Did somebody not get the joke?
Did somebody not get the joke?
If you don't raise your children, something else in their environment will raise them for you
They have little right to complain about the results of giving up their responsibilities or blindly supporting a society which takes away most their time working to support their children.
Not that everybody should home school their children to be selfish pricks who are unable to contribute positively to society... learning civics and ethics are dead already in the schools... as if we don't have enough psychopathy today.
Civics and Ethics are as religion neutral and scientific as one can get; needed far more today given the LACK of similar teachings at home or even at many churches (or the ones I attended as a kid which were largely caught up in dogmatic tripe.)
Perhaps I wasn't strong enough in my phrasing:
The difference between a male ape and a male human is so small it is almost the same distance between a MALE HUMAN and a FEMALE HUMAN! No kidding, go look it up.
That is the reason I brought up DNA in the first place. The difference is not as great as it seems when you consider the DNA variation within the human species and the obvious place to look is the genders (which is an average, one could probably increase it more by finding the most opposite two humans of opposite genders and seeing just how big a gap you can find to approach the male primate gap.)
The % means little without a contextual reference point and since we only care about humans, the starting point is to find the widest range of human variability. If any two humans are equal, therefore one can make a DNA based argument based around an ape which fits within a smaller DNA delta... or really close to that delta. Obviously, one would have to set bounds on species allowed for that kind of threshold induction.
I was just aiming for a quantitative argument; qualitatively, animal studies already prove ape cognitive skills are equivalent to small human children. We do not do experiments on the severely mentally retarded who are unable to develop further than an ape. It is a much more "fuzzy" debate.
More accurately, people generally get more selfish as they age. Because they acquire, adapt and invest within the existing system - it's all really about THEIR STUFF.
People who do well with the status quo almost universally become biased to whatever maintains what they have, their stuff. It's a matter of self interest and most will put down other people at the hint of a threat, which clearly makes them selfish. Sure, they have excuses which rationalize their positions and behaviors - I've not met an overtly selfish person over 8 who doesn't cover it up.
The middle classes are quite self-centered with a "conservative" bias too but not as much as the group above them; the lower classes are not a great deal better but because they have less stuff to lose, their demographic is more open to alternative thinking. Still, the lower classes mostly are the same because they want to find ways to get more stuff. Once they move up the economic class system, most will "change" but in reality they never changed their motives, only the ones who really thought different and meant it stay the same.
How about by genetics?
The DNA between a male ape and a male human is so small it's almost the same amount as the difference between the genders! A great deal of fighting was done just to admit women as equals and that hasn't been won worldwide and nobody seems to treat them as equals yet...
Point is, genetically they are really close to an accepted group (majority actually) which wasn't recognized in the past.
Dolphins only have our brain size; their brains are full of fat. literally. the ocean temperature's impact on submerged body temperature is extremely great compared to the wind. They need fat heads for temperature stability since analog brains function around the influence of environmental factors like temperature impacting all those massively parallel chemical reactions. Your body does a great deal to maintain brain temperature so it can function not because neurons are so much weaker.
Sure humans can be exploited bit more than the Chinese, but not a great deal more and not for much more output. Don't forget that very few nations would be willing or capable enough to support what China has done.
The machines are now beginning to replace the lowest human working conditions for mass production.
Labor of Slaves, then unprotected workers, then exploited external workers:
It has always been about how much we can get away with. Now we have reached the point where soon the most desperate humans will be unable to compete against machines. It is the story of John Henry but more broad than ever before.
It need not be 100% machine-- where gamers could be unwittingly helping their parents lose their jobs by providing the tiny bit of intelligence the machine lacks their parents used to provide. Small farmers have been dying off for many reasons and no computers were required; they are an example of empowering 1 person to do the work of dozens. Robots will take that far beyond what machines alone could do... to the point where the human in the equation is only an owner and everything is artificial.
In our lifetimes there will see the 1st 100% artificially run corporation; some private owners will decide to be the 1st, it is not like most CEOs are actually that useful or don't already decide everything based upon stats (which a machine could do with a little input by survey, game, or the owner.)
Why are flying cars stupid? Because energy is not free. All other issues are minor; physics and resources costs come first.
F= ma. So that is ( 100mph horizontal + approximately 100mph vertical fall ) x mass
Packaging is only designed to handle about a 5 ft drop so we are looking at a safety risk.
For safety reasons drones have to SEE that means it will be difficult to prevent alternative uses for the cameras!
Nobody is thinking about the obvious: ROBOT TRUCKS with flying delivery for the last 5-30m from the truck. A flying bees nest of drones begins to make it practical. Robots navigating to doors is incredibly difficult and risky but flying that last 30m makes it a far easier problem. Plus the truck can monitor the whole process (and recharge the drones which will always have limited range since they waste most their energy LIFTING.)
He was recently elected; he isn't getting any points for doing this now - if that were the case he'd wait many years before doing this.
He needs media attention to create pressure and build momentum plus we have the worst congress probably in our history so stuff like this is all that has a chance of passing. It still won't end up with a law during this congress.
All the sensor data and controls should go into the box; that will tell you what was going on far far more than a blurry video. You could store the state of every single control in detail over time for hours in the space it takes to store a few frames of video. Besides that you could use such information to find patterns in how they handle disaster situations which could be used for education and design... and A.I. Pilot suicides like this are extremely rare... but we want to spend a ton of money so we can watch the person tilt the thing down into the ground on CNN in a loop for a few days.
You only know because they caught the man; in the USA the guy would still be free and nobody would be the wiser.
If somebody noticed anything fishy the usual lazy excuse of "It's not my job" would prevent actions from being taken; unless, you can be fired or sued few people here lift a finger.... and if you do take selfless initiative you are equally at risk of being fired or sued.
I'm all for taxes on people who do not understand math. They should help lower taxes for those who do.
It will be harder to fool a majority of everybody than a majority of 50% who bother to vote. Just think about it, the people you fool WILL GO VOTE and the people you don't will either abstain or vote for the opposition.
When you notice the impact of impulsive people who don't care and pick major candidates is when you've gamed the public to the point where your election is so close that anything; including the weather, could decide who wins. The MORE people the more difficult it is to game the majority of the populace.
Majority rule does not produce the best results but it is the RESPONSIBILITY of the majority for how happy they are with their results. It is their fault if they are a bunch of sheep; you can't excuse yourself from civic duty as easily when you have to at least participate.
You have to be a moron to fall for the "right to abstain" argument. Everybody can go to vote and not choose any candidate or write in a joke candidate. But to argue Ayn Rand with the usual appeal to absolute freedom is ignoring a fundamental concept of civilization; your duty to society.
If you really want to punish somebody horribly, make them live in 1 cage their whole life. Let them work on stuff; maybe they'll do something worthwhile in their cage.
Being first to market doesn't count then... Trade secrets still continue today and corporate espionage is at an all time high. So they still have plenty to hide which they can not patent. Before patents, or even before they existed as they do today there was plenty going on in the world and secrets were a bigger deal. Things did disappear as a result but things also leaked out.
Innovation is a meaningless word today. Mostly it is applied to things that are not true inventions but applications of inventions by others.
There are reasons to invent which will continue without patents. The significant inventions are largely outside the corporate world anyhow. They will invent ways to bring true innovations to market because a profit can still be had-- just not as much of one for as long. In some cases growth slows. But you can't really prove that current experiment is the best; it's merely a belief, an assertion.
I think most of today's patents have little to do with making the world better for the inventor's children. You also act like it's all made up of people in their garages; when it is not; also the people in low income situations are an insignificantly small proportion. Maybe there is an argument to be had from providing some dream like someday becoming a pro-sportsman but the odds of that are slim to the point of being false advertizing... but it may motivate some people so then it must be ethical right?
Some of us do things for other reasons. more mature reasons. exclusive ownership with the hope (not promise) of piles of money does not motivate everybody to the same degree. Academia is loaded with such people. Also the military has some people who are not there for the money...
Computers are unreliable, but humans are even more unreliable. Any system which depends on human reliability is unreliable. -- Gilb