When there's no law, there are market incentives to Do The Right Thing. (If you fail to Do The Right Thing, your customers get pissed off and leave.)
Or else all the major companies end up adopting deceptive market practices because they think deception will increase profits.
Libertarians seem to have an awfully hard time with the notion that, because large businesses are far better organized than consumers, they can easily conspire or manipulate the market to eliminate competition, since competition is bad for profits.
In practice, the high cost of entry into any particular field, especially when it means competing with an already established entity, can make these tactics effective at eliminating competition for a particular market.
Take as just one example the fact that General Motors could literally buy the public transport system in... I think it was Ohio... and trash it so that people would buy more cars.
And considering that Ford's analysis regarding the defective fuel tank on the pinto ran "how much will lawsuits cost, and will the anticipated cost justify fixing the problem" it becomes clear that many corporations are willing to exploit incomplete consumer knowledge of the market to make as much money as they can.
Corporations are using the law to support their interests. I'll do what I can to use the law tu support mine. I don't buy the whole 'market forces' theoretical argument. I've seen it fail to fix problems too many times in real life (i.e. whenever there's an industry with a high cost of entry for new participants).
I do take "Evolution as a basis for morality" to mean "believing that it's morally good to maximize one's reproductive success."
Humans are social animals; rape doesn't necessarily confer improved reproductive success if your fellow humans confine, sterilize, or kill you. And making the mother else raise your child alone may leave your genes in greater peril than if you'd had a hand in it yourself.
True, but you're still left with the notion of successful and unsuccessful rapes, a concept most people would find abhorent. I was trying to show the implications of the poster's premises.
I could say that "carrying on my legacy [in robot form?] after I die", as an abstract philosophical principle, is an extension of my own natural "selfishness", hubris, or whatever.
You could do that, sure, but we still don't have an obligation to do it. I admit an economic obligation or millitary 'obligation' could eventually force us to take this path ( I'd like to see more movies along these lines, rather than simplistic millitary 'Us vs. Them' shoot-outs). But the poster implied that we might have an obligation to create superior beings for their own sake, and thus be diminished in importance by our act. I don't think there's any obligation to make machines outside of our own selfishness or, in your case, vanity.
And yes, there are a lot of people who believe a lot of different things.
I understand Rand's insight in trying to provide a moral basis for capitalism, considering that the commonly cited religious ones just don't cut it. However, I don't buy what she's selling. I read The Fountainhead at the same time I read Buckmisnter Fuller's biography. I think their philosophical contrasts, despite working on common problems (technolgical entrenchment in architecture, organization of humans, etc.) was interesting to say the least, but I agree with Fuller's attitude much more than Rand's.
"Evolution" is not a good basis for morality. If evolution were the basis of someone's morality, then being able to rape a girl, get her pregnant, and have her raise your kid without supporting her would make you more 'successful' from an evolutionary standpoint. It's won't make you 'successful' though. It's a viciously evil, psychotic, disgusting thing to do.
The word "fittest" in 'survival of the fittest' does not mean 'strongest' or 'smartest' but 'the most successfully selfish'. An evolutionarily successful animal is one that has lots of grandkids. What is the point in designing a robot that is successfully selfish?
To put things another way, why shouldn't people place importance on themselves? It seems you're contradicting yourself here. If you do see evolution as the basis of your morality, then humans SHOULD see their own individual needs as the most important things on earth, and to hell with things like 'truth' or 'beauty.' Deviations from this selfishness would just be so that people could get along better and organize themselves more effectively. In short, unselfish acts would be done for selfish reasons. If we base our morality on our evolved desires (I don't), then if robots can't serve our selfish interests, we have no obligation to create them.
There's somthing to be said for a moral aesthetic based on how well a tool or person does its job, but you're still left with my favorite Kurt Vonnegut question; "what are people for?
Interesting that I was reading this article while re-reading Vonnegut's "Player Piano." Probably one of the best books he wrote, in terms of style and clarity.
If you want, you can still use Geocentric models of the solar system to calculate astronomical events. Heliocentric models are far simpler, but there are no priveldged frames of reference in Physics, so you can do it.
I'd like to see Nader or some other candidate focus his resources on two or three states and win the electoral votes there. That'd be enough votes to sway the election one way or another, and thus it'd be powerful negotiating power.
With the possibility of victory, 3rd parties could overcome the stigma that a vote for them is 'wasted.'
Ross Perot, with all his money and even political support, spent a huge amount of effort trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
While it's possible for a 3rd party to win, they have to put a lot of effort into getting things (like their name on the ballot, funding, etc) that the two offical parties get for free.
When Ventura won in Minnesota, a lot of states uppped their standards for what it took to get on the ballot and related accomplishments for 3rd parties. Under many of the new rules, Ventura would never have been allowed to have participated in the debates that were given a lot of credit for his success.
While I agree with a lot of your comments, I don't think your comment on American Cultre not being respected holds.
Even when America was in Vietnam inciting a civil war, American music was popular there. I recently spent several months in China, where pirated American movies and American music is never more than a 10 minute walk away.
American culture may be low brow, but it is watched worldwide.
While Global Warming is a problem, it's noteworthy that even the most conservative models for global warming predicted effects ten times as severe as what we're observing.
As long as there's the internet, no one is too confined to their own culture.
Regarding reality TV; Survivor was originally European, incidentally.
But hey, I'm sick of fat people and ugly people too. Oh, and anonymous cowards too.
Rumor has it that this search feature will offer a side bar advertising various work that you should be doing instead of searching your hard drive for porn. If a user chooses to click through to the work they should be working on, a small amount of money will be deducted from said user's credit card.
This clickthrough model may help to move the market of hard drive scanning, currently bundled with free and single fee operating systems, to a fee-for-service basis. Many in industry say the revenues from this would be helpful in supporting further hard drive scanning innovations.
My paretns had sex all the time, but they managed to keep it down to two kids.
If it really bothers you that much, try adding some kind of male birth control to the mix. I believe they have subcutaneous implants for guys. Or just get the big boy or yourself fixed if you're through having little ones.
And you know that there are a lot of pills for girls, but everything has side effects. Even Viagra.
Of course, that might fuck up your lipstick, but ain't it worth it....
What's wrong with condoms? Get some without spermicide. Couple that with the 'rythem method.' Find a guy who's willing to cope and if he's not, ditch him.
Try grape seed extrat. It contains a lipase inhibitor which prevents your body from digesting all the fat you eat. Caloric restriction, coupled with proper nutrition, is the one proven way to extend lifespan and prevent aging in almost all creatures, including people.
Slashdot Mirror
If I'm getting screwed, it should be considered porn.
I'm not the least surprised. Hell, it happens in every other prison in the states. I don't know why Iraq would be any better.
When there's no law, there are market incentives to Do The Right Thing. (If you fail to Do The Right Thing, your customers get pissed off and leave.)
Or else all the major companies end up adopting deceptive market practices because they think deception will increase profits.
Libertarians seem to have an awfully hard time with the notion that, because large businesses are far better organized than consumers, they can easily conspire or manipulate the market to eliminate competition, since competition is bad for profits.
In practice, the high cost of entry into any particular field, especially when it means competing with an already established entity, can make these tactics effective at eliminating competition for a particular market.
Take as just one example the fact that General Motors could literally buy the public transport system in... I think it was Ohio... and trash it so that people would buy more cars.
And considering that Ford's analysis regarding the defective fuel tank on the pinto ran "how much will lawsuits cost, and will the anticipated cost justify fixing the problem" it becomes clear that many corporations are willing to exploit incomplete consumer knowledge of the market to make as much money as they can.
Corporations are using the law to support their interests. I'll do what I can to use the law tu support mine. I don't buy the whole 'market forces' theoretical argument. I've seen it fail to fix problems too many times in real life (i.e. whenever there's an industry with a high cost of entry for new participants).
Copernican theory didn't postulate gravity. It postulated weightless, massless 'spheres' and similarly massless heavenly bodies.
I do take "Evolution as a basis for morality" to mean "believing that it's morally good to maximize one's reproductive success."
Humans are social animals; rape doesn't necessarily confer improved reproductive success if your fellow humans confine, sterilize, or kill you. And making the mother else raise your child alone may leave your genes in greater peril than if you'd had a hand in it yourself.
True, but you're still left with the notion of successful and unsuccessful rapes, a concept most people would find abhorent. I was trying to show the implications of the poster's premises.
I could say that "carrying on my legacy [in robot form?] after I die", as an abstract philosophical principle, is an extension of my own natural "selfishness", hubris, or whatever.
You could do that, sure, but we still don't have an obligation to do it. I admit an economic obligation or millitary 'obligation' could eventually force us to take this path ( I'd like to see more movies along these lines, rather than simplistic millitary 'Us vs. Them' shoot-outs). But the poster implied that we might have an obligation to create superior beings for their own sake, and thus be diminished in importance by our act. I don't think there's any obligation to make machines outside of our own selfishness or, in your case, vanity.
And yes, there are a lot of people who believe a lot of different things.
I understand Rand's insight in trying to provide a moral basis for capitalism, considering that the commonly cited religious ones just don't cut it. However, I don't buy what she's selling. I read The Fountainhead at the same time I read Buckmisnter Fuller's biography. I think their philosophical contrasts, despite working on common problems (technolgical entrenchment in architecture, organization of humans, etc.) was interesting to say the least, but I agree with Fuller's attitude much more than Rand's.
Of course, that's a whole different topic.
"Evolution" is not a good basis for morality.
If evolution were the basis of someone's morality, then being able to rape a girl, get her pregnant, and have her raise your kid without supporting her would make you more 'successful' from an evolutionary standpoint. It's won't make you 'successful' though. It's a viciously evil, psychotic, disgusting thing to do.
The word "fittest" in 'survival of the fittest' does not mean 'strongest' or 'smartest' but 'the most successfully selfish'. An evolutionarily successful animal is one that has lots of grandkids. What is the point in designing a robot that is successfully selfish?
To put things another way, why shouldn't people place importance on themselves? It seems you're contradicting yourself here. If you do see evolution as the basis of your morality, then humans SHOULD see their own individual needs as the most important things on earth, and to hell with things like 'truth' or 'beauty.' Deviations from this selfishness would just be so that people could get along better and organize themselves more effectively. In short, unselfish acts would be done for selfish reasons. If we base our morality on our evolved desires (I don't), then if robots can't serve our selfish interests, we have no obligation to create them.
There's somthing to be said for a moral aesthetic based on how well a tool or person does its job, but you're still left with my favorite Kurt Vonnegut question; "what are people for?
Interesting that I was reading this article while re-reading Vonnegut's "Player Piano." Probably one of the best books he wrote, in terms of style and clarity.
If you want, you can still use Geocentric models of the solar system to calculate astronomical events. Heliocentric models are far simpler, but there are no priveldged frames of reference in Physics, so you can do it.
Maybe. But I doubt she has a scanner too.
I like Howard Stern's slogan. "Redefeat Bush in 2004"
We didn't vote for the bastard the first time. Not that he seems to care.
Why the hell were multiple ballots sent to thousands of millitary folks from Florida anyways?
I'd like to see Nader or some other candidate focus his resources on two or three states and win the electoral votes there. That'd be enough votes to sway the election one way or another, and thus it'd be powerful negotiating power.
With the possibility of victory, 3rd parties could overcome the stigma that a vote for them is 'wasted.'
Ross Perot, with all his money and even political support, spent a huge amount of effort trying to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
While it's possible for a 3rd party to win, they have to put a lot of effort into getting things (like their name on the ballot, funding, etc) that the two offical parties get for free.
When Ventura won in Minnesota, a lot of states uppped their standards for what it took to get on the ballot and related accomplishments for 3rd parties. Under many of the new rules, Ventura would never have been allowed to have participated in the debates that were given a lot of credit for his success.
Sounds like a Canadian waiting to happen.
While I agree with a lot of your comments, I don't think your comment on American Cultre not being respected holds.
Even when America was in Vietnam inciting a civil war, American music was popular there. I recently spent several months in China, where pirated American movies and American music is never more than a 10 minute walk away.
American culture may be low brow, but it is watched worldwide.
While Global Warming is a problem, it's noteworthy that even the most conservative models for global warming predicted effects ten times as severe as what we're observing.
As long as there's the internet, no one is too confined to their own culture.
Regarding reality TV; Survivor was originally European, incidentally.
But hey, I'm sick of fat people and ugly people too. Oh, and anonymous cowards too.
Wake up Neo. The MATRIX has you.
Really, can these guys pick a name with worse symbolism? Skynet, maybe?
The government in China does block outside information. Try getting the "Free Tibet" website in Nanjing.
* a tour guide walks through the SPAM museum with a tour group, and points to a can on a pedestal *
This is the first can of spam that was ever produced by Hormel. It was made in 1937 in Austin, Minn.
Not too long after, it was shipped in mass quantities to Allied forces in Europe, who found it a delicious alternative to starvation.
*Picks up the can on the pedestal, pops it open, sticks a fork in and takes a bite. *
Mmmm. Fresh as the day it was made!
Rumor has it that this search feature will offer a side bar advertising various work that you should be doing instead of searching your hard drive for porn. If a user chooses to click through to the work they should be working on, a small amount of money will be deducted from said user's credit card.
This clickthrough model may help to move the market of hard drive scanning, currently bundled with free and single fee operating systems, to a fee-for-service basis. Many in industry say the revenues from this would be helpful in supporting further hard drive scanning innovations.
It does if you use a condom while you're doing it.
My paretns had sex all the time, but they managed to keep it down to two kids.
If it really bothers you that much, try adding some kind of male birth control to the mix. I believe they have subcutaneous implants for guys. Or just get the big boy or yourself fixed if you're through having little ones.
And you know that there are a lot of pills for girls, but everything has side effects. Even Viagra.
Oral sex?
Of course, that might fuck up your lipstick, but ain't it worth it....
What's wrong with condoms? Get some without spermicide. Couple that with the 'rythem method.'
Find a guy who's willing to cope and if he's not, ditch him.
Q: How do you get a blonde to marry you?
A: Tell her she's pregnant.
Q: What's the first question she'll ask.
A: Is it mine?
Try grape seed extrat. It contains a lipase inhibitor which prevents your body from digesting all the fat you eat. Caloric restriction, coupled with proper nutrition, is the one proven way to extend lifespan and prevent aging in almost all creatures, including people.
Yeah, and then watch them run off and get hepatitis
I'm all for the scammer being scammed - but poetic justice and vigilante justice are not the same.
... I was just wondering.
No they are not - vigilante justice is when the guys showing up at the store have bats instead of cameras. Now do you understand?
If they have bats and cameras, is that poetic vigilante justice?
... looking like a ransom note.