Most people, (especially Lawrence Lessig who is a lawyer) does NOT mean "direct democracy" every time the word democracy is used. It should be obvious to everybody who doesn't have a propaganda stick up their ass.
A REPUBLIC by definition (look it up) is where the ultimate power is held by the people, thru their representatives; the implementation is not really specified. The creation of the word itself even gives you the meaning!
People who are paying attention should have known for some time that the public does not have the power anymore.
They can smash stuff legally already; however, a flying drone is something they are not equipped to smash out of their way, unlike your car parked in front of a fire hydrant... (I've seen a firetruck smash a car that was in the way.)
The law is not needed, what is needed is a way to take out drones quickly. They may not have the right to operate the kind of guns needed to shoot down drones.... plus the falling drone is a new kind of problem -- it is not like cutting holes into burning houses or ripping apart a car.
I would propose a gun which shoots a net on a rope. the net should have some loose strings on it just in case it's one of those drones which have a lot of protection around their propellers. The other benefit is that if you can "bag" a few drones instead of letting them fall, you might be able to track down the owner later on.
Remember RoundUp and how EVIL it was. It's not relevant that some aspect of it is not as bad today; the damage was done and is still being done as well as new ways to repeat the same process with new chemicals and plants.
I didn't get into how they work to undermine science when it goes against them. People thought tobacco was bad with it's industry holding progress back for decades; Monsanto is more capable today than big tobacco ever was.
Monsanto would have spent the money and had it blocked from market because it does not use any pesticides. (remember their successful round up ready approach lets them charge for GM seeds AND for the pesticides for the genetic disease they unleashed. Oh yes, it's a genetic disease, they didn't make the plant sterile for the same reason they someday will likely create pathogens where only they have the cure. )
Life is not a comic book! or a movie or even a book. Even with additional dimensions (to which a book can offer more,) real life contains more aspects than even a "complex" fictional villain.
Most the experts have a positive view but lets focus on the ones we can skew into a fear of Skynet along with celebrities. Woz being one of the better opinions.
Domain specific knowledge is needed to make educated guesses or at least informed assessments of the current threat level. Currently, AI is not at all intelligent; with in a specific narrow domain the AI can do as well as or better than a human. Big deal. So can a horse or a car - they are superior within their specialized domain. We are nowhere near a general artificial intelligence; we are making slow progress on simulations of natural intelligence which might prove interesting and possibly quite disturbing someday; but if you can simulate a natural brain's intelligence that isn't artificial is it?
Back on topic, AI is only applied intelligence within extremely narrow domains. A thermostat is an artificial intelligence; within it's domain/context. Talk of Gigahertz is grossly over simplified. Biological brains are massively parallel and the interactions going on involve quantum mechanics (although may not be necessary for operation-- it likely will be a huge problem for simulators.) The gigahertz is hardly important when you have a network mesh that is MUCH larger than the neurons within it...
The REAL issues are how jobs can be simplified so an average or slow human can perform the job. Those jobs are beginning to be feasible for customized AI systems to perform and replace the human employees. Furthermore, just as kids can solve protein folding problems by playing a game, an AI can be augmented by human brain power in ways that simplify the job greatly. Your 6 year old child could be putting you out of work with their video game playing. The real cyborgs to think about will be AI attaching human intelligence. Like a surgery robot which does most the work with the surgeon assisting multiple bots at the same time... reducing the number of surgeons required (think of all the prep work etc that could be automated...)
The education market is largely untapped and trillions are there to be won in this new "industry" by creating a marketplace from what was a public service with altruistic motives.
Their agenda is to foster a market and transition education into an industry from which great profits can be had for training worker drones who are specifically tailored to the job market. Employers no longer want to train employees - the numbers on that are so low that most people do not even think about employer training or realize that employers used to have full time instructors of their own. It's all about cost externalization - they externalized employee training and are acting like the education system is failing them when it never did their job for them.
Perfect is the enemy of good. Education in the past got us all the successes of today. But that isn't perfect, the perfect little snowflakes are not to blame... we have to get 100% success with every child and if not, it is NEVER their parents fault or the society. So lets completely revamp education which worked so well because it's not perfect. It's similar to how they destroyed the UK Postal System (Royal Mail) with tons of waste and destruction just so they could improve the service by a few % to become perfect. Now they've completely privatized it - it's still far from perfect...but new money can now corrupt the system so perfect now won't matter...
I don't care if 40% can't read out of high school; send those people to another school targeted at their failure within the old system. The major steps forward were done by a minority of people who thrived in the old education model -- not everybody is a genius and whatever was done that let those people shine and deliver the progress we had should be left alone. Don't kill the golden goose people! You can experiment on the teenagers or children who fail but you should leave the successful ones alone! You can also not claim that somebody who did poorly (Einstein) did not benefit from the system; it is foolishly simplistic to measure success by short term simplistic metrics. In reality, human learning and development is far from understood - it is far more of a black box than people realize. (besides, learning to cope with failure is a huge lesson to learn properly. )
One size does not fit all. Policy makers are always obsessed with making universal policies. Utopia is an incredibly evil goal.
"Laws too severe are seldom obeyed" -Ben Franklin.
Addicts by definition will put themselves at risk unreasonably, so you have to be a fool to think addicts would stop even if you passed a law where the punishment was a shortening of their lifespan or torture them so badly it leaves them with permanent medical conditions! ( like the drugs already do to them on their own. )
The simple solution is to destroy the black market (which is about as free market as you get; it exists outside regulation...) you simply have a no strings attached free socialized drug service with minimal safety regulation.
Nobody would pay on the black market when they can go to the local free clinic and sit in a padded room and shoot up without any risks aside from what the drug does. It would be much cheaper but it also would likely cause another banking bailout since billions of laundered dollars would disappear... not that we'd not have more billions in savings from shrinking the police state to bail the banks out...
We may as well forget actually fixing anything that makes big bankers bug bucks. In the USA, the Mexican drug cartels should incorporate and just buy some politicians and "think tanks" to ensure nothing ever is solved.
Do not forget the drug research that shows unhappy people are way more prone to addiction...
Did rebranding IE12 into "Edge" include the browser identification string? Are there any signs of the app is still essentially a new version of IE.
I doubt they started completely from scratch and with different staff than IE 11...
A new app name doesn't make this any different than 11 was from 10... so is it really more significant? or is this just merely a rebranding from the trusted MS marketing department.
Every software vendor has dreamed of a subscription based model and how with the internet and DRM they can start to realize those goals.
Didn't MS buy windows365 or some domains like that last year?
You know they will never give it away for free; they will charge you for your habit. (not ruling out their past behavior of giving free or massive discounts to get people addicted.)
Spot on except that Fascism is Italian and it IS government by the corporations.
Government is captive already; the end game is still being setup the huge fight to reclaim it has not even begun and possibly will not until it is too late.
End game: between "1984" for intellectuals and "Brave New World" for the sheeple.
Quality McDonald's Food you can raise your child on... now as... education! Quality Walmart products and service with a highly desirable clientele that you feel perfectly comfortable with allowing your children to visit on their own.... now as.... education.... and "super" walmart have free daycare!!
The education "industry" potentially is into the trillions which has a captive customer base; almost as captive as the healthcare industry has.
The potential profits from just a small slice of this developing new "marketplace" is staggering. No bigger gold rush exists outside of managing social security.
Regardless of intentions, the appeal here is extreme. Prisons were/are only a starting point and those have less growth potential (despite the heavy lobbying already present to keep numbers up.)
Sure corporate interests will be protected and some people do want their own little factories of goosestepping consumers but there is more than just that going on here.
I wish people could think for themselves... NADER didn't split the vote and cost Gore a clear victory:
1) Gore won by the most conservative count. The supreme court made a corrupt ruling and appointed Bush the winner. It is not hard to figure that one out; but if you can't see it then you are capable of supporting a democracy.
2) Nader only had a tiny portion of the vote; it didn't split the DFL a lot of his people wouldn't vote for Gore. The Communist Party of Florida had more votes than the difference in the count (see #1.) If a portion of the Nader votes went for Gore you would have still had many areas so close it was still likely a mess would have happened.
3) Computer voting was alive and causing errors before anybody even noticed them (but they rushed in some IT people to fix the massive overvote "bugs")
4) Illegal banning of voters who might be black in a really corrupt scheme that should have put somebody in jail; it was intentional. The numbers of people on that were quite significant.
5) Don't forget the ballot which cased a jewish community to vote for a nazi sympathizer. (it only takes half a popcycle stick shove that kind of ballot out of alignment.)
6) Unverified and improper military ballots were counted anyway.
7) Fake directions for election day - the usual things like telling you to vote a day late or wrong location were going around as well. That old trick still happens around the nation.
8) Crazy waiting lines purposely engineered caused some people to turn away.
9) only 1 voting day; no real time off for it... and people propagandized to not vote (except the targeted stuff for certain demographics.)
Forget about Bush's brother, state campaign manager being in charge of the whole foobar process. Don't blame Gore or Nader - everything else was all wrong. A billion dollars was spent to make both candidates seem the same so it would turn out CLOSE which makes it easier to cheat in the tiny margins. In addition, the whole thing is like the Palestinian Government where it really has no power to do anything - it is just there to appease some people into thinking there is a democracy.
A browser we don't need, want and would like to go away gets renamed and we celebrate like something has changed.
I doubt they completely rewrote it. Their marketing department has a long history of talking about IE standards compliance and IE's technology leadership which is well known. So why does the marketing department get a pass this time around?
I'm not going to call it Edge. It's just going to be newer versions of IE to me. They'd be better calling it "web browser" or "browser" and leave it at that. They don't need to market the thing because it hasn't been a selling point for a long long time; it's so bad they had to rebrand it to turn it back into a selling point when everything has a built-in browser on it today.
This has been known forever. It is clear and burns extremely cleanly. It is not diesel or clean diesel; however, getting a diesel engine running on it is probably child's play and a flex fuel car is also probably easy (but a poor choice since diesel engines are superior.)
Without a monopoly at the gas station, you'd have had these choices for a long time and they'd be undercutting gas for decades... Maybe we'd have cars that wouldn't fall apart if we converted them! That is what prevents me from converting because it will eat up parts in my car not designed for methanol... it's bad enough with the ethanol being forced into my car... it's harder to find real 100% gas than it is ethanol (but Methanol is nowhere to be found; propane is easier to find.)
Why are they avoiding words like methanol, electrolysis, etc?
Donald Rumsfeld had stock in it, having run the company behind it back before he was appointed to approve it's use without proper testing. (Testing which happened later on - a lot of which was industry funded etc.)
Some people are extra susceptible to the stuff in addition to certain conditions such as heavy exercise making your tolerance level drop.
What we really should know is how they were involved in corruption behind the stevia ban. Also what it took other industries to bribe away that ban in recent years...
If you don't raise your children, something else in their environment will raise them for you
They have little right to complain about the results of giving up their responsibilities or blindly supporting a society which takes away most their time working to support their children.
Not that everybody should home school their children to be selfish pricks who are unable to contribute positively to society... learning civics and ethics are dead already in the schools... as if we don't have enough psychopathy today.
Civics and Ethics are as religion neutral and scientific as one can get; needed far more today given the LACK of similar teachings at home or even at many churches (or the ones I attended as a kid which were largely caught up in dogmatic tripe.)
The difference between a male ape and a male human is so small it is almost the same distance between a MALE HUMAN and a FEMALE HUMAN! No kidding, go look it up.
That is the reason I brought up DNA in the first place. The difference is not as great as it seems when you consider the DNA variation within the human species and the obvious place to look is the genders (which is an average, one could probably increase it more by finding the most opposite two humans of opposite genders and seeing just how big a gap you can find to approach the male primate gap.)
The % means little without a contextual reference point and since we only care about humans, the starting point is to find the widest range of human variability. If any two humans are equal, therefore one can make a DNA based argument based around an ape which fits within a smaller DNA delta... or really close to that delta. Obviously, one would have to set bounds on species allowed for that kind of threshold induction.
I was just aiming for a quantitative argument; qualitatively, animal studies already prove ape cognitive skills are equivalent to small human children. We do not do experiments on the severely mentally retarded who are unable to develop further than an ape. It is a much more "fuzzy" debate.
More accurately, people generally get more selfish as they age. Because they acquire, adapt and invest within the existing system - it's all really about THEIR STUFF.
People who do well with the status quo almost universally become biased to whatever maintains what they have, their stuff. It's a matter of self interest and most will put down other people at the hint of a threat, which clearly makes them selfish. Sure, they have excuses which rationalize their positions and behaviors - I've not met an overtly selfish person over 8 who doesn't cover it up.
The middle classes are quite self-centered with a "conservative" bias too but not as much as the group above them; the lower classes are not a great deal better but because they have less stuff to lose, their demographic is more open to alternative thinking. Still, the lower classes mostly are the same because they want to find ways to get more stuff. Once they move up the economic class system, most will "change" but in reality they never changed their motives, only the ones who really thought different and meant it stay the same.
How about by genetics? The DNA between a male ape and a male human is so small it's almost the same amount as the difference between the genders! A great deal of fighting was done just to admit women as equals and that hasn't been won worldwide and nobody seems to treat them as equals yet...
Point is, genetically they are really close to an accepted group (majority actually) which wasn't recognized in the past.
Dolphins only have our brain size; their brains are full of fat. literally. the ocean temperature's impact on submerged body temperature is extremely great compared to the wind. They need fat heads for temperature stability since analog brains function around the influence of environmental factors like temperature impacting all those massively parallel chemical reactions. Your body does a great deal to maintain brain temperature so it can function not because neurons are so much weaker.
Sure humans can be exploited bit more than the Chinese, but not a great deal more and not for much more output. Don't forget that very few nations would be willing or capable enough to support what China has done.
The machines are now beginning to replace the lowest human working conditions for mass production.
Labor of Slaves, then unprotected workers, then exploited external workers: It has always been about how much we can get away with. Now we have reached the point where soon the most desperate humans will be unable to compete against machines. It is the story of John Henry but more broad than ever before.
It need not be 100% machine-- where gamers could be unwittingly helping their parents lose their jobs by providing the tiny bit of intelligence the machine lacks their parents used to provide. Small farmers have been dying off for many reasons and no computers were required; they are an example of empowering 1 person to do the work of dozens. Robots will take that far beyond what machines alone could do... to the point where the human in the equation is only an owner and everything is artificial.
In our lifetimes there will see the 1st 100% artificially run corporation; some private owners will decide to be the 1st, it is not like most CEOs are actually that useful or don't already decide everything based upon stats (which a machine could do with a little input by survey, game, or the owner.)
Slashdot Mirror
Most people, (especially Lawrence Lessig who is a lawyer) does NOT mean "direct democracy" every time the word democracy is used. It should be obvious to everybody who doesn't have a propaganda stick up their ass.
A REPUBLIC by definition (look it up) is where the ultimate power is held by the people, thru their representatives; the implementation is not really specified. The creation of the word itself even gives you the meaning!
People who are paying attention should have known for some time that the public does not have the power anymore.
They can smash stuff legally already; however, a flying drone is something they are not equipped to smash out of their way, unlike your car parked in front of a fire hydrant... (I've seen a firetruck smash a car that was in the way.)
The law is not needed, what is needed is a way to take out drones quickly. They may not have the right to operate the kind of guns needed to shoot down drones.... plus the falling drone is a new kind of problem -- it is not like cutting holes into burning houses or ripping apart a car.
I would propose a gun which shoots a net on a rope. the net should have some loose strings on it just in case it's one of those drones which have a lot of protection around their propellers. The other benefit is that if you can "bag" a few drones instead of letting them fall, you might be able to track down the owner later on.
Remember RoundUp and how EVIL it was. It's not relevant that some aspect of it is not as bad today; the damage was done and is still being done as well as new ways to repeat the same process with new chemicals and plants.
I didn't get into how they work to undermine science when it goes against them. People thought tobacco was bad with it's industry holding progress back for decades; Monsanto is more capable today than big tobacco ever was.
Monsanto would have spent the money and had it blocked from market because it does not use any pesticides. (remember their successful round up ready approach lets them charge for GM seeds AND for the pesticides for the genetic disease they unleashed. Oh yes, it's a genetic disease, they didn't make the plant sterile for the same reason they someday will likely create pathogens where only they have the cure. )
Life is not a comic book! or a movie or even a book. Even with additional dimensions (to which a book can offer more,) real life contains more aspects than even a "complex" fictional villain.
Most the experts have a positive view but lets focus on the ones we can skew into a fear of Skynet along with celebrities. Woz being one of the better opinions.
Domain specific knowledge is needed to make educated guesses or at least informed assessments of the current threat level. Currently, AI is not at all intelligent; with in a specific narrow domain the AI can do as well as or better than a human. Big deal. So can a horse or a car - they are superior within their specialized domain. We are nowhere near a general artificial intelligence; we are making slow progress on simulations of natural intelligence which might prove interesting and possibly quite disturbing someday; but if you can simulate a natural brain's intelligence that isn't artificial is it?
Back on topic, AI is only applied intelligence within extremely narrow domains. A thermostat is an artificial intelligence; within it's domain/context.
Talk of Gigahertz is grossly over simplified. Biological brains are massively parallel and the interactions going on involve quantum mechanics (although may not be necessary for operation-- it likely will be a huge problem for simulators.) The gigahertz is hardly important when you have a network mesh that is MUCH larger than the neurons within it...
The REAL issues are how jobs can be simplified so an average or slow human can perform the job. Those jobs are beginning to be feasible for customized AI systems to perform and replace the human employees. Furthermore, just as kids can solve protein folding problems by playing a game, an AI can be augmented by human brain power in ways that simplify the job greatly. Your 6 year old child could be putting you out of work with their video game playing. The real cyborgs to think about will be AI attaching human intelligence. Like a surgery robot which does most the work with the surgeon assisting multiple bots at the same time... reducing the number of surgeons required (think of all the prep work etc that could be automated...)
The education market is largely untapped and trillions are there to be won in this new "industry" by creating a marketplace from what was a public service with altruistic motives.
Their agenda is to foster a market and transition education into an industry from which great profits can be had for training worker drones who are specifically tailored to the job market. Employers no longer want to train employees - the numbers on that are so low that most people do not even think about employer training or realize that employers used to have full time instructors of their own. It's all about cost externalization - they externalized employee training and are acting like the education system is failing them when it never did their job for them.
Perfect is the enemy of good. Education in the past got us all the successes of today. But that isn't perfect, the perfect little snowflakes are not to blame... we have to get 100% success with every child and if not, it is NEVER their parents fault or the society. So lets completely revamp education which worked so well because it's not perfect. It's similar to how they destroyed the UK Postal System (Royal Mail) with tons of waste and destruction just so they could improve the service by a few % to become perfect. Now they've completely privatized it - it's still far from perfect...but new money can now corrupt the system so perfect now won't matter...
I don't care if 40% can't read out of high school; send those people to another school targeted at their failure within the old system. The major steps forward were done by a minority of people who thrived in the old education model -- not everybody is a genius and whatever was done that let those people shine and deliver the progress we had should be left alone. Don't kill the golden goose people! You can experiment on the teenagers or children who fail but you should leave the successful ones alone! You can also not claim that somebody who did poorly (Einstein) did not benefit from the system; it is foolishly simplistic to measure success by short term simplistic metrics. In reality, human learning and development is far from understood - it is far more of a black box than people realize. (besides, learning to cope with failure is a huge lesson to learn properly. )
One size does not fit all. Policy makers are always obsessed with making universal policies. Utopia is an incredibly evil goal.
"Laws too severe are seldom obeyed" -Ben Franklin.
Addicts by definition will put themselves at risk unreasonably, so you have to be a fool to think addicts would stop even if you passed a law where the punishment was a shortening of their lifespan or torture them so badly it leaves them with permanent medical conditions! ( like the drugs already do to them on their own. )
The simple solution is to destroy the black market (which is about as free market as you get; it exists outside regulation...) you simply have a no strings attached free socialized drug service with minimal safety regulation.
Nobody would pay on the black market when they can go to the local free clinic and sit in a padded room and shoot up without any risks aside from what the drug does. It would be much cheaper but it also would likely cause another banking bailout since billions of laundered dollars would disappear... not that we'd not have more billions in savings from shrinking the police state to bail the banks out...
We may as well forget actually fixing anything that makes big bankers bug bucks. In the USA, the Mexican drug cartels should incorporate and just buy some politicians and "think tanks" to ensure nothing ever is solved.
Do not forget the drug research that shows unhappy people are way more prone to addiction...
Did rebranding IE12 into "Edge" include the browser identification string? Are there any signs of the app is still essentially a new version of IE.
I doubt they started completely from scratch and with different staff than IE 11...
A new app name doesn't make this any different than 11 was from 10... so is it really more significant? or is this just merely a rebranding from the trusted MS marketing department.
Every software vendor has dreamed of a subscription based model and how with the internet and DRM they can start to realize those goals.
Didn't MS buy windows365 or some domains like that last year?
You know they will never give it away for free; they will charge you for your habit. (not ruling out their past behavior of giving free or massive discounts to get people addicted.)
Spot on except that Fascism is Italian and it IS government by the corporations.
Government is captive already; the end game is still being setup the huge fight to reclaim it has not even begun and possibly will not until it is too late.
End game: between "1984" for intellectuals and "Brave New World" for the sheeple.
Quality McDonald's Food you can raise your child on... now as... education! .... and "super" walmart have free daycare!!
Quality Walmart products and service with a highly desirable clientele that you feel perfectly comfortable with allowing your children to visit on their own.... now as.... education
Low low prices...
The education "industry" potentially is into the trillions which has a captive customer base; almost as captive as the healthcare industry has.
The potential profits from just a small slice of this developing new "marketplace" is staggering. No bigger gold rush exists outside of managing social security.
Regardless of intentions, the appeal here is extreme. Prisons were/are only a starting point and those have less growth potential (despite the heavy lobbying already present to keep numbers up.)
Sure corporate interests will be protected and some people do want their own little factories of goosestepping consumers but there is more than just that going on here.
Correction:
#1) if you can't see bush wasn't legitimately appointed, then you NOT are capable of supporting a democracy
I wish people could think for themselves... NADER didn't split the vote and cost Gore a clear victory:
1) Gore won by the most conservative count. The supreme court made a corrupt ruling and appointed Bush the winner. It is not hard to figure that one out; but if you can't see it then you are capable of supporting a democracy.
2) Nader only had a tiny portion of the vote; it didn't split the DFL a lot of his people wouldn't vote for Gore. The Communist Party of Florida had more votes than the difference in the count (see #1.) If a portion of the Nader votes went for Gore you would have still had many areas so close it was still likely a mess would have happened.
3) Computer voting was alive and causing errors before anybody even noticed them (but they rushed in some IT people to fix the massive overvote "bugs")
4) Illegal banning of voters who might be black in a really corrupt scheme that should have put somebody in jail; it was intentional. The numbers of people on that were quite significant.
5) Don't forget the ballot which cased a jewish community to vote for a nazi sympathizer. (it only takes half a popcycle stick shove that kind of ballot out of alignment.)
6) Unverified and improper military ballots were counted anyway.
7) Fake directions for election day - the usual things like telling you to vote a day late or wrong location were going around as well. That old trick still happens around the nation.
8) Crazy waiting lines purposely engineered caused some people to turn away.
9) only 1 voting day; no real time off for it... and people propagandized to not vote (except the targeted stuff for certain demographics.)
Forget about Bush's brother, state campaign manager being in charge of the whole foobar process. Don't blame Gore or Nader - everything else was all wrong. A billion dollars was spent to make both candidates seem the same so it would turn out CLOSE which makes it easier to cheat in the tiny margins. In addition, the whole thing is like the Palestinian Government where it really has no power to do anything - it is just there to appease some people into thinking there is a democracy.
A browser we don't need, want and would like to go away gets renamed and we celebrate like something has changed.
I doubt they completely rewrote it. Their marketing department has a long history of talking about IE standards compliance and IE's technology leadership which is well known. So why does the marketing department get a pass this time around?
I'm not going to call it Edge. It's just going to be newer versions of IE to me. They'd be better calling it "web browser" or "browser" and leave it at that. They don't need to market the thing because it hasn't been a selling point for a long long time; it's so bad they had to rebrand it to turn it back into a selling point when everything has a built-in browser on it today.
spot on!
CO2 + Water + electrolysis = Methanol.
This has been known forever. It is clear and burns extremely cleanly. It is not diesel or clean diesel; however, getting a diesel engine running on it is probably child's play and a flex fuel car is also probably easy (but a poor choice since diesel engines are superior.)
Without a monopoly at the gas station, you'd have had these choices for a long time and they'd be undercutting gas for decades... Maybe we'd have cars that wouldn't fall apart if we converted them! That is what prevents me from converting because it will eat up parts in my car not designed for methanol... it's bad enough with the ethanol being forced into my car... it's harder to find real 100% gas than it is ethanol (but Methanol is nowhere to be found; propane is easier to find.)
Why are they avoiding words like methanol, electrolysis, etc?
Donald Rumsfeld had stock in it, having run the company behind it back before he was appointed to approve it's use without proper testing. (Testing which happened later on - a lot of which was industry funded etc.)
Some people are extra susceptible to the stuff in addition to certain conditions such as heavy exercise making your tolerance level drop.
What we really should know is how they were involved in corruption behind the stevia ban. Also what it took other industries to bribe away that ban in recent years...
Survivaball
http://theyesmen.org/hijinks/s...
Did somebody not get the joke?
If you don't raise your children, something else in their environment will raise them for you
They have little right to complain about the results of giving up their responsibilities or blindly supporting a society which takes away most their time working to support their children.
Not that everybody should home school their children to be selfish pricks who are unable to contribute positively to society... learning civics and ethics are dead already in the schools... as if we don't have enough psychopathy today.
Civics and Ethics are as religion neutral and scientific as one can get; needed far more today given the LACK of similar teachings at home or even at many churches (or the ones I attended as a kid which were largely caught up in dogmatic tripe.)
Perhaps I wasn't strong enough in my phrasing:
The difference between a male ape and a male human is so small it is almost the same distance between a MALE HUMAN and a FEMALE HUMAN! No kidding, go look it up.
That is the reason I brought up DNA in the first place. The difference is not as great as it seems when you consider the DNA variation within the human species and the obvious place to look is the genders (which is an average, one could probably increase it more by finding the most opposite two humans of opposite genders and seeing just how big a gap you can find to approach the male primate gap.)
The % means little without a contextual reference point and since we only care about humans, the starting point is to find the widest range of human variability. If any two humans are equal, therefore one can make a DNA based argument based around an ape which fits within a smaller DNA delta... or really close to that delta. Obviously, one would have to set bounds on species allowed for that kind of threshold induction.
I was just aiming for a quantitative argument; qualitatively, animal studies already prove ape cognitive skills are equivalent to small human children. We do not do experiments on the severely mentally retarded who are unable to develop further than an ape. It is a much more "fuzzy" debate.
More accurately, people generally get more selfish as they age. Because they acquire, adapt and invest within the existing system - it's all really about THEIR STUFF.
People who do well with the status quo almost universally become biased to whatever maintains what they have, their stuff. It's a matter of self interest and most will put down other people at the hint of a threat, which clearly makes them selfish. Sure, they have excuses which rationalize their positions and behaviors - I've not met an overtly selfish person over 8 who doesn't cover it up.
The middle classes are quite self-centered with a "conservative" bias too but not as much as the group above them; the lower classes are not a great deal better but because they have less stuff to lose, their demographic is more open to alternative thinking. Still, the lower classes mostly are the same because they want to find ways to get more stuff. Once they move up the economic class system, most will "change" but in reality they never changed their motives, only the ones who really thought different and meant it stay the same.
How about by genetics?
The DNA between a male ape and a male human is so small it's almost the same amount as the difference between the genders! A great deal of fighting was done just to admit women as equals and that hasn't been won worldwide and nobody seems to treat them as equals yet...
Point is, genetically they are really close to an accepted group (majority actually) which wasn't recognized in the past.
Dolphins only have our brain size; their brains are full of fat. literally. the ocean temperature's impact on submerged body temperature is extremely great compared to the wind. They need fat heads for temperature stability since analog brains function around the influence of environmental factors like temperature impacting all those massively parallel chemical reactions. Your body does a great deal to maintain brain temperature so it can function not because neurons are so much weaker.
Sure humans can be exploited bit more than the Chinese, but not a great deal more and not for much more output. Don't forget that very few nations would be willing or capable enough to support what China has done.
The machines are now beginning to replace the lowest human working conditions for mass production.
Labor of Slaves, then unprotected workers, then exploited external workers:
It has always been about how much we can get away with. Now we have reached the point where soon the most desperate humans will be unable to compete against machines. It is the story of John Henry but more broad than ever before.
It need not be 100% machine-- where gamers could be unwittingly helping their parents lose their jobs by providing the tiny bit of intelligence the machine lacks their parents used to provide. Small farmers have been dying off for many reasons and no computers were required; they are an example of empowering 1 person to do the work of dozens. Robots will take that far beyond what machines alone could do... to the point where the human in the equation is only an owner and everything is artificial.
In our lifetimes there will see the 1st 100% artificially run corporation; some private owners will decide to be the 1st, it is not like most CEOs are actually that useful or don't already decide everything based upon stats (which a machine could do with a little input by survey, game, or the owner.)