From my limited understanding of human psychology, I detest polls or referring to them as evidence at all. The wording of the question as well as the order in which the questions were asked affect it too much. Polls are just another example I have of where I believe that the plebians are getting info fed right down their throat. Supply leading demand instead of demand leading supply.
You're missing the entire point. It isn't about restricting technological advancement. My point is you shouldn't tolerate your government or society aiding any other group on this planet to kill another group on this planet, unless it is a direct and immediate threat from an unreasonable enemy. And the only reason it is available from us is because we sell it to them. CAPITALISM IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?!
I feel like the whole world is crazy and they just don't see it.
The differences are measures in orders of magnitude, though. Especially considering the speed at which we can communicate now. Without the widespread use of advanced weaponry, the cost of life will be limited while a resolution can be attained.
Why add fuel to the fire though? If the end result of any action is supposed to be peace (I can't imagine an argument against wanting peace at large), and all people are equal, than how can you accept knowingly that there are businesses around you built on perpetuating (Or at least de-incentivized to stopping) a violent cycle for the sake of taking the resources of a land which should be used for the betterment of the people of the nation.
All I'm saying is that the economic wealth we enjoy (and if you're using a computer on the internet right now, you're probably one of the "we" I am referring to) is built solely on the pain and suffering of many throughout the globe.
Furthermore, just because something has been going on for a long time doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make things better. Is this the ideal world you want? Is this the kind of world you want to hand down to the next generation? We all have different desires, and we all in our own way try to push the world around us in the direction of these desires, be it wanting to get a good job so you study hard or wanting to get up to get a drink. But peace is a common desire we all share, and this isn't something we should laugh about, or mock someone for being an idealistic hippie.
I acknowledge that violent conflict is sometimes unfortunately necessary to achieve peace, however. But pursuing violent conflict which doesn't have the immediate intention of achieving peace is an assault on the dignity of human kind, a blow to the single thread which gathers together all sane, reasonable men.
I was going to put the obligitory "sure go ahead mod me down" thing here, but this is really what I believe, so if you don't like it, then maybe I'm the crazy one.
Perhaps we can start by stopping our selling of weapons to them. It is revolting to the point where I almost want to cry that the American weapons manufacturers get rich off of essentially helping people kill each other easier. If the same materials and energy went into providing them with infrastructure instead of weapons then I couldn't imagine the world we'd be in now.
This however is another paradoxical example of where it is impossible to tell if it is demand driving supply or supply driving demand, just as with news media and entertainment. I always prefer to go on the assumption that the supply is driving the demand, because if I'm wrong, at least I'm erring on the side of reason and intelligence.
Your ignorance in your statement is incredible. You don't know who I am or what I've done in the military. I am not going to further justify your assumptions on that topic.
However, on the topic of the money, if we did not go on imperialistic rampages throughout the world, we could spend much less on defense and have just as competent a force for when military action is required.
It always seems those that try to practice game theory in real life always seem to neglect that being nice to each other has advantages in the game as well; and that being mean can offset any of the apparent gains had from following a skewed model that would ignore human emotion.
My point isn't to praise in any way the people that aren't performing to that standard. It is the fact that they exist almost as a reminder as to what not to do. Sort of a "without night there is no day" kind of thing.
You make a good point with the dangers that loom. You should read if you haven't "The Singularity Is Near" by Ray Kurzweil. It has some good ideas as to how to deal with this topic with nanotech and AI.
Things don't start off perfect, or even good. They get there by wading through the mistakes and learning from the garbage you see. When you lose, don't lose the lesson.
I've always wondered about using StumbleUpon as a distribution method. I wonder if it is possible in such an exploit somehow force your profile to Thumbs Up the infected page, making it spread at a maximum exponential rate, since the rating system would only have to be vulnerable on the client side, I imagine.
My larger point though is that in a web where the actual URL of content is becoming more and more meaningless as meta sites start to coagulate content around them, what do users on the client side have to be able to combat such tactics? Is it reasonable to expect some sort of server side content awareness for such content sharing sites. A pruning mechanism of sorts seems like a necessity if you wouldn't want to contribute to the threat.
Every time I see anyone reference Edison in any kind of positive way, I just feel morally obligated to point out that him along with JP Morgan were some of the biggest assholes in science.
The real name we should remember with awe and praise is Nikolai Tesla. He deserves the spot in history that Edison unjustly occupies and he deserves at least me trying to make the effort to point this out to you all, even if I get modded down for being off topic. He deserves better.
I don't think it is reasonable to think that video games in themselves are a significant issue, however they act as a good canary for determining the desirability of a certain candidate.
If a candidate wants to have government influence in the entertainment industry, they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government and are probably more likely to carry this mentality into other duties.
This wanders into dangerous territory for science that gives our critics in the religious community stronger footing with which to criticize science I believe. Aren't the phenomena we observe in the universe around us supposed to be able to build solutions and models of understanding from the ground up instead of from the top down as proposed ideas such as this one attempt to convey?
Also this seems like it may be an A is B but B is not A fallacy, potentially. But I suppose in a quantum universe this explanation may really be just as viable as any other.
Also, that goes on the assumption, which I find a bit offensive, that there are indeed two different types of intelligences in this world. I believe that the "weak minded" you refer to are indeed the same as you and I, but it is the system itself, which has a vested interest in keeping them "weak minded", is the cause of the widespread ignorance and stupidity. They will not know what they are not exposed to, and the church prevents exposure to any other ideas until they are well out of childhood and already heavily indoctrinated.
Oh, I'm well aware of these, I meant discussing these topics on public venues such as mass media. But obviously they have a vested interest in not pursuing these.
Can't the money be spent on finding reasons WHY the crimes are caused in the first place?
Oh I'm sorry, apparently asking "why" somehow rationalizes their actions, just like why we can't talk about the reasons WHY terrorists want to kill us.
The question "why" is so dangerous to people in this country for one single reason: religion. Yeah, mod me down offtopic or troll, or something else... but you know it is true. When people seriously start asking "why" about everything around them they will inevitably realize that religion is a joke. I guess people have too much pride to be able to look at their past selves and laugh at their stupid beliefs. Yes I just called your beliefs stupid, now ask yourself "why does he say that" instead of accusing me of persecuting you.
There are methods of preventing kids from seeing these things that do not rely on censorship. My point is that focusing on those methods is the best alternative. Privacy screens, sections with no children seated (which is adjacent to bathroom so their path never crosses no children zones), but to make a jump to censorship first instead of these other (probably cheaper) alternatives is very telling of the mentality of people.
Instead of going through the effort of having a reasonable preventative system, you'd rather take the lazy way out and justify it with the idea that it is in the children's best interest.
I agree that there are certain things that you can't put into context simply because the child has no foundation on the subject with which you can build a healthy understanding, but the first ideas when trying to protect children should not intersect with anyone else's freedoms. The only cases where freedoms such as this should be not allowed are when there are no other alternatives to causing undue trauma or harm.
I'm not a nutter, and was mostly playing devil's advocate with my previous post.
Slashdot Mirror
From my limited understanding of human psychology, I detest polls or referring to them as evidence at all. The wording of the question as well as the order in which the questions were asked affect it too much. Polls are just another example I have of where I believe that the plebians are getting info fed right down their throat. Supply leading demand instead of demand leading supply.
You're missing the entire point. It isn't about restricting technological advancement. My point is you shouldn't tolerate your government or society aiding any other group on this planet to kill another group on this planet, unless it is a direct and immediate threat from an unreasonable enemy. And the only reason it is available from us is because we sell it to them. CAPITALISM IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO KILL OTHER PEOPLE DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?!
I feel like the whole world is crazy and they just don't see it.
The differences are measures in orders of magnitude, though. Especially considering the speed at which we can communicate now. Without the widespread use of advanced weaponry, the cost of life will be limited while a resolution can be attained.
Why add fuel to the fire though? If the end result of any action is supposed to be peace (I can't imagine an argument against wanting peace at large), and all people are equal, than how can you accept knowingly that there are businesses around you built on perpetuating (Or at least de-incentivized to stopping) a violent cycle for the sake of taking the resources of a land which should be used for the betterment of the people of the nation.
All I'm saying is that the economic wealth we enjoy (and if you're using a computer on the internet right now, you're probably one of the "we" I am referring to) is built solely on the pain and suffering of many throughout the globe.
Furthermore, just because something has been going on for a long time doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to make things better. Is this the ideal world you want? Is this the kind of world you want to hand down to the next generation? We all have different desires, and we all in our own way try to push the world around us in the direction of these desires, be it wanting to get a good job so you study hard or wanting to get up to get a drink. But peace is a common desire we all share, and this isn't something we should laugh about, or mock someone for being an idealistic hippie.
I acknowledge that violent conflict is sometimes unfortunately necessary to achieve peace, however. But pursuing violent conflict which doesn't have the immediate intention of achieving peace is an assault on the dignity of human kind, a blow to the single thread which gathers together all sane, reasonable men.
I was going to put the obligitory "sure go ahead mod me down" thing here, but this is really what I believe, so if you don't like it, then maybe I'm the crazy one.
Perhaps we can start by stopping our selling of weapons to them. It is revolting to the point where I almost want to cry that the American weapons manufacturers get rich off of essentially helping people kill each other easier. If the same materials and energy went into providing them with infrastructure instead of weapons then I couldn't imagine the world we'd be in now.
This however is another paradoxical example of where it is impossible to tell if it is demand driving supply or supply driving demand, just as with news media and entertainment. I always prefer to go on the assumption that the supply is driving the demand, because if I'm wrong, at least I'm erring on the side of reason and intelligence.
Or I was just too lazy to do it myself :D
Your ignorance in your statement is incredible. You don't know who I am or what I've done in the military. I am not going to further justify your assumptions on that topic.
:)
However, on the topic of the money, if we did not go on imperialistic rampages throughout the world, we could spend much less on defense and have just as competent a force for when military action is required.
Asshole.
How much do we spend yearly on the pentagon again?
It always seems those that try to practice game theory in real life always seem to neglect that being nice to each other has advantages in the game as well; and that being mean can offset any of the apparent gains had from following a skewed model that would ignore human emotion.
:(
The *IAAs just need a bit of lovin'
My point isn't to praise in any way the people that aren't performing to that standard. It is the fact that they exist almost as a reminder as to what not to do. Sort of a "without night there is no day" kind of thing.
You make a good point with the dangers that loom. You should read if you haven't "The Singularity Is Near" by Ray Kurzweil. It has some good ideas as to how to deal with this topic with nanotech and AI.
Elitist much? Shortsighted perhaps?
Things don't start off perfect, or even good. They get there by wading through the mistakes and learning from the garbage you see. When you lose, don't lose the lesson.
They kinda already tried this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb
Atheism is like a religion as bald is a hair colour.
Rational response.
I've always wondered about using StumbleUpon as a distribution method. I wonder if it is possible in such an exploit somehow force your profile to Thumbs Up the infected page, making it spread at a maximum exponential rate, since the rating system would only have to be vulnerable on the client side, I imagine.
My larger point though is that in a web where the actual URL of content is becoming more and more meaningless as meta sites start to coagulate content around them, what do users on the client side have to be able to combat such tactics? Is it reasonable to expect some sort of server side content awareness for such content sharing sites. A pruning mechanism of sorts seems like a necessity if you wouldn't want to contribute to the threat.
I'm not really into Pokemon.
Oh god. Oh god. I am SO excited about this! I can finally live out my dream of being a pirate hacker! I think I just found my calling in life!
Raiding ship to ship, carrying off booty in binary, sword fights, parrots, wenches! ARRRRGH
*head asplodes*
Every time I see anyone reference Edison in any kind of positive way, I just feel morally obligated to point out that him along with JP Morgan were some of the biggest assholes in science.
The real name we should remember with awe and praise is Nikolai Tesla. He deserves the spot in history that Edison unjustly occupies and he deserves at least me trying to make the effort to point this out to you all, even if I get modded down for being off topic. He deserves better.
I don't think it is reasonable to think that video games in themselves are a significant issue, however they act as a good canary for determining the desirability of a certain candidate.
If a candidate wants to have government influence in the entertainment industry, they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government and are probably more likely to carry this mentality into other duties.
This wanders into dangerous territory for science that gives our critics in the religious community stronger footing with which to criticize science I believe. Aren't the phenomena we observe in the universe around us supposed to be able to build solutions and models of understanding from the ground up instead of from the top down as proposed ideas such as this one attempt to convey? Also this seems like it may be an A is B but B is not A fallacy, potentially. But I suppose in a quantum universe this explanation may really be just as viable as any other.
http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=18812
Also, that goes on the assumption, which I find a bit offensive, that there are indeed two different types of intelligences in this world. I believe that the "weak minded" you refer to are indeed the same as you and I, but it is the system itself, which has a vested interest in keeping them "weak minded", is the cause of the widespread ignorance and stupidity. They will not know what they are not exposed to, and the church prevents exposure to any other ideas until they are well out of childhood and already heavily indoctrinated.
Oh, I'm well aware of these, I meant discussing these topics on public venues such as mass media. But obviously they have a vested interest in not pursuing these.
Can't the money be spent on finding reasons WHY the crimes are caused in the first place?
Oh I'm sorry, apparently asking "why" somehow rationalizes their actions, just like why we can't talk about the reasons WHY terrorists want to kill us.
The question "why" is so dangerous to people in this country for one single reason: religion. Yeah, mod me down offtopic or troll, or something else... but you know it is true. When people seriously start asking "why" about everything around them they will inevitably realize that religion is a joke. I guess people have too much pride to be able to look at their past selves and laugh at their stupid beliefs. Yes I just called your beliefs stupid, now ask yourself "why does he say that" instead of accusing me of persecuting you.
There are methods of preventing kids from seeing these things that do not rely on censorship. My point is that focusing on those methods is the best alternative. Privacy screens, sections with no children seated (which is adjacent to bathroom so their path never crosses no children zones), but to make a jump to censorship first instead of these other (probably cheaper) alternatives is very telling of the mentality of people.
Instead of going through the effort of having a reasonable preventative system, you'd rather take the lazy way out and justify it with the idea that it is in the children's best interest.
I agree that there are certain things that you can't put into context simply because the child has no foundation on the subject with which you can build a healthy understanding, but the first ideas when trying to protect children should not intersect with anyone else's freedoms. The only cases where freedoms such as this should be not allowed are when there are no other alternatives to causing undue trauma or harm.
I'm not a nutter, and was mostly playing devil's advocate with my previous post.
If every moment isn't a teaching moment for your kid, then you're doing something wrong.