You had me until the part about Russell Brand not wanting to run for office. Then the point you made became utterly ridiculous on any level. He doesn't want to become one of them... Well he would HAVE TO BECOME one of them just to get a bill passed, or he would be tucked into a corner until new elections came around. Then he would be termed obsolete and removed. Think of it like this--would you be encouraging him to become a CEO of an evil, meglo-corporation? But he COULD CHANGE THE ENTIRE CORPORATE WORLD! Um, no. He changes nothing, is useless and a puppet either way...so why would you want him to run?

capitalism only really functions well (with regulation) in a world where resources are limited and a lot of manpower is needed to get things done. Thanks to technology, it's only a matter of time before resources are so easy to come by and manufacture into needed things that the supply and demand model will be obsolete.

I suspect that within 100 years, if not sooner, manual labor will be a thing of the past...unless you're an artist or something. Robots will be able to do virtually everything..and better than humans are capable of.

The only people who will still need to have jobs are engineers and maybe technicians, but even then, eventually robots will be able to repair themselves so maybe not even technicians will be needed. Hell, given enough time, nurses and many health care jobs won't be needed anymore because basic healthcare could be delegated to robots.

It's just a matter of time. We're already starting to see the effects of automation in the workforce, we just don't need as many people to get things done. Hell even technical jobs aren't safe because as computers get better and better, They'll be able to analyze certain things better than humans.

The question just becomes what do you do about it? A whole new economic model will be needed. Because we'll eventually be living in the world where unless you're in the academic top tier, you're just not going to be needed in the workforce. At the same time, again, because of technology, we're going to have the ability to feed and clothe AND shelter you for a minimal amount of effort so the prospect of being able to being born, living, and dying without ever NEEDING to work is a real possibility in the not so distant future.

Isn't that what you would call...a utopia? You want freedom? there it is. You'll be able to spend your time doing what you WANT to do instead of what you HAVE to do just to survive. I suspect at some point, there will have to be SOME procreation laws put into place to keep the population growth in check. But hell, even that won't be so bad once we have the ability to colonize other planets.

People will still work, they'll just do it because they want to do it, but they'll be jobs where they're not a necessity or anything. even in an age where a replicator can make all your food, people will still want to cook, or do other artisan style jobs.

But hey, we'll still need defense, gotta blow up or deflect any stray asteroid that comes near us. or just send a bunch of robots up to mine the rock to smitherines so we can use the resources to build our mighty space fleet and our other grand works That Dyson Sphere won't build itself after all

In other words, the human race....has won. isn't that a good thing?

Once food and accommodation are put to one side we see the bulk of our economy is consumerism. Wonder what would happen if we weren't so concerned about having the latest shiny... Automation is inevitable, no getting away from that, but what happens if the majority of automation is made obsolete because we give up our desire to buy stuff we don't need, and instead choose to be content with what we've got?

Why this concept would be foreign to anyone is beyond me; nature has billions of years of evolution under it's belt and if there is one thing it has proven is beneficial for the vast majority it's balance relative to reality. If we can't evolve attitudes in line with reality we will render ourselves obsolete.

I'm disappointed to see this covered by a conventional partisan. If I could have one wish it would be to render the terms "conservative" and "liberal" out of our lexicon. Ideology is more complicated than a two-dimensional scale. Democracy is based on a thinking populous, and we need to revert to that ideal to survive. The separation of personal identity into "brands" is at the core of what is tearing our society apart.

These days videos automatically get the brief tag when they are given a length <61 seconds, or the long tag if they are given a length >599 seconds... so although the bot won't let you mark those tags, they're pretty much obsolete these days anyway, and it will let you assign a length with *length= for other people's vids or edit video for your own.

Are we obsolete yet?

Really? That doesn't say much for your imagination. I'll try to help.

1. You don't have a gaming PC
2. You want to play in on your home theater from your easy chair
3. You prefer a controller to a keyboard and mouse
4. You want to play on your 60' plasma and 1080p is good enough.

I could think of more but hopefully that helps.

Honestly , I have a gaming rig but my GTX560ti is about obsolete and the last time I priced new cards the crypto-currency miners had driven up the prices. If I don't buy a nice card before this releases I will enjoy the hell out of this game on PS4. If it has a good multiplayer I'll play it on PS4 regardless.


PC master-race...sheesh.

The CV/AI (computer vision/artificial intelligence, I assume) challenge is certainly the more interesting part of this competition. The trouble I have with many man vs machine competitions is that it's often possible to design a robot that focuses on just one specific aspect of the game that it can do so well that it renders complex CV/AI work obsolete. Robots can often win in uninteresting ways that make the competition boring to watch. And humans can often exploit AI flaws or physical limitations of the robot to claim victory in equally non-spectator friendly ways.

In ping pong, if a robot can position its paddle in the right place to return a ball at all, it should be able to return it so fast that a human couldn't stop it. Strength and speed are the easy part. At the very least, the robot is pulling its punches (or more likely, it was not designed to punch as hard as it could have).

The competition just seems staged as a result. My guess is that both the human player and the robot are purposefully playing in such a way to create the most interesting looking match, rather than playing in the way most likely to win.

I never argued that one side was "good" but then again, I despise moral abstracts such as good and evil because they simply are not accurate, quantifiable descriptions, and are often used to manipulate emotions.

One side is harmful...the other side is less harmful.

If you can come up with a better system, more power to you, but when you have a situation like this, you don't throw out the whole system, you get rid of the part of it that is causing the most harm and re-evaluate

Even though I think parties should be abolished, you can't stop people from peaceably assembling and picking people that they support. All you can do is stop officially recognizing them and disband any organization like the DNC/RNC or any lobbying group as lobbying needs to be abolished as well. with the advent of the internet and email, ANYONE can communicate with their congressperson easily and get their point across. Lobbying is obsolete as well as corrupt.

We've got to get rid of the private money in our political system

Hey @enoch,

> dude,
> i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

Sure, not a problem. It's a complex issue, and requires the time to consider and understand the details.

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither.
> IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

Uh-oh, I hope this isn't a "lesser of two evils" argument.. That is, "since we cannot have a free market lets go for full-blown socialism because it is supposedly better than fascism." It's a false choice and not one I think any true humanitarian would be willing to entertain.

> "should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market? police?
> firefighters? roads?"

In short, yes. Aversion to socialism is based on reality, in contrast to what you're saying. Socialism is failure. Central planning inevitably fails. Central planners do not have the required knowledge to plan an economy. You need economic calculation and economic calculation is impossible to achieve in a socialist "economy."

> "to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your
> arguments you disagree. ok..we both have that right."

Are you trying to conflate "socialized healthcare" with health? Let's not confuse the facts with personal attacks. You seem to be saying, "if you are against socialism you are against health." That makes no sense. None.
I might as well say, "If you are against free markets you are against health."

> "my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized
> society. in my opinion health care is one of them."

In no way did I ever say that I am against healthcare. So what are you talking about?

> "for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-
> adam smith we have neither."

You cannot have a free market without liberty any more than you can have liberty without liberty. This is obvious, so?

> "IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
> at least not in totality."

So, if we had a free market, you wouldn't be "against" a free market? Hmm.

> "the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is
> mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged
> into one giant behemoth (plutocracy)."

That's fine, but this is not a matter of "feeling" but a matter of economic reality and empirical evidence and deductive truth.

> "i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism""

Perhaps some economic education will clarify things. Understanding economic calculation, for example, might be a good place to start.

> "i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you."

You're wrong. For one thing, while I do work at a significant fee for my primary clients, I do a significant amount of pro bono work, as a choice, and because I, like you, believe that health care is a human right. And that's a key point you need to understand. You seem to believe that, if the state doesn't take care of people, then no one will, and so we need to steal money from people in the form of taxes, under the auspices of "helping the poor," when in fact, the bureaucrats ensure that only a portion (if any) of those taxes actually arrive with their intended recipients while those who would willingly help those people themselves are deprived of the resources to do so, by depleting their income with said taxes. It's an unnecessary middleman, and faulty logic. The fact that people have, do, and will continue to care about people is the fundamental fact the needs to be understood. As a "man of faith," I would hope that you have enough faith in other people that they would care about and for others (even without being coerced by the government to do so, by force).

Furthermore, we have to apply the free market in toto, not half-assed. You can't have a Keynesian corporatists and an over-regulated system and expect that people will be be able to afford healthcare. The fact is that in a free market, the number of people who cannot afford my services would actually decrease considerably, because many more options would arise for those who still couldn't afford me would but need my services.

> "in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
> the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill."

The free market has ways of dealing with all of these. And yes some win, some lose. But in a socialist system, everyone loses (except for maybe the rulers and their lackeys). This seems, again, to be coming from a place of fear, a sense of helplessness without the government. But alas, nothing contributes to poverty, homelessness, and mental illness more than government does. Fact.

> "the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no
> better,possibly worse in such a system."

So, what is your proof that the poor will have it worse? How do you know? Or is this what you "feel" would be the case?

> "the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in
> place."

So was slavery when the South decided they wanted to keep it.

> "two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
> 1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
> 2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate
> drug prices"

1. Yes, the government would have a monopoly on health coverage, and by extension all of healthcare. Economic calculation at this point becomes utterly impossible. Chaos follows. And healthcare quality and service plummets. I have research studies to support this if you're interested.

2. Why not nationalize pharmaceuticals while you are at it?

> "i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit
> health care will still have similar results as our current because
> the poor and working poor population is growing."

Without appealing to moral superiority, allow me to assure you that there is nothing -- not one thing -- that is moral or ethical about allowing the government coerce, aggress, commit violence, and violate individual's inalienable rights to self-ownership and property rights, as you proposing with such socialist "solutions." In my humble opinion, a true man of faith would not stand for such things, but would stand against them.

> "the poor and working poor population is growing."

Indeed we do, and we all have inflation, cronyism, Lord Keynes' bogus economic "system" and government's meddling to thank for this.

> "i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done
> collectively."

By "collectively," I assume you mean "by central authorities," yes? Because the free market is, in fact, collective. But there is nothing "collective" about central planning. Except for the fact that the "collective" is mandated to obey the dictates of the central planners.

> "its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do."

1. Whatever your "feelings" are about it, there is an economic reality to deal with. Such a sentiment misses the point, and will result in hurting more people than it helps.

2. There is nothing "human" (or humane) in aggression, coercion, and violations of sovereignty, all of which underpins an implementation of a socialized system.

"The right thing to do" is to respect self-ownership and property rights. Doing anything else will eventually backfire. "People are not chessmen you move on a board at your whim."

Any one who is serious about contributing to solving and/or ameliorating the issues of poverty, homelessness, and/or mental illness and many of the other symptoms of our social detritus, needs to develop real, sustainable free market solutions to these. Otherwise, their efforts will be in vain (even if -- or perhaps especially if -- they are adopted by government for implementation). Anything else will not improve any of these but will only serve to make matters worse.

Going back to the basics, free market competition will always provide better goods/services at lower prices than the monopolies (fostered and engendered by the lack of economic calculations due to governmental intervention and regulations). Healthcare is no exception to this. Why would it be? Furthermore, why believe that the central planners/kleptocrats aren't profit-driven? Why believe that a "government" monopoly doesn't suffer from a lack of economic calculation? And what's wrong with being profit-driven, however you may individually define "profit?" Do you/I/we not act for what you/I/we consider the best? (Having faith is not a part-time job.)

Do you not act to achieve desired goals?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you haven't fully thought things through. But as I'm sure you know, "It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost."

> "thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few
> hours but i dont want to bore you. always a pleasure my friend.
> namaste"

It's not boring, but does take a bit of time to consider and understand all of the details. It's complex, and certainly a challenge to navigate your way through the morass of rhetoric, conditioning, and cultural misdirection that is pervasive in our society, especially when considering what passes for "news" and "facts." This is particularly true with regards to the economy, which is heavily politicized, despite being a rational science that can be understood if one takes the time to learn about its mechanism.

Since you signed off with "namaste," perhaps it would be worth reminding you that the first principle of yoga is "ahimsa para dharma" : non-violence is the highest duty.

Perhaps videosift isn't the best medium in which to educate people on non-violence and economics, but alas, it can be entertaining and, possibly have have some positive effect at some point.

Hope this helps.

dude,
i totally appreciate the time you took to respond.

i was hoping to avoid the myriad directions and confluence of misinterpretation in regards to political and economic understandings may take.

we agree more than we disagree,believe it or not.
we agree we do not have a free market.
we agree that what we DO have is corporate socialism.

the reason why i dont feel a free market is the way to go is mainly due to the fact that politics and corporations have merged into one giant behemoth (plutocracy).

for a free market to exist there also has to be absolute liberty.-adam smith
we have neither.
IF we did,i would not be against a free market system.
at least not in totality.

i never really understood americans aversion to "socialism".its almost an allergic reaction and it bears no base in reality.
should EVERYTHING be subject to a free market?
police?
firefighters?
roads?

i feel this is where we diverge in our understandings.
to me health should be a basic part of civilized society,by your arguments you disagree.
ok..we both have that right.

another item we appear to diverge is HOW we view the system in place.
its all in the perspective.

you made a very strong argument on the current state of preventive medicine,health food stores and the like.
but lets examine where that perspective came from shall we?

the rich,the affluent,people with money and careers.
THEY can afford all those things you mentioned.

what about the poor,the working poor and the destitute?
where do THEY find the money to purchase items at the GNC,or at an organic food market?

what happens to them?

look man,
this is no simple issue and if i implied that it was i apologize.
my argument was not to suggest some utopian fantasy,as i assume yours was not either.
my argument is that some things should be a basic for civilized society.
in my opinion health care is one of them.

i deal with the very people that could NEVER afford you.
so my perspective is born from that perspective.
in a free market there will be losers.the one who always lose.
the poor,the homeless,the mentally ill.

the free market is still profit driven and the poor will have it no better,possibly worse in such a system.

you mentioned cuba.
ok...point.
how about france?germany?denmark?

again,i am not suggesting my idea is some utopian wonderland.this issue is complicated.the reason why i suggested medicare is because it is already in place.

two things would happen if this country went the medicare route:
1.health insurance industry would obsolete.
2.the pharmaceutical industry would find itself having to negotiate drug prices.

i may be a man of faith but i am a humanist at heart.for-profit health care will still have similar results as our current because the poor and working poor population is growing.

i am all for an actual free market but some things should be done collectively.
some we already do:police,fire,public schools etc etc.
i think many europeans got it right.
its not only the right thing to so but the human thing to do.

thats my 2 cents anyways.i could probably ramble on for a few hours but i dont want to bore you.
always a pleasure my friend.
namaste

No... perhaps the methods we use now will be obsolete but that doesn't mean there aren't (or can't be) ciphers too complicated for even quantum computers to figure out in a short enough time.

We're unfortunately in a transitional phase where the term "house husband" is seen as a badge of shame and leads to kids being embarrassed by their father and missing their mother.

No kid is proudly going to say their dad cooks and cleans whilst their mum works because society doesn't accept that unit as functional atm - so realistically 4 out of 10 kids at the moment have the potential to become a lost generation.

Give it 50 years and this rubbish may be as obsolete as racism but right now the families saying the wife has better job prospects and the man is better at cooking, cleaning and running the household are unfortunately singled out as weird from nursery (pre-school) plus.

(Source? being a house husband to my 3 kids for 9 years)

I believe the Golf Mk7 is all FSI and TDI, yes.

The 2.0 TDI has made the 2.5 obsolete. The TDI has an 81 ft-lb torque advantage, a weight advantage, and gets about +10mpg.

I picked up a JSW TDI 2 months ago and, while it's not quite as flashy as a GTI, it's a damn nice drive. It's my second TDI in a row and I don't see any reason to go back to gasoline any time soon.

and to extend that argument. Even if you could prove a creator exists, it still does nothing to convince anyone they should be a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Mormon, or whatever. The question of does a creator exist is one thing. What this creator wants from us, if anything, is another thing ENTIRELY.

Religion is morally obsolete and demonstrably harmful. You want to believe it? You have that freedom, just keep it out of government.