It does not matter if you watch TV or not. If you present the same points in exactly the same way, you are still repeating the same propaganda.
No, I don't have my own definitions for either rhetoric or propaganda. The dictionary will tell you the same thing I did, though the actual wording will vary from dictionary to dictionary.
If I show you that something is incorrect in the rhetoric, and offer a counter to the rhetoric, repeating that same rhetoric will not change the counter. This is a very basic rule of dialogue and debate. "Jim said it was red" countered by "Bob said it was blue" needs a new argument to determine the color. Repeating "Jim said it was red" won't change the debate, no matter how many times it was done. See how that works?
So what? You still seem to assume that anyone who thinks differently is uneducated.
What? I asked you if you read Ron or Rand's perspective, you said no. You refuse to review it, and claim that you are correct. I have read both sides of the debate, you have read one. I believe that fact in itself shows that you don't care about the truth, you care about your opinion.
You provided no "facts" in the debate, you offered an opinion and claimed I needed to read the opinion. I have read the opinion, and hear it every day on various "News" outlets. I don't agree with the opinion, and gave an alternative view which you refuse to even attempt to comprehend.
I also stated that the Federal Government is supposed to be limited in powers. You simply ignored that and went back to your "read my opinion argument" offering nothing to change that perspective.
I'll state again, you don't care about the truth or an alternative opinion. You care about your own and are doing everything you can to defend your opinion.
People are also free to express an alternative opinion instead of using Mod points to squelch and censor opinions that they do not agree with. Mod points are not supposed to be used for censorship purposes. When you take a valid opinion and mod them down/troll/flamebait, that is censoring. Read the Mod guidelines.
Do you really believe that dissecting a frog is the same thing as mutilation of a simulated living creature? Be honest, I see a very large difference myself and would like to understand someone that claims that it's the same thing. Even claiming that they are similar I find a very bizarre method of thinking. Further, dissecting frogs is not done by children, but by teenagers. There is a very large developmental difference between the two.
You then compare an amputation to mutilation, which again is very very odd in my opinion for numerous reasons. Starting with the fact that a kid seeing an amputee is not the person performing the amputation. We would not subject a child to performing an amputation because it has known traumatic effects on that person in addition to the recipient.
To further emphasize the mutilation of a living creature aspect, the creature must be numbed prior to the act.
I think a parallel you are missing comes in a question I hinted at above. Should a child (and yes these are geared toward children below the age of 10) be witness to, or help perform, amputations of limbs? Surgery of any kind? At what age is this appropriate activity for even a teenager?
Again, we know that desensitization works. We know that there is a relationship between children that torture and kill creatures for fun and adult psychological disorders which often lead to violent crime. We also know that there is no need for this mutilation in the creature for the purposes of learning. I believe it's fair to be concerned.
I think we would both agree that the AI morality issue is null, especially with this primitive of a critter. Maybe when we have larger full androids capable of more that would be an issue. In this case, it's absolutely not of concern in my opinion.
"Slashdot News for Nerds", not "News to make you feel good". I don't see other stories here of similar nature, like the guy rescuing a cat from a tree.
No, I'm not trying to get reaction. I posted my opinion in answer to my own question. I never ever post for reaction. You can review my post history if you like, and should have done that prior to making a false accusation. I post my opinion and statements of fact.
Posting for reaction would be critiquing the guys landing and claiming if they were of a particular race they would have done better or worse. Or claiming it's "obama's fault" like some other poster did.
It's not difficult to see that you and the mod are wrong. If the story was accepted for publishing and someone's ass hurts because it's questioned too bad.
The article and the summary would suggest everyone walked away from the control room, or at the very least, that the plant operators will now start drilling through the containment walls to roast hot dogs, or sell all the fuel to Iranians on the black market. More Scare tactics.
That statement contradicts this one.
The country is once again reminded how useless most layers of government really are.
While I agree with your point, it's important to remember that many people only know what main stream media propaganda tells them.
When I was young, we had biases in media but at least both sides were represented on different channels. Today, it all comes from the AP and it's all the same point of view.
This is not a troll, it is a valid statement and question regarding the health of the site. Your differing opinion is not justification for modding a comment a "troll", read your guidance.
If the autopilot had landed the plane, or the ATC had used RC prowess to land the plane it would be tech news. If it was political, I could see it since that's a good topic for those of us more Philosophically and Politically charged. A feel good story? Just like I can find on a bazillion other sites? Really?
Crime is a social problem, not a race problem. It does not matter what race is impoverished and living in ghettos, those people will have a higher crime rate than people with luxuries and wealth.
To show how false you are, look at crime rates for minorities living in suburbs and whites in suburbs. The crime rates will be nearly identical, if not favoring the minorities.
Trading Places (movie) was a moral lesson in addition to being a comedy. There are several variations of the story, each time we have the same result, which is not racist at all. While "stories" are just that, I'm sure if you dig around you can find actual experiments to show the stories match reality.
There was also a separation of powers between Federal, State, and Local levels which has been destroyed. It's kind of a chicken and egg scenario is to what came first, but they have both been happening for a very long time. Hence, our current shitty State of the Union.
Spare the rhetoric, it does not work on people that are educated.
Please. If all you can do is levy insults when someone disagrees with you then you have no interest in honest debate.
You are repeating the same rhetoric I get from Fox News, MSNBC, and the Obama camp. You repeating the rhetoric won't change my opinion when I have already stated that the rhetoric is wrong! It's not an insult to tell you to spare the rhetoric. It is a hint that if you wish to offer a intellectual opinion you need something other than what I already know to be wrong.
Anti-Americans? So when they rules for homosexual Americans, they didn't rule for the people? Again you ignore all the rulings that seem to contradict you. So you're an expert in Law, History, and current events? Or more likely you have an opinion about something and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Sound's like a denier to me.
I never claimed to ignore or discount other rulings, most of them would not change my point. The Supreme court is full of corruption, and whether they rule for or against homosexuals does not change that point.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that things like race, sexual preferences among adults, and labels like "Democrat" and "Republican are meaningless and simply used to distract people from what has been going on. Such as citizens united, "free speech zones", and other decisions that have dismantle our Bill of Rights, patents on ideas, seemingly unlimited funding for domestic police forces, and a government take over of journalism.
You have never discounted any of my points. You keep repeating the same things over and over. If a set of rhetoric is established and repeated for effect, it is propaganda by definition. You don't have to like the fact that you keep repeating it, but that is what you are doing. As mentioned earlier, repeating the same thing over and over will not make it true.
And if it makes you happy, I have read the reports from both the Senate and House in numerous articles. I have also listened to Ron and Rand Paul's perspectives. To cap that off, I have spent the better part of 40 years studying Philosophy, History, Economics, Physics, Math, etc...
Will keep doing what you have done so far and repeat what someone told you? Or will you investigate other experts on Constitutional Law, Philosophy, History, and Economics?
I really hope you are smarter than repeating the same thing over again without doing any further research.
The two examples were given to show where the ideal fails to cover the reality, there was no claim that the two were the same thing. The two types of examples given are not the only activities that skew the ideal given by Adam Smith when he defined Capitalism.
How do you resolve the issue? Simple, you don't allow people to destroy companies and use legal provisions to punish people that do. In the case of a CEO receiving excessive payments the tax rate used to be the deterrent. This of course was in addition to Unions and Journalists supporting public benefit. Deregulation has "fixed" both of those things from occurring today.
For a person embezzling money from investments to make other people profits, you simply enforce current laws protecting society from embezzlement. Who from management in Banks has been brought up on charges of this for example?
Neither of these concepts are "new", neither require magic knowledge. 40 years ago regulations and laws were enforced much more unilaterally than they are today.
Trying to excuse either of these two activities is complete bullshit.
Sorry, but it's an example and certainly not abnormal. Maybe you should research golden parachutes as a start. Romney was paid to destroy companies and move employee capital into the hands of investors. Ignorance may be bliss for some but not everyone.
Your example is fine in a true capitalist economy where things are regulated and progressive. The problem with your example is that we have allowed corruption and cronyism, and no penalties or regulation for when people screw others over. You see, here your ideology fails is when a CEO is paid to destroy a company and remove all of it's assets placing them into select people's hands.
Yes, the market plays a role in the economy. That does not mean there should be no regulation and we should turn a blind eye when some rich guy decides to fuck over people to make a few extra bucks. This is what we have today, in addition of course to monopolization and collusion to benefit a select few.
The level of cronyism we have today is quite staggering, and beyond anything Adam Smith could conceive of. Information Technology has allowed a very small number of people to completely control every aspect of the economy. They keep telling you it's capitalism and you blindly keep believing them, meanwhile numbers show that all but.01% of the populace is losing and has lost most of their wealth.
In other words, your idea that we are living in a Capitalist economy is delusional.
So you are trying to claim that our ethics and morals come at birth and we can't learn ethics and morals as we grow? The only way a person becomes psychopathic is by being born with a physical disability? You would do well in the Rockefeller eugenics labs!
IMHO it's not about whether or not the AI is aware or conscious. It's about desensitizing a person to abuse and torture. I have no issue with teaching someone programming, and kits to make little robots move around and perform tasks.
The question is really, why is this kit done without a receptacle of some type that does not require simulated mutilation? It could be built that way, but has not been. Does this simulated mutilation have long term psychological impact on young person? The potential is there and proven. We should question the implementation not for the AI's sake, but for the sake of the kids doing the experiments.
Bullspit! The majority of the bees time is spent gathering and, well doing what bees do to make honey, live, make new bees, care for the hive, etc... There is a short amount of time required for the removal of the combs and extraction of honey. To claim that this is 5% of a bees life would be asinine, because it's not that much intervention and does not require that much time. Smoking the bees to reduce their activity is intrusive, but it's short duration and infrequent. It does not cause permanent damage to the bees. It does not burn, maim, or kill the bees. I'm sure a bee keeper accidentally squishes one on occasion, but it's not intentionally done or required for extracting honey.
If you wish to bring up locations that lack the ability to cultivate honey bees, then you can't bring up torture there either. The person killing bees to knock a hive down and gather honey is doing so because of food, not torturing the bees.
For much of psychology I would agree, but there are some areas that are not poppycock invented to make a buck. Abuse and killing for fun is not something new in psychology. Killing for survival (eating, removing pests, etc...) is not the same as killing for pleasure. We have only had a small portion of our time on earth where we had people with enough free time to kill for fun, but we have had enough study to see some very real connections to mental health and killing/torture for pleasure.
Desensitizing people is a well known, and proven to work. That goes back thousands of years in knowledge. Correlation != causation, but in this case there is no need to perform a simple correlation. Science has proven a connection to abuse when young and mental health in age.
We don't have our morals and ethics when we are born, we grow and learn them. Those ethics and morals change constantly based on what we do and what we see.
To where? There are no plain democracies in the world, and never have been. Churchill may have been a fine motivator, but the quote and statement you made are both technically incorrect. If it was a small thing, I would just be pedantic. It's a huge thing however, and worth making sure people understand the difference.
The US is not a Democracy, it's a Democratic Republic. You may be aware of that and just took a common short cut and called it Democracy, but the difference is vast. Democracy is the rule of mob and a Republic is a rule of law. Both of these forms of Government, in addition to most others, were discussed 2,500 or so years ago by the same person that came up with the Republic named Socrates.
If the original design of a Republic was followed, it would be superb. The problem is that it's difficult to keep human nature out of the equation. The original design required term limits, a strong education system, and no political class. The best Philosophers, as defined by Socrates, would be the only ones allowed to represent the citizens of the Republic.
If you think the pains that the US Government has gone through to make people ignorant to Philosophy and Rhetoric are accidental, you are not even trying to look. People are not introduced to Philosophy until College and that's only if they choose to take the class. Most Universities will discourage the class and push students toward Humanities (Social Studies). Most US Citizens have never read "The Republic" and have no idea that this was the blueprint for their Government.
You should study up on psychological disorders, especially those that lead to violence, before spouting off. Psychological profiles start with questions like "did they abuse or kill small animals when young. Not one type of violent crime mind you, all types of violent crimes.
We know that there is a connection psychologically between violence when young and extreme violence when older. So the concern here, from a psychological stand point is absolutely valid and backed by science. What we currently don't know is whether or not the abuse of inanimate critters, such as this roach, would have the same impact on people psychologically.
Slashdot Mirror
It does not matter if you watch TV or not. If you present the same points in exactly the same way, you are still repeating the same propaganda.
No, I don't have my own definitions for either rhetoric or propaganda. The dictionary will tell you the same thing I did, though the actual wording will vary from dictionary to dictionary.
If I show you that something is incorrect in the rhetoric, and offer a counter to the rhetoric, repeating that same rhetoric will not change the counter. This is a very basic rule of dialogue and debate. "Jim said it was red" countered by "Bob said it was blue" needs a new argument to determine the color. Repeating "Jim said it was red" won't change the debate, no matter how many times it was done. See how that works?
So what? You still seem to assume that anyone who thinks differently is uneducated.
What? I asked you if you read Ron or Rand's perspective, you said no. You refuse to review it, and claim that you are correct. I have read both sides of the debate, you have read one. I believe that fact in itself shows that you don't care about the truth, you care about your opinion.
You provided no "facts" in the debate, you offered an opinion and claimed I needed to read the opinion. I have read the opinion, and hear it every day on various "News" outlets. I don't agree with the opinion, and gave an alternative view which you refuse to even attempt to comprehend.
I also stated that the Federal Government is supposed to be limited in powers. You simply ignored that and went back to your "read my opinion argument" offering nothing to change that perspective.
I'll state again, you don't care about the truth or an alternative opinion. You care about your own and are doing everything you can to defend your opinion.
People are also free to express an alternative opinion instead of using Mod points to squelch and censor opinions that they do not agree with. Mod points are not supposed to be used for censorship purposes. When you take a valid opinion and mod them down/troll/flamebait, that is censoring. Read the Mod guidelines.
Do you really believe that dissecting a frog is the same thing as mutilation of a simulated living creature? Be honest, I see a very large difference myself and would like to understand someone that claims that it's the same thing. Even claiming that they are similar I find a very bizarre method of thinking. Further, dissecting frogs is not done by children, but by teenagers. There is a very large developmental difference between the two.
You then compare an amputation to mutilation, which again is very very odd in my opinion for numerous reasons. Starting with the fact that a kid seeing an amputee is not the person performing the amputation. We would not subject a child to performing an amputation because it has known traumatic effects on that person in addition to the recipient.
To further emphasize the mutilation of a living creature aspect, the creature must be numbed prior to the act.
I think a parallel you are missing comes in a question I hinted at above. Should a child (and yes these are geared toward children below the age of 10) be witness to, or help perform, amputations of limbs? Surgery of any kind? At what age is this appropriate activity for even a teenager?
Again, we know that desensitization works. We know that there is a relationship between children that torture and kill creatures for fun and adult psychological disorders which often lead to violent crime. We also know that there is no need for this mutilation in the creature for the purposes of learning. I believe it's fair to be concerned.
I think we would both agree that the AI morality issue is null, especially with this primitive of a critter. Maybe when we have larger full androids capable of more that would be an issue. In this case, it's absolutely not of concern in my opinion.
"Slashdot News for Nerds", not "News to make you feel good". I don't see other stories here of similar nature, like the guy rescuing a cat from a tree.
No, I'm not trying to get reaction. I posted my opinion in answer to my own question. I never ever post for reaction. You can review my post history if you like, and should have done that prior to making a false accusation. I post my opinion and statements of fact.
Posting for reaction would be critiquing the guys landing and claiming if they were of a particular race they would have done better or worse. Or claiming it's "obama's fault" like some other poster did.
It's not difficult to see that you and the mod are wrong. If the story was accepted for publishing and someone's ass hurts because it's questioned too bad.
A nerds dream is not to try and land a plane, a nerds dream is to land a space ship (or get laid, depending on who's stereo type you prefer).
The article and the summary would suggest everyone walked away from the control room, or at the very least, that the plant operators will now start drilling through the containment walls to roast hot dogs, or sell all the fuel to Iranians on the black market. More Scare tactics.
That statement contradicts this one.
The country is once again reminded how useless most layers of government really are.
While I agree with your point, it's important to remember that many people only know what main stream media propaganda tells them.
When I was young, we had biases in media but at least both sides were represented on different channels. Today, it all comes from the AP and it's all the same point of view.
That was kind of the point, which is why I asked why this story was here. I expect to find it on cnn, fox, msnbc, but not here.
I pointed it out exactly 1 time. There were 6 posts when I responded to this thread and none of them mentioned the same thing.
This is not a troll, it is a valid statement and question regarding the health of the site. Your differing opinion is not justification for modding a comment a "troll", read your guidance.
If the autopilot had landed the plane, or the ATC had used RC prowess to land the plane it would be tech news. If it was political, I could see it since that's a good topic for those of us more Philosophically and Politically charged. A feel good story? Just like I can find on a bazillion other sites? Really?
Crime is a social problem, not a race problem. It does not matter what race is impoverished and living in ghettos, those people will have a higher crime rate than people with luxuries and wealth.
To show how false you are, look at crime rates for minorities living in suburbs and whites in suburbs. The crime rates will be nearly identical, if not favoring the minorities.
Trading Places (movie) was a moral lesson in addition to being a comedy. There are several variations of the story, each time we have the same result, which is not racist at all. While "stories" are just that, I'm sure if you dig around you can find actual experiments to show the stories match reality.
I believe people often confuse skull size/ratio to brain size/ratio.
There was also a separation of powers between Federal, State, and Local levels which has been destroyed. It's kind of a chicken and egg scenario is to what came first, but they have both been happening for a very long time. Hence, our current shitty State of the Union.
Spare the rhetoric, it does not work on people that are educated.
Please. If all you can do is levy insults when someone disagrees with you then you have no interest in honest debate.
You are repeating the same rhetoric I get from Fox News, MSNBC, and the Obama camp. You repeating the rhetoric won't change my opinion when I have already stated that the rhetoric is wrong! It's not an insult to tell you to spare the rhetoric. It is a hint that if you wish to offer a intellectual opinion you need something other than what I already know to be wrong.
Anti-Americans? So when they rules for homosexual Americans, they didn't rule for the people? Again you ignore all the rulings that seem to contradict you. So you're an expert in Law, History, and current events? Or more likely you have an opinion about something and everyone who disagrees is wrong. Sound's like a denier to me.
I never claimed to ignore or discount other rulings, most of them would not change my point. The Supreme court is full of corruption, and whether they rule for or against homosexuals does not change that point.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that things like race, sexual preferences among adults, and labels like "Democrat" and "Republican are meaningless and simply used to distract people from what has been going on. Such as citizens united, "free speech zones", and other decisions that have dismantle our Bill of Rights, patents on ideas, seemingly unlimited funding for domestic police forces, and a government take over of journalism.
You have never discounted any of my points. You keep repeating the same things over and over. If a set of rhetoric is established and repeated for effect, it is propaganda by definition. You don't have to like the fact that you keep repeating it, but that is what you are doing. As mentioned earlier, repeating the same thing over and over will not make it true.
And if it makes you happy, I have read the reports from both the Senate and House in numerous articles. I have also listened to Ron and Rand Paul's perspectives. To cap that off, I have spent the better part of 40 years studying Philosophy, History, Economics, Physics, Math, etc...
Will keep doing what you have done so far and repeat what someone told you? Or will you investigate other experts on Constitutional Law, Philosophy, History, and Economics?
I really hope you are smarter than repeating the same thing over again without doing any further research.
The two examples were given to show where the ideal fails to cover the reality, there was no claim that the two were the same thing. The two types of examples given are not the only activities that skew the ideal given by Adam Smith when he defined Capitalism.
How do you resolve the issue? Simple, you don't allow people to destroy companies and use legal provisions to punish people that do. In the case of a CEO receiving excessive payments the tax rate used to be the deterrent. This of course was in addition to Unions and Journalists supporting public benefit. Deregulation has "fixed" both of those things from occurring today.
For a person embezzling money from investments to make other people profits, you simply enforce current laws protecting society from embezzlement. Who from management in Banks has been brought up on charges of this for example?
Neither of these concepts are "new", neither require magic knowledge. 40 years ago regulations and laws were enforced much more unilaterally than they are today.
Trying to excuse either of these two activities is complete bullshit.
Sorry, but it's an example and certainly not abnormal. Maybe you should research golden parachutes as a start. Romney was paid to destroy companies and move employee capital into the hands of investors. Ignorance may be bliss for some but not everyone.
Your example is fine in a true capitalist economy where things are regulated and progressive. The problem with your example is that we have allowed corruption and cronyism, and no penalties or regulation for when people screw others over. You see, here your ideology fails is when a CEO is paid to destroy a company and remove all of it's assets placing them into select people's hands.
Yes, the market plays a role in the economy. That does not mean there should be no regulation and we should turn a blind eye when some rich guy decides to fuck over people to make a few extra bucks. This is what we have today, in addition of course to monopolization and collusion to benefit a select few.
The level of cronyism we have today is quite staggering, and beyond anything Adam Smith could conceive of. Information Technology has allowed a very small number of people to completely control every aspect of the economy. They keep telling you it's capitalism and you blindly keep believing them, meanwhile numbers show that all but .01% of the populace is losing and has lost most of their wealth.
In other words, your idea that we are living in a Capitalist economy is delusional.
So you are trying to claim that our ethics and morals come at birth and we can't learn ethics and morals as we grow? The only way a person becomes psychopathic is by being born with a physical disability? You would do well in the Rockefeller eugenics labs!
Wow! No I am not going to research his personal life! Quite frankly you should be alarmed that you know that much about his personal life.
IMHO it's not about whether or not the AI is aware or conscious. It's about desensitizing a person to abuse and torture. I have no issue with teaching someone programming, and kits to make little robots move around and perform tasks.
The question is really, why is this kit done without a receptacle of some type that does not require simulated mutilation? It could be built that way, but has not been. Does this simulated mutilation have long term psychological impact on young person? The potential is there and proven. We should question the implementation not for the AI's sake, but for the sake of the kids doing the experiments.
Bullspit! The majority of the bees time is spent gathering and, well doing what bees do to make honey, live, make new bees, care for the hive, etc... There is a short amount of time required for the removal of the combs and extraction of honey. To claim that this is 5% of a bees life would be asinine, because it's not that much intervention and does not require that much time. Smoking the bees to reduce their activity is intrusive, but it's short duration and infrequent. It does not cause permanent damage to the bees. It does not burn, maim, or kill the bees. I'm sure a bee keeper accidentally squishes one on occasion, but it's not intentionally done or required for extracting honey.
If you wish to bring up locations that lack the ability to cultivate honey bees, then you can't bring up torture there either. The person killing bees to knock a hive down and gather honey is doing so because of food, not torturing the bees.
For much of psychology I would agree, but there are some areas that are not poppycock invented to make a buck. Abuse and killing for fun is not something new in psychology. Killing for survival (eating, removing pests, etc...) is not the same as killing for pleasure. We have only had a small portion of our time on earth where we had people with enough free time to kill for fun, but we have had enough study to see some very real connections to mental health and killing/torture for pleasure.
Desensitizing people is a well known, and proven to work. That goes back thousands of years in knowledge. Correlation != causation, but in this case there is no need to perform a simple correlation. Science has proven a connection to abuse when young and mental health in age.
We don't have our morals and ethics when we are born, we grow and learn them. Those ethics and morals change constantly based on what we do and what we see.
To where? There are no plain democracies in the world, and never have been. Churchill may have been a fine motivator, but the quote and statement you made are both technically incorrect. If it was a small thing, I would just be pedantic. It's a huge thing however, and worth making sure people understand the difference.
The US is not a Democracy, it's a Democratic Republic. You may be aware of that and just took a common short cut and called it Democracy, but the difference is vast. Democracy is the rule of mob and a Republic is a rule of law. Both of these forms of Government, in addition to most others, were discussed 2,500 or so years ago by the same person that came up with the Republic named Socrates.
If the original design of a Republic was followed, it would be superb. The problem is that it's difficult to keep human nature out of the equation. The original design required term limits, a strong education system, and no political class. The best Philosophers, as defined by Socrates, would be the only ones allowed to represent the citizens of the Republic.
If you think the pains that the US Government has gone through to make people ignorant to Philosophy and Rhetoric are accidental, you are not even trying to look. People are not introduced to Philosophy until College and that's only if they choose to take the class. Most Universities will discourage the class and push students toward Humanities (Social Studies). Most US Citizens have never read "The Republic" and have no idea that this was the blueprint for their Government.
You should study up on psychological disorders, especially those that lead to violence, before spouting off. Psychological profiles start with questions like "did they abuse or kill small animals when young. Not one type of violent crime mind you, all types of violent crimes.
We know that there is a connection psychologically between violence when young and extreme violence when older. So the concern here, from a psychological stand point is absolutely valid and backed by science. What we currently don't know is whether or not the abuse of inanimate critters, such as this roach, would have the same impact on people psychologically.