Climate change could cause mass exodus by mid century

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:31:24 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 at 8:09:24 PM UTC-6, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Kurt Gödel claimed that he could prove that the Constitution allows the
gov't. to be a dictatorship. I don't know what his argument was, but
Einstein went with him because he was concerned he would expound upon it
when he went for his citizenship hearing. He did :-)

https://nevalalee.wordpress.com/2013...r-citizenship/

I'd heard part of the story before.

Of course a Constitution is only as good as the people who enter politics,
who become judges, and who are the citizens.

Indeed!

And one thing we've seen in practice is that the Supreme Court can do
what it likes with the Constitution, but that possibility was known all
along - it was just hoped that it wouldn't happen.

John Savard

Yes, partisan politics in the courts is a sad commentary on the Grand
Experiment. Practically any kind of gov't will work if the leaders are
"truly civilized" (i.e., honest, benevolent, wise, etc.).

I can foresee a time when production of goods will be essentially free
and everyone will have everything they want, but it will lead to the
destruction that Peterson predicts if the people don't become "truly
civilized" too. Another requirement, I believe, is a "grand endeavor"
that everyone can buy into.

Gary

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:19:15 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:31:32 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:

Because they didn't teleport into the middle of a road. The speed limit
near a tunnel with trees close enough to allow this should be low enough to
allow detection of hazards... edit

That's quite ridiculous.



Not at all! That's how a responsible driver should behave.

Just how slow should a driver go if there are trees within how far of the road???

Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36793790

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 4:19:15 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 7:02:36 PM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:
On Thursday, July 14, 2016 at 10:46:58 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:


Try these questions for size. This is what democracy is about.


https://sturdyblog.files.wordpress.c...314-083623.jpg

Questions to ask the powerful.
From Tony Benn

If asked of a President of the US:


WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?

See the Constitution.

WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?

The Constitution.

IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?

I am sworn to defend the Constitution.

TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?

The Senate and the Chief Justice.

HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?

Impeachment, or wait for my first re-election bid.




That's his point. Lots of persons with power are not elected or publicly
appointed. Like newspaper proprietors.



So what do you propose to do with newspaper proprietors who you think are too powerful?

Limit their media ownership to avoid monopoly.

How? Restrict the circulation? Limit the number of readers visiting their Websites? Force them to sell their companies at a loss?





Like investment bankers.

So what do you propose to do with investment bankers who you think are too powerful?

Tax then.

How much do you wish to steal?

Ensure worker participation on boards,

Workers have nothing at stake, unless they own stock.

effective non executive
directors

What is a "non-executive director?"

and compulsory shareholder control of salaries and bonuses.

What if the shareholders don't care about that?

All
recently proposed by our new conservative prime minister.

There aren't any conservatives in the UK anymore.

Also limitation of political contributions.

Details? Amounts? Political minorities can contribute more? Etc?

On Friday, 15 July 2016 15:10:00 UTC+2, wrote:

Meanwhile, in Silicon Valley:

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36793790

The description of the event suggests that the poor robot was the victim here. But unable to blast the naughty child with its laser beams before suffering potential damage to its drive mechanism. I am, of course, joking here. Because humour is an essential recovery mechanism from such tragedies for any intelligent machine. Had the child been black and the robot a white police officer.. we may safely assume that the outcome would have ended with uproarious laughter. No feelings were hurt in the making of this inappropriate post. Why, on earth, was it flagged for abuse?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:38:23 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:04:07 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

I agree. But that would never happen. That's not how autonomous
programs work. But that concept appears to be far beyond your grasp of
computer science.

The so-called "autonomous program" still requires "input" from designers, peterson, whether they be programmers, "ethicists" or government bureaucrats.

That input does not, for the most part, look like a set of rules about
who to hit. The program would do the same thing a person does: try to
minimize the damage. But it would be a lot better at it.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 8:44:24 AM UTC-4, Gary Harnagel wrote:

Yes, partisan politics in the courts is a sad commentary on the Grand
Experiment. Practically any kind of gov't will work if the leaders are
"truly civilized" (i.e., honest, benevolent, wise, etc.).

I can foresee a time when production of goods will be essentially free
and everyone will have everything they want, but it will lead to the
destruction that Peterson predicts if the people don't become "truly
civilized" too.

However, many people already are civilized, even if peterson isn't. So we have to make laws to control the petersons of the world, protecting us from them and them from us.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:28:28 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:

edit

No feelings were hurt in the making of this inappropriate post. Why, on earth, was it flagged for abuse?

Someone noticed that you were participating, so they complained.

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:38:23 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:04:07 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

I agree. But that would never happen. That's not how autonomous
programs work. But that concept appears to be far beyond your grasp of
computer science.

The so-called "autonomous program" still requires "input" from designers, peterson, whether they be programmers, "ethicists" or government bureaucrats.

That input does not, for the most part, look like a set of rules about
who to hit.

Incorrect. The machine has to be given info by humans on what to do, both instructions and data.

The program would do the same thing a person does: try to
minimize the damage.

The helmeted motorcyclist does not deserve to be run over just because he was the one who was responsible enough to wear a helmet.

But it would be a lot better at it.

Only under -very- controlled conditions, if even then.

On Friday, 15 July 2016 14:44:24 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

I can foresee a time when production of goods will be essentially free
and everyone will have everything they want, but it will lead to the
destruction that Peterson predicts if the people don't become "truly
civilized" too. Another requirement, I believe, is a "grand endeavor"
that everyone can buy into.

Gary

I don't believe that civilization comes from the ability to obtain literally anything for zero effort. Mankind seems to function best when some effort is required to obtain basic essentials. The desire to own luxuries requires [and should require] even greater effort. How else will the act supply the recipient with ample psychological reward to warrant further effort to obtain more items?

I believe that society is badly corrupted by 'bargains' such as the Chinese cheapening of once expensive, manufactured products. The products are bought without thought for the factory slaves or their evil political control system. The item [being cheaper than is warranted ] lacks the magnetic power of pride in ownership and so the item rapidly becomes disposable. Which further dehumanizes the efforts of the slave to produce that item.

This corruption of society's basic values could be likened to countless bank robbers spending the proceeds of their crimes. I further believe that robotics will undermine society's values if it leads to 'effortless' lives. Or, worse, mass unemployment. Where society must totally reinvent itself so that each member still has some value. Or, at the very least, the power to contribute constructively. How else will humanity avoid becoming disposable?

On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 06:45:26 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 9:30:14 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Fri, 15 Jul 2016 00:38:23 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 1:04:07 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

Well, if you don't know, I'll tell you. It would be unethical to program an automated car to choose to hit the helmeted rider.

I agree. But that would never happen. That's not how autonomous
programs work. But that concept appears to be far beyond your grasp of
computer science.

The so-called "autonomous program" still requires "input" from designers, peterson, whether they be programmers, "ethicists" or government bureaucrats.

That input does not, for the most part, look like a set of rules about
who to hit.

Incorrect. The machine has to be given info by humans on what to do, both instructions and data.

Complex systems operate on their inputs (which are not provided by
humans) and modify their own responses to things over time based on
experience. What humans provide is more like guidance. These machines
learn in a similar way to humans.

The program would do the same thing a person does: try to
minimize the damage.

The helmeted motorcyclist does not deserve to be run over just because he was the one who was responsible enough to wear a helmet.

I'm very glad that you are not one of the ethicists involved in
working these things out!