"As for those mothers in Iraq. It's not our fault that they live in a country lead by a madman."
I'm sorry, but I disgaree rather strongly with this statment. There is overwhelming evidence--documents, statements, wires, etc--that the US is more than a *little* responsible for the fact theat their country is lead by a madman. Not only did we support him when he first appeared (the opposition was feared to be more pro-soviet), we armed him. When portions of 'his' own population attempted to rebel (I am thinking of the kurds in the 80s), he proceeded to use these weapons to murder as many as he could.
Of course, this leads to a complex debate concerning the cold war...Let's ignore it for now. After the Gulf war, we could have acted differently, however. It is inconceivable that an economic embargo would get rid of Saddam, given the kind of society he has shaped...he's about the only person who I would expect to be immune from the general carnage such an embargo mnust produce. the predictable result: thousands+ people who hate the US for effectively starving their children.
The US has a history of not removing security threats, but rather exacerbating them. Am I preaching Assassinatoin? Maybe. But more than that, we need to not arm dictators in the first place!
How is this relevant? my earlier intent was to state that many of the threats to natoinal security, terrorist and otherwise, are products of US policy. In many cases, these policies were not designed with the intent of protecting americans. Instead, they have been crafted for political palatability (read:stuff that makes the policy-makers get re-elected) or to satisy the short-term greed of corporate interest (Like the trade policies in Africa that have caused widespread economic devastation. Many there are unhappy with the US as well). If we want to fight terrorism, we will ultimately need to destroy the causes. In some cases, this means that we will need to change current policies and think quite a bit about how we design those policies (i.e., who determines US policy, accountabililty, etc)
This is not a new statement, and has been repeated even here many times. Sorry if I sound a bit redundant; just want to make sure you understand me. Hope the day improves for us all and that nightfall finds you and yours in safety.
In the last 15 minutes or so, several explosions have rocked kabul. Aircraft may have been present. There was anti-aircraft fire. The target appears to be an ammunition dump, but this is also uncertain. Such an attack would be uncharacteristiuc of the northern alliance(oppponents of the dominant taliban regime), whihc have taken considerable flak for hitting civilian targets in the city in the past. The northern alliance forces are also thought to be incapable of launching such an attack (they are tens of miles away).
I hope with all my might that this is not the result of a US attack.
I am certain that there are several hundred thousand mothers in Iraq who would love that statement. I find it rather unfortunate that such sentiments still exist: the "civilized" nature of our (the US) empire has included the support of dictators, genocide, crimes against our own people and against humanity itself, and most recently the subjugation (through economic means) of most of the rest of the world.
We have to take some rezponsbility here. We are responsible for the actions of our government, and, to a lesser extent, the actions of those corporations in which we have some influence. We have eternally permitted and often fostered the existence of anti-US sentiment. We helped to forge the sword that strikes us (Saddam used arms that were mostly givent ot him by the US military, for a physical example. Not really what Im talking about. )
So, what should we do? Barring genocide, the only solution is to make the US a just place, and then spread the ideals of justice and freedom to the rest of the world. The alternative may be extinction. Dont beleieve me? Theink of the tools of the terrorists of the future. Think engineered viruses. Think nanotech. We WILL see theses things in our lifetime. Unless we are all more or less happy--or, barring that, not starving to death in a wasteland created by short-term thinking and greed--Terrorism will never go away. Never. Desperation itself is our foe.
I am presupposing the scarcity of brains and talent, and I am quite sure that this scarcity isn't going to go away whatever technology develops.
1 word: education (well, maybe you can add in neural enhancement through genetic engineering/ nanotech as well). You just wait and see..the entire point behid the "information revolution" is to destroy the monopoly that the higher social strata have possessed on knowledge (along with all of the power that necessarily comes with knowledge) for the totality of human history. It is this monopoly--more than any other single factor--which has guaranteed the subjugation of the mass of humanity and all of the attendant social ills with which we have become so intimately familiar.
In 50 yearz, one can at least fervently hope that the 'knowledge scarcity' you speak of will no longer exist. People everywhere may well be more knowledgeable/intelligent/talented than we can imagine.
If, a few decades from know, the average person has the intellignece of a shakespeare and literary and technical resources which he could not have dreamt of (in heaven, earth, or hell), no IP protection will be necessary. A gift economy could rule effectively. I think we would feel better..things would be done for curiousity, love, scientific fascination, etc--not to temporarily allay our insecurity concering the necesities of life or to increase our social status in response to some silly genes for hierarchy dominace/sexual competition left over from our days as chimplings. People would create for the love of the act of creation itself; the appreciation of beauty and meaning brought into existence would be motive enough. These notives are just as universal as, say, greed, and they have never been given a chance. Who can say whihc is more deeply rooted in humanity? (of course, soon we will be able to change even human nature itself according to our whim...)
Sound silly? I repeat: just wait until everyone is smart and not concerned with dying of tuberculosis, war, or starvation. All members of the human race will be capable of altruism and creativity little thought of in these dark times...
There are, of course, many things which could prevent this scenario from becoming a reality, but man, if we do make it.......
The industrialized nations are doing more (net) and lasting damage than the 3rd world countries. The U.S. probably releases more contaminants and causes (however indirectly) more death than all other nations combined (arms sales, SUVs, Computers, Coke, etc). Comsupmtion is the cause of all pollution (at a certain level), and we are the worlds #1 consumers(TM)
The only thing that wealth has consistently created is arrogance and more wealth.
Of course, it may also create The Solution. I believe, as you seem to do, that we have gotten ourselves so mired in our own excesses that the only way out is up--that is, through a greater reliance on the technology we have been using to kill ourselves and just about everything else.
OTOH, Given our racial history as 'saints', a little bit of trepidation concerning such power as we seem to be achieving--possibly realized most profoundly in AI--is to be expected.
Not that we should not be happy... Mcrouch@brandeis.edu
I know of groups at MIT, Cornell, Stanford, Harvard, (but dont go there!!!), CMU, and, as you said, here at Brandeis. Many places are sure to have small projects or isolated individuals interested in the topics, of course. Look around--a degree is only a piece of paper; the work might be much mroe interesting than it seems at first. Search the publications till you find something that looks cool to you, and then find the guy/girl who published it.
The volen center (at Brandeis) and Mr. Pollack's DEMO lab within it is larger than most such groups, and rather good (plug plug). It benefits from a truly interdisciplinary approach; the neurobiologists and Computer scientists all eat lunch together, and its pretty neat to see how people bounce ideas off each other until they make some pretty impressive snowballs. Consider it. Good luck--you cant really go wrong.
Matt
PS--if youre into complexity/game theory, look into the Santa Fe institute.
PPS--some of the above departments/programs are not well advertised. Be prepared to do some hard looking; see if you can talk to the people involved if possible. Some institutions have a hard time with the 'kooky' image of AI work, along with the ethical dilemmas raised here and elsewhere, and tend to be *rather* quiet about their resident oddballs, no matter how brilliant.
How about taking his class on machine learning? Or his class on artificial intelligence? The Cognitive Science/Computer Science Program here at Brandeis would be a good start, along with all of the other opportunities in Boston (MIT talks, Programming symposiums.) In my (limited) experience nobody does it for a 'real' job--everbody in the field is working for someone with long-term goals and big-time ambitions (large corporations, wealthy individuals with a techno-twist, Universities,etc.). Just look at, say, cog. The field is simply not mature enough to support 'normal' commercial developement. The best way to succeed in the field, though: be brilliant:-) Good luck! Matt Mcrouch@brandeis.edu
soon we all shall be replaced by a small program capable of reproducing all of our thought and speech, and we will all undoubtedly bow our collective electronic head to our lord and master, Jamie. Damn, Jamie, you may have hit on the way to take over the world and replace us all with simple bots (I doubt I would notice the difference if this happened to most of the people I know). I never would have thought Jon had such a great sense of humor...you guys are all really cool:)
The market can only 'take care of' such things if consumers are perfectly educated about the truth behind the companies. While some organizations will/and are working towards informing common citizens like you and I about the real truth, the companies have vested interests in making sure that this does not occur (if they are treading the grey line between morality and evil). Large companies tend to habe a large resource base and hordes of spies everywhere...
In fact, do you work for one or more of them?:)
Many are worried, but unable (incompetent, ignorant, manipulated, take your pick depending on your level of cynicism this morning) to discover the truth. Capitalism sucks.
Yessirree, those log trucks are dangerous things. I grew up in CNY too ( in a little town SE of syracuse called Hamilton) and approximately half of my ancestors in the last fifty years have fallen to their viciousness. Sawing and tearing and belching their noxious fumes and leaving the toilet seat up and saying they lo...anyway, scary things. Others would do well to heed this wise mans warning.
...or a lawyer-in-training. Mark my words, someday slashdot will become the testing grounds for the next generation of moles, drones, and other strange animal life-forms. You scare me very hardcore in your *rabid* desire to advance your ability to control and manipuate the thoughts of others through violent (abstractly, anyway) coercive technique. Plus I am envious of you apparently copious free time: you have no right to balk at any Russian novelist when you posses such wealth.
Incidentally, maybe you should try the comedy circuit, if youve got the cajones. If you do care about the Fate Of The Glorious Union Builded By Our Forefathers Who Were Direct Descendants of the Archangel Gabriel, it could be interesting.
PS--Pikachu is the one and only prophet of the true religion. And his god is a jealous god, who is also vengeful and in control of anime-dubbing. So I'd watch out if I were you...
point made!!! There arent enough people here who agree with the ideas being ridiculed to actually produce a lasting effect!! Choose another media or forum!! (Ill be plenty happy to suggest a few...they should be easy pickings for you)
I think I got myself one too many of those damn things...I wonder if someone has developed an operation of some sort? Wait, whats that you say? Lobotomy? Religious indoctrination from birth and hypersaturation with fundamentalist media? A triple dose of Rush Limbaugh??
Thanks. Ill get right on that
Forward the movement of ridiculousness-highlighting!!!
Be that as it may, He did, and there's nothing we can do about it. Do you also disapprove of gravity? Would you prefer water that isn't wet? Well, it's beyond your control. You can't change these things.
You might be surprised what we are capable of changing...in, perhaps, a few short decades, human nature itself will likely be within our grasp. Maybe even within the safe boundaries of our wisdom. Assuming that you are correct (that women, by divide decree or the benefits afforded by the evolution of specialization), one can rebel against such things if one does not approve of them. People do that all the time Futility is not the question: the call of moral absolutes (which you seem to be rather in favor of) is. Would you stop struggling against the prevalence of murder if you became convinced that the continued existence of this evil was as inevitable as gravity (which the doctrine of human im,perfectibilty and orginal sin shouold tell you, since you appear to be some flavor of Christian).
IMHO, such a struggle against absolutes/the infinite/the unbeatable is what defines us as human and makes the human struggle worthwhile.
Read _The_Brothers_Karamazov_. It was, of course, written by a rather intelligent Christian who entertained the idea of a rebellion against such absolutes (imposed by a creator, nonetheless! Aiiee! The horror! The humanity!), and found the proposal easy to understand and hard (read:ultimately impossible) to refute. REALLY: read it. You will thank me. Unless, of course, it proves too much of a threat to your antiquated ideas and shoddy reasoning...then youll really thank me.
1.)Plus, you still dodge the question as to why this would be wrong. The point of a corporation is to maximize profits. Just because you want to label it as greed doesn't make it evil.
I believe that the point of the original poster was to indicate that 'the point of a corporation'--to maximaize profits with or without concern for P>anything else--is the evil he was sepaking of. I Suspect that both of the posters you are replying to see nothing wrong with the pursuit of self interest--even the 'rabid' ambition and greed displayed by the oil companies--as long as it does not take 'the bottom line' as its moral priority.
2).How is Bill Gates poisoning the planet?...What about Turner, one of your other examples?
Both of those individuals do not concentrate their interests solely on single product, company, or even industry. All of them are heavily invested in other companies, including mutual funds and other index-based stuff. All of the financial interests of the world are interconnected, making it rather difficult to decide who is and who is not 'destroying/polluting the world'.
Wait!! Whats that you say? Your mutual fund invests in a malaysian power company [gasp!]. Youre one of them.
Such a tapestry of common interest woven by the possession of wealth seems to lend at least some credence to the idea that there exists a difference between the interests of the 'haves' and the 'have-nots.'
Plus, I would argue that Gates is polluting the earth more directly. I cant help but associate my copy of windows 98 se2 with concepts like toxic and odious. A kind of moral and efficiency-pollution:)
3).The top 15% of income earners in the US shoulder more that 50% of the tax burden
This fact, however, is best thought of in the context of a few other facts:
A.--The richest 2.7 million Americans - 1% of the people - have as much combined income as the bottom 100 million citizens. And the gap between those groups has widened since 1977, when the top 1% had as much as the bottom 49 million AND
B--** In the late 1950s, during the Eisenhower administration, the wealthiest Americans paid a tax of 91% on income. Today, after 3 major "tax reform" laws passed during the Reagan/Bush/Clinton administration, the top tax on the wealthy is 39%.[7] (you can find the source here--a congressional investigation of the late 80s)
If the top 15% own more than 90% of the country and only pay 50% of the tax burden, there is a problem. IMHO, the top 15% should pay all of it if our current system must be more or less preserved. I suppose that puts me into the 'must be stopped category:)'
Hope this helps to clear up some of the reasoning I assumed to be behind the other posts, and that you are having a better day than I am.
We all try to find out how we are better than someone else, and why the people above us are where they are and why they shouldn't be. And that is without taking greed into consideration(whether social or material).
A quote from Dostoevosky seems to capture the essence of your opinion here: "without power and domination over others, I simply cannot live." This sentiment has been rather popular in the literary and philosophical worlds. Hopefully, I am not putting unwanted words into your mouth. I do disagreee with this idea- I believe to have witnessed and even experienced realtionships in which the issue of power, and the question of 'who is better than XXXXX' is nonexistent or meaningless (due to a lack of a viable standard of comparison).
Assuming I am incorrect, I still feel that a greater amount of contact with oppressed groups will lessen the frequency of oppression/bigotry. It is difficult to believe religious/government propaganda about a group when alternative evidence is staring you in the face--or chatting with you in IRC.
Your other assumption about my 'insinuation' is relatively correct, assuming one uses the conventional definitoin of intellignece. As a species, we are consuming and assimilating larger and larger amounts of information--most people would say that knowing more makes us smarter. Well, many pepole would, anyway. I assume that the amount of information one has access to does not enter your definition of intelligence. If this is true, I urge you to think abou the role of stored information in forging association complexes and understanfing new concepts (metphors, higher levels of previously explored educatio, etc).
While we retain our fundamental stupidities, it could be argued (effectively, I think) that we Are getting smarter.
I maintain my previous opinion. Your description of 'battles of wit' is of no concern-Such battles will only help us on our journey to the truth. No, I still feel that more information, and information which has not been subjected to the historical filters of ambitious men trying to seize power, can only be a good thing that *might* actually inspire a revolution resembling the one we hear so much about and have yet to see,
If I hae misunderstood you, Please let me know. Cheers.
Hydrogen can be prepared easily through simple electrolysis of water. Purification of the sample is also trivial. Commercial untis are lieky to be available (if they are not, I have a great busines idea for you VCs out there...)
Incidentally, there actually are gas staions that sell hydrogen (in germany and in North Dakota; bith as 'proof of concept' thingies). Oxidant production will not be a problem.
Digital information, ignorance, 'pure' ideas
on
LonelyNet
·
· Score: 1
Historically, the presentation of an idea has been colored by the details of the perosnal life of the presenter. Good looking, aggressive people wiht melodious voices and 'strong' body language tend to get listened to more often than those lacking these qualities, all other things (including the quality of their reasoning being equal). This is becoming less true with the widespread adoption of digital communication. People are interacting with the ideas, and the ideas alone, of other individuals with whom they have not initiated a personal relationship. This exchange is an example.
Once the presenattion of an idea is more or less irrelevant, good ideas will tend to bubble up to the top and be widely accepted(a process which occurs, more or less, in scientific journals and in open-source coding). People will hopefully become more rational, and the set of ideas we get to evualuate and choose from will contain better ideas as it becomes larger (since they are not offered up by the stooges who have historically been able to use the media-TV, newspapers, radio, etc-as a stage to promote their own self-interest).
Censorship and propaganda have become more difficult as well. It is harder than ever for pundits, religious fundamantelists, and governments to hide the truth from intelligent citi/neti-zens. In a certain sense, violence, particularly racist/sexist/religious violence, depends on ignorance and the dehumanization of those one hates. The net provides a plethora of infomation concenring the humanity of those very indivdiuals (along with just about everyone else) . We cannot hate those whom we truly understand, and the information the net provides about people in general makes it harder to foster hate through ignorance. We are all being educated (I hope!!!). The conflict in the regions you speak of may be reduced by spreading such information--the knowedge of our common humaness. It is this hope which inspires all (well, some anyway) of the bombastic pronouncements of 'revolution' concerning the new media.
just becasue such staements have been repeated ad nauseam does not mean that they are devoid of truth. Dont let the Katzes of the world fool you into thinking its all a crock. The world is changing and will continue to change as its citizens are empowered with unprecedented amounts of information--eventually, pr0n will get old, and people will start learning. Social interaction on the net with 'exotic' people--of different personality, culture, and experience than somebody one would be otherwise likely to meet-is one of the best ways to learn.
Patience. The revolution still might happen. Give it a decade.
Actually, I was replying to Mr. Chris Johnson...I agree with your proposals (more or less, anyway). I believe that with a little bit of modification (to ensure that voters are educated and passionate), a direct democracy would be far superior to any contemporary governmental system. Incidentally, if you are aware of any extant direct democracies, I would be greatly interetsed in hearing about them...
Thank you. Very helfful. Of course, as you pointed out, they still have to deal with the exhaust and heat emissions. However, both of these should be rather small at the at which this unit operates. I am more interested in how they managed to reduce the mount of platinum neede to catalyze the reaction, and precisely how much is required. Both items are conspicuoulsy absent from the technical description. A price would also be a *little* helpful.
While the idea is interesting in and of itself, the press release does not seem to link to a detailed technical description (at least at first glance). Fuel cell technology is efficient and environmentally benign, but to get a reasonable amountof power you traditionally need a lot of membrane stacks [and space]. A power supply that takes up a good amount of space is not something that would ssem to be partuicularly beneficial to a wearable computer.
In addition, the oxidant the cells actually use is not mentioned. Although it is assumedly hydrogen, we cannot be sure. The questions of storage and cost rear their ugly-ish heads as well. Of sourse, there is also the exhaust (probably water). Where will it be disposed?
How much power is the unit supposed to provide? What power usage are tehy assuming in oredr ot arrive at the 24 hour usage potential? Etc etc etc etc. All in all, the statement seems more product of marketdroid hyperbole than anything else.
Can somebody actually provide any of the details? Did I miss something obvious? I found nothing relevant in the technical FAQ, the support area, or the company info...so, what should we make of this announcement?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm sorry, but I disgaree rather strongly with this statment. There is overwhelming evidence--documents, statements, wires, etc--that the US is more than a *little* responsible for the fact theat their country is lead by a madman. Not only did we support him when he first appeared (the opposition was feared to be more pro-soviet), we armed him. When portions of 'his' own population attempted to rebel (I am thinking of the kurds in the 80s), he proceeded to use these weapons to murder as many as he could.
Of course, this leads to a complex debate concerning the cold war...Let's ignore it for now. After the Gulf war, we could have acted differently, however. It is inconceivable that an economic embargo would get rid of Saddam, given the kind of society he has shaped...he's about the only person who I would expect to be immune from the general carnage such an embargo mnust produce. the predictable result: thousands+ people who hate the US for effectively starving their children.
The US has a history of not removing security threats, but rather exacerbating them. Am I preaching Assassinatoin? Maybe. But more than that, we need to not arm dictators in the first place!
How is this relevant? my earlier intent was to state that many of the threats to natoinal security, terrorist and otherwise, are products of US policy. In many cases, these policies were not designed with the intent of protecting americans. Instead, they have been crafted for political palatability (read:stuff that makes the policy-makers get re-elected) or to satisy the short-term greed of corporate interest (Like the trade policies in Africa that have caused widespread economic devastation. Many there are unhappy with the US as well). If we want to fight terrorism, we will ultimately need to destroy the causes. In some cases, this means that we will need to change current policies and think quite a bit about how we design those policies (i.e., who determines US policy, accountabililty, etc)
This is not a new statement, and has been repeated even here many times. Sorry if I sound a bit redundant; just want to make sure you understand me. Hope the day improves for us all and that nightfall finds you and yours in safety.
Matt
In the last 15 minutes or so, several explosions have rocked kabul. Aircraft may have been present. There was anti-aircraft fire. The target appears to be an ammunition dump, but this is also uncertain. Such an attack would be uncharacteristiuc of the northern alliance(oppponents of the dominant taliban regime), whihc have taken considerable flak for hitting civilian targets in the city in the past. The northern alliance forces are also thought to be incapable of launching such an attack (they are tens of miles away).
I hope with all my might that this is not the result of a US attack.
I am certain that there are several hundred thousand mothers in Iraq who would love that statement. I find it rather unfortunate that such sentiments still exist: the "civilized" nature of our (the US) empire has included the support of dictators, genocide, crimes against our own people and against humanity itself, and most recently the subjugation (through economic means) of most of the rest of the world.
We have to take some rezponsbility here. We are responsible for the actions of our government, and, to a lesser extent, the actions of those corporations in which we have some influence. We have eternally permitted and often fostered the existence of anti-US sentiment. We helped to forge the sword that strikes us (Saddam used arms that were mostly givent ot him by the US military, for a physical example. Not really what Im talking about. )
So, what should we do? Barring genocide, the only solution is to make the US a just place, and then spread the ideals of justice and freedom to the rest of the world. The alternative may be extinction. Dont beleieve me? Theink of the tools of the terrorists of the future. Think engineered viruses. Think nanotech. We WILL see theses things in our lifetime. Unless we are all more or less happy--or, barring that, not starving to death in a wasteland created by short-term thinking and greed--Terrorism will never go away. Never. Desperation itself is our foe.
Im with you bro. Now prepare to be assimilated.
Ahh, silicone transistor technology...someone notify pamela anderson: she is soon to be the fastest and most powerful computer known to man.
1 word: education (well, maybe you can add in neural enhancement through genetic engineering/ nanotech as well). You just wait and see..the entire point behid the "information revolution" is to destroy the monopoly that the higher social strata have possessed on knowledge (along with all of the power that necessarily comes with knowledge) for the totality of human history. It is this monopoly--more than any other single factor--which has guaranteed the subjugation of the mass of humanity and all of the attendant social ills with which we have become so intimately familiar .
In 50 yearz, one can at least fervently hope that the 'knowledge scarcity' you speak of will no longer exist. People everywhere may well be more knowledgeable/intelligent/talented than we can imagine.
If, a few decades from know, the average person has the intellignece of a shakespeare and literary and technical resources which he could not have dreamt of (in heaven, earth, or hell), no IP protection will be necessary. A gift economy could rule effectively. I think we would feel better..things would be done for curiousity, love, scientific fascination, etc--not to temporarily allay our insecurity concering the necesities of life or to increase our social status in response to some silly genes for hierarchy dominace/sexual competition left over from our days as chimplings. People would create for the love of the act of creation itself; the appreciation of beauty and meaning brought into existence would be motive enough. These notives are just as universal as, say, greed, and they have never been given a chance. Who can say whihc is more deeply rooted in humanity? (of course, soon we will be able to change even human nature itself according to our whim...)
Sound silly? I repeat: just wait until everyone is smart and not concerned with dying of tuberculosis, war, or starvation. All members of the human race will be capable of altruism and creativity little thought of in these dark times...
There are, of course, many things which could prevent this scenario from becoming a reality, but man, if we do make it.......
or taken out by the wringwraiths on their damn bat-things, Saurons magic, and the valar know what else....
1. Do no harm....
The industrialized nations are doing more (net) and lasting damage than the 3rd world countries. The U.S. probably releases more contaminants and causes (however indirectly) more death than all other nations combined (arms sales, SUVs, Computers, Coke, etc). Comsupmtion is the cause of all pollution (at a certain level), and we are the worlds #1 consumers(TM)
The only thing that wealth has consistently created is arrogance and more wealth.
Of course, it may also create The Solution. I believe, as you seem to do, that we have gotten ourselves so mired in our own excesses that the only way out is up--that is, through a greater reliance on the technology we have been using to kill ourselves and just about everything else.
OTOH, Given our racial history as 'saints', a little bit of trepidation concerning such power as we seem to be achieving--possibly realized most profoundly in AI--is to be expected.
Not that we should not be happy... Mcrouch@brandeis.edu
The volen center (at Brandeis) and Mr. Pollack's DEMO lab within it is larger than most such groups, and rather good (plug plug). It benefits from a truly interdisciplinary approach; the neurobiologists and Computer scientists all eat lunch together, and its pretty neat to see how people bounce ideas off each other until they make some pretty impressive snowballs. Consider it. Good luck--you cant really go wrong.
Matt
PS--if youre into complexity/game theory, look into the Santa Fe institute.
PPS--some of the above departments/programs are not well advertised. Be prepared to do some hard looking; see if you can talk to the people involved if possible. Some institutions have a hard time with the 'kooky' image of AI work, along with the ethical dilemmas raised here and elsewhere, and tend to be *rather* quiet about their resident oddballs, no matter how brilliant.
How about taking his class on machine learning? Or his class on artificial intelligence? The Cognitive Science/Computer Science Program here at Brandeis would be a good start, along with all of the other opportunities in Boston (MIT talks, Programming symposiums.) In my (limited) experience nobody does it for a 'real' job--everbody in the field is working for someone with long-term goals and big-time ambitions (large corporations, wealthy individuals with a techno-twist, Universities,etc.). Just look at, say, cog. The field is simply not mature enough to support 'normal' commercial developement. The best way to succeed in the field, though: be brilliant :-) Good luck! Matt Mcrouch@brandeis.edu
soon we all shall be replaced by a small program capable of reproducing all of our thought and speech, and we will all undoubtedly bow our collective electronic head to our lord and master, Jamie. Damn, Jamie, you may have hit on the way to take over the world and replace us all with simple bots (I doubt I would notice the difference if this happened to most of the people I know). I never would have thought Jon had such a great sense of humor...you guys are all really cool :)
In fact, do you work for one or more of them? :)
Many are worried, but unable (incompetent, ignorant, manipulated, take your pick depending on your level of cynicism this morning) to discover the truth. Capitalism sucks.
Yessirree, those log trucks are dangerous things. I grew up in CNY too ( in a little town SE of syracuse called Hamilton) and approximately half of my ancestors in the last fifty years have fallen to their viciousness. Sawing and tearing and belching their noxious fumes and leaving the toilet seat up and saying they lo...anyway, scary things. Others would do well to heed this wise mans warning.
Incidentally, maybe you should try the comedy circuit, if youve got the cajones. If you do care about the Fate Of The Glorious Union Builded By Our Forefathers Who Were Direct Descendants of the Archangel Gabriel, it could be interesting.
PS--Pikachu is the one and only prophet of the true religion. And his god is a jealous god, who is also vengeful and in control of anime-dubbing. So I'd watch out if I were you...
point made!!! There arent enough people here who agree with the ideas being ridiculed to actually produce a lasting effect!! Choose another media or forum!! (Ill be plenty happy to suggest a few...they should be easy pickings for you)
Thanks. Ill get right on that
Forward the movement of ridiculousness-highlighting!!!
You might be surprised what we are capable of changing...in, perhaps, a few short decades, human nature itself will likely be within our grasp. Maybe even within the safe boundaries of our wisdom. Assuming that you are correct (that women, by divide decree or the benefits afforded by the evolution of specialization), one can rebel against such things if one does not approve of them. People do that all the time Futility is not the question: the call of moral absolutes (which you seem to be rather in favor of) is. Would you stop struggling against the prevalence of murder if you became convinced that the continued existence of this evil was as inevitable as gravity (which the doctrine of human im,perfectibilty and orginal sin shouold tell you, since you appear to be some flavor of Christian).
IMHO, such a struggle against absolutes/the infinite/the unbeatable is what defines us as human and makes the human struggle worthwhile.
Read _The_Brothers_Karamazov_. It was, of course, written by a rather intelligent Christian who entertained the idea of a rebellion against such absolutes (imposed by a creator, nonetheless! Aiiee! The horror! The humanity!), and found the proposal easy to understand and hard (read:ultimately impossible) to refute. REALLY: read it. You will thank me. Unless, of course, it proves too much of a threat to your antiquated ideas and shoddy reasoning...then youll really thank me.
I believe that the point of the original poster was to indicate that 'the point of a corporation'--to maximaize profits with or without concern for P>anything else--is the evil he was sepaking of. I Suspect that both of the posters you are replying to see nothing wrong with the pursuit of self interest--even the 'rabid' ambition and greed displayed by the oil companies--as long as it does not take 'the bottom line' as its moral priority.
2). How is Bill Gates poisoning the planet?...What about Turner, one of your other examples?
Both of those individuals do not concentrate their interests solely on single product, company, or even industry. All of them are heavily invested in other companies, including mutual funds and other index-based stuff. All of the financial interests of the world are interconnected, making it rather difficult to decide who is and who is not 'destroying/polluting the world'.
Wait!! Whats that you say? Your mutual fund invests in a malaysian power company [gasp!]. Youre one of them.
Such a tapestry of common interest woven by the possession of wealth seems to lend at least some credence to the idea that there exists a difference between the interests of the 'haves' and the 'have-nots.'
Plus, I would argue that Gates is polluting the earth more directly. I cant help but associate my copy of windows 98 se2 with concepts like toxic and odious. A kind of moral and efficiency-pollution :)
3). The top 15% of income earners in the US shoulder more that 50% of the tax burden
This fact, however, is best thought of in the context of a few other facts:
A.--The richest 2.7 million Americans - 1% of the people - have as much combined income as the bottom 100 million citizens. And the gap between those groups has widened since 1977, when the top 1% had as much as the bottom 49 million AND
B--** In the late 1950s, during the Eisenhower administration, the wealthiest Americans paid a tax of 91% on income. Today, after 3 major "tax reform" laws passed during the Reagan/Bush/Clinton administration, the top tax on the wealthy is 39%.[7] (you can find the source here--a congressional investigation of the late 80s)
If the top 15% own more than 90% of the country and only pay 50% of the tax burden, there is a problem. IMHO, the top 15% should pay all of it if our current system must be more or less preserved. I suppose that puts me into the 'must be stopped category :)'
Hope this helps to clear up some of the reasoning I assumed to be behind the other posts, and that you are having a better day than I am.
Later
Matt
Sorry bout that...of course, there are a ton of different chemical combos used to power fuel cells, each with their own price/poewr ratio.
A quote from Dostoevosky seems to capture the essence of your opinion here: "without power and domination over others, I simply cannot live." This sentiment has been rather popular in the literary and philosophical worlds. Hopefully, I am not putting unwanted words into your mouth. I do disagreee with this idea- I believe to have witnessed and even experienced realtionships in which the issue of power, and the question of 'who is better than XXXXX' is nonexistent or meaningless (due to a lack of a viable standard of comparison).
Assuming I am incorrect, I still feel that a greater amount of contact with oppressed groups will lessen the frequency of oppression/bigotry. It is difficult to believe religious/government propaganda about a group when alternative evidence is staring you in the face--or chatting with you in IRC.
Your other assumption about my 'insinuation' is relatively correct, assuming one uses the conventional definitoin of intellignece. As a species, we are consuming and assimilating larger and larger amounts of information--most people would say that knowing more makes us smarter. Well, many pepole would, anyway. I assume that the amount of information one has access to does not enter your definition of intelligence. If this is true, I urge you to think abou the role of stored information in forging association complexes and understanfing new concepts (metphors, higher levels of previously explored educatio, etc).
While we retain our fundamental stupidities, it could be argued (effectively, I think) that we Are getting smarter.
I maintain my previous opinion. Your description of 'battles of wit' is of no concern-Such battles will only help us on our journey to the truth. No, I still feel that more information, and information which has not been subjected to the historical filters of ambitious men trying to seize power, can only be a good thing that *might* actually inspire a revolution resembling the one we hear so much about and have yet to see,
If I hae misunderstood you, Please let me know. Cheers.
Matt
Incidentally, there actually are gas staions that sell hydrogen (in germany and in North Dakota; bith as 'proof of concept' thingies). Oxidant production will not be a problem.
Price and value, OTOH...has anyone checked out the latest asking price for platinum?
Once the presenattion of an idea is more or less irrelevant, good ideas will tend to bubble up to the top and be widely accepted(a process which occurs, more or less, in scientific journals and in open-source coding). People will hopefully become more rational, and the set of ideas we get to evualuate and choose from will contain better ideas as it becomes larger (since they are not offered up by the stooges who have historically been able to use the media-TV, newspapers, radio, etc-as a stage to promote their own self-interest).
Censorship and propaganda have become more difficult as well. It is harder than ever for pundits, religious fundamantelists, and governments to hide the truth from intelligent citi/neti-zens. In a certain sense, violence, particularly racist/sexist/religious violence, depends on ignorance and the dehumanization of those one hates. The net provides a plethora of infomation concenring the humanity of those very indivdiuals (along with just about everyone else) . We cannot hate those whom we truly understand, and the information the net provides about people in general makes it harder to foster hate through ignorance. We are all being educated (I hope!!!). The conflict in the regions you speak of may be reduced by spreading such information--the knowedge of our common humaness. It is this hope which inspires all (well, some anyway) of the bombastic pronouncements of 'revolution' concerning the new media.
just becasue such staements have been repeated ad nauseam does not mean that they are devoid of truth. Dont let the Katzes of the world fool you into thinking its all a crock. The world is changing and will continue to change as its citizens are empowered with unprecedented amounts of information--eventually, pr0n will get old, and people will start learning. Social interaction on the net with 'exotic' people--of different personality, culture, and experience than somebody one would be otherwise likely to meet-is one of the best ways to learn.
Patience. The revolution still might happen. Give it a decade.
Thank you. Very helfful. Of course, as you pointed out, they still have to deal with the exhaust and heat emissions. However, both of these should be rather small at the at which this unit operates. I am more interested in how they managed to reduce the mount of platinum neede to catalyze the reaction, and precisely how much is required. Both items are conspicuoulsy absent from the technical description. A price would also be a *little* helpful.
In addition, the oxidant the cells actually use is not mentioned. Although it is assumedly hydrogen, we cannot be sure. The questions of storage and cost rear their ugly-ish heads as well. Of sourse, there is also the exhaust (probably water). Where will it be disposed?
How much power is the unit supposed to provide? What power usage are tehy assuming in oredr ot arrive at the 24 hour usage potential? Etc etc etc etc. All in all, the statement seems more product of marketdroid hyperbole than anything else.
Can somebody actually provide any of the details? Did I miss something obvious? I found nothing relevant in the technical FAQ, the support area, or the company info...so, what should we make of this announcement?