There is also the interesting phenomenon of an empire becoming more of a country later on. I would put the USA in this category.
As time has moved on the concept of each state having vastly different laws becomes increasingly inappropriate due to the cultural homogenisation. The whole federal vs state becomes less about autonomy/individualism and more about keeping our beneficial status quo for purely selfish reasons.
For example it is now the case that the amount of liberty and justice an American can have varies from state to state. Almost all, if asked about it outside of the US context would most likely agree that such a situation is unfair and should not exist. Not something most Americans would even think about their country maybe (many might oppose this view - cognitive dissonance is a bitch) but true nonetheless.
The grey area here is so large as to make the bordering of the definition meaningless. (this happens more often than people give it credit for) The dictionary definition is likewise vague.
I think the actual answer is that the minimum requirement for an empire as very roughly as you say but otherwise it is up for grabs as to whether you call it that. I would add something about crossing major cultural boundaries and/or that at least one of the subsumed states had full autonomy previously and was of significant size. (for example Hawaii would not count but Texas would) There should really be something about the difference between being conquered and absorbed as opposed to being added while maintaining some autonomy and individual identity afterwards. The first is a country expanding through conquest.
But again this would most likely be impossible to formalise.
For example; China, the USSR and the USA could just as easily be called empires and/or countries quite easily with both being correct for a given discussion.
"There is nothing wrong per-se with debt funded growth as long as the risks are properly accounted for. "
That was the entire point of my comment. And the fact that they are not properly accounted for.
Whoosh??
The whole point is that the "grow or die" mentality is one of economic necessity. That is where it comes from.
And if the US just "start paying down its debt any time it wanted to by raising some taxes" it would cause the economy to contract. (at least in quantities that are significant and not just impotent tinkering)
Which would mean flat or negative growth. Which would mean....
The scheme does, but the global implementation of this across the board was due to the "new breed" of neo-con. (I agree one could argue whether that label is 100% fair to use but that is what I have seen it referred to most often so don't blame me!) In my country it was a traditionally left wing govt. that implemented the across the board reforms. (i.e. following the US's example)
Apparently someone thought my comment was flamebait. Not even a rational comment on this subject is allowed when there are zealots in the room...
I did not say that at all but thanks for the weak attempt at a straw man.
I said that "new-breed" neo-cons around the world were what began the debt fuelled growth and this is historical fact.
At the time it was the new economic religion. In my own country it was the NZ LABOUR government (a left wing government!?) who implemented it here under the direction of a radical reformist. Go figure on that one.
Obama is a centre-right (at best) free market advocate. Despite what right wing extremists would have you believe.
NB: I don't come from the US so am immune to your local ecosystem of misinformation/PR/Spin with regards to your current politicians and that whole democrats=socialists rubbish.
The explanation is very simple: debt. And unfortunately it is not plain wrong in an economic sense.
The neo-con ideology which has pervaded most capitalist economies is one of debt fuelled growth. This is across the board including government, business and private household debt. In the US this started in earnest with Regan, in other countries it began when whatever new-breed, neo-con idealist came to power in their country. The problem is that these economies are now (metaphorically) "negatively geared". This means that while they are growing and turning a profit they are ok and turn a profit for yourself from other people's money. But when they start to make a loss the losses are exaggerated by the gearing and the economy is in serious trouble. e.g. How many times has it been reported around the world that even a flat GDP growth is a major problem and will have serious negative consequences and negative GDP growth will be a utter disaster? Sound like a healthy and robust situation to you?!
This is where your "grow or die" mentality comes from and it makes perfect economic sense.
Now everyone in business knows that if the total cost of a project (including interest etc) is less than the profits (after taking risk into account) then the project should usually go ahead. Funding projects with debt and allowing those with capital to benefit from the time value of their money is perfectly sane and sensible and a core part of any healthy economy.
HOWEVER
The problem with this mentality as it has been applied across the board (i.e. at a country or global level) in the modern economy is many-fold:
- The true cost of many projects is simply ignored or left for future generations to deal with. (e.g. pollution, retirement, housing, infrastructure, sustainability) - Many of the projects are pork barrel spending and not a net positive at all - The true cost of the DEBT itself is ignored. (e.g. The Fed handing out essentially free money to financial institutions and the accumulation overseas debt) - The overall impact to the economy of certain projects/decisions is not taken into account. (e.g. job losses, economic stimulus) - The positive economic stimulus of a policy/project (e.g. Bush tax cuts) is grossly over estimated.
This is what has led you to the current situation. The ONLY way out of it is through a painful correction of some sort. e.g. - Higher taxes of some sort to pay off outstanding debt to bring it to sensible levels - Massive reduction in spending (probably not an actual option as the viable cuts would not amount to enough) - Create a huge number of new exports that bring in additional money. (again, not really viable since it would probably already have been done if it was) - Some other major macro economic change that would destabilise the market in the short/medium term.
And I selected the examples from other stories on purpose with a graduated theme from sensible/real to ridiculous. Pop culture references tie your comedy to the familiar so that the hyperbolic nature of your statement and/or surprise endings gave more impact.
My genius operates on many levels. Don't feel bad you cannot fathom it.
Which makes your elitist comment ironic (real definition of this word) and amusing.
How on earth can we feel proud at this initiative when we are overwhelmed with rage at the sheer insanity injustice of the context in which this initiative has to exist at all. And the fact that this bullshit is being exported through corrupt politicians to 3rd world countries where people starve every day.
Fuck Monsanto and all their ilk and damn them to hell.
It defines the economic elite as 140k. This is not anywhere near the same as the social group you referred to. Some do of course but that is just because your definition was so loose.
That and the brevity of your post is what made me mistake your intentions and I apologise for my part in that.
Since most people are quite ignorant when it comes to politics realities and the corporate run media pretty much own their opinions this is hardly surprising.
I would argue that what you just said is akin to saying that a cage full of chimps voted for D/R 50% each so therefore chimps are evenly distributed on the concept of US politics.
"The parent poster was referring to wealth as defined by the study, not their personal definition" Not they weren't. The social class they referred to does not earn the sums they were talking about on average. Just having a degree does not make you wealthy. And many of those in high tech do not even hit the 100k/yr mark. So no...
"I think most would agree that they've encountered very few, if any, politicians that perfectly and completely align with their political preferences" That is a very limp statement. We are talking about people being UNALIGNED with their political preferences. And most people vote for a party and not a candidate anyway - despite what the tick box says.
"However, given the choice of a Democrat and an "establishment" Republican, the free market advocate would, generally, be wise to vote Republican, rather than not vote at all." Both parties are two different flavours of free market parties. Or are you one of those deluded people who think the democrats are a leftist party?! Once you cut through the US-centric and myopic spin and rhetoric of the "left vs right" fantasy of US politics you will see that there is very little difference between the two parties from a global perspective.
"That strikes me as counter-intuitive" That is why the study was interesting. Studies that confirm people's "common sense" are not as interesting. It also explained the question of why people voted for a party that did not align with their situation and benefit them.
And considering we are talking about facial recognition here even more so. Humans are naturally very good at it. Computers are not. This goes for most pattern recognition which is a fundamental of human intelligence.
That is part of the field of AI. Both in concept and in the official definition.
Just face it dude. You are WRONG with a capital "nah nah na nah nah" and waggly moose horns.
Deal with it.
And who the hell cares whether YOU think this is worthy of being called AI? The height of arrogance really.
1) People fighting the war RARELY fight for the same reasons as those funding, running and starting the war - PR and propaganda has always been a wartime feature as far back as we know. The main exception being when a country is attacked outright but not always even then.
2) Most people are ignorant of how their society actually works - especially in the civil war period you speak of.
So your generalisation is rather unfair to all those rather "brave" people. I always have some respect for people who are willing to make great sacrifices for their convictions - regardless of how misguided those convictions may be.
I remember telling a friend how I admired the local skinheads for their protest march. She was incredulous as you would expect but my point was that anyone who can protest something like that while hundreds hurl abuse at them and think they are scum could teach the general public livestock a thing or two about standing up for what you believe in and banding together as a community.
Of course while still finding their position repulsive.
And I understand that most people lack the moral complexity to understand my above statement - more is the pity.
And yet here you are with your politicians bought and sold.
This sort of thing never goes on in public nor could were it to be advocated for in public. I am sorry but to suggest that this is proof that they don't want this to happen is rather naive and pathetic.
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.” - Adam Smith
The centralisation just makes it easier to infiltrate - they have been doing this for decades.
An example used round the world was in China where before an event they went around and just blatantly pre-arrested a bunch of people. They did this hear in NZ in the 60's with "dawn raids" also. Another tactic I saw used recently was in the Occupy movement where the police and councils arrested protesters and took them to court on trumped up charges and tried to send them bankrupt. They managed to get off in the end but only because a lawyer stepped to help up for free.
There are many other tactics as well.
It will happen in your country too in time, nothing sure. It probably already happens.
I did my masters in AI so I do in fact know exactly what it is about. YOU don't get to define the term or the field.
Fortunately it is common knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
I know, I know - it sucks having someone so easily point out how so wrong you were when all you you wanted to do was post an angry, snarky post about something you actually know very little about but were hoping no one would notice.
So sorry about that little fella.
But hey, I may never aim to please but I am pleased to aim.
Slashdot Mirror
PS:
There is also the interesting phenomenon of an empire becoming more of a country later on. I would put the USA in this category.
As time has moved on the concept of each state having vastly different laws becomes increasingly inappropriate due to the cultural homogenisation. The whole federal vs state becomes less about autonomy/individualism and more about keeping our beneficial status quo for purely selfish reasons.
For example it is now the case that the amount of liberty and justice an American can have varies from state to state. Almost all, if asked about it outside of the US context would most likely agree that such a situation is unfair and should not exist.
Not something most Americans would even think about their country maybe (many might oppose this view - cognitive dissonance is a bitch) but true nonetheless.
I thought about this for a while.
The grey area here is so large as to make the bordering of the definition meaningless. (this happens more often than people give it credit for) The dictionary definition is likewise vague.
I think the actual answer is that the minimum requirement for an empire as very roughly as you say but otherwise it is up for grabs as to whether you call it that. I would add something about crossing major cultural boundaries and/or that at least one of the subsumed states had full autonomy previously and was of significant size. (for example Hawaii would not count but Texas would)
There should really be something about the difference between being conquered and absorbed as opposed to being added while maintaining some autonomy and individual identity afterwards. The first is a country expanding through conquest.
But again this would most likely be impossible to formalise.
For example; China, the USSR and the USA could just as easily be called empires and/or countries quite easily with both being correct for a given discussion.
What a complete load of shite.
Obama a socialist?!
And I suppose all those ex-goldman sachs employees on his staff are closet socialists also??
There are some retarded people in the world....
"There is nothing wrong per-se with debt funded growth as long as the risks are properly accounted for. "
That was the entire point of my comment. And the fact that they are not properly accounted for.
Whoosh??
The whole point is that the "grow or die" mentality is one of economic necessity. That is where it comes from.
And if the US just "start paying down its debt any time it wanted to by raising some taxes" it would cause the economy to contract. (at least in quantities that are significant and not just impotent tinkering)
Which would mean flat or negative growth. Which would mean....
You see? Grow or die...
The scheme does, but the global implementation of this across the board was due to the "new breed" of neo-con. (I agree one could argue whether that label is 100% fair to use but that is what I have seen it referred to most often so don't blame me!)
In my country it was a traditionally left wing govt. that implemented the across the board reforms. (i.e. following the US's example)
Apparently someone thought my comment was flamebait. Not even a rational comment on this subject is allowed when there are zealots in the room...
I did not say that at all but thanks for the weak attempt at a straw man.
I said that "new-breed" neo-cons around the world were what began the debt fuelled growth and this is historical fact.
At the time it was the new economic religion. In my own country it was the NZ LABOUR government (a left wing government!?) who implemented it here under the direction of a radical reformist. Go figure on that one.
Obama is a centre-right (at best) free market advocate. Despite what right wing extremists would have you believe.
NB: I don't come from the US so am immune to your local ecosystem of misinformation/PR/Spin with regards to your current politicians and that whole democrats=socialists rubbish.
How the fuck is this flamebait??!
This is basic economics??
Jesus Christ there are some stupid mods out there.
The explanation is very simple: debt.
And unfortunately it is not plain wrong in an economic sense.
The neo-con ideology which has pervaded most capitalist economies is one of debt fuelled growth. This is across the board including government, business and private household debt. In the US this started in earnest with Regan, in other countries it began when whatever new-breed, neo-con idealist came to power in their country.
The problem is that these economies are now (metaphorically) "negatively geared". This means that while they are growing and turning a profit they are ok and turn a profit for yourself from other people's money. But when they start to make a loss the losses are exaggerated by the gearing and the economy is in serious trouble.
e.g. How many times has it been reported around the world that even a flat GDP growth is a major problem and will have serious negative consequences and negative GDP growth will be a utter disaster? Sound like a healthy and robust situation to you?!
This is where your "grow or die" mentality comes from and it makes perfect economic sense.
Now everyone in business knows that if the total cost of a project (including interest etc) is less than the profits (after taking risk into account) then the project should usually go ahead. Funding projects with debt and allowing those with capital to benefit from the time value of their money is perfectly sane and sensible and a core part of any healthy economy.
HOWEVER
The problem with this mentality as it has been applied across the board (i.e. at a country or global level) in the modern economy is many-fold:
- The true cost of many projects is simply ignored or left for future generations to deal with. (e.g. pollution, retirement, housing, infrastructure, sustainability)
- Many of the projects are pork barrel spending and not a net positive at all
- The true cost of the DEBT itself is ignored. (e.g. The Fed handing out essentially free money to financial institutions and the accumulation overseas debt)
- The overall impact to the economy of certain projects/decisions is not taken into account. (e.g. job losses, economic stimulus)
- The positive economic stimulus of a policy/project (e.g. Bush tax cuts) is grossly over estimated.
This is what has led you to the current situation. The ONLY way out of it is through a painful correction of some sort.
e.g.
- Higher taxes of some sort to pay off outstanding debt to bring it to sensible levels
- Massive reduction in spending (probably not an actual option as the viable cuts would not amount to enough)
- Create a huge number of new exports that bring in additional money. (again, not really viable since it would probably already have been done if it was)
- Some other major macro economic change that would destabilise the market in the short/medium term.
The field of behavioural psychology is filled to the brim with experiments of this nature.
If you are truly interested you should do some reading.
I feel sooo special now.
Go go gadget sarcasm!
And I selected the examples from other stories on purpose with a graduated theme from sensible/real to ridiculous. Pop culture references tie your comedy to the familiar so that the hyperbolic nature of your statement and/or surprise endings gave more impact.
My genius operates on many levels. Don't feel bad you cannot fathom it.
Which makes your elitist comment ironic (real definition of this word) and amusing.
And you are all missing (surprinsingly) the ability to add things such as 3d printed guns, knives, hooks, crossbows, dildos to your hand.
Why settle for just a boring old hand when you can become inspector gadget?!
You are so right.
How on earth can we feel proud at this initiative when we are overwhelmed with rage at the sheer insanity injustice of the context in which this initiative has to exist at all. And the fact that this bullshit is being exported through corrupt politicians to 3rd world countries where people starve every day.
Fuck Monsanto and all their ilk and damn them to hell.
etc.
It defines the economic elite as 140k. This is not anywhere near the same as the social group you referred to. Some do of course but that is just because your definition was so loose.
That and the brevity of your post is what made me mistake your intentions and I apologise for my part in that.
It appears that we agree to some extent. Amusing.
Since most people are quite ignorant when it comes to politics realities and the corporate run media pretty much own their opinions this is hardly surprising.
I would argue that what you just said is akin to saying that a cage full of chimps voted for D/R 50% each so therefore chimps are evenly distributed on the concept of US politics.
"The parent poster was referring to wealth as defined by the study, not their personal definition"
Not they weren't. The social class they referred to does not earn the sums they were talking about on average. Just having a degree does not make you wealthy. And many of those in high tech do not even hit the 100k/yr mark.
So no...
"I think most would agree that they've encountered very few, if any, politicians that perfectly and completely align with their political preferences"
That is a very limp statement. We are talking about people being UNALIGNED with their political preferences. And most people vote for a party and not a candidate anyway - despite what the tick box says.
"However, given the choice of a Democrat and an "establishment" Republican, the free market advocate would, generally, be wise to vote Republican, rather than not vote at all."
Both parties are two different flavours of free market parties. Or are you one of those deluded people who think the democrats are a leftist party?!
Once you cut through the US-centric and myopic spin and rhetoric of the "left vs right" fantasy of US politics you will see that there is very little difference between the two parties from a global perspective.
"That strikes me as counter-intuitive"
That is why the study was interesting. Studies that confirm people's "common sense" are not as interesting. It also explained the question of why people voted for a party that did not align with their situation and benefit them.
Irrelevant.
And considering we are talking about facial recognition here even more so. Humans are naturally very good at it. Computers are not.
This goes for most pattern recognition which is a fundamental of human intelligence.
That is part of the field of AI. Both in concept and in the official definition.
Just face it dude. You are WRONG with a capital "nah nah na nah nah" and waggly moose horns.
Deal with it.
And who the hell cares whether YOU think this is worthy of being called AI? The height of arrogance really.
Two points:
1) People fighting the war RARELY fight for the same reasons as those funding, running and starting the war - PR and propaganda has always been a wartime feature as far back as we know. The main exception being when a country is attacked outright but not always even then.
2) Most people are ignorant of how their society actually works - especially in the civil war period you speak of.
So your generalisation is rather unfair to all those rather "brave" people. I always have some respect for people who are willing to make great sacrifices for their convictions - regardless of how misguided those convictions may be.
I remember telling a friend how I admired the local skinheads for their protest march. She was incredulous as you would expect but my point was that anyone who can protest something like that while hundreds hurl abuse at them and think they are scum could teach the general public livestock a thing or two about standing up for what you believe in and banding together as a community.
Of course while still finding their position repulsive.
And I understand that most people lack the moral complexity to understand my above statement - more is the pity.
Work on your delivery....
And I have been labelled a troll sometimes.
One has to have the courage of their convictions.
And yet here you are with your politicians bought and sold.
This sort of thing never goes on in public nor could were it to be advocated for in public. I am sorry but to suggest that this is proof that they don't want this to happen is rather naive and pathetic.
“Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.”
- Adam Smith
The centralisation just makes it easier to infiltrate - they have been doing this for decades.
An example used round the world was in China where before an event they went around and just blatantly pre-arrested a bunch of people. They did this hear in NZ in the 60's with "dawn raids" also.
Another tactic I saw used recently was in the Occupy movement where the police and councils arrested protesters and took them to court on trumped up charges and tried to send them bankrupt. They managed to get off in the end but only because a lawyer stepped to help up for free.
There are many other tactics as well.
It will happen in your country too in time, nothing sure. It probably already happens.
I agree that this is what happens but not that it has to happen.
After the revolution people go back to being livestock and while they slumber the same old 24/7 sociopaths go to work and do the same all over again.
The aftermath of revolution provides many opportunities for such to rise to the top and history bears this out.
I am not sorry about that but they will certainly sorry if they try to arrest and/or strip search me when the revolution comes.
MY FILTH IS MY ARMOUR!
And I wont be all that popular at protests I can tell you.
Dear Mr Coward,
I did my masters in AI so I do in fact know exactly what it is about. YOU don't get to define the term or the field.
Fortunately it is common knowledge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
I know, I know - it sucks having someone so easily point out how so wrong you were when all you you wanted to do was post an angry, snarky post about something you actually know very little about but were hoping no one would notice.
So sorry about that little fella.
But hey, I may never aim to please but I am pleased to aim.
I guess he misses ever second one then...
In solidarity I will stop showering and changing my underpants until this is fixed....