The people who are willing to throw out civilization are those who are fighting against the actions needed to prevent large and destablilizing changes to the climate and the biosphere. Those who are attempting to course-correct to limit the rapidity, level, and damages of the rapid-warming climate change are those who are attempting to safeguard civilization, and more broadly, Earth's eco-systems and suitable environment for sustaining current species., including humans.
Charge a carbon fee on fossil fuel, and give it all back to all California residents as a dividend.
Initially, set the fee so that a person who drives an efficient small to mid-size vehicle a median number of miles per year breaks even. If they drive a more efficient or smaller ICE vehicle or drive less, they are slightly ahead financially. If they drive an EV they are way ahead financially, at least on the fuel cost side, enough that they can afford the EV.
-and the attendant mass species and eco-system losses, - ocean warming and acidification including complete loss of reef eco-systems and shellfish, global movement or loss of food fisheries, and proliferation of jellyfish and algae. -desertification of arable land areas, -removal of glaciers and irrigation and drinking water in highly populated areas, -coastal inundation, -resource scarcity wars and increased migration conflicts, -malaria and dengue in northern-hemisphere (formerly) temperate regions (i.e. where you live),
and damn most of the consequences that are less important than those events.
Free speech is a right, but sometimes speech can constitute criminal negligence or manslaughter, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. Another example would be telling people it's fine to swim here, when you know there are strong ripcurrents and sharks with frickin' lasers in the area. Speech that encourages war crimes is also prosecutable. Or selling a product, like tobacco, when you know of its harmful effects but have actually engaged in a campaign of disinformation to reduce peoples' concern about the harm.
So that the main champions of thwarting and reversing attempts to combat greenhouse gas based global warming can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in the future?
Many legal tests are based on "what a reasonable person should have known" and "what action a reasonable person would take, given this knowledge."
Criminal negligence, fraud (in communication about the issue), criminal conspiricy (between fossil fuel industry and corrupt politicians acting on their behalf). etc. etc.
Let's start this effort, please. The current policy insanity cannot continue.
this. exactly this. It's amazing how many people can't see beyond their noses to see the AI/automation revolution happening all around them.
/ --/---- you / robots
You must have missed the fact that the moron Trump-style conservatives of Ontario, who don't believe in science anyway, killed the program before any reliable assessment of it could be completed.
Today's ultra-conservatives would rather kill research, remember, than face its inconvenient truths.
No. The market for "physical manipulation capability, physical skills, and cognitive capability" is ever present. What I have in quotes sounds a lot like labor, but is more general than human labor.
That market is increasingly being supplied by AI and/or complex, flexible automation, and the pace of that change will be faster than linear, as the technology continues to improve rapidly and cover more of the "labor" pie.
Ever heard of a "dead cat bounce"? That's what we're in right now regarding employment numbers.
Pretty soon, the AI and automation are going to be more cost-effective than people at many jobs, way more types of jobs than can be replaced by new jobs. What new jobs there will be will be for cognitive top 5% geniuses.
Other jobs which can't be totally replaced will be modified to be hybrid AI/automation + person jobs. The person will probably get paid less than now, since they're only doing part of the work. Many jobs like that will be modified slightly to be more amenable to AI/automation integration.
If you don't see that this time it's different, because the AI and automated systems are approaching/surpassing parity with human capabilities, then you have blinders on, and you live on a river called denial.
Further, "that is just (your) opinion" is used to dispute the truth of a proposition, but for that to work, there must be the assumption that the person whose opinion it is does not have good information or a sound inference process at reaching conclusions. That is insulting that person's cognitive capabilities or mode of overconfident expression. Now the implied accusation of bad reasoning ability may be accurate in many cases; nonetheless very wise and epistemically conservative people also have opinions, which have a high probability of being correct (factual).
Opinion can be belief or judgement, about matters which have a truth value.
They are not confined to aesthetic topics etc.
Also, whether it is an opinion or not does not affect the truth of the stated proposition.
It just means that some person or group holds an attitude of belief toward the proposition, and that they have stated their belief position.
For example, one could say: Broadly, it is the opinion of the cardiovascular research field currently that consuming a moderate number of eggs per week does not significantly affect risk of cardiovascular events.
"The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies."
Predestination. The Pilgrims believed that before the foundation of the world, God predestined to make the world, man, and all things. He also predestined, at that time, who would be saved, and who would be damned. Only those God elected would receive God's grace, and would have faith. There was nothing an individual could do during their life that would cause them to be saved (or damned), since God had already decided who was going to be saved before the creation of the world. However, God would not have chosen blatant sinners to be his elect; and therefore those who were godly were likely to be the ones God had elected to be saved.
An "opinion" is a propositional attitude of expressed belief about a proposition.
It is saying "in my opinion, X is true, was true, or will be true."
The proposition X, if well formed and embedded in (expressed in terms of) a reality-descriptive, generally reality-corresponding theory, can have a truth value.
The term "fake news" arose in US dialog to describe bizarrely distorted and completely made up hit pieces put out against Hilary Clinto and the Democrat campaign by various Trump-supporting people and also certain foreign actors, some of whom were supporting Trump and some were just out to make a living off ad-click revenue.
Trump started calling the mainstream media "fake news" as a defensive tactic, to deflect from the accusations of fake news helping him get elected.
Just so we're clear on where this all came from.
Yes, the US mainstream media is distorted and prone to sicophantic support for US policy, like the Iraq war cheerleading for example, but their level of distortion is nothing compared to the spew of right-wing completely and obviously fake rubbish that started spewing out during the 2016 election campaign.
Even then, how will you know you're believing an honest AI?
Learn and use solid epistemology principles (and cognitive bias awareness) in deciding what to believe and how much. Anyone that can't do that is no more than a victim going forward; flotsam tossed on the seas of garbage.
In the present infowars environment, the solution cannot be to blame messaging and web platforms, and enforce massive compulsory censorship. That censorship itself is much too powerful an infoweapon that is way too vulnerable to abuse.
Instead, people need to be immunized against rampant disinformation, through better education. For adults, a "bootcamp"-like remedial education, perhaps, strongly suggested for everyone.
Collectively, we need to learn how to rationally form our belief strengths, how to avoid or recognize common cognitive biases, including group-think meme propagation etc.
No other solution to this problem is sustainable or effective.
You can't control the quality of your product any more, because you've been too successful with it.
Fact of the matter is, in something like a smartphone OS and app platform, quality control and simplicity and uniformity (my next phone will be familiar to me because of my last phone) are very important features.
There's a reason why a lot of people like iPhone. They are giving up freedom for quality control, willingly.
I want the same ability as a consumer to choose a quality controlled version of android, and to not have to worry that my next XYZ brand phone will behave totally differently to my previous Samsung or Pixel or whatever phone. Uniformity and lack of "gratuitous" choice is actually a valuble service to consumers, in this age of rampant complexity and crapware.
because phones are turning into AI assistants, and Google's AI and its application to AR will blow everyone else's out of the water for quite some time to come.
What I mean here is that the term "search engine" is pretty much obsolete.
Would you like this smart phone? or would you like this relatively ignorant "bixby" phone? hmmmm.
Google has already snarrfed all the interlinked and personal and preference profiles information about oomans, and it knowses what we wantses before we wantses it. And we wantses that.
"How much wood would a woodchuck chuck" becomes "How much woodn't wouldn't a woodchuck chuck."..."is that a North American woodchuck? or a Russian woodchuck?"
Someone, with permission, examines a car and makes an identical copy of it, leaving the original car intact for its owner's use. Luckily, they make the copy out of bits, so no extra iron and aluminum mines are needed, and no significant extra pollution is caused.
The copier places the copy at a car show, and allows everyone there to examine the car and make their own copy of it.
The real flaw in your argument is that the world wide web is not a passive backdrop to activity conducted on it. the "World Wide Web", rather, is an information technology protocol-set and platform with an expressed purpose of permitting free and open sharing and inter-referencing of whatever material is placed on the platform.
The terms "web" and "world wide web" should in and of themselves be enough to convey this intent. But the core and essential intent of world wide web distributed platform and technology is made abundantly clear not only by the vast majority of its historical and present usage, but also in many writings by its founders.
Publishers of content to the publicly accessible portions of the world wide web, therefore, should be aware of the implicit assumptions that all users of the platform are entitled to make: The assumption that web users have been allowed to download and view the content, and the assumption that they have been allowed to refer to the content by linking and embedding, both of which are absolutely fundamental core properties/features of world wide web information-technology platform and protocols.
Publishing/posting content on the public world wide web is tantamount to agreeing with the viewing, downloading, linking, and embedding of the material via the technology and protocols of the WWW platform and distributed system. Simple as that.
There are access-restricted locations of the WWW in which you can express your intent not to openly publish your material and not to grant viewing, downloading, linking, and embedding rights. The technology for access restriction clearly draws the boundary of where public WWW user rights, as implied by the technology architecture, begin and end.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their ENEMIES, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason...
Trouble is, technically Russia is not an enemy of the United States currently in any legally valid sense of the word. "Enemy" in legal terms would refer to an adversary in open and declared war with your country.
So Trump while perhaps guilty of the colloquial back-yard-barbecue-debate level of treason, is not guilty due to this incident of the legal, constitutional definition of treason, which BTW carries the death penalty.
Your material / image for display and linking. That's what the public world wide web IS. If you hadn't wanted and those things to happen, you would not have posted your stuff where it is accessible and viewable and linkable and searchable on the public WWW.
Copyright law, in my vague understanding, requires that the copyright holder take reasonable steps to enforce their copyright.
Placing your image in public view in a public square is clearly indicating your intention to allow viewing of and referral to the location of your image.
That act (of posting on public site) is essentially the opposite of taking reasonable steps to enforce your copyright.
If you try to enforce copyright after the fact, after you have already implicitly licensed your image for public viewing and for being referenced by publicly accessible URL, that is closing the door after opening it to let the horses out. That is disingenuous, self-contradictory, and should not be legally valid.
Slashdot Mirror
The people who are willing to throw out civilization are those who are fighting against the actions needed to prevent large and destablilizing changes to the climate and the biosphere. Those who are attempting to course-correct to limit the rapidity, level, and damages of the rapid-warming climate change are those who are attempting to safeguard civilization, and more broadly, Earth's eco-systems and suitable environment for sustaining current species., including humans.
Charge a carbon fee on fossil fuel, and give it all back to all California residents as a dividend.
Initially, set the fee so that a person who drives an efficient small to mid-size vehicle a median number of miles per year breaks even.
If they drive a more efficient or smaller ICE vehicle or drive less, they are slightly ahead financially.
If they drive an EV they are way ahead financially, at least on the fuel cost side, enough that they can afford the EV.
-and the attendant mass species and eco-system losses,
- ocean warming and acidification including complete loss of reef eco-systems and shellfish, global movement or loss of food fisheries, and proliferation of jellyfish and algae.
-desertification of arable land areas,
-removal of glaciers and irrigation and drinking water in highly populated areas,
-coastal inundation,
-resource scarcity wars and increased migration conflicts,
-malaria and dengue in northern-hemisphere (formerly) temperate regions (i.e. where you live),
and damn most of the consequences that are less important than those events.
Free speech is a right, but sometimes speech can constitute criminal negligence or manslaughter, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre.
Another example would be telling people it's fine to swim here, when you know there are strong ripcurrents and sharks with frickin' lasers in the area.
Speech that encourages war crimes is also prosecutable.
Or selling a product, like tobacco, when you know of its harmful effects but have actually engaged in a campaign of disinformation to reduce peoples' concern about the harm.
Starting to get my drift?
So that the main champions of thwarting and reversing attempts to combat greenhouse gas based global warming can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court in the future?
Many legal tests are based on "what a reasonable person should have known" and "what action a reasonable person would take, given this knowledge."
Criminal negligence, fraud (in communication about the issue), criminal conspiricy (between fossil fuel industry and corrupt politicians acting on their behalf). etc. etc.
Let's start this effort, please. The current policy insanity cannot continue.
There is no excuse of ignorance at this late date.
Read https://www.nytimes.com/intera...
for a good history of "when we knew".
this.
exactly this.
It's amazing how many people can't see beyond their noses to see the AI/automation revolution happening all around them.
/
--/---- you
/ robots
You must have missed the fact that the moron Trump-style conservatives of Ontario, who don't believe in science anyway, killed the program before any reliable assessment of it could be completed.
Today's ultra-conservatives would rather kill research, remember, than face its inconvenient truths.
No. The market for "physical manipulation capability, physical skills, and cognitive capability" is ever present.
What I have in quotes sounds a lot like labor, but is more general than human labor.
That market is increasingly being supplied by AI and/or complex, flexible automation, and the pace of that change will be faster than linear, as the technology continues to improve rapidly and cover more of the "labor" pie.
Ever heard of a "dead cat bounce"?
That's what we're in right now regarding employment numbers.
Pretty soon, the AI and automation are going to be more cost-effective than people at many jobs, way more types of jobs than can be replaced by new jobs. What new jobs there will be will be for cognitive top 5% geniuses.
Other jobs which can't be totally replaced will be modified to be hybrid AI/automation + person jobs. The person will probably get paid less than now, since they're only doing part of the work. Many jobs like that will be modified slightly to be more amenable to AI/automation integration.
If you don't see that this time it's different, because the AI and automated systems are approaching/surpassing parity with human capabilities, then you have blinders on, and you live on a river called denial.
Further, "that is just (your) opinion" is used to dispute the truth of a proposition, but for that to work, there must be the assumption that the person whose opinion it is does not have good information or a sound inference process at reaching conclusions. That is insulting that person's cognitive capabilities or mode of overconfident expression. Now the implied accusation of bad reasoning ability may be accurate in many cases; nonetheless very wise and epistemically conservative people also have opinions, which have a high probability of being correct (factual).
In my opinion:
Opinion can be belief or judgement, about matters which have a truth value.
They are not confined to aesthetic topics etc.
Also, whether it is an opinion or not does not affect the truth of the stated proposition.
It just means that some person or group holds an attitude of belief toward the proposition, and that they have stated their belief position.
For example, one could say: Broadly, it is the opinion of the cardiovascular research field currently that consuming a moderate number of eggs per week does not significantly affect risk of cardiovascular events.
"The problem is that the US population has no history of being subjected to false information and outright lies."
Predestination.
The Pilgrims believed that before the foundation of the world, God predestined to make the world, man, and all things. He also predestined, at that time, who would be saved, and who would be damned. Only those God elected would receive God's grace, and would have faith. There was nothing an individual could do during their life that would cause them to be saved (or damned), since God had already decided who was going to be saved before the creation of the world. However, God would not have chosen blatant sinners to be his elect; and therefore those who were godly were likely to be the ones God had elected to be saved.
An "opinion" is a propositional attitude of expressed belief about a proposition.
It is saying "in my opinion, X is true, was true, or will be true."
The proposition X, if well formed and embedded in (expressed in terms of) a reality-descriptive, generally reality-corresponding theory, can have a truth value.
The term "fake news" arose in US dialog to describe bizarrely distorted and completely made up hit pieces put out against Hilary Clinto and the Democrat campaign by various Trump-supporting people and also certain foreign actors, some of whom were supporting Trump and some were just out to make a living off ad-click revenue.
Trump started calling the mainstream media "fake news" as a defensive tactic, to deflect from the accusations of fake news helping him get elected.
Just so we're clear on where this all came from.
Yes, the US mainstream media is distorted and prone to sicophantic support for US policy, like the Iraq war cheerleading for example, but their level of distortion is nothing compared to the spew of right-wing completely and obviously fake rubbish that started spewing out during the 2016 election campaign.
until we perfect AI bullshit detectors that is.
Even then, how will you know you're believing an honest AI?
Learn and use solid epistemology principles (and cognitive bias awareness) in deciding what to believe and how much. Anyone that can't do that is no more than a victim going forward; flotsam tossed on the seas of garbage.
In the present infowars environment, the solution cannot be to blame messaging and web platforms, and enforce massive compulsory censorship. That censorship itself is much too powerful an infoweapon that is way too vulnerable to abuse.
Instead, people need to be immunized against rampant disinformation, through better education.
For adults, a "bootcamp"-like remedial education, perhaps, strongly suggested for everyone.
Collectively, we need to learn how to rationally form our belief strengths, how to avoid or recognize common cognitive biases, including group-think meme propagation etc.
No other solution to this problem is sustainable or effective.
is it says:
You can't control the quality of your product any more, because you've been too successful with it.
Fact of the matter is, in something like a smartphone OS and app platform, quality control and simplicity and uniformity (my next phone will be familiar to me because of my last phone) are very important features.
There's a reason why a lot of people like iPhone. They are giving up freedom for quality control, willingly.
I want the same ability as a consumer to choose a quality controlled version of android, and to not have to worry that my next XYZ brand phone will behave totally differently to my previous Samsung or Pixel or whatever phone. Uniformity and lack of "gratuitous" choice is actually a valuble service to consumers, in this age of rampant complexity and crapware.
because phones are turning into AI assistants, and Google's AI and its application to AR will blow everyone else's out of the water for quite some time to come.
What I mean here is that the term "search engine" is pretty much obsolete.
Would you like this smart phone? or would you like this relatively ignorant "bixby" phone? hmmmm.
Google has already snarrfed all the interlinked and personal and preference profiles information about oomans, and it knowses what we wantses before we wantses it. And we wantses that.
Displaying a linked image in your web page is a pretty far fetched definition of "performing" the image.
If anything is performing, it's the web server and web client software and client computer.
"But I suppose once you decide to be absurd,"...
"How much wood would a woodchuck chuck" ..."is that a North American woodchuck? or a Russian woodchuck?"
becomes
"How much woodn't wouldn't a woodchuck chuck."
Someone, with permission, examines a car and makes an identical copy of it, leaving the original car intact for its owner's use. Luckily, they make the copy out of bits, so no extra iron and aluminum mines are needed, and no significant extra pollution is caused.
The copier places the copy at a car show, and allows everyone there to examine the car and make their own copy of it.
https://www.tate.org.uk/art/im...
The real flaw in your argument is that the world wide web is not a passive backdrop to activity conducted on it. the "World Wide Web", rather, is an information technology protocol-set and platform with an expressed purpose of permitting free and open sharing and inter-referencing of whatever material is placed on the platform.
The terms "web" and "world wide web" should in and of themselves be enough to convey this intent. But the core and essential intent of world wide web distributed platform and technology is made abundantly clear not only by the vast majority of its historical and present usage, but also in many writings by its founders.
Publishers of content to the publicly accessible portions of the world wide web, therefore, should be aware of the implicit assumptions that all users of the platform are entitled to make: The assumption that web users have been allowed to download and view the content, and the assumption that they have been allowed to refer to the content by linking and embedding, both of which are absolutely fundamental core properties/features of world wide web information-technology platform and protocols.
Publishing/posting content on the public world wide web is tantamount to agreeing with the viewing, downloading, linking, and embedding of the material via the technology and protocols of the WWW platform and distributed system. Simple as that.
There are access-restricted locations of the WWW in which you can express your intent not to openly publish your material and not to grant viewing, downloading, linking, and embedding rights. The technology for access restriction clearly draws the boundary of where public WWW user rights, as implied by the technology architecture, begin and end.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their ENEMIES, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason...
Trouble is, technically Russia is not an enemy of the United States currently in any legally valid sense of the word. "Enemy" in legal terms would refer to an adversary in open and declared war with your country.
So Trump while perhaps guilty of the colloquial back-yard-barbecue-debate level of treason, is not guilty due to this incident of the legal, constitutional definition of treason, which BTW carries the death penalty.
Your material / image for display and linking. That's what the public world wide web IS.
If you hadn't wanted and those things to happen, you would not have posted your stuff where it is accessible and viewable and linkable and searchable on the public WWW.
Copyright law, in my vague understanding, requires that the copyright holder take reasonable steps to enforce their copyright.
Placing your image in public view in a public square is clearly indicating your intention to allow viewing of and referral to the location of your image.
That act (of posting on public site) is essentially the opposite of taking reasonable steps to enforce your copyright.
If you try to enforce copyright after the fact, after you have already implicitly licensed your image for public viewing and for being referenced by publicly accessible URL, that is closing the door after opening it to let the horses out. That is disingenuous, self-contradictory, and should not be legally valid.