... after I filed an informal complaint to the FCC about their data usage calculations and trying to sell me on a much more expensive plan ($40 per line per month for four lines). I asked them how they knew about my complaint and the guy whoâ(TM)ll called said they saw my name and cell number on the complaint. So companies are either notified, or they monitor the complaint stream.
The goal of campaign finance reform is to reduce corruption in our electoral and governing process. This is a good goal.
However, what is really happening on the ground is that past campaign finance reforms are CAUSING political corruption.
Campaign finance reform laws are being used to criminalize and complicate political participation. Right now in Texas, Wisconsin, Montana, Nevada and Arizona there are cases of minor politicians and citizens being criminally charged with campaign finance violations that are civil violations of complex rules.
The nub of the problem is that "corruption" is defined too broadly. There is a widespread assumption that campaign donations corrupt our politicians. First, this notion is largely unproven. Second, it dilutes the notion of real corruption, which is bribery, vote-buying and misuse of public power for private gain. Real corruption is highly illegal and we have good laws for that.
"Fake corruption" is really just free speech, and certain people don't like what other people are using their free speech for. They are afraid to let Americans listen and decide for themselves. "Campaign finance reform" should be called "muzzle the political process reform". There's no bogeyman of rich plutocrats who can buy American elections. There are rich people, left and right, who are politically, legally, active and who pay to get their message out. GOOD! We should have an active, raucous, loud, free political process.
So what if they influence politics! Politicians are there because voters put them there. Voters. Not anyone else.
If you are afraid that "corrupt plutocrats are buying elections", then that just means you don't trust your fellow voters, or worse, you want to control them, what they can listen to, what they can say.
Ad hominem attacks are intellectually dishonest. Your insults are not useful to your cause.
"the elected person is now beholden to the piece of shit corrupt plutocrat" may or may not be true. You are making a big assumption, and a big leap of reason in attributing the gratitude of the winning politician to some of the people who gave him money to pay for his campaign staff, advertisements, travel and other costs of running a campaign.
The reason the politician won, was not because he received money. It's because he received votes.
Influencing votes with advertisements is called free speech. It's a good thing. Supporting candidates with financial contributions is called political participation. It's a good thing.
In the end, voters decide. Money does not decide. Voters. The politician wins because he got more votes than anyone else. There are thousands of examples of the person with more money losing an election.
Money is not the same as winning an election. Votes are far more valuable than money in winning an election.
If you believe that votes can be purchased with advertising, you are wrong. Votes may be influenced, but that influence has a limit. More money, after a very reasonable point, does not mean more votes. The threshold of greatly diminishing returns in US Congressional elections is $500,000. Once you have $500k, you are in the race, even if your opponent has $100m.
Amazing British author Dianna Wynne Jones is just what you are looking for. Archers Goon, Homeward Bounders. Shes an amazing storyteller. Also Terry Pratchett, comedy sci-fi, very funny and accessible.
Consider the reverse: only consciousness itself could propose quantum theory, let alone explain it. Consciousness is prior. Isn't that obvious? Any "explanation" of consciousness by quantum theory would necessarily be contained in consciousness, which would make the "explanation" less than, or incomplete. Unless physicists are proposing an epistemology based on a theory of unconsciousness, which would necessarily be, well, stupid.
Why comment on it when you don't have the slightest interest in it? I think you have a slight interest. Also while you are right that the main plot has been done before, this movie adds a lot of nuance, and a thoughtful environmental message. Anyway, the movie is worth seeing for the sheer beauty of it. Go see it!
Objected. "Just entertainment" has powerful effects on humans, including me and you. There are tons of examples of movies that shifted society and how we think about it. Movies are art--some of it bad, some of it great, like Avatar. The fact that it is commercial art doesn't make it less artful--it's just a constraint of the medium.
This movie actually is deep, and merits a deep discussion.
Agreed. The film was not anti-technology. I thought it was anti-ugly. The local "technology" of plugging into trees and animals was a lot like USB.
The film was multi-layered and nuanced. The main message was to wake up, respect, and deal with the consequences of ecosystems, local cultures, and other ways of seeing. I loved it.
I propose we create the Human Citizenship Database, an open-source identification system that lets anyone identify themselves, and identifies every person as a person independently of their government.
People could register themselves and their property in countries where personhood and property are not always well-respected, for instance, Zimbabwe, Cameroon and the USA.
In the 1980's CBS' "60 Minutes" repeatedly aired an article about "unintended acceleration", including a dramatic interview with a woman who ran over and killed her 6-year-old son. Audi sales were severely affected for years. In the end, the consensus among engineers is that drivers were pressing on the gas pedal when they thought it was the brake. In the case of the 6-year-old, the accelerator pedal was mashed heavily into the floor mat. For obvious psychological reasons, the woman could not admit she was pressing the gas. The Toyota situation of unintended acceleration is probably an urban legend. We will see.
The new model of human personality http://bit.ly/L1iM5 suggests that jocks would tend to be high in extraversion and low in agreeableness; whereas nerds would be low in extraversion and high in agreeableness. CEO's, political leaders and pro athletes tend toward the jock version. So if the geeks want to rule, they (ahem, I ) have to create a system that pushes power toward modes of action and decision-making that favor intelligence and agreeableness over bluster and force. Open source government, anyone?
Agreed--having a restrictive and enforceable media policy protects the self-expression inherent in Burning Man--even if it's not enforced all that often, if I find an online picture of me that captures a moment I would prefer live only in my memory, I can ask BM to ask for it to be taken down. I like that protection.
Also, the media restriction is in the spirit of Burning Man--encouraging people to participate, to live in the moment, rather than recording the moment for some later moment. At Burning Man, it's better to dance than to take pictures! And if someone is serious about recording Burning Man, they can make special arrangements with the organizers--AND they have to follow some basic rules of politeness, which many of the default world media-lites seem to have abandoned.
For the video part, get a black AA-powered Flip camera (http://www.theflip.com/products_flip_ultra.shtml).
Super-light, rugged, no moving parts except the flip-out USB. My 10-year-old has had one for months and it doesn't break. It takes an hour of video on built-in flash, and has amazingly good sound and video quality. Also you don't hold it up to your eye, and it doesn't look like you are pointing anything at anyone, so it is safer for you brother.
Assuming ourselves as separate conscious beings in a world of unconscious objects is an epistemological tautology. Where could *anything* exist except in awareness? Please, show me something outside of awareness--anything!
"Soul" can only be an invention of language, appearing in awareness as a concept-object. Each of us is equally qualified from the authority of our own souls to answer the questions of whether machines have souls, or can have souls, or what a "soul" is. In my view, the initial assumption, inherent in the question, of the external existence of some bounded class of unconscious objects called "machines" seems insane. Of course machines are conscious--the exhibit every characteristic of machine-consciousness.
Maybe when the machines successfully imitate human-consciousness, we will say they have souls.
Harvard neuroscientist Larry Farwell has been doing this kind of thing for years. His work is peer-reviewed, and he has gotten some falsely convicted people out of jail.
If the technique is reliable, then society has an interest in determining guilt. DNA testing has been the same way.
http://www.brainfingerprint.com/
"points out that there was not a whole lot of energy devoted to lifting up the world's poor during Bill's three decades at Microsoft."
Come on, the guy gave away most of his billions to help humanity. Give him some credit.
Carping about the way he did it, or that he didn't do it soon enough, or whatever is petty.
http://www.bronzebowpublishing.com/trinity-health-and-fitness-dvds
These guys are cheezy, but the workout really works. It is super-portable and easily private. It's got a Christian flavor which you can ignore or enjoy, as you like. I get great results with this, and I feel good when I do these machine-free exercises. I'm not commercially or personally associated.
I just flew Virgin from San Francisco to London on Wednesday, and they indeed made an announcement telling people who wanted to use Dell and Apple laptops to identify themselves to a flight attendant. Personally I don't want to be on the plane when a battery explodes, but I'm hoping it's a conversation with the passenger about whether their computer is included in the recalll, whether they participated in the recall, and where an outlet is if they have a vulnerable computer, rather than a blanket ban.
I've written or co-written several business plans and edited dozens. I've been an investor and entrpreneur had every result: no money, angel money, VC money. I suggest that your plan is important, but it's not what's going to get you funded. Who you approach and how is more important. You generally need to re-write a plan for each type of audience: angel, strategic partner, VC, friends and family. A four-page summary can be more effective than a 50-page business plan with 10-year financials. Making an approach with a trusted introduction is *much* better than a cold presentation.
There's a lot of good advice in the postings already, but a crucial piece that I don't see yet is that the people you take the money from are more important than the money. You should absolutely pay more attention to the source than to the money: turn down good terms from people you don't like (so-called "stupid money"), and accept it from people that you feel have the right stuff and track record to help you succeeed.
I'm a big believer in angels, angel networks and the like. Angels are not hard to find; just network to them and look for formal networks on the web. Raising money is a full-time job--talk, talk, talk, or partner immediately with someone who can.
And, I second the advice to start a business small, with your own money and sweat, if you can and it is that kind of business, with the caveat that you *must* create a team of diverse talents and viewpoints to succeed, and it is definitely worth it to give up equity on a success basis to business and marketing partners who you really like.
That's long already, but if you want more, contact me.
Slashdot Mirror
... after I filed an informal complaint to the FCC about their data usage calculations and trying to sell me on a much more expensive plan ($40 per line per month for four lines). I asked them how they knew about my complaint and the guy whoâ(TM)ll called said they saw my name and cell number on the complaint. So companies are either notified, or they monitor the complaint stream.
Well said. Bravo.
However, what is really happening on the ground is that past campaign finance reforms are CAUSING political corruption.
Campaign finance reform laws are being used to criminalize and complicate political participation. Right now in Texas, Wisconsin, Montana, Nevada and Arizona there are cases of minor politicians and citizens being criminally charged with campaign finance violations that are civil violations of complex rules.
The nub of the problem is that "corruption" is defined too broadly. There is a widespread assumption that campaign donations corrupt our politicians. First, this notion is largely unproven. Second, it dilutes the notion of real corruption, which is bribery, vote-buying and misuse of public power for private gain. Real corruption is highly illegal and we have good laws for that.
"Fake corruption" is really just free speech, and certain people don't like what other people are using their free speech for. They are afraid to let Americans listen and decide for themselves. "Campaign finance reform" should be called "muzzle the political process reform". There's no bogeyman of rich plutocrats who can buy American elections. There are rich people, left and right, who are politically, legally, active and who pay to get their message out. GOOD! We should have an active, raucous, loud, free political process.
So what if they influence politics! Politicians are there because voters put them there. Voters. Not anyone else.
If you are afraid that "corrupt plutocrats are buying elections", then that just means you don't trust your fellow voters, or worse, you want to control them, what they can listen to, what they can say.
Ad hominem attacks are intellectually dishonest. Your insults are not useful to your cause. "the elected person is now beholden to the piece of shit corrupt plutocrat" may or may not be true. You are making a big assumption, and a big leap of reason in attributing the gratitude of the winning politician to some of the people who gave him money to pay for his campaign staff, advertisements, travel and other costs of running a campaign. The reason the politician won, was not because he received money. It's because he received votes. Influencing votes with advertisements is called free speech. It's a good thing. Supporting candidates with financial contributions is called political participation. It's a good thing. In the end, voters decide. Money does not decide. Voters. The politician wins because he got more votes than anyone else. There are thousands of examples of the person with more money losing an election. Money is not the same as winning an election. Votes are far more valuable than money in winning an election. If you believe that votes can be purchased with advertising, you are wrong. Votes may be influenced, but that influence has a limit. More money, after a very reasonable point, does not mean more votes. The threshold of greatly diminishing returns in US Congressional elections is $500,000. Once you have $500k, you are in the race, even if your opponent has $100m.
Amazing British author Dianna Wynne Jones is just what you are looking for. Archers Goon, Homeward Bounders. Shes an amazing storyteller. Also Terry Pratchett, comedy sci-fi, very funny and accessible.
Consider the reverse: only consciousness itself could propose quantum theory, let alone explain it. Consciousness is prior. Isn't that obvious? Any "explanation" of consciousness by quantum theory would necessarily be contained in consciousness, which would make the "explanation" less than, or incomplete. Unless physicists are proposing an epistemology based on a theory of unconsciousness, which would necessarily be, well, stupid.
The Institute of Economics and Peace reports that the global peace dividend would be $7.2 trillion per year, or about 8.1% of the global economy. http://www.visionofhumanity.org/causes-value-peace/economic-growth.php
Why comment on it when you don't have the slightest interest in it? I think you have a slight interest. Also while you are right that the main plot has been done before, this movie adds a lot of nuance, and a thoughtful environmental message. Anyway, the movie is worth seeing for the sheer beauty of it. Go see it!
Objected. "Just entertainment" has powerful effects on humans, including me and you. There are tons of examples of movies that shifted society and how we think about it. Movies are art--some of it bad, some of it great, like Avatar. The fact that it is commercial art doesn't make it less artful--it's just a constraint of the medium.
This movie actually is deep, and merits a deep discussion.
The film was multi-layered and nuanced. The main message was to wake up, respect, and deal with the consequences of ecosystems, local cultures, and other ways of seeing. I loved it.
People could register themselves and their property in countries where personhood and property are not always well-respected, for instance, Zimbabwe, Cameroon and the USA.
phon = sound
So, he must be speaking a foreign language. Australian, I guess. Fair dinkum!
In the 1980's CBS' "60 Minutes" repeatedly aired an article about "unintended acceleration", including a dramatic interview with a woman who ran over and killed her 6-year-old son. Audi sales were severely affected for years. In the end, the consensus among engineers is that drivers were pressing on the gas pedal when they thought it was the brake. In the case of the 6-year-old, the accelerator pedal was mashed heavily into the floor mat. For obvious psychological reasons, the woman could not admit she was pressing the gas. The Toyota situation of unintended acceleration is probably an urban legend. We will see.
The new model of human personality http://bit.ly/L1iM5 suggests that jocks would tend to be high in extraversion and low in agreeableness; whereas nerds would be low in extraversion and high in agreeableness. CEO's, political leaders and pro athletes tend toward the jock version. So if the geeks want to rule, they (ahem, I ) have to create a system that pushes power toward modes of action and decision-making that favor intelligence and agreeableness over bluster and force. Open source government, anyone?
Agreed--having a restrictive and enforceable media policy protects the self-expression inherent in Burning Man--even if it's not enforced all that often, if I find an online picture of me that captures a moment I would prefer live only in my memory, I can ask BM to ask for it to be taken down. I like that protection. Also, the media restriction is in the spirit of Burning Man--encouraging people to participate, to live in the moment, rather than recording the moment for some later moment. At Burning Man, it's better to dance than to take pictures! And if someone is serious about recording Burning Man, they can make special arrangements with the organizers--AND they have to follow some basic rules of politeness, which many of the default world media-lites seem to have abandoned.
For the video part, get a black AA-powered Flip camera (http://www.theflip.com/products_flip_ultra.shtml). Super-light, rugged, no moving parts except the flip-out USB. My 10-year-old has had one for months and it doesn't break. It takes an hour of video on built-in flash, and has amazingly good sound and video quality. Also you don't hold it up to your eye, and it doesn't look like you are pointing anything at anyone, so it is safer for you brother.
"Soul" can only be an invention of language, appearing in awareness as a concept-object. Each of us is equally qualified from the authority of our own souls to answer the questions of whether machines have souls, or can have souls, or what a "soul" is. In my view, the initial assumption, inherent in the question, of the external existence of some bounded class of unconscious objects called "machines" seems insane. Of course machines are conscious--the exhibit every characteristic of machine-consciousness.
Maybe when the machines successfully imitate human-consciousness, we will say they have souls.
Harvard neuroscientist Larry Farwell has been doing this kind of thing for years. His work is peer-reviewed, and he has gotten some falsely convicted people out of jail. If the technique is reliable, then society has an interest in determining guilt. DNA testing has been the same way. http://www.brainfingerprint.com/
"points out that there was not a whole lot of energy devoted to lifting up the world's poor during Bill's three decades at Microsoft." Come on, the guy gave away most of his billions to help humanity. Give him some credit. Carping about the way he did it, or that he didn't do it soon enough, or whatever is petty.
http://www.bronzebowpublishing.com/trinity-health-and-fitness-dvds These guys are cheezy, but the workout really works. It is super-portable and easily private. It's got a Christian flavor which you can ignore or enjoy, as you like. I get great results with this, and I feel good when I do these machine-free exercises. I'm not commercially or personally associated.
I just flew Virgin from San Francisco to London on Wednesday, and they indeed made an announcement telling people who wanted to use Dell and Apple laptops to identify themselves to a flight attendant. Personally I don't want to be on the plane when a battery explodes, but I'm hoping it's a conversation with the passenger about whether their computer is included in the recalll, whether they participated in the recall, and where an outlet is if they have a vulnerable computer, rather than a blanket ban.
There's a lot of good advice in the postings already, but a crucial piece that I don't see yet is that the people you take the money from are more important than the money. You should absolutely pay more attention to the source than to the money: turn down good terms from people you don't like (so-called "stupid money"), and accept it from people that you feel have the right stuff and track record to help you succeeed.
I'm a big believer in angels, angel networks and the like. Angels are not hard to find; just network to them and look for formal networks on the web. Raising money is a full-time job--talk, talk, talk, or partner immediately with someone who can.
And, I second the advice to start a business small, with your own money and sweat, if you can and it is that kind of business, with the caveat that you *must* create a team of diverse talents and viewpoints to succeed, and it is definitely worth it to give up equity on a success basis to business and marketing partners who you really like.
That's long already, but if you want more, contact me.