From god to man, man to machine. Just for sake of argument, suppose man is from divine origins. If that is so, that would also make god partially responsible for war and any of the things gone wrong in the world. Freewill notwithstanding, the impulse has to come from somewhere (very much like running a program). If we are a reflection of god, god is pretty heinous and awe inspiring.
You get several stories of machines gone awry. In essence, machines are a magnification of human foibles compound by their exemplar capabilities. The last thing I want is my id running wild with the capabilities of a machine to indulge itself.
This is where AI really falls short. Anything humans build will be nothing more than an extension of ourselves. Even putting forth the best of humanity denotes our shortcomings by omission. This has frightening implications.
And for that, I don't think we could "take our hands off". Rather much like a parent who finds out they have raised a serial killer, how do you contend with that? A bug in the program, ghost in the machine? I don't think so.
Part of the problem with this is indeed narrow view. They run emotional intelligence tests and various other tests to get an ideal profile, but the profile itself can't really quantify for the complex reactions people have. It gives you a yes or no, it doesn't explain why.
But with enough questions, you will get a pattern that fits: you end up with a homogenized group. Quote from "Ghost in the Shell"- 'overt specialization is suicide' err, something like that. I couldn't agree more. Diversity is a good thing, especially when problem solving or brainstorming. Having such a narrow base point pretty much kills off any true innovation.
Not to mention people are very complex. Measuring a specific response doesn't really account for its effect on the whole pattern. Sublimination and all that.
Not to mention subconscious responses. There is so much going on in anyone's thought process that the tests will run like an objective test for beauty. Try as much as you will, you can't quantify it.
I would like to see more research as well (killing curiosity), but I fear people will take the results as gospel (as they do with IQ tests and other things) and not for what it really is: a crude tool being applied to a very complex machine.
Re:Got a whole lotta hype
on
Brain Privacy
·
· Score: 1
I tend to agree, but in the reverse:
"Are you stupid enough to piss away your right to privacy to be a wage-slave and are you stupid enough to work for a company that will judge you on something other than job performance?"
I figure you get company of people who can't think for themselves which is just perfect for the mentality of corporate america.
Hmm, we are arguing the same thing from opposite sides of the coin.
Take a step back. Most of the posts regarding this related lawyers as vultures. In my eyes (and sometimes Mr. Sixpack), politicians are really no different.
This puts me in the awkward position of defending the Libertarian party (kind of like a Republican defending abortion clinic bombings). But I bit, so...
You have a price increase or higher taxes. Efficiency kinda says a politician taking a cut has to be less efficient than business (although this is not hard, fast, and true). And the arguments as to what might happen are just that. The premise for Libertarian party hasn't really been tried before. No one really knows how it would play out. Could be worse, could be better. As things are now, I'm willing to try it just to change the mire we are currently in. Some portion of Joe Sixpack is in the same boat. There has been significant growth in other party beyond Republicrates. Will it be enough to rule the country? Probably not. Will it be enough to have some of their proposals adopted in order to avoid being the spoiler party? You bet.
And suppose the Libertarian party never achieves that kind of influence. I vote my conscience. End of argument. And I will make some sounds every now and again about what I see as a grand hypocrisy of the government/populace. Either the arguments will stand or they won't. And regardless, I am open to be proven wrong.
So as you point out, Joe Sixpack will pay either way. Which way makes more sense: gov. or private enterprise? Gov.'s record is pretty abominable, and has high overhead to boot. Private enterprise isn't sterling, but it has a better track record (compare USPS to FedEx any day of the week). And private enterprise is easier to self-correct. A gov. only gives up power when staring down the barrel of a gun. I think Joe Sixpack can understand this otherwise UPS, FedEx, etc. would have gone out of business a long time ago.
Look at the numbers for drug use compared to voter turnout. Yeah, it is a small margin but significant enough. California has decriminalized MJ for medical use. So have other states (can't remember offhand). It isn't a majority of Americans, but the numbers grow steadily. Ten years ago, this would have been unthinkable.
Prostitution is already legal in some parts of Nevada. There is never a big scurry to change that, only regulate it more.
Won't even touch abortion. I think all parties are pretty much screwed on that one.
And deficit spending. Sooner or later Joe Sixpack is going to have to make some hard decisions, otherwise his kids will be taxed 60% and onward to maintain. You can only play smoke and mirrors with the economy for so long. It will catch up with you, and is nearly of immutable as the conservation of matter. You can't get something for nothing. And ultimately the price will be paid by his kids. If both he and his kids can accept that, fine. I don't think they are.
There use to be an influx of immigrants to this country. With the PATRIOT act, that is bound to slow. You also have absurd laws from the DCMA to the original story concerning patent laws which will strangle creativity. Which leads to maxim 2. There is no sane response to an insane situation, except to leave. If there is a shortage of new ideas coming in, and an inability to carry on because of the laws here, what do you think people will do? I'm betting the path of least resistance. Wait and see if it happens.
I think we probably have very similar points of view. One is just more cynical than the other (the comment about ideological purity was a giveaway). I think the arguments are sound. Whether Joe Sixpack realizes them or not (or in time) is a different matter entirely.
As if ideological purity were a bad thing. You tell Joe Sixpack that nearly %40 of his income is used to support the farmers, the seniors, the loggers, the ranchers, and a bunch of near-do-well politicans. You also explain to him while taking nearly half of his paycheck that the country is so far in debit that, in essence, his children will be sold into slavery to pay it off.
Drugs, prostitution, and cloning almost seem trite in comparison.
You might want to also explain to him conservation of energy/matter (i.e.- all those government dollars are actually his taxes minus a small sum to pay for Clinton's blowjob and Bush's delusions of grandeur. Ask him if he got his rocks off by either one.
And when your done, you can explain to him exactly who is to blame for this mess.
You are living in a dream world if you think the current structure can be maintained indefinitely. And when the best and the brightest decide to abandon ship, who will be paying your social security?
Scatterbrained. Maxim 1. If it is true, it is true at the extremes. If it is not true at the extremes, it simply is not true.
You face the possibility of death at the hands of another just crossing the street. Do we embeded GPS systems on every vehicle and on every person with some override system overlooking it? And what if that system fails? Well, another system overlooking that system, ad nausem until the entire world is focused on your safety.
Or we could trust you to look both ways before crossing the street.
Freedom is not the same thing as a right. You are pretty much free to do anything you like (including kill someone). You however do not have the right.
A right implies that you can exercise a freedom without certain consequences. That is the balancing act, not security over freedom.
Basic to rights is the idea that everyone else also has that right (otherwise it is a privilege... see our gov. for more info). Also basic to rights is responsibility. If you can't be trusted to look both ways before crossing the street (i.e.- take responsibility for yourself), you will lose that right to about 3 tons of steel. No law will save you.
The most essential freedom is to live as you choose. Anything else is tantamount to slavery.
And really, aren't you free to kill someone else? Or should I have an illusion of security that this will not happen ('cause that's all security is, an illusion)?
I mean really, BS argument. Security and freedom are mutually exclusive (it has been my experience that those who say they are exclusive are tyrants. Very much like your experience of facing death at another's hands). It is naive to think that just because the is a law that against taking drugs and police to enforce those laws, that somehow someone isn't under the influence as we speak. Perhaps even driving. The laws are a set of consequences, nothing more.
And have you considered the full consequences of the law being purposed? Many calls I make would seem damnable by third parties who are unaware of the rapport I have with the person being called. Should I have to explain myself? Expect the people invading my right to privacy to share my sense of humor? Trust that the persons monitoring my calls would never abuse it? No, I have a right against. You are arguing to take away that right under the guise of an illusion.
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. Quit bitching about it now."
Yeah, per the same book, the experiments of how time was effected by gravity; that wasn't so much the point.
Any theory has to originate within a particular reality plane, and the suppositions, measurements, obserations, ect. are pretty much defined by that reality plane (if you don't know enough to ask the question, how would you know). You get the same effect in circut design when choosing a resistor, without considering how that resistor might be effecting frequency or waveform. The reality plane is it's measured resistance. There maybe countless other effects to the circuit, but you wouldn't know or would atribute them to other parts of the circuit because frequency change isn't an associated trait of a resistor.
The logical arguments and perceptions of time run in about the same fashion. And even to a degree, science. Everything becomes theory;) The experiments only work (or make sense) in that reality plane.
Hopefully, with a multifacted approach, you can minimalze this to an extent. Perhaps notsomuch to nail down a hard cold reality, but find out the boarders weren't quite where you expected them to be.
I think one of the basic problems is the perception of time. To state that something has a definitive begining, middle, and end maybe a bit skewed. We like to define time as such because that is how we operate (born, live, die)... we like to see the universe as a reflection of ourselves. Basic to quantum physics: we are the measuring device, and that device has limitations.
I tend to wonder if there aren't different modalities for time. Linear, loop, and radial are the only ones I could find. There are probably others.
The radial one is very interesting to me. Pretty much co-opted from an Ellison story (well, at least I did). A singular event hapening in several different frames of time (kind of the Copenhagen idea in reverse). I muse that Passover might be akin to this (god looking at the world once, but being able to see it at different points in time= omnipotent). I wonder if this is what is really being stated by the multiverse idea.
But we are kind of stuck by the limitations of the measuring device. Kind of the Madelbrot set idea, you can have infinite possibilities within a defined framework, except you can't break free from the boarders. Tempest in a teapot. Maybe there was never a teapot. Maybe we are the teapot. Maybe there is nothing beyond. We all find out eventually.
Or as I like to put it, you can do whatever you want (except maybe not be you). You just have to figure out how to get there. I think we are well on our way. Onward to the metaverse/panverse.
Way back in the day there was a funky country and western record shop that sold some punk records in the back. Most of the time they were bands I never heard of, but they were on SST or Beggars Banquet and the like, so it was a pretty good chance the record was something I liked (ain't no way Epic records or Sony could make the same claim). Also, the records sold for close to $5 apiece. If it completely sucked, I wasn't out a whole lot of cash.
And friends from across the country would send me tapes of bands that were local or the grand tradition of the punk comp. Range of music tastes broadens, buy more records...
The argument then was home tapeing was killing the record industry. This was when indie labels were flourishing. All without radio airplay, promotion, or any of the other things that were making the major labels' records cost near $12. I had close to 100 records. Maybe 15 were major label.
Fast forward. I now have (err, carry the five, add the two) close to 1000 CDs. Most of them are indie releases.
And the recording industry is claiming downloads are killing the music industry.
I still buy CDs. A good portion of them are used. I have yet to see my favorite used CD shop close because all this rampant piracy. If anything, I buy more music because of the used CD store. I can listen to the CD before I but it. I can try out other music forms. And the guys are usually pretty cool about returns. Plus the CDs usually run around $8.
But this also means I have to wait a couple of months for a CD to show up used. Long painful wait. If the CD is $11 new, I might pop for it. Or if it is a very good recording (Mobile Fidelity, when they use to be around), or if is hard to find; $30.
A reasonable computer costs near $700. Add $50 a month for DSL service. An ink cartridge every couple of months if you want inserts, $240. The inserts themselves about 50 cents apiece. Plus blank media, 50 cents for something decent. Plus reasonable burning software, $50.
$841 to burn a CD. Even with the best economies of scale, close to $15 a CD.
I'm just not seeing this free download.
Not to mention it's a hassle to find something you actually like and burn it, no liner notes, and MP3s don't sound very good.
I have yet to see piracy flourish unless prices where artificially high ("Psst... come here. I have a copy to sell you for $5. Oh, you could buy a used copy for $8, or a new copy for $12..."). Give me a break.
Yeah. And KMFDM & Doom caused Columbine. And playing D&D leads to Satanism. And hot oatmeal leads to chronic masturbation. And my penchant for Civ 3... too dastardly to mention. Same hype, different day.
One that has floated around in my own head runs like this: suppose you come up with a cure for cancer. Suppose you decided not to share.
Are you not entitled to do what you wish with the fruit of your labors, or seeing how your work was base on the work of others (ain't no one independent in this world), don't you owe your work to the greater good?
What if you chose not to simply share your work, but went about destroying it (compare the burning of The Great Library in Alexandria as a reference point)? Are you entitled? Perhaps on a privacy point, does the gov. have the right to break into your house to retrieve said information? Exactly how far is is anyone allowed to go to compel you? Not sell any food or water to you? Threaten your family... Mostly the idea of destroying a technology sending mankind back into the dark ages; even if you invented it, do you have the right?
What if you decided to withhold your information in the hopes of stirring new approaches to cure cancer?
Citizenship, right to privacy, social contract, autonomy, etc. all come into play. And one that doesn't get enough press, the right not to use a technology.
It seems to me that the concept of ethics isn't so much a right/wrong/justification issue as much as simply noting which values apply and where/why?
And trying to derive some hierarchy from those values (personally, I put autonomy above all).
And I see these same ideas being played out from economic sanctions, drug busts, DCMA, WMD, socialism vs. capitalism, etc. It strikes me as absurd to wrap ethical questions in a context of technology when we haven't really adequately addressed the "old" ethical questions. Ghosts coming back to haunt us.
Reminds me of Rene Magritte and his sense of "can you really trust what you are seeing?". More and more it seems an obsence of information seems to hold more truth than "Here! Look at this photograph! The proof is right before your eyes!". Most lies have more details than the truth ever could.
Still, Magritte. Defintely a phrophet for the Digital Age.
And if I can't trust my own eyes... *looks at his reflection in a mirror and shudders*.
Point is really moot (the mass elitism with "can programing be called engineering?" Can you engineer with quantum mechanics? Just because it ain't concretely tangible it doesn't make it less of an engineering feat). The people who designed and implemented The Great Pyramids weren't really held in high regard. And I imagine a lot of the day to day engineering problems were handled by the equivalent to code monkeys. Do you really pecking order amongst the left of center crowd?
Also per same person-
Definition of a geek: Keeper of Arcane Knowledge.
Software KAK?
As I appreciate having strict definition of things (otherwise look at the scrbbles), that also lends itself to doubleplusgood thinking... if you are going to confer by title alone, then you are pretty wacked.
COINTELPRO, at least 22 innocent people executed beyond a reasonable doubt by the state, recently a 15 year old unarmed girl shot in the back of the head by DEA agents attempting to serve a warrant in Texas, and at least 50 other such incidences I have read where innocent people have been killed because of "inaccuracies" (like not even having the right person or the right address). Where do you live? I want to live there too.
It is unnerving and damning as hell when the powers that be view the populace as an enemies of the state.
Actually, at one time, I was a supporter of the ACLU. Lately my thinking tends to be that the ACLU is symptomatic of a much larger problem, if you will: a slave to freedom.
Forever unconstitutional laws being passed to never ending fights as to their validity; a perpetual machine of charge and counter-charge. And if the ACLU does succeed in getting a law overturned as unconstitutional, what does it matter? Five hundred more just like it wait in the wings, and the machine starts again, the original case a mere footnote to be forgotten by some legislator who can't even recall (much less read) half of the bills that came his way. And my more cynical side says the ACLU knows this. And it will fight each travesty of justice that comes its' way, never thinking to stop it at its' source. It is better for business that way.
And yes, we can all vote, but as the last presidential election proved, that has become pretty meaningless as well. And regardless of whether your man won or not, not to be appalled by the process, and all the attempts to remedy it either made it worse or were non-existent. Why bother voting at all? Some military juntas look good by comparison.
But with enough of a furor, the populace finds its teeth, and sets about correcting all the injustices and indignities it has faced by picking the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, the law has already been passed, the precedent set, forever to be a part of our common law (look up the original sedition acted passed [and barely annulled] in this country and follow the progress up to the PATRIOT act to get a sense of what this means).
And now the FBI may arrest you on fictitious (nods to Mr. Moore) information? Why am I not surprised?
While renewing your ACLU membership, I'd consider a passport and a gun as well. The ACLU can only help after you've been thrown in jail.
Gosh, rational debate. Good points presented on both sides and civil to boot. Not that my opinion matters much, but it does help to promote understanding.
The Geo analogy doesn't take into consideration gearing (I.E.- software). You can take to identical cars (except for their transmissions) and completely change how the work gets done.
The Geo spins its tires cause it isn't geared to handle the torque. Gear it properly, and it smokes the Porsche (err, short run... the higher RPM's and increased horsepower gives the Porsche a higher top end in the long run. The Geo reaches it's top end quicker).
Or as a different analogy: top fuel dragster. High torque, high horsepower... um, the AMD.
Okay, this clarified some disconnect thoughts in my own head, and for that I thank you, but...
I really wonder about this porn being the exploitation of women. Girl gets paid $500 to be filmed engaged in sex. Guy later pays $50 to see said act. Exactly who is exploiting whom?
As my friend was kind enough to inform me, freedom of speech pretty much entails that my wanting to read the Bible pretty much guarantees running across a picture of an 8 year old in fishnets now and again (that Rocky Horror crowd is getting younger all the time).
It is a pity that NZ is considering such a move considering it was suppose to be one of the least regulated spots on Earth (fancied moving there). It just showcases the continuing struggle to assert freedoms while others demonize to maintain control (DCMA, PATRIOT, and the omnipresent War on Some Drugs... it seems to flow from the same vein).
One of the largest producers of child pornography is the US Postal Service (sting operations). It kind of makes the argument of protecting the children moot.
Just as an aside, it always struck me the most rabid defenders of the children were the ones most uncomfortable with children's' sexuality, which is a really odd proposition. Not to mention some of the most vocal defenders tend to be brought up on charges of molesting children after a while (the case with the head of Covenant House during the 80's comes to mind).
Not exactly the mindset I'd want telling me listening to Judas Priest will make me commit suicide (and even if it did, Wow! Talk about artistic achievement.). Do we really need it on the web too? Guess we do 'cause that would be censorship.
Well, I question any sense in disputing the claims of someone who doesn't have the courage to stand by their ideas. I stand by mine.
And I am humbled. Of the tens of thousands of people who have tried to wade their way through what is right and what is best, I am fortunate enough to meet the sole representative of (a majority no less) those who know better.
Per the court's finding: "The laying of mines in the internal waters and territorial sea of Nicaragua, the attacks on Nicaraguan ports, oil installations and naval bases directly imputable to the United States, but also the arming and training of the `contras' were judged by the Court to be a prima facie violation of the prohibition of the use of force"... unless there was sufficient cause for self-defense, which the court did not find.
If that doesn't constitute terrorism, what does? Or if the same acts were perpetrated on US soil, what would it be called? I question who is trafficking in rhetoric.
The rest of my arguments remain intact.
But as your only response is to silence those in lieu of those who know better. I must ask, and let me be clear on this, are your beliefs so weak as to not be able to stand any scrutiny?
I am skeptical of everything, but especially those who claim to be the sole bearers of truth.
Moreso, any small man will commit acts abhorent to his own conscience when relinquishing to something he believes greater.
Gosh, I was here trying to fix my X-box, smoking some tobacco (nicotine is found effective in treating Parkinson's type syndromes... all the antipsychotics I'm on... I think the government is out to get me) in my water-pipe (TM), and drinking a beer (heart problems you know... beef, it's what was for dinner) when...
Wait. What's that knock at the door...
Oh sure, and when they try to outlaw caffine, then you'll the geeks bitch. But those other druggies... Have you had your net fix today?
Hmm, last time I checked, if the terms of the contract are illegal...
And if I choose not to sell a life-saving medication to you because you are asian...
On second thought, you are right. And when companies abide by the same laws as you or I, I guess it doesn't have anything to do with freedom or liberty.
"There is no excuse for ignorance." Well, yeah there is... I didn't know. Or maybe I din't know enough. Or maybe somebody lied (but I should have known that too). Please help me. I'm stuck running Windows 'cause I didn't know there was a port of xyz software comming on Apple five years later (soothsayer as well). Ouch.
Slashdot Mirror
From god to man, man to machine. Just for sake of argument, suppose man is from divine origins. If that is so, that would also make god partially responsible for war and any of the things gone wrong in the world. Freewill notwithstanding, the impulse has to come from somewhere (very much like running a program). If we are a reflection of god, god is pretty heinous and awe inspiring.
You get several stories of machines gone awry. In essence, machines are a magnification of human foibles compound by their exemplar capabilities. The last thing I want is my id running wild with the capabilities of a machine to indulge itself.
This is where AI really falls short. Anything humans build will be nothing more than an extension of ourselves. Even putting forth the best of humanity denotes our shortcomings by omission. This has frightening implications.
And for that, I don't think we could "take our hands off". Rather much like a parent who finds out they have raised a serial killer, how do you contend with that? A bug in the program, ghost in the machine? I don't think so.
Be responsible for what you create.
Part of the problem with this is indeed narrow view. They run emotional intelligence tests and various other tests to get an ideal profile, but the profile itself can't really quantify for the complex reactions people have. It gives you a yes or no, it doesn't explain why. But with enough questions, you will get a pattern that fits: you end up with a homogenized group. Quote from "Ghost in the Shell"- 'overt specialization is suicide' err, something like that. I couldn't agree more. Diversity is a good thing, especially when problem solving or brainstorming. Having such a narrow base point pretty much kills off any true innovation. Not to mention people are very complex. Measuring a specific response doesn't really account for its effect on the whole pattern. Sublimination and all that. Not to mention subconscious responses. There is so much going on in anyone's thought process that the tests will run like an objective test for beauty. Try as much as you will, you can't quantify it. I would like to see more research as well (killing curiosity), but I fear people will take the results as gospel (as they do with IQ tests and other things) and not for what it really is: a crude tool being applied to a very complex machine.
I tend to agree, but in the reverse:
"Are you stupid enough to piss away your right to privacy to be a wage-slave and are you stupid enough to work for a company that will judge you on something other than job performance?"
I figure you get company of people who can't think for themselves which is just perfect for the mentality of corporate america.
Thank you.
Hmm, we are arguing the same thing from opposite sides of the coin.
Take a step back. Most of the posts regarding this related lawyers as vultures. In my eyes (and sometimes Mr. Sixpack), politicians are really no different.
This puts me in the awkward position of defending the Libertarian party (kind of like a Republican defending abortion clinic bombings). But I bit, so...
You have a price increase or higher taxes. Efficiency kinda says a politician taking a cut has to be less efficient than business (although this is not hard, fast, and true). And the arguments as to what might happen are just that. The premise for Libertarian party hasn't really been tried before. No one really knows how it would play out. Could be worse, could be better. As things are now, I'm willing to try it just to change the mire we are currently in. Some portion of Joe Sixpack is in the same boat. There has been significant growth in other party beyond Republicrates. Will it be enough to rule the country? Probably not. Will it be enough to have some of their proposals adopted in order to avoid being the spoiler party? You bet.
And suppose the Libertarian party never achieves that kind of influence. I vote my conscience. End of argument. And I will make some sounds every now and again about what I see as a grand hypocrisy of the government/populace. Either the arguments will stand or they won't. And regardless, I am open to be proven wrong.
So as you point out, Joe Sixpack will pay either way. Which way makes more sense: gov. or private enterprise? Gov.'s record is pretty abominable, and has high overhead to boot. Private enterprise isn't sterling, but it has a better track record (compare USPS to FedEx any day of the week). And private enterprise is easier to self-correct. A gov. only gives up power when staring down the barrel of a gun. I think Joe Sixpack can understand this otherwise UPS, FedEx, etc. would have gone out of business a long time ago.
Look at the numbers for drug use compared to voter turnout. Yeah, it is a small margin but significant enough. California has decriminalized MJ for medical use. So have other states (can't remember offhand). It isn't a majority of Americans, but the numbers grow steadily. Ten years ago, this would have been unthinkable.
Prostitution is already legal in some parts of Nevada. There is never a big scurry to change that, only regulate it more.
Won't even touch abortion. I think all parties are pretty much screwed on that one.
And deficit spending. Sooner or later Joe Sixpack is going to have to make some hard decisions, otherwise his kids will be taxed 60% and onward to maintain. You can only play smoke and mirrors with the economy for so long. It will catch up with you, and is nearly of immutable as the conservation of matter. You can't get something for nothing. And ultimately the price will be paid by his kids. If both he and his kids can accept that, fine. I don't think they are.
There use to be an influx of immigrants to this country. With the PATRIOT act, that is bound to slow. You also have absurd laws from the DCMA to the original story concerning patent laws which will strangle creativity. Which leads to maxim 2. There is no sane response to an insane situation, except to leave. If there is a shortage of new ideas coming in, and an inability to carry on because of the laws here, what do you think people will do? I'm betting the path of least resistance. Wait and see if it happens.
I think we probably have very similar points of view. One is just more cynical than the other (the comment about ideological purity was a giveaway). I think the arguments are sound. Whether Joe Sixpack realizes them or not (or in time) is a different matter entirely.
As if ideological purity were a bad thing. You tell Joe Sixpack that nearly %40 of his income is used to support the farmers, the seniors, the loggers, the ranchers, and a bunch of near-do-well politicans. You also explain to him while taking nearly half of his paycheck that the country is so far in debit that, in essence, his children will be sold into slavery to pay it off.
Drugs, prostitution, and cloning almost seem trite in comparison.
You might want to also explain to him conservation of energy/matter (i.e.- all those government dollars are actually his taxes minus a small sum to pay for Clinton's blowjob and Bush's delusions of grandeur. Ask him if he got his rocks off by either one.
And when your done, you can explain to him exactly who is to blame for this mess.
You are living in a dream world if you think the current structure can be maintained indefinitely. And when the best and the brightest decide to abandon ship, who will be paying your social security?
"A foolish consistency..."
Scatterbrained. Maxim 1. If it is true, it is true at the extremes. If it is not true at the extremes, it simply is not true.
You face the possibility of death at the hands of another just crossing the street. Do we embeded GPS systems on every vehicle and on every person with some override system overlooking it? And what if that system fails? Well, another system overlooking that system, ad nausem until the entire world is focused on your safety.
Or we could trust you to look both ways before crossing the street.
Freedom is not the same thing as a right. You are pretty much free to do anything you like (including kill someone). You however do not have the right.
A right implies that you can exercise a freedom without certain consequences. That is the balancing act, not security over freedom.
Basic to rights is the idea that everyone else also has that right (otherwise it is a privilege... see our gov. for more info). Also basic to rights is responsibility. If you can't be trusted to look both ways before crossing the street (i.e.- take responsibility for yourself), you will lose that right to about 3 tons of steel. No law will save you.
The most essential freedom is to live as you choose. Anything else is tantamount to slavery.
And really, aren't you free to kill someone else? Or should I have an illusion of security that this will not happen ('cause that's all security is, an illusion)?
I mean really, BS argument. Security and freedom are mutually exclusive (it has been my experience that those who say they are exclusive are tyrants. Very much like your experience of facing death at another's hands). It is naive to think that just because the is a law that against taking drugs and police to enforce those laws, that somehow someone isn't under the influence as we speak. Perhaps even driving. The laws are a set of consequences, nothing more.
And have you considered the full consequences of the law being purposed? Many calls I make would seem damnable by third parties who are unaware of the rapport I have with the person being called.
Should I have to explain myself? Expect the people invading my right to privacy to share my sense of humor? Trust that the persons monitoring my calls would never abuse it? No, I have a right against. You are arguing to take away that right under the guise of an illusion.
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it. Quit bitching about it now."
Yeah, per the same book, the experiments of how time was effected by gravity; that wasn't so much the point.
Any theory has to originate within a particular reality plane, and the suppositions, measurements, obserations, ect. are pretty much defined by that reality plane (if you don't know enough to ask the question, how would you know). You get the same effect in circut design when choosing a resistor, without considering how that resistor might be effecting frequency or waveform. The reality plane is it's measured resistance. There maybe countless other effects to the circuit, but you wouldn't know or would atribute them to other parts of the circuit because frequency change isn't an associated trait of a resistor.
The logical arguments and perceptions of time run in about the same fashion. And even to a degree, science. Everything becomes theory;) The experiments only work (or make sense) in that reality plane.
Hopefully, with a multifacted approach, you can minimalze this to an extent. Perhaps notsomuch to nail down a hard cold reality, but find out the boarders weren't quite where you expected them to be.
I think one of the basic problems is the perception of time. To state that something has a definitive begining, middle, and end maybe a bit skewed. We like to define time as such because that is how we operate (born, live, die)... we like to see the universe as a reflection of ourselves. Basic to quantum physics: we are the measuring device, and that device has limitations.
I tend to wonder if there aren't different modalities for time. Linear, loop, and radial are the only ones I could find. There are probably others.
The radial one is very interesting to me. Pretty much co-opted from an Ellison story (well, at least I did). A singular event hapening in several different frames of time (kind of the Copenhagen idea in reverse). I muse that Passover might be akin to this (god looking at the world once, but being able to see it at different points in time= omnipotent). I wonder if this is what is really being stated by the multiverse idea.
But we are kind of stuck by the limitations of the measuring device. Kind of the Madelbrot set idea, you can have infinite possibilities within a defined framework, except you can't break free from the boarders. Tempest in a teapot. Maybe there was never a teapot. Maybe we are the teapot.
Maybe there is nothing beyond. We all find out eventually.
Or as I like to put it, you can do whatever you want (except maybe not be you). You just have to figure out how to get there. I think we are well on our way. Onward to the metaverse/panverse.
Way back in the day there was a funky country and western record shop that sold some punk records in the back. Most of the time they were bands I never heard of, but they were on SST or Beggars Banquet and the like, so it was a pretty good chance the record was something I liked (ain't no way Epic records or Sony could make the same claim). Also, the records sold for close to $5 apiece. If it completely sucked, I wasn't out a whole lot of cash.
And friends from across the country would send me tapes of bands that were local or the grand tradition of the punk comp. Range of music tastes broadens, buy more records...
The argument then was home tapeing was killing the record industry. This was when indie labels were flourishing. All without radio airplay, promotion, or any of the other things that were making the major labels' records cost near $12. I had close to 100 records. Maybe 15 were major label.
Fast forward. I now have (err, carry the five, add the two) close to 1000 CDs. Most of them are indie releases.
And the recording industry is claiming downloads are killing the music industry.
I still buy CDs. A good portion of them are used. I have yet to see my favorite used CD shop close because all this rampant piracy. If anything, I buy more music because of the used CD store. I can listen to the CD before I but it. I can try out other music forms. And the guys are usually pretty cool about returns. Plus the CDs usually run around $8.
But this also means I have to wait a couple of months for a CD to show up used. Long painful wait. If the CD is $11 new, I might pop for it. Or if it is a very good recording (Mobile Fidelity, when they use to be around), or if is hard to find; $30.
A reasonable computer costs near $700. Add $50 a month for DSL service. An ink cartridge every couple of months if you want inserts, $240. The inserts themselves about 50 cents apiece. Plus blank media, 50 cents for something decent. Plus reasonable burning software, $50.
$841 to burn a CD. Even with the best economies of scale, close to $15 a CD.
I'm just not seeing this free download.
Not to mention it's a hassle to find something you actually like and burn it, no liner notes, and MP3s don't sound very good.
I have yet to see piracy flourish unless prices where artificially high ("Psst... come here. I have a copy to sell you for $5. Oh, you could buy a used copy for $8, or a new copy for $12..."). Give me a break.
I do, however, have lots of burned software $).
Yeah. And KMFDM & Doom caused Columbine. And playing D&D leads to Satanism. And hot oatmeal leads to chronic masturbation. And my penchant for Civ 3... too dastardly to mention. Same hype, different day.
Shall we start burning books?
One that has floated around in my own head runs like this: suppose you come up with a cure for cancer. Suppose you decided not to share.
Are you not entitled to do what you wish with the fruit of your labors, or seeing how your work was base on the work of others (ain't no one independent in this world), don't you owe your work to the greater good?
What if you chose not to simply share your work, but went about destroying it (compare the burning of The Great Library in Alexandria as a reference point)? Are you entitled? Perhaps on a privacy point, does the gov. have the right to break into your house to retrieve said information? Exactly how far is is anyone allowed to go to compel you? Not sell any food or water to you? Threaten your family... Mostly the idea of destroying a technology sending mankind back into the dark ages; even if you invented it, do you have the right?
What if you decided to withhold your information in the hopes of stirring new approaches to cure cancer?
Citizenship, right to privacy, social contract, autonomy, etc. all come into play. And one that doesn't get enough press, the right not to use a technology.
It seems to me that the concept of ethics isn't so much a right/wrong/justification issue as much as simply noting which values apply and where/why?
And trying to derive some hierarchy from those values (personally, I put autonomy above all).
And I see these same ideas being played out from economic sanctions, drug busts, DCMA, WMD, socialism vs. capitalism, etc. It strikes me as absurd to wrap ethical questions in a context of technology when we haven't really adequately addressed the "old" ethical questions. Ghosts coming back to haunt us.
Reminds me of Rene Magritte and his sense of "can you really trust what you are seeing?". More and more it seems an obsence of information seems to hold more truth than "Here! Look at this photograph! The proof is right before your eyes!".
Most lies have more details than the truth ever could.
Still, Magritte. Defintely a phrophet for the Digital Age.
And if I can't trust my own eyes... *looks at his reflection in a mirror and shudders*.
Past conversation:
"What did geeks do before computers?"
"I dunno. Engineers."
Point is really moot (the mass elitism with "can programing be called engineering?" Can you engineer with quantum mechanics? Just because it ain't concretely tangible it doesn't make it less of an engineering feat). The people who designed and implemented The Great Pyramids weren't really held in high regard. And I imagine a lot of the day to day engineering problems were handled by the equivalent to code monkeys. Do you really pecking order amongst the left of center crowd?
Also per same person-
Definition of a geek: Keeper of Arcane Knowledge.
Software KAK?
As I appreciate having strict definition of things (otherwise look at the scrbbles), that also lends itself to doubleplusgood thinking... if you are going to confer by title alone, then you are pretty wacked.
COINTELPRO, at least 22 innocent people executed beyond a reasonable doubt by the state, recently a 15 year old unarmed girl shot in the back of the head by DEA agents attempting to serve a warrant in Texas, and at least 50 other such incidences I have read where innocent people have been killed because of "inaccuracies" (like not even having the right person or the right address). Where do you live? I want to live there too. It is unnerving and damning as hell when the powers that be view the populace as an enemies of the state.
Actually, at one time, I was a supporter of the ACLU. Lately my thinking tends to be that the ACLU is symptomatic of a much larger problem, if you will: a slave to freedom.
Forever unconstitutional laws being passed to never ending fights as to their validity; a perpetual machine of charge and counter-charge. And if the ACLU does succeed in getting a law overturned as unconstitutional, what does it matter? Five hundred more just like it wait in the wings, and the machine starts again, the original case a mere footnote to be forgotten by some legislator who can't even recall (much less read) half of the bills that came his way. And my more cynical side says the ACLU knows this. And it will fight each travesty of justice that comes its' way, never thinking to stop it at its' source. It is better for business that way.
And yes, we can all vote, but as the last presidential election proved, that has become pretty meaningless as well. And regardless of whether your man won or not, not to be appalled by the process, and all the attempts to remedy it either made it worse or were non-existent. Why bother voting at all? Some military juntas look good by comparison.
But with enough of a furor, the populace finds its teeth, and sets about correcting all the injustices and indignities it has faced by picking the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, the law has already been passed, the precedent set, forever to be a part of our common law (look up the original sedition acted passed [and barely annulled] in this country and follow the progress up to the PATRIOT act to get a sense of what this means).
And now the FBI may arrest you on fictitious (nods to Mr. Moore) information? Why am I not surprised?
While renewing your ACLU membership, I'd consider a passport and a gun as well. The ACLU can only help after you've been thrown in jail.
Just a slave to freedom.
Gosh, rational debate. Good points presented on both sides and civil to boot. Not that my opinion matters much, but it does help to promote understanding.
I am not an enginer, but I play one on tv.
The Geo analogy doesn't take into consideration gearing (I.E.- software). You can take to identical cars (except for their transmissions) and completely change how the work gets done.
The Geo spins its tires cause it isn't geared to handle the torque. Gear it properly, and it smokes the Porsche (err, short run... the higher RPM's and increased horsepower gives the Porsche a higher top end in the long run. The Geo reaches it's top end quicker).
Or as a different analogy: top fuel dragster. High torque, high horsepower... um, the AMD.
Okay, this clarified some disconnect thoughts in my own head, and for that I thank you, but... I really wonder about this porn being the exploitation of women. Girl gets paid $500 to be filmed engaged in sex. Guy later pays $50 to see said act. Exactly who is exploiting whom?
As my friend was kind enough to inform me, freedom of speech pretty much entails that my wanting to read the Bible pretty much guarantees running across a picture of an 8 year old in fishnets now and again (that Rocky Horror crowd is getting younger all the time).
It is a pity that NZ is considering such a move considering it was suppose to be one of the least regulated spots on Earth (fancied moving there). It just showcases the continuing struggle to assert freedoms while others demonize to maintain control (DCMA, PATRIOT, and the omnipresent War on Some Drugs... it seems to flow from the same vein).
One of the largest producers of child pornography is the US Postal Service (sting operations). It kind of makes the argument of protecting the children moot.
Just as an aside, it always struck me the most rabid defenders of the children were the ones most uncomfortable with children's' sexuality, which is a really odd proposition. Not to mention some of the most vocal defenders tend to be brought up on charges of molesting children after a while (the case with the head of Covenant House during the 80's comes to mind).
Not exactly the mindset I'd want telling me listening to Judas Priest will make me commit suicide (and even if it did, Wow! Talk about artistic achievement.). Do we really need it on the web too? Guess we do 'cause that would be censorship.
Well, I question any sense in disputing the claims of someone who doesn't have the courage to stand by their ideas. I stand by mine.
And I am humbled. Of the tens of thousands of people who have tried to wade their way through what is right and what is best, I am fortunate enough to meet the sole representative of (a majority no less) those who know better.
Per the court's finding: "The laying of mines in the internal waters and territorial sea of Nicaragua, the attacks on Nicaraguan ports, oil installations and naval bases directly imputable to the United States, but also the arming and training of the `contras' were judged by the Court to be a prima facie violation of the prohibition of the use of force"... unless there was sufficient cause for self-defense, which the court did not find.
If that doesn't constitute terrorism, what does? Or if the same acts were perpetrated on US soil, what would it be called? I question who is trafficking in rhetoric.
The rest of my arguments remain intact.
But as your only response is to silence those in lieu of those who know better. I must ask, and let me be clear on this, are your beliefs so weak as to not be able to stand any scrutiny?
I am skeptical of everything, but especially those who claim to be the sole bearers of truth.
Moreso, any small man will commit acts abhorent to his own conscience when relinquishing to something he believes greater.
Good day.
As I read over the great history lesson being presented, I note two omissions:
i ju dgment/inus_ijudgment_19860627.pdf
The anti-terrorist campaign in Afganistan was a failure. Bin Laden is still free.
The only country ever tried for terrorism in the World Court is the United States.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inus_
All things considered, don't you think the US motives are at least suspect (as well as anyone elses)?
And for all the discussion... wow, look at those MEMES go.
And I would like to see the damn batteries (preferablly under peaceful circumstances).
Gosh, I was here trying to fix my X-box, smoking some tobacco (nicotine is found effective in treating Parkinson's type syndromes... all the antipsychotics I'm on... I think the government is out to get me) in my water-pipe (TM), and drinking a beer (heart problems you know... beef, it's what was for dinner) when... Wait. What's that knock at the door... Oh sure, and when they try to outlaw caffine, then you'll the geeks bitch. But those other druggies... Have you had your net fix today?
Hmm, last time I checked, if the terms of the contract are illegal...
And if I choose not to sell a life-saving medication to you because you are asian...
On second thought, you are right. And when companies abide by the same laws as you or I, I guess it doesn't have anything to do with freedom or liberty.
"There is no excuse for ignorance." Well, yeah there is... I didn't know. Or maybe I din't know enough. Or maybe somebody lied (but I should have known that too). Please help me. I'm stuck running Windows 'cause I didn't know there was a port of xyz software comming on Apple five years later (soothsayer as well). Ouch.