>> ^chilaxe:

1.
I think we agree on the basic principle that rationalists should have a larger influence on society, but we might have different visions of where the precise balance should be.

Perhaps that's true, but I think the other disagreement between us has to do with how much confidence we have in our ability to actually identify "rationalists" in a systematic way, and also I would contend that there's a lot of things purely rational people could easily disagree with, especially on the question of justice.

>> ^chilaxe:
2a.
Regarding guaranteeing other people necessities, I think we're playing a sleight-of-hand shell game. US society would be having little trouble providing continually advancing high tech 21st century medicine to everybody, except that we continually import poverty and poverty's repercussions, as if we didn't have enough, expanding the number of people for whom society's rationalists are now responsible.

You're being a bit too abstract here -- are you saying the US won't be able to afford Universal Healthcare because it's not doing enough to stop illegal immigration?

>> ^chilaxe:
This isn't some abstract point... it's why here in California, despite having some of the highest taxes in the country, among the highest paid teachers in the country, and a strongly liberal population, we've gone from being one of the best off states to being literally last out of the 50 states in some measures of education.

Again, you're not really making yourself clear as to what you think the cause of the issue is.

>> ^chilaxe:
2b.
Re: " very little about how much you make for a living has to do with choices you actually make yourself."
This isn't an abstract argument to me. My high school friends and I started off with mostly the same advantages. They even had some substantial advantages over my position. Since our graduation, I've watched them mostly build lives of loafish and unintellectual mediocrity focused on short-term thinking, while I built a life of unusual sacrifice and long-term thinking. The economic inequality within my high school class appears to be completely just and deserved.


Lucky you, I suppose. I started off with less advantages than my peers in school, but vastly greater advantages than my friends in the neighborhood I lived in. My observation was that my peers in school went on to make vastly more money than me, despite their loafish and unintellectual mediocrity and ethically shallow outlook, while the people in my neighborhood went on to make vastly less money than me, despite their innate industriousness, untapped intellectual depth, and generally virtuous outlook on the world.

But then, you're making an easy enough mistake. A man who'd never lived anywhere but an isolated tropical island would deny snow exists, much less is something which people would need to stockpile salt and sand for...

@NetRunner: interesting.

1.
I think we agree on the basic principle that rationalists should have a larger influence on society, but we might have different visions of where the precise balance should be.

2a.
Regarding guaranteeing other people necessities, I think we're playing a sleight-of-hand shell game. US society would be having little trouble providing continually advancing high tech 21st century medicine to everybody, except that we continually import poverty and poverty's repercussions, as if we didn't have enough, expanding the number of people for whom society's rationalists are now responsible.

This isn't some abstract point... it's why here in California, despite having some of the highest taxes in the country, among the highest paid teachers in the country, and a strongly liberal population, we've gone from being one of the best off states to being literally last out of the 50 states in some measures of education.

2b.
Re: " very little about how much you make for a living has to do with choices you actually make yourself."
This isn't an abstract argument to me. My high school friends and I started off with mostly the same advantages. They even had some substantial advantages over my position. Since our graduation, I've watched them mostly build lives of loafish and unintellectual mediocrity focused on short-term thinking, while I built a life of unusual sacrifice and long-term thinking. The economic inequality within my high school class appears to be completely just and deserved.

Wow, these new Lego box sets are pretty high-tech stuff. When I was a kid we made stupid little boats and cars.

I see nothing here that couldn't be done in realtime using Cryengine. How many FPS was this rendered in, 1-2? Super high tech when low tech would do it better

What a disgusting waste. Stupid children with high tech shit. This makes me very angry.
The work field journalists do is a wonderful thing.
Edit: Riddling wounded people with bullets? Wouldn't that be a war crime? They're clearly no longer a threat. Fuck these guys, I hope they burn in hell.

Is there really a huge wave of test impersonators using a Muslim Niqab? I call bullshit on that. I also call bullshit on the Niqab being an impediment to communication. They're not taking acting classes. Don't tell me you can't hear what's being said through a veil. It's not a muzzle. It's a thin piece of cloth. I hear my stupid neighbors arguing across the fucking street every day. If you want to make this about security you have a real problem, because like I said, the onus is on them to provide security and that means everyone needs to be identified before the test, but they are not trying to identify everybody.

" There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea." ... "The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it." ...

This custom has been around for over a thousand years. Long before the foundation to these schools were poured. In fact, longer than many nations have existed. It doesn't really matter, justifying these rights is part of the problem. They already ARE rights. Taking rights away is the issue and you all should be concerned when any government starts telling you what you can wear.

>> ^jwray:
There are some issues with covering your entire face in a classroom:
1. It would be easy for an upperclassman substitute to take an exam for you. This is a common method of cheating in large lectures where the teacher doesn't know people's names. ID badges would accomplish nothing at all, as you can give your ID badge to the impostor and the exam taker cannot be seen except for her eyes. DNA, retinal scans, and fingerprinting are a little bit too high tech for this specific application. The most realistic solution is to reveal the face of the test-taker so that it can be matched against the picture ID. Voice identification might be a viable alternative, but it is much more difficult to match a voice than to match a face.
2. It impedes communication severely by hiding all facial expressions and muffling the voice.

Additionally:
3. There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea.
4. Rastafarians don't get exemptions from relevant regulations for their arbitrary religious dogmas involving marajuana, either.
5. The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it. What if I decide that my new religion is skivinism, whose religious practice is to skip class every Wednesday. The teacher better not mark me down for it, or he's voliating my FREEDOM OF RELIGION! If practices based on religious beliefs must be granted exemptions from various regulations, then so must practices based on individual ideas. There is nowhere to draw the line along the continuum from individual nutter, to small cult, to large cult, to small religion, to large organized religion.

There are some issues with covering your entire face in a classroom:

1. It would be easy for an upperclassman substitute to take an exam for you. This is a common method of cheating in large lectures where the teacher doesn't know people's names. ID badges would accomplish nothing at all, as you can give your ID badge to the impostor and the exam taker cannot be seen except for her eyes. DNA, retinal scans, and fingerprinting are a little bit too high tech for this specific application. The most realistic solution is to reveal the face of the test-taker so that it can be matched against the picture ID. Voice identification might be a viable alternative, but it is much more difficult to match a voice than to match a face.
2. It impedes communication severely by hiding all facial expressions and muffling the voice.


Additionally:

3. There is a difference between private beliefs/practice and public behavior. Public behaviors are subject to reasonable regulation regardless of whether they originate from a religious belief or some other idea.

4. Rastafarians don't get exemptions from relevant regulations for their arbitrary religious dogmas involving marajuana, either.

5. The only difference between a religious practice and an arbitrary choice is how many people follow it. What if I decide that my new religion is skivinism, whose religious practice is to skip class every Wednesday. The teacher better not mark me down for it, or he's voliating my FREEDOM OF RELIGION! If practices based on religious beliefs must be granted exemptions from various regulations, then so must practices based on individual ideas. There is nowhere to draw the line along the continuum from individual nutter, to small cult, to large cult, to small religion, to large organized religion.

i work in high tech with many folks that she describes and i am likely on the spectrum myself. I think she is the Rosetta stone of the two worlds and is absolutely genius.

I'm two days short of a year on unemployment myself. First time I've collected unemployment in my life, and after paying into the unemployment funds for 35 years, I don't feel bad in the slightest for collecting it. Especially since it doesn't actually cover our cost of living (which went up nearly 30% when I had to start paying the insurance that used to be paid by my employer). I worked for a fraction of the market value of my position, because I tremendously enjoyed the work and the people I worked with. Apparently I was just foolish and I should have been far more mercenary. Our finances are within a few weeks of bottoming out...the savings (admittedly not large) are gone. The 401K comes next, but after taxes and penalties, that'll last no more than a few months. And I'm beginning to suspect that I'm not going to get another job in the high tech field I've been working in for the last 25 years, apparently due to being 50+.

So, I'm more than a bit lost as to what to do next...compete with even more people for jobs that pay next to nothing? If I can't get work in my field, I don't think downshifting to other fields is going to be better. Funnily enough, according to our government, I can do a better job of taking care of my wife if I was dead. At least then, she'd be able to collect my social security, which would keep her from having to live in a cardboard box. My country...what a crock. "My" country clearly doesn't give a fuck about me, or anyone like me.

The next time someone tells me again how Joe Stack had it so rough...with his nice house and private fucking plane, I'll be hard put not to explode. I won't even begin to discuss Republican politicians. If I were to meet one face to face, I probably -would- end up with assault charges (if I could maintain control, it'd just be for spitting). I do understand rage. I still don't support violence, however tempting it may be.

upvote for high-tech poop

"High tech poop"

wow.

>> ^choggie:
"corporate think tanks, blogs, public relations firms" are the same places that fuel both sides dystop....you have made no point, you simply react to a nay-sayer with the same bullshit script-This is NOT an issue about anything else BUT, "follow the money"....Al Gore would have been the same brand of turd as any of them, creating empire and wealth and consolidating it for those who run the show.
Global Warming....Climate Change, no matter what the fuck you call it, it's obvious on this site and many others that there are still folks who think they have a clue as to what the fuck is going on based on the so-called findings of so-called experts.....Why not ask yourselves the questions instead of parroting answers. Could the nuclear furnace that appears on the horizon everyday have anything to do with climate change?? Could it be possible that pumping megawatts of energy into the ionosphere by the Dept of Defense have anything to do with erratic weather conditions? Could it all be a fucking hoax designed to further enslave the gullible populace(s) worldwide with the burden of so-called, carbon emission taxes?
There's a reason why carbon is not taxed yet....because people with a clue stand against the absolute absurdity of it. Want to eliminate the carbon footprints you leave??? STOP BUYING WORTHLESS PLASTIC SHIT, STOP EATING NON-NUTRITIVE FUCKING FOODS, AND FILLING YOUR HEADS WITH FUCKING INFOTAINMENT!!


There is consensus on this, regardless of how it fits into your world view. No internationally recognized scientific body holds a dissenting view on the reality of climate change. Not that there aren't exaggerated claims, politics and falsehoods from those who support the science side of the argument, but their actions do not discredit any of the standing research or the overwhelming consensus that climate change is real.

You are correct in saying I am ignorant of the specifics (as are you), which is why I choose take my 'bullshit script' from the 'so called experts' who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate change. You are free to take your 'bullshit script' from 'non experts' if you like, but it comes at the cost of your credibility, and doubly so when you make goofball AlexJonesian claims about ENSLAVING THE WORLD!!!!1!!

On the surface, a phony global climate change scare would seem to be a pretty complicated and esoteric means of enslaving the world. Don't you think there might be better, more efficient ways of putting us all in bondage? Buying governments? Building high tech mercenary armies? Destroying economies and then offering aid at a large premium? Destroying democracy under the banner of 'individual rights' and then picking off those powerless 'individuals' one by one? Creating massive unemployment to exploit the existing labor force via supply and demand? Creating some kind of deadly plague with an expensive proprietary antidote? These are just off the top of my head, but all of them would seem to be simpler, more logical, more direct avenues for world enslavement. I don't know, I'm no expert on world slaving.

I've got some logical issues with the conspiracy theorists that maybe you can help me clear up:

-How can you 'follow the money' and end up siding with industrialist polluters who stand to lose a lot of money if they are forced to clean up their act?

-How were the masterminds of this nefarious plot able to coordinate and control the research of many thousands of scientists from all over the world over many decades?

-How do you get from 'climate change' to world enslavement?

-Are the underpants gnomes somehow involved in this conspiracy?

1) Create a global climate change scare
2) ??????
3) Enslave the world

These conspiracy theories are vague, illogical and contradictory. In your response you throw out several possibilities a) It's real and caused solely by the sun (which is like saying tornadoes are caused solely by wind and have nothing to do with weather fronts) b) It's real and was intentionally created by the military (for some mysterious reason) c) It's a hoax to enslave the world through carbon taxes (but only polluting corporations pay these taxes).

It all comes out like a bunch of hastily though out nonsense, especially coming from someone who seems to think he has a monopoly on the truth. I'd love to hear an attempt to fashion these random bits into something vaguely plausible. Who might have engineered such a plot? How did they get the ball rolling? What was their overall plan from start to finish? How specifically might they parlay this into mass slavery? What do they intend to do with this massive slave force?

Like some other commenters here, the iPad isn't designed for my needs, but I'm glad they made it. It advances the technology, and maybe I'll have use for some product down the line that benefits from this iteration.

Also, it further hooks society on great high tech products

Not only does it not work, but it gives a false sense of security. I highly doubt this scanner is more effective than traditional methods but it does put even more emphasis on equipment at the expense of people. Pay your staff better, attract good quality people to the work and you'll be safer but the public can't SEE better training, they can SEE high tech whiz-bang gizmos.

The real reasons why this system is being adopted are:

1) It gives a sense of security to dumb passengers.

2) It costs a lot of money. The company making them will make a lot of money. They've already borrowed against this future earning potential to bribe lawmakers. Ahem I mean 'lobby' lawmakers.

Big business wins at the expense of everyone else, that's the system.

Idling?? I see it moving against another ship, and a big one. Not that I know much about ships, but if I was the one on the small high-tech touch-me-and-i-will-break-down ship, I would have steered away from the big i-eat-whales-for-breakfast ship instead of "idling" against it.
>> ^Sagemind:
Captain Watson said the Ady Gil was idling in Antarctic waters (...)