one of the early conclusions of such a mathematics, however. It will show us that 1+1=2 is only a boundary case.
Aside from this, the topic of soul is quite complex. However, I assure you that I could convince you that you have a soul. I feel confident in that because your style of writing shows you to be a thinker, which will be required for such a thesis to digestible. We can even do it here in front of everyone, if you like.
"There are about 10^13 cells in the human body. There are also about 10^14 bacteria living in and on the average human body.... That means each one of the cells in your body is outnumbered by bacteria 10-1.... Now, turn around in your seat and look at the person next to you, and think about just what you are looking at..."
This shouldn't bother you anymore than the fact that a city contains stonework and metalwork. Fact is, our bodies are great civilizations of living things. Our cells, containing our DNA, is certainly central to the system that emerges as "us". But the symbiosis with other little living things is, in fact, crucial to our continued and happy existance.
In answer to the implied question raised, "think about just what you are looking at...", I must say that for me, I guess I would have to admit to seeing a great collection of living things that through simple ignorance was bestowed with the illusion that it is singular...
Yes, and I can't help but wonder how it is possible that Isaac Asimov's estate provided permission to hijack his work like this. As a longtime fan, I find this an outrage.
On another note - with regards to the 3 laws of robotics, it is becomimg more clear that real computational intelligence will only "emerge" through complex systems involving neural nets, swarm type simulations, evolutionary computation and other "messy adaptive / emergent" techniques, rather than the strictly deterministic AI (such as expert systems) that Asimov had in mind. With such techniques, the 3 laws of robotics seems to me an impossible ideal, since all behavior "emerges" rather than is "computed". Even a failsafe that was designed to watch for violations and shut-down the robot would only work correctly if implemented using deterministic AI, which is probably impossible - so the best "guardian system" I can easily conceive of would be a non-adaptive (static) one, probably grown in a genetic algorithm environment to watch the real AI - but there would be serious problems with such a system because it couldn't possibly catch all violations (the robot could outsmart it). Comments?
So, while I am unhappy with the bad adaptation of Asimov's work, this story may actually be more relevant to true robotics than Asimov's vision. Oooh... that felt blasphemous to write...
At least in some areas gifted people overestimate the capabilities of others and underestimate their own.
A common occurence. Works in reverse as well, as in "that was lucky" coming from someone not able to recognize the craft behind the luck. It is the "common consensus effect" - we all walk through life with the mistaken belief that everyone else thinks and sees the world the same way we do...
Believe it or not, Nebraska does seems to have a very disproportionately large population of radically high IQs. Perhaps the military was experimenting with gene twisting or something in the area - after all, Omaha does house SAC (strategic air command) now STRATCOM (strategic command of the armed forces) - Oh I love conspiracy theories;-)
Regardless of all that, I can shed some insight into this: Extremely "off-the-chart" gifted kids (we are not talking brilliant, we are talking way over the edge here) find themselves with challenges in life that quite interestingly resemble what a very very low IQ child might experience. Society is constructed, both organically and intentionally to cater to the average, the middle of the bell curve. Extremely gifted children are so far removed from normal that they may as well be classified as insane - in the sense that their thinking is so radically different than normal.
More than likely, this child has evolved into what he is because he didn't understand that he was different. It is difficult to go through life having a different set of perceptions and different observations and conclusions than everyone else about practically everything. The frustration builds and eventually the child will sink into themselves, to some safe place.
The kid has no social peers. That, ultimately, is the problem. Eventually, he will recognize the "why", it will turn him into a cynic and he will build a superficial facade personality to get by. As unhealthy as that sounds, it is pretty much his only solution because there will never be any real peer-to-peer social interaction for him. He may find peer-to-peer in his work, if he is lucky. But it is far from likely in his social life. You can best help him by helping him understand how different he is, how others think and interact (because it is unlikely that he is aware of those specific differences, the ego has a hard time accepting those sorts of things even in the face of brilliance and massive evidence). Point him towards understanding and towards empathy for his fellow man. It will be important later in life for him to be able to love and adore those that are lesser thinkers, so that he does not see them as lesser and use his natural abilities to run circles around them, taking advantage.
It is a tough and lonely road that this boy must walk. It is heartening to see someone recognize that and take such an interest in it.
thought that the concern with steroids was that they posed long-term health risks... not that they made people stronger. The concept of limiting strength to those with naturally good genes is quite elitist.
Well, actually, it is REALLY IMPORTANT. There is a form of socio-economic natural selection that occurs today (which replaces the more mundane reproduce or face gene extinction). This type of evolution takes the most beautiful among us and mates that set against the wealthy and famous. The children of these mergers belong to an elite caste with higher privelege than others.
Is this wrong? Perhaps, when viewed locally. But when viewed statistically over many generations, this acts as an evolutionary pressure that improves our genepool.
Over time, the "top" becomes quite heavily loaded with genes from those with money (presumably intellegence/beauty/skill allowed them to acquire and/or retain such funds) and those with natural beauty. The men from this upper caste (like all men) are very promiscuous and highly saught after by women who often have their children out of wedlock (happens very often with the rich and famous).
Simultaneously, the lowest caste in the population is washed every few generations in bloody wars that statistically prune the bottom of the genepool (yes, awful when viewed directly - but when viewed statistically over generations, it proves to be important).
The overall result is that over many generations the population becomes more beautiful, more intelligent and more athletic. Yes, of course, there are ugly, stupid non-athletic rich folk and beautiful, brilliant athletic poor folk as well... Remember, we are talking statistics here and even if the difference is a few percentage points this way or that, it makes a big difference over multiple generations...
But if you change the rules (e.g. plastic surgery and sports-drugs), natural selection stops working properly. Very much in the same way that paying welfare mothers to have babies screws with evolution, so does providing a means for lesser genes to pretend to be greater genes.
Don't get mad at me for saying these things - I am simply speaking about evolution. It is, after all, how we came to be - the stronger genes gave advantages that ensured their survival over the weaker genes... It still happens... That is all.
Pixar, like Apple, has some surprises in store for all of us. Let's take a little "thought exploration"...
(1) Pixar was restricted in the type of content they could produce while associated with the Disney brand - after all, their brand must stay "disney" clean (or more than that, because all rich, large corporations are a bit hypocritical with their vendors)
(2) Pixar has been experimenting with very advanced rendering techniques since the beginning. The stuff that they have been experimenting with is not so useful for goofy animations of the type that they make for Disney. But imagine what realistic, dirty pores on skin, perfect rendering of hair and cloth, the application and control over viscosity of fluids, etc.., can do when set free of the boundaries of kids movies...
(3) Jobs has made interesting statements over the years regarding creativity and the disproportional distribution of media wealth (most going to the elite actors and media moguls rather than the creative talent).
(4) Jobs owns the company that stands to make the most cash from a revolution in digital content creation.
One simple *guess* of where he might be going, given these observations, is:
Jobs is planning a movie-making and distribution coup de'ta; (A) The introduction of digital stars to replace the venerable movie-star in every conceivable genre - Pixar to become not just an animation studio, but a full fledged movie studio capable of competing with any other on any script, using no real actors or sets. (B) Digital distribution of movies ala iTunes music store. (C) Publishing of independent content into the media store, both from GarageBand (music) and FinalCut Pro (movies). (D) Some new video appliance to replace the DVD to distribute the media to.
The rewards? (A) HUGE PROFIT MARGINS on Pixar movies, (B) HUGE INCREASE IN MAC SALES and content creation software, (C) Personal satisfaction at redirecting profits from the elite to the creative talent.
How could this happen? Simpler than you think. With the advent of HDTV, DVDs are obsolete. With high-bandwidth, DVDs will go the way of the CDROM. The time is now for a redistribution play. The technology is probably ready now (or very close). Pixar is now in a position to release more adult oriented films and drop the kiddy-cartoon image that it had as a lap-dog of Disney. Apple's engines are firing on all cylinders and the content-creation stack is pretty full...
A few hits in the new area of animated supra-realism could set the coup de'ta in motion. Think different... Break the backs of the establishment... These are the mantras of Steve Jobs...
did not make myself clear. Despite massive investments into China and India, the very poor are not seeing the money trickle down to them, so all the attention from capitalists isn't benefiting the poor. This makes perfect sense, because capitalists are not terribly concerned about poverty.
If you look at Iraq as an example, you'll note that private companies are not rushing into Iraq to help build roads and bridges. They are contracted by the US government to build roads and bridges, using US taxpayer money.
This investment in infrastructure may eventually lead to real private investments, and may eventually lead to an improvement of overall living standards. For the most part, however, what we're seeing all over the world is a relatively small class of direct beneficiaries (i.e., the Indian software engineer), rather than improvements across the board. The process you are hoping for is neither cheap nor simple!
More importantly, we're talking about a significant up-front public investment before the country would be more interesting (than it is today) to private investments. That up-front money is almost certainly going to be tax money.
Actually, perhaps I wasn't clear. It is the fact that the U.S. intends to make it a state that would draw foreign investment. It is the fact that the U.S. intends to make it a state that would draw U.S. companies in. It is the fact that the U.S. intends to make it a state that would usher in infrastructure upgrades. It is the fact that the U.S. would require certain minimum sustenance levels paid out by employers during the run-up to a State that would distribute the new wealth (from all of the new investment and commerce) throughout the region.
Economics is about confidence. If the U.S. states, unequivocally, "The Philippines will become a State in 30 years", the economy of the region will go into hyperdrive.
Finally, assuming your dream scenario does occur, and the Philippines is built up and the rest of the US takes advantage of its cheaper labor for a couple of decades. You will then face the same problem again: the cost of doing business in the Philippines will become comparable to elsewhere in the US. The jobs will be outsourced again. What country will you merge with then?
That becomes someone else's problem. At least it did the trick when we needed it to.
Furthermore, as with all major decisions, you also need to consider the cases when things don't go your way. What if you fail to raise the living standards in the Philippines? You now have 80 million more mouths to feed, with a government already in deficit spending and a social security system on the brink of collapse.
Obviously, if it fails, it remains a commonwealth or whatever... It doesn't become a state and it doesn't get to put itself on wellfare.
If it's such simple stuff, why haven't the Filipinos already solved their own problems? Before you answer, consider the mass of the capital influx into China and India, and what effect that has had on the very poor.
It's primarily a problem of confidence and protection. With the U.S. protecting the Philippines (both economically and militarily), U.S. companies (not to mention foreign intrests) would take a much greater interest in the region.
What would the continental US taxpayers (who are suffering a pretty bad job market) think when the government starts to actively encourage (or even partially fund with favorable tax treatment) the creation of tens of millions of jobs in the Philippines?
Since the track is to make the Philippines into a state, the idea is to shift relationships and labor usage from unaffilated third-world countries into the Philippines. A larger workforce creates a larger economy and vastly increases the overall wealth and prosperity of the whole if done correctly. The amount of money that would be spent in the Philippines building infrastructure (mostly contracted out to U.S. firms) would more then compensate for the shift of cheap labor to the Philippines. But the economics is more complex than just that. The key is simbiosis and intention to merger. Doing the same thing with a foreign country without that intention would be devestating economically.
When was the last time a US politician thought 20 years ahead about anything? Twenty years ago Donald Rumsfeld was shaking Saddam Hussein's hand, and the US was still giving portable anti-air missiles to Islamic extremists.
It is not necessary for politicians to think 20 years ahead. Today, U.S. politicians have very serious problems on their hands because of outsourcing of U.S. jobs (a trend that will grow larger) to third-world countries. if they could re-route that effort to the Philippines while laying claim to be doing it to help establish an economy for the 51st state somewhere down the road, it provides them with a political shield against the masses while simultaneously appeasing big business.
It certainly would be necessary to plan somewhat, but the think-tanks that build diplomatic agreements will do that regardless. The important point is that there are advantages TODAY, TOMORROW and in the distant future to going down this path.
First of all, where in the US constitution does it allow you to discriminate against US citizens this way? We're not talking about federal assistance, we're talking about medicare and other federal rights of a citizen.
They would not yet be part of the U.S. and it would not be discrimination. It would be a gradual increase in standard of living, synchronized to the upgrades to industry and infrastructure. As I mentioned before, the federal assistance would be staged in such a way that by the time they are ready to be a state, the required assistance would not be a burden. Never would we worsen their conditions, we would always be improving them. We just couldn't do it all at once because, as you correctly pointed out, it would be devestating economically for the U.S. to do that.
Also consider religion. The Philippines is approximately 83% Roman Catholic, which means adding over 60 million Catholic voters. In fact, divorce is illegal in the Philippines. Suffice to say, there is great disincentive to bring in voters who will decidedly sway national debates on controversies.
The U.S. : Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)
Primarily Christian - yes, there are twice as many Protestant as Catholic. But in the U.S., this is not an issue like it is in Brittain. We have even had a Catholic president (Kennedy).
You could even say this works to the advantage of the Philipp
As I said, perhaps not clearly enough, there's really no grassroots support for such a proposal. People would joke about it, but it's not taken as a serious proposal by a serious candidate. Despite being a third world country, the Philippines does have some national pride.
Only if you go cherry picking, and ignore the poor. The $5,000 GDP is grossly inflated because of the extremely rich. The government has a public sector debt of more than 100% its GDP. The public education system, except for a few shining stars, is in shambles. 40% of the population live below the poverty line, 10.2% are unemployed, and many many more are underemployed.
The truly poor become blue-collar in the short term. Their children have an opportunity to become white collar. This is pretty simple stuff, really. We are not talking about a 5 year plan here, more like 20 years or more. Your points are good, but for each of them I can assign an equal or greater advantage to your disadvantage.
And, of course, federal assistance would not kick in until we used economic means to raise the people out of poverty. This would not take as long as you believe. With American protection, U.S. companies would rush in to take advantage of the cheap labor. The country would transform very quickly. The federal assistance programs could be staged in gradually as milestones are met so that no undo strain was being placed on the U.S. taxpayers.
Tell us again, why they should get aid? Cuz I think you said they should get it because they give aid to some other guys and only get a little bit from us.
I thought you guys were supposed to be logical?
I didn't get any aid last year and I'm very generous. Maybe I should get some too.
You may also want to examine how the US arrived in this position of leadership in the computer industry in the first place. That's right, the US innovated. The model you seem to be proposing is that there's an end to innovation, when you can just rest on your laurels and rely on information control to maintain your lead.
I think that's wrongheaded. Innovation, and being an innovator, is a continuous process. Closing off the borders risks losing the head start completely, because it decreases necessity, which really is the mother of invention. You may face a day when the Indian or Chinese programmer is not only cheaper, but by all measures better. Worse, the bright foreign minds could open a whole new field that you could've invented and dominated, if you weren't so comfortable in your cushy protected job.
You have completely missed my point. I am saying that the creative, innovative jobs as well as all incentive to go into those professions is evaporating in the U.S. because of labor-pricing pressure. I am saying that something needs to be done, immediately, in order to ensure that we do not continue to hemorrage the "creative, innovative, science and engineering" jobs that are so critical to American innovation.
You seem to have interpreted what I have said as implying that we should stand back and hold the reins to a bunch of wild scientists and engineers around the world. I think we should give them all H1bs and bring them here, instead. Keep the innovation in the U.S.!!!! At any cost!!!
Here's the objective reality. Software can be developed cheaply in certain other countries, and exported cheaply to the US (I'm talking FTP). This is the same shot across the bow that free software is making to commercial vendors: we can do what you can do, and we can (nearly or really) give it away. Protectionism, I think, will be about as effective as legally requiring your customers not to use a free OS from Finland.
The competitive advantage that America has is (A) It's methodologies that have been refined over 30-40 years, (B) It's piles of source code and circuit architecture, basic science, etc.. that have been developed by our corporations and exist in the minds of our workforce and (C) Momentum.
If we hand these things over, we are handing over our crown jewels... We need to keep those things here.
s far as I understand, joining the US tends to be one-sided proposals by fringe politicians, and has almost no mainstream support. The US is also unlikely to accept a new state of nearly 85 million people with a per capita GDP of under $5,000. The US itself is only some 300 million people, with a GDP more than $36,000. Absorbing the Philippines and bringing it to the economic levels of other states will cripple the US economy for decades.
Actually, examine the link I posted about statehood. It tends to be the politicians (rather than the people) in the Philippines that oppose statehood because it poses a threat to their wealth and power.
There is a growing awareness of the coming economic competitiveness of China and India in the U.S, and a particular school of thought that believes that we should align ourselves closely with a country such as the Philippines in order to challenge the cheap labor of India/China. In this scenario, the 80 million Filipinos working for peanuts works greatly in our favor. Done correctly, the transformation of the Philippines into a state will coincide with the use of the Philippines as a weapon in this economic war that is coming with China and India. The end result is that the standard of living, GDP and infrastructure of the Philippines is tremendously raised while the U.S. gets it ready to be a state *and* fends off economic disaster at the hands of the Chinese and Indians.
In the long term, in order for the U.S. to stay competitive with countries like China and India, we need to greatly increase our population. This also helps us achieve that. It also gives us an extremely strategic presence in the region.
Philosophy under the Clinton Administration: Increase the number of H1b Visas, bring the brains to America while keeping wages from skyrocketing. This was very advantageous to U.S. businesses and the increase in activity in the U.S. benefited the U.S. worker. It did not, as some claimed, reduce wages - although it did help reduce hyper-wage-inflation.
Philosophy under the Bush Administration: Decrease the number of H1b Visas, send the brains back home. The result? A catastrophic wave of outsourcing of knowledge-work to outsource companies in India, Russia, China and the Philippines. Have you been to the Bay Area recently? The region is in a depression and this has much to do with it.
We would be better off opening the H1b floodgates until everyone was working at minimum wage IN THE U.S., than outsourcing everything. At least the technology (and the tax-base) stays here. How much is the U.S. government loosing in lost tax revenue anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
And you just dropped a 7200 lb rocket. Size of the compressor is not an issue.
Venting the helium isn't a big deal either, btw: It's not like Helium is rare or anything.
I tried to make my assumptions explicit. I am not leaping to a conclusion, I am suggesting a plausible hypothesis.
Ok, if you say so.
I believe the usual sci-fi scenario of a hodgepodge of spacefaring races in a single galaxy is, on the other hand, totally implausible, based on pretty basic considerations of the evolution of ecosystems.
such as?
The only hope for SETI, in my opinion, is that deep space travel is totally uneconomical for any civilization, no matter how long-lived and advanced.
I'm not sure I understand this one. Are you saying that SETI will only find something if civilizations have trouble colonizing other systems? Because if civilizations can spread they will absolutely spread geometrically without bounds? You know, I have serious trouble with this concept. Preemption requires very specific civilization characteristics such as hostile colonization, faster than light communication (to keep the civilization one civilization), sparse intelligent life in the galaxy, disrespect for existing living planets, etc.. etc..
Look around you. Earth is a nice simple model of what the galaxy probably looks like. It's almost certain to have a fractal resemblence - millions of ecosystems contributing to meta-systems, each maintaining a balance of many species that specialize in some fashion.
There are quite a few assumptions that have to be taken for granted to leap to that conclusion. For instance, in making the assertion "we are here, therefore we are the only ones", we implicitly disregard the possibility that we are being allowed to evolve [semi-] autonomously... After all, there does seem to exist some evidence that we have some anthropologists (or maybe just grad students) watching us...
All kidding aside, it seems much more likely to me that the galaxy is so teeming with life that it would evolve a complex ecology of spacefaring species. Some hostile, some not, some predatory, some not, etc... The complex pressures of such an ecology would place severe limits on the rate of expansion of any one species. Such an ecology would also evolve strong ethics of behavior, punishable in the harshest of ways - these ethics (or laws) would emerge naturally from survival pressures as species work together to fend off predatory species, handle catastrophe and whatnot. It seems quite likely that Terra is known, but the various critters around have better things to do than (and perhaps even laws against) messing with another upstart species of anthropods sitting on their heals and playing with atoms for the first time.
As for radio waves? Sure they would still be used in other civilizations. We still use the wheel and fire right? Civilizations evolve like organisms; everything that your chain of evolution made use of (up to and including the salt water that still chugs through your body in the form of plasma in your blood) is still in use in your body today.
However, it seems to me that our current utilization of EM spectrum is poor - over time I suspect two things will happen to how we use EM: (1) We will encrypt everything for a wide variety of reasons and (2) We will likely use much more complex time and frequency spanning encoding techniques to make better use of spectrum. Both of these techniques lead to the appearance of white noise (or random signals). What SETI should be looking for, besides patterned signals, is even distribution of white noise across a broad spectrum - I suspect that will be a much likelier beacon from civilizations more advanced than ours.
Let's let the industries based on re-coding the same old proprietary systems die so that new industries that can push the frontiers of computer science may be born. So long as the majority of the competent computer scientists and engineers in the world are working on new versions of Oracle, Windows, Solaris, Office, proprietary government procurement software, etc.., those new frontiers are just a dream!
Personally, I say good riddance.
The quickest and easiest way to keep your spying WMD researching evil enemies at bay is to ensure that from time to time they get weapons and research data that is entirely fake and will result in billions of dollars and many years of fruitless research and development on the part of your enemy.
To ensure that they believe that what they have is real, it is quite important to ocassionally make a big stink about the faked data that was lost. However, if you loose real data, it is better to keep it quiet and even produce lots of alternative data sets (a form of data denial of service attack) that pop up around the acquirer...
Don't you guys know anything about information warfare?
I am currently in a bad situation. It has been revealed to me that my fiancee has been part of an extortion type scam - and has been for 2 1/2 years. She battered me and was arrested for it once (In Anchorage) - I got her off. She tried to commit suicide the other day when I didn't come home after a bad fight. I called an ambulance. I am not sure what is in store for me - but I saw the DVD that is supposed to scare me. I have not played it yet. I fear that no one is going to believe me - that my fiancee has been doing this for so long. That so many people would be complicit. It sounds impossible. But it is happening and I don't know what to do.
However there is abundant evidence that awareness, personality and the "self" are physical.
:-) Don't make the mistake of assuming that I intend to prove that a soul is a static thing. In fact, before I say more, you should probably tell me what you think a soul is. I find that most people get so caught up in assumed mythology that they can't see the forest for the trees.
Hmmm... Let me ask you a question: In the absence of interaction with other people, do you believe that your "awareness", "personality" and "self" continue to exist? For how long? In what way? Do you really believe it (self) is physical, as you put it, as you reflect on your answers?
In a bid to "prove" the existence of the soul, someone once tried the "damaged car" argument on me; the idea that the body is just a vehicle the soul controls.
I'll warn you now that I'm an empiricist and won't be swayed by ethereal or philosophical notions. I'm not one of those "agnostic" sorts who grants that "god may or may not exist" just to be "fair." I expect compelling evidence.
I can not only prove the existance of soul, but the existance of god, alien intelligences and a few other pretty profound things. I'm sure you are skeptical, and you should be. But it turns out that if you look directly at the problem in a particular way, the proof becomes so obvious as to be undeniable. But I warn you, it requires a highly logical mind with education / familiarity with topics ranging from modern physics, artificial intelligence and advanced mathematics, to biology and psychology.
Heh - My first thought was suspenders for the robot and high heels, skirt, etc.. for the robot bimbos that have to run from it... ergo chainsaw masacre...
Robotic chainsaw masacre? That is weird, huh... I think I need a shrink...
The point is, the mechanistic understanding of awareness explains it without recourse to a soul.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but without some proof, I think your statement should include something like, "should be able to explain it" rather than "explains it". We don't really know for sure that emergence of awareness and intelligence may be understood or deriven from our models. We only suspect that it can.
Personally, I believe that there is no mechanistic understanding of awareness, as you put it. In all mechanistic systems, the whole is exactly equal to the sum of it's parts. All components add together in mathematically understood ways to create a fully understandable and predictable system. All intelligent systems require a quite different approach; They require the invocation of emergence. In emergent systems, components do not add linearly to create the whole. The whole is not understandable by examining the components or through any mathematical decomposition, as much as we would like it to be. Unfortunately, there is not yet a mathematics of emergence. I can give you a hint about one of the early conclusions of such a mathematics, however. It will show us that 1+1=2 is only a boundary case.
Aside from this, the topic of soul is quite complex. However, I assure you that I could convince you that you have a soul. I feel confident in that because your style of writing shows you to be a thinker, which will be required for such a thesis to digestible. We can even do it here in front of everyone, if you like.
"There are about 10^13 cells in the human body. There are also about 10^14 bacteria living in and on the average human body. ... That means each one of the cells in your body is outnumbered by bacteria 10-1. ... Now, turn around in your seat and look at the person next to you, and think about just what you are looking at..."
This shouldn't bother you anymore than the fact that a city contains stonework and metalwork. Fact is, our bodies are great civilizations of living things. Our cells, containing our DNA, is certainly central to the system that emerges as "us". But the symbiosis with other little living things is, in fact, crucial to our continued and happy existance.
In answer to the implied question raised, "think about just what you are looking at...", I must say that for me, I guess I would have to admit to seeing a great collection of living things that through simple ignorance was bestowed with the illusion that it is singular...
Yes, and I can't help but wonder how it is possible that Isaac Asimov's estate provided permission to hijack his work like this. As a longtime fan, I find this an outrage.
On another note - with regards to the 3 laws of robotics, it is becomimg more clear that real computational intelligence will only "emerge" through complex systems involving neural nets, swarm type simulations, evolutionary computation and other "messy adaptive / emergent" techniques, rather than the strictly deterministic AI (such as expert systems) that Asimov had in mind. With such techniques, the 3 laws of robotics seems to me an impossible ideal, since all behavior "emerges" rather than is "computed". Even a failsafe that was designed to watch for violations and shut-down the robot would only work correctly if implemented using deterministic AI, which is probably impossible - so the best "guardian system" I can easily conceive of would be a non-adaptive (static) one, probably grown in a genetic algorithm environment to watch the real AI - but there would be serious problems with such a system because it couldn't possibly catch all violations (the robot could outsmart it). Comments?
So, while I am unhappy with the bad adaptation of Asimov's work, this story may actually be more relevant to true robotics than Asimov's vision. Oooh... that felt blasphemous to write...
LEDs begin to fade after 3,000-to-4,000 hours
In our economy, where corporate survival depends upon consumtion and replacement, this seems to me to be an advantage.
Now you have to change your laptop / computer screen every year or so. Should make the powers that be in display technology very happy.
At least in some areas gifted people overestimate the capabilities of others and underestimate their own.
A common occurence. Works in reverse as well, as in "that was lucky" coming from someone not able to recognize the craft behind the luck. It is the "common consensus effect" - we all walk through life with the mistaken belief that everyone else thinks and sees the world the same way we do...
It just aint so.
Believe it or not, Nebraska does seems to have a very disproportionately large population of radically high IQs. Perhaps the military was experimenting with gene twisting or something in the area - after all, Omaha does house SAC (strategic air command) now STRATCOM (strategic command of the armed forces) - Oh I love conspiracy theories ;-)
Regardless of all that, I can shed some insight into this: Extremely "off-the-chart" gifted kids (we are not talking brilliant, we are talking way over the edge here) find themselves with challenges in life that quite interestingly resemble what a very very low IQ child might experience. Society is constructed, both organically and intentionally to cater to the average, the middle of the bell curve. Extremely gifted children are so far removed from normal that they may as well be classified as insane - in the sense that their thinking is so radically different than normal.
More than likely, this child has evolved into what he is because he didn't understand that he was different. It is difficult to go through life having a different set of perceptions and different observations and conclusions than everyone else about practically everything. The frustration builds and eventually the child will sink into themselves, to some safe place.
The kid has no social peers. That, ultimately, is the problem. Eventually, he will recognize the "why", it will turn him into a cynic and he will build a superficial facade personality to get by. As unhealthy as that sounds, it is pretty much his only solution because there will never be any real peer-to-peer social interaction for him. He may find peer-to-peer in his work, if he is lucky. But it is far from likely in his social life. You can best help him by helping him understand how different he is, how others think and interact (because it is unlikely that he is aware of those specific differences, the ego has a hard time accepting those sorts of things even in the face of brilliance and massive evidence). Point him towards understanding and towards empathy for his fellow man. It will be important later in life for him to be able to love and adore those that are lesser thinkers, so that he does not see them as lesser and use his natural abilities to run circles around them, taking advantage.
It is a tough and lonely road that this boy must walk. It is heartening to see someone recognize that and take such an interest in it.
thought that the concern with steroids was that they posed long-term health risks... not that they made people stronger. The concept of limiting strength to those with naturally good genes is quite elitist.
Well, actually, it is REALLY IMPORTANT. There is a form of socio-economic natural selection that occurs today (which replaces the more mundane reproduce or face gene extinction). This type of evolution takes the most beautiful among us and mates that set against the wealthy and famous. The children of these mergers belong to an elite caste with higher privelege than others.
Is this wrong? Perhaps, when viewed locally. But when viewed statistically over many generations, this acts as an evolutionary pressure that improves our genepool.
Over time, the "top" becomes quite heavily loaded with genes from those with money (presumably intellegence/beauty/skill allowed them to acquire and/or retain such funds) and those with natural beauty. The men from this upper caste (like all men) are very promiscuous and highly saught after by women who often have their children out of wedlock (happens very often with the rich and famous).
Simultaneously, the lowest caste in the population is washed every few generations in bloody wars that statistically prune the bottom of the genepool (yes, awful when viewed directly - but when viewed statistically over generations, it proves to be important).
The overall result is that over many generations the population becomes more beautiful, more intelligent and more athletic. Yes, of course, there are ugly, stupid non-athletic rich folk and beautiful, brilliant athletic poor folk as well... Remember, we are talking statistics here and even if the difference is a few percentage points this way or that, it makes a big difference over multiple generations...
But if you change the rules (e.g. plastic surgery and sports-drugs), natural selection stops working properly. Very much in the same way that paying welfare mothers to have babies screws with evolution, so does providing a means for lesser genes to pretend to be greater genes.
Don't get mad at me for saying these things - I am simply speaking about evolution. It is, after all, how we came to be - the stronger genes gave advantages that ensured their survival over the weaker genes... It still happens... That is all.
Pixar, like Apple, has some surprises in store for all of us. Let's take a little "thought exploration"...
(1) Pixar was restricted in the type of content they could produce while associated with the Disney brand - after all, their brand must stay "disney" clean (or more than that, because all rich, large corporations are a bit hypocritical with their vendors)
(2) Pixar has been experimenting with very advanced rendering techniques since the beginning. The stuff that they have been experimenting with is not so useful for goofy animations of the type that they make for Disney. But imagine what realistic, dirty pores on skin, perfect rendering of hair and cloth, the application and control over viscosity of fluids, etc.., can do when set free of the boundaries of kids movies...
(3) Jobs has made interesting statements over the years regarding creativity and the disproportional distribution of media wealth (most going to the elite actors and media moguls rather than the creative talent).
(4) Jobs owns the company that stands to make the most cash from a revolution in digital content creation.
One simple *guess* of where he might be going, given these observations, is:
Jobs is planning a movie-making and distribution coup de'ta; (A) The introduction of digital stars to replace the venerable movie-star in every conceivable genre - Pixar to become not just an animation studio, but a full fledged movie studio capable of competing with any other on any script, using no real actors or sets. (B) Digital distribution of movies ala iTunes music store. (C) Publishing of independent content into the media store, both from GarageBand (music) and FinalCut Pro (movies). (D) Some new video appliance to replace the DVD to distribute the media to.
The rewards? (A) HUGE PROFIT MARGINS on Pixar movies, (B) HUGE INCREASE IN MAC SALES and content creation software, (C) Personal satisfaction at redirecting profits from the elite to the creative talent.
How could this happen? Simpler than you think. With the advent of HDTV, DVDs are obsolete. With high-bandwidth, DVDs will go the way of the CDROM. The time is now for a redistribution play. The technology is probably ready now (or very close). Pixar is now in a position to release more adult oriented films and drop the kiddy-cartoon image that it had as a lap-dog of Disney. Apple's engines are firing on all cylinders and the content-creation stack is pretty full...
A few hits in the new area of animated supra-realism could set the coup de'ta in motion. Think different... Break the backs of the establishment... These are the mantras of Steve Jobs...
At this point, we will agree to disagree.
While I certainly could spend time building arguments for my positions, I'm afraid I don't really see the point of doing that right now.
Best of luck to you. Muganang Gabi at Salamat.
Economics is about confidence. If the U.S. states, unequivocally, "The Philippines will become a State in 30 years", the economy of the region will go into hyperdrive. That becomes someone else's problem. At least it did the trick when we needed it to.
Obviously, if it fails, it remains a commonwealth or whatever... It doesn't become a state and it doesn't get to put itself on wellfare.
It's primarily a problem of confidence and protection. With the U.S. protecting the Philippines (both economically and militarily), U.S. companies (not to mention foreign intrests) would take a much greater interest in the region.
Since the track is to make the Philippines into a state, the idea is to shift relationships and labor usage from unaffilated third-world countries into the Philippines. A larger workforce creates a larger economy and vastly increases the overall wealth and prosperity of the whole if done correctly. The amount of money that would be spent in the Philippines building infrastructure (mostly contracted out to U.S. firms) would more then compensate for the shift of cheap labor to the Philippines. But the economics is more complex than just that. The key is simbiosis and intention to merger. Doing the same thing with a foreign country without that intention would be devestating economically.
It is not necessary for politicians to think 20 years ahead. Today, U.S. politicians have very serious problems on their hands because of outsourcing of U.S. jobs (a trend that will grow larger) to third-world countries. if they could re-route that effort to the Philippines while laying claim to be doing it to help establish an economy for the 51st state somewhere down the road, it provides them with a political shield against the masses while simultaneously appeasing big business.
It certainly would be necessary to plan somewhat, but the think-tanks that build diplomatic agreements will do that regardless. The important point is that there are advantages TODAY, TOMORROW and in the distant future to going down this path.
They would not yet be part of the U.S. and it would not be discrimination. It would be a gradual increase in standard of living, synchronized to the upgrades to industry and infrastructure. As I mentioned before, the federal assistance would be staged in such a way that by the time they are ready to be a state, the required assistance would not be a burden. Never would we worsen their conditions, we would always be improving them. We just couldn't do it all at once because, as you correctly pointed out, it would be devestating economically for the U.S. to do that.
The U.S. : Protestant 56%, Roman Catholic 28%, Jewish 2%, other 4%, none 10% (1989)
Primarily Christian - yes, there are twice as many Protestant as Catholic. But in the U.S., this is not an issue like it is in Brittain. We have even had a Catholic president (Kennedy).
You could even say this works to the advantage of the Philipp
And, of course, federal assistance would not kick in until we used economic means to raise the people out of poverty. This would not take as long as you believe. With American protection, U.S. companies would rush in to take advantage of the cheap labor. The country would transform very quickly. The federal assistance programs could be staged in gradually as milestones are met so that no undo strain was being placed on the U.S. taxpayers.
Tell us again, why they should get aid? Cuz I think you said they should get it because they give aid to some other guys and only get a little bit from us.
I thought you guys were supposed to be logical?
I didn't get any aid last year and I'm very generous. Maybe I should get some too.
You seem to have interpreted what I have said as implying that we should stand back and hold the reins to a bunch of wild scientists and engineers around the world. I think we should give them all H1bs and bring them here, instead. Keep the innovation in the U.S.!!!! At any cost!!!
The competitive advantage that America has is (A) It's methodologies that have been refined over 30-40 years, (B) It's piles of source code and circuit architecture, basic science, etc.. that have been developed by our corporations and exist in the minds of our workforce and (C) Momentum.
If we hand these things over, we are handing over our crown jewels... We need to keep those things here.
s far as I understand, joining the US tends to be one-sided proposals by fringe politicians, and has almost no mainstream support. The US is also unlikely to accept a new state of nearly 85 million people with a per capita GDP of under $5,000. The US itself is only some 300 million people, with a GDP more than $36,000. Absorbing the Philippines and bringing it to the economic levels of other states will cripple the US economy for decades.
Actually, examine the link I posted about statehood. It tends to be the politicians (rather than the people) in the Philippines that oppose statehood because it poses a threat to their wealth and power.
There is a growing awareness of the coming economic competitiveness of China and India in the U.S, and a particular school of thought that believes that we should align ourselves closely with a country such as the Philippines in order to challenge the cheap labor of India/China. In this scenario, the 80 million Filipinos working for peanuts works greatly in our favor. Done correctly, the transformation of the Philippines into a state will coincide with the use of the Philippines as a weapon in this economic war that is coming with China and India. The end result is that the standard of living, GDP and infrastructure of the Philippines is tremendously raised while the U.S. gets it ready to be a state *and* fends off economic disaster at the hands of the Chinese and Indians.
In the long term, in order for the U.S. to stay competitive with countries like China and India, we need to greatly increase our population. This also helps us achieve that. It also gives us an extremely strategic presence in the region.
It seems like a smart idea to me.
Philosophy under the Clinton Administration: Increase the number of H1b Visas, bring the brains to America while keeping wages from skyrocketing. This was very advantageous to U.S. businesses and the increase in activity in the U.S. benefited the U.S. worker. It did not, as some claimed, reduce wages - although it did help reduce hyper-wage-inflation.
Philosophy under the Bush Administration: Decrease the number of H1b Visas, send the brains back home. The result? A catastrophic wave of outsourcing of knowledge-work to outsource companies in India, Russia, China and the Philippines. Have you been to the Bay Area recently? The region is in a depression and this has much to do with it.
We would be better off opening the H1b floodgates until everyone was working at minimum wage IN THE U.S., than outsourcing everything. At least the technology (and the tax-base) stays here. How much is the U.S. government loosing in lost tax revenue anyway?