This assumes the Singaporeans learn nothing from the decline of the West. I suspect they will prove smarter than that.
6000 years of repeating examples and you still think human nature and collectivized incentives will change. Sigh.
Topic: Economic Devastation - page 99. (Read 504811 times)
6000 years of repeating examples and you still think human nature and collectivized incentives will change. Sigh.
Your top-down arrogance is repulsive (but I don't need to control you, carry on expressing your opinion). Anonymity is glorious, because it is freedom. And without bottom-up, degrees-of-freedom, we don't exist. Typical you are a Marxist like most Westerners.
Nature is repulsive to you. You want to live in a sterilized world without diversity. It is impossible to have simultaneously diverse thought and also have ubiquitous agreement about what is moral and not moral. There is no one set of correct ethics or social behavior. Life is a diversity of fits. In Singapore they cane you if you don't conform, or even the death penalty for third degree murder (abuse the domestic helpers, feeding them worse than the house dog, then wonder why they snap). You give this much power to the State, and one day another Mao will rise when the economics of the State become intractable.
My presumption (from his blog) is that Eric Raymond hates especially Islam (and religion in general) because he feels it degrades women (although I not aware of him asking a statistically valid sample of the Islamic women). Thus he would tolerate a stronger NSA, military, USA, and less anonymity in order to reach his top-down goal for society, and in the process he enslaves the entire damn world, including himself. How did it work out for him? Obama giving $500 million in armaments to ISIS because the powers-that-be want to promote chaos in the Middle East (c.f. the Hillary Clinton and Benghazi armaments cover up). Hopefully he is smart enough to correct his mistake and stick with his goals of teaching women to arm themselves and promoting the internet as a information tool for women globally. And eventually he will have to admit we can't achieve those individual empowerment goals without anonymity on the internet.
Golden Rule: individual empowerment works, top-down organization doesn't. (Entropy explains why)
P.S. I remember your upthread mathmetical point about entirely decentralized systems without any top-down leadership are unstable and can't converge on maximal outcomes. I am not denying that mathematical fact. Never have I proposed that we end up with a system without reputation and leadership. I am stating that collectivizing all the power into a single entity is insane. I am not proposing infinite disorder (entropy), as of course that is unattainable.
Let's sterilize Australia then. (remember Australia is where the UK banished the criminals)
You are abandoning my teachings which you raved about in the opening post of this thread:
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Thought_Isn%27t_Fungible
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals
Nature is repulsive to you. You want to live in a sterilized world without diversity. It is impossible to have simultaneously diverse thought and also have ubiquitous agreement about what is moral and not moral. There is no one set of correct ethics or social behavior. Life is a diversity of fits. In Singapore they cane you if you don't conform, or even the death penalty for third degree murder (abuse the domestic helpers, feeding them worse than the house dog, then wonder why they snap). You give this much power to the State, and one day another Mao will rise when the economics of the State become intractable.
My presumption (from his blog) is that Eric Raymond hates especially Islam (and religion in general) because he feels it degrades women (although I not aware of him asking a statistically valid sample of the Islamic women). Thus he would tolerate a stronger NSA, military, USA, and less anonymity in order to reach his top-down goal for society, and in the process he enslaves the entire damn world, including himself. How did it work out for him? Obama giving $500 million in armaments to ISIS because the powers-that-be want to promote chaos in the Middle East (c.f. the Hillary Clinton and Benghazi armaments cover up). Hopefully he is smart enough to correct his mistake and stick with his goals of teaching women to arm themselves and promoting the internet as a information tool for women globally. And eventually he will have to admit we can't achieve those individual empowerment goals without anonymity on the internet.
Golden Rule: individual empowerment works, top-down organization doesn't. (Entropy explains why)
P.S. I remember your upthread mathmetical point about entirely decentralized systems without any top-down leadership are unstable and can't converge on maximal outcomes. I am not denying that mathematical fact. Never have I proposed that we end up with a system without reputation and leadership. I am stating that collectivizing all the power into a single entity is insane. I am not proposing infinite disorder (entropy), as of course that is unattainable.
Choice or Constraint? Mass Incarceration and Fertility Outcomes Among American Men
http://faculty.washington.edu/blsykes/Publications_files/fertility_incarceration_v8-1.pdf
http://faculty.washington.edu/blsykes/Publications_files/fertility_incarceration_v8-1.pdf
Let's sterilize Australia then. (remember Australia is where the UK banished the criminals)
You are abandoning my teachings which you raved about in the opening post of this thread:
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Algorithm_!=_Entropy
Quote from: wearefucked a.k.a. Shelby Moore III
Algorithm ≠ Entropy
...
Every possible model of the brain will lack the fundamental cause of human creativity— every human brain is unique. Thus each of billions of brains is able to contemplate possibilities and scenarios differently enough so that it is more likely at least one brain will contemplate some unique idea that fits each set of possibilities at each point in time.
...
Every possible model of the brain will lack the fundamental cause of human creativity— every human brain is unique. Thus each of billions of brains is able to contemplate possibilities and scenarios differently enough so that it is more likely at least one brain will contemplate some unique idea that fits each set of possibilities at each point in time.
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Thought_Isn%27t_Fungible
Quote from: wearefucked a.k.a. Shelby Moore III
Thought Isn't Fungible
To make the computers as creative as the humans would require inputting the entropy from all the human brains. Yet there is no plausible way to extract the future uniqueness of human brains other than to allow them interact with the environment over unbounded time, because the occurrence of creativity is probablistic (by chance) as the dynamic diversity of human minds interact with the changing environment. The term unbounded means there is no way to observe or capture that uniqueness a priori other than through the future of life as it unfolds.
Inmates can be forced to do manual labor because it is possible to observe the performance of the menial tasks. However, it is impossible (or at least very inefficient and imprecise) to determine whether a human is feigning inability or giving best effort at a knowledge task. Manual labor is fungible, i.e. nearly any person with average IQ and dexterous limbs can be substituted to do the task. Whereas, knowledge production such as programming the computer, authoring content or developing marketing plans, requires diversity of thought.
To make the computers as creative as the humans would require inputting the entropy from all the human brains. Yet there is no plausible way to extract the future uniqueness of human brains other than to allow them interact with the environment over unbounded time, because the occurrence of creativity is probablistic (by chance) as the dynamic diversity of human minds interact with the changing environment. The term unbounded means there is no way to observe or capture that uniqueness a priori other than through the future of life as it unfolds.
Inmates can be forced to do manual labor because it is possible to observe the performance of the menial tasks. However, it is impossible (or at least very inefficient and imprecise) to determine whether a human is feigning inability or giving best effort at a knowledge task. Manual labor is fungible, i.e. nearly any person with average IQ and dexterous limbs can be substituted to do the task. Whereas, knowledge production such as programming the computer, authoring content or developing marketing plans, requires diversity of thought.
http://unheresy.com/Information%20Is%20Alive.html#Knowledge_Anneals
Quote from: wearefucked a.k.a. Shelby Moore III
Knowledge Anneals
Unsophisticated thinkers have an incorrect understanding of knowledge creation, idolizing a well-structured top-down sparkling academic cathedral of vastly superior theoretical minds. Rather knowledge primary spawns from accretive learning due to unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market. Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math). Given Kurzweil's sensationalized magnum opus is the technological singularity, it is surprising that he is apparently not well studied in the field of social knowledge formation.
...
The knowledge creation process is opaque to a single top-down perspective of the universe because to be omniscient would require that the transmission of change in the universe would propagate instantly to the top-down observer, i.e. the speed-of-light would need to be infinite. But an infinite speed-of-light would collapse past and future into an infinitesimal point in spacetime— omniscient is the antithesis of existential. In order for anything to exist in the universe, there must be friction-in-time so change must propagate through resistance to change— mass. The non-uniform mass distribution of the universe is mutually causal with oscillation, which is why the universe emerges from the frequency domain. Uniform distribution of mass would be no contrast and nothing would exist. Taleb's antifragility can be conceptualized as lack of breaking resistance to variance amplification.
Unsophisticated thinkers have an incorrect understanding of knowledge creation, idolizing a well-structured top-down sparkling academic cathedral of vastly superior theoretical minds. Rather knowledge primary spawns from accretive learning due to unexpected random chaotic fitness created from multitudes of random path dependencies that can only exist in the bottom-up free market. Top-down systems are inherently fragile because they overcommit to egregious error (link to Taleb's simplest summary of the math). Given Kurzweil's sensationalized magnum opus is the technological singularity, it is surprising that he is apparently not well studied in the field of social knowledge formation.
...
The knowledge creation process is opaque to a single top-down perspective of the universe because to be omniscient would require that the transmission of change in the universe would propagate instantly to the top-down observer, i.e. the speed-of-light would need to be infinite. But an infinite speed-of-light would collapse past and future into an infinitesimal point in spacetime— omniscient is the antithesis of existential. In order for anything to exist in the universe, there must be friction-in-time so change must propagate through resistance to change— mass. The non-uniform mass distribution of the universe is mutually causal with oscillation, which is why the universe emerges from the frequency domain. Uniform distribution of mass would be no contrast and nothing would exist. Taleb's antifragility can be conceptualized as lack of breaking resistance to variance amplification.
Hahaha. What a crock of shit (long-term) and myopic short-term self-interest (and not entirely astute). Singapore will one day in the future become a killing fields too (57 million exterminated under Mao for example). It isn't time for them yet, because they have to first bring Asia into the surety (debt and morals) morass that the West has now achieved, but one day decades from now (or who knows maybe sooner) Asia will be where the West is now.
This assumes the Singaporeans learn nothing from the decline of the West. I suspect they will prove smarter than that.
And even if Singapore is safe for Asians, it is not safe for you as U.S. citizen because when the U.S. comes after all your wealth and Uncle Sam says jump, Singapore will turn you over to Uncle Sam. Because Singapore is a global collective team member in this collectivized slavery.
Agreed
And even for Asians, all of Singapores laws and all of Singapore's men, can't stop someone from posting your repugnant images on an anonymous network. So all my points about all that vengeance being useless apply. And the anonymous internet will also make it easier to pay hit-men too. That can't be stopped... we must generally have anonymity. You have presented no other viable solution.
Anonymity is a desperate and somewhat repulsive solution. Unfortunately I have no better or even viable alternatives to offer.
Choice or Constraint? Mass Incarceration and Fertility Outcomes Among American Men
http://faculty.washington.edu/blsykes/Publications_files/fertility_incarceration_v8-1.pdf
Legalized abortion and crime effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
http://faculty.washington.edu/blsykes/Publications_files/fertility_incarceration_v8-1.pdf
Legalized abortion and crime effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
Junk science. I won't waste my time ripping those theories to shreds. Let it be an exercise for readers to figure out.
Hint. Involves Texas, and shooting barns
Choice or Constraint? Mass Incarceration and Fertility Outcomes Among American Men
http://faculty.washington.edu/blsykes/Publications_files/fertility_incarceration_v8-1.pdf
Legalized abortion and crime effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
http://faculty.washington.edu/blsykes/Publications_files/fertility_incarceration_v8-1.pdf
Legalized abortion and crime effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
Junk science. I won't waste my time ripping those theories to shreds. Let it be an exercise for readers to figure out.
Are people in Singapore complacent about personal safety? Sure but they are complacent because they actually are safe. They know that the overall crime rate in Singapore is very low and if they are victimized the state will go to great lengths to severely punish the aggressor.
Hahaha. What a crock of shit (long-term) and myopic short-term self-interest (and not entirely astute). Singapore will one day in the future become a killing fields too (57 million exterminated under Mao for example). It isn't time for them yet, because they have to first bring Asia into the surety (debt and morals) morass that the West has now achieved, but one day decades from now (or who knows maybe sooner) Asia will be where the West is now.
And even if Singapore is safe for Asians, it is not safe for you as U.S. citizen because when the U.S. comes after all your wealth and Uncle Sam says jump, Singapore will turn you over to Uncle Sam. Because Singapore is a global collective team member in this collectivized slavery. And even for Asians, all of Singapores laws and all of Singapore's men, can't stop someone from posting your repugnant images on an anonymous network. So all my points about all that vengeance being useless apply. And the anonymous internet will also make it easier to pay hit-men too. That can't be stopped. Turn off the internet then (if you can!) and destroy mankind in your Marxist attempt to move the responsibility for protection from the individual (where it exists) to the State (where you think it should be)! It is illogical in the long-term, but self-interested in the short-term, and this why collectivism is a cyclical killing field. And that is why we must generally have anonymity. You have presented no other viable solution.
I remember debating with Winter and he pointed out that his country (I believe Denmark) has never devolved. And he pointed to long running civilizations in Egypt, etc.. He is blind to for example the story of where Anne Frank was hiding and ultimately found by the Nazis. And blind to the cyclical killing fields over there in the vicinity of the horn of Africa, etc..
You've forgotten basic statistical truths.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3888#comment-335007
Quote from: wearefucked a.k.a. shelby
If you are ignorant of what statistics can and can not prove, you should trust no one and say nothing, because you don’t have the knowledge to discern who and what to trust. And that is precisely why statism (collectivism with top-down control) fails. It relies on the ignorance of the majority, to decide how to waste the world’s resources. Debt is another example, because it allows the majority to have equal access to resources, yet not all people return the same productivity.
@kn I simply said two things:
1) Bennett is a statist, which I proved is a fact of his comments, if you accept that my definition of statism is correct.
2) It is statistically impossible to prove AGW, because there is no way to get a confidence interval in the period of time that AGW extrapolates to. This is because there is no correlation in history. It never happened before that CO2 lead temperature. So the best they can do is invent models of what they think will happen by extrapolating what their model says has happened over a relatively recent period of time. The problem is statistics can’t do that. There are many issues, such as for example that models of climate are rubbish, because they’ve never predicted anything accurately over the long-term. I can build a model to fit some past data, that gives an opposite outcome. Their models are an arbitrary interpretation of recent samples, i.e. their models are aliasing error. If we get deep into the statistics, we show that. But the problem is that when a mathematician says they are wrong, they say if you aren’t a climate scientist, we won’t listen to you. Then they claim the high ground of being an authority on “climate”– a “science” that afaik has never made any predictions that were repeatedly correct over long periods of time.
@kn I simply said two things:
1) Bennett is a statist, which I proved is a fact of his comments, if you accept that my definition of statism is correct.
2) It is statistically impossible to prove AGW, because there is no way to get a confidence interval in the period of time that AGW extrapolates to. This is because there is no correlation in history. It never happened before that CO2 lead temperature. So the best they can do is invent models of what they think will happen by extrapolating what their model says has happened over a relatively recent period of time. The problem is statistics can’t do that. There are many issues, such as for example that models of climate are rubbish, because they’ve never predicted anything accurately over the long-term. I can build a model to fit some past data, that gives an opposite outcome. Their models are an arbitrary interpretation of recent samples, i.e. their models are aliasing error. If we get deep into the statistics, we show that. But the problem is that when a mathematician says they are wrong, they say if you aren’t a climate scientist, we won’t listen to you. Then they claim the high ground of being an authority on “climate”– a “science” that afaik has never made any predictions that were repeatedly correct over long periods of time.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3888#comment-334286
Quote from: wearefucked a.k.a. shelby
Quote
> In science we make do with 90%+
The point is they don’t have a 90% confidence interval over the population for which they are trying to extrapolate conclusions of doom. They may have it for a sample which verifies their model, but like the ant on the mountain analogy, that local confidence is no better than randomness (i.e. aliasing noise) in the broader scope to which it is misapplied.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984
Quote from: ESR
Some Iron Laws of Political Economics
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population.
The result is a scramble in which individual interest groups perpetually seek to corner more and more rent from the system, while the incremental costs of this behavior rise slowly enough that it is difficult to sustain broad political opposition to the overall system of political privilege and rent-seeking.
When you add to Olson’s model the fact that the professional political class is itself a special interest group which collects concentrated benefits from encouraging rent-seeking behavior in others, it becomes clear why, as Olson pointed out, “good government” is a public good subject to exactly the same underproduction problems as other public goods. Furthermore, as democracies evolve, government activity that might produce “good government” tends to be crowded out by coalitions of rent-seekers and their tribunes.
This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:
There is no form of market failure, however egregious, which is not eventually made worse by the political interventions intended to fix it.
Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.
Although some taxes genuinely begin by being levied for the benefit of the taxed, all taxes end up being levied for the benefit of the political class.
The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.
The probability that the actual effects of a political agency or program will bear any relationship to the intentions under which it was designed falls exponentially with the amount of time since it was founded.
The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.
Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.
Mancur Olson, in his book The Logic Of Collective Action, highlighted the central problem of politics in a democracy. The benefits of political market-rigging can be concentrated to benefit particular special interest groups, while the costs (in higher taxes, slower economic growth, and many other second-order effects) are diffused through the entire population.
The result is a scramble in which individual interest groups perpetually seek to corner more and more rent from the system, while the incremental costs of this behavior rise slowly enough that it is difficult to sustain broad political opposition to the overall system of political privilege and rent-seeking.
When you add to Olson’s model the fact that the professional political class is itself a special interest group which collects concentrated benefits from encouraging rent-seeking behavior in others, it becomes clear why, as Olson pointed out, “good government” is a public good subject to exactly the same underproduction problems as other public goods. Furthermore, as democracies evolve, government activity that might produce “good government” tends to be crowded out by coalitions of rent-seekers and their tribunes.
This general model has consequences. Here are some of them:
There is no form of market failure, however egregious, which is not eventually made worse by the political interventions intended to fix it.
Political demand for income transfers, entitlements and subsidies always rises faster than the economy can generate increased wealth to supply them from.
Although some taxes genuinely begin by being levied for the benefit of the taxed, all taxes end up being levied for the benefit of the political class.
The equilibrium state of a regulatory agency is to have been captured by the entities it is supposed to regulate.
The probability that the actual effects of a political agency or program will bear any relationship to the intentions under which it was designed falls exponentially with the amount of time since it was founded.
The only important class distinction in any advanced democracy is between those who are net producers of tax revenues and those who are net consumers of them.
Corruption is not the exceptional condition of politics, it is the normal one.
More:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3888#comment-333654
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3888#comment-333681
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3888#comment-335180
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6717#comment-1503160
PSEUDONYMITY: For other people, handles are a means of identity construction for one or multiple social roles. They wouldn't mind per-role reputation tracking but want the freedom to experiment without consequences to their meatspace identity. Unfortunately this can shade into...
HOOLIGANS: For still others, handles operate as a mechanism to enable or license antisocial behavior (this is predicted by Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory). The problem this raises is how to suppress HOOLIGANS while enabling ANONYMITY and PSEUDONYMITY.
HOOLIGANS: For still others, handles operate as a mechanism to enable or license antisocial behavior (this is predicted by Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory). The problem this raises is how to suppress HOOLIGANS while enabling ANONYMITY and PSEUDONYMITY.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6717#comment-1503163
Quote from: wearefucked a.k.a. whodat?
Eric note you unbanned me as of the Rifkin thread. Note that alleged "FUD" I was spouting in 2011, is coming to fruition.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6717#comment-1503164
Quote from: wearefucked a.k.a. whodat?
My vague recollection was that Eric and I were arguing about relevance of global author identities for VCS (and for me its implicit point about anonymity and pseudonyms), but I only find this and the following quote.
Quote from: ESR
Network-wide identities: Presently, Roundup identities are login-name/password pairs. It should move to being based on email addresses coupled with ssh and PGP keys – network-wide credentials the way DVCSes handle identity. The standalone justification for this is to reduce the number of credentials Roundup users need to manage.
We are not God (there may not even be one!). We CAN NOT control nature and make it perfect! If we try to promise that which we can not promise, we end up in Orwellian police states and war, because implicitly we judged ourselves to be imperfect and decided that we would use vengeance to make "right" that which is imperfect (human nature).
This is a controversial topic but I would point you to the following two links that demonstrate that perhaps over the long term we can control nature via centralized justice at least to a degree.
Choice or Constraint? Mass Incarceration and Fertility Outcomes Among American Men
http://faculty.washington.edu/blsykes/Publications_files/fertility_incarceration_v8-1.pdf
Legalized abortion and crime effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
CoinCube, you are incorrect. The bedrock of society is trade, not being surety for others.
We CAN help the beggar or protect the innocent from harm coming to them (e.g. educating them not to publish repugnant photos of themselves and to arm themselves), but we CAN NOT mete out punishment as a surety contract in vengeance and expect it to accomplish protection because it has the opposite effect of encouraging those "victims" to become apathetic and not protect themselves which induces more wolves to hunt. Also it causes society to use vengeance to attempt to control nature and make it perfect, leading to an Orwellian police state of "political correctness" where we all bicker and quarrel because we have varying moral goals. Again you are stuck in the delusion (as most Marxists are) on the side of "what should be" instead of being rational about "what is". Check your rationality and try again.
...
What happens when we make collective commitments to that which we CAN NOT insure 100% (i.e. the "standard" Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7) is that we as a society MUST act irrationally and use useless(!), collective vengeance to substitute for individual protection. This is why we end up in an Orwellian police state (and yes I was explaining these concepts to my Grandad at roughly age 12!).
...
A government that holds everybody's hand, motivates the people to lose their diligence and become apathetic blobs of flesh. For as long as the government will punish the free market for your individual apathy, then the demand for solutions to your need to protect yourself won't exist. You see how trade and free markets work and then don't work when government stomps on them.
He provided a market function. He was helping humanity by fulfilling a demand for information. I have never believed in copyright. We can't protect that which is naturally free. Digital images can not be stopped from being traded. Once we have anonymous internet, there is no reasonable way such laws can be enforced.
...
A collective society needs only trade. We don't need government. Armstrong is incorrect.
A government that holds everybody's hand, motivates the people to lose their diligence and become apathetic blobs of flesh. For as long as the government will punish the free market for your individual apathy, then the demand for solutions to your need to protect yourself won't exist. You see how trade and free markets work and then don't work when government stomps on them.
He provided a market function. He was helping humanity by fulfilling a demand for information. I have never believed in copyright. We can't protect that which is naturally free. Digital images can not be stopped from being traded. Once we have anonymous internet, there is no reasonable way such laws can be enforced.
...
A collective society needs only trade. We don't need government. Armstrong is incorrect.
We CAN help the beggar or protect the innocent from harm coming to them (e.g. educating them not to publish repugnant photos of themselves and to arm themselves), but we CAN NOT mete out punishment as a surety contract in vengeance and expect it to accomplish protection because it has the opposite effect of encouraging those "victims" to become apathetic and not protect themselves which induces more wolves to hunt. Also it causes society to use vengeance to attempt to control nature and make it perfect, leading to an Orwellian police state of "political correctness" where we all bicker and quarrel because we have varying moral goals. Again you are stuck in the delusion (as most Marxists are) on the side of "what should be" instead of being rational about "what is". Check your rationality and try again.
...
What happens when we make collective commitments to that which we CAN NOT insure 100% (i.e. the "standard" Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7) is that we as a society MUST act irrationally and use useless(!), collective vengeance to substitute for individual protection. This is why we end up in an Orwellian police state (and yes I was explaining these concepts to my Grandad at roughly age 12!).
I would agree that trade is even more fundamental. However, to function any social group needs a system of norms and rules and a method for punishing those that violate those norms. The larger the group the greater the need for such norms.
You argue that laws and an honest police force make people complacent. This is true, however it does not necessarily follow that "more wolves are induced to hunt". Singapore for example has some of the strictest laws and harshest punishments in the world. Drug smugglers are executed and vandals receive caning and long jail terms. Not surprisingly Singapore has some of the lowest crime rates in the world.
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g294265-s206/Singapore:Singapore:Health.And.Safety.html
Quote
Taxis are inexpensive and cab drivers are honest. The law is very harsh on them if there is a complaint against them. All cab drivers must be above 30 years old with no criminal records and must be married. All speak English and their own ethnic language ie. Chinese, Malay or Tamil. You can get onto a taxi and sleep and be assured you will always reach your destination safely.
So when visiting Singapore it is important to note the laws. Penalties for drug offenses include the death penalty. Even shoplifting is considered a rather serious offense in Singapore, with penalties that include a few months prison time. Other punishment may also be imposed for other lesser offenses. However, the beauty is there is hardly any policeman or soldiers on the road and you must be very lucky to see a policeman or a soldier. It is not because there are many plainclothes police. There are almost none. This place is unlike Moscow where you feel intimidated by the presence of police and soldiers who look at your with great suspicions.
It should be noted that homosexual acts are illegal in Singapore and penalties can also include imprisonment. It is noticeable that not all prostitutes are ladies but may include transsexuals or transvestites. As an Asian country, homosexuality is still being frowned upon.
These sometimes harsh punishments make Singapore one of the safest large cities in the world to visit. Even when visiting alone a woman can generally feel comfortable, but as with any dark street at night caution should be observed. This is because the crimes, if any, are committed by foreigners who come to Singapore on social visit passes. Some of these include South Americans. They are usually caught and sent to prison to serve their time.
So when visiting Singapore it is important to note the laws. Penalties for drug offenses include the death penalty. Even shoplifting is considered a rather serious offense in Singapore, with penalties that include a few months prison time. Other punishment may also be imposed for other lesser offenses. However, the beauty is there is hardly any policeman or soldiers on the road and you must be very lucky to see a policeman or a soldier. It is not because there are many plainclothes police. There are almost none. This place is unlike Moscow where you feel intimidated by the presence of police and soldiers who look at your with great suspicions.
It should be noted that homosexual acts are illegal in Singapore and penalties can also include imprisonment. It is noticeable that not all prostitutes are ladies but may include transsexuals or transvestites. As an Asian country, homosexuality is still being frowned upon.
These sometimes harsh punishments make Singapore one of the safest large cities in the world to visit. Even when visiting alone a woman can generally feel comfortable, but as with any dark street at night caution should be observed. This is because the crimes, if any, are committed by foreigners who come to Singapore on social visit passes. Some of these include South Americans. They are usually caught and sent to prison to serve their time.
Are people in Singapore complacent about personal safety? Sure but they are complacent because they actually are safe. They know that the overall crime rate in Singapore is very low and if they are victimized the state will go to great lengths to severely punish the aggressor.
You claim that we cannot mete out punishment as a surety contract in vengeance and expect it to accomplish protection, however, this is only true if we are inefficient. If the retribution is swift and efficient it will deter or if deterrence is impossible extract retribution. Wolfs that cannot be deterred can be skinned.
No system is perfect, Singapore is certainly not crime free. Educating people to take reasonable precautions regarding safety is of course very wise, but it is expensive and inefficient to prepare for all eventualities. I could perhaps secure my home with electric fences, hire an armed bodyguard for my family when I am not home, and have all of my online activities done for me by a security expert. However, that would be very costly. At some level it becomes impossible to prepare for all eventualities and we all must rely on retribution to deter aggressors.
Again just because some crimes are nearly impossible to solve does not mean they should be ignored or condoned. It is probably already possible to remotely and anonymously hijack and crash some models of modern cars.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-hacked-on-60-minutes/
Anonymous murder would still be murder. Anonymous extortion is no different.
Coinits, review all my posts of my former username iamback. The last page (first shown) of iamback's (my) posts will get you most of your answer. You can dig more if you want more specifics, even venturing into the posts of some of my usernames before iamback such as TheFascistMind, contagion, UnunoctiumTesticles, and AnonyMint.
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6717&cpage=1#comment-1503092
Quote from: wearefucked a.k.a. whodat?
Eric, as you contemplate the future of open source hosting, I ask you to compute my logic against your past stance that anonymity is counter-productive (presumably because you think reputation is so critical in the Magic Cauldron of open source). Hey reputation can be attached to pseudonyms.
So what coin is your favorite and why?
Monero? Dash? Shadowcash? Other?
For privacy Monero is the logical choice!
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6717#comment-1503092
Quote from: wearefucked a.k.a. whodat?
Eric, as you contemplate the future of open source hosting, I ask you to compute my logic against your past stance that anonymity is counter-productive (presumably because you think reputation is so critical in the Magic Cauldron of open source). Hey reputation can be attached to pseudonyms.
Before reading this, I made it very explicit that I think religion is mind control here and most emphatically and detailed here. Those two linked posts give more support to my points below.
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Bedrock of society is trade, not being surety for others
From: wearefucked
Date: Sun, April 5, 2015 10:53 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CoinCube, you are incorrect. The bedrock of society is trade, not being surety for others.
We CAN help the beggar or protect the innocent from harm coming to them (e.g. educating them not to publish repugnant photos of themselves and to arm themselves), but we CAN NOT mete out punishment as a surety contract in vengeance and expect it to accomplish protection because it has the opposite effect of encouraging those "victims" to become apathetic and not protect themselves which induces more wolves to hunt. Also it causes society to use vengeance to attempt to control nature and make it perfect, leading to an Orwellian police state of "political correctness" where we all bicker and quarrel because we have varying moral goals. Again you are stuck in the delusion (as most Marxists are) on the side of "what should be" instead of being rational about "what is". Check your rationality and try again.
Proverbs 22:26 Don't agree to guarantee another person's debt or put up security for someone else.
Proverbs 11:15 Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer, but whoever refuses to shake hands in pledge is safe.
Proverbs 6 My child, if you have made a pledge for your neighbor, and have become a guarantor for a stranger, if you have been ensnared by the words you have uttered, and have been caught by the words you have spoken, then, my child, do this in order to deliver yourself, because you have fallen into your neighbor’s power: go, humble yourself, and appeal firmly to your neighbor.
What happens when we make collective commitments to that which we CAN NOT insure 100% (i.e. the "standard" Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7) is that we as a society MUST act irrationally and use useless(!), collective vengeance to substitute for individual protection. This is why we end up in an Orwellian police state (and yes I was explaining these concepts to my Grandad at roughly age 12!).
http://www.bibleprophesy.org/goldismoney/biblemoney.html
Romans 2 So do you think that you can judge those other people? You are wrong. You too are guilty of sin. You judge them, but you do the same things they do. So when you judge them, you are really condemning yourself. God judges all who do such things, and we know his judgment is right. And since you do the same things as those people you judge, surely you understand that God will punish you too. How could you think you would be able to escape his judgment? God has been kind to you. He has been very patient, waiting for you to change. But you think nothing of his kindness. Maybe you don’t understand that God is kind to you so that you will decide to change your lives. But you are so stubborn! You refuse to change. So you are making your own punishment greater and greater. You will be punished on the day when God will show his anger. On that day everyone will see how right God is to judge people. He will reward or punish everyone for what they have done.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; consider what is good before all people. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people. Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Matthew 7 (Jesus said) “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
James 4 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.
Matthew 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
Matthew 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Luke 17:4 Even if that person wrongs you seven times a day and each time turns again and asks forgiveness, you must forgive.
Matthew 5:44 (Jesus said) But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…
Colossians 3:13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.
Proverbs 9:17 Stolen water is sweet; And bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
Ezekiel 33:15 If a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
We are not God (there may not even be one!). We CAN NOT control nature and make it perfect! If we try to promise that which we can not promise, we end up in Orwellian police states and war, because implicitly we judged ourselves to be imperfect and decided that we would use vengeance to make "right" that which is imperfect (human nature).
Jason Hommel almost had this concept correct, except he conflated that future's contract (options market) is very necessary to price discovery and hedging, and that the only problem with options is when the leverage they create is not 100% backed by margin. When they are not 100% margin backed, then his point against them is true:
http://www.silverstockreport.com/2008/futures.html
http://silverstockreport.com/2009/greenspan-misapplied.html
---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Bedrock of society is trade, not being surety for others
From: wearefucked
Date: Sun, April 5, 2015 10:53 pm
To: "Armstrong Economics" <[email protected]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CoinCube, you are incorrect. The bedrock of society is trade, not being surety for others.
...
A government that holds everybody's hand, motivates the people to lose their diligence and become apathetic blobs of flesh. For as long as the government will punish the free market for your individual apathy, then the demand for solutions to your need to protect yourself won't exist. You see how trade and free markets work and then don't work when government stomps on them.
He provided a market function. He was helping humanity by fulfilling a demand for information. I have never believed in copyright. We can't protect that which is naturally free. Digital images can not be stopped from being traded. Once we have anonymous internet, there is no reasonable way such laws can be enforced.
...
A collective society needs only trade. We don't need government. Armstrong is incorrect.
A government that holds everybody's hand, motivates the people to lose their diligence and become apathetic blobs of flesh. For as long as the government will punish the free market for your individual apathy, then the demand for solutions to your need to protect yourself won't exist. You see how trade and free markets work and then don't work when government stomps on them.
He provided a market function. He was helping humanity by fulfilling a demand for information. I have never believed in copyright. We can't protect that which is naturally free. Digital images can not be stopped from being traded. Once we have anonymous internet, there is no reasonable way such laws can be enforced.
...
A collective society needs only trade. We don't need government. Armstrong is incorrect.
We CAN help the beggar or protect the innocent from harm coming to them (e.g. educating them not to publish repugnant photos of themselves and to arm themselves), but we CAN NOT mete out punishment as a surety contract in vengeance and expect it to accomplish protection because it has the opposite effect of encouraging those "victims" to become apathetic and not protect themselves which induces more wolves to hunt. Also it causes society to use vengeance to attempt to control nature and make it perfect, leading to an Orwellian police state of "political correctness" where we all bicker and quarrel because we have varying moral goals. Again you are stuck in the delusion (as most Marxists are) on the side of "what should be" instead of being rational about "what is". Check your rationality and try again.
Proverbs 22:26 Don't agree to guarantee another person's debt or put up security for someone else.
Proverbs 11:15 Whoever puts up security for a stranger will surely suffer, but whoever refuses to shake hands in pledge is safe.
Proverbs 6 My child, if you have made a pledge for your neighbor, and have become a guarantor for a stranger, if you have been ensnared by the words you have uttered, and have been caught by the words you have spoken, then, my child, do this in order to deliver yourself, because you have fallen into your neighbor’s power: go, humble yourself, and appeal firmly to your neighbor.
What happens when we make collective commitments to that which we CAN NOT insure 100% (i.e. the "standard" Jesus speaks of in Matthew 7) is that we as a society MUST act irrationally and use useless(!), collective vengeance to substitute for individual protection. This is why we end up in an Orwellian police state (and yes I was explaining these concepts to my Grandad at roughly age 12!).
http://www.bibleprophesy.org/goldismoney/biblemoney.html
Quote from: Jason Hommel
1 Timothy 5:8 People who don't take care of their relatives, and especially their own families, have given up their faith. They are worse than someone who doesn't have faith in the Lord.
Proverbs 1:11 when they say, "Come on! Let's gang up and kill somebody, just for the fun of it
12 let us swallow them up alive as the grave, and whole, as those that go down to the pit;
13 we shall find much precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil;
14 cast in thy lot among us, let us all have one purse""
15 my son, walk not thou in the way with them; restrain thy foot from their path;
16 for their feet run to evil and make haste to shed blood.
17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird!
18 And they lie in wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy for gain, which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.
Proverbs 1:11 when they say, "Come on! Let's gang up and kill somebody, just for the fun of it
12 let us swallow them up alive as the grave, and whole, as those that go down to the pit;
13 we shall find much precious substance, we shall fill our houses with spoil;
14 cast in thy lot among us, let us all have one purse""
15 my son, walk not thou in the way with them; restrain thy foot from their path;
16 for their feet run to evil and make haste to shed blood.
17 Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird!
18 And they lie in wait for their own blood; they lurk privily for their own lives.
19 So are the ways of every one that is greedy for gain, which taketh away the life of the owners thereof.
Romans 2 So do you think that you can judge those other people? You are wrong. You too are guilty of sin. You judge them, but you do the same things they do. So when you judge them, you are really condemning yourself. God judges all who do such things, and we know his judgment is right. And since you do the same things as those people you judge, surely you understand that God will punish you too. How could you think you would be able to escape his judgment? God has been kind to you. He has been very patient, waiting for you to change. But you think nothing of his kindness. Maybe you don’t understand that God is kind to you so that you will decide to change your lives. But you are so stubborn! You refuse to change. So you are making your own punishment greater and greater. You will be punished on the day when God will show his anger. On that day everyone will see how right God is to judge people. He will reward or punish everyone for what they have done.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil; consider what is good before all people. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all people. Do not avenge yourselves, dear friends, but give place to God’s wrath, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord. Rather, if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in doing this you will be heaping burning coals on his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
Matthew 7 (Jesus said) “Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Do not give what is holy to dogs or throw your pearls before pigs; otherwise they will trample them under their feet and turn around and tear you to pieces.
James 4 What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel.
Matthew 18:21 Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?” Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
Matthew 6:14 For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
Luke 17:4 Even if that person wrongs you seven times a day and each time turns again and asks forgiveness, you must forgive.
Matthew 5:44 (Jesus said) But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you…
Colossians 3:13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.
Proverbs 9:17 Stolen water is sweet; And bread eaten in secret is pleasant.
Ezekiel 33:15 If a wicked man restores a pledge, pays back what he has taken by robbery, walks by the statutes which ensure life without committing iniquity, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
Luke 6:30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back.
We are not God (there may not even be one!). We CAN NOT control nature and make it perfect! If we try to promise that which we can not promise, we end up in Orwellian police states and war, because implicitly we judged ourselves to be imperfect and decided that we would use vengeance to make "right" that which is imperfect (human nature).
Jason Hommel almost had this concept correct, except he conflated that future's contract (options market) is very necessary to price discovery and hedging, and that the only problem with options is when the leverage they create is not 100% backed by margin. When they are not 100% margin backed, then his point against them is true:
http://www.silverstockreport.com/2008/futures.html
Quote from: Jason Hommel
That's the trouble with futures and options; you are trying to invest and control what you don't own. You are not taking dominion over what you have, you are trying to take dominion over what another has.
...
The main trouble with futures is that they are a promise, not payment in full. Promises can be broken. Promises can lure you in to making obligations you cannot fulfill.
...
The main trouble with futures is that they are a promise, not payment in full. Promises can be broken. Promises can lure you in to making obligations you cannot fulfill.
http://silverstockreport.com/2009/greenspan-misapplied.html
Quote from: Jason Hommel
IN MY OPINION, Greenspan tried to let markets be free, but Greenspan did not understand the basic definition of markets, or freedom. In my opinion, markets are where things are traded, not where people are traded by entering into contracts. In my opinion, futures contracts, like debt contracts, lead to compulsory performance, and thus slavery. And slavery is the exact opposite of freedom! That's Greenspan's big error, the failure to see that slavery is the opposite of freedom! Again, as an example, allowing people the freedom to trade slaves does not promote freedom, it promotes slavery! Allowing banks to enslave people with too much unpayable home loan debt is a fruit of that error. Allowing banks to enslave one another so that if one topples, they all topple, is another fruit of that error. Allowing people to enslave banks to perform what they cannot, so that they "need" bailouts, is another fruit of that error.
...
I am OK with the scumbag being put away for a long time, particularly is he has done this kind of crap before.
wearefucked is right though. If people would not take such pictures, and especially not secure the images, well what do they expect? The Hollywood actresses crying about similar elicit zero sympathy from me. It is up to each of us to look after ourselves.
If wearefucked is right about the future, the ability to look after ourselves will become vital. Vital.
I advise almost anyone to get the gun, learn to shoot & maintain it, and properly secure it. It ain't rocket science, you don't need a PhD...
EDIT:
CoinCube, psychopaths are an interesting lot. I have looked into the subject (and written my own piece about them, nothing groundbreaking, just a blog piece "for beginners"). They are scary, they feed off our vulnerabilities, and they are not going away anytime soon.
I am OK with the scumbag being put away for a long time, particularly is he has done this kind of crap before.
wearefucked is right though. If people would not take such pictures, and especially not secure the images, well what do they expect? The Hollywood actresses crying about similar elicit zero sympathy from me. It is up to each of us to look after ourselves.
If wearefucked is right about the future, the ability to look after ourselves will become vital. Vital.
I advise almost anyone to get the gun, learn to shoot & maintain it, and properly secure it. It ain't rocket science, you don't need a PhD...
EDIT:
CoinCube, psychopaths are an interesting lot. I have looked into the subject (and written my own piece about them, nothing groundbreaking, just a blog piece "for beginners"). They are scary, they feed off our vulnerabilities, and they are not going away anytime soon.
Gun is good to protect yourself against the common scumbag but to protect yourself from the prying eyes you need to learn to code or have access to a coder that your trust with your most private data.
People need to get smart with protecting their crypto too. You do not keep your private keys on your person nor on a drive located in the same place where your main computer is. I do not care what medium your store them on but put them somewhere where only you and someone you trust with your life know. Bury them or do what you want but make it so that it is impossible to give up your digital wealth.
There are a few more tricks that can be used but I will be damned that I will reveal my secrets in a public forum, especially one watched by a lot of alphabet agencies.
Get creative plan your life accordingly. Never submit to tyranny!
NEVER!
For some good reading I suggest looking at Burt...He was caught in the cross-hairs of the government and they stole everything from him without a care for rule of law. If you are American I suggest that you dive headfirst into civil forfeiture law and see just how Fascism has become the norm in the USA.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/burtw-arrested-update-charges-dropped-934268
Make sure to visit all links to educate yourself. You will be better prepared to face the tyranny!
...
I am OK with the scumbag being put away for a long time, particularly is he has done this kind of crap before.
wearefucked is right though. If people would not take such pictures, and especially not secure the images, well what do they expect? The Hollywood actresses crying about similar elicit zero sympathy from me. It is up to each of us to look after ourselves.
If wearefucked is right about the future, the ability to look after ourselves will become vital. Vital.
I advise almost anyone to get the gun, learn to shoot & maintain it, and properly secure it. It ain't rocket science, you don't need a PhD...
EDIT:
CoinCube, psychopaths are an interesting lot. I have looked into the subject (and written my own piece about them, nothing groundbreaking, just a blog piece "for beginners"). They are scary, they feed off our vulnerabilities, and they are not going away anytime soon.
I am OK with the scumbag being put away for a long time, particularly is he has done this kind of crap before.
wearefucked is right though. If people would not take such pictures, and especially not secure the images, well what do they expect? The Hollywood actresses crying about similar elicit zero sympathy from me. It is up to each of us to look after ourselves.
If wearefucked is right about the future, the ability to look after ourselves will become vital. Vital.
I advise almost anyone to get the gun, learn to shoot & maintain it, and properly secure it. It ain't rocket science, you don't need a PhD...
EDIT:
CoinCube, psychopaths are an interesting lot. I have looked into the subject (and written my own piece about them, nothing groundbreaking, just a blog piece "for beginners"). They are scary, they feed off our vulnerabilities, and they are not going away anytime soon.
As CoinCube has stated, there would be some downsides to an anonymous internet where someone can run a website anonymously:
http://technology.inquirer.net/41598/california-man-gets-18-years-for-us-revenge-porn-site
Would it really be so horrific if people had to become more cautious about their promiscuity?
http://technology.inquirer.net/41598/california-man-gets-18-years-for-us-revenge-porn-site
Would it really be so horrific if people had to become more cautious about their promiscuity?
what if she has pics taken of her without her knowledge?
Then she didn't protect herself.
Do you expect the government to protect you against wolves in the forest? Send the wolf to animal prison after your daughter is dead.
You still didn't get the point! (and this shows why society must crash & burn over next decade, because the IQ level of most people is too low)
...
coinits, you entirely missed the point. Nature doesn't give a fuck what you want or think should be. It will create an anonymous internet then you CAN NOT prosecute those who anonymously publish copyrighted (or immoral) images.
I guarantee you someone will copy his business behind a Tor hidden service (except that Tor hidden services have problems so maybe we have to wait for my proposed improvement).
People are going to have to learn the hard way, the difference "what should be" and "what is".
No. People need to take care of themselves. In the case of the scumbags doing that, I would have no problem getting my own revenge if they brought such harm to someone I love. I am not pro nanny state. I am pro decency. Again, I have no problem with this fucker going to jail for 18 years. It is the right thing to do.
The bedrock of the social contract is our ability to trust that society will try to protect the weak from the strong. It still works to some degree. I do not yet need to carry a concealed firearm every day, and I am able to go to work leaving my wife and small children protected only by a locked door and an easily broken window. However, this same social contract is also exploited horrendously via centralized theft built into the foundation of our monetary system.
I agree that insufficient IQ contributes to the problem but a total lack of education on the topic may be the largest issue. Most people are simply unaware of the problem.
I remain unconvinced that the solution is to destroy our ability to enforce the social contract via global anonymity. Returning us to the state of nature does not strike me as an efficient or optimal long term solution. I concede that it may be a relative improvement as a transitory state if centralized oppression grows strong enough.
In regards to this particular individual. If he was a first time offender the punishment seems excessive. However, if he is a repeat offender with a criminal history I see no problem with an 18 year sentence. Psychopathy has been shown to be largely genetic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#Genetic
Putting this guy away for 18 years has the added advantage of removing his genes from the population.
The argument that in the future we may not be able to find and punish similar criminals is in no way exculpable.
...holding people's privacy hostage for profit is criminal
If the images were private, he wouldn't have been able to obtain the images.
The "victims" made their images non-private, not him.
You can't prosecute all the transmission lines. The only point of plausible control was at the self-responsibilty introduction to the network.
But as I explained to bigtimespaghetti, collectivized politics is dumb so we can't expect it to act rationally. Yet another reason we need an anonymous world to protect ourselves.
Yes they will. And destroy themselves and their chattel (or kill every human on earth).
Hackers won't stop until there is no human remaining on earth to continue the open source.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/
Hackers won't stop until there is no human remaining on earth to continue the open source.
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/506466/given-tablets-but-no-teachers-ethiopian-children-teach-themselves/
Quote
The experiment is being done in two isolated rural villages with about 20 first-grade-aged children each, about 50 miles from Addis Ababa. One village is called Wonchi, on the rim of a volcanic crater at 11,000 feet; the other is called Wolonchete, in the Great Rift Valley. Children there had never previously seen printed materials, road signs, or even packaging that had words on them, Negroponte said.
Earlier this year, OLPC workers dropped off closed boxes containing the tablets, taped shut, with no instruction. “I thought the kids would play with the boxes. Within four minutes, one kid not only opened the box, found the on-off switch … powered it up. Within five days, they were using 47 apps per child, per day. Within two weeks, they were singing ABC songs in the village, and within five months, they had hacked Android,” Negroponte said. “Some idiot in our organization or in the Media Lab had disabled the camera, and they figured out the camera, and had hacked Android.”
Earlier this year, OLPC workers dropped off closed boxes containing the tablets, taped shut, with no instruction. “I thought the kids would play with the boxes. Within four minutes, one kid not only opened the box, found the on-off switch … powered it up. Within five days, they were using 47 apps per child, per day. Within two weeks, they were singing ABC songs in the village, and within five months, they had hacked Android,” Negroponte said. “Some idiot in our organization or in the Media Lab had disabled the camera, and they figured out the camera, and had hacked Android.”
I am not joking. There are only two possible outcomes. The Knowledge Age wins, or mankind is finished. Thus I assume the former.
We will know the outcome before 2033, perhaps before 2024.
P.S. if the government kills the early innovators, they will only drive more innovation because the open source can't be killed and killing a hacker will draw in the ire of 1000 more hackers.
P.S.S. as I wrote days ago, picking a fight against the hackers is dumb. The governments can not win that fight.
We will know the outcome before 2033, perhaps before 2024.
P.S. if the government kills the early innovators, they will only drive more innovation because the open source can't be killed and killing a hacker will draw in the ire of 1000 more hackers.
P.S.S. as I wrote days ago, picking a fight against the hackers is dumb. The governments can not win that fight.
They are too arrogant to think that they can not win. They will throw everything in their arsenal at anyone who tries and change the system that they have spent billions and years building.
I am not joking. There are only two possible outcomes. The Knowledge Age wins, or mankind is finished. Thus I assume the former.
We will know the outcome before 2033, perhaps before 2024.
P.S. if the government kills the early innovators, they will only drive more innovation because the open source can't be killed and killing a hacker will draw in the ire of 1000 more hackers.
P.S.S. as I wrote days ago, picking a fight against the hackers is dumb. The governments can not win that fight.
We will know the outcome before 2033, perhaps before 2024.
P.S. if the government kills the early innovators, they will only drive more innovation because the open source can't be killed and killing a hacker will draw in the ire of 1000 more hackers.
P.S.S. as I wrote days ago, picking a fight against the hackers is dumb. The governments can not win that fight.
Jump to: